Jake Dillard

It began with popular campaigns in the media against religion, aiming to persuade citizens that religion was irrational and toxic. But soon things became considerably more violent:

“Churches were closed or destroyed, often by dynamiting; priests were imprisoned, exiled or executed. On the eve of the Second World War there were only 6,376 clergy remaining in the Russian Orthodox Churches, compared with the pre-revolutionary figure of 66,140. One dreadful day, 17 February 1938, saw the execution of 55 priests. In 1917 there were 39,530 churches in Russia; by 1940, only 590 remained functional.”

Alister McGrath; Why God Won’t Go Away: Engaging with the New Atheism

Similar stories could be told of Pol Pot or Mao Zedong, or numerous other atheistic dictators.

Why did you block someone challenging your beliefs?

Are you saying atheists have never murdered or committed crimes against people?

Why is murder wrong with your naturalistic worldview?

Atheists have murdered and committed crimes, I’m sure. But Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and Hitler didn’t kill in the name of no god. I’ve shown that extensively. Try reading for once. Speaking of reading, how about you stick your nose out of this discussion and focus on the licking you received in our discussion. You still haven’t replied! My, how the tables have turned.

Why is murder wrong? I’d answer you, but you don’t like to read. My reply is elaborate. And you still have an outstanding post to read and respond to.

Do you ever read what you type? You come off so cocky and angry dude!

Let's be honest with ourselves for one second - anything you type to me, and anything I type to you is not going to sway each other in the slightest. Read this article: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/june/nicole-cliffe-how-god-messed-up-my-happy-atheist-life.html I reached out to her and she gave me some wisdom about how she saw apologetics.

It began with popular campaigns in the media against religion, aiming to persuade citizens that religion was irrational and toxic. But soon things became considerably more violent:

“Churches were closed or destroyed, often by dynamiting; priests were imprisoned, exiled or executed. On the eve of the Second World War there were only 6,376 clergy remaining in the Russian Orthodox Churches, compared with the pre-revolutionary figure of 66,140. One dreadful day, 17 February 1938, saw the execution of 55 priests. In 1917 there were 39,530 churches in Russia; by 1940, only 590 remained functional.”

Alister McGrath; Why God Won’t Go Away: Engaging with the New Atheism

Similar stories could be told of Pol Pot or Mao Zedong, or numerous other atheistic dictators.

Why did you block someone challenging your beliefs?

Are you saying atheists have never murdered or committed crimes against people?

Why is murder wrong with your naturalistic worldview?

Ah Christianity is dangerous. I've never heard an athiest say that before! That tells me you know nothing of Jesus and his teachings, only verses you have hand picked to support your opinion. Atheism is dangerous too, no? No morality to live by, do whatever you want! Nothing will hold you accountable in the afterlife, so go nuts. Let me know how that works out for ya.

And here comes the showman analogy, ironically used pridefully by you to try and force a perspective on me. Same could be said about you my friend.

People questioning my belief does not make me a mad person. I believe debate is healthy, and everything should be questioned. Ironically atheists hold a double standard: you are allowed to criticize and question everyone else's beliefs - but when you question an atheists - you are an "idiot."

No one on here has remotely come close to answering questions I've posed. Like I said, it ends up being a conversation going in a circle.

You’re wrong. The way in which you use the word theory and the way in which the term theory is used in science are not synonymous. Colloquially, a theory is a hunch. In science, a theory is a well established explanation of natural phenomena: General Relativity, Special Relativity, Oxygen Combustion, Heliocentrism, Plate Tectonics, Quantum Theory. These, like Natural Selection, are not hunches. You are clearly alluding to your discussion with @canadianatheist. Since you’re an obstinate creationist, I have no interest in discussing this with you; it’s clear that you’re not here to learn or listen–despite your pretenses. I’ve kept up with your discussion and it’s clear you think your questions indicate skepticism. As will be demonstrated shortly, your questions betray your presuppositions rather than indicate skepticism. You’re not a skeptic; you’re slave to predilections.

What’s curious is that you speak as though science is the only way of showing that your religion is false. It’s not. I would argue that history is far more effective at debasing your religion. The Gospels, for instance, are not reliable. That fact alone uproots the supposed veracity of your beliefs.

Is it logical to believe in theories versus written historical documents from different sources? 

This isn’t skepticism. This is a concealed predilection. This question shows that you assume the Gospels and Acts are historical documents; it might even suggest that you believe the Bible is a set of historical documents. Again, you are wrong. It’s clear that you consulted scholars who already believe, so it’s no wonder they argue in favor of these books being historical. If I had to choose between the Gospels and Acts and scientific theories, I’d choose the latter without hesitating. Evolution is supported by evidence. The reliability and historicity of the Gospels are not. That’s supported by obstinate belief.

I’ve seen the Jesus Camp documentary. It’s disturbing to say the least. I’m also aware of people like from the Westboro Baptist Church, which I’m sure you’ve heard of. Tell me, have you studied what those people teach, and lined it up with what is taught in the Bible? If you do, you will quickly find they are not. When you look at churches like that, or “christians” like that - you are turned off by the people, not the Bible. You are essentially forming thoughts of God through the way imperfect, sinful humans act. Am I wrong? Get this, I’m just as turned off by the same people. There’s always going to be idiots that use the Bible to try and bully people. Nowhere does the Bible say “Study this, and you will be perfect.” Am I wrong? Try studying the Bible, and not studying people. Now, are you familiar with the Columbine shooting? How they shot anyone saying they were Christian? Would it be right for me to label all atheists as in-tolerant, narrow minded killers? Essentially in your whole argument above, you are labeling every Christian as an un-ethical one.

In this question lies the assumption that they must be interpreting the Bible wrong, since they express their beliefs in ways that differ from yours and in ways that are harmful. However, if I’m to take Proverbs 13:24 and 22:6 in conjunction, it would appear that Jesus Camp isn’t much of a leap. In other words, if I spare the rod, I spoil my child, so I’m being implored to be strict with my child; I’m being told that tough love and physical discipline are deemed good by your god. Then if I’m to train up my child in the ways of the lord, then that training must also be strict; I must ensure that my child believes against all odds. It’s no wonder Christianity is transmitted from parent to child. Christianity is a meme implanted in a child so early that questioning it becomes difficult as they get older; never mind the fear tactics that are in place, e.g., Hell, designed to deter questioning.

This same thinking applies to Westboro Baptist. There are many verses that speak harshly against homosexuals. These verses serve as the basis for their anti-gay sentiments. Like Muslims who shame Jihadists, you cannot get away with saying they have the wrong interpretation. They don’t. They simply assign higher priority to different verses and passages than the ones prioritized by you and your church and/or denomination. Let’s not roll out the No True Scotsman here. They’re as Christian as you are, only more bigoted. Hell, at least they’re not bashful about they’re bigotry. You think you’re different because you’re a wannabe apologist posing questions that disguise your assumptions? You think you’re better than them because you’re trying to “reason” with atheists? You’re just as bigoted and your incapacity to admit that you’re wrong proves it. I have no idea why you’re going on about the term theory, especially since I’m certain canadianatheist corrected you. That blatant obduracy stems from a bashful bigotry. You’re not better than these Christians you’re so quick to call nominal.

As for the Columbine shooters, I’m content to put that aside. It’ll take more time for me to correct your misconceptions. Again, it’s clear you spend way too much time on apologetic websites. They’re murderers, so I don’t expect you to look into their lives. Unlike you, I’ve been forced to because Christians like to suggest that atheism leads to moral depravity and the Columbine shooters serve as one of their common examples. If you weren’t so intellectually deprived, you would know that matters are much more nuanced than you realize. In other words, perhaps they weren’t atheists. If they were, perhaps their atheism had absolutely nothing to do with their murders. You can’t turn that around and be like, “Christianity has nothing to do with the behavior of certain Christians.” Unfortunately, you have sixty-six books that are purportedly god’s word. What’s also unfortunate is that people will see whatever they want in that book and will craft a god who succumbs to their devices. It’s not as simple as saying they’re not really Christian. Your entire post reeks of simplicity and a lack of appreciation for nuance.

Tell me, what’s been your experience at churches? How many different churches have you attended?

This is not skepticism either. Here you’re assuming that I’ve had bad experiences at churches. This is nothing new. Why not assume that I’m more well read than you are, that I gave Christianity a fair shake, and then came to the conclusion that the claims of Christianity and therefore, Christianity itself are false? Had this been your assumption, you’d be right, but of course, I must have had bad experiences with church folk; I was never really a Christian because these bad experiences would have never steered me away from the good lord. Assumptions disguised as questions are still assumptions. The same applies to your second question, which seems to mask the assumption that I went to many churches; it must be that way because I kept running into foul personalities. Unfortunately, you’re wrong again; I went to two churches in seven years. Also, once I decided to leave church, it had absolutely nothing to do with people. 

Would it surprise you to hear that the church I attend has a gay person in the band? Would it surprise you that we deliver several thousand meals to members in the community every weekend regardless of age/race/religion? We have a whole offering for people that come in needing help for groceries and bills. Guess what? They get helped, regardless of age/race/religion/ethnicity/gay/transgender/whatever-else-you-want-to-try-and-argue-about. Listen, when you debate, you have to think of both sides of the story, correct? Here you are only thinking of one perspective. Can you tell me how atheists benefit society?

I’m not surprised to hear that you keep harping on about how your church is slightly different from others. “Westboro Baptists will never allow a gay band member, but we do!” Good for your church! But I bet you’re still telling this individual that their natural inclinations are sinful; you’re still telling them to pray that god deliver them from their vice, that he give them hetero-normative affections; you’re still telling them to suppress their desire for the same sex and that their passions for the same sex are abnormal; you’re still preaching that marriage is between man and woman. Like I said, bashful bigotry is still bigotry. You’re not that different at all.

Thousands of meals, huh? Good for your church! But let’s not act like you’re not going there with the ulterior motive of converting them, of sharing the Gospel with these poor lost souls. Let’s not act as though you’re not there so that god can deliver them from their wretched conditions. Let’s not act like Christians aren’t aware of the psychological vulnerability of them who are in need. Christianity appeals only to the weak-minded. Unfortunately, some people can’t help but be weak given that they experience destitution. It’s funny how you first give them what they actually need prior to giving them what you think they need, i.e., your beliefs. If Christ was as satiating as he claimed, you would give them the Gospel first and the rest would follow; since god doesn’t exist, the real precedes the imaginary.

I won’t even entertain your last question. Your last question assumes that atheists aren’t a benefit to society. If you had any respect for the enterprise of science, I’d name atheists who are/were a benefit to society. But let’s sit here and assume that doctors, lawyers, engineers, police officers, paramedics, firemen, and other public servants aren’t atheists. We don’t have an ulterior motive compelling us to make our deeds public. You sound like the Pharisee; you want people to see you praying while you stand in the synagogue beating your chest. You want to boast of your deeds.

And how am I wrong for studying the Bible? Where is proof that the Bible is wrong? 

I can throw the proof on your head and you still wouldn’t acknowledge it. You’re on the other discussion mentioning Ken Ham and Ray Comfort! How many “evolutionists” have you come across and yet you’re still harping on about evolution being “just a theory”–and that, in fact, atheism is based on a bunch of theories. By the way, I think you mean evidence rather than proof, as proof implies mathematics and logic; you’ve been given plenty of evidence I’m sure. I’m pretty sure that the evidence wouldn’t move you just because it comes from me; I no longer have such a high estimation of my capacity to convince an obstinate individual. People will believe all manner of absurdities and asininities. A well-educated opponent won’t change that.

You’re wrong for studying a book written by Iron Age mystics and first century fanatics. You could be studying something that matters, that would allow you to be more productive in society. You could spend just as much time in medical school, preparing to save lives. But you’d rather pretend you’re saving a soul from an imaginary punishment–an eternal punishment for temporary infractions. A skeptic would question the injustice inherent in such a punishment. Of all your questions, I see nothing skeptical; I see religiously motivated predilections.

The tolerance that atheists speak out for, is a double standard. It’s basically saying, “you have to be tolerant of anything and everything we think, but we are not tolerant of your beliefs, or anything related to it.” I agree everything needs to be challenged. 

I have no obligation to be tolerant of intolerance. Having a gay person in your band isn’t tantamount to accepting them. As I said, you’re still telling them they’re in sin. Even if you don’t tell them and you treat them like the friend that forgot or neglected to use deodorant, you still believe that they’re in sin, and you believe this wholeheartedly. That’s intolerance. So there’s no double standard to be had. Tell me, do you tolerate Jihadists? Anyone with good sense doesn’t. Just because you’re not blowing yourself up in a shopping mall doesn’t mean you’re not intolerant. Being less intolerant is like being less of a criminal; you’re still committing a crime. 

Atheists need to be challenged then, no? I could say the same back to you: you are still wrong; you are still in error; you still need to be corrected; you still need to be taught how to think; you still need to be challenged, since no belief is sacred or exempt from criticism. Or would that not fit the double standard?

Sure, challenge away. But don’t pretend tired arguments and assumptions are challenges. You can say the same back to me, but without substantiating that claim, they’re just words. But I choose my words carefully. You are wrong about a number of things and I can demonstrate that. You are still in error and I’ve shown that here. You need to be corrected and I’ve done so wherever possible. You’ve been told what to think; that’s why your assumptions are in line with common Christian tripe. Your questions have made that obvious. So there’s no double standard to be had here. There’s only your failure to understand what I intend to say, since you’re more satisfied with what you think I’m saying.

So, where is evidence that Jesus is not God? Before we debate this any further, are you admitting you don’t understand the parable?

Another assumption. I must misunderstand the parable because my interpretation leads to serious consequences. As for the evidence that Jesus isn’t god, read the post I linked earlier. 

