God Creates Evil

We’ve recently seen that God has a hard time following his own Ten Commandments, but he has other moral lapses that aren’t covered by that list.

Slavery

Slavery is first on the bonus list of God’s immorality. I’ve written a lot on this issue already, so let’s keep this brief. I’ll summarize by saying that Old Testament slavery of foreigners was just like American slavery of Africans (more here and here).

Rape

God also has no problem with rape (Deuteronomy 22:28–9), sexual slavery (Numbers 31:18), or forced marriage (Judges 21:11–12). The Bible has a long list of odd ideas about marriage and sex.

Homosexuality

God is on the wrong side of this issue, too.

If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:13)

There’s a lot to be said about this, and I say some of it here, here, here, and here.

A better source of morals than the Bible

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948. Consider some highlights to see if mere humans can do a better job than God’s holy book.

  • Article 2: These rights apply to everyone
  • Article 3: No genocide
  • Article 4. No slavery
  • Article 5. No torture
  • Article 16. Marriage allowed regardless of race, nationality, or religion. Both spouses must consent. Divorce is allowed.
  • Article 18. Freedom to reject one’s religion

We can thank Western society for these principles, not the Bible.

Not only is the Bible on the wrong side of these moral issues, it also shows its early Iron Age origin on political issues. Again, some highlights from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

  • Article 10. Fair trial
  • Article 11. The accused is innocent until proven guilty
  • Article 19. Freedom of speech
  • Article 20. Freedom of assembly
  • Article 21. Universal suffrage
  • Article 26. Right to education
  • Article 29: Democracy.

None of these come from the Bible. (I’ve written more on the Bible vs. the U.S. Constitution here.)

God creates evil

When bad things happen, where was God? Was he not paying attention? Was he powerless against the intrigues of Satan? No—the Bible makes clear that God creates the evil himself.

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, Jehovah, do all these things (Isaiah 45:7).

Is it not from the mouth of El Elyon that both calamities and good things come? (Lamentations 3:38)

When disaster comes to a city, has not Jehovah caused it? (Amos 3:6)

Of course, there’s always a Christian apologist eager to show how this is actually a good thing. Megachurch pastor John Piper says:

God is more glorious for having conceived and created and governed a world like this with all its evil.

The Lord gives and the Lord takes away. Blessed be the name of the Lord. . . . Where would we turn if we didn’t have a God to help us deal with the very evils that he has ordained come into our lives?1

With a god like this, who needs Satan?! And in times of trouble, you’re supposed to turn to the guy who brought you the calamity in the first place? Talk about an abusive relationship!

God is like the guy who sets a fire in the basement of an apartment building and then plays the hero as he sounds the alarm and rescues people.

The ultimate unfalsifiable hypothesis?

What could God do and not be moral? Not killing, lying, and causing evil—he’s already done all these things. Not genocide, slavery, stealing, and rape—he’s already advocated these.

It’s an odd dictionary that has an exception to allow anyone to do these things and still be called “moral.”

God is like a petulant and pampered heir who’s always gotten his way and careens through life, oblivious to the harm he causes, with a train of Daddy’s minions to clean up the damage. In God’s case, it’s Christians who clean up after him, assuring everyone that whatever happens—from suicide for anti-gay bullying, to slavery and genocide in the Bible, to natural disasters—God gets only credit and never blame.

(1) God is good;
(2) evil exists;
(3) God is all-powerful.

Pick any two.
— Anon.

.
1 quoted by Thom Stark, The Human Faces of God (2011), p. 65.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 8/20/14.)

Image via darkday, CC license

 

"I'll edit, if it helps:I think Jesus is god to Paul and to Christians."

Where Are the Good Christian Arguments? ..."
"He hasn't replied to me since his return. I am sure he is accruing all ..."

25 Reasons We Don’t Live in ..."
"Oh, I thought you were complaining about the bouzouki player!"

25 Reasons We Don’t Live in ..."
"We've had a progressive Christian on here fairly recently that viewed the Resurrection as a ..."

Where Are the Good Christian Arguments? ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • eric

    Where would we turn if we didn’t have a God to help us deal with the very evils that he has ordained come into our lives?

    I’m not sure which is the sadder thought: that the good pastor can’t think of an (alternate) answer to his question, or that he can, but personally has nobody else he can turn to.

    • Brian Curtis

      “Religion: it gives people hope in a world torn apart by religion.” –Jon Stewart–

  • Ficino

    Right on, Bob.

    When I was a Calvinist, our mentor told us that the Problem of Evil is easy to solve for the Calvinist: God creates evil! But just as God creates matter and is not material, so God creates evil and is not evil. Later on I realized that this analogy and associated inference is flawed, because evil is a property, and matter is not.

    I agree that these apologetic approaches render the Christian’s assertions unfalsifiable. On the Thomist take, being and good are convertible. So anything, if it exists, is good at least qua existing. And isn’t it great that God fills up all those levels of being, which are all good, insofar as they have existence? where’s the evil? Where’s the problem?

    But then the Christian apologist turns around and finds lots of evil and problems in YOUR life, which need to be controlled. So the Christian is the adult and you are the toddler.

  • Bob Jase

    “God is like a petulant and pampered heir who’s always gotten his way and careens through life, oblivious to the harm he causes, with a train of Daddy’s minions to clean up the damage.”

    Further evidence that Trump is Dog.

  • Shadow

    God is like the guy who sets a fire in the basement of an apartment building and then plays the hero as he sounds the alarm and rescues people.

    Correction — he sounds the alarm and rescues people, but only if the ask (beg) him nicely.

    • Norman Parron

      No!!! gawd lets the kids die in the fire and lets a buyBull survive…its a miracle!!!!

    • Brian Curtis

      And pay him 10% of whatever they make. Don’t the police have a term for that kind of setup?

  • Norman Parron

    “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both
    of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their
    blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:13)” is one favorite verses. Does it really say this? remember this is a translation of a translation of a translation of a near dead language, by people with a personal agenda.
    I have seen this as ‘If a man LIES with a man as one does with a woman, both
    of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their
    blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:13)’ So are the dimwits to scared to use the words (if there were any) for sex or fuck, or is it about telling lies? How would we know? Just as I could say you are very gay!!! and 2000yrs from now did I mean your are homosexual or that you are happy and jolly?!?!? How would they know??

    • Greg G.

      Sexual relations with a woman has to mean vaginal sex. That is impossible for two men to do. Why have a law in the Bible about it? It’s like having the Eleventh Commandment being, “Thou shalt not exceed the velocity of light.”

      • Bob Jase

        “Sexual relations with a woman has to mean vaginal sex.”

        Only for those without imagination.

  • Tim Ellison

    I was taught not to take things literally in the bible, but I guess you missed that memo.

    • Michael Neville

      So we should just ignore the Bible?

      • Tim Ellison

        I spend a lot of my time trying to research what is going on with the way it is read and understood. Right now i am looking at the work of Karl Barth and Paul Ricoeur. This has been helpful.

        • Michael Neville

          That doesn’t answer my question. You apparently reject the Bible as being too dogmatic yet embrace Barth, the author of the 13 volume Christian Dogmatics.

        • Tim Ellison

          What I meant to convey is that Barth and Bonhoeffer have shed some light on how to read the texts that are gathered into scripture. I think Barth’s word dogmatic may be a product of his time – yes, i try to be anti-dogmatic but even then, i cannot be dogmatic about that, can i?

        • Michael Neville

          You still haven’t answered my question. But I guess that, like every other Christian, you interpret the Bible to suit your particular biases and prejudices. I was hoping that you’d be a little more forthcoming about your particular beliefs but apparently you prefer not to disclose them.

        • Max Doubt

          “I was hoping that you’d be a little more forthcoming about your particular beliefs but apparently you prefer not to disclose them.”

          I think he’s just a puss, embarrassed by the prospect of defending his belief, so he’s not going to say. He fancies himself one of those Jesus fans who only want a group hug, a Nice Christian™, so, ya know, we should just overlook his delusion. All that waffling around with ambiguous phrases, refusing to respond to direct questions, and name dropping his current favorite religo-babble authors is dishonest, not far removed from flat out lying.

    • The memo you missed was that not all Christians see things the way you do. Many Christians do take things literally. Of course, I’m not imagining that all Christians see things the same way (which is another argument against Christianity, but that’s another story).

      • Tim Ellison

        Yes, the question of diversity. I like what Stanley Hauerwas suggested as a modest proposal- a place to start – could Christians begin by not killing each other?

        • Kodie

          It would certainly be a change of pace if even any of you would argue with each other instead of us. If you don’t like the way atheists paint you, because OF COURSE, that version of Christian interpretation is wrong, according to your preference, it really doesn’t convince me, at least, if you think your beliefs are any more sane than theirs, but you guys tend to huddle up and upvote each other just because you’re both Christians.

        • Sure, peace would be nice. I don’t see Christianity as the missing element that will get us there, but whatever.

          What puzzles me about your approach is that it doesn’t seem evidence based. Your motivation for finding a spiritual worldview may be commendable, but shouldn’t there be evidence driving it?

        • Tim Ellison

          The trouble with evidence of course is brought about by the perennial question – do you see a rabbit or a duck. It all depends how you look. I get that there is a tremendous number of Christian apologists running about with all this evidence. Evidence is embedded in contexts, and worldviews and what can be included as evidence etc. I find the textual tradition that religious folk engage in rather fascinating and invigorating and i chose to stay a part of the conversation. The reality is that i happen to think that trying to change the world through influencing others to be forgiving and kind to others is a great start. I am fascinated by the Jesus ethic, whether it really happened or not.

        • No, Christian apologists are running around with claims of evidence.

          The atheists and the Christians can’t both be right. Suppose the atheists are. Then we’d see just what we do see, Christian apologists assuring everyone that their view, while crazy on the surface, is actually the right worldview … but they can’t get it together enough to show us that this God claim is actually valid.

        • ildi

          Funny how you bring up an illusion to make your point. The duck/rabbit drawing may have taken on the meaning of “it all depends on how you look” but if you compare other drawings of ducks and rabbits you can see how the illusion is drawn in a deliberately ambiguous manner to deceive (in a humor magazine) https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e3ab107688578cbbb10cef844a3aa2e18306400729bb2c463fd9eafb6473b513.jpg .

    • Greg G.

