Top 10 Most Common Atheist Arguments—Do They Fail? (2 of 4)

Top 10 Most Common Atheist Arguments—Do They Fail? (2 of 4) July 19, 2019

Let’s continue with our critique of Eric Hyde’s analysis of atheist arguments, “Top 10 Most Common Atheist Arguments, and Why They Fail.” (Begin with part 1 here.)

“3. God is not all-powerful if there is something He cannot do. God cannot lie, therefore God is not all-powerful.”

Just for completeness, I’ll share Hyde’s response even though it makes little sense. Hyde argues that God’s properties are subordinate to his free will. He doesn’t lie because he wills to not lie, and he could just as easily will to lie. While we’re at it, God could also will to not be good or to not exist . . . which raises more questions than it answers. As for the “Can God make a rock so heavy he can’t lift it?” category of paradoxes, he says that God can’t “overpower Himself.”

Much has been written about the contradictions that arise when pitting God’s perfect qualities against each other, and there are lots more examples than “God can’t lie, so he’s not all-powerful.” For example, if God is omniscient (knows everything), he knows the future. But how can he be omnipotent (can do anything) when he can’t change the future without violating his omniscience?

How can there be “necessary suffering” when God is omnipotent? Isn’t he powerful enough to achieve his ends without causing suffering? Or is he just not omni-benevolent?

Does God have a personality? How can this be when personality traits have a negative side? For example, there’s no pleasure in victory without the risk of defeat, and an overabundance of kindness makes you a doormat. But if a personality is an odd thing for God to have, what would a personality-less god be like?

Our universe isn’t eternal. Before God created it, reality was either perfect or not. God wouldn’t have allowed an imperfect reality to exist. But if it already were perfect, what motivated God to create the universe? How could the universe have satisfied a need of God when a perfect being wouldn’t have needs? And if creating the universe satisfied no needs, why would he create it?

How can God be all-just (that is, giving everyone precisely the punishment they deserve) and merciful (giving less punishment than people deserve)?

How can God have a purpose? A purpose implies goals and unfulfilled desires. But that’s impossible for a perfect being.

If God is all-powerful, he can just forgive our sins, which sounds reasonable since we’re imperfect and sinful because he made us that way. That would eliminate the bizarre tale that God had to sacrifice himself to himself to make a loophole in a law that he made himself so we could get into heaven. (And, in fact, God has forgiven sins and then forgotten them.)

We typically give Christians a pass when they list God’s properties—it’s their religion, so why not? But the Bible gives some very human limitations on God.

  • God changed his mind: “The Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people” (Exodus 32:10–14). He dithered about whether Balaam (the one with the talking donkey) should go on his trip or not (Numbers 22).
  • God doesn’t know everything: “I will go down [to Sodom] and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me” (Genesis 18:21).
  • God isn’t all-powerful and is defeated several times in the Old Testament.
  • God isn’t especially moral.
  • God regrets.
  • God lies.

“4. Believing in God is the same as believing in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.”

Hyde says that God is different from the other three. Christianity has developed over thousands of years, it’s had martyrs, and it’s endured religious persecution. The Bible has “historical and geographical corroboration.” Compare that against fairies, Santa, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which no adult believes in. “It’s strawman argumentation at its worst.”

Yes, Christianity is old. Hinduism is older. That doesn’t mean that either one is correct. And look what longevity has done to Christianity: there are now 45,000 denominations of Christianity. Christians can’t even agree what their own holy book says, and the religion is becoming more fragmented, not more coherent, with time.

Yes, there have been Christian martyrs and Christian wars. Some evaluations of the Thirty Years’ War, in which Catholics and Protestants fought in Europe in the early 1600s, estimate that it killed up to two percent of the entire world’s population (I explore the deaths due to religion here). Religious violence is no evidence that Christianity is correct.

Yes, the Bible does refer to some places that history or archeology have corroborated. This Argument from Accurate Place Names isn’t much to brag about. Getting the basics of history and geography correct—countries, rivers, kings, cities, and the like—earns you no praise. It simply gets you to the starting line. No one would say that The Wizard of Oz is likely true because Kansas really exists.

And speaking of Kansas, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may sauce be upon Him) was invented by Bobby Henderson in 2005 in response to a proposal by that state’s board of education to include intelligent design along with evolution in biology classes. He concluded his argument:

I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; one third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Yes, Pastafarianism was deliberately made up, and Christianity wasn’t. Doesn’t matter—if the evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Yahweh are equally weak and we are certain that one of them is false, what does that say about the other?

Continued in part 3.

I don’t know if God exists,
but it would be better for His reputation if He didn’t.
— Jules Renard

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 6/29/15.)

Image from Dr. Partha Sarathi Sahana, CC license

.

"Josephus describes the temple veil.Jewish Wars 5.5.4 excerpt... But then this house, as it was ..."

Gospels vs. the Perfect Miracle Claim
"12 disciples.The 12 disciples spent 3 freaking years with God Himself, but most of them ..."

Gospels vs. the Perfect Miracle Claim
"Huh? I'm not sure what you are getting at with this comment. Are you suggesting ..."

500 Eyewitnesses to the Risen Christ? ..."
""And yet it was"OK"So wide that Alexander the Great would be trivial by comparison."By what ..."

Gospels vs. the Perfect Miracle Claim

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Castilliano

    Bob, you brought up a good point I want to revisit: What’s Yahweh’s personality like?

    I can imagine most Christians will start with “good”, maybe adding “just” or “merciful” (despite those being in conflict), but where to go afterward than to irrelevant traits like being an omni-Creator?
    One might even press them by asking if they have a personal relationship with him or not.
    Exploring his personality, if considering the Bible, one has to hit “wrathful”, right? And he’s often angry, it’s obvious. Anything more?
    What’s his sense of humor like? What’s he enjoy doing?
    These are basic questions for people in a relationship.

    If Yahweh decided not to be a god, what kind of person would he (not Jesus!) be?
    Perhaps if stripped of that sacred veil, people might see how horrific he is!
    Cheers

    ETA: And what about the Holy Spirit? Any personality at all?

    • Of course, we must keep track of God 1.0, which was just a superman kind of god–pretty wise, quite strong, etc. Eventually we get God 2.0 with all the omni powers. Somehow they’re the same god and yet the very clear limitations of the first god don’t bring anything into question …

      Makes my brain hurt.