Not sure what is inept of my arguments, feel free to look through my older posts. You will see I pose more questions than answers. My questions don’t get answered.

I’ve answered your questions and have also pointed out that they’re nothing but assumptions disguised as questions. They are essentially rhetorical.

So, you were just getting on to me for “boasting” - are you not boasting now? Double standard my friend :)

Again, not a double standard. I’m showing you what it looks like to have something to boast about. You don’t have anything to boast about; you’re just assuming the atheist didn’t answer you because they couldn’t. You just made that same assumption: “My questions don’t get answered.” Perhaps they do, but like many other Christians I’ve spoken to, you confuse dissatisfaction with the answers for the absence of answers. The fact that you don’t like the answer doesn’t mean the question wasn’t answered.

So, when this happened to you, and the other party was unaware of what kindness means in your culture, did you inform them? If you didn’t inform them, wouldn’t that be your fault? Are people held liable for what they do not know?

This never happened to me because I don’t foist my culture and personal preferences onto others. I don’t feed people who don’t wish to be fed. I don’t give gifts to people who don’t like gifts. I treat a person as they wish to be treated. In assuming the Golden Rule is a good moral principle, you fail to see a better moral principle in what I’m telling you. I get it, I’m not Jesus. Neither was Confucius, but he lived before Jesus and came up with the Golden Rule first; Jesus didn’t have a novel idea. So now that you realize Jesus didn’t come up with the Golden Rule, perhaps you’re more open to a better principle. Well, I just offered one and showed why the Golden Rule fails on all practical fronts.

If I wish for others to inform me with information based on an activity I’m about to do, and I do the same for them, is that not the Golden Rule essentially?

No. I explained the Golden Rule clearly and my explanation isn’t novel. Other philosophers have indicted it on the same charges. It’s a prototype of egoism. The other individual doesn’t matter. What matters is what you find acceptable. Kantian ethics succeeds where egoism fails. The reason I keep saying that we should treat people as they wish to be treated is because you honor their autonomy that way. In treating them how you want to be treated, you’re not treating them as an end in themselves; perhaps you’re not treating them as a means, but you aren’t considering what they find important and are giving higher priority to your preferences.

Would you say some christians pick and choose verses to their liking? What about atheists? Because that is exactly what you did here. You are not looking at the verse in context whatsoever, and picked it apart to your liking, not within the reason of the way it was written. You almost seem boastful to exercise all of your perspective on this very topic, no?

Sure, the parable is out of context (note the sarcasm). See, another common assumption made by Christians who refuse to think. Christians cherry pick all the time, but unlike you, I explained the entire parable. I didn’t isolate a verse and go from there.

Now, let’s look at another perspective, since everything does need to be challenged after all, correct?

So, Jesus teaches principles right? The Bible speaks of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, self-control, etc. Would you agree those are good traits? This verse refers to the way you treat people regarding love, respect, kindness, etc. Where did you start getting off track about cultural things? Go up to any adult/kid regardless of their age and background, tell them the golden rule, and they will understand it. You are essentially making it about being “politically correct” in everything. Like I asked above, is it wrong if my motives are to treat you with kindness, but because of cultural differences you get offended? What if we then talked about it, then got on the same page, and I treated you with your specific type of “kindness” ? You totally went off track with the words if Matthew 7:12. Again, if you study things within context, then you will understand the PRINCIPLE and POINT of what Jesus was saying.

The Bible also mentions a load of other things you won’t acknowledge, e.g., sex slavery, rape, genocide, infanticide. You accuse me of cherry picking when I’m not and then you turn around and cherry pick. Those are good traits, but I didn’t get off track when I brought up culture. It’s naive to assume that, since, as stated earlier, other philosophers have rejected the Golden Rule for the same reasons. 

In any case, this last section and this entire post have been nothing but predilections. Culture, in many cases, is like art, music, and food. In other words, culture can be quite non-rational (not to be confused with irrational) in lots of places. You cannot argue someone out of what they find culturally acceptable. I can’t, on the basis of the Golden Rule, allow my friends to keep their sneakers on so that they’re more likely to let me keep my sneakers on when I enter their home. If their culture demands that of me, I have to respect that. I can’t sit down and have a rational debate about keeping footwear on when I’m a guest in someone’s home. This is an aspect of culture that’s non-rational. So there won’t be any talking about it and getting on the same page. 

You have to go to your own page and click Edit Theme.

I was thinking the other day and wanted to get your opinion. How do you think atheists benefit society vs how followers of Jesus benefit society?

Atheists attempt to educate and promote harmony.  They’re aren’t as many organizations and they don’t have the presence religion does, but they attempt to make people aware that there is more than one way.  They promote science, reason, morality and empathy for fellow humans.  Hence the term humanism.

Now, versus followers of Jesus.  I know plenty of christians and have seen the best and bad of humanity.  I haven’t been to a place bad enough to see the worst and am quite content to experience it through video.  But talking Western Civilization, churches provides a place for someone to go with near immediate acceptance, and they’re ubiquitous.  I’ve seen people helped in various ways and have even participated in helping communities.  If that was the main thrust of the church, that would be fantastic.  I would have little complaint.  

Looking at the downside.  

The best way I can think of is to compare assholes, as in people, not sphincters.

The atheist asshole is an asshole.  Being an asshole is purely a human trait.

The religious asshole uses the bible to justify being an asshole.  Doesn’t like gays, there’s a verse for that.  Doesn’t like Jews, they killed the messiah.  Doesn’t like abortion, justifies killings, bombings, vandalism, property damage, and death threats to “save” lives.

Neither person is representative of the whole.  Atheism doesn’t come with built-in reasons or justifications to perpetuate evil.  Atheists who perform evil acts are evil people.

What are the pros of being an atheist?

First it’s the recognition that you are responsible for yourself and your actions.  When I do something good, I take the credit, I don’t credit god with my actions or success.  I own that.  When I do something bad, it’s my fault.  I may want to blame someone else, and I will probably try, but in the words of Dead Can Dance, 

“I need my conscience to keep watch over me to protect me from myself So I can wear honesty like a crown on my head…”

I have no one to blame but me, I chose my course of action.  I don’t like guilt, so I try to do my best.  I’ll fail, I’m human.

Taking credit for my successes is a fantastic feeling.  I know I can do it.  And if I don’t succeed, I’ve tried.

In christianity, all things that benefit me, all my achievements are attributed to god.  I can do nothing without him.  I am a failure without him.  God is a crutch.  Then we wonder why there is such a problem with depression, why teens are killing themselves, and why people have low self-esteem.  If “I can do all things through christ” then I can do nothing without him.  If I fail, it’s my fault.  I did something wrong, god is punishing me.  This instill self-loathing.  That’s not something I like.  I spent too many years wallowing in self-pity before I got tired of it.

Also, what do you think of peoples testimonies when they say they found Jesus of have been saved?

If it helps improve their life, then that’s great.  I just wish they’d have found a better way.  But they are perfectly entitled to their opinion and their belief.

You’ve probably heard of I Am Second - mostly celebrities stories of how they found God. Are they delusional? Is this stuff made up in their mind?

Actually, I haven’t.  I wouldn’t say they are delusional.  Culture is built around religion and it has permeated our lives for some 12 millenia.  We’ve all grown up with misconceptions of what christianity is and what it represents - morality, goodness, kindness, acceptance.  What’s left out is the shackles - self-loathing acknowledgement that you’re a failure, belief that you can’t do anything right, except through god.

What about stories of miracles that people claim?

Anecdotes that can’t be examined on an individual basis.  But when the chance does occur, then miracles often turn out to have mundane sources or are outright frauds, like statues of christ weeping blood.

Can miracle occur?  Yes.  Surviving a deadly disease or massive trauma.  One lady I know, @comachameleon2013, was in a coma for 6 weeks.  She was written off by the doctors.  One a scale of 1-9 in 3 categories of responsiveness (1 being least), her responsiveness was 3 in total.  She survived.  It was a non-divine miracle.  She’s still recovering and is a testament to human resilience; god not required.

I had a friend visit Bethel church in Redding California a few weeks ago. He experienced some bizarre things. He went into the church being a skeptic, but believes he felt the Holy Spirit that day. What are your thoughts on that?

First, we have mentally tied churches and such places to spiritual experiences.  So, it’s no surprise.  I’ve visited scores of churches, abbeys, minsters, and cathedrals.  They are beautiful and remarkable places.  The music is stirring, the architecture is amazing.  As for Bethel, being in Redding, CA, I have serious doubts it stacks up to what I’ve seen.  Looking at images of it, I’m not wrong.  But, there is a level of anticipation that can accompany a visit.  And watching the videos (I get to that shortly), I would say a level of expectation.

As for your friends skepticism, I can’t say, there’s different approaches as there are different approaches (denominations) to christianity.

YouTube Bethel Glory cloud and check that out, and google Bethel Miracles as well. There seems to be many stories of people being healed, but not just at Bethel. What’s your thoughts on that?

Gold dust in the ventilation.  Great showmanship, not really divine.  Looking around, there’s some doubts, even amongst christians.  The only conclusive way is to examine it closely.  But I have serious doubts that they would let anyone examine the ventilation or have a camera monitor it 24/7.  There’s a mundane explanation, and mankind has a history of faking a lot of things.  Occam’s razor, which is not evidence itself, allows us to weigh in.  Miracle, or mundane, the most likely explanation is mundane.  If we start to ask questions, then things begin to fall apart.  Why only that congregation out of 1.2 billion followers worldwide?  It appears to have been repeated several times.  Surely god isn’t a 1-trick pony.

As for miracle healings.  Follow ups would be more revealing than the events themselves.  The mind is a powerful thing, easily open to suggestion, and the body able to overcome a lot of stuff without even medical intervention (an aspect of the placebo effect).  Read about failed faith healings/prayers and dangerous religious practices at What the Harm? The site tackles more than just religion.  (If you wish to follow the stories, you’ll have to get most of them from the Internet Archive, if they’re available.)  Having seen a few myself, they were either minor things, or miracles that didn’t last long.

All of the effects of spiritual experiences can be recreated in the lab, even “out of body” experiences.  A good book that explains a lot of this in The God Impulse.  I have no problem with spiritual experiences having mundane explanations.  I’d really like to call them something else since religion has tainted the word, much in the way culture taints medical terms by stigmatizing them into insults.  If someone has a “spiritual” experience and an epiphany results from this that turns their life around in some way, great!  This doesn’t make it divine.  All of divinity has either mundane explanations, or is logically broken in some fashion.  Just because something happens through a fluke, or an accident, or some traumatic event, or from a natural event doesn’t mean it’s any less powerful the “divine” revelation.

You have to go to your own page and click Edit Theme. Thanks, I’ll get around to it one day.

I was thinking the other day and wanted to get your opinion. How do you think atheists benefit society vs how followers of Jesus benefit society?

Atheists attempt to educate and promote harmony. They’re aren’t as many organizations and they don’t have the presence religion does, but they attempt to make people aware that there is more than one way.  They promote science, reason, morality and empathy for fellow humans.  Hence the term humanism.

Now, versus followers of Jesus.  I know plenty of christians and have seen the best and bad of humanity.  I haven’t been to a place bad enough to see the worst and am quite content to experience it through video.  But talking Western Civilization, churches provides a place for someone to go with near immediate acceptance, and they’re ubiquitous. I’ve seen people helped in various ways and have even participated in helping communities.  If that was the main thrust of the church, that would be fantastic.  I would have little complaint.  

Looking at the downside.  

The best way I can think of is to compare assholes, as in people, not sphincters.

The atheist asshole is an asshole.  Being an asshole is purely a human trait.

The religious asshole uses the bible to justify being an asshole. Wait, where did Jesus tell his followers to be an asshole to people?! Jesus taught love homie! Look at who Jesus hung out with! Doesn’t like gays, there’s a verse for that. Once again, you can disagree with someone and still love them! I have gay friends, I don’t hate them, or treat them differently!  Doesn’t like Jews, they killed the messiah.  Doesn’t like abortion, justifies killings, bombings, vandalism, property damage, and death threats to “save” lives. Jesus didn’t teach any of that either man lol

Neither person is representative of the whole.  Atheism doesn’t come with built-in reasons or justifications to perpetuate evil.  Atheists who perform evil acts are evil people.

What are the pros of being an atheist?

First it’s the recognition that you are responsible for yourself and your actions.  When I do something good, I take the credit, I don’t credit god with my actions or success.  I own that.  When I do something bad, it’s my fault.  I may want to blame someone else, and I will probably try, but in the words of Dead Can Dance,

“I need my conscience to keep watch over me to protect me from myself So I can wear honesty like a crown on my head…”

I have no one to blame but me, I chose my course of action.  I don’t like guilt, so I try to do my best.  I’ll fail, I’m human.

Taking credit for my successes is a fantastic feeling.  I know I can do it.  And if I don’t succeed, I’ve tried.

In christianity, all things that benefit me, all my achievements are attributed to god.  I can do nothing without him.  I am a failure without him.  God is a crutch.  Then we wonder why there is such a problem with depression, why teens are killing themselves, and why people have low self-esteem.  If “I can do all things through christ” then I can do nothing without him.  If I fail, it’s my fault.  I did something wrong, god is punishing me. The Bible doesn’t teach self pity, or that God punishes you for doing something wrong. There’s grace my man. And the Bible talks about glorifying God in everything you do, not in a negative “god gets all the credit im a failure” type of way though. This instill self-loathing. That’s not something I like.  I spent too many years wallowing in self-pity before I got tired of it. Perhaps you had a wrong perspective of who God is man. I grew up in the church, I guarantee I can relate to a lot of ways you feel about the church. It’s easy to get a wrong perspective growing up in church as a kid, I know I did. I ran away from it for awhile. I only came back when I moved 12 hours away and studied it for myself. I got a fresh perspective, I experienced God in a new way.