      Nearly half the Christians in the US do take things literally in the Bible. Which memo did you get? There are 45,000 different denominations. CE examines all sides.

    • Bob Jase

      Yet somehow you believe there literally is a god.

      • MR

        Read: “Ha, ha, people are stupid for believing all that crazy stuff in the Bible! I’m much superior because I only believe some of that crazy stuff in the Bible!”

    • Doubting Thomas

      Then why are you a Christian?

      • Tim Ellison

        This is going to sound trite, i know, but i try and differentiate between the Christian religion and following Jesus. i do the latter. ya, i know, NO True Scotsman et al.

        • Doubting Thomas

          What do you know about Jesus if you don’t take the Bible literally? Is there another source for your Jesus knowledge?

        • MR

          You didn’t answer his question. Why are you a Christian?

        • Tim Ellison

          Here is the answer i gave. I know it sounds pedantic but I try to differentiate myself from the Christian religion. I follow Jesus and yes I am not a true Scotsman. I find the story (myth if you insist) absolutely fascinating. The world the West has inherited seems somewhat indebted to this narrative. We aren’t all clamoring to migrate to Syria or Iran. So I have sufficient reason to live by the ethic of Jesus. I try and practice non-violence and I happen to think when Jesus spoke of his father, that father is also non-violent.

        • MR

          That doesn’t even answer the question!

        • Kodie

          You’ve got to be kidding me.

        • Doubting Thomas

          It’s bad when you recognize your own beliefs (or at least the description of them) as pedantic and yet you believe them anyways.

          You do understand that you can be an atheist and still follow the teachings of Jesus? You can reject the nonsense and keep the good parts.

          God is part of the nonsense. So is your understanding of the history of the western world.

        • Otto

          Indebted to the Jesus narrative?

          Why…because the West has been so peaceful?

        • al kimeea

          “I try and practice non-violence and I happen to think when Jesus spoke of his father, that father is also non-violent.”

          I guess you have someone else beat your slaves, but not too badly…

          Pacifist Yahweh? It seems you follow the Augustinian (?) precept of “all bad is metaphor, all good is reality” and ignore the OT.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          The line between bad and good being determined by your own personal feelings, of course.

        • al kimeea

          Funny how it seems to always line up that way and that most people’s ideas on those things are much better than those of the supposed perfect being described in that book.

        • Tim Ellison

          I am looking at different ways that one is able to engage with Israel’s scriptural tradition. Just because those texts say, God said, does not mean God said. So to try and be a part of an interpretive community that looks as what these texts are about and engaging them is very exhilarating. I look at the bible as a conversation, or as Rene Girard calls it, ‘a text in travail.’

        • al kimeea
        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          If You’re going to ignore the violence of the Biblical god, why believe the words the Bible attributes to Jesus?

        • Tim Ellison

          I see the scripture as a conversation. Some of the conversation is good and some of it is bad. This is referred to by some Jewish scholars as content criticism. Different parts of the text critique other parts. Peer review? Perhaps i can use that anachronistically! 🙂

        • ildi

          Sounds like you’re on the same page (but different results, oddly enough) as These Things Were Written aka Robert Clifton Robertson from a previous thread:
          Christianity Vs. Religion

          [edited to fix html tags]

        • Kodie

          Don’t all Christians think that’s what they’re doing?

        • Brian Curtis

          Every Christian has their own personalized copy of “What’s True and What’s Allegorical in the Bible.” As a result, every Christian has their own particular list of what parts of the Bible to follow and what parts to skip over. This is why the Christian faith is so unified and always speaks with one voice that is never in error.

      • Tim Ellison

        I know it sounds pedantic but I try to differentiate myself from the Christian religion. I follow Jesus and yes I am not a true Scotsman. I find the story (myth if you insist) absolutely fascinating. The world the West has inherited seems somewhat indebted to this narrative. We aren’t all clamoring to migrate to Syria or Iran. So I have sufficient reason to live by the ethic of Jesus. I try and practice non-violence and I happen to think when Jesus spoke of his father, that father is also non-violent.

        • eric

          Jefferson was a deist who thought that Jesus was a good moral teacher but not divine, and thought all the miracles in the bible were bullflop.

          Is that what you mean by ‘not Christian, but try to follow Jesus’? Or do you think Jesus was a divine miracle worker?

        • Max Doubt

          “I know it sounds pedantic but I try to differentiate myself from the Christian religion.”

          Do you believe a god or gods exist?

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          If you distance yourself from the Christian religion, how do you know anything about Jesus? Everything we know about who he supposedly was comes from the New Testament of the Bible (written and assembled by Christians) and later speculations by other Christians.

        • ildi

          “The world the West has inherited seems somewhat indebted to this narrative.” One could argue whether that was ultimately for good or ill.

          “We aren’t all clamoring to migrate to Syria or Iran.” Bit of a false dichotomy; people aren’t clamoring to migrate here because of Christianity but because we’re not a war-torn country, we have a lot of natural resources and jobs to go with, and we’re (nominally) a secular representative government.

          “…I happen to think when Jesus spoke of his father, that father is also non-violent.” Bless your heart… how much of the old testament do you have to ignore to reach that conclusion?

        • Otto

          …and how much of the New Testament…?

        • Brian Curtis

          Some people manage to be decent human beings in spite of their religion, but not because of it. They do this by ignoring or distorting the parts of their holy book that are truly vile, and focusing only on the salvageable parts that contribute to decency. They then declare, with a perfectly straight face, that they cherish their holy book because of its “absolute and eternal truths.”

        • Tim Ellison

          I am not ignoring this. I am trying to argue that the writers of these texts had Israel’s national interests at heart. The texts are propoganda to justify why Israel should be the rightful owner of the promised land.

        • ildi

          “The texts are propaganda to justify…”

          You’re so close!

        • With your comparison of Syria/Iran vs. the West, I assume you’re thinking that Western civilization is built on Christianity. You need a citation for that. Westerners were Christian, but they also ate meat and wore pants. The foundation that the US Constitution was built on is very, very much not the ethics of the God of the Old Testament.

          More here:
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2016/04/how-christianity-retarded-modern-society-by-1500-years/

        • Tim Ellison

          i will read this. thank you for sharing .

    • Max Doubt

      “I was taught not to take things literally in the bible, but I guess you missed that memo.”

      Do you figure to stick around and defend your position this time, or will you run off like a scared kid the way you did from the last conversation?

      • Tim Ellison

        ya, i was kinda trolling. There is so many ways that dialogue could take place regarding things up on the interweb. The goal is to have actual dialogue, and not monologues at each other. I think common ground has to be found within which we can discuss how words work and the sorts of things that are under discussion. I am just trying myself to learn things about the tradition that i have inherited. I commented today to someone else that I have no idea what I do believe, but I do know what I do not believe. That is at least a place to start. SO trying to look at what the bible is – well, first of all I do not believe it is inspired. (yes, this sets me off from a ton of people in the christian tradition, but so be it)
        I try and follow Karl Barth who suggests that it is a witness or testimony to revelation, but not revelation itself. I am trying to learn what that means. I am also trying to follow the work of Paul Ricouer in seeing faith as a symbol.

        • Bob Jase

          Well there’s your problem, you’re taking Barth & Ricouer literally.

        • Tim Ellison

          🙂 Not that is funny!

        • Max Doubt

          “ya, i was kinda trolling.”

          I suppose that’s all you can do if that’s all you’ve got.

          “There is so many ways that dialogue could take place regarding things up on the interweb.”

          Yes, and it’s nearly universally agreed that trolling is among the shitty ways.

          “The goal is to have actual dialogue, and not monologues at each other.”

          If you’d prefer some mode of dialogging other than how it already happens here, go find a different forum. Or start your own.

          “… I have no idea what I do believe, but I do know what I do not believe. That is at least a place to start.”

          Do you believe a god or gods exist?

        • Venavis

          So basically…

          You are making it up as you go along.

    • Ficino

      No such memo in the bible.

    • Otto

      You mean like a person literally was born of a virgin, literally walked on water, etc. and literally was killed but rose from the dead three days later and was therefore literally God incarnate?

      • epicurus

        Or that there even is a God

    • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

      I guess you missed the memo where many Christians insist that yes, you must take everything in the Bible as literally and infallible true.

      But sure, make your claim about how these were just metaphorical and tell us what God really meant

    • Kodie

      You’ve learned to ignore the explicit instructions in the bible so you can sleep at night and still be Christian?

    • Joe

      So the entire Bible is just a story?

      I agree, I don’t take anything literally in the Bible.

      • Tim Ellison

        I am looking at different ways that one is able to engage with Israel’s scriptural tradition. Just because those texts say, God said, does not mean God said. So to try and be a part of an interpretive community that looks as what these texts are about and engaging them is very exhilarating. I look at the bible as a conversation, or as Rene Girard calls it, ‘a text in travail.’

    • Kevin K

      I figured it out for myself at age 8.

      Myths, legends, highly revisionist Jewish history, and dietary guidelines for people without ice.

      Why anyone gets anything different from it is absolutely beyond me.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      I don’t take ANYthing in the ‘bible’ as fact unless it’s boringly mundane.

      “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

      • Tim Ellison

        The texts are certainly worth engaging with if one has a chance to consider reading them outside of the traditional box. Funny thing is that i get lambasted as much by christians as those against faith.

  • skl

    “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create
    disaster; I, Jehovah, do all these things (Isaiah 45:7).”

    Seems clear enough.

    The extreme god.

  • Ah, but you see, God is not a moral agent, which means he isn’t bound by the moral law which he created, according to folks like John Piper. They will also add that he has no obligations to us, and that includes creating any particular world or cosmos. Yet he is still “all good”. Not sure what that means… Seems more like Cthulhu than a father who loves us.

    • Kodie

      When Dear Leader can hear everything you say, you better say good things. If Dear Leader can read your private thoughts, you have to get your brain washed so you only think good thoughts about Dear Leader.

      • If such a God exists, I think it would require brainwashing for me to worship him.

        • Kodie

          And when you are brainwashed, you are threatened by the fact that others aren’t also brainwashed. Kind of like how, when dad wants to beat mom, but she’s not there.

        • It threatens them to see another possible way of life. One in which you’re free.