      • NS Alito

        I really do see the connection between Trump and the evangelicals: With no evidence, they can claim that he’s the best at everything while appearing to everyone else who’s read the Bible sees him as a petulant bully with poor communication skills.

    • RichardSRussell

      As to that “deep, personal relationship with Jesus Christ” that many fundies claim to have, I rip the claim to shreds here:
      http://richardsrussell.livejournal.com/128569.html

      • NS Alito

        It’s interesting having a “deep, personal relationship” with a trans-dimensional being that is both the creator and the son of the creator of a galaxy with hundreds of billions of galaxies in it, while not being able to program my DVR.

        • Michael Neville

          Your first “galaxy” should be “universe”.

        • Pofarmer

          Not only that, but we are supposed to be “created in his image”, wait, what?

    • NS Alito

      If the Bible God loves the smell of blood, why doesn’t everything smell like blood?

  • Lex Lata

    As Hyde writes it, item 3 is less an argument than a semantic gotcha of the sort that some atheists might use to impeach the consistency of certain Christian claims about God, although I can’t recall ever seeing this particular permutation before. And I’d actually agree this example is glib and gimmicky. (Who says God can’t lie?)

    But as you explain, there are other, better critiques and points about the incoherency of the omnipotent, loving God concept(s). The Problem of Hell. The Problem of Evil. The chronic lack of unanimity among believers about God and soteriology. And of course the Bible’s depiction of Yahweh as a finite, moody, needy, vengeful, parochial father-warlord-deity with a weird fixation on foreskins and blood sacrifice. Hyde omits mention of these, and goes for a particularly low-hanging bit of fruit instead.

    He aims at similarly easy targets with the beings listed in 4, which atheists usually offer not in thoughtful, structured arguments, but rather as tongue-in-cheek rhetorical jabs. The more serious epistemological comparisons would be between (a) belief in Yahweh, angels, demons, JC, biblical signs and wonders, etc., and (b) belief in any of the deities, spirits, demigods, and miracles of humanity’s myriad non-Christian traditions.

    And the Argument from Accurate Place Names is one of my pet peeves, an especially lazy and shameless apologetic that reflects (and/or counts on) ignorance of sound historiography and epistemology. Real-world locations appear in Beowulf, the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Histories of Herodotus, and innumerable other old works. But of course we don’t credit their accounts of dragons, nereids, ogres, headless men, giants, demigods, magic, miracles, etc., merely because the authors seemed to have a solid grasp of geography. That Jerusalem was a real city no more supports the Resurrection than the existence of Troy means Circe turned a bunch of Achaean sailors into pigs.

    • And the Argument from Accurate Place Names is one of my pet peeves

      Do they not understand how it looks that that’s one of their go-to arguments??

      • abb3w

        So, strike the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus, and include Ganesh and Harry Potter instead.

        • To me, being a Christian theologian and being an expert in Harry Potter trivia (or D&D or the stats for [insert sports team here]) are pretty much the same thing

        • Michael Neville

          I have to disagree. Sports teams are real and their statistics are recorded using specific rules. Everything else you mention can be a matter of interpretation and debate.

        • Rereading my comment, I see that I was incomplete. I meant that Christian theology trivia isn’t very important in the real world. Christians think it is, but it’s really not. Ditto D&D or a sports team. People can get very excited and devote much time/money to any of these, but, from an objective observer, they’re not really important.

          I had ignored the point that you raise, which that the answer to “One of these things is not like the other” is sports teams because they’re the only one that’s real. Good point.

        • NS Alito

          I prefer the comparison between theology and comic books, because of all the retconning they tend to do.

        • Yeah? Next you’ll be saying that rebooting a SciFi or comic property (e.g., the several Spider-man or Hulk origin movies) is similar to rebooting in Christianity.

          Oh, wait a minute … Moses brings down the law, the end … Jesus died for your sins, the end … the angel Moroni has a book you’ve got to read, the end.

        • NS Alito

          How ’bout that trinity, eh?

      • Lex Lata

        Methinks it’s roughly 50% not understanding how it looks, and 50% not caring. As is so often the case, the goal of this apologetic isn’t to impress skeptical non-believers, but rather to bolster the faith of existing believers by counting the historical hits, ignoring the misses, and eschewing any sort of intellectually rigorous comparative inquiry.

        It doesn’t hurt that the overwhelming majority of apologists and their audience know as much about ancient history and literature as I know about the surface of Venus. Last week I saw that Robert Clifton Robinson has once again claimed that no-one disputes the authenticity and accuracy of the Iliad, for example. At a certain point, the obliviousness almost becomes a kind of performance art.

        • Given that we all have imperfect brains, I wonder how bad these apologists are at really understanding an opposing argument. When they repeat for the 10th time an argument that has been neatly destroyed, are they just skimming over the argument and not really internalize it, or do they understand it and suppress that knowledge, or is it all conscious (“This challenges my worldview, and I hate that, so I’m just going to ignore this argument”).

        • NS Alito

          You can hear the little *doink!* sound your arguments make when they bounce off their brains.

        • Yep, and that’s why I do it.

        • I was serious about defending my faith, and would have thought it dishonest to use an argument that I knew didn’t work. I can think of multiple times when I realised an argument didn’t work and stopped using it, once in the middle of a heated discussion (though perhaps my opponents thought it took too long…). That said, since I ended up an atheist I can’t guarantee I’m a representative apologist…

        • Agreed–maybe your honesty in discarding a poor argument is what made you an atheist.

        • I heard that kind of thing about the Iliad years ago, hadn’t read it, and accepted it. Then I actually read the Iliad, and by the end was pretty sure the person claiming it hadn’t read it. Because I’m sure they don’t believe in the existence of the Greek gods, and so would be most upset by a historic document claiming they fought on the battlefield outside Troy.

    • JustAnotherAtheist2

      Who says God can’t lie?

      I don’t consider this question glib at all. It highlights the disconnect between god being mysterious (when convenient) yet totally knowable.

    • (((J_Enigma32)))

      You don’t even have to go back that far. Real world cities appear in Harry Potter, Spider-Man, and the Avengers. Fiction makes use of real world locations all the time to give the facsimile of talking place in a world the reader understands; referencing a city that already exists in the real world is both shorthand for saying, “this takes place in something like our world, save for the differences that make the story possible” and covers a lot of ground for the reader in explaining how the world works. Of course, these folks often display an inability to tell fiction from evidence of any stripe, so I guess it shouldn’t surprise anyone they use this argument.

