[snips]
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:56:00 -0800, Justin Case wrote:
> Make as many snide remarks as you desire but at least speak from an
informed
> position. The Judeo-Christian God did not let his creation be misled.
Ah, so there *is* compelling evidence he actually exists. Fine, please
trot it out. If there isn't, then we must conclude (on the assumption he
exists) that he does, in fact, mislead us, by persistently pretending,
extremely effectively, to not exist.
> The whole premise of Judismm and Christianity is that God gave man free
> will and man chose to obey his own will rather that the will of God.
Nope. Oh, I know that's what the story says, but reality is a little
different.
You see, we - us atheists, at least - don't simply "choose to obey our own
will". What we "obey" - poor choice of word, better would be "respect" or
even simply "pay attention to" is evidence.
For example, when someone claims they have evidence that, oh, a hammer
dropped on a toe has a potential for causing harm, we can examine the
claim, examine the evidence, even perform experiments ourselves to
validate - or invalidate - the claims. It doesn't take much to conclude
that yes, such a claim seems to be basically valid.
So we come to the whole God concept. We hear lots of noise about him, so
we ask, where's the evidence? Oh, whoops, none to be had. We get endless
offers of nonsense and hogwash, of course, everything from "prime cause"
arguments to Pascal's Wager, but nothing which actually holds up.
Net result, we have no way to determine whether such a beastie even
exists.
You see, it's not that we "obey our own will", it's that we accept those
things which can be at least provisionally demonstrated to be probably
true, and God has never yet fallen into that category. Nor have gods, as
a class.
To claim this is an issue of "free will" is somewhat misleading. Yes,
your free will may allow you to adopt completely unfounded assertions such
as "God exists, wears pink sandals, has a huge golden nose ring and wants
you to roast lambs every other week", but free will is not the essence of
the reason we don't accept god claims; the reason we don't is simply a
complete lack of any reason *to* accept them.
> It was mans choice, not God's.
No, it wasn't.
If this God thing exists, as described in the Bible, then it has the power
to actually leave evidence showing it exists. It does not do so, or, at
least, nobody seems able to produce any such evidence. If we assume for
the moment that God does exist, this means he is intentionally and
wilfully hiding from any sensible search for him; he is playing a rigged
game of hide and seek. Which makes it *entirely* his doing.
> God gave one simple "do not"
Which of the 600 or so laws do you call the "one simple 'do not'"? Would
that be the one about not wearing mixed fibers, or the one about not
eating shellfish? Or the one about not associating with a woman when
she's having her period - and, just out of curiosity, how do you tell?
They seem to get a little annoyed when you walk up to them and simply ask.
> decided he knew better. And even after Adam and Eve both screwed it up
> for the rest of us
Get the story right.
God rigged the game so Adam and Eve would fail. Having already taken this
wildly dishonest tack, he then shows his love, mercy and justice by
puni****ng all for crimes they didn't commit.
When the game is rigged and the punishment applies to people who weren't
even playing, the one running the game is simply not worthy of respect,
let alone anything else. Well, contempt, okay, he's worthy of that.
Of course, we don't really need to pay too much attention to any of this,
because unless and until someone comes up with some evidence that says the
God of the Bible actually exists, there's no more reason to take it
seriously than a Stephen King novel... and at least those are somewhat
better written.
--
I enjoy toasting fundies better. Have another Zippo, scarecrow?
-- Marty Leipzig
|