        • Kit Hadley-Day

          If such a god existed you would not need brainwashing, it would be so abundantly obvious that the only rational thing to do would be have good thoughts, inf act evolution would have driven us to be perfect little worshippers as it would be the best way to survive.

        • Probably, but they claim that would deny free will somehow. Like knowing that the Sun exists denies free will?

        • Kit Hadley-Day

          I have never understood how knowledge is worse than faith, perhaps it’s because i love one and lack the other

        • Same here.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nahhh, the leaders of the superstition know that thoughtcrime isn’t preventable.

          It’s just a way of making the prisoner / accused self-flagellate.

        • True but that’s another issue.

      • That sort of will happen in Heaven according to some interpretations of the Bible. Oblivion never felt so good.

    • Otto

      How can a non-moral agent be all good?
      If God has no obligations to us than we would have none to him…which is okey dokey with me.

      • That’s what I said, but apparently their definition of “good” has nothing to do with that. Of course they we must do what God says. “Might makes right” seems to be what this entails.

        • Otto

          I don’t have it handy but Greg had a great quote that was something to the effect of… ‘if the definition of good by God is different than the definition of good by man, than what is the point of using the same term’?

        • Greg G.

          Using the same word to mean two different things is equivocation.

        • Otto

          Your other quote was more poignant.

        • Greg G.

          With me, eloquence is an accident.

        • Otto

          Well it was good enough for me to steal…now I just have to find it

        • It’s sure not clarity.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          I think Christians sometimes intentionally fight clarity. It would explain the Trinity

        • Probably. Many just call that a mystery, then be done with it.

        • Kit Hadley-Day

          Clarity is the enemy of mystery. Which is why you will see that most apologetics involve equivocation at some point.

        • Kit Hadley-Day

          the more i see of christian commenters around here, the more there only argument seems to be might makes right.

        • It seems to usually boil down that way yes.

    • Just don’t expect it to make sense. When “they” say that reason and faith are incompatible is for some reason.

      • I don’t expect it anymore to be sure.

  • Going to focus on Leviticus, because this is a misunderstanding due to a change in gender norms over time, as well as translation issues. First off, Leviticus is not religious. I know that sounds odd, since it’s in the bible, but Leviticus is purely secular law, specifically followed by the Israelites. Second, the terminology is clearly secular. Toevah, which in this case is translated as “detestable” simply means “culturally prohibited.” Third, the original Hebrew distinguishes between sex and gender. You see, in the ancient world, only MEN could become citizens, at least in most cases, and while all men were males, not all males were men. The prohibition is against Israelite citizens acting like women: being on the receiving end with a male, to put it plainly. This kind of prohibition was not uncommon in the ancient world. Rome had similar prohibitions, so did Greece, though things were more complicated because of what you could call the protégé gender, for a lack of a better term.

    • Otto

      The misunderstanding of Leviticus is not ‘due to a change in gender norms over time, as well as translation issues’, it is due to religious people canonizing it as being divinely inspired. I think you should be telling the people who think it is religious that it is not religious.

      • That doesn’t make sense in light of historical understanding of gender norms in the ancient world, the original Hebrew, or the apparent lack of antagonism between Christianity and homosexuality, throughout most of its existence.

        • Otto

          What doesn’t make sense?

          It makes no difference if the intention of the writers of Leviticus was secular, the religious have made it holy.

        • There’s a huge difference. Think about it this way. Suppose you’re trying to convince a modern Christian that homosexuality is not a problem. How would you go about doing it?

        • Otto

          I can tell you one thing I wouldn’t do…try and convince a bunch of atheists that don’t think the Bible is divine, that parts of the Bible are not divine. We will be happy to not address the problems in a book of religion when the people that put it on that pedestal take it down. If you can get them to do that with Leviticus… have at it.

        • The point that I made about Leviticus is not one if divinity vs lack of divinity. It is that Leviticus is mistranslated and misunderstood based on modern gender norms. I can point out that the modern translation does not match the early understanding of the text; if you ignore that, then that has nothing to do with “atheism” and only has to with your desire to remain ignorant on the topic.

          > If you can get them to do that with Leviticus… have at it.

          You see; that’s the problem. You want to convince a bunch of people that their religion is false. History tells us how difficult that is to do. I am simply giving you an alternative that might be easier. Baby steps are useful; and you’re too antagonistic to religion in general to even see that. Your hatred is clouding your ability to use any reason at all.

        • Otto

          Most every book in the Bible is mistranslated and misunderstood, they have been jacked with for any number of reasons. While I agree with you that pointing those problems out is appropriate, it is not the only way to address the issues. Bob is also correct to address those problems from a moral perspective.

          I am fine with saying Leviticus is not religious, but Leviticus is not the only scripture used to come to the faulty conclusions about homosexuality, it’s message is just one of the more overtly violent and unethical and pointing that out is also apt.

        • Kevin K

          Every other verse in Leviticus ends with THUS SAYETH THE LORD! That means the writer (“Moses”, FWIW) isn’t creating secular laws based on the needs of the time — he’s stating that those instructions come directly from the mouth of Yahweh.

          FWIW: I am blocked by TSA and he can’t see that comment. Feel free to watch him spin hopelessly trying to deflect the clear and normal understanding of the words as they were written down.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          From @Kevin K:

          “Every other verse in Leviticus ends with THUS SAYETH THE LORD! That means the writer (“Moses”, FWIW) isn’t creating secular laws based on the needs of the time — he’s stating that those instructions come directly from the mouth of Yahweh.

          FWIW: I am blocked by TSA and he can’t see that comment. Feel free to watch him spin hopelessly trying to deflect the clear and normal understanding of the words as they were written down.”

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Doesn’t matter. What matters is how it’s treated in cultural xtianity.

          Since THAT is part of the problem, remove cultural xtianity, then you’ll have no problem demystifying Leviticus.

        • Kodie

          You can’t, they’re afraid of catching “the liberal”.

  • Sandi Moreland

    GOD did not create evil.. the wicked one did when he tried to over take GOD in heaven. as for all this other stuff. Man created evil. we have choice in life.. U R so reading the bible wrong.. GOD is a perfect GOD an U or no one else will ever convince me my GOD created evil.. Praying for the lost….

    • Max Doubt

      “GOD did not create evil..”

      Correct.

      “.. the wicked one did when he tried to over take GOD in heaven.”

      Unless you have objective evidence to show that your god and your heaven are something other than figments of your imagination, we’ll just accept that you’re just makin’ shit up here.

      “as for all this other stuff. Man created evil.”

      Evil is not some kind of entity. Nothing created it.

      “we have choice in life..”

      Sure. We have millions of choices. Big deal.

      “U R so reading the bible wrong..”

      Millions of people would claim you’re reading the bible wrong, but it’s really just how you and they imagine the stories. It’s not like it’s a true story or anything. Read it however you like, just don’t be an asshole by suggesting maybe you interpret it correctly while other people are reading it wrong

      “GOD is a perfect GOD an U or no one else will ever convince me my GOD created evil..”

      There is nothing your god can do that I can’t do, and many things I can do that your god pretty obviously can’t.

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/018d9075880fa729e0a61595800a6b259c3a2af784920b918da65f10a38caecc.png

      “Praying for the lost….”

      Fuck you, too.

    • Doubting Thomas

      I no U R but what M I.

    • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

      Was the perfect God lying when he said he created evil? Or do we assume all the Bible is the wicked one’s lies?

    • James A. North

      Quick! Check the printing press! Someone dropped the Isaiah 45:7 printing block on the floor and now we have a run of mis-edited bibles!

    • Damien Priestly

      So you say both the “wicked one” and “man” created evil. it has to be one or the other…but God created both of them (if the wicked one is Satan?). And no, we are reading the bible just fine, it is as incoherent as you are….Immoral too!

      Nobody needs you help.

    • Is it really that difficult to type “you” and “are” or what?

      Aside from that, well, I’m kind of curious about the whole idea of the “wicked one” trying to overtake God in heaven. Where’s that written in the Bible? Because if you’re talking about the Lucifer bit from Isaiah 14, you should go back and reread that chapter (and the surrounding ones). It’s not about “the devil” at all, but is instead a polemic against the king of Babylon. This is the blatant, literal reading of that chapter, and nowhere in the Bible is that story applied to the character of Satan.

      The word Lucifer is used in several places in the Bible as a translation for a term meaning Morning Star (what we know call the planet Venus), the splendor of which, in Isaiah, was being contrasted against the arrogance of the king. The same term was also used to describe Jesus in many ancient (“Tu verus mundi lucifer” … you are the true light bringer of the world—from Lucis largitor splendide, written circa 350 AD) and modern hymns (even in English: “He’s the lily of the valley, the bright and morning star. He’s the fairest of ten thousand to my soul.”)

      It was only much later that people began to consider that section to be about Satan.

      As John Calvin said: “”The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from ignorance: for the context plainly shows these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians.”

      This is about the only time you’ll see me agree with Calvin about something, but even a stopped clock is right every now and again.

    • Kodie

      You make a lot of grunting sounds when you talk. There’s no reason to consider you seriously.

    • RichardSRussell

      It isn’t BOB who says that God created evil, it’s the Bible, supposedly relaying the words of God himself. Bob quotes you the exact passage.

      BTW, for my money “evil” should always be treated as an adjective, never as a noun.

    • Kevin K

      Have you ever stopped to consider that Yahweh lost the battle, and that Earth was created solely for Satan’s entertainment? That the only people who get into heaven are those who reject the message entirely?

      Think about it. Can you prove otherwise? Your only source of knowledge of Yahweh and Satan is the bible. What if the bible was inspired by the word of SATAN, and not that of Yahweh?

      Have a GREAT day!!

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      So your ‘bible’ isn’t inerrant?

      Isaiah 45:7 says “7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

      So either your book isn’t inerrant, or you’re worshiping an abuser.

      I prefer to not believe anything until there’s sufficient evidence for it.

    • rationalobservations?

      So who created “Satan”?
      Keep your meaningless prayers. They are an insult to any moderately intelligent person.
      http://i.imgur.com/6pCsnY0.png
      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DNe_xNPX4AA9RMR.jpg

      • irrationalobservations

        As every single breathing individual must surely know, my personal intellect quite simply dwarfs all others.

        I do not content myself with holding up a single palm spread in demonstration of this, nor merely two (as lesser beings are wont).