      • NS Alito

        So many examples! The Wizard Harry Dresden exists because Chicago exists, and Sandman Slim exists because L.A. exists.

      • Lex Lata

        Quite correct; and sometimes the real-world location is so well-developed, that it becomes integral to the novel. (Finally reading A Confederacy of Dunces now, and New Orleans is practically a living character.)

        But in discussions of apologetics, and maybe I’m just being pedantic, I generally prefer to use other narratives from antiquity when arguing by analogy about the historicity of biblical events, places, and people. It’s more of an apples-to-apples comparison that prevents defensive detours into genre and temporal differences, known authorial intent, and the like.

  • ThaneOfDrones

    As for the “Can God make a rock so heavy he can’t lift it?” category of paradoxes

    Another opportunity to air my favourite such conundrum:
    If God is all-powerful, can He make a rock so heavy that hitting Himself in the head with it would explain the huge shift in personality He underwent between the Old Testament and the New Testament? For example, could it explain why He hardly ever mentioned Heaven and Hell and eternal reward/punishment in an afterlife for such a long time? Mostly the OT is about “Obey YHWH’s commands or he will smite you right here in this world.”

    • Michael Neville

      That was part of the maturation process. God finally learned that an immediate but temporary response, i.e., killing someone, isn’t as satisfying as torturing them forever sometime in the future.

      • ephemerol

        That’s god’s Marshmallow Experiment. The fact he is now capable of delaying the gratification he obtains from inflicting suffering upon his creation is the proof of his maturity. Late-bloomer though he may be…

      • ThaneOfDrones

        God finally learned…

        Omniscience ain’t what it used to be.

        • Cozmo the Magician

          Gods these days. They just not as good as the ones back in my day.

    • Kuno

      The OT God was actually an alien race fucking with humans. They were later overthrown by other, a bit more benevolent aliens who tried to reduce the damage done by the first ones, then gave up as that didn’t work out as planned and left our planet for good.

      (Idea for a short story I hade decades ago and never got around to actually write.)

    • Carol Lynn

      If god can do anything why is he constrained by the laws of logic? If god is outside the universe and pushes the laws of logic into it like the pre-sups claim, why shouldn’t it be possible for god to A and notA at the same time? I’ve heard a lot of blathering about the ‘it would be against his nature’ but I look at it as a failure of imagination from the religious. No, I have no clue how that would work, but I’m not god or the one claiming that god can do anything, am I? If god is constrained by the laws of logic, I don’t know how god can be omni-anything at all.

      • Greg G.

        If a god thingy is not constrained by logic, it could be omnipotent and impotent at the same time.

        • Carol Lynn

          Sounds exactly like god to me – claimed to be omnipotent, actually does nothing.

      • Ignorant Amos

        Indeed…that’s why the whole loada ballix is just one great big cherry-picked fudge up.

      • abb3w

        If god can do anything why is he constrained by the laws of logic?

        Theological responses on this vary (as well as to whether or not god even is).

        It might be interesting to do a survey of religious leaders/scholars, to see what types of response are given to the question, and with what relative frequencies for the types.

  • Milo C

    As an offshoot of the personality question, does God have favorites? Yes, we see in the Bible that God prefers the burned offerings of doves with their heads twisted off rather than strangled (or something to that effect).

    • He does get grossed out by poop (Deut. 23:13-14), but that’s a preference on the other end of the spectrum.

      Thus endeth the reading for today.

    • Michael Neville

      God played favorites right from the start. Cain, a farmer, and Abel, a shepherd, both made sacrifices to Yahweh. Da Lawd sneered at Cain’s offering but loved him some of Abel’s lamb.

      • RichardSRussell

        This is best read as a parable between the nomadic hunter-gatherers on the one hand and the more sedentary herder-farmers on the other. Of course, it was the latter who stayed in one place long enuf to develop the institutions that gave us civilization, but that didn’t stop the old guard from bitching about their losses, much as the free-range ranchers of the Old West were totally pissed off at the farmers who wanted to fence in their property. (If I recall my English history correctly, the same sort of thing happened there during the so-called Enclosure Movement.)

        • NS Alito

          Nah, I read it as the temple priests preferring lamb donations to veggie donations.

        • RichardSRussell

          Yeah, probably that, too!

        • Jim Jones

          Cain may be Tubal-Cain, a smith and hence city dweller.

          Abel may be a desert breeze, a zephyr.

      • Kuno

        There’s also the small problem that Cain was punished for murdering Abel when the Commandment against murder was given to Moses ages later…

  • abb3w

    Just for completeness, I’ll share Hyde’s response even though it makes little sense.

    That the rationalizations used in response make “little sense” seems less relevant than that rationalizations of one sort or another (positing some limit on God’s otherwise omniscience/omnipotence/omnibenevolence) to paper over the problem seem relatively easy to generate and present. In that sense, it “fails”.

    There’s some empirical data that seems semi-relevant to this. In the Altmeyer/Hunsberger “Amazing Conversions” study, one set of questions asked regarded both which issues tended come up, and which tended to instill doubt. One of the “contradictions that arise when pitting God’s perfect qualities against each other” is the “problem of evil”, which A+H included. While that data indicated this was one of the three issues that arose most often, it also was one of the three questions where the measured tendency to doubt was the furthest below the measured tendency of the question to arise.

    Contrariwise, the more general question about religious teachings “seeming contradictory” was one of the three questions where the gap was smallest. So, while a particular instance might not frequently suffice in itself, it might become part of a larger pattern that’s eventually recognized.

    Yes, Christianity is old. Hinduism is older. That doesn’t mean that either one is correct.

    Which might suggest that inclusion of Ganesh in the list might make for a more effective variant on the argument, since there’s a closer parallel.

    Pastafarianism was deliberately made up

    As far as I’ve been able to determine (and I’ve looked for evidence several times), Henderson has never admitted that it was a fabrication rather than the result of divine revelation.

    • Thanks. And good catch on the Pastafarianism. Perhaps I spoke too soon.

      • Cozmo the Magician

        to atone for your sin you must grate 3 ounces of cheese and roll 14 meatballs.

