Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.
Faith!?
#151
Posted 09 June 2010 - 07:08 PM
“One of the most obvious perceived contradictions between Torah (Bible) and science is the age of the universe. Is it billions of years old, like scientific data, or is it thousands of years, like Biblical data? When we add up the generations of the Bible, we come to fewer than 6000 years. Whereas, data from the Hubbell telescope or from the land based telescopes in Hawaii, indicate the number at 15 billion years plus or minus 10%. In trying to resolve this apparent conflict, I use only ancient biblical commentary because modern commentary already knows modern science, and so it is influenced by that science always.
That means the text of the Bible itself (3300 years ago), the translation of the Torah into Aramaic by Onkelos (100 CE), the Talmud (redacted about the year 400 CE), and the three major Torah commentators. There are many, many commentators, but at the top of the mountain there are three, accepted by all: Rashi (11th century France), who brings the straight understanding of the text, Maimonides (12th century Egypt), who handles the philosophical concepts, and then Nahmanides (13th century Spain), the most important of the Kabbalists.
This ancient commentary was finalized hundreds or thousands of years ago, long before Hubbell was a gleam in his great-grandparent's eye. So there's no possibility of Hubbell or any other scientific data influencing these concepts. That's a key component in my attempt to keep the following discussion objective.
Universe with a Beginning
In 1959, a survey was taken of leading American scientists. Among the many questions asked was, "What is your concept of the age of the universe?" Now, in 1959, astronomy was popular, but cosmology - the deep physics of understanding the universe - was just developing. The response to that survey was recently republished in Scientific American - the most widely read science journal in the world. Two-thirds of the scientists gave the same answer. The answer that two-thirds - an overwhelming majority - of the scientists gave was, "Beginning? There was no beginning. Aristotle and Plato taught us 2400 years ago that the universe is eternal. Oh, we know the Bible says 'In the beginning.' That's a nice story, it helps kids go to bed at night. But we sophisticates know better. There was no beginning."
That was 1959. In 1965, Penzias and Wilson discovered the echo of the Big Bang in the black of the sky at night, and the world paradigm changed from a universe that was eternal to a universe that had a beginning. Science had made an enormous paradigm change in its understanding of the world. Understand the impact. Science said that our universe had a beginning. I can't overestimate the import of that scientific "discovery." Evolution, cave men, these are all trivial problems compared to the fact that we now understand that we had a beginning.
Of course, the fact that there was a beginning does not prove that there was a beginner. Whether the second half of Genesis 1:1 is correct, we don't know from a secular point of view. The first half is "In the beginning;" the second half is "G-d created the Heavens and the Earth." Physics allows for a beginning without a beginner. I'm not going to get into that today, but my new book, "The Science of G-d," examines this in great detail.
It All Starts From Rosh Hashana
The question we're left with is, how long ago did the "beginning" occur? Was it, as the Bible might imply, 5758 years, or was it the 15 billions of years that's accepted by the scientific community? The first thing we have to understand is the origin of the Biblical calendar. The Jewish year, 5758 years, is figured by adding up the generations since Adam. Additionally, there are six days leading up to the creation to Adam. These six days are significant as well.
Of course, the fact that there was a beginning does not prove that there was a beginner. Whether the second half of Genesis 1:1 is correct, that "G-d created the Heavens and the Earth" Physics allows for a beginning without a beginner. I'm not going to get into that today, but my new book, "The Science of God," examines this in great detail. It all starts from Rosh HaShanah.
The question we're left with is, how long ago did the "beginning" occur? Was it, as the Bible might imply, fewer than 6000 years or was it the 15 billions of years? The first thing we have to understand is the Biblical calendar. The Jewish year is calculated by adding up the generations since Adam. Additionally, there are six days from the creation of the universe to the creation of the first human, that is the first being with the soul of a human (not the first hominid, a being with human shape and intelligence, but lacking the soul of humanity, the neshama).
We have a 6000 year clock that begins with Adam. The six days are separate from this clock. The Bible has two clocks. This is no modern rationalization. The Talmud already discussed this 1600 years ago.
The reason the six pre-Adam days were taken out of the calendar is because time is described differently in those Six Days of Genesis. "There was evening and morning" with no relationship to human time. Once we come from Adam, the flow of time is totally in human terms. Adam and Eve live 130 years before having Seth. Seth lives 105 years before having Enosh, etc. (Genesis chapter 5). From Adam forward, the flow of time is totally human in concept. But prior to that time, it's an abstract concept: "Evening and morning." It's as if you're looking down on events from a viewpoint that is not intimately related to them, a cosmic view of time.