        No, I put up all 20 of my digits to demonstrate my superiourness in all conceivable areas of expertise.

        Naturally, this extends into all known areas of abstract metaphysic.

        Why, none lacking intimate familiarity with even the simplest squaring of sundry circles should seek to address me without abject grovelling of what passes for their so-called “thought”.

        Though I must confess to being mystified as to how anybody could be so hypnotised by Mr Barker’s clearly irrationally motivated yellow jacket.

        What next ? Shall all follow Richard Dawkins into distant ideological Brexit exile ?

        That’s a test BTW — and one that I have little hope that sufficient brains exist in you to pass it.

        • On the assumption that you’re a Poe, I’ll reply in kind with an oldie but a goodie.

          I am a dynamic figure, often seen scaling walls and crushing ice. I have been known to remodel train stations on my lunch breaks, making them more efficient in the area of heat retention. I translate ethnic slurs for Cuban refugees, I write award-winning operas, I manage time efficiently.

          Occasionally, I tread water for three days in a row. I woo women with my sensuous and godlike trombone playing. I can pilot bicycles up severe inclines with unflagging speed, and I cook 30-minute brownies in 20 minutes.

          I am an expert in stucco, a veteran in love, and an outlaw in Peru.

          Using only a hoe and a large glass of water, I once single-handedly defended a small village in the Amazon basin from a horde of ferocious army ants. I play bluegrass cello. I was scouted by the Mets. I am the subject of numerous documentaries. When I’m bored, I build large suspension bridges in my yard. I enjoy urban hang gliding. On Wednesdays, after school, I repair electrical appliances free of charge.

          I am an abstract artist, a concrete analyst, and a ruthless bookie. Critics worldwide swoon over my original line of corduroy evening wear. I don’t perspire.

          I am a private citizen, yet I receive fan mail. I have been caller number nine and have won the weekend passes. Last summer I toured New Jersey with a traveling centrifugal force demonstration. I bat .400. My deft floral arrangements have earned me fame in international botany circles. Children trust me.

          I can hurl tennis rackets at small moving objects with deadly accuracy. I once read Paradise lost, Moby Dick, and David Copperfield in one day and still had time to refurbish an entire dining room that evening. I know the exact location of every food item in the supermarket. I have performed several covert operations for the CIA. I sleep once a week; when I do sleep, I sleep in a chair. While on vacation in Canada, I successfully negotiated with a group of terrorists who had seized a small bakery. The laws of physics do not apply to me.

          I balance, I weave, I dodge, I frolic, and my bills are all paid. On weekends, to let off steam, I participate in full-contact origami. Years ago I discovered the meaning of life, but forgot to write it down. I have made extraordinary four course meals using only a mouli and a toaster oven.

          I breed prize-winning clams. I have won bullfights in San Juan, cliff-diving competitions in Sri Lanka, and spelling bees at the Kremlin. I have played Hamlet, I have performed open-heart surgery, and I have spoken with Elvis.

        • Greg G.

          cliff-diving competitions in Sri Lanka

          I do my cliff-diving in the Sahara.

        • MR

          I have a football injury.

        • Whoa–someone just took things up a notch!

        • rationalobservations?

          I am still loving your devoted fandom and following of my observations and noting once again that you helpfully confirm that you, nor anyone else, has ever contradicted them through the demonstration of logic and evidence.
          Thank you for your loyalty and KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, my dear and loyal friend and failed imitator.

        • So–not a Poe then?

          How lucky for you that your little friend tagged along.

        • rationalobservations?

          I am still loving your devoted fandom and following of my observations and noting once again that you helpfully confirm that you, nor anyone else, has ever contradicted them through the demonstration of logic and evidence.
          Thank you for your loyalty and KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, my dear and loyal friend and failed imitator.

        • irrationalobservations

          my … imitator

          aaah yes, your feeble intellect sees not that “irrational” is indeed quite imitative of its processes.

    • Gary Whittenberger

      You are correct, Sandi, that God did not create evil, but you are correct for an incorrect reason. The correct reason is that God does not exist!

      If God did exist, he would not create an angel with the free will and other abilities to create evil, and such an angel would not exist.
      But according to Sandy, such an angel does exist.
      Therefore, God does not exist.

      The conclusion is true unless a premise is false.

      • Max Doubt

        “If God did exist, he would not create an angel with the free will and other abilities to create evil, and such an angel would not exist. But according to Sandy, such an angel does exist. Therefore, God does not exist.”

        You’ve defined a god that requires some particular traits in order to exist, then declared that someone else’s god doesn’t meet the criteria you’ve defined as requirements for your god to exist, then concluded that therefore the gods they imagine can’t exist. You’re dishonestly trying to define their gods out of existence, but your line of shitty logic only applies to the god you imagine.

        “The conclusion is true unless a premise is false.”

        The premise is false. You’ve failed again. The gods other people imagine do not share the traits, characteristics, and weaknesses of the god you imagine. Since this has been explained to you over and over again, you’re being kind of an asshole to be so persistent in attributing your god’s failings to other people’s gods.

    • C_Alan_Nault

      “GOD did not create evil..”

      The Bible says he did. Is the Bible wrong?

      Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

      Amos 3:6 …….. shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?

    • EllyR

      I fully agree with you, god did not create evil… or good… or anything else, because god is a figment of imagination in the deluded believers minds.

    • Michael Neville

      Why are you telling us that you’re praying?

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        Because we’d never know, otherwise.

        And Sandi *knows* that, deep down where s/he fears to delve.

    • Read the beginning of Job where Satan and God decide on a wager of sorts with Job as the focus. Satan is God’s handyman; he’s not the “wicked one.” The idea of Christianity has changed with time, and (unfortunately for you) the Bible documents the whole thing–from Satan as God’s assistant to Satan as a vastly powerful entity determined to ruin God’s plan.

      no one else will ever convince me my GOD created evil

      I’m sure you’re right. You’ve made up your mind, and not even your own holy book will change it.

    • David Cromie

      Sandi, if your supposed ‘god’ created everything that exists (as the OT claims), then it must have created both Satan and evil, otherwise ‘everything’ is a lie.

      However, more importantly, where is the irrefutable, falsifiable evidence for the real existence of your favourite supposed ‘god’?

      • Is that so David? Can you define evil for us then please. You are claiming to be an expert in this after all.

        • Greg G.

          There are things we like and things we dislike. There are things we like more than other things we like. There are things we dislike more than other things we dislike. We use the adjective “evil” to describe things we dislike a lot, such intentionally causing unnecessary suffering or allowing it when it could be prevented. Some religious people use “evil” as a noun.

        • So God created dislike? I don’t think that is anywhere near what David was claiming somehow Greg.

        • Greg G.

          So God created dislike?

          If God created people with preferences, including things disliked, then it follows that God created dislikes.

          I don’t think that is anywhere near what David was claiming somehow Greg.

          David wrote Isaiah, too?

        • “If God created people with preferences, including things disliked, then it follows that God created dislikes.” I see. Have you thought about what it means to dislike something?

          “David wrote Isaiah, too?” You do understand that the person I was replying to in the post you replied to was called David, not Isaiah?

        • Greg G.

          I see. Have you thought about what it means to dislike something?

          Yes. Do you think of evil (or Evil) as a thing apart from how we feel about something?

          You do understand that the person I was replying to in the post you replied to was called David, not Isaiah?

          I see that now. Thanks.

          Of course, I was thinking of Isaiah 45:7 KJV that quotes God as claiming to create evil. Other translations use “disaster” or “catastrophe” as if creating those is not an evil thing to do.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope, you flumpus, we strongly dislike that which willfully causes harm with intent to discomfit.

          Does EVERY last nuance need to be spelled out for you?

          Besides, if we’re talking ‘biblical’ evil, YOU are back on the hook again. Any definitions we may offer are simply politeness, not required, nor a duty.

        • “Does EVERY last nuance need to be spelled out for you?” Nope. I wouldn’t expect you to something beyond your capabilities anyway.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          When we get close to the limit of my capabilities, it’ll be obvious to every impartial reader of this board.

          I haven’t even pulled on my shoes yet and am still capable of highlighting how you present yourself (you do a FINE job of making yourself look bad to an impartial observer all on your own).

        • David Cromie

          I leave that to deluded religiots, since they are so steeped in evil.

        • So you can’t do it then. You’re just another mindless troll really aren’t you?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          When the debate doesn’t require me to define my opponent’s position, how foolish would it be of me to attempt it?

          You’re trying to get us to play a sucker’s game.

          YOU posit, YOU assert, so YOU define.

        • When did I posit anything? I would love to see you show that.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Sandi posited, and you attempted to deflect that by pettifogging about the definition of evil when it’s obvious in context (so-called ‘biblical’ evil)

        • David Cromie

          Put that special relationship you claim to have with your favourite supposed ‘god’ and ask it.

        • So you can’t define evil then can you? Why am I not surprised by that?

        • Greg G.

          You still haven’t answered my question: Do you think of evil (or Evil) as a thing apart from how we feel about something?
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2018/04/god-creates-evil/#comment-3880833655

        • I answered your question several days ago Greg. I suggest you go back and read through my responses to you. They should be in your notification history.

        • Greg G.

          Here is the last post in that subthread:

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2018/04/god-creates-evil/#comment-3885539193

          You did not respond to it. I checked my notifications. Your posting record shows only two responses to me. Perhaps you responded to a similar question from someone else. If you can link to such a response, I would appreciate it. But Disqus doesn’t make it easy to find responses so it might be easier to answer the question than to find a previous response. It could be answered with a “yes” or a “no”, but feel free to give an explanation for why you feel that way.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          If we didn’t posit it, and are denying your assertion about it, we need not define.

          Burden of proof is squarely on your side.

        • I haven’t asserted anything about it. David did. So the burden of proof lies on him if it does anyone. Try harder.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          David said it was self-contradictory.

          The plain text shows that it is. Sandi asserted

          GOD did not create evil.. the wicked one did when he tried to over take GOD in heaven. as for all this other stuff. Man created evil. we have choice in life.. U R so reading the bible wrong.. GOD is a perfect GOD

          So, ‘god’ is a perfect ‘god’.

          note: ‘god’ created the angels.
          note: Lucifer was an angel.
          note: Lucifer became evil.
          note: either ‘god’ is imperfect or created Lucifer knowing Ol’ Luke would become evil.
          note: either way, ‘god’ created evil.