        • Maltnothops

          “But what shall I do with the cheese, oh lord?”

        • Ignorant Amos

          “Blessed are the cheesemakers”!

        • abb3w

          Praise cheeses?

          No, the whole premise is silly and it’s very badly written.

  • JustAnotherAtheist2

    He doesn’t lie because he wills to not lie

    Interesting. It’s my impression that god being limited by his nature is an integral part of how we know god doesn’t lie to us. How do we know we can trust god if he doesn’t have this limitation?

    • ephemerol

      And how do we know that god isn’t lуing to us about his nature? If all we have is the parrot’s word for which parrot it is we’re dealing with, that doesn’t solve anything. Assuming there are any parrots at all, and not just bullshіtters who claim to speak for the parrots.

      • JustAnotherAtheist2

        That’s precisely why they appeal to god’s nature. If he’s incapable of lying, then you aren’t taking his word for it, god is trustworthy by necessity.

        Once you ditch that, though, you are forced to take him at his word. This, of course, presents the problem you mentioned and several others.

        • ephemerol

          You have to take him at his word before you can appeal to his nature, because you have to take him at his word that this is what his nature is.

          You can only ditch it after you’ve already done all of that.

          Same circular reasoning as concluding the bible is true because the bible says it’s true.

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          You have to take him at his word before you can appeal to his nature, because you have to take him at his word that this is what his nature is.

          I disagree. First, apologists are capable of stretching “maximally great being” into all sorts of contortions, including the extents and limits of its nature, so they could “derive” necessary honesty with or without god’s word. Furthermore, god never states that his nature includes necessary honesty, so that conclusion clearly isn’t rooted in the Bible. Or, what god says in the Bible, anyway.

        • ephemerol

          While it is true that it isn’t stated quite as clearly as to say “The reason why it is impossible for god to lіe is due to his fundamental nature,” it is asserted in the bible, in both the Jewish and christian texts, alternately either that it is impossible for god to lіe (Hebrews 6:18) or that even if weren’t ruled out at a level that fundamental, it’s still ruled out by his will or something like that (Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29).

          So while I think you are right about other maximal parameters, yes, apologists, theologians, and early church fathers have made up out of whole cloth a lot of shіt that’s become orthodoxy for terrіble reasons (omniscience? omnipotence?), I think this one is derived from the bible.

  • eric

    I’m fond of the perfectly just vs. perfectly merciful contrast myself, as being both seems to be something of a logical impossibility and yet they are both traits most Christians are unwilling to give up on.

    These two traits are also important factors in other all-powerful claims. For example, just last week one of the fundies who regularly comment here claimed that God’s just and good nature make it impossible for him to dwell with evil-doers, without Jesus’ sacrifice to justly pay for their crimes. But wait! He’s all merciful, right? So why doesn’t God’s perfectly merciful nature make it possible for him to dwell with sinners? After all, dwelling amongst sinners was practically Jesus’ whole MO, and he was supposed to be perfect too, right? And speaking of perfect justice, a substitutionary sacrifice isn’t that. If Alice sins and Bob says “I’ll take the hit for it,” perfect justice is to respond “no, it must be Alice, since she did the crime.” Letting Bob take the punishment for it is unjust.

    Ah this is what you get when you mix together a bunch of superlatives. GIGO – gibberish in, gibberish out.

    • Ignorant Amos

      IIRC, vicarious redemption was a pet peeve of Christopher Hitchens which he deemed morally reprehensible.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iYh0u5w87M

    • Letting Bob take the punishment for it is unjust.

      Yes, but think of those times when they’ve found that one person was unjustly convicted and served most or all of a prison term for a crime they didn’t commit. It’s often DNA evidence that shows a prisoner was unjustly convicted while at the same time identifying the actual criminal. When faced with the option of locking up the person they now realize was the actual criminal, what usually happens is that the system says, “Well, we got 10 years out of someone, so it’s all good.”

      Oh, wait a minute …

      • Ignorant Amos

        The helplessness of standing on the gallows or [insert any other form of capital punishment here] knowing in yer own mind that yer innocent, is what gives me nightmares when I think about it..

        Losing my liberty for three months on remand before eventually being acquitted for something of not my doing was bad enough.

        • epeeist

          Losing my liberty for three months on remand before eventually being acquitted for something of not my doing was bad enough.

          Lucky that is behind you, with Priti Patel as Home Secretary who knows what will happen in the future.

        • I guess that highlights the appeal of a perfect celestial Judge. Too bad the one Christians have picked is a dick.

  • ephemerol

    Pіt thіѕ аgаіnѕt tаlеѕ оf thе Tооth Fаіrу, Sаntа, аnd Spаghеttі Mоnѕtеrѕ аnd оnе fіndѕ thе ехаct оppоѕіtе: nо tеѕtіmоnу оr rеlіgіоuѕ rеfіnеmеnt, nо mаrtуrѕ, nо hіѕtоrіcаl аnd gеоgrаphіcаl cоrrоbоrаtіоn, еtc. Inѕtеаd, оnе fіndѕ mуthѕ crеаtеd іntеntіоnаllу fоr chіldrеn, fоr pоіnt mаkіng, оr fоr ᴡhаtеᴠеr. It’ѕ ѕtrаᴡmаn аrgumеntаtіоn аt іtѕ ᴡоrѕt.

    Hоᴡ quіcklу Hуdе fоrgеtѕ hіѕtоrу:

    Arе уоu а ᴡіtch оr
    Arе уоu а fаіrу?
    Or аrе уоu thе ᴡіfе
    Of Mіchаеl Clеаrу?

    Brіdgеt Clеаrу ᴡаѕ аn Irіѕh ᴡоmаn kіllеd bу hеr huѕbаnd Mіchаеl іn 1895 lеаdіng tо а ѕеnѕаtіоnаl trіаl, ᴡіdеlу rеpоrtеd in the British Isles аt thе tіmе. Eᴠеn ᴡоrѕе, thе еᴠеntѕ оccurrеd ᴡhіlе hеr fаthеr Pаtrіck Bоlаnd аnd ѕеᴠеn оthеrѕ ᴡеrе prеѕеnt іn thе hоuѕе, all defendants in the trial. Mіchаеl’ѕ dеfеnѕе ᴡаѕ trаdіtіоnаl fаіrу fаіth. Hе аrguеd thаt thаt thе rеаl Brіdgеt hаd bееn аbductеd bу fаіrіеѕ аnd ᴡаѕ ѕtіll аlіᴠе аnd ᴡеll ѕоmеᴡhеrе, аnd thаt аn іmpоѕtеr fаіrу chаngеlіng hаd bееn ѕеnt tо tаkе hеr plаcе.