Also, what do you think of peoples testimonies when they say they found Jesus of have been saved?

If it helps improve their life, then that’s great.  I just wish they’d have found a better way.  But they are perfectly entitled to their opinion and their belief. What is “a better way?”

You’ve probably heard of I Am Second - mostly celebrities stories of how they found God. Are they delusional? Is this stuff made up in their mind?

Actually, I haven’t.  I wouldn’t say they are delusional.  Culture is built around religion and it has permeated our lives for some 12 millenia.  We’ve all grown up with misconceptions of what christianity is and what it represents - morality, goodness, kindness, acceptance. What’s left out is the shackles - self-loathing acknowledgement that you’re a failure, belief that you can’t do anything right, except through god. Are you referring to sin saying your a failure, etc? If we are indeed flawed beings, then the example Jesus set for us is remarkable. Remember when Jesus stopped the people from stoning the prostitute?

What about stories of miracles that people claim?

Anecdotes that can’t be examined on an individual basis.  But when the chance does occur, then miracles often turn out to have mundane sources or are outright frauds, like statues of christ weeping blood. But of the documented miracles, how could they be frauds? Why would a person lie to someone for the rest of their life, with no personal benefit?

Can miracle occur?  Yes.  Surviving a deadly disease or massive trauma.  One lady I know, @comachameleon2013, was in a coma for 6 weeks.  She was written off by the doctors.  One a scale of 1-9 in 3 categories of responsiveness (1 being least), her responsiveness was 3 in total.  She survived.  It was a non-divine miracle. But how can you say it was a non-divine miracle? She’s still recovering and is a testament to human resilience; god not required. So a miracle by your definition is human resilience?

I had a friend visit Bethel church in Redding California a few weeks ago. He experienced some bizarre things. He went into the church being a skeptic, but believes he felt the Holy Spirit that day. What are your thoughts on that?

First, we have mentally tied churches and such places to spiritual experiences.  So, it’s no surprise.  I’ve visited scores of churches, abbeys, minsters, and cathedrals.  They are beautiful and remarkable places.  The music is stirring, the architecture is amazing.  As for Bethel, being in Redding, CA, I have serious doubts it stacks up to what I’ve seen.  Looking at images of it, I’m not wrong. Ah come on man we can’t judge a book by it’s cover!  But, there is a level of anticipation that can accompany a visit.  And watching the videos (I get to that shortly), I would say a level of expectation.

As for your friends skepticism, I can’t say, there’s different approaches as there are different approaches (denominations) to christianity.

YouTube Bethel Glory cloud and check that out, and google Bethel Miracles as well. There seems to be many stories of people being healed, but not just at Bethel. What’s your thoughts on that?

Gold dust in the ventilation.  Great showmanship, not really divine. Looking around, there’s some doubts, even amongst christians. There were “religious” people in the Bible that doubted Jesus too. The pastor talks about the Glory Cloud in this video: https://youtu.be/tcPkOR4Lwj0 - is he lying, or what? (If you don’t watch the video he goes on to say that the first time it happened, they examined the vents themselves.) The only conclusive way is to examine it closely.  But I have serious doubts that they would let anyone examine the ventilation or have a camera monitor it 24/7.  There’s a mundane explanation, and mankind has a history of faking a lot of things.  Occam’s razor, which is not evidence itself, allows us to weigh in.  Miracle, or mundane, the most likely explanation is mundane.  If we start to ask questions, then things begin to fall apart.  Why only that congregation out of 1.2 billion followers worldwide? Bethel isn’t the only peoples who miracles are claimed to have happened to though. It appears to have been repeated several times.  Surely god isn’t a 1-trick pony.

As for miracle healings.  Follow ups would be more revealing than the events themselves.  The mind is a powerful thing, easily open to suggestion, and the body able to overcome a lot of stuff without even medical intervention (an aspect of the placebo effect).  Read about failed faith healings/prayers and dangerous religious practices at What the Harm? Those are sad stories indeed. I don’t believe the blame lays on God though, but more so they didn’t take necessary precautions. The site tackles more than just religion.  (If you wish to follow the stories, you’ll have to get most of them from the Internet Archive, if they’re available.)  Having seen a few myself, they were either minor things, or miracles that didn’t last long.

All of the effects of spiritual experiences can be recreated in the lab, even “out of body” experiences.  A good book that explains a lot of this in The God Impulse.  I have no problem with spiritual experiences having mundane explanations.  I’d really like to call them something else since religion has tainted the word, much in the way culture taints medical terms by stigmatizing them into insults.  If someone has a “spiritual” experience and an epiphany results from this that turns their life around in some way, great!  This doesn’t make it divine.  All of divinity has either mundane explanations, or is logically broken in some fashion.  Just because something happens through a fluke, or an accident, or some traumatic event, or from a natural event doesn’t mean it’s any less powerful the “divine” revelation.

I value knowing how the world around me works, and how our minds and bodies function.  Beauty is all around, life is incredible. Agreed bro. I believe we should all question everything. The universe doesn’t care about me, but I do, and there’s power in that.  I don’t need anyone, real or imaginary, to feel I have value.  Life has value.  I can love without having to be directed.   I respect people without being told, it’s my choice.  I treat them the way I want to be treated, and if that’s not good enough, then the way they wish to be treated.  Religion is man’s institution, created and perpetuated by mankind. Ever seen this? https://youtu.be/1IAhDGYlpqY   It is not completely without value, but it is not the best thing we have.  When society has finally outgrown it, the way we’ve outgrown hunting and gathering, then it too will be discarded.  Mankind has its problems, but that doesn’t make us worthless, or needy, and we are constantly improving, despite the nay-sayers denials.  This, to me, is part of being a humanist.

Skeptic42, Thanks for your response.

Regarding the 150+ scientific parameters, that was taken from a book called Miracles, by Eric Metaxas. He dives deep into earths characteristics, revealing some incredible information. Things like, if our earth were a few percent bigger, gravity would be stronger, and pull in toxic gases that humans could no co-exist with.

I seem to be coming across this meme more and more lately.  A book written by Robert Lanza and Bob Berman called Biocentrism pretty much runs along the same lines.  The problem with these is the myopic view they take.  Adjust one thing a little, and suddenly the universe is hostile to life.  The major fallacy is the arrogance that goes into believing that humans are the center of the universe.  The other fallacies are:

The ignorance of what the universe would be like if that one thing changed

The lack of ability to think that nothing else would change.

That life cannot arise in these hypothesized universes.

Never mind the lack of verify-ability or test-ability, this puts the entire argument outside the realm of science and squarely within the realm of speculation.  At best it might make for a philosophical debate, and science fiction or fantasy.

Yes, change one thing and human (keyword!!) life wouldn’t be possible.  Hell, there are places we can’t live on this earth without some major environmental compensations.  Funny thing is, life can be found in these places.

Let’s try a mental exercise.  Just imagine the crustacians living in a volcanic region of the mid-Atlantic ridge with the level of human intelligence.  One of them writes a book about Crustacentrism.  In it he/she/it argues that were the water temperature a few degrees cooler, they wouldn’t exist, or if plate tectonics wasn’t occurring, all of Crustaceopolis would not exist, of if the perfect balance of chemicals were adjusted slightly, then toxicity would make their lives impossible.  Therefore Crustaceopolis and the entire ocean was designed for them.

The big assumption of these books is that life cannot exist in these imaginary universes.  We can’t know that either way.  It is a poor philosophical argument for the existence of god.

Where is there proof of 400 million stars, and 100 billion galaxies? Please cite a source.

I just happened to read that there are 400 billion stars in Astronomy magazine.  But NASA is a good source, as well as Universe Today.

You’re not 100% correct on your Ark calculations - I’m hoping you’ll take the time to research and gain understanding here: https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/no-kind-left-behind/

Which part of the calculation on the ark are incorrect?  Those numbers came from Creation Tips.  My favorite part of that page is how the Babylonian flood story can’t be true.  There are scores of flood myths throughout history, some predate the Torah.

Another great problem is how the animals are figured into the story.  The easiest way is to ignore the problem is to move up the taxonomy tree to arrive at fewer and fewer animals.  Insects are ignored, and sea animals are discarded.  But, depending on who you talk to, all life outside the ark was washed away.  Silt stirred up killed everything in the water, but this makes it more crowded on the ark.  So, let’s just put them in the water and ignore that.  And if you only take one of each family of animals, why use evolutionary elements to reason out the variety of genus and families.  What’s more likely is they might have gone so far as to calculate the animals and food requirements for the number of species they were aware of.  Let’s face it people have been exposed to a slim margin of all the animals in existence.

If mankind was so wicked, why kill all the animals?  If we’re going to invoke magic, why not apply logic.  Why not just

That’s a bit more environment friendly.  

What about food and crops.  It takes time to grow food once the flood has receded.

Besides mimicking all the other flood myths, the story is filled with plot holes.  A wooden ship that large would be destroyed in raging waters, where did the water come from, where did it go?  The best answer without using the word magic is “god works in mysterious ways.”  So do the insane.  So do ordinary humans.

So, the historical events of the Bible do not line up with History? Please name a few.

I’ll give you two.

The Hebrew nation was never enslaved in Egypt, there is no archaeological evidence for this, despite the hundreds of religious archaeologists that lead these digs.

King Herod, referred to in the NT died 10 years before the Roman census that supposedly drove Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem.  Also, the Romans were known for taking the process to the people, not the other way around.

The only inconsistencies are the ones you don’t study deep enough. Here is more information on the Fig Tree for you to study more in-depth: https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/figuring-out-the-root-of-the-matter/

Not a bad response, but the trick is mere obfuscation.  The real problem isn’t the minor inconsistencies, it’s rooted in simple facts when you actually study deeply for real.  That being the gospels was written between 30 and 90 years after the supposed events.  Memories fade, if indeed they actually dictations.  I find it odd that a bunch of illiterate Hebrews would write in Greek.  Slightly more likely, their supposed events were recorded by others decades later.  Even more likely, they were made up.  Each author is different in writing style and focus, that’s the way life is.  Both the OT and NT includes many stories that can be found in other cultures.  Christianity will of course claim ownership, despite similar myths existing prior to the bible.  They’re not exact rip offs, they’re just variations of each other and what was popular at the time.  Romans were known for taking gods from other cultures and incorporating them into theirs with new names.  Everyone did this or similar, it continues even up to today.  What makes the Hebrews immune to human nature?

As for Jesus, did you know there was another Jesus who lived about 180 BCE?  And wrote a book of wisdom?  Jesus wasn’t that common of a name, as far as I know, or each reference would be cited as evidence proving the existence of the biblical jesus.  How many messiah have there been?  Did you know a slave of Herod also claimed to be the messiah?  Interesting things with implications when you look deeper.

Hope I cited those sources right ;) thanks for your response.

Sources are fine and always appreciated.  You’re welcome, it’s been a pleasure.

I used to spend a lot of time debating because your beliefs aren’t proportionate to the evidence. Furthermore, Christians, especially in the U.S., infringe on people’s rights because of their beliefs. Further still, wherever science appears to disagree or actually disagrees with their beliefs, they oppose it, e.g., creationism, intelligent design. Perhaps the worst infraction is the Christian penchant for indoctrination and physical abuse of children. Christian parents don’t teach their children how to think; they them what to think, e.g., Jesus Camp. Also, some denominations promote the abuse of children. Children have died during exorcisms (see here). They’ve died of treatable illnesses due to parents’ belief in faith healing (see here). Bigoted Christian politicians have made it so that atheists can’t take office. In seven states, it is illegal for an atheist to hold office (see here). 

I can go on, but those are among the reasons why we debate people like you. Even if you don’t believe in exorcism or faith healing, even if you don’t plan on indoctrinating your children, even if you don’t have contempt towards atheists and non-Christians more generally, you are still wrong; you are still in error; you still need to be corrected; you still need to be taught how to think; you still need to be challenged, since no belief is sacred or exempt from criticism.

The one bad trait that Jesus has is that he’s said to be more than what he might have been. Jesus was and is not god. He is not divine. He wasn’t anything like the Christ depicted in the Gospels (see here). If he was, remember that he came to divide families (Matthew 10:35). He supposedly said so himself. He told his disciples to seize his enemies and kill them in front of him (Luke 19:27). Sure, it’s a parable, but after much discussion, I don’t see any interpretation that favors Christians.

Your last question is a disguised Moral Argument, which I’ve discussed at length with Christians trying their darnedest to be apologists. They failed (see here). You’re boasting about the atheist not responding, as though the individual didn’t respond because they can’t. There are other reasons: maybe they didn’t find time yet; perhaps they lost interest in the conversation; perhaps they’re tired of dealing with inept arguments and answering the same old questions. I fall in the latter category.  In any case, let me show you what it looks like to have something to boast about. That particular defender of the Moral Argument, which is the argument encapsulated in your last question, deactivated her blog shortly after I published my response. That’s actual proof that she felt humiliated and absolutely incapable of responding to my rebuttal. Unlike most Christians, as an aspiring philosopher, I’ve thought about morality deeply. In fact, I can add to the response I gave her.

Let’s say morality comes from god and Jesus taught us a moral paradigm on which morality rests, then we’d have no choice than to look beyond the Golden Rule. This is the paradigm moral precept taught by Jesus. Unfortunately, it fails. Allow me to explain.

Given that Jesus and the father are one, I related the Golden Rule to the Moral Argument. If moral values and duties hinge on god’s existence and Jesus is god, then the basis of these moral values and duties would be the Golden Rule: “whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them” (Matthew 7:12). Yet there’s a problem in that the Golden Rule is a rudimentary iteration of egoism: what I find beneficial or harmful dictates my moral decisions. This is analogous to the Golden Rule.