Looking Deeper into the Text
In trying to understand the flow of time here, you have to remember that the entire Six Days is described in 31 sentences. The Six Days of Genesis, which have given people so many headaches are confined to 31 sentences! At MIT, in the Hayden library, we had about 50,000 books that deal with the development of the universe: cosmology, chemistry, thermodynamics, paleontology, archaeology, the high-energy physics of creation. Up the river at Harvard, at the Weidner library, they probably have 200,000 books on these same topics. The Bible gives us 31 sentences. Don't expect that by a simple reading of those sentences, you'll know every detail that is held within the text. It's obvious that we have to dig deeper to get the information out.
What is a "day?"
The usual answer to that is let the word day in Genesis chapter one be any long period of time. Bend the Bible to match the science. Fortunately, the Talmud in Hagigah (12A), Rashi there and Nahmanides (Gen. 1:3) all tell us that the word day means 24 hours. But the commentary continues in Exodus and Leviticus, that the days are 24 hours each (not relating to sunrise and sunset, merely sets of 24 hours). There are six of them, and the duration is not longer than the six days of a work week, BUT contain all the ages of the world. How can six 24 hour days contain all the ages of the world?
Einstein taught the world that time is relative. That in regions of high velocity or high gravity time actually passes more slowly relative to regions of lower gravity or lower velocity. (One system relative to another, hence the name, the laws of relativity) This is now proven fact. Time actually stretches out. Were ever you are time is normal for you because your biology is part of that local system.
That is Einstein and gravity and velocity. But there is a third aspect of the universe that changes the perception of time, Not gravity and not velocity. That is the stretching of space. The universe started as a minuscule speck, perhaps not larger that a grain of mustard and stretched out from there. Space actually stretches. The effect of the stretching of space produces the effect that when observing an event that took place far from our galaxy, as the light from that event travels through space and the sequence of events travels through space, the information is actually stretched out. (In The Science of God I give the logic in detail in simple easy to understand terms.)
The Creation of Time
Each day of creation is numbered. Yet there is discontinuity in the way the days are numbered. The verse says: "There is evening and morning, Day One." But the second day doesn't say "evening and morning, Day Two." Rather, it says "evening and morning, a second day." And the Torah continues with this pattern: "Evening and morning, a third day... a fourth day... a fifth day... the sixth day." Only on the first day does the text use a different form: not "first day," but "Day One" ("Yom Echad"). Many English translations that make the mistake of writing "a first day." That's because editors want things to be nice and consistent. But they throw out the cosmic message in the text! Because there is a qualitative difference, as Nahmanides says, between "one" and "first." One is absolute; first is comparative. The Torah could not write “a first day” one the first day because there had not yet been a second day relative to it. Had the perspective of the Bible for the first six days been from Sinai looking back, the Torah would have written a first day. The perspective of the Bible for the six days of Genesis is from the beginning looking forward. At the creation of Adam and Eve, the soul of humanity, the Bible perspective switches to earth based time.
Einstein's Law of Relativity
We look at the universe, and say, "How old is the universe? Looking back in time, the universe is approximately 15 billion years old." That's our view of time. But what is the Bible's view of time looking from the beginning? How does it see time?
Nahmanides taught that although the days are 24 hours each, they contain "kol yemot ha-olam" - all the ages and all the secrets of the world. Nahmanides says that before the universe, there was nothing... but then suddenly the entire creation appeared as a minuscule speck. He gives a dimension for the speck: something very tiny smaller than a grain of mustard. And he says that is the only physical creation. There was no other physical creation; all other creations were spiritual. The Nefesh (the soul of animal life) and the Neshama (the soul of human life) are spiritual creations. There's only one physical creation, and that creation was a tiny speck. In that speck was all the raw material that would be used for making everything else. Nahmanides describes the substance as "dak me'od, ein bo mamash" - very thin, no substance to it. And as this speck expanded out, this substance - so thin that it has no essence - turned into matter as we know it.
Nahmanides further writes: "Misheyesh, yitfos bo zman" - from the moment that matter formed from this substance-less substance, time grabs hold. Not "begins." Time is created at the beginning. But time "grabs hold." When matter condenses, congeals, coalesces, out of this substance so thin it has no essence - that's when the Biblical clock starts. Science has shown that there's only one "substanceless substance" that can change into matter. And that's energy. Einstein's famous equation, E=MC2, tells us that energy can change into matter. And once it changes into matter, time grabs hold. Nahmanides has made a phenomenal statement. I don't know if he knew the Laws of Relativity. But we know them now. We know that energy - light beams, radio waves, gamma rays, x-rays - all travel at the speed of light, 300 million meters per second. At the speed of light, time does not pass. The universe was aging, but time only grabs hold when matter is present. This moment of time before the clock begins for the Bible, lasted about 1/100,000 of a second. A miniscule time. But in that time, the universe expanded from a tiny speck, to about the size of the Solar System. From that moment on we have matter, and time flows forward. The clock begins here.