          So, self-contradiction, and no definitions required on David’s part.

        • A dictionary should resolve this puzzle, don’t you think?

        • Not necessarily. It’s a philosophical question Bob. And philosophical definitions aren’t always the same as what you’d find in an Oxford English Dictionary.

        • The default definition is what we find in the dictionary. If you have another one, it’s asterisked as a special definition.

          I’m coming into this conversation late. Are you talking about just definitions? Or are you going somewhere with this?

        • If you read a few comments above Bob, that sets the context for this discussion, this is what Dave initially said:

          “Sandi, if your supposed ‘god’ created everything that exists (as the OT claims), then it must have created both Satan and evil, otherwise ‘everything’ is a lie. However, more importantly, where is the irrefutable, falsifiable evidence for the real existence of your favourite supposed ‘god’?”

          This is what led to my response. So it is more of a philosophical question.

        • This post gives the scripture that backs up the idea that God created everything, including evil.

          Back to your question about the definition of “evil,” you’re asking for the biblical definition, not the philosophical one. If God creates “evil,” according to the Old Testament, we need to understand it how the OT authors meant it.

        • David Cromie

          MJ is just being a troll, I suspect.

        • David Cromie

          There are dictionaries of philosophy, and one of the questions addressed by philosophers is ‘the problem of evil’.

        • Quite right. You still haven’t answered the question of how you define evil though. I’m doubting you’re capable of doing that though.

        • David Cromie

          I have no wish to play your pathetic word games. Do your own reading.

        • So once again you can’t or won’t answer my question. I would ask why you are showing such cowardice, but the answer is already pretty clear.

        • Susan

          So once again you can’t or won’t answer my question.

          You have asked David to define the term but a dictionary definition won’t do.

          You state that it is a “philosophical” question.

          It has been pointed out that the problem of “evil” is alive and well in philosophy.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

          You have provided nothing, here.

          If “evil” is meaningless, then say so. If it means something, then explain what it means.

          If you are claiming that Yahwehjesus exists and created everything, then you need to confront the problem of evil that is entailed by the claims of the characteristics of Yahwehjesus.

          David made the simple point that if someone claims that Yahwehjesus created everything, then that includes “evil”.

          The good book even says so.

        • Sorry Susan. I don’t really have the time for blind trolls right now. If you want to have an actual conversation we can do that.

        • So your interest is in posing questions to which no answer will satisfy you? I guess we all have our hobbies, but you’d be more useful if you actually said something interesting or useful.

        • Greg G.

          I thought he was JAQing off 2 days ago so I just asked him a question. Still waiting for the response.

        • I’m waiting to exhale.

        • Nope. Read my comment properly. I meant exactly what I said. You have no need to read your own faulty conclusions into it.

        • My conclusion remains: you’d be more useful if you actually said something interesting. But you’d prefer to parse and criticize definitions? Let me challenge you to do more than that.

        • You do understand that I know you’re talking out your backside right? Surely you’d be better off making factual statements. Try to do that.

        • You do understand that I know you’re talking out your backside right?

          I don’t. I must be too stupid.

          I suggest you reboot. Instead of defending whatever it is you’re defending (I have no idea and little interest), find a post and respond to it. Point out errors. Say something interesting. There are more than 1000. Surely there’s something helpful you can say.

        • ildi

          It appears that Mark Jones will be satisfied with nothing less than hearing David Cromie’s personal definition of evil, so I don’t know, maybe MJ thinks DC is actually GOD?????

        • In this point in the conversation, I certainly know who I’d vote for as being perfectly wise, given that choice.

        • Lol. Still going, your arrogance is highly comical to me. I suggest you come back when you have some use to offer this discussion. Currently you have none.

        • This was me being helpful. But if you have no use for that, I have other moods.

          I suggest you come back when you have some use to offer this discussion.

          I suggest you take your head out of your ass.

          Given your tap dancing to date, I doubt you have anything useful to say. But I’ve written many posts, so the ball’s in your court. Amuse us.

        • Helpful? So useless comments are now helpful are they? When did that change occur Bob? You must be aware of something the rest of the world has missed.

        • And still I wait, impatiently.

        • Oh, so you’re getting impatient now. That might change if you brought in a useful comment Bob.

        • David Cromie

          Useful comments seem to fly right over your empty head!

        • MJ seems to have reached the stamping-of-feet stage. I’m not optimistic of anything useful. I suggest leaving him alone as he holds his breath.

        • You do know that that comments like that aren’t convincing coming from a troll like you?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          More likely *through* Markie’s empty head…but you’re more polite than I. 😉

          (in one ear and out the other…no violence meant)

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Your blindness to content, willful or not, doesn’t negate the existence of that content.

          “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
          But in yourself, that you are an underling.”

          Borrowed with a twist from Shakespeare…but then you’ll claim you knew that already.

        • So you think quoting Julius Caesar makes you smart. Hmmm, interesting, trolls think having access to Google makes them smarter than everyone else. That’s just too funny.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope, quote was a propos.

          Why do you have a problem with using a cultural reference?

          And if I didn’t know the quote, I wouldn’t have been able to reference it, now would I?

          Yet more projection, showing how YOU attempt to make yourself look erudite….*quite* revealing.

          (you have GOT to stop leading with your chin, y’know?)

          And thanks for confirming my assertion you’d claim you already knew it.

        • Greg G.

          Mark Jones appears to be a sock puppet you have banned before. He is begging for it, again.

        • Nay, pleading for it.

          With those cute puppy-dog eyes, it’s hard for me to resist giving him his wish.

        • Greg G.

          You told me that you responded to a question that you did not. Maybe you are not properly keeping track of who is who. The gray box after Bob’s name has “Mod” in it. It is short for “moderator”.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          We have. YOUR total content, to this comment thread at least, was a fatuous demand for a definition that was obviously made in bad faith.

        • Lol, I wouldn’t use words you don’t understand. It never ends well.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You seem to be violating your own advice.

          I know the meanings of the words I use, and enjoy how delicious they are.

          YOU just try to offend people (and for ONCE in your life, it looks like you’re a success…congratulations! We believe you’re an asshole)

        • You can “challenge” me to do whatever you like. But you until you have something of use to say, it’s just empty words with no substance. And I’m more bothered about substance.

        • First time at a blog? Never had an argument before? You’re adorable!

        • Nope, commented on plenty of blogs before. And I’ve been involved in several debates. Your commentary just doesn’t constitute to one.

        • Kodie

          Nobody can fucking remember why you’re here or what your fucking question was, since you topped it with dozens of responses where you’re too douchey to repeat the question and just trolling for people to hate you for being abrasive, when actually you’re just vacant of substance, and then abrasive to cover up how little you know. Congratulations! You’re so correct, atheists can’t match your “intellect”. You accomplished something with your life! Woohoo!

        • Wow! You’ve really got your underwear in a twist haven’t you? Maybe you should concern yourself with behaving a bit more appropriately rather than accusing people of doing what you’re doing yourself … with a rather arrogant demeanour as well might I add.

        • Kodie

          What are you even talking about? You’ve been trying to hold court, but nobody gives a shit here. You have nothing to offer but typical Christian farts. I see you have a podcast, because you think you’re so important that people should listen to you, but we’re seeing through you. I know that makes you angry, like a little whining piece of shit that you are. Try substance… oh, Christianity has none? Ha ha.

        • Is this what you do Kodie? Try to get a reaction out of people? That’s all you’re doing here really. And yes, I have a podcast, that has nothing to do with anything other than you trying to find things to get me annoyed at you. But you’ll have to try a lot harder than this I’m afraid.

        • Kodie

          You’re sure you have no substance to offer? You’re being defensive because you hate atheists and want to pretend that’s our fault.

        • Would you care to explain why you’re trying to get me to snap at you? I mean that is clearly the game you’re playing.

        • Kodie

          I’m tired of reading dozens of posts from you where you claim to have said anything of substance, anything worth listening to, while covering it up with utter disdain for anyone who fucking talks to you. You have nothing to say, you’ve said nothing, you’re just a troll. Are you incapable of forming a fucking argument that you think being an asshole is going to scare anyone or make us kneel before your insecurity about the size of your penis? Seriously, what brain damage do you have where you think you have said anything? You claim to have said something once, but nobody can remember what it was, and you’re too idiotic to remember too. You are a poseur.

        • Seemingly I’m not reacting in the way you want. You’re not getting your own way, so go to trying to disparage the size of my genitalia and questioning whether or not I have brain damage. Sorry troll, but that isn’t going to work with me. I just feel sorry for you, as clearly you’re spoiling for a fight you wouldn’t have the capability of winning should anyone join in.

        • Kodie

          Deny it all you want, it’s obvious to everyone else.

        • I see. And by everyone you really mean no one. Don’t worry, I’ve already got you pegged.

        • Kodie

          You can’t hide your complex. Everyone else is already through with you, because you have nothing to offer, and you know that. Why not just crawl away, or, you know, instead of engaging with me, say anything of substance for the first time ever. You can’t? That’s why you’re just bantering troll shit, and why even the mod thinks you’re worthless here. He likes to have Christians, he’s usually pretty patient, but you’re a LIAR. You lied about having anything to say, and just started attacking randomly. This is easily spotted by everyone who has bothered to feed you, troll. What other purpose do you think you serve here? You’re the current chew toy! Nothing else.

        • I’m sorry you’re upset that I’m not biting your bait. But I will say this. You really need a better hobby than trying to get Christians angry. You’re clearly not very good at it. I do however see your strategy of trying to have more people on your side. I’m not really that concerned with that though.

        • Kodie

          It’s obvious, and it’s been obvious to everyone that you have nothing but anger, i.e. no substance with which to argue your beliefs. Your insecurity is the first thing I noticed, and you are biting, and I see how insecurely you have dealt with other commenters the past few days. I don’t give a shit what you’re concerned with because you’re a silly subtanceless piece of crap who is overcompensating for something by trolling. Is it spring break from your homeschool?

        • OK, so I’m somehow insecure and compesenting for something because you’re maliciously trying to get me to play your little game? Is this what you do when you don’t get your own way? If you’re the standard of what a smart atheistic commenter looks like, then the atheist movement has a lot to worry about.