That leads to some questions, however: how do I know that what I find satisfactory will be considered such by others? How can I know that what works for me will work for others? To simply assume that would be fallacious, namely the subjectivist fallacy: what works for me works for others. Yet this is precisely what the Golden Rule calls for. Unfortunately, the Golden Rule doesn’t ask us to account for personal or cultural differences. In Hispanic cultures, we expect full hospitality when we’re guests in your home. Specifically, if you’re a close friend or family member, and you’ve invited us over, we expect to be fed. We expect a seat at your dinner table and some of your home cooked dinner. Other cultures don’t always expect this of their friends and families. Living in an urban populace has acquainted me with that fact firsthand.

There is, however, a glaring issue with the Golden Rule. Jesus, god incarnate, has made you the moral arbiter. Whatever you wish people do to you, do also them; he stated that “this is the Law and the Prophets.” Not only are you assuming that because something works for you, it will work for others, but you now have final say on what’s right or wrong. God no longer makes that decision, so his commands are arbitrary. If the Golden Rule is the basis of the Moral Argument, then the Moral Argument is self-contradictory. Either morality is contingent on god or it is up to us to decide what’s right and what’s wrong. It can’t be both. Yet god gave you the keys to the moral kingdom.

In ethicist fashion, the Golden Rule is utterly inapplicable. If applied to business, it simply wouldn’t work. Again, the Golden Rule doesn’t account for personal and cultural differences. Businesses have failed to succeed in other countries because they assumed that what works for their population will work for other populations. In other words, if Americans like sweet soft drinks, the Chinese will also. If I were to be CEO of an airline, and I were to reason that because I find coach satisfactory, none of my planes should have first class seating, my airline would certainly fail. In business, I cannot treat others as I wish to be treated.

In medicine this doesn’t work either. When removing my wisdom teeth, I chose nitrous oxide over anesthetic injection. If I were a doctor, on the basis of the Golden Rule, since I wish for doctors to use nitrous oxide during my surgeries then I’ll give nitrous to all of my patients. Where is their autonomy? Where is their choice? Where is their right to decide how they want to go about this? The Golden Rule cannot apply to medicine.

It doesn’t apply to education. If I were to become a professor that teaches students based on how I like to be taught, I will actually harm some of my students. What works for me doesn’t work for everyone. Just because I wish for my professors to be (preferably) passionate about their fields, enthusiastic when they speak, and do their best to teach using visuals doesn’t mean that I should become a professor who teaches using mostly visuals. Some students may even be put off if I’m too enthusiastic though, in general, that doesn’t pose an issue. What does pose an issue is the assumption that everyone learns equally.

Ultimately, the Golden Rule, Jesus’ and therefore god’s basis of morality, is inapplicable to our everyday lives. If applied in the fields discussed and certainly others not discussed, the results would be disastrous. It’s also fallacious since it falls victim to subjectivist fallacy. What works for me does not work for everyone else. Aside from this, it is a primitive iteration of egoism, which is generally considered a failed ethical system. As stated earlier, we often act without thinking about our own happiness or benefit. We often act selflessly rather than on the basis of self-interest. Moving outside of the Golden Rule, it fails to account for personal preferences and cultural differences. It fails to account for a person’s autonomy: this is how you want to be treated, so this is how I’ll treat you. Does a person not have a choice in how they want to be treated? 

I used to spend a lot of time debating because your beliefs aren’t proportionate to the evidence. Furthermore, Christians, especially in the U.S., infringe on people’s rights because of their beliefs. Further still, wherever science appears to disagree or actually disagrees with their beliefs, they oppose it, e.g., creationism, intelligent design. Perhaps the worst infraction is the Christian penchant for indoctrination and physical abuse of children. Christian parents don’t teach their children how to think; they them what to think, e.g., Jesus Camp. Also, some denominations promote the abuse of children. Children have died during exorcisms (see here). They’ve died of treatable illnesses due to parents’ belief in faith healing (see here). Bigoted Christian politicians have made it so that atheists can’t take office. In seven states, it is illegal for an atheist to hold office (see here).

There is a lot of one-sided thinking here. You are making blanket statements about Christians, taking a few and judging them all for the actions of a few. I keep asking atheists for evidence on their claims, and there seems to be none. Only theories, am I wrong? Is it logical to believe in theories versus written historical documents from different sources? I’ve seen the Jesus Camp documentary. It’s disturbing to say the least. I’m also aware of people like from the Westboro Baptist Church, which I’m sure you’ve heard of. Tell me, have you studied what those people teach, and lined it up with what is taught in the Bible? If you do, you will quickly find they are not. When you look at churches like that, or “christians” like that - you are turned off by the people, not the Bible. You are essentially forming thoughts of God through the way imperfect, sinful humans act. Am I wrong? Get this, I’m just as turned off by the same people. There’s always going to be idiots that use the Bible to try and bully people. Nowhere does the Bible say “Study this, and you will be perfect.” Am I wrong? Try studying the Bible, and not studying people. Now, are you familiar with the Columbine shooting? How they shot anyone saying they were Christian? Would it be right for me to label all atheists as in-tolerant, narrow minded killers? Essentially in your whole argument above, you are labeling every Christian as an un-ethical one. Tell me, what’s been your experience at churches? How many different churches have you attended? Would it surprise you to hear that the church I attend has a gay person in the band? Would it surprise you that we deliver several thousand meals to members in the community every weekend regardless of age/race/religion? We have a whole offering for people that come in needing help for groceries and bills. Guess what? They get helped, regardless of age/race/religion/ethnicity/gay/transgender/whatever-else-you-want-to-try-and-argue-about. Listen, when you debate, you have to think of both sides of the story, correct? Here you are only thinking of one perspective. Can you tell me how atheists benefit society?

I can go on, but those are among the reasons why we debate people like you. Even if you don’t believe in exorcism or faith healing, even if you don’t plan on indoctrinating your children, even if you don’t have contempt towards atheists and non-Christians more generally, you are still wrong; you are still in error; you still need to be corrected; you still need to be taught how to think; you still need to be challenged, since no belief is sacred or exempt from criticism.

And how am I wrong for studying the Bible? Where is proof that the Bible is wrong? The tolerance that atheists speak out for, is a double standard. It’s basically saying, “you have to be tolerant of anything and everything we think, but we are not tolerant of your beliefs, or anything related to it.” I agree everything needs to be challenged. Atheists need to be challenged then, no? I could say the same back to you: you are still wrong; you are still in error; you still need to be corrected; you still need to be taught how to think; you still need to be challenged, since no belief is sacred or exempt from criticism. Or would that not fit the double standard?

The one bad trait that Jesus has is that he’s said to be more than what he might have been. Jesus was and is not god. He is not divine. He wasn’t anything like the Christ depicted in the Gospels (see here). If he was, remember that he came to divide families (Matthew 10:35). He supposedly said so himself. He told his disciples to seize his enemies and kill them in front of him (Luke 19:27). Sure, it’s a parable, but after much discussion, I don’t see any interpretation that favors Christians.

So, where is evidence that Jesus is not God? Before we debate this any further, are you admitting you don’t understand the parable?

Your last question is a disguised Moral Argument, which I’ve discussed at length with Christians trying their darnedest to be apologists. They failed (see here). You’re boasting about the atheist not responding, as though the individual didn’t respond because they can’t. There are other reasons: maybe they didn’t find time yet; perhaps they lost interest in the conversation; perhaps they’re tired of dealing with inept arguments and answering the same old questions. Not sure what is inept of my arguments, feel free to look through my older posts. You will see I pose more questions than answers. My questions don’t get answered. I fall in the latter category.  In any case, let me show you what it looks like to have something to boast about. That particular defender of the Moral Argument, which is the argument encapsulated in your last question, deactivated her blog shortly after I published my response. That’s actual proof that she felt humiliated and absolutely incapable of responding to my rebuttal. So, you were just getting on to me for “boasting” - are you not boasting now? Double standard my friend :) Unlike most Christians, as an aspiring philosopher, I’ve thought about morality deeply. In fact, I can add to the response I gave her.

Let’s say morality comes from god and Jesus taught us a moral paradigm on which morality rests, then we’d have no choice than to look beyond the Golden Rule. This is the paradigm moral precept taught by Jesus. Unfortunately, it fails. Allow me to explain.

Given that Jesus and the father are one, I related the Golden Rule to the Moral Argument. If moral values and duties hinge on god’s existence and Jesus is god, then the basis of these moral values and duties would be the Golden Rule: “whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them” (Matthew 7:12). Yet there’s a problem in that the Golden Rule is a rudimentary iteration of egoism: what I find beneficial or harmful dictates my moral decisions. This is analogous to the Golden Rule.

That leads to some questions, however: how do I know that what I find satisfactory will be considered such by others? How can I know that what works for me will work for others? To simply assume that would be fallacious, namely the subjectivist fallacy: what works for me works for others. Yet this is precisely what the Golden Rule calls for. Unfortunately, the Golden Rule doesn’t ask us to account for personal or cultural differences. In Hispanic cultures, we expect full hospitality when we’re guests in your home. Specifically, if you’re a close friend or family member, and you’ve invited us over, we expect to be fed. We expect a seat at your dinner table and some of your home cooked dinner. Other cultures don’t always expect this of their friends and families. Living in an urban populace has acquainted me with that fact firsthand. So, when this happened to you, and the other party was unaware of what kindness means in your culture, did you inform them? If you didn’t inform them, wouldn’t that be your fault? Are people held liable for what they do not know?

There is, however, a glaring issue with the Golden Rule. Jesus, god incarnate, has made you the moral arbiter. Whatever you wish people do to you, do also them; he stated that “this is the Law and the Prophets.” Not only are you assuming that because something works for you, it will work for others, but you now have final say on what’s right or wrong. God no longer makes that decision, so his commands are arbitrary. If the Golden Rule is the basis of the Moral Argument, then the Moral Argument is self-contradictory. Either morality is contingent on god or it is up to us to decide what’s right and what’s wrong. It can’t be both. Yet god gave you the keys to the moral kingdom.

In ethicist fashion, the Golden Rule is utterly inapplicable. If applied to business, it simply wouldn’t work. Again, the Golden Rule doesn’t account for personal and cultural differences. Businesses have failed to succeed in other countries because they assumed that what works for their population will work for other populations. In other words, if Americans like sweet soft drinks, the Chinese will also. If I were to be CEO of an airline, and I were to reason that because I find coach satisfactory, none of my planes should have first class seating, my airline would certainly fail. In business, I cannot treat others as I wish to be treated.

In medicine this doesn’t work either. When removing my wisdom teeth, I chose nitrous oxide over anesthetic injection. If I were a doctor, on the basis of the Golden Rule, since I wish for doctors to use nitrous oxide during my surgeries then I’ll give nitrous to all of my patients. Where is their autonomy? Where is their choice? Where is their right to decide how they want to go about this? The Golden Rule cannot apply to medicine. If I wish for others to inform me with information based on an activity I’m about to do, and I do the same for them, is that not the Golden Rule essentially?

It doesn’t apply to education. If I were to become a professor that teaches students based on how I like to be taught, I will actually harm some of my students. What works for me doesn’t work for everyone. Just because I wish for my professors to be (preferably) passionate about their fields, enthusiastic when they speak, and do their best to teach using visuals doesn’t mean that I should become a professor who teaches using mostly visuals. Some students may even be put off if I’m too enthusiastic though, in general, that doesn’t pose an issue. What does pose an issue is the assumption that everyone learns equally.

Ultimately, the Golden Rule, Jesus’ and therefore god’s basis of morality, is inapplicable to our everyday lives. If applied in the fields discussed and certainly others not discussed, the results would be disastrous. It’s also fallacious since it falls victim to subjectivist fallacy. What works for me does not work for everyone else. Aside from this, it is a primitive iteration of egoism, which is generally considered a failed ethical system. As stated earlier, we often act without thinking about our own happiness or benefit. We often act selflessly rather than on the basis of self-interest. Moving outside of the Golden Rule, it fails to account for personal preferences and cultural differences. It fails to account for a person’s autonomy: this is how you want to be treated, so this is how I’ll treat you. Does a person not have a choice in how they want to be treated?

Given this, the notion that the Golden Rule is a principle of empathy is wrong. I think empathy is fully achieved when you have developed the ability to attend to someone else whilst knowing what a given circumstance means to them and on the basis of this, treat them in accordance with or even via their perspective. This sort of empathy is perfectly in keeping with Neo-Kantian ethics. In treating you this way, I honor your autonomy. I’m not, for instance, lecturing you on how the death of a loved one gets easier over time because that’s what worked for me. I listen, I inquire, and then I do what I think you find most meaningful. You may not want a spiel on how it gets easier and the cliche “time heals all wounds”; you may instead prefer a hug, a shoulder to cry on, and an ear that will listen to the memories you have of this loved one. And that’s what I’ll offer you. I will not offer you what works for me because I recognize that we’re different people that are perhaps from different cultures; we have different preferences, had different upbringings, and ultimately, have different brains. We simply work differently and the Golden Rule fails to account for that. So if the Golden Rule is god’s basis for moral values and duties–and given that jesus is god, I see no reason to think otherwise–he can keep his values. We have advanced far beyond his failed ethical view. For us atheists, there’s no wonder as to why that’s the case.

Would you say some christians pick and choose verses to their liking? What about atheists? Because that is exactly what you did here. You are not looking at the verse in context whatsoever, and picked it apart to your liking, not within the reason of the way it was written. You almost seem boastful to exercise all of your perspective on this very topic, no?

Now, let’s look at another perspective, since everything does need to be challenged after all, correct?

One thing I’m passionate about is seeking understanding, wisdom, learning, and being open minded. Among those traits, every atheist I’ve talked to does not carry any of those in regards to believing in God, or any sort of intelligent creator. I’m going to start posting some apologetic conversations I have in regards to God, the Bible, and Jesus.