Einstein's Law of Relativity (cont'd)
Now the fact that the Bible tells us there is "evening and morning Day One", comes to teach us time from a Biblical perspective, from near the beginning looking forward.
Now if the Torah were seeing time from the days of Moses on Mount Sinai - long after Adam - the text would not have written Day One. Because by Sinai, hundreds of thousands of days already passed. It would have said "A first day." By the second day of Genesis, the Bible says "a second day," because there was already the first day with which to compare it.
Even if the Torah was seeing time from Adam, the text would have said "a first day", because by its own statement there are six days. The Torah says "Day One" because the Torah is looking forward from the beginning. And it says, how old is the universe till Adam? Six Days. We look back in time, and say the universe is 15 billion years old. But every scientist knows, that when we say the universe is 15 billion years old, there's another half of the sentence that we never say. The other half of the sentence is: The universe is 15 billion years old as seen from the time-space coordinates that we exist in.
The key is that the Torah looks forward in time, from very different time-space coordinates, when the universe was small. But since then, the universe has expanded out. Space stretches, and that stretching of space totally changes the perception of time. Imagine in your mind going back billions of years ago to the beginning of time. Now pretend way back at the beginning of time, when time grabs hold, there's an intelligent community. (It's totally fictitious.) Imagine that the intelligent community has a laser, and it's going to shoot out a blast of light every second. Every second -- pulse. Pulse. Pulse. And on each pulse of light the following formation is printed (printing information on light, electro-magnetic radiation, is common practice): "I'm sending you a pulse every second." Billions of years later, way far down the time line, we here on Earth have a big satellite dish and we receive that pulse of light. And on that pulse of light we read "I'm sending you a pulse every second."
Light travels 300 million meters per second. So at the beginning, the two light pulses are separated by a second of travel or 300 million meters. Now they travel through space for billions of years until they reach the Earth. But wait a minute. Is the universe static? No. The universe is expanding. The universe expands by space stretching. So as these pulses travel through space for billions of years, space is stretching. What's happening to these pulses? The space between them is also stretching. So the pulses really get further and further apart. Billions of years later, when the first pulse arrives, we read on it "I'm sending you a pulse every second." A message from outer space. You call all your friends, and you wait for the next pulse to arrive. Does it arrive second later? No! A year later? Maybe not. Maybe billions of years later. Because the amount of time this pulse of light has traveled through space will determine the amount of space stretching that has occurred, and so how much time there will be between the arrival of the pulses. That's standard cosmology.
15 billion or six days?
Today, we look back in time and we see approximately 15 billion years of history. Looking forward from when the universe is very small - billions of times smaller - the Torah says six days. In truth, they both may be correct. What's exciting about the last few years in cosmology is we now have quantified the data to know the relationship of the "view of time" from the beginning of stable matter, the threshold energy of protons and neutrons (their nucleosynthesis), relative to the "view of time" today. It's not science fiction any longer. A dozen physics textbooks all bring the same number. The general relationship between time near the beginning and time today is a million million. That's a 1 with 12 zeros after it. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says "I'm sending you a pulse every second," would we see it every second? No. We'd see it every million million seconds. Because that's the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe.
The Talmud tells us that the soul of Adam was created at five and a half days after the beginning of the calendar. That is a half day before the termination of the sixth day. At that moment the cosmic calendar ceases and an earth based calendar starts. . How would we see those days stretched by a million million? The million million expansion of five and a half days gives an age of the universe as 15 billion years. NASA gives a value of about 14 billion years. Considering the many approximations, and that the Bible works with only six periods of time, the agreement to within a few percent is in my opinion extraordinary.
The five and a half days of Genesis are not of equal duration. Each time the universe doubles in size, the perception of time halves as we project that time back toward the beginning of the universe. The rate of doubling, that is the fractional rate of change, is very rapid at the beginning and decreases with time simply because as the universe gets larger and larger, even though the actual expansion rate is approximately constant, it takes longer and longer for the overall size to double. Because of this, the earliest of the six days have most of the15 billion years sequestered with them. For the duration of each day and the details of how that matches with the measured history of the universe and the earth, see The Science of God.