        • Kodie

          What way am I trying to get? I’ve observed your substanceless presence here trying to abuse other posters the last few days. Nobody wants to be a Christian if that’s how you do. We’ve had better, get over yourself, I am only suggesting your complex is a small dick, but it could be a father who left or a mother who resents you because you look like your father. Maybe it’s something else, but you’re definitely broken and trying to get over it by pretending to be smart.

        • You’re trying to get me to snap at you. And you’re still doing it with your little attempts at pot shots. You keep saying things like “we’ve had better” but you clearly think I’m some kind of problem as you’d just ignore me if you really thought I wasn’t worth the time. You really should try harder than this.

        • Kodie

          I’m not trying to get you to do anything. You’re already demonstrating what a contentless asshole you are, to cover up what a brilliant intellect you’re not. You have yet to present any substance to us, any kind of argument, but you are blustering on and on, demanding people listen to you, calling people names. Are you having some kind of attack?

        • So you’re not trying to get me to do anything, while still trying to get me to bite? What is the point of you lying here Kodie? What exactly does that accomplish?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          T’aint nice to project like that, Markie-poo.

          Kodie has moved on, it seems. For now, at least.

          I see YOU are coming back to be a fucking conscienceless troll again, though.

          Why? Are you secretly lonely, and is even BAD attention something you crave?

        • Sorry, but when did you learn what projection is? Kodie replied to me last night, so clearly he hasn’t moved on. But if he has it would be down to finally seeing that his little game won’t work with me.

          But I see you’re starting to realise this. You’re doing what he was, trying to find something to cling on to to invalidate me.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Dude (assumption), I’ve known what projection is since before you were a gleam in your parents’ eyes (possibly since before your *parents* were born).

          You’re accusing us of EXACTLY what you’re doing, while providing ZERO evidence to support your assertions.

          I want you to support your assertions, and if you don’t I’ll keep ridiculing you as you so richly deserve.

        • It seems as if you have given in on your little game. Can’t say that I blame you … you weren’t very good at it.

        • I gotta hand it to you—I’m at a loss to respond to your clever ripostes.

          You know how you’ve got absolutely nothing with which to respond intellectually to my blog posts? How your rhetorical arsenal is curiously empty when it comes to saying something of substance? That kind of inept impotence that you obviously feel is how I feel when I’m faced with responding to your snappy wit.

          We’re two very opposite birds of a feather.

        • I’ll pick up on what you’ve said here Bob:

          “I gotta hand it to you.” I doubt it, but let’s see about that.

          “I’m at a loss to respond to your clever ripostes.” See, I knew you coming up with any kind of positive remark towards a Christian wouldn’t happen.

          “You know how you’ve got absolutely nothing with which to respond intellectually to my blog posts?” Because that’s what you’ve decided? That one was too obvious though wasn’t it?

          “How your rhetorical arsenal is curiously empty when it comes to saying something of substance?” And when did you know anything about posting anything of substance?

          “That kind of inept impotence that you obviously feel is how I feel when I’m faced with responding to your snappy wit.” And you’re now a mind reader? Tell me Bob, when you did you suddenly develop the power of telepathy?

          “We’re two very opposite birds of a feather.” So we’re two things that are opposite but somehow very alike? Is that the poor kind of metaphor you regularly use?

        • “You know how you’ve got absolutely nothing with which to respond intellectually to my blog posts?” Because that’s what you’ve decided?

          No, that’s what I’ve concluded. You’ve made how many comments here? Maybe you’ve been sharing the good ideas and pointed rebuttals with other people. All I know is that I’ve seen a lot of blather but zero content.

          Say, I know! Why don’t you stop posturing and actually engage with this or any other blog post here? Are you in total agreement with a post? Great to hear! Have you found factual or logical errors? Great—point them out.

          That’s how blogs work. Showing us how clever you are with a witticism just makes people furious after a while.

          And when did you know anything about posting anything of substance?

          Yet another opportunity missed. You can’t find anything meaningful to say about this post or any other? I marvel that you would put yourself out there in public empty handed like that.

          Pro tip: you’ll get less ridicule if you’ll say something useful. If that’s against your religion, that’s fine. I’ll show you to the door.

          “That kind of inept impotence that you obviously feel is how I feel when I’m faced with responding to your snappy wit.” And you’re now a mind reader? Tell me Bob, when you did you suddenly develop the power of telepathy?

          Mind reading isn’t necessary. If you had something useful to say, you’d have said it. Your arsenal is clearly empty.

          You just going to hang around to be laughed at? Maybe you should leave.

        • “No, that’s what I’ve concluded.” So basically it’s because it’s what you’ve decided. You just don’t want to admit it. Good to know, thanks.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Yes, conclusions are decisions.

          Is this a new fact to your sensorium?

          It’s a question of what the conclusions / decisions are BASED upon, and reality is our touchstone.

        • You’re the one obsessed with accurate definitions, so I’m sure you can tell me how “concluded” and “decided” are defined. As you do so, make clear the difference between the two.

          I know, of course; I just want to make sure you do.

        • Lol. You only want to make sure that your opinion is what is accepted here. You’re going to have to try harder than that I’m afraid Bob.

        • You’re a waste of space, aren’t you? You get to sit in the corner for 3 days. After that, I’ll be eager to find an excuse to ban you forever, and I suspect that you won’t disappoint.

          This is the part where I encourage you to improve your act, though no one ever does so. But, on the off chance that you’re different, here’s the problem: you need to provide some content. Your superpower is logorrhea. You’re a content-free troll. Make interesting and useful comments and you can stay. If you give us more of the same, you’ll be gone.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope. You’re just a chew toy that still has some fiber to be shredded. Funnier still, you don’t seem to get that.

        • Ah, so this is a game. And you’re now trying to join in. Now I have been warned that atheist pages are generally sesspools for fools like you and Kodie. It’s a shame though, because if people like you ever learned to think you might prove capable of a minimally reasonable conversation.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Yep, it’s a game, called be polite if you want people to be polite back to you.

          You fail, and your projection just makes it all the funnier.

          You’re LITERALLY describing how YOUR behavior on this board would be viewed by an impartial observer, but imputing it to us.

          I mean, *really*? Do you not *listen* to yourself?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Asshat, you OPENED with a fatuous attack / demand that was obviously intended to derail the discussion.

          Why should we give you ANY consideration whatsoever?

        • I see. So asking a sceptic to do some work for a change is an attack? I’m sorry, I’ll let you get back to your intellectual laziness.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope.

          Merely shifting the burden of proof back where it belongs.

          Pointing out self-contradiction does NOT carry a burden of proof.

          If YOU want to claim it’s NOT self-contradiction, offer YOUR definitions as evidence of your claim.

        • Right, of course you are 😉

          I’ll just take your word as it is … a joke.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Your initial contribution to this group discussion was a fatuous demand for a definition that is obvious in context.

          Give us YOUR definition, if you consider it that important.

          From there we can agree, disagree, and / or discuss.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Markie-poo, you’ve got FAR too high an opinion of yourself…of course, you may be compensating for the generally low regard we have for you, so you can skew the statistics high. I wouldn’t put it past you.

        • Lol, so because I’m not playing Kodie’s game that means I’m arrogant somehow? Now I know you’re a trolling sceptic on a page designed for them, but even for that breed, that is terrible logic. Try harder.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope. You’re obviously, willfully blind and purposely misinterpreting resistance to your pettifogging nonsense as ‘persecution’.

          Hint: If you either didn’t present nonsense, or at least attempted to support it with evidence rather than pompously demanding WE accept your assertions as axioms, you *might* get somewhere.

          But I doubt you’ll try that…too much danger of learning uncomfortable facts.

        • Ah I see. So you like to hypocritically accuse people of doing what people such as yourself do? That’s called denial.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Hmmm, a positive claim.

          Demonstrate where I did that, and show evidence that would convince an impartial observer.

        • David Cromie

          MJ is an ill-educated moron!

        • Sorry. But is that the kind of thing that you should be saying considering your previous comments? That’s like the pot calling black.

        • Greg G.

          MJ says he has been in debates before. His reluctance to say anything indicates how those debates went.

        • 😀

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          If your comment can be (per you) misinterpreted, clarify it.

          Or stop complaining that consensus reality doesn’t kowtow to your biases.

        • Or you could just read my comment. Surely a troll can learn to read properly. Or am I being to generous to you here?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I see…you’re refusing to clarify, then.

          You could simply have restated the comment and dared me to misconstrue it, but you didn’t.

          That says to me that you WANT to be ambiguous as you can’t defend a rigorous statement of your position.

        • Susan

          I don’t really have time for blind trolls right now.

          Well, goshdarnit Mark Jones. I tried to address your comment. That’s not trolling.

          Judging from your comment history, you do nothing but troll.

          On top of that, when people make efforts to respectfully engage you, you call them trolls.

          That is pretty much what you’ve contributed to discussion in all of your keystrokes.

          Please go away until you can do better.

        • And like all trolls you try to cover up your trolling with denial that can easily be seen through. Try harder Susan.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Markie-poo, do you *really* believe an impartial observer to this discussion wouldn’t be able to see your projection, and in fact would be unable to miss it?

        • Why should someone see something that isn’t there?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Too good.

          Markie here is the type who would say, without irony, “Imagine a world with no hypothetical situations…”

          If you can’t imagine what an impartial observer would conclude, then you’re going to fail to convince because you can’t recognize any flaws your position / presentation might have.

        • David Cromie

          “Please go away until you can do better”. MJ would need to acquire a working brain, and then an education, first.

        • David Cromie

          I have told you; ask your favourite ‘god’, the one which has claimed to have created ‘evil’.

        • Basically you can’t answer the question. Either that or you’re too afraid to do so. Both options tell a lot about your character … or lack thereof.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You challenged without reason. David was pointing up Sandy’s inconsistency, saying he doesn’t believe her, so the burden of proof isn’t on him, nor the burden of definition.

        • I challenged without reason yet he did? Now why does that sound the atheists ganging up together and backing each other, regardless of truth or reason.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Pointing out an inconsistency in a text does NOT mean assuming the burden of proof for the errant text.

        • I see. So because you know I’m right here, you change the goal post. Lol, that’s just funny. I do appreciate the comedy, always good to have a bit of a laugh.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope.

          I’m pointing out that you’re attempting to shift the burden of proof.

