Nox's Wall of Text, Part 2.

Following on from Nox’s Wall of Text, Part 1, here is part 2 for your edification. Grab a cuppa and settle in to be educated:

According to Genesis 1:10-12, the first plants were growing on earth a day before the Sun existed (also as I mentioned, there was sunlight for 3 days before the Sun existed). This seems a little iffy to me.

Genesis 1 tells an account of the first six days of creation. Then as soon as it finishes, Genesis 2 gives us a completely different account. In Genesis 1 Adam and Eve are created at the same time after the animals. In Genesis 2, god creates Adam, gives him the rundown on the fruit policy (before Eve exists [slight oversight on god’s part]), then he creates all the animals, then has Adam name the animals, and after all this he creates Eve.

In Genesis 3:8-9 Adam and Eve hid behind a tree and god couldn’t find them.

Ok this one isn’t so much an accuracy issue as it is just something that has always struck me as really f*cked up (even when I believed the Earth was 6,000 years old). In Genesis 2:17 god tells Adam “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die”. We see this repeated in Eve’s answer to the talking serpent (did I mention there’s a talking snake in this story?) “’You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die”. The talking snake tells Eve “You will not surely die, For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (v4-5). Obviously one of these characters is lying. We found out in verse 7 after they eat the fruit and “Then the eyes of both of them were opened” (also Adam lives another 930 years according to Genesis 5:5). The kicker to this is that after god banishes the humans he uses almost the exact same words as the serpent to describe the effects of the tree, “And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil”. So according to the bible, the talking snake (commonly thought to be the devil, though Genesis makes no mention of this) was telling the truth and god was lying.

In Genesis 4:14, when Cain tells god “every one that findeth me shall slay me”, aren’t there supposed to be only 3 humans on the planet at this point in the story? And then Cain finds a wife. And they build a city (Genesis 4:17).

In Genesis 6:13 god becomes distraught because there is too much violence going on down on Earth (this is the one stated reason that god gives Noah in the flood story “the earth is filled with violence through them”). So what is god’s solution to all this violence? You guessed it. He kills everyone (well not everyone, there was this one guy, and some animals).

So god decides to kill everyone with a global flood, but first he gets a 600 year old man, and tells him to gather 7 of every “clean” animal and 2 of every “unclean” animal (by the way, if Noah was before Moses, how did he know which animals were unclean) and put them on a 450’x75’x45’ boat (presumably including animals which have never been indigenous to northern Africa) (and since we know from Genesis 1 that animals don’t evolve, then Noah’s gonna need 7 of each subspecies. So that’s not 7 elephants on the ark. It’s 28 elephants) (and 7 each of the 30,000 or so species of spiders) (and 7 isn’t even really enough genetic diversity to propagate a species) (seriously the math on this only works if you assume a very small number of species [much smaller than the number that can be seen to exist today]).

As for the flood itself, it is said to have covered the mountains (Genesis 7:19). So that would have to be enough water to raise the sea level of the entire planet (meaning every ocean at the same time) thousands of feet. This brings up the question of where all that water went afterward. Then there is the question of why the geological record does not mesh with the flood story.

According to Genesis 8:20 the first thing Noah does after getting off the boat is start killing his specimens (the ones he was trying to keep alive on the ark) and sacrificing them to god. Wouldn’t it have been a more efficient use of ark space to take 6 of each clean animal and call the 7th a drowned offering than taking 7 and killing the 7th as soon as you land?

This is as good a time as any to mention the shape of the Earth. Now the bible never explicitly says ‘the earth is flat’. But there are numerous sentences (some from the mouth of god himself) that simply would not make any sense unless they were describing a certain specific form. Take a quick look at Genesis 1:14-17, Genesis 11:3-9, Psalm 93:1, Isaiah 40:21-22, Matthew 4:8, 1st Samuel 2:8, Job 38:13, Deuteronomy 13:7, Revelation 8:10, Daniel 4:10-11 or Joshua 10:12, and ask yourself what is being described in these passages.
Which brings us to the tower of Babel, In Genesis 11, the people of Earth being of one language decide to build a tower to heaven. When god finds out about it he is worried that it will work, so he steps in and interrupts this moment of universal human cooperation to confound their language and scatter them so that they can’t finish their tower to heaven. Yes, it literally says that, “let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven”. And we see in verse 6 that god was worried they would succeed if he didn’t intervene. Leaving to one side the issue that god supposedly wants people to get to heaven (enough to kill himself to get them in), and that these people who would have died a couple thousand years before Jesus was born and thus would have no possible opportunity of converting to christianity and getting into heaven through the front door, the real problem is that this passage portrays heaven as a physical location above Earth. We have sent manned missions to the moon, probes to the edges of the solar system, and photographed much of the galaxy outside our own solar system, without finding “heaven”. The al Burj tower in Dubai (not far from where Babel would be if it were a true story) stands 828 meters (2,717) feet and it does not reach heaven (there are also [as far as I know] no accounts anywhere of airplanes colliding with angels in midair). If god had not stepped in surely construction would have been halted by the thinning oxygen as the ancient builders began to get into the upper levels of the atmosphere. And there is really only so tall you can go with a tower made of brick and mortar. And how did these people even have a concept of heaven? There’s been no mention of heaven in front of any of the human characters anywhere in the ten chapters preceding this incident.