Science has shown that there's only one "substanceless substance" that can change into matter. And that's energy. Einstein's famous equation, E=MC2, tells us that energy can change into matter. And once it changes into matter, time grabs hold. Nahmanides has made a phenomenal statement. I don't know if he knew the Laws of Relativity. But we know them now. We know that energy - light beams, radio waves, gamma rays, x-rays - all travel at the speed of light, 300 million meters per second. At the speed of light, time does not pass. The universe was aging, but time only grabs hold when matter is present. This moment of time before the clock begins for the Bible, lasted about 1/100,000 of a second. A miniscule time. But in that time, the universe expanded from a tiny speck, to about the size of the Solar System. From that moment on we have matter, and time flows forward. The clock begins here.”
#152
Posted 09 June 2010 - 07:30 PM
To accommodate the age of the universe, Christians often say that the six creation days in Genesis are based on God's billion-year-long days or other elaborate apologetic schemes. But, Exodus 20:9-11 defeats these twisty arguments: "Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work...For in six days Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them... is, and rested the seventh day." Figurative "God days" simply don't make sense given this passage.
#153
Posted 09 June 2010 - 07:32 PM
Now it makes sense
I have an idea. Why don't you start from the perspective that what the bible says might just be fairy tales and then examine the world and see how much more sense it makes, and how the need for the convoluted reasoning in the above article vanishes.
#154
Posted 09 June 2010 - 07:34 PM
"Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work...For in six days Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them... is, and rested the seventh day."
maybe we were intended to labour for 10 billion years or so before our first break. Boy we messed that one up didn't we?
#155
Posted 09 June 2010 - 09:21 PM
Shadowhawk, that's such an incredibly tortured explanation to somehow make Genesis not look foolish in the face of current science. I'm impressed by the effort, but not be the conclusions.
To accommodate the age of the universe, Christians often say that the six creation days in Genesis are based on God's billion-year-long days or other elaborate apologetic schemes. But, Exodus 20:9-11 defeats these twisty arguments: "Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work...For in six days Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them... is, and rested the seventh day." Figurative "God days" simply don't make sense given this passage.
The issue is not an attempt to not make it not appear foolish. What is really being said when “days” occurred before there was a sun. On the other hand everything has to be interpreted in its context and when it is speaking obviously of six 24 hour days, than it is poor hermeneutics to say it is talking about something else. Obviously it is complex but that is something beside twisted.
By the way, I have not forgotten your other issues. I will get to them.
#156
Posted 09 June 2010 - 09:22 PM
"Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work...For in six days Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them... is, and rested the seventh day."
maybe we were intended to labour for 10 billion years or so before our first break. Boy we messed that one up didn't we?
Yes you did.
#157
Posted 09 June 2010 - 09:26 PM
Oh I get it. So the universe is billions of years old (which equals 6 days because otherwise the bible would be wrong and that's impossible of course). It's only that the first human was created 6000 years ago.
Now it makes sense
I have an idea. Why don't you start from the perspective that what the bible says might just be fairy tales and then examine the world and see how much more sense it makes, and how the need for the convoluted reasoning in the above article vanishes.
I don't think you get it. Read the article again.
#158
Posted 10 June 2010 - 03:27 AM
The only possible argument against the mountains of evidence, is the classic last thursdayism line of argument, which are quite clearly ridiculous.
#159
Posted 10 June 2010 - 02:40 PM
What matters for Christianity is that Paul, James, Jesus, and Jude all seemed to think that Adam & his lineage literally existed.
These great teachers were fooled into a misconception of reality by their holy books. Of course, it only proves that they weren't really divinely inspired.
The modern damage is that 50% of Christians can't follow debates about the natural environment because they cannot parse a non-6000 year old planet.
#160
Posted 10 June 2010 - 03:22 PM
This is my greatest issue with Christianity, the fact that it dumbs down our country's people, and especially our children -- making them scientifically handicapped versus the world. The only saving grace is that much of the world is equally dumbed down by religions. Europe, though, is far ahead of the USA in taking the Bible as metaphor, and not literally -- they're belief in evolution far far exceeds the percentage of people in the States.It doesn't matter that the OT can be twisted to conform to reality. That's hardly an impressive feat.
What matters for Christianity is that Paul, James, Jesus, and Jude all seemed to think that Adam & his lineage literally existed.
These great teachers were fooled into a misconception of reality by their holy books. Of course, it only proves that they weren't really divinely inspired.
The modern damage is that 50% of Christians can't follow debates about the natural environment because they cannot parse a non-6000 year old planet.
Jesus Camp is a stunning documentary on the effects of evangelically teachings to children. This video is equally disturbing:
#161
Posted 11 June 2010 - 12:37 AM
Ken Han is hardly an example of Christian Scientists. He only has a bachelors degree and this is like me making Madalyn Murray O'Hair, with all the Achiest crooks she surrounded herself with, as the typical example of Atheism. You know all Atheists are like this!
http://en.wikipedia....n_Murray_O'Hair
http://askville.amaz...questId=4046397
http://www.carm.org/atheism
Why don’t you deal with some real Christian scientists and what they are really saying?