This one took place a few days ago on Gizmodo, with an article titled “A Brief Reminder That Earth Is the Best Planet.”

Me: A great reminder about how complex it is. Science says there’s over 150 parameters that need to be met for humans to live and survive on Earth. Quite funny for people to logically believe in evolution when you line all the scientific facts up.

Atheist: And even more amazing (read: mind-numbingly moronic) to believe that some omnipotent being went thru the effort to create such an incredibly nice place for such a totally insignificant animal.

(Every atheist I’ve talked to, always comes out name-calling, bashing, and mocking.)

Me: Did my statement make you mad? It’ll make sense if you study the Bible! Ever studied it? 

Atheist: No, not angry, just sad (I’ve long ago stopped being surprised by the stupidity of my fellow humans… though still amazed by the depth & breath of it tho).Yes, I’ve tried to read it a couple times… just couldn’t get past the contradictions & inconsistencies. Which one should expect when several different “editors” put together a compilation of several different “authors” take on the events that happened several hundred years prior, editing & modifying the “story” to fit their then current attitudes about what’s supposed to have happened all in order to keep their grasp on power. Tho, all-in-all, primitive, tribal, superstitious bullshit & a vile book full of repugnant thoughts/ideas/beliefs.Bless your little heart.

Me: Ah, the typical cookie cutter atheist response. Yes, the book was written several thousand years ago. Which inconsistencies are you referring to? Obviously, you have to study it in context. If people two thousand years later from now read where a kid said “it was lit!” - they’d have to read that in context to understand he is referring to something “cool.” Writers in that time period don’t write like we do today. It’s all about context. Through context you understand the principals and the message they are trying to convey. The Bible lines up with historic events, is that inconsistent? Not sure what is repugnant and vile about it. If you took the word “God” out - atheists would be the first endorsing it as a self-help book. I’ve never understood what turns atheists off from the Bible. It promotes love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control. I think you’d agree with me that all of those are good traits in a human, no? Do you believe Christopher Columbus sailed to America? Why? You didn’t see who wrote that, edited that, printed that, modified that.

Atheist: Um… NO.1) God created the animals & then Adam v created Adam, then created the animals in front of Adam so he could name them… & just how many animals did Noah take on the Arc 2? or 6(-I believe it was… Been a while since I read it.)?2) talk about cookie cutter… Context.. pft3) Um… remove god & it becomes a self-help book? NO. I can’t handle it I prey to god to do it for me. ? Is not self-help… Unless by self-help you mean justifying/excusing/condoning rape, murder, infanticide, mutilation, slavery, war & a whole host of other crap people do to one another because their god wanted/told them too.4) Jesus may have promoted those things … sadly most christians do not. & those who do, never seem to get around to condemning those who don’t. (“So unlike Christ your christians are” -Ghandi, was it?)Great example of why one should never debate with christies… You’ll never convince them they’re wrong, & they’ll never convince you that you aren’t right.

Me: 1) What are you trying to say? 2 of every kind. 2) Not sure what you are referring to. 3) Do you know the difference between the Old Testament and New Testament? I’m assuming not by your response. The New Testament is God’s law for today. Do you understand the reason for the crucifixion and the Gospel? Do you think the 10 Commandments are bad virtues? 4) So, you can take the actions of a few people who call themselves “Christians” - and justify the mass by said actions? So when I’ve had 10 atheists call me names and insult me, its logical to say “All atheists are mean”? Those Christians that are un-Christlike, would you call them christian? If someone holds up a dictionary and kills someone, even when the dictionary says “Do not murder” - is it the dictionaries fault? Of course there are going to be people trying to push their own agenda under a religion. That happens with any and every religion. The Bible does not say “Believe in God, and read your Bible, and you will be perfect.” Have you studied any other religions, ever? 

Atheist: The dictionary doesn’t pretend to make moral commands as to how one should, or rather, MUST live one’s life.& you mistake me… I’m not an atheist.. I’m more of an apatheist… I do not care if (or that) your god exist. he exhibits all the worst traits of humans (given that we made him in our image, not surprising) & as such, would be unworthy of being worshipped in any case.

Me: If you don’t care if or that a God exists, why would you spend all this time debating me about it? What is one bad trait that Jesus had? And where did our sense of right/wrong and good/bad come from? 

I don’t really see how 150 parameters to support life as we know it (and that number varies a bit, depending on the cosmologist you ask) has anything to do with evolution. I mean, not only do recent estimates put the number of “Earth-like” planets in our galaxy in the millions, but even if it were incredibly unlikely for life to start, why would that impact life changing over time once it HAD started?

I’m a little confused what you mean by “it’ll make sense if you study the Bible.” Did you mean cosmology/evolution, or did you mean why he would be angry at your post? I don’t see why studying the Bible would answer either question, though.

In any case, yes, I have read the Bible. Granted, it’s been a few years, and there’s no guarantee the version I read is the one you ascribe to, but yes, I have read it.

(Here I’d like to say that I do agree somewhat with their comment. Namely that the book itself was compiled over about a thousand years by several different people. Even Biblical scholars agree that many parts of the book itself are authors working off each others’ material.

Not to mention the fact that before any of it was written physically, it was passed as an oral tradition, which leads to at least a few mistakes while preserving it. Not to mention FURTHER that we have no surviving original versions of many of the books of the Bible, meaning that the earliest versions we do have are at least copies of the originals, and many times translations at that. Needless to say, it’s not a perfectly self-consistent book)

However, I didn’t have such a problem reading through it, and I only ever point out the internal inconsistencies when someone vehemently insists there are none)

Atheists would definitely not be the first to accept a secular Bible as a self-help book. Not least of all because much of it documents the lives of the prophets/Jesus, and is not outright moral commands. Now, if you mean just reduce it to what God says to do, then I would still disagree with it.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s definitely something to be taken away from it. Turn the other cheek, love thy fellow man, sure. But it’s not all sunshine and roses in that book.

I wouldn’t stone a disobedient child, or someone working on a Saturday/Sunday. I don’t support slavery, nor the subjugation of women. I don’t see problems with mixing fibres, or eating shellfish, or being gay. And I’m sure you don’t agree with some of those things too, but you don’t get to ignore the bad stuff because there’s some good stuff in there.

As far as the 10 Commandments go, I wouldn’t say they’re altogether bad virtues, though I don’t personally see the point in the ones centred on God. And I think they’re lacking some big ones. Namely, don’t own slaves, don’t rape people, treat women equally. And I really don’t see why honour the sabbath and respect your parents are on the same list as “don’t kill people.” The priorities are a bit skewed there.

I wouldn’t say that the actions of one Christian reflect negatively on another one, but I WOULD say that an ideology that promotes, or even just allows that negative behaviour is a dangerous one. I wouldn’t assume every Christian would act that way, but I would point out the problems I see in the belief structure itself (and the book they cite it from).

A dictionary is also not a Holy Scripture. And it’s not like people go around killing people by literally hitting them with a Bible. The Bible DOES say that when someone sins, their blood is on their head, and it lists many times when killing others in the name of God is justified.

And yes. Comparative theology is a bit of a hobby of mine. I especially love seeing the same themes (virgin birth, resurrection, divine parentage) crop up in different culture’s religions. It’s neat to see how they inspire each others’ theology.

Now I wouldn’t say in an apatheist, but a good reason to care about people thinking these things is that they can very often affect the lives of others with their beliefs. I don’t really care if any particular person believes in a god, or a given religion, but I don’t much care for it when their religious beliefs are almost written into law, or worm their way into a science classroom.

As far as Jesus’ negative traits, I couldn’t say. Again, he’s often depicted as compassionate (well, except when he chased the money lenders out of the temple with a whip). He had some choice words for women and slaves, but altogether not the worst Biblical figure.

God the father on the other hand literally murdered everything on the globe once. Not peacefully, mind you. He didn’t make all the evil people have sudden heart attacks, or just disappear entirely. He drowned the whole planet. That’s pretty messed up. Even if you want to argue that people were awful, that doesn’t justify killing every man, woman, child and infant, as well as every animal in the world, save two of each kind. He also gambled with Satan over a man’s life for no reason. And is a fan of turning people into pillars of salt. And killing even more children in Egypt.

The dude’s a psychopath in some parts of the Bible. And I’m not trying to be aggressive, I mean he has the highest kill count out of ANY Biblical figure.

As for our morals, it seems they stem from our social behaviour as a species. Social bonds lead to attachment, and positive feeling for other members of one’s group. In a word: empathy. Our sense of right and wrong stem from our feelings of empathy for our fellow creatures. (We’re not even the only species to have this type of behaviour! Other social animal display similar bonds with members of their groups)

“I don’t really see how 150 parameters to support life as we know it (and that number varies a bit, depending on the cosmologist you ask) has anything to do with evolution. I mean, not only do recent estimates put the number of “Earth-like” planets in our galaxy in the millions, but even if it were incredibly unlikely for life to start, why would that impact life changing over time once it HAD started?”

There is no hard evidence for any planet to be very similar to earth at all. It’s speculated, and theorized. The reason that 150+ parameters should be shocking, is that it’s an absurd thought to believe in evolution when you look at how intricate our planet has been made, as well as our bodies, and to be able to survive here on earth.

“I’m a little confused what you mean by “it’ll make sense if you study the Bible.” Did you mean cosmology/evolution, or did you mean why he would be angry at your post? I don’t see why studying the Bible would answer either question, though.”

Referring to a lot of atheists pick and choose parts of the Bible and don’t study it within context of any sort. They would answer so many of their own questions if they studied it. In regards to evolution and creation, Ken Hams website “Answers in Genesis” can help connect the dots.

“In any case, yes, I have read the Bible. Granted, it’s been a few years, and there’s no guarantee the version I read is the one you ascribe to, but yes, I have read it.”

That’s great! What did you like/dislike about it?

“(Here I’d like to say that I do agree somewhat with their comment. Namely that the book itself was compiled over about a thousand years by several different people. Even Biblical scholars agree that many parts of the book itself are authors working off each others’ material.”

You are right, it was compiled by different authors. The argument here is atheists are quick to disprove and discredit the bible when they openly accept things like Christopher Columbus sailing to the United States. It’s a double standard to openly accept pretty much everything else in a history book, but when it comes to the bible - they freak out.

“Not to mention the fact that before any of it was written physically, it was passed as an oral tradition, which leads to at least a few mistakes while preserving it. Not to mention FURTHER that we have no surviving original versions of many of the books of the Bible, meaning that the earliest versions we do have are at least copies of the originals, and many times translations at that. Needless to say, it’s not a perfectly self-consistent book)”

Again, everything else in history is the same exact way. Perhaps most of our history is false then?

“However, I didn’t have such a problem reading through it, and I only ever point out the internal inconsistencies when someone vehemently insists there are none)”

Yeah, it’s hard to understand at times no doubt, but studied in context the underlying principle comes together and gets the message across.

“Atheists would definitely not be the first to accept a secular Bible as a self-help book. Not least of all because much of it documents the lives of the prophets/Jesus, and is not outright moral commands. Now, if you mean just reduce it to what God says to do, then I would still disagree with it.”

Have you read the book of Proverbs? If you take the principles God says to do for a healthy life mentally, spiritually, and physically, it is most definitely a self help book.

“Don’t get me wrong, there’s definitely something to be taken away from it. Turn the other cheek, love thy fellow man, sure. But it’s not all sunshine and roses in that book.

I wouldn’t stone a disobedient child, or someone working on a Saturday/Sunday. I don’t support slavery, nor the subjugation of women. I don’t see problems with mixing fibres, or eating shellfish, or being gay. And I’m sure you don’t agree with some of those things too, but you don’t get to ignore the bad stuff because there’s some good stuff in there.”

This is one of the atheist staples that I always hear. You told me you read the Bible, do you understand the difference between the Old Testament and New Testament? The crucifixion? The reason God sent Jesus to die? Just like you say we can’t ignore the bad stuff, you can’t ignore the good stuff. That’s one sided thinking. You HAVE to understand the difference between the Old and New Testament, or you will always go back to “God is a mean person.” BibleX.com has an in-depth study guide about the difference if you are interested.

“As far as the 10 Commandments go, I wouldn’t say they’re altogether bad virtues, though I don’t personally see the point in the ones centred on God. And I think they’re lacking some big ones. Namely, don’t own slaves, don’t rape people, treat women equally. And I really don’t see why honour the sabbath and respect your parents are on the same list as “don’t kill people.” The priorities are a bit skewed there.”

You are just getting picky now dude! I think love your neighbor as yourself would blanket the things you just mentioned. You are right they aren’t bad virtues. If you see the way Jesus teaches, in parables, he lays down principles every time. He never says “don’t do A, B, C, D” - because simply put that list would be long, and God is after the heart of the person, not the rules and laws. Imagine if the 10 Commandments did have a list like “don’t own slaves, don’t rape people” etc etc. It would be impossible for someone to memorize or know all those. Once again if you study the way Jesus teaches, it’s always about the heart. Products and things in this world are good, what screws them up is us humans, abusing, and using them wrong. It’s a heart problem.

“I wouldn’t say that the actions of one Christian reflect negatively on another one, but I WOULD say that an ideology that promotes, or even just allows that negative behaviour is a dangerous one. I wouldn’t assume every Christian would act that way, but I would point out the problems I see in the belief structure itself (and the book they cite it from).”

What negative behavior is taught in the New Testament? I’ll be the first to admit that I know alot of bad people that go to church every sunday and usually don’t miss a sunday. They are some of the worst judgmental people I’ve ever known. But that’s no excuse saying “The Bible is bad.” That’s a person not studying the bible, but showing up to their own “club” per say. That is their own ignorance, not the Bibles fault. Could even be them pushing their own agenda via “Jesus” - which people do from products to politics everyday - but you don’t see an uproar with that.