    But іt’ѕ еquаllу dіѕіngеnuоuѕ ѕtrаᴡmаn аrgumеntаtіоn bу Hуdе tо “pіt” chrіѕtіаnіtу аgаіnѕt аnуthіng currеntlу аcknоᴡlеdgеd bу chrіѕtіаnѕ аnd nоnchrіѕtіаnѕ аlіkе аѕ mуthоlоgу ᴡhіlе іgnоrіng thаt thеrе аrе thоuѕаndѕ оf cоmpеtіng rеlіgіоnѕ ᴡіth аll thе hаllmаrkѕ hе dеmаndѕ, ᴡhіch аrе juѕt аѕ fеrᴠеntlу аnd ѕіncеrеlу bеlіеᴠеd аѕ hе bеlіеᴠеѕ іn thе chrіѕtіаn mуthоlоgу. Thіѕ іѕ а frеquеnt chrіѕtіаn аmnеѕіа thаt аpоlоgіѕtѕ ѕuffеr frоm.

    Furthеrmоrе, hе’ѕ cоmplеtеlу mіѕѕіng thе аctuаl pоіnt оf аthеіѕtѕ іn lіkеnіng bеlіеf іn а Jеѕuѕ tо bеlіеf іn а Tооth Fаіrу. Wе dо nоt mаkе thе cоmpаrіѕоn tо mаkе ѕоmе ѕоrt cоmpаrаtіᴠе rеlіgіоn аrgumеnt, аѕ hе ѕееmѕ tо аѕѕеrt. It’ѕ nоthіng mоrе thаn аn іlluѕtrаtіоn оf hоᴡ rіdіculоuѕ ѕіncеrе bеlіеf іn Jеѕuѕ аppеаrѕ tо uѕ. It’ѕ аѕ rіdіculоuѕ аѕ ѕіncеrеlу bеlіеᴠіng іn thе Tооth Fаіrу, Sаntа, оr FSM.

    • Phil Rimmer

      This is a stunningly clear case of Capgras Syndrome where an underperforming amygdala fails to report “friendly, known person” whilst the visual cortex is saying, “this looks like my wife”, (My aunt believed my father was a cheap Chinese copy….)

      Knowing how our brain works (like the not infrequent schizotypal episode) makes this nonsense,for instance, the worst of religion….go away.

      • ephemerol

        It could be…but since Capgras by definition is caused by some sort of structural damage, it’s not actually so easy to diagnose in absentia.

        It is also fully explained by the belіefs of traditional Celtic faіry faіth, by the fact that the Cleary’s home was built upon what was believed to be a faіry rіng fort, and that she regularly visited a customer for her hen’s eggs who lived on Kylenagranagh Hill, the site of another believed faіry rіng fort, and that she dіsappeared for 3 days several months prior, creating the opportunity for Michael to have believed the abductіon had occurred.

        The episode is also fully explained by Michael’s abusіve nature and the troubled nature of their marriage. It’s possible that Michael was under no such delusion, but that he merely wanted out of his marriage, and fairy faith served as a socially acceptable pathway out and convincing cover both to his father-in-law and neighbors, as well as in the Tipperary courts. If so, it didn’t work very well. He was sentenced to 20 years, and served 15 of them.

        • Phil Rimmer

          The very point of Capgras syndrome is its use of prevailing cultural and personal information to account for the novel experience.

          My aunt believed the man claiming to be her brother was newly a cheap Chinese copy. This clever solution played on the cultural idea from the sixties and seventies of cheap Chinese copies, but also her childhood around the Liverpool docks and the extensive Chinese community there, when ideas of the Chinese white slave trade abounded and children were regaled with the dangers of Chinese Triads and the infamous Lok Ah Tan. This stranger was a copy of her brother who had clearly been kidnapped and taken as slave.

          It doesn’t require damage of the amygdala it need only be disease which can be transient. It does need a number of easy dots for someone to join up to become this reportable thing. The troubled relationship etc. can play into Capgras as well as being a simple reason for murder. If fairies were thought of as viable alternate explanation, then this speaks of real power to the idea within a community. To us and the jury it simply looks pathetic as an excise.

  • Christianism is old, but Judaism is older and the Canaanite religion from which it sprang is even older (and the Mesopotamian one still older)

  • (((J_Enigma32)))

    As for the “Can God make a rock so heavy he can’t lift it?” category of paradoxes, he says that God can’t “overpower Himself.”

    I’m having flashbacks to Russel’s Paradox in Naive Set Theory: “a set of all sets cannot contain itself.” Effectively, there can be no such thing as a set of all sets, because there will always be at least one set that is not part of it. Now, other forms of set theory have redefined this by suggesting that a set of all sets is functionally impossible, but when I see an argument like this I immediately want to liken God to a “set of all sets,” which would mean he can’t exist on the face of it. However, I don’t know enough about set theory to know if this is a viable path to take, so perhaps someone can correct me if I’m wrong or expound further on my fragmented thought.

    He doesn’t lie because he wills to not lie, and he could just as easily will to lie.

    Why? Why doesn’t God lie (I mean, he totally does, but that’s neither here nor there)?

    is it because lying is wrong? Would lying be wrong if God did it? So much of our social organization relies on little white lies to keep functioning, after all. You don’t ever speak truthfully to your boss about your opinions unless you want to lose your job, for instance.

    This dips right back into that most basic of paradoxes confronting divine command: is it good because God decrees it good, or does God decree it because it’s good? and if God decrees it because it’s good, someone had to decide whether or not it’s good, which means God isn’t the fundamental source for all morality. And if God is the one who decreed it good, who are we to just up and trust his morality? All this links back to an even more basic question: what is the nature of “good”, and can something that’s unambiguously “good” even exist in a universe where causality can trigger unforeseen and sometimes negative knock on effects?