#162
Posted 11 June 2010 - 12:57 AM
It doesn't matter that the OT can be twisted to conform to reality. That's hardly an impressive feat.
What matters for Christianity is that Paul, James, Jesus, and Jude all seemed to think that Adam & his lineage literally existed.
These great teachers were fooled into a misconception of reality by their holy books. Of course, it only proves that they weren't really divinely inspired.
The modern damage is that 50% of Christians can't follow debates about the natural environment because they cannot parse a non-6000 year old planet.
The quotes regarding the OT far out-date modern science. No one is twisting anything.
And you know these people didn't exist? Where is your evidence?
Check out these interesting sites.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism
http://www.carm.org/atheism
#163
Posted 11 June 2010 - 01:57 AM
And you know these people didn't exist? Where is your evidence?
Adam & Eve did not exist. It is pure insanity to suggest the did, and please don't come back with tales of mitochondrial eve (.
evidence
#164
Posted 11 June 2010 - 01:06 PM
See, this is what I mean. The faith has done massive harm to our culture's understanding of natural history and of human history. You'd think, with paid & educated pastors having access to church-goers every Sunday, that simple knowledge like this would be common. But it isn't. The opposite exists, where people think that early biblical stories have any bearing on reality.
More importantly to my cultural critique of pastors fostering ignorance, there's the theological critique that people claim to have a personal relationship with God, but also think that the Abraham myth has any grounding in reality. One wonders why God doesn't do a spit-take and say "What?!? I never told anyone to kill their fricken kid!"
Edit: and ... conservapedia??? Seriously?
Edited by JonesGuy, 11 June 2010 - 02:01 PM.
#165
Posted 11 June 2010 - 01:39 PM
Absolutely not a one take the stories actually seriously^^, that`s a very funny concept in my eyes - even the evangelists (take John) provide alternative, metaphorical language
#166
Posted 11 June 2010 - 02:30 PM
I wonder why this long argument if the bible exists or doesn't.. It isn't like God if there and if not seems to bother with anything going in this world anyways.. According to the believers it will only matter for the after world.. so.. either you act well and be rewarded or something, if it is true. Or.. you don't.. in which case you might not care if you don't believe. Or you might get rewarded anyways if you don't believe, act well and find it true.
Killing people for either reason is just wrong ^^
#167
Posted 11 June 2010 - 08:50 PM
And you know these people didn't exist? Where is your evidence?
Adam & Eve did not exist. It is pure insanity to suggest the did, and please don't come back with tales of mitochondrial eve (.
evidence
ok
#168
Posted 11 June 2010 - 09:03 PM
Absolutely not a one take the stories actually seriously^^, that`s a very funny concept in my eyes - even the evangelists (take John) provide alternative, metaphorical language
I agree. There is every literary device known to humanity in the Bible. Everything is not a metaphors and we don’t interpret any document that way. Where did you get the idea I did?
#169
Posted 11 June 2010 - 09:30 PM
Group: Registered User
Joined: 30-June 07
Posts: 2,210
From: Israel
I know religious people who claim that Dinosaurs didn't exist.. even when look at a skeleton of one ^^
I wonder why this long argument if the bible exists or doesn't.. It isn't like God if there and if not seems to bother with anything going in this world anyways.. According to the believers it will only matter for the after world.. so.. either you act well and be rewarded or something, if it is true. Or.. you don't.. in which case you might not care if you don't believe. Or you might get rewarded anyways if you don't believe, act well and find it true.
Killing people for either reason is just wrong ^^
The reason for this long discussion is because answering “Christian” is not acceptable to the question of “Faith?” All the atheists need to prove Theism wrong, unintelligent, etc.. It is alright, I don’t mind.
Your description of what faith is about is charming.
I don’t know anyone who denies dinosaur exist. You have an experience I don’t.
I agree, killing people for faith reasons is wrong.
#170
Posted 11 June 2010 - 10:34 PM
Wait ... did you ask for evidence that Adam & Eve didn't exist? That Seth didn't exist? That Moses didn't exist?
Do you doubt other figures of the ancient world exist? Plato could be an example of what I am talking about. G I’ve me your evidence Moses didn’t exist.
See, this is what I mean. The faith has done massive harm to our culture's understanding of natural history and of human history. You'd think, with paid & educated pastors having access to church-goers every Sunday, that simple knowledge like this would be common. But it isn't. The opposite exists, where people think that early biblical stories have any bearing on reality.
I do see what you mean! What simple knowledge? Theists are supposed to have their leaders teach them this nonsense?