Since the real topic at hand is the new testament (specifically the gospels), and since the stories of Abraham and Moses are each as complex (and full of plot holes) as the story(s) of Jesus I’m gonna skip ahead a bit, but I would like to mention one other thing in relation to the old testament. And that is the inherent contradiction between “thou shalt not kill” and “thou shalt kill”. Some of the worst atrocities in literary history are commanded by the judeo-christian god and his prophets in the old testament. And the law of Moses (the same place you find “thou shalt not kill”) orders execution for hundreds of innocuous acts from working on the sabbath (Exodus 30:15), to a girl not being able to prove her virginity to her husband (Deuteronomy 22:13-25) to cursing your parents (Leviticus 20:9). After giving Moses this “moral” code, god commands Moses to tell the Israelites to commit genocide, offering them the promised land, but telling them that first they must murder every man woman and child currently occupying the land. The god who tells Moses “thou shalt not kill” tells Moses “But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them” (Deuteronomy 20:16-17). This is also the same god who is Jesus later in the book.

Which brings us to Jesus…

Thanks again Nox – and once again, to be continued!

Update from Dan: I put some paragraph breaks in here… I just couldn’t take it.

Update from Custador (AKA Mike): Censorship! Booo! :p

Nox's Wall of Text, Part 1.

Over in the forum we have a relatively new theist to debate. Unlike most who visit our quiet little corner of the blue nowhere, NotAshamedofChrist isn’t a drive-by poster and isn’t a troll. S/he seems genuinely interested in debating our lack of faith, and honestly curious as to how we have come to have views so completely different to his/her own. Kudos, NAoC.

Somewhat inevitably, though, NAoC fell back on an old Christian argument in the face of adversity:

“[The] Bible is not biased the apparent contradictions actually confirm its truth take the gospels for example you have four different eyewitness accounts of the same events its unlikely that each person from a slightly different standpoint would come up with exactly the same details.”

Regular poster Nox is something of a Bible scholar, and in response to that assertion he produced what I can only describe as an epic wall of textual ownage, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that all ur bible r belong 2 him. Because he put so much work into it and covered so much ground, I decided to reproduce it on the blog for all of y’all. Note that this wall of text is part of an ongoing discussion, so at times it addresses NAoC directly and references earlier posts. The link above is to the whole discussion if you need context.

Now, I’m usually guilty of dismissing epic posts as tl;dr – in this case, however, I recommend making yourself a cup of your favourite hot beverage, settling yourself down and having a good read. You’ll learn a lot.

Over to Nox:

“(1)
Welcome back NotAshamed,
I’m glad to see you decided this wasn’t a waste of time. And I hope you are getting something out of it. I always enjoy a good discussion. Sorry I wrote you off a bit early. You understand we do get a lot of drive by posters here. But I do give you credit for still being here and being willing to discuss these issues. As a former christian I am familiar with the discomfort that comes from having one’s faith criticized. But I honestly am trying to help you, and I do hope you’ll stick around for awhile.
“Besides, all the new Testament books were written down only 40 years after Jesus died.”
Where do you get this figure? Mark, the first gospel is believed to have been written down around 70 AD (about 40 years after the estimated date of the crucifixion) with Matthew and Luke showing up about 10 to 20 years later. The gospel of John was almost certainly written in the 2nd Century, around 90 years after the estimated date of Jesus death. There is however, pretty solid reason to believe that some of Paul’s letters (ie Galatians) were written less than 40 years after 33 AD. These dates aren’t controversial. They are accepted by the majority of biblical scholars (both secular and christian).
“Everyone believes that Julius Caesar came to Btitain in 55 BC but we have only 9 or 10 manuscripts to support this, and the earliest was written 900 years after the event!”
We have Caesar’s own account of his campaigns in Gaul and Pompey, written by Julius Caesar while Julius Caesar was alive (that may sound redundant but it is an important distinction). We have nothing that was written by Jesus. Nor do we have one thing that was written about Jesus during his lifetime. We have only the gospels, which show themselves to be historically inaccurate, and the letters of Paul (who never met Jesus) which give us almost nothing in terms of biographical details. And we have the unanimous silence of contemporary historians about a guy who would have been noticed if he did the stuff the gospels describe him doing. And while there may be thousands of “manuscripts” from the middle ages, it is worth noting that we do not have the original manuscript of any of the 4 gospels.
You said earlier “its just that I genuinely wonder how people do not believe in God when, in my mind anyway the wonders of creation the human body and brain shout out the existence of God”. We could get into how cosmology makes the deist god unnecessary. Or how natural selection explains the complexity of life without needing to invoke an extra party. Or how a modern understanding of electricity calls into question the existence of Thor. But what we are really talking about here is yhwh, the god in the bible. And the reason I don’t believe in the god in the bible is because I’ve read the bible. And really when you get down to it, there isn’t really any other source for the claim that yhwh exists (this is why I wanted to make a point of clarifying that yhwh is the god we are debating).
Let me give you a few examples of what I mean and why I can’t buy the bible as a historical document (at least not as an accurate historical document), and certainly not a reliable enough source to upon which to base belief in any entities which have not thought to give us any other reason to suspect their existence. There are scientific and philosophical issues as well, but since the bible is the topic that’s come up (and its kinda a hobby of mine), and since for me personally the bible was what convinced me that the bible was not true, then what I’d like to talk to you about today is the bible. ”