          (you’re also an irrelevant troll, but that’s a discussion for another day)

        • Wow! Tell me are you always this hypocritical? I don’t think a troll should be accusing anyone else of being a troll. But then again that’s what you people do isn’t it?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I’m telling you that you obviously brought up an irrelevancy, ripped out of context, to try to reverse the burden of proof.

          Explain how pointing that out is ‘hypocritical’.

          More projection from Markie-poo

        • (you’re also an irrelevant troll, but that’s a discussion for another day)

          Actually, it’s a discussion for today. Mr. Useless is banned for 3 days starting today. I can’t imagine that his behavior will improve if he returns. If not, he’ll be banned for good.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Can’t resist… 😉

          Today?

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFxGPI1Uvlg

        • Joe

          “Regardless” of truth, or because of truth?

        • Regardless of it.

        • Joe

          Ah, so we’re all wrong and the lone dissenting voice is correct? How very Galilean.

        • I’m merely talking from experience Joe. Is it possible that an atheist could be right, yes, but I’ve yet to see it happen. And just for the record, truth is not determined by the majority, it’s determined by reality. I hope that will help.

        • Joe

          Truth is determined by reality? Then how do you determine if supernatural claims are true?

          Likewise, I’ve never seen a theist be right. The universe is 14.5 billion years old, after all, not 6000.

        • Yes, truth is determined by reality. You determine that supernatural claims are true just the same as you with anything historical … including science, you investigate the claim and if the evidence is what should be expected to be seen due to the claim then you can conclude that the claim is true. It’s remarkably simple actually.

          You say you’ve never seen a theist be right. That is probably due to lack of investigation really, it is the case that most atheists blindly believe what they’ve been told to and don’t investigate things for themselves.

          A good example of that is your claim that the earth is 14.5 billion years old. You do understand that that figure changes from sceptic to sceptic right? It depends which science teacher taught them in the classroom usually. But I will say that most sceptics don’t usually know how those kind of figures were arrived to … the answer will surprise you as it has absolutely nothing to do with evidence … but it is entirely based around bias.

        • Joe

          I thought you said it doesn’t matter what people think, only reality? Therefore many skeptics might disagree on the age of the universe (which isn’t true, but I’ll let you off), but in REALITY it’s much older than 6000 years.

          Supernatural claims don’t follow traditional epistemologies, sorry to say. That rules out historical research, among other things. There’s always a crystal ball though.

        • Ah I see what you’re doing here, you’re looking for a loophole. But I stand by what I said, truth is determined by reality. And the age of the earth argument isn’t based on reality it’s based on people’s desires.

          In terms of the supernatural, identifying whether a claim of that nature is true does work like any historical claim I’m afraid. I understand that you don’t want that to be the case. But we both know that you’re wrong here.

          It’ll be me that lets you off here.

        • Joe

          No, I’m trying to reconcile what you said about truth and reality with what people say about a young Earth. Those are contradictory statements.

          How am I wrong about supernatural claims?

        • Why reconcile something that doesn’t need reconciling? Your argument about my statement being contradictory is not based in reality, but what you’ve been told to believe and have bought into blindly.

          I have explained why you were wrong about supernatural claims already. What did you not understand from that? You clearly didn’t understand what I said, hence why you’re asking me to do something that’s already been done.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Then show the supernatural.

          Show your work.

        • I’ve asked if you understand what the term supernatural means. I’ll wait for you to respond to that before we proceed.

        • Greg G.

          HEWBT understands what the supernatural means. He knows it is an excuse for not being able to show the supernatural because it is an exemption from evidence because you cannot distinguish the supernatural from the imaginary.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          My definition is irrelevant.

          If YOU want to convince me that anything supernatural exists, it’s YOUR definition that will be tested.

          So, go to it. What do you define ‘supernatural’ to be that you believe it either exists or is a property of matter?

          And how do you demonstrate it?

          I won’t accept the shifting of the burden of proof.

          I DON’T BELIEVE YOU.

          Show me if you want me to believe.

        • epeeist

          the answer will surprise you as it has absolutely nothing to do with evidence … but it is entirely based around bias.

          Given that truth is determine by evidence then presumably you have evidence to show that the figures are “entirely based around bias”?

        • All evidence is interpreted, so it depends on the evidence and how it’s interpreted.

          But in terms of my evidence:

          “I conceived the idea five or six years ago [1824–25], that if ever the Mosaic geology could be set down without giving offence, it would be in an historical sketch, and you must abstract mine, in order to have as little to say as possible yourself. Let them feel it, and point the moral.”

          That is a quote by Charles Lyell which actually goes further into the time period. But it is a strict confirmation that Lyell’s intention was to do away with a Biblical interpretation. I can also show the Richard Lewontin quote that says that science cannot let a divine foot in the door. That’s bias as well.

        • epeeist

          Seriously, you want to use a quotation made nearly 200 years ago, a century before Hubble made his observations and before Friedmann or Lemaitre had come up with the idea of an expanding universe as evidence that cosmologists are producing biased estimates for the age of the universe?

          I can also show the Richard Lewontin quote that says that science cannot let a divine foot in the door. That’s bias as well.

          No, it is a commitment to metaphysical naturalism, a commitment which I think you will find is not all that usual in either the scientific or philosophical community.

          So, you have one quotation from a couple of hundred years ago and another from twenty years ago and no actual demonstration that papers that have been produced by cosmologists show evidence of bias. Sounds like a mixture of hasty generalisation and a poor attempt to poison the well to me.

        • Pofarmer

          Sounds like a mixture of hasty generalisation and a poor attempt to poison the well to me.

          Or just general stupidity.

        • epeeist

          I’d go with malice aforethought.

        • “Or just general stupidity.” Maybe it is. Trolling sceptics are usually stupid in all fairness.

        • Pofarmer

          Don’t make me pull out the Dunning /Kruger card.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Sweet! I didn’t even think to mention that!

        • The reason these quotations can’t be ignored is because they are key to understanding how scientists reject faith and ensure that faith in no way is confirmed in scientific enquiry. It’s bias and clearly so.

          And you’ll find Richard Lewontin is from more than twenty years ago.

          I see you object to me using quotations from years gone by, despite the fact that these quotations give us an understanding into the mentality that has been pushed upon science. I also notice that you try to write me off as having nothing but these quotations where you yourself have offered nothing at all. Fancy that coming from an Internet atheist. Couldn’t predict that could you 😉

        • epeeist

          It’s bias and clearly so.

          So you assert, but once again you fail to demonstrate that cosmologists are biased in their estimate of the age of the universe. Remember “truth is determined by reality”, and that “you investigate the claim and if the evidence is what should be expected to be seen due to the claim then you can conclude that the claim is true”. Let’s give you an actual paper shall we, this is a well cited paper which gives an estimate of the age of the universe. Expose the evidence of bias for us.

          And you’ll find Richard Lewontin is from more than twenty years ago.

          It is from 1997, a New York Books Review of Sagan’s The Demon Haunted World.

          I also notice that you try to write me off as having nothing but these quotations where you yourself have offered nothing at all.

          And why should I note when you have produced no evidence whatsoever of bias in the estimate of the age of the universe.

          Fancy that coming from an Internet atheist. Couldn’t predict that could you 😉

          I usually find that when someone has to resort to ad hominem it is because they lack an argument.

        • Lol, so producing evidence is in your eyes not producing evidence? How ironic. I also note the usual ad hominem accusation, something internet atheists always go to when they know they don’t have a valid argument. It’s also comical that you try to make a big deal out of me saying that Richard Lewontin’s quote was from more than 20 years ago, the book entitled Billions and Billions of Demons was released on 9 Jan 1997. Last time I checked 21 years was more than twenty years ago, but my mathematics may just be bad 😉

          Oh and if you want evidence of bias from your article:

          “Our age determination is model–dependent and the model (adiabatic CDM) has many parameters.”

          You probably didn’t spot that as it’ll be safe to assume that you don’t know how to spot these things. You are an internet atheist after all.

        • epeeist

          Lol, so producing evidence is in your eyes not producing evidence?

          You claimed that cosmologists were biased in their estimate of the age of the universe. So far you have produced nada, zilch, nothing that could be remotely construed as evidence for this.

          “Our age determination is model–dependent and the model (adiabatic CDM) has many parameters.”

          Indeed, a model of any complexity will have a number of parameters. You will note that they go on to fully explain why they chose the values they did based on evidence from other sources. You want to call this bias?

          You probably didn’t spot that as it’ll be safe to assume that you don’t know how to spot these things.

          Well I must admit that my doctorate was in molecular quantum mechanics rather than cosmology but having had papers of my own published I do know how to read scientific papers.

        • Forgive me, but I somehow doubt the legitimacy of your claim to have a degree in any form of science. Trolling sceptics oftentimes try to peg themselves as some kind of authority to try and make themselves sound convincing. 99% of the time though it’s just lies. You give me no reason to expect anything else from you here.

          The fact is that I showed you from the article where there was bias noted. If you’re not honest enough to see that, that’s all down to you I’m afraid.

        • epeeist

          Forgive me, but I somehow doubt the legitimacy of your claim to have a degree in any form of science.

          I could of course produce the QM from my doctorate but no doubt you would discount this as simply a copy-paste from elsewhere. I could invite you to look at my previous posts on topics where physics, cosmology or the philosophy of science have been involved but you would simply say my posts show that I am reasonably good at internet searches.

          In other words, it is impossible for me to demonstrate that I do actually have a Ph.D.

          Which is nice for you since you can use it discount anything I say on the physics front and once again use it to poison the well.

          It also means that you can avoid engaging with the substance of my post, namely the fact that you have not produced anything to back up your claim that the estimates of the age of the universe are “entirely based around bias”.

        • MJ is in timeout for 3 days.

          I’m confident that he’ll return with a much more cooperative attitude. /s

        • epeeist

          I look forward to seeing much more constructive posts on his return.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Your optimism is a treasure in a depressing world 🙂

        • Greg G.

          It also means that you can avoid engaging with the substance of my post,

          Vacuous vacuums gotta suck.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Bias is irrelevant, as it doesn’t survive the peer review process.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          ‘faith’, in any form, is a violation of the scientific method and should be eschewed for just that reason.

          It’s not a useful tool, it’s motivated gullibility that impoverishes minds, and through that, impoverishes society and impedes growth.