More importantly to my cultural critique of pastors fostering ignorance, there's the theological critique that people claim to have a personal relationship with God, but also think that the Abraham myth has any grounding in reality. One wonders why God doesn't do a spit-take and say "What?!? I never told anyone to kill their fricken kid!"
What in the world are you talking about? Don’t tell me atheists have not recently killed millions of kids.
Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history
* 65 million in the People's Republic of China
* 20 million in the Soviet Union
* 2 million in Cambodia
* 2 million in North Korea
* 1.7 million in Africa
* 1.5 million in Afghanistan
* 1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
* 1 million in Vietnam
* 150,000 in Latin America
* 10,000 deaths "resulting from actions of the international communist movement and communist parties not in power."
http://en.wikipedia....ok_of_Communism
http://www.hup.harva...n=9780674076082
http://www.csmonitor...09s01-coop.html
Edit: and ... conservapedia??? Seriously?
And this is an argument?
#171
Posted 12 June 2010 - 02:30 PM
I don't worship the people or the philosophy who committed those horrors. I'm not tied to their crimes, except in the loosest sense of also being human.
Christians claim to worship the author of the atrocities in the Bible (even without good evidence that the atrocities happened). Don't talk to me of moral crimes and criminal heritage, if you're going to worship a being that Samuel ("Osama bin 'babykiller' Samuel") claimed to worship. Like I said, unlike with Marxism (where a modern Marxist can claim to be trying to 'modify' the original message), the modern Christian is literally worshiping an entity that demanded the slaughter of babies.
Or, to put it in another way: do you denounce the train of logic that Samuel used when he ordered the murder of babies? Do you denounce the train of logic used by the soldiers when they followed those orders? Can you declare "They should not have obeyed such an evil order"? If not, then you're morally tied to their philosophy. I've already denounced Stalin's, Hitler's, Pol Pot's logic and the logic of the people who followed their orders.
The Christian faith has a direct ancestry of a baby-killing-justifying philosophy. All the Abrahamic faiths do. And they teach their kids false history.
Finally, yeah, the argument regarding Conservapedia might not be obvious. Conservapedia is a website with such a bad reputation that there's honest debate about whether it was formed as satire to troll conservatives.
Edited by JonesGuy, 12 June 2010 - 02:31 PM.
#172
Posted 12 June 2010 - 08:00 PM
I've already dealt with the problem of atheists having killed in the past.
At least we know this is the recent past and the number of Achiest caused deaths far exceed anything else in history.
It says nothing about the untold suffering of people who were not killed in the Atheist Democide.
http://www.hawaii.ed...kills/NOTE1.HTM
I don't worship the people or the philosophy who committed those horrors. I'm not tied to their crimes, except in the loosest sense of also being human.
Christians claim to worship the author of the atrocities in the Bible (even without good evidence that the atrocities happened). Don't talk to me of moral crimes and criminal heritage, if you're going to worship a being that Samuel ("Osama bin 'babykiller' Samuel") claimed to worship. Like I said, unlike with Marxism (where a modern Marxist can claim to be trying to 'modify' the original message), the modern Christian is literally worshiping an entity that demanded the slaughter of babies.
What nonsense. Since you apparently do not worship anything, yet Atheists are the real killers, it is a moot point. You don’t worship, does that let you off.
What is your view of war? How about World War Two? The numbers of people and children killed in this war far exceed anything in the Bible but do you think there is any justification for war, any war? Since you expect me to engage in the discussion, of war, you should also. By the way, I still do not give Atheists a pass on their Democide.
I never killed anyone and don’t know any Christians who have. We don’t kill babies, far from it, we are pro life. This includes orphanages and schools all over the world. Are there any Atheist orphanages? How do you feel about abortion?
Or, to put it in another way: do you denounce the train of logic that Samuel used when he ordered the murder of babies? Do you denounce the train of logic used by the soldiers when they followed those orders? Can you declare "They should not have obeyed such an evil order"? If not, then you're morally tied to their philosophy. I've already denounced Stalin's, Hitler's, Pol Pot's logic and the logic of the people who followed their orders. Except for their Atheism?
This is a discussion of a just war. I assume we will get to this shortly.
The Christian faith has a direct ancestry of a baby-killing-justifying philosophy. All the Abrahamic faiths do. And they teach their kids false history.
Nonsense. Not a word of truth in this empty charge?
Finally, yeah, the argument regarding Conservapedia might not be obvious. Conservapedia is a website with such a bad reputation that there's honest debate about whether it was formed as satire to troll conservatives.
Why don’t you deal with their point of view rather than smear them? Your argument is not obvious.
#173
Posted 12 June 2010 - 08:37 PM
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atrocities.html
Selected Pre-20th Century Democide and Totals1
Cases Years2 Democide3 Religious?