    For instance, you save a man from getting hit by a truck, but in the process, you break his arm. Saving someone’s life is one of those things that is generally considered unambiguously “good,” and Good Samaritan laws can keep you from getting sued for breaking his arm in the process of saving him. However, you broke his arm on accident, and he can’t afford medical care. So he spirals into medical debt, gets hooked on pain killers because of the pain, and eventually destroys his own life, and the lives of his wife and two children, all because you saved him rather than letting him get killed by the truck. This is absolutely the result of a decision you made. And you had no way to know if he was going to die, after all; perhaps the truck would’ve swerved at the last minute and not hit him at all and your injury of him was absolutely needless.. Or perhaps your actions delayed the inevitable — for instance, he might have suffered an even worse injury that pushed him down that spiral faster. And that’s before getting into questions like, “what if he was an abuser and you basically condemned his family and kids to abuse; arguably worse now that he’s a drug abuser. Was your action in saving him really good? Could you even have known the consequences at the time?

    I doubt anyone even passingly acquainted with morality and ethics will say there’s anything in this world that is 100% good or 100% bad. There’s a dozen and a half quotes about clouds and silver linings and capitalizing on a bad situation to prove that. So what exactly would it mean for something to be “unambiguously good,” and what would that look like? Something tells me most of these people aren’t up to a discussion of this caliber. I know a huge number of Americans can’t even conceive of a world where black and white, good and evil, and the like don’t exist as clearly defined absolute quantities, exhibiting what I call “Saturday morning cartoon morality,” so why are these folks any different?

    • abb3w

      I’m having flashbacks to Russel’s Paradox in Naive Set Theory: “a set of all sets cannot contain itself.” Effectively, there can be no such thing as a set of all sets, because there will always be at least one set that is not part of it. Now, other forms of set theory have redefined this by suggesting that a set of all sets is functionally impossible, but when I see an argument like this I immediately want to liken God to a “set of all sets,” which would mean he can’t exist on the face of it. However, I don’t know enough about set theory to know if this is a viable path to take, so perhaps someone can correct me if I’m wrong or expound further on my fragmented thought.

      First, in my experience, the religious tend to be bad at math.

      Second, you might look into the hierarchy of Cardinal numbers, and then check out the ending to Heinlein’s fantasy(?) novel “Job”, where there’s hints at a hierarchy of “divine” entities that might resemble it. (F/SF produces the snazziest heresies.)

      Why doesn’t God lie (I mean, he totally does, but that’s neither here nor there)?

      The least silly argument I’ve heard on this one is that it’s a by-product of his status as omnipotent creator, and the relation of the Word to creation. In this view, God can’t lie, because His saying it makes it True. This involves starting from a couple premises that I don’t accept, but I can at least recognize its utility for resisting persausion.

  • NS Alito

    But how can he be omnipotent (can do anything) when he can’t change the future without violating his omniscience?

    I’m not sure, but I think there are tachyons involved.

    Sincerely,

    Someone who has read too much time-travel paradox SF

    • Kuno

      God just has to reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.

    • Ignorant Amos

      All one needs is a pet giant tardigrade for it’s prototaxites stellaviatori DNA…and a spore drive of course.

      • NS Alito

        *headslap*Of course! Why do I always miss the obvious?

    • Cozmo the Magician

      Pair of docs are a mess. One doctor is more than enough trouble as it is (: And FFS don’t get me started about that one time there was five all at once.

  • Ficino

    “You simply fail to understand Aquinas.”

    “Oh, so I’m in invincable ignorance? Aw yeah!”

    • NS Alito

      Personally, I don’t speak 13th Century Latin.

      • Michael Neville

        Is such ignorance possible?

        • NS Alito

          Hey, I’m working on it, but I can’t find the 13thC Latin option on any of the language-learning apps!

        • Grimlock

          Why learn Latin when you can learn Klingon?

        • Cozmo the Magician

          aww… i just posted something similar O_o

          nIv yab ‘e’ nagh
          loosely.. ‘Great minds think alike’

      • Cozmo the Magician

        everything is better in the original klingon (:

  • NS Alito

    Christianity has developed over thousands of years…

    Yeah, about that… Christianity seems to have changed more than I would expect from an eternal truth. Knowledge about the cosmos, the biology of human reproduction, the self-deluding properties of the human brain, and so forth, have driven more and more of Biblical accounts into esoteric theological messages.

    • JustAnotherAtheist2

      Yes, and “developed” is a curious way to put it as well. “Refined its apologetics as new data arises to conspicuously exploit areas of ignorance and avoid falsifiability” would be far more apt.

    • abb3w

      Christianity seems to have changed more than I would expect from an eternal truth.

      Anecdatally, some ex-Christians note that as a factor; it’s probably a specific aspect of the more general category of “inconsistencies in doctrine”.

      Catholics at least argue that while the Church has changed over time, no “essential” teachings have changed. Of course, one way you can tell its an essential part of the teaching is that some part of it hasn’t changed….

  • Candy Smith

    All these verses that are being complained about have all already been explained!!

    “God regrets”

    https://carm.org/genesis-66-and-lord-was-sorry-he-had-made-man-earth

    “God lies”

    Since the author made a claim it would smart to go ahead and back up the claim with evidence. The author claims that God lies but fails to provide examples. So, if God lies, please provide an example.

    Will respond to the rest later.

    • Michael Neville

      What if we don’t accept the explanations? Some apologetics are awfully weak, as you should know, considering how weak your arguments were the last time you graced this blog.

    • Kuno

      You might have overlooked that “God lies” is a link to a whole article with examples of God lying. The first one that came to my mind (which is also in the linked article) is Genesis 2. The same story also contradicts God being omniscient, so it’s a two-fer.

      • Ignorant Amos

        Candy is the bluntest tool in the shed. She requires led by the hand at every level.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      First YOUR KIND would have to *demonstrate* that this ‘god’ of yours even exists.

      Until then, it’s just so much martyrbation on YOUR KIND’s part.

    • Ignorant Amos

      Ya love that Christian apologist’s excuse making and mental contortionism, don’t ya?

      BTW, How do ya feel about YahwehJesus maximally enjoying getting gangbanged?

      • Candy Smith

        “BTW, How do ya feel about YahwehJesus maximally enjoying getting gangbanged?”

        I don’t understand what you are saying??

        • Ignorant Amos

          Of course you don’t understand.

          Does your God know everything? In other words, is your God omniscient?

        • Candy Smith

          Yes, He does. Now can you please explain it to me, so that I can understand it and then hopefully then, I’ll be able to answer your question?