        • I see. So is that why Francis Bacon who came up with the modern day scientific method was a Christian and a creationist at that? You should really avoid making stupid comments.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Appeal to Authority fallacy.

          Francis Bacon didn’t use *faith* to construct his science, or he wouldn’t be known as the founder of the modern day scientific method.

          By trying to use Francis Bacon as a synecdoche for ‘faith’, you’re demeaning a great historical figure by attempting to pigeonhole him. He was great precisely BECAUSE in scientific matters he DIDN’T use faith.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So?

          Intent doesn’t matter…RESULTS matter.

          And the RESULTS, including the science that allows you to spew your idiocy on the ‘Net, show that your view is sterile, providing no falsifiable hypotheses and generating no new insights nor results.

        • Actually intent can (and does) affect results. So your comment is moot, not that anything you say isn’t mind.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Intent is meaningless if the experimenter is honorable and strictly follows the scientific method, following the data where it goes AND NO FARTHER.

          *Motivated* ‘reasoning’, on the other hand, acts as you describe, but it’s dishonest and a violation of the scientific method and doomed to be caught in peer review.

          Interesting that you assume your opponents do that, though…very revealing.

        • Greg G.

          Many great scientific discoveries are when the experiment does not meet expectations.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You made an assertion there, that supernatural claims can be tested to determine if they reflect reality.

          Show me examples of ANY supernatural claim that has been demonstrated, repeatably, in reality. If you try, by definition, if you succeed it has now become natural, so by winning you lose. By losing you STILL lose.

        • Do you even understand what the term supernatural means? Most sceptics don’t.

        • Greg G.

          “Supernatural” means “exempt from natural investigation”. It is an excuse to believe in things that cannot be distinguished from imaginary things.

          Gullible people don’t understand that.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Do you even understand what the term supernatural means? Most sceptics don’t.

          Enlighten me. Be specific and show examples.

        • Joe

          no, but that’s not my problem because I don’t cite the concept as a defense for my beliefs.

        • Greg G.

          You determine that supernatural claims are true just the same as you with anything historical

          “Supernatural” is defined to protect it from any natural examination so that makes your remedy impossible. When a supernatural claim accidentally makes testable claims, the supernatural claim doesn’t show up.

        • Andrea Fitzgerald

          “…you investigate the claim and if the evidence…due to the claim then you can conclude that the claim is true. It’s remarkably simple actually.” It IS remarkably simple. Your claim that there is a supernatural being is really quite simple to reject, since there is no scientific evidence.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You haven’t advanced a single positive position or assertion.

          You’ve merely made a pettifogging request to muddy the waters.

        • You’re a trolling sceptic … as a rule you wouldn’t know what a positive position or assertion is. Try harder.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          If you see skepticism as trolling, THERE is a big part of your problem right there.

          Whythefuck SHOULD I believe you without evidence? Especially on such an extraordinary claim.

          Show me or STFU & GTFO.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          David need not define it. He’s merely pointing out an inconsistency in Sandy’s assertion.

        • Actually he would … he is claiming that God created evil. No one does that without having their own picture of what evil is. And if you read his comment he did not point out an inconsistency, he raised an objection … that is not the same thing.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope. That would be the ‘bible’, in Isaiah 45:7…

          7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

          So you’re saying the ‘bible’ is wrong?

        • Nope. I was asking David to define evil. But seen as your trying to suggest your an expert in that tell me what the word create means there in the original Hebrew.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          David is under no obligation to do so.

          He’s merely pointing out a self-contradiction in Sandi’s position.

          No need to define there.

        • Greg G.

          The word translated as “create” in that verse is the same word used for “created” in Genesis 1:1 as in “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.” The same word is used in the verse as in “create darkness,” as if the author didn’t comprehend what light and darkness really are. The point being made by the verse is that God created everything including opposites. the word for “peace” is defined by the biblical contexts as:

          I.completeness, soundness, welfare, peace
            A.completeness (in number)
            B.safety, soundness (in body)
            C.welfare, health, prosperity
            D.peace, quiet, tranquillity, contentment
            E.peace, friendship
              i.of human relationships
              ii.with God especially in covenant relationship
            F.peace (from war)
            G.peace (as adjective)

          The word translated as “evil” in older translations is defined by biblical context as:

          I.bad, evil
            A.bad, disagreeable, malignant
            B.bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)
            C.evil, displeasing
            D.bad (of its kind – land, water, etc)
            E.bad (of value)
            F.worse than, worst (comparison)
            G.sad, unhappy
            H.evil (hurtful)
            I.bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)
            J.bad, evil, wicked (ethically)
              i.in general, of persons, of thoughts
              ii.deeds, actions

          II.evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity
            A.evil, distress, adversity
            B.evil, injury, wrong
            C.evil (ethical)

          III.evil, misery, distress, injury
            A.evil, misery, distress
            B.evil, injury, wrong
            C.evil (ethical)

          This word for “evil” is translated as “evil” 442 times in the KJV and the English word “evil” is used 480 times, so the word used for “evil” in Isaiah 45:7 is the primary word for evil in the Old Testament.

        • The Bible makes clear that God creates evil. If you don’t know what “evil” means in that context, I suggest consulting either a dictionary or God.

        • I know what evil means in the context Isaiah uses, I also know what create means in it. The question I would have is do any of you? I think it will be safe to assume that answer is no.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          The Isaiah quote is all that’s necessary, then.

          No need to define when merely pointing out self-contradiction.

        • So we’re in agreement that God creates evil. That’s pretty undeniable, since the Bible itself admits it, but I’ll just celebrate this one small point of concord.

        • So you not being able to answer a question means I somehow agree with you? Typical poor trolling sceptic logic I guess. Can’t say I expected anything less from you or any of your crew.

        • I assume that you accept what the Bible says, and the Bible says that God creates evil.

          No, I’m not interested in your change of subject (“Here’s a puzzle for you: define ‘evil.’ Betcha can’t.”).

        • BlackMamba44

          Wow, he actually accused you of trolling your own blog.

        • Pofarmer

          Interesting dynamic isn’t it.

        • He’s a piece of work. With any luck he’ll go annoy someone else.

    • BlackMamba44

      GOD did not create evil

      So, Yahweh was lying when he said he did? That doesn’t sound like a perfect god.

    • richardrichard2013

      “GOD did not create evil..”

      did evil CREATE itself? does that mean there are other creators other than yhwh?

    • richardrichard2013

      so there is a good creator and evil creator which creates itself ? are you marcionite christian?
      god is a perfect god so perfect god cannot create imperfect evil which means evil created itself ? does the perfect god create the good choices and the evil one create the evil human choices?

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        You’ve no evidence any gods exist, so your statement is nonsense or fiction until you provide said evidence.

    • Greg G.

      GOD did not create evil..

      Maybe evil created GOD.

    • Andrea Fitzgerald

      To which god are you referring? There are thousands of them!

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “We’ve recently seen that God has a hard time following his own Ten Commandments, but he has other moral lapses that aren’t covered by that list.”

    In fact, the old testament has 613 commandments, not just 10.

    Of the 613, the Bible calls one set of them the ten commandments.

    These are the ones the Bible calls the ten commandments ( Exodus 34:14-28):

    Thou shalt worship no other god.
    Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
    The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep.
    Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day rest.
    Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks.
    Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord God.
    Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.
    Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left until the morning.
    The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.
    Thou shalt not seeth a kid in his mother’s milk.

    • rationalobservations?

      Here is one of my favourite and very accurate interpretation of the first 4 “commandments”:
      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/By_xgYcCUAA2h5D.jpg

      • irrationalobservations

        aaaaah ratty, does your brain hurt when you attempt to understand these matters ?

  • Tete Rouge

    “God is like a petulant and pampered heir who’s always gotten his way and careens through life, oblivious to the harm he causes, with a train of Daddy’s minions to clean up the damage.”……. so that is why Evangelicals like Trump so much!!

  • David Cromie

    I would urge anyone interested in the biblical commandments to read ‘Inventing God’s Law – How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi’, by David P. Wright, 2009, OUP.

  • jim

    The classic song of Christmas chestnuts roasting on an open fire is in reality singing about the ten commandments.because that’s what they are!

  • rationalobservations?
    • Kind of a dick.

      • rationalobservations?

        No, Bob. A total dick. Thank goodness it doesn’t exist.
        Best wishes to you and yours my friend.

    • irrationalobservations

      aaaaaaah yes, how “rational” it must seem to your petty-mindedness to think that “if false premise, therefore false conclusion”.

      What a fantastic basis for “observation” — and yes ; one does mean “fantastic” in its most literal meaning.

      • David Cromie

        What on earth are you havering about, O Great Mindless One?

  • rationalobservations?
    • irrationalobservations

      As you are aware, ratty, my intellect soars above yours as a gull over a sea of used supermarket plastic bags dumped into it by those, like yourself, who falsely imagine their prejudice to be superiour in nature over all other things.

      How fantastic but to assume that all in creation could be encapsulated into the midget mind of one such as you !!

      How unsurprising that such midgetry should be so astounded by myopy so blinkered !!

      • David Cromie

        ‘myopy’ ???

        • irrationalobservations

          myopy

          (ˈmaɪəʊpɪ)

          [ad. mod.L. myōpia: see myopia.]

          Myopia, shortsightedness.

          OED 2nd Edition 2009 … for the benefit of those too intellectually lazy or deficient to make their own irrational observations without spoonfeeding assistance.

        • David Cromie

          ‘Myopia’ I fully understand, but ‘myopy’ does not exist in proper English, as far as I know. I am in Sweden at the moment, and my OEDs* are at home, so I will check ‘myopy’ when I get back next month.

          * I own both the full OED (all 20 odd volumes), and the two volume Shorter OED.

        • irrationalobservations

          oh deary me, your prejudice is even more irrational in its observation than anything that I have ever typed — can you not comprehend that direct quotes from OED 2nd Edition 2009 are accurate, despite your blind prejudice, to its contents ?

  • The worst is not that, but the so many people attempting to force it into others, the usual BS of “God is love”, etc. … until you refuse his offer and are sent to burn to Hell for all eternity even if you’ve been the kindest people in existence.

    See also the Book of Revelation and who are creating all that destruction and havoc. Hint: in theory it’s all-loving.