China 221 B.C.-19 C. 33,519,0004 No
Mongols 14 C-15 C 29,927,000 No
Slavery of Africans 1451-1870 17,267,000 No
Amer-Indians 16 C-19 C 13,778,000 No
Thirty Years War 1618-1648 5,750,000 No
In India 13 C-1 9 C 4,511,0005 No
In Iran 5 C-19 C 2,000,0004,5 No
Ottoman Empire 12 C-19 C 2,000,0005 No
In Japan 1570-19 C 1,500,0005 No
In Russia 10 C-19 C 1,007,0005 No
Christian Crusades 1095-1272 1,000,000 Yes
Aztecs Centuries 1,000,0006 Yes
Spanish Inquisition 16 C-18 C 350,000 Yes
French Revolution 1793-1794 263,000 No
Albigensian Crusade 1208-1249 200,000 Yes
Witch Hunts 15 C-17 C 100,000 Yes
Total For All Cases pre-20 C 133,147,000 2,650,000
Hypothetical Total 30 C B.C.-19 C A.D. 625,716,0007
International war-related dead 30 C B.C.-19 C A.D. 40,457,0008
Plague dead (Black Death)
#174
Posted 13 June 2010 - 03:13 AM
People kill people. Sadly. I hope humanity will overcome this one day. I hope we wont have to day in any sort of way one day. To be blunt, I dont give a damn whether this is achieved through religion or in any other way, the main thing is that it will be achieved - maybe. Human nature will have to change, we will have to care about our planet and our fellow humans more than we do about some sort of philosophy or mundane things. I personally don`t see why this isnt obvious to everyone, but a look into the newspaper shows me that it is not. This is what we have to teach our children: Love yourself, your planet and your fellow humans.
Insofar, Jesus had the right idea. Buddha also was very much for peace and serenity, but I miss the caring for your fellow humans in buddhism. In atheism, it is the humanists who have the right idea. All in all, I get the feeling that in all philosophies, some people have the right idea and most do not. THIS is what has to change. The scale will have to be tipped to most people being caring, intelligent and able to think connectedly instead of thinking in isolated concepts.
Edited by chrwe, 13 June 2010 - 03:15 AM.
#175
Posted 13 June 2010 - 08:35 AM
#176
Posted 13 June 2010 - 07:24 PM
The interesting is that there is probably no one who thinks much differently, by that I mean, most people think those wars and stuff need to change.. But the problem is that people want to have others go with their way and therefore go to war..
Luna, most people are against war. Douglas MacArthur, the great American general, said all war is immoral and the most immoral ones are the ones you don’t fight to win. Otherwise it is a total waste. Being from Israel do you feel Israel has a right to defend itself, even though Jews are the religion that gave birth to Christianity and to a lesser degree Islam? Should Israel just give up? Is that the moral thing to do?
#177
Posted 13 June 2010 - 08:04 PM
Oh, I mean, I understand why the total numbers matter in a trivial sense. This is especially true if we're going to compare human institutions. If rehab programs cause a greater decrease in murders than (say) the death penalty, then we're going to say that rehab is a better system. If drunks commit more murders than non-drunks, then we're going to allow that maybe 'drunkedness' is something to worry about.
But, sometimes the number of murders don't matter, it's the philosophy that matters. Atheism, as you know, has no specific philosophy itself. It's a non-tenet. All those murders listed (if they were done as part of a philosophy, and not merely due to human fallibility) should be criticised and the philosophies critiqued or discarded. If a school of though leads to mass-murder, then there's probably at least something undesirable about that school of thought. Probably something obvious. I'm not going to argue that humanity is done creating a perfect moral system - far from it. Atheists need a strong ethical system, too, and many don't have it: especially historically.
So, of course you've never killed someone. Neither have I. We're lucky to live in a world where all the (necessary) killing is done on our behalf at an arm's length (this allows us to lie to ourselves about our hands being clean)!
BUT, the main difference is that I don't engage in apologetics for a religious history that once demanded human sacrifice. It doesn't matter if you kill babies. You honor people who do (Samuel), people who were willing to commit human sacrifice (Abraham), and a God that's ordered human sacrifice.
Until the Christian community has a moral shift that causes them to denounce Abraham's and Samuel's behaviour as wicked, they haven't a moral leg to stand on. They worship a god that's demanded human sacrifice, and they honor the patrons that were willing to do it.
#178
Posted 13 June 2010 - 08:07 PM
The trenches in this war are well filled, arent they? Can anyone explain the use of discussing how many people were killed by atheists versus how many people were killed by religious people? Is this supposed to be a philosophical argument? If so, I fail to see how.