“A dictionary is also not a Holy Scripture. And it’s not like people go around killing people by literally hitting them with a Bible. The Bible DOES say that when someone sins, their blood is on their head, and it lists many times when killing others in the name of God is justified.”

Once again, that’s Old Testament stuff. Study it in context, and how it was written differently. BibleX helped me a lot.

“And yes. Comparative theology is a bit of a hobby of mine. I especially love seeing the same themes (virgin birth, resurrection, divine parentage) crop up in different culture’s religions. It’s neat to see how they inspire each others’ theology.”

That’s great man. May I ask why it is your hobby if you don’t believe in any sort of God?

“Now I wouldn’t say in an apatheist, but a good reason to care about people thinking these things is that they can very often affect the lives of others with their beliefs. I don’t really care if any particular person believes in a god, or a given religion, but I don’t much care for it when their religious beliefs are almost written into law, or worm their way into a science classroom.”

I don’t see anything wrong with the teachings of Jesus being implemented in culture.

“As far as Jesus’ negative traits, I couldn’t say. Again, he’s often depicted as compassionate (well, except when he chased the money lenders out of the temple with a whip). He had some choice words for women and slaves, but altogether not the worst Biblical figure.”

Right on. Jesus was a perfect being.

“God the father on the other hand literally murdered everything on the globe once. Not peacefully, mind you. He didn’t make all the evil people have sudden heart attacks, or just disappear entirely. He drowned the whole planet. That’s pretty messed up. Even if you want to argue that people were awful, that doesn’t justify killing every man, woman, child and infant, as well as every animal in the world, save two of each kind. He also gambled with Satan over a man’s life for no reason. And is a fan of turning people into pillars of salt. And killing even more children in Egypt.”

This poses the question of good and evil. To feel sorry for those people is to have the mindset that in fact every human was “good.” Which agrees that there are no “bad” people. Read what God said about those humans before he wiped them off the face of the earth. What made them bad? To put it in perspective, what if it was a culture similar to ISIS that he destroyed? This goes back to the Old Testament vs New Testament as well.

“The dude’s a psychopath in some parts of the Bible. And I’m not trying to be aggressive, I mean he has the highest kill count out of ANY Biblical figure.”

Was Jesus a psychopath?

“As for our morals, it seems they stem from our social behaviour as a species. Social bonds lead to attachment, and positive feeling for other members of one’s group. In a word: empathy. Our sense of right and wrong stem from our feelings of empathy for our fellow creatures. (We’re not even the only species to have this type of behaviour! Other social animal display similar bonds with members of their groups)”

But where does empathy come from? If we just evolved, why wouldn’t we try to gain whatever we can and step on other peoples backs to get there? Why do we have a conscience, and this sense of right and wrong? Where does that come from? The book “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis works through this exact theory.

“I hope at least to have been more positive about it than your previous conversation partner.”

Beyond that, I’m asking again: how would the odds of life emerging (which again, can be quantified in munch fewer than 150 parameters) affect whether or not life evolved over time? Let’s say for a moment that we could prove Earth is the only planet out of hundreds of thousands of trillions of planets that could support any kind of life, how does that affect everything we ALREADY know about evolutionary biology? How would it discredit the immense fossil record, the gene sequencing, the observed speciation (both in a lab and in the field), and everything else we know that points unanimously to decent with modification?

I find it’s very often Christians who pick and choose which Bible passages to accept, rather than atheists. Above you gave a brilliant example. I’ve found no shortage of people argue for the binding nature of the 10 Commandments, but denounce the rest of Leviticus for being Old Testament, despite the fact that the Commandments are as well. (I’ll get to this again, but I prefer to keep the replies in roughly the same order as the original comments. I find it helps keep individual points coherent.)

Ken Ham is, frankly, a joke. I don’t mean to sound aggressive, and I don’t mean to write him off completely by calling him a name, but I honestly don’t know what else to call him. He’s shown time and time again that he doesn’t understand any of the ideas that he claims to debunk or rebuke. He, (like other popular apologists Comfort and Cameron) very clearly doesn’t understand what evolution actually is, nor just how completely the evidence at hand supports it. He doesn’t understand how all the evidence points to a world that is far, FAR more than 6000 years old, or how none of the evidence supports the idea of a global flood, or dinosaurs coexisting with man, or a single pair of every species being able to repopulate the Earth. And worst of all, he’s been corrected time, and time, and time again, very often by people who know better than he does about the fields he’s commenting about. And he never listens. In as polite and matter-of-fact way I can say it: he’s a joke.

The big difference between Biblical events and, say, Christopher Columbus is that Columbus’s events have many, many corroborated accounts. Columbus had many contemporaries that documented what he did, when he did it, and how it resulted.

Biblical accounts do not share this trait. The earliest non-Christian writing that mentions Jesus (for example) isn’t until a few decades after he supposedly died. The only source for most of what occurs in the Bible is the Bible itself, which isn’t exactly airtight.

Now, to be fair, that doesn’t mean that a historical Jesus didn’t exist, or that he definitely did or didn’t do any particular thing he’s described as doing, but it’s going to take a lot more than a single piece of scripture to show that he did, ESPECIALLY for a lot of the miraculous stuff. It’s going to take a complete upturning of almost everything we know about science to show that some events happened.

Yes I have read the Bible. Do YOU understand the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament? I often here the “Jesus came to fulfill the Old Testament” line. Few mention that there are passages IN the New Testament that state in no uncertain terms that Old Testament laws are still binding. This also relates back to the commandments. It’s also worth noting that the New Testament isn’t perfect either. In particular it still enforces slavery and superiority over women.

But even if you put that aside; even if you say that only the New Testament applies NOW, you’re still left with the uncomfortable fact that the Old Testament still exists. All that awful shit that makes you say “God is awful” is still there, and is still supposedly something that God commanded. Sure, maybe he doesn’t care if YOU wear mixed fibres or eat shellfish, but he did at one point.

Either what is moral has changed since then, or God at one point in time commanded things that were not moral. Both are equally uncomfortable propositions. Both make any commandment from God ultimately unreliable. You either don’t know whether his opinion will stay the same, or you don’t know if he’s still lying.

You say a list of commandments would be too inconvenient, but that’s exactly what the 10 Commandments are, and people seem to love them. Hell, there’s dozens of more just after that in Leviticus anyway. Even still, there are still some clearly evil things that are never condemned. Not anywhere in the Bible does it say that you shouldn’t own other human beings, or that you shouldn’t rape a person.

You know you don’t need to believe a theology to be interested in it, right? I mean, I love Ancient Greek theology too, but I don’t believe in Zeus or Hades. It is literally exactly the same sort of interest for me.

We (I) already live in a society where Biblical teaching are a pretty big part of the culture. The problem I have isn’t with cultural adoption of these ideas. My problem is when these ideas are made into policies that everyone must follow. If there’s an idea that can be shown to be for the greater good, even without religious belief, then it may very well merit some policy making, but if the best argument you have for introducing a new law is “it’s in the Bible, and I believe in the Bible,” that’s a problem.

Again, Jesus did command slaves to obeys their earthly masters and for women to never hold authority over a man. Not exactly perfect.

I cannot conceive of any culture that would justify drowning the entire planet. Not a single one. Even a hellish distopia, with some horrible blend of Nazi Germany and ISIS. Nothing justifies killing every man, woman and child. Drowning infants, toddlers, and children, at the very least, is horrifying. Not to mention every animal (save two of each), and any adults who may not have conformed to the nasty society.

It’s not a question of whether these people were good or evil, God drowned everything. That’s psychopathic.

Right, similar to earth. But scientists making assumptions like “it looks like it could potentially have characteristics similiar to earth because we looked through this high powered telescope” is an insanely absurd thought. That’s more asinine and ill-logical than believing in the Bible. Atheists say “you can’t prove the Bible is true” - when the same exact thing could be said about scientists trying to figure out our universe.

“Beyond that, I’m asking again: how would the odds of life emerging (which again, can be quantified in munch fewer than 150 parameters) affect whether or not life evolved over time? Let’s say for a moment that we could prove Earth is the only planet out of hundreds of thousands of trillions of planets that could support any kind of life, how does that affect everything we ALREADY know about evolutionary biology? How would it discredit the immense fossil record, the gene sequencing, the observed speciation (both in a lab and in the field), and everything else we know that points unanimously to decent with modification?”

Here’s what I’m getting at with how special earth is: in the above reply I said there is no concrete proof of these other planets being even remotely close to the characteristics of earth. With that said, why would one planet be so different than others? If you had concrete evidence that there was another planet we could potentially survive on, then that would further support evolutionary theories. But there is no evidence. Science knows how special earth is. Science can not tell us there is another planet for a FACT that we could live on. Earth is special. Other planets are not special. There are only theories. I’m not sure what you are referring to with “observed speciation” - as science has never seen one species evolve to another KIND of species. Which again is only a theory with no facts, or evidence. If you have reference to any articles please link them.

“I find it’s very often Christians who pick and choose which Bible passages to accept, rather than atheists. Above you gave a brilliant example. I’ve found no shortage of people argue for the binding nature of the 10 Commandments, but denounce the rest of Leviticus for being Old Testament, despite the fact that the Commandments are as well. (I’ll get to this again, but I prefer to keep the replies in roughly the same order as the original comments. I find it helps keep individual points coherent.)”

I’d agree that a lot of “christians” do that. The questions is are they ones that are fully devoted to studying the bible and following Jesus? I don’t understand what is “binding” about the 10 Commandments? Would the world be better or worse if we followed them? Less murders? Less cheating on spouses? Is it bad to have rest after working? What if no one stole? I think anyone can agree these are good rules to keep humans in check. Not sure what is binding about them. Science follows rules, correct?

“Ken Ham is, frankly, a joke. I don’t mean to sound aggressive, and I don’t mean to write him off completely by calling him a name, but I honestly don’t know what else to call him. He’s shown time and time again that he doesn’t understand any of the ideas that he claims to debunk or rebuke. He, (like other popular apologists Comfort and Cameron) very clearly doesn’t understand what evolution actually is, nor just how completely the evidence at hand supports it. He doesn’t understand how all the evidence points to a world that is far, FAR more than 6000 years old, or how none of the evidence supports the idea of a global flood, or dinosaurs coexisting with man, or a single pair of every species being able to  repopulate the Earth.  And worst of all, he’s been corrected time, and time, and time again, very often by people who know better than he does about the fields he’s commenting about. And he never listens. In as polite and matter-of-fact way I can say it: he’s a joke.”

Please cite references to how he doesn’t understand any of the things you’ve mentioned. I could sit here and say the same about Bill Nye. It’s your perspective of him, that doesn’t mean it’s true. Once again, there is no evidence pointing to evolution, it’s only theories. How has Ken Ham been corrected? Corrected by what? Facts, or theories?

“The big difference between Biblical events and, say, Christopher Columbus is that Columbus’s events have many, many corroborated accounts. Columbus had many contemporaries that documented what he did, when he did it, and how it resulted.”

So the many accounts in the Bible doesn’t count? Why? A lot of the authors have lived in the same time as the other authors, no? Wouldn’t that count as “many corroborated accounts”?

“Biblical accounts do not share this trait. The earliest non-Christian writing that mentions Jesus (for example) isn’t until a few decades after he supposedly died. The only source for most of what occurs in the Bible is the Bible itself, which isn’t exactly airtight”

Do you have evidence of that?

“Now, to be fair, that doesn’t mean that a historical Jesus didn’t exist, or that he definitely did or didn’t do any particular thing he’s described as doing, but it’s going to take a lot more than a single piece of scripture to show that he did, ESPECIALLY for a lot of the miraculous stuff. It’s going to take a complete upturning of almost everything we know about science to show that some events happened”

I could go back to science here, and how there’s more accounts of Jesus than accounts of evolution. There’s no accounts of firsthand observed evolution is there? How many accounts of there of Jesus? Ever heard of the Roman Historian Josephus?

“Yes I have read the Bible. Do YOU understand the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament? I often here the “Jesus came to fulfill the Old Testament” line. Few mention that there are passages IN the New Testament that state in no uncertain terms that Old Testament laws are still binding. This also relates back to the commandments. It’s also worth noting that the New Testament isn’t perfect either. In particular it still enforces slavery and superiority over women”

This article will help you understand the slavery issue: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html

And this one will give context to the women issue: http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_women.htm What is your thoughts on those articles? Do you agree/disagree with any of it, and why?

“But even if you put that aside; even if you say that only the New Testament applies NOW, you’re still left with the uncomfortable fact that the Old Testament still exists. All that awful shit that makes you say “God is awful” is still there, and is still supposedly something that God commanded. Sure, maybe he doesn’t care if YOU wear mixed fibres or eat shellfish, but he did at one point.”

If the Old Testament wasn’t included, atheists would be crying about that, no? If the Old Testament wasn’t included, the New Testament wouldn’t make much since now would it?

“Either what is moral has changed since then, or God at one point in time commanded things that were not moral. Both are equally uncomfortable propositions. Both make any commandment from God ultimately unreliable. You either don’t know whether his opinion will stay the same, or you don’t know if he’s still lying”

Man, I’m not seeing any effort in you trying to understand the Old Testament whatsoever. We’re going in circles when you keep referring to “God is bad cause of the Old Testament.” That’s one sided thinking, not including the New Testament in the context of the bigger picture. There is 2 sides to every perspective, right?

“You say a list of commandments would be too inconvenient, but that’s exactly what the 10 Commandments are, and people seem to love them. Hell, there’s dozens of more just after that in Leviticus anyway. Even still, there are still some clearly evil things that are never condemned. Not anywhere in the Bible does it say that you shouldn’t own other human beings, or that you shouldn’t rape a person”

Look, have you ever studied Jesus’ parables? Do you understand how He teaches? If the Bible was one long list of things not to do, would you like it better? Which evil things were never condemned? Once again, if you study Jesus’ teachings, and understand his parables, tell me what is bad about his principles taught. Humans are the problem, not items, and Jesus teaches about our sin and heart problem.