    • Lambchopsuey

      We don’t believe that your “god” is real, Candy Smith. THAT’s the problem.

      Until you can demonstrate to our satisfaction that it exists, no one cares about its supposed attributes.

      And since 1 Kings 18 recounts how, when confronted with the Israelites’ nonbelief, your “god” had “its” prophet Elijah conduct a “pray-off” against *hundreds* of priests of Ba’al (which means “Lord”), and your “god” jumped to do whatever Elijah told “it” to do like a well-trained dog, just to prove to its Chosen People that it existed, I don’t think we should settle for anything less than that. Do you? If so, WHY?

    • There’s a link in the post to another post with examples of God’s lies.

      But why ask me? You’ve read the Bible, right? Surely I can’t point out examples in the bible that you’re unfamiliar with.

      Don’t provide a link and assign us the homework to go read it. A link is fine, but give us your own summary of the point. I have little patience for you googling “God regrets,” seeing a CARM link, and then sharing that. You need to do the work, please.

  • Candy Smith

    “God isn’t moral”

    This is merely an opinion. I would assume that the author is referring to examples in the Old Testament most of which are not that bad and are being taken out of context in order to make them bad. But once again, the author does not provide any examples.

    • Michael Neville

      Saying “most of which are not that bad” means that “some of which” are that bad. Personally I think Ol’ Yahweh killing people just because he can is pretty immoral. So is ordering genocide and sexual slavery. Someone only has to murder one person to be labeled a murderer or rape one person one time to be a rapist.

      No, sorry, I’m not buying the “he only killed some of them” argument for Yahweh’s morality.

      Incidentally, if you go back to the section of the OP talking about God’s morality, you’ll see part of the sentence is bolded. That means there’s a link to another post, one where Bob did discuss whether or not God was moral.

    • NS Alito

      I agree. There are so many varied and conflicting definitions of morality that even addressing the issue in a religious context requires explicit definitions.

      For example, some people claim both that
      (1) anything God says to do is inherently moral

      (2) they themselves judge God to be moral

      Of course, that’s a contradiction: If someone cedes all moral judgment to God then that person can no longer be considered an arbiter of what is moral or not. In that case the moral thing for them to do is whatever God tells them—plunging swords into the bellies of the enemy’s pregnant women, executing people for collecting sticks on the wrong day of the week, etc.—ignoring any scruples about whether they should do it.

      Personally, I don’t see any useful definition of “moral” where it would apply to Biblical Yahweh, at lease for modern common usage.

      • Lambchopsuey

        Intolerant religions like Christianity don’t value *morality*; they only value OBEDIENCE and its counterpart, CONFORMITY. If you do not wish to be enslaved by Christians, then reject Christianity.

        • NS Alito

          Been there, done that, drinking coffee from start thinking mug.

    • JustAnotherAtheist2

      Is drowning virtually all life on the planet moral?

      • NS Alito

        Beware of people who cede their moral agency to a god or other third party. It effectively makes them sociopaths.

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          That’s pretty much where I’m going with this. Violently exterminating all life is pretty much inarguably bad, so I’m searching for the twisted reasoning that allows Candy to see otherwise.

        • Ignorant Amos

          …the twisted reasoning that allows Candy to see otherwise.

          It’s called being infected by The God Virus. It blinds the individual to reality.

    • Lambchopsuey

      How is requiring a rape victim to marry her rapist with no possibility of divorce “moral”?

      If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

    • Lambchopsuey

      examples in the Old Testament most of which are not that bad and are being taken out of context in order to make them bad

      Oh, you mean like slavery?

      Take a look:

      If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. (Exodus 21:2-5)

      So here we have a situation where, during his term of enslavement, a man has fathered children and started a family with a fellow slave. NOTICE THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR HIM PURCHASING THEIR FREEDOM! Although *his* term of enslavement is limited, his children’s enslavement is PERMANENT! His only option for keeping his family together is to permit himself to be MUTILATED AND ENSLAVED FOREVER!

      That’s real nice, i’nt it? How am I taking that out of context? Within what “context” is this anything other than horrific? Do you think slavery is a GOOD thing? Would YOU like to be someone’s slave? Does THAT sound like a good arrangement to you? Or at least “not that bad”?

      • Jack the Sandwichmaker

        He at least has a choice. His children? They will remain slaves either way.

    • Jim Jones

      Give an example of an action which, if done by ‘god’, would be immoral.

      • Cozmo the Magician

        smashing babies heads against rocks comes to mind.

    • Ignorant Amos
    • Jack the Sandwichmaker

      How is murdering innocent Egyptians “not that bad” or “taken out of context”?

      • ThaneOfDrones

        And then, once your reign of death has had its effect and Pharaoh is willing to give in; “hardening his heart” so that you can show off by killing even more animals and people.

        Looking forward to that context that makes that look good.

    • Greg G.

      This is merely an opinion.

      Who gave Elijah the power to call down fire from heaven to kill people? Is that moral? How about when Elijah was just being a tone troll?

      In 1 Kings 18, it is established that Elijah can call down fire from heaven to consume people.