Justification or lack thereof is a philosophical argument when it comes to war. Duke and JonesGuy think we should do away with Jews, Christians and Moslems because Israel had wars justified by God. Even though the numbers were small, God told the Jews to kill their enemies and therefore come under the judgement of Atheists. The Jews get judged by the atheists even though far more people were killed by Atheists than all those in the I, II World Wars. The figures of those killed by Atheists do not include any killed in actual war.
People kill people. Sadly. I hope humanity will overcome this one day. I hope we wont have to day in any sort of way one day. To be blunt, I dont give a damn whether this is achieved through religion or in any other way, the main thing is that it will be achieved - maybe. Human nature will have to change, we will have to care about our planet and our fellow humans more than we do about some sort of philosophy or mundane things. I personally don`t see why this isnt obvious to everyone, but a look into the newspaper shows me that it is not. This is what we have to teach our children: Love yourself, your planet and your fellow humans.
All war is immoral. You have pointed out a hope of us all. Do you think there is a just war?
Insofar, Jesus had the right idea. Buddha also was very much for peace and serenity, but I miss the caring for your fellow humans in buddhism. In atheism, it is the humanists who have the right idea. All in all, I get the feeling that in all philosophies, some people have the right idea and most do not. THIS is what has to change. The scale will have to be tipped to most people being caring, intelligent and able to think connectedly instead of thinking in isolated concepts.
Do you think any of the problem lies in human nature. Are we warlike because we are warlike?
#179
Posted 13 June 2010 - 08:30 PM
Why does the number of murders matter?
Oh, I mean, I understand why the total numbers matter in a trivial sense. This is especially true if we're going to compare human institutions. If rehab programs cause a greater decrease in murders than (say) the death penalty, then we're going to say that rehab is a better system. If drunks commit more murders than non-drunks, then we're going to allow that maybe 'drunkedness' is something to worry about.
But, sometimes the number of murders don't matter, it's the philosophy that matters. Atheism, as you know, has no specific philosophy itself. It's a non-tenet. All those murders listed (if they were done as part of a philosophy, and not merely due to human fallibility) should be criticised and the philosophies critiqued or discarded. If a school of though leads to mass-murder, then there's probably at least something undesirable about that school of thought. Probably something obvious. I'm not going to argue that humanity is done creating a perfect moral system - far from it. Atheists need a strong ethical system, too, and many don't have it: especially historically.
So, of course you've never killed someone. Neither have I. We're lucky to live in a world where all the (necessary) killing is done on our behalf at an arm's length (this allows us to lie to ourselves about our hands being clean)!
BUT, the main difference is that I don't engage in apologetics for a religious history that once demanded human sacrifice. It doesn't matter if you kill babies. You honor people who do (Samuel), people who were willing to commit human sacrifice (Abraham), and a God that's ordered human sacrifice.
Until the Christian community has a moral shift that causes them to denounce Abraham's and Samuel's behaviour as wicked, they haven't a moral leg to stand on. They worship a god that's demanded human sacrifice, and they honor the patrons that were willing to do it.
Same old stuff. Lets advance the subject and maybe we can answer some of your issues.
What is your view of war? How about World War Two? The numbers of people and children killed in this war far exceed anything in the Bible but do you think there is any justification for war, any war? Since you expect me to engage in the discussion, of war, you should also. By the way, I still do not give Atheists a pass on their Democide.
The real Atheist killer numbers do not include the wars numbers. The Atheists killed far more than both World Wars. This is no Issue?
Back to the question. Is there such a thing as a just war?
#180
Posted 13 June 2010 - 08:39 PM
This is whitewashing. In the story, God tells the Jews to 'kill their enemies' AND tells the Jews to kill the babies (which they then do)
Again, atheists have the common sense to not honor Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler. Christians teach their children that Samuel was a holy spokesperson for God.
Your criticism of atheism might have legs if the authors of those atrocities were currently honored and admired. They're not, though. In fact, you'll find that Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler are condemned, and their followers are also condemned for following them. This, again, is not done regarding Samuel.
Number of atrocities doesn't matter. Any atrocity is enough to condemn a moral philosophy. What do you want us to condemn? Atheism without a robust ethical system? DONE! Of course! I condemn any viewpoint without a robust ethical stance.
edit: "Give atheists a pass on their democide"? What kind of bigoted bullshit is this? Every imminst atheist condemns those democides. We didn't perform the actions, we didn't authorise them, we didn't even justify them. Putting the moral sin of these democides on 'atheists' is as nonsensical as people blaming modern Christians for the Inquisition. There's just no train of moral culpability.
Edited by JonesGuy, 13 June 2010 - 08:45 PM.
3 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users