“You know you don’t need to believe a theology to be interested in it, right? I mean, I love Ancient Greek theology too, but I don’t believe in Zeus or Hades. It is literally exactly the same sort of interest for me”

Gotcha, I understand you.

“We (I) already live in a society where Biblical teaching are a pretty big part of the culture. The problem I have isn’t with cultural adoption of these ideas. My problem is when these ideas are made into policies that everyone must follow. If there’s an idea that can be shown to be for the greater good, even without religious belief, then it may very well merit some policy making, but if the best argument you have for introducing a new law is “it’s in the Bible, and I believe in the Bible,” that’s a problem”

Would the 10 Commandments be bad if everyone followed them? Why or why not? There’s a reason behind Jesus’ teachings, and the more I talk to you, the more I’m observing you never really understand anything Jesus said. I agree there should never be policies “because it’s in the Bible” - but if you understood reasoning behind what is taught, it makes sense. Study it.

“Again, Jesus did command slaves to obeys their earthly masters and for women to never hold authority over a man. Not exactly perfect.”

What’s your idea of a perfect God? List some traits for me.

“I cannot conceive of any culture that would justify drowning the entire planet. Not a single one. Even a hellish distopia, with some horrible blend of Nazi Germany and ISIS. Nothing justifies killing every man, woman and child. Drowning infants, toddlers, and children, at the very least, is horrifying. Not to mention every animal (save two of each), and any adults who may not have conformed to the nasty society.”

So what’s a hellish distopia to you? Are Nazi’s and ISIS bad? How should bad people be dealt with? Why are people bad? Dude, nothing you are saying here makes sense. If you can agree that there is good and evil, you should agree there is injustice within evil. If you can agree there is injustice in evil, you should agree there is a thing called justice. If you don’t agree with any of that - well I should be able to steal from you, kill your family, and be blameless, no? That’s essentially going full circle, saying “nothing is wrong with humans, and they are perfect.” and I think you can agree, there is evil, wrongdoing, and there needs to be justice.

“It’s not a question of whether these people were good or evil, God drowned everything. That’s psychopathic”

Read my above reply.

“Why would you think evolution couldn’t produce empathy? Empathy in a species can be, and often is, beneficial. Altruism can be what an evolutionary niche is best suited for. Ordered social structures founded on empathy can be much more successful than many individuals fighting on their own”

One thing I’m passionate about is seeking understanding, wisdom, learning, and being open minded. Among those traits, every atheist I’ve talked to does not carry any of those in regards to believing in God, or any sort of intelligent creator. I’m going to start posting some apologetic conversations I have in regards to God, the Bible, and Jesus.

This one took place a few days ago on Gizmodo, with an article titled “A Brief Reminder That Earth Is the Best Planet.”

Me: A great reminder about how complex it is. Science says there’s over 150 parameters that need to be met for humans to live and survive on Earth. Quite funny for people to logically believe in evolution when you line all the scientific facts up.

Atheist: And even more amazing (read: mind-numbingly moronic) to believe that some omnipotent being went thru the effort to create such an incredibly nice place for such a totally insignificant animal.

(Every atheist I’ve talked to, always comes out name-calling, bashing, and mocking.)

Me: Did my statement make you mad? It’ll make sense if you study the Bible! Ever studied it? 

Atheist: No, not angry, just sad (I’ve long ago stopped being surprised by the stupidity of my fellow humans… though still amazed by the depth & breath of it tho).Yes, I’ve tried to read it a couple times… just couldn’t get past the contradictions & inconsistencies. Which one should expect when several different “editors” put together a compilation of several different “authors” take on the events that happened several hundred years prior, editing & modifying the “story” to fit their then current attitudes about what’s supposed to have happened all in order to keep their grasp on power. Tho, all-in-all, primitive, tribal, superstitious bullshit & a vile book full of repugnant thoughts/ideas/beliefs.Bless your little heart.

Me: Ah, the typical cookie cutter atheist response. Yes, the book was written several thousand years ago. Which inconsistencies are you referring to? Obviously, you have to study it in context. If people two thousand years later from now read where a kid said “it was lit!” - they’d have to read that in context to understand he is referring to something “cool.” Writers in that time period don’t write like we do today. It’s all about context. Through context you understand the principals and the message they are trying to convey. The Bible lines up with historic events, is that inconsistent? Not sure what is repugnant and vile about it. If you took the word “God” out - atheists would be the first endorsing it as a self-help book. I’ve never understood what turns atheists off from the Bible. It promotes love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control. I think you’d agree with me that all of those are good traits in a human, no? Do you believe Christopher Columbus sailed to America? Why? You didn’t see who wrote that, edited that, printed that, modified that.

Atheist: Um… NO.1) God created the animals & then Adam v created Adam, then created the animals in front of Adam so he could name them… & just how many animals did Noah take on the Arc 2? or 6(-I believe it was… Been a while since I read it.)?2) talk about cookie cutter… Context.. pft3) Um… remove god & it becomes a self-help book? NO. I can’t handle it I prey to god to do it for me. ? Is not self-help… Unless by self-help you mean justifying/excusing/condoning rape, murder, infanticide, mutilation, slavery, war & a whole host of other crap people do to one another because their god wanted/told them too.4) Jesus may have promoted those things … sadly most christians do not. & those who do, never seem to get around to condemning those who don’t. (“So unlike Christ your christians are” -Ghandi, was it?)Great example of why one should never debate with christies… You’ll never convince them they’re wrong, & they’ll never convince you that you aren’t right.

Me: 1) What are you trying to say? 2 of every kind. 2) Not sure what you are referring to. 3) Do you know the difference between the Old Testament and New Testament? I’m assuming not by your response. The New Testament is God’s law for today. Do you understand the reason for the crucifixion and the Gospel? Do you think the 10 Commandments are bad virtues? 4) So, you can take the actions of a few people who call themselves “Christians” - and justify the mass by said actions? So when I’ve had 10 atheists call me names and insult me, its logical to say “All atheists are mean”? Those Christians that are un-Christlike, would you call them christian? If someone holds up a dictionary and kills someone, even when the dictionary says “Do not murder” - is it the dictionaries fault? Of course there are going to be people trying to push their own agenda under a religion. That happens with any and every religion. The Bible does not say “Believe in God, and read your Bible, and you will be perfect.” Have you studied any other religions, ever? 

Atheist: The dictionary doesn’t pretend to make moral commands as to how one should, or rather, MUST live one’s life.& you mistake me… I’m not an atheist.. I’m more of an apatheist… I do not care if (or that) your god exist. he exhibits all the worst traits of humans (given that we made him in our image, not surprising) & as such, would be unworthy of being worshipped in any case.

Me: If you don’t care if or that a God exists, why would you spend all this time debating me about it? What is one bad trait that Jesus had? And where did our sense of right/wrong and good/bad come from? 

I haven’t read anywhere that over 150 parameters have to be met for humans to live. (I’d be interested in reading the source.  If it’s the ICR, then you need to cite an independent source.)  There certainly are requirements for life as we know it, but humans are only 1 species of the planet.  And we are fairly adaptable.  There’s some 8.7 million species on earth.  Many can live in conditions that would kill us, so life is very adaptable, humans being one of the few, if not the only, that go to great lengths to make the environment more hospitable.

Even if all 150 parameters are lined up just right, that’s not proof of a god.  There are 400 billion stars in the Milky Way alone, many with planets.  There are 100 billion galaxies.  The odds are there is life somewhere else.  I cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is, no more than you can prove there isn’t.  Vice versa, the same with god.

But the bible, that’s a different topic.  I think we can both agree that it was written by various people.  Where we differ is with the source.  To you, they are divinely inspired words of god, to me they are myths and legends lifted/borrowed from other cultures and religions filled with some fantastical claims, such as the flood myth.  I’ll tackle that here since it’s mentioned in the comments.

The arc was 135 meters (450 ft) long, 22.5 meters (75 feet) wide, and 13.5 meters (45 feet) high, it had 3 decks and an deck area of 20 college basketball courts, or 94,000 square feet (94′ x 50′ x 20).  Now there are 8.7 million species living on the earth. But to weigh things in favor of the story, we’ll go with the low end since the article states, “give or take 1.3 million.”  So we’re talking 7.4 million species.  A common misconception is that there were two of every animal.  Wrong.  There were 2 of every unclean and 7 pairs of every clean animal.  But, we’ll keep it to 2 for simplicity.  so we’re at 14.8 million animals.  Each animal had 0.00635 square feet of living space, or less then 1 square inch.  Even if we say that all 10,000 species of birds stayed in the rafters, that wouldn’t significantly increase the living space above 1 square inch per animal.

I’m wondering if you’re seeing a problem at this point.

Now, these animals has to eat.  They were on the ark for over a year, the will easily eat more then their body weight in that time.  There’s not a lot of space left, even if you stored the food in rafters above (displacing the birds).

Now god has wiped out all life outside of the ark.  I’ve been told that dirt and silt killed all the fish, so the only fish are on the ark.  Let’s not forget the plants.  I’ve been assured that they were wiped out as well.  So Noah and his family has to plant everything, and wait for it to grow.  That takes time.

If god intervened, such as increasing the inside of the ark by palatial standards, making the animals not hungry, shrinking them in size, or some other magical thing, I have to ask why?  If mankind was that wicked, why not just snuff the life out of the wicked and be done with it?  There are other ways that do not involve plot holes.  Why kill all the animals not selected to be saved?  Not environmentally friendly.

There’s just too much wrong with that myth.  Great fiction, works as a metaphor, lousy history.

Many christians rely on things like the names of people and places and events to prove the veracity of the bible.  That’s like saying Tubbs and Crockett from Miami Vice are real because Miami is real.

There are many of inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the bible.  And as they start to fall apart under real scrutiny, the bible looks less like divinely inspired writing and more like a fabrication.

Regarding the 150+ scientific parameters, that was taken from a book called Miracles, by Eric Metaxas. He dives deep into earths characteristics, revealing some incredible information. Things like, if our earth were a few percent bigger, gravity would be stronger, and pull in toxic gases that humans could no co-exist with.

Where is there proof of 400 million stars, and 100 billion galaxies? Please cite a source.

You’re not 100% correct on your Ark calculations - I’m hoping you’ll take the time to research and gain understanding here: https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/no-kind-left-behind/

So, the historical events of the Bible do not line up with History? Please name a few.

The only inconsistencies are the ones you don’t study deep enough. Here is more information on the Fig Tree for you to study more in-depth: https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/figuring-out-the-root-of-the-matter/

One thing I’m passionate about is seeking understanding, wisdom, learning, and being open minded. Among those traits, every atheist I’ve talked to does not carry any of those in regards to believing in God, or any sort of intelligent creator. I’m going to start posting some apologetic conversations I have in regards to God, the Bible, and Jesus.

This one took place a few days ago on Gizmodo, with an article titled “A Brief Reminder That Earth Is the Best Planet.”

Me: A great reminder about how complex it is. Science says there’s over 150 parameters that need to be met for humans to live and survive on Earth. Quite funny for people to logically believe in evolution when you line all the scientific facts up.

Atheist: And even more amazing (read: mind-numbingly moronic) to believe that some omnipotent being went thru the effort to create such an incredibly nice place for such a totally insignificant animal.

(Every atheist I’ve talked to, always comes out name-calling, bashing, and mocking.)

Me: Did my statement make you mad? It’ll make sense if you study the Bible! Ever studied it? 

Atheist: No, not angry, just sad (I’ve long ago stopped being surprised by the stupidity of my fellow humans… though still amazed by the depth & breath of it tho).Yes, I’ve tried to read it a couple times… just couldn’t get past the contradictions & inconsistencies. Which one should expect when several different “editors” put together a compilation of several different “authors” take on the events that happened several hundred years prior, editing & modifying the “story” to fit their then current attitudes about what’s supposed to have happened all in order to keep their grasp on power. Tho, all-in-all, primitive, tribal, superstitious bullshit & a vile book full of repugnant thoughts/ideas/beliefs.Bless your little heart.

Me: Ah, the typical cookie cutter atheist response. Yes, the book was written several thousand years ago. Which inconsistencies are you referring to? Obviously, you have to study it in context. If people two thousand years later from now read where a kid said “it was lit!” - they’d have to read that in context to understand he is referring to something “cool.” Writers in that time period don’t write like we do today. It’s all about context. Through context you understand the principals and the message they are trying to convey. The Bible lines up with historic events, is that inconsistent? Not sure what is repugnant and vile about it. If you took the word “God” out - atheists would be the first endorsing it as a self-help book. I’ve never understood what turns atheists off from the Bible. It promotes love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control. I think you’d agree with me that all of those are good traits in a human, no? Do you believe Christopher Columbus sailed to America? Why? You didn’t see who wrote that, edited that, printed that, modified that.

Atheist: Um… NO.1) God created the animals & then Adam v created Adam, then created the animals in front of Adam so he could name them… & just how many animals did Noah take on the Arc 2? or 6(-I believe it was… Been a while since I read it.)?2) talk about cookie cutter… Context.. pft3) Um… remove god & it becomes a self-help book? NO. I can’t handle it I prey to god to do it for me. ? Is not self-help… Unless by self-help you mean justifying/excusing/condoning rape, murder, infanticide, mutilation, slavery, war & a whole host of other crap people do to one another because their god wanted/told them too.4) Jesus may have promoted those things … sadly most christians do not. & those who do, never seem to get around to condemning those who don’t. (“So unlike Christ your christians are” -Ghandi, was it?)Great example of why one should never debate with christies… You’ll never convince them they’re wrong, & they’ll never convince you that you aren’t right.