To be continued – I couldn’t post the whole lot at once because it’s gigantic – I’ll post more over the next couple of weeks. Thank you, Nox, for having a gigantic brain and sharing it with us!

Tony Blair Vs. Christopher Hitchens.

Is religion a force for good in the world? The debate in Toronto, Canada on 26th of November 2010.

Tony Blair never spoke of his religion whilst he was Prime Minister of Britain, but converted to his wife’s faith (Roman Catholicism) shortly after he resigned and has been making a lot of money on the global speaking circuit ever since.

Christopher Hitchens is a world-famous atheist author and journalist who will need little introduction here. Despite his illness (his throat cancer has metastacised) he has not backed down from a debate or budged an inch on the issue of faith and religion.

YouTube Preview Image

I’ve left out Part 1 because it is nine minutes of rather wordy introduction from an unknown and doesn’t contribute to the debate.

Parts 3 to 9 can be found here.

Dembski vs. Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens and William Dembski met for a debate yesterday morning at Prestonwood Christian Academy in Plano, Texas.

As it happens, PCA used to be the church of our good friend LRA.

According to the PCA website, a video will be available on Nov. 22nd. For now, you can read a live-blog of the event from MikeTheInfidel.

Just judging from Mike’s notes, Dembski reminds me of that kid in high school who would write about the only thing they knew and try to adapt that to whatever the assignment required. The debate was over the existence of God, but Dempski seems to have spent almost all his time talking about Intelligent Design, and then weakly connected that to theism. Hitchens could have shut him down with a few of the questions from the British Centre for Science Education’s Questions for Prof. Behe.

Let's Debate Health Care

PillsLet’s see if we can have a rational conversation about U.S. health care.

What do you think are the advantages of U.S. universal health care? What are the disadvantages?

My Opinion

I have a hard time seeing how universal health care (UHC) will reduce costs. Electronic records might, but that is distinct from UHC. When more people are covered, demand will increase. And if pre-existing restrictions are forbidden, cost to insurance companies increase, which increases the premium.

In other words, I don’t see UHC as reducing the cost — though I’d be pleasantly surprised if it did. Just doesn’t seem like an economical reality. This seems to me the biggest disadvantage.

If costs are capped through government mandate, then quality will go down. See rent control for examples on why that’s so. TINSTAAFL — there is no such thing as a free lunch. Something always has to give. It will also reduce incentive for drug companies to spend the necessary money to create new drugs if they can’t make a profit. Right now the US leads in creating life-saving drugs because of the economical incentives. If those incentives go away, then that will very likely go away.

My preferred solution is a health savings account system with high deductible major medical coverage (~$5k/yr), supplemented with reformed Medicare & Medicaid programs for those who cannot afford HSAs. This gives incentives for people to only go to the doctor when necessary (though preventative visits are free), thus keeping demand down and controlling costs. People can keep the money and roll the extra into an IRA if they do not spend it — which is better than always going to a premium.

But I’m a libertarian, so I tend to side with things that make people responsible, instead of massive government programs.

On the other hand, I’m willing to give the currently proposed method of UHC a chance. I’m not an expert in economics, and I’m probably misunderstanding many things. I know our politicians are trying to do what is in the best interest of Americans (or at least I hope so!), and maybe extending the coverage pool and encouraging preventive medicine will balance the health care budget.

But I doubt it. It’s going to cost us one way or another. The question is, is that cost worth making sure every American has health care insurance?

What do you think?