Me: 1) What are you trying to say? 2 of every kind. 2) Not sure what you are referring to. 3) Do you know the difference between the Old Testament and New Testament? I’m assuming not by your response. The New Testament is God’s law for today. Do you understand the reason for the crucifixion and the Gospel? Do you think the 10 Commandments are bad virtues? 4) So, you can take the actions of a few people who call themselves “Christians” - and justify the mass by said actions? So when I’ve had 10 atheists call me names and insult me, its logical to say “All atheists are mean”? Those Christians that are un-Christlike, would you call them christian? If someone holds up a dictionary and kills someone, even when the dictionary says “Do not murder” - is it the dictionaries fault? Of course there are going to be people trying to push their own agenda under a religion. That happens with any and every religion. The Bible does not say “Believe in God, and read your Bible, and you will be perfect.” Have you studied any other religions, ever? 

Atheist: The dictionary doesn’t pretend to make moral commands as to how one should, or rather, MUST live one’s life.& you mistake me… I’m not an atheist.. I’m more of an apatheist… I do not care if (or that) your god exist. he exhibits all the worst traits of humans (given that we made him in our image, not surprising) & as such, would be unworthy of being worshipped in any case.

Me: If you don’t care if or that a God exists, why would you spend all this time debating me about it? What is one bad trait that Jesus had? And where did our sense of right/wrong and good/bad come from? 

I don’t really see how 150 parameters to support life as we know it (and that number varies a bit, depending on the cosmologist you ask) has anything to do with evolution. I mean, not only do recent estimates put the number of “Earth-like” planets in our galaxy in the millions, but even if it were incredibly unlikely for life to start, why would that impact life changing over time once it HAD started?

I’m a little confused what you mean by “it’ll make sense if you study the Bible.” Did you mean cosmology/evolution, or did you mean why he would be angry at your post? I don’t see why studying the Bible would answer either question, though.

In any case, yes, I have read the Bible. Granted, it’s been a few years, and there’s no guarantee the version I read is the one you ascribe to, but yes, I have read it.

(Here I’d like to say that I do agree somewhat with their comment. Namely that the book itself was compiled over about a thousand years by several different people. Even Biblical scholars agree that many parts of the book itself are authors working off each others’ material.

Not to mention the fact that before any of it was written physically, it was passed as an oral tradition, which leads to at least a few mistakes while preserving it. Not to mention FURTHER that we have no surviving original versions of many of the books of the Bible, meaning that the earliest versions we do have are at least copies of the originals, and many times translations at that. Needless to say, it’s not a perfectly self-consistent book)

However, I didn’t have such a problem reading through it, and I only ever point out the internal inconsistencies when someone vehemently insists there are none)

Atheists would definitely not be the first to accept a secular Bible as a self-help book. Not least of all because much of it documents the lives of the prophets/Jesus, and is not outright moral commands. Now, if you mean just reduce it to what God says to do, then I would still disagree with it.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s definitely something to be taken away from it. Turn the other cheek, love thy fellow man, sure. But it’s not all sunshine and roses in that book.

I wouldn’t stone a disobedient child, or someone working on a Saturday/Sunday. I don’t support slavery, nor the subjugation of women. I don’t see problems with mixing fibres, or eating shellfish, or being gay. And I’m sure you don’t agree with some of those things too, but you don’t get to ignore the bad stuff because there’s some good stuff in there.

As far as the 10 Commandments go, I wouldn’t say they’re altogether bad virtues, though I don’t personally see the point in the ones centred on God. And I think they’re lacking some big ones. Namely, don’t own slaves, don’t rape people, treat women equally. And I really don’t see why honour the sabbath and respect your parents are on the same list as “don’t kill people.” The priorities are a bit skewed there.

I wouldn’t say that the actions of one Christian reflect negatively on another one, but I WOULD say that an ideology that promotes, or even just allows that negative behaviour is a dangerous one. I wouldn’t assume every Christian would act that way, but I would point out the problems I see in the belief structure itself (and the book they cite it from).

A dictionary is also not a Holy Scripture. And it’s not like people go around killing people by literally hitting them with a Bible. The Bible DOES say that when someone sins, their blood is on their head, and it lists many times when killing others in the name of God is justified.

And yes. Comparative theology is a bit of a hobby of mine. I especially love seeing the same themes (virgin birth, resurrection, divine parentage) crop up in different culture’s religions. It’s neat to see how they inspire each others’ theology.

Now I wouldn’t say in an apatheist, but a good reason to care about people thinking these things is that they can very often affect the lives of others with their beliefs. I don’t really care if any particular person believes in a god, or a given religion, but I don’t much care for it when their religious beliefs are almost written into law, or worm their way into a science classroom.

As far as Jesus’ negative traits, I couldn’t say. Again, he’s often depicted as compassionate (well, except when he chased the money lenders out of the temple with a whip). He had some choice words for women and slaves, but altogether not the worst Biblical figure.

God the father on the other hand literally murdered everything on the globe once. Not peacefully, mind you. He didn’t make all the evil people have sudden heart attacks, or just disappear entirely. He drowned the whole planet. That’s pretty messed up. Even if you want to argue that people were awful, that doesn’t justify killing every man, woman, child and infant, as well as every animal in the world, save two of each kind. He also gambled with Satan over a man’s life for no reason. And is a fan of turning people into pillars of salt. And killing even more children in Egypt.

The dude’s a psychopath in some parts of the Bible. And I’m not trying to be aggressive, I mean he has the highest kill count out of ANY Biblical figure.

As for our morals, it seems they stem from our social behaviour as a species. Social bonds lead to attachment, and positive feeling for other members of one’s group. In a word: empathy. Our sense of right and wrong stem from our feelings of empathy for our fellow creatures. (We’re not even the only species to have this type of behaviour! Other social animal display similar bonds with members of their groups)

“I don’t really see how 150 parameters to support life as we know it (and that number varies a bit, depending on the cosmologist you ask) has anything to do with evolution. I mean, not only do recent estimates put the number of “Earth-like” planets in our galaxy in the millions, but even if it were incredibly unlikely for life to start, why would that impact life changing over time once it HAD started?”

There is no hard evidence for any planet to be very similar to earth at all. It’s speculated, and theorized. The reason that 150+ parameters should be shocking, is that it’s an absurd thought to believe in evolution when you look at how intricate our planet has been made, as well as our bodies, and to be able to survive here on earth.

“I’m a little confused what you mean by “it’ll make sense if you study the Bible.” Did you mean cosmology/evolution, or did you mean why he would be angry at your post? I don’t see why studying the Bible would answer either question, though.”

Referring to a lot of atheists pick and choose parts of the Bible and don’t study it within context of any sort. They would answer so many of their own questions if they studied it. In regards to evolution and creation, Ken Hams website “Answers in Genesis” can help connect the dots.

“In any case, yes, I have read the Bible. Granted, it’s been a few years, and there’s no guarantee the version I read is the one you ascribe to, but yes, I have read it.”

That’s great! What did you like/dislike about it?

“(Here I’d like to say that I do agree somewhat with their comment. Namely that the book itself was compiled over about a thousand years by several different people. Even Biblical scholars agree that many parts of the book itself are authors working off each others’ material.”

You are right, it was compiled by different authors. The argument here is atheists are quick to disprove and discredit the bible when they openly accept things like Christopher Columbus sailing to the United States. It’s a double standard to openly accept pretty much everything else in a history book, but when it comes to the bible - they freak out.

“Not to mention the fact that before any of it was written physically, it was passed as an oral tradition, which leads to at least a few mistakes while preserving it. Not to mention FURTHER that we have no surviving original versions of many of the books of the Bible, meaning that the earliest versions we do have are at least copies of the originals, and many times translations at that. Needless to say, it’s not a perfectly self-consistent book)”

Again, everything else in history is the same exact way. Perhaps most of our history is false then?

“However, I didn’t have such a problem reading through it, and I only ever point out the internal inconsistencies when someone vehemently insists there are none)”

Yeah, it’s hard to understand at times no doubt, but studied in context the underlying principle comes together and gets the message across.

“Atheists would definitely not be the first to accept a secular Bible as a self-help book. Not least of all because much of it documents the lives of the prophets/Jesus, and is not outright moral commands. Now, if you mean just reduce it to what God says to do, then I would still disagree with it.”

Have you read the book of Proverbs? If you take the principles God says to do for a healthy life mentally, spiritually, and physically, it is most definitely a self help book.

“Don’t get me wrong, there’s definitely something to be taken away from it. Turn the other cheek, love thy fellow man, sure. But it’s not all sunshine and roses in that book.

I wouldn’t stone a disobedient child, or someone working on a Saturday/Sunday. I don’t support slavery, nor the subjugation of women. I don’t see problems with mixing fibres, or eating shellfish, or being gay. And I’m sure you don’t agree with some of those things too, but you don’t get to ignore the bad stuff because there’s some good stuff in there.”

This is one of the atheist staples that I always hear. You told me you read the Bible, do you understand the difference between the Old Testament and New Testament? The crucifixion? The reason God sent Jesus to die? Just like you say we can’t ignore the bad stuff, you can’t ignore the good stuff. That’s one sided thinking. You HAVE to understand the difference between the Old and New Testament, or you will always go back to “God is a mean person.” BibleX.com has an in-depth study guide about the difference if you are interested.

“As far as the 10 Commandments go, I wouldn’t say they’re altogether bad virtues, though I don’t personally see the point in the ones centred on God. And I think they’re lacking some big ones. Namely, don’t own slaves, don’t rape people, treat women equally. And I really don’t see why honour the sabbath and respect your parents are on the same list as “don’t kill people.” The priorities are a bit skewed there.”

You are just getting picky now dude! I think love your neighbor as yourself would blanket the things you just mentioned. You are right they aren’t bad virtues. If you see the way Jesus teaches, in parables, he lays down principles every time. He never says “don’t do A, B, C, D” - because simply put that list would be long, and God is after the heart of the person, not the rules and laws. Imagine if the 10 Commandments did have a list like “don’t own slaves, don’t rape people” etc etc. It would be impossible for someone to memorize or know all those. Once again if you study the way Jesus teaches, it’s always about the heart. Products and things in this world are good, what screws them up is us humans, abusing, and using them wrong. It’s a heart problem.

“I wouldn’t say that the actions of one Christian reflect negatively on another one, but I WOULD say that an ideology that promotes, or even just allows that negative behaviour is a dangerous one. I wouldn’t assume every Christian would act that way, but I would point out the problems I see in the belief structure itself (and the book they cite it from).”

What negative behavior is taught in the New Testament? I’ll be the first to admit that I know alot of bad people that go to church every sunday and usually don’t miss a sunday. They are some of the worst judgmental people I’ve ever known. But that’s no excuse saying “The Bible is bad.” That’s a person not studying the bible, but showing up to their own “club” per say. That is their own ignorance, not the Bibles fault. Could even be them pushing their own agenda via “Jesus” - which people do from products to politics everyday - but you don’t see an uproar with that.

“A dictionary is also not a Holy Scripture. And it’s not like people go around killing people by literally hitting them with a Bible. The Bible DOES say that when someone sins, their blood is on their head, and it lists many times when killing others in the name of God is justified.”

Once again, that’s Old Testament stuff. Study it in context, and how it was written differently. BibleX helped me a lot.

“And yes. Comparative theology is a bit of a hobby of mine. I especially love seeing the same themes (virgin birth, resurrection, divine parentage) crop up in different culture’s religions. It’s neat to see how they inspire each others’ theology.”

That’s great man. May I ask why it is your hobby if you don’t believe in any sort of God?

“Now I wouldn’t say in an apatheist, but a good reason to care about people thinking these things is that they can very often affect the lives of others with their beliefs. I don’t really care if any particular person believes in a god, or a given religion, but I don’t much care for it when their religious beliefs are almost written into law, or worm their way into a science classroom.”

I don’t see anything wrong with the teachings of Jesus being implemented in culture.

“As far as Jesus’ negative traits, I couldn’t say. Again, he’s often depicted as compassionate (well, except when he chased the money lenders out of the temple with a whip). He had some choice words for women and slaves, but altogether not the worst Biblical figure.”

Right on. Jesus was a perfect being.

“God the father on the other hand literally murdered everything on the globe once. Not peacefully, mind you. He didn’t make all the evil people have sudden heart attacks, or just disappear entirely. He drowned the whole planet. That’s pretty messed up. Even if you want to argue that people were awful, that doesn’t justify killing every man, woman, child and infant, as well as every animal in the world, save two of each kind. He also gambled with Satan over a man’s life for no reason. And is a fan of turning people into pillars of salt. And killing even more children in Egypt.”

This poses the question of good and evil. To feel sorry for those people is to have the mindset that in fact every human was “good.” Which agrees that there are no “bad” people. Read what God said about those humans before he wiped them off the face of the earth. What made them bad? To put it in perspective, what if it was a culture similar to ISIS that he destroyed? This goes back to the Old Testament vs New Testament as well.

“The dude’s a psychopath in some parts of the Bible. And I’m not trying to be aggressive, I mean he has the highest kill count out of ANY Biblical figure.”

Was Jesus a psychopath?

“As for our morals, it seems they stem from our social behaviour as a species. Social bonds lead to attachment, and positive feeling for other members of one’s group. In a word: empathy. Our sense of right and wrong stem from our feelings of empathy for our fellow creatures. (We’re not even the only species to have this type of behaviour! Other social animal display similar bonds with members of their groups)”

But where does empathy come from? If we just evolved, why wouldn’t we try to gain whatever we can and step on other peoples backs to get there? Why do we have a conscience, and this sense of right and wrong? Where does that come from? The book “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis works through this exact theory.

“I hope at least to have been more positive about it than your previous conversation partner.”