      1 Kings 18:20-40 (NRSV)20 So Ahab sent to all the Israelites, and assembled the prophets at Mount Carmel. 21 Elijah then came near to all the people, and said, “How long will you go limping with two different opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him.” The people did not answer him a word. 22 Then Elijah said to the people, “I, even I only, am left a prophet of the Lord; but Baal’s prophets number four hundred fifty. 23 Let two bulls be given to us; let them choose one bull for themselves, cut it in pieces, and lay it on the wood, but put no fire to it; I will prepare the other bull and lay it on the wood, but put no fire to it. 24 Then you call on the name of your god and I will call on the name of the Lord; the god who answers by fire is indeed God.” All the people answered, “Well spoken!” 25 Then Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, “Choose for yourselves one bull and prepare it first, for you are many; then call on the name of your god, but put no fire to it.” 26 So they took the bull that was given them, prepared it, and called on the name of Baal from morning until noon, crying, “O Baal, answer us!” But there was no voice, and no answer. They limped about the altar that they had made. 27 At noon Elijah mocked them, saying, “Cry aloud! Surely he is a god; either he is meditating, or he has wandered away, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.” 28 Then they cried aloud and, as was their custom, they cut themselves with swords and lances until the blood gushed out over them. 29 As midday passed, they raved on until the time of the offering of the oblation, but there was no voice, no answer, and no response.30 Then Elijah said to all the people, “Come closer to me”; and all the people came closer to him. First he repaired the altar of the Lord that had been thrown down; 31 Elijah took twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, to whom the word of the Lord came, saying, “Israel shall be your name”; 32 with the stones he built an altar in the name of the Lord. Then he made a trench around the altar, large enough to contain two measures of seed. 33 Next he put the wood in order, cut the bull in pieces, and laid it on the wood. He said, “Fill four jars with water and pour it on the burnt offering and on the wood.” 34 Then he said, “Do it a second time”; and they did it a second time. Again he said, “Do it a third time”; and they did it a third time, 35 so that the water ran all around the altar, and filled the trench also with water.36 At the time of the offering of the oblation, the prophet Elijah came near and said, “O Lord, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, let it be known this day that you are God in Israel, that I am your servant, and that I have done all these things at your bidding. 37 Answer me, O Lord, answer me, so that this people may know that you, O Lord, are God, and that you have turned their hearts back.” 38 Then the fire of the Lord fell and consumed the burnt offering, the wood, the stones, and the dust, and even licked up the water that was in the trench. 39 When all the people saw it, they fell on their faces and said, “The Lord indeed is God; the Lord indeed is God.” 40 Elijah said to them, “Seize the prophets of Baal; do not let one of them escape.” Then they seized them; and Elijah brought them down to the Wadi Kishon, and killed them there.

      In 2 Kings 1:1-16, Elijah calls down fire from heaven, killing one hundred two men, just to be a tone troll. He had no real objection to meeting with King Ahaziah but he didn’t like being ordered to do it.

      2 Kings 1:1-16 (NRSV)1 After the death of Ahab, Moab rebelled against Israel.2 Ahaziah had fallen through the lattice in his upper chamber in Samaria, and lay injured; so he sent messengers, telling them, “Go, inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron, whether I shall recover from this injury.” 3 But the angel of the Lord said to Elijah the Tishbite, “Get up, go to meet the messengers of the king of Samaria, and say to them, ‘Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are going to inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron?’ 4 Now therefore thus says the Lord, ‘You shall not leave the bed to which you have gone, but you shall surely die.’” So Elijah went.5 The messengers returned to the king, who said to them, “Why have you returned?” 6 They answered him, “There came a man to meet us, who said to us, ‘Go back to the king who sent you, and say to him: Thus says the Lord: Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are sending to inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron? Therefore you shall not leave the bed to which you have gone, but shall surely die.’” 7 He said to them, “What sort of man was he who came to meet you and told you these things?” 8 They answered him, “A hairy man, with a leather belt around his waist.” He said, “It is Elijah the Tishbite.”9 Then the king sent to him a captain of fifty with his fifty men. He went up to Elijah, who was sitting on the top of a hill, and said to him, “O man of God, the king says, ‘Come down.’” 10 But Elijah answered the captain of fifty, “If I am a man of God, let fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty.” Then fire came down from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.11 Again the king sent to him another captain of fifty with his fifty. He went up and said to him, “O man of God, this is the king’s order: Come down quickly!” 12 But Elijah answered them, “If I am a man of God, let fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty.” Then the fire of God came down from heaven and consumed him and his fifty.13 Again the king sent the captain of a third fifty with his fifty. So the third captain of fifty went up, and came and fell on his knees before Elijah, and entreated him, “O man of God, please let my life, and the life of these fifty servants of yours, be precious in your sight. 14 Look, fire came down from heaven and consumed the two former captains of fifty men with their fifties; but now let my life be precious in your sight.” 15 Then the angel of the Lord said to Elijah, “Go down with him; do not be afraid of him.” So he set out and went down with him to the king, 16 and said to him, “Thus says the Lord: Because you have sent messengers to inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron,—is it because there is no God in Israel to inquire of his word?—therefore you shall not leave the bed to which you have gone, but you shall surely die.”

      If I were you, I would call down fire from heaven on me so fast it would make my head swim.

    • Otto

      This is merely an opinion.

      “God is Moral” is merely an opinion as well.

      And my opinion is the New Testament is more immoral than the OT. In the OT God or his followers just killed you…in the NT God takes that up a few notches and tortures individuals for eternity.

      • Ignorant Amos

        This is merely an opinion.

        She’s gonna start bleating that mantra again ffs?

      • Candy Smith

        God doesn’t torture anyone.

        https://carm.org/god-tortures-people-morality

        • Ignorant Amos

          Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry? Bwaaahahahaha!

          Matt Slick? Bwaaaahahahah!

          What does a fellow Christer think of Matt Slick the false teacher?

          Matt J. Slick the Owner of CARM is Not a Christian

          http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/mattslick.htm

          There’s a reason why it’s called “apologetics” ya airhead.

          But onto yer link.

          The first paragraph says nothing about God not torturing anyone. It is a version of Divine Command Theory.

          The second paragraph is all about the shirking of responsibility and culpability. It also only addresses torture in Hell. There are other examples of God’s torture in the buybull. It’s still a loada ballix.

          Second, God is not the one torturing.

          Well, yeah, he is actually. According to your bullshit, God created everything. So whatever is doing the torturing, God is responsible for, it is a tool of God.

          But it’s simpler than that. Ever heard of the Command responsibility?

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

          Is it moral or ethical to order the torture then shirk any responsibility?

          Here we have another example of most human beings being less morally corrupt than your God.

          A biblical example of non-Hell torture, is the torture of Job.

          To torture someone means to be actively involved in the action of inflicting pain.

          Nah, that’s a lying apologists cherry-picked definition in an attempt to get YahwehJesus off the hook. And gullible Candy Smith is buying right into it.

          Torture, as being defined, is that of the United Nations…Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment…

          For the purpose of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

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

          But God does not do this.

          Yeah, he fucking well does. He burns folk alive as punishment for the crime of burning the wrong incense ffs.

          God sends people to hell, and they are tortured there due to the consequences of their sin and their rejection of God.

          The reasons are irrelevant. God is culpable.

          NOBODY SHOULD EVER BE TORTURED OR TREATED IN AN INHUMAN OR DEGRADING WAY – NO MATTER WHAT THE SITUATION.

          Article 3 prevents state officials from torturing people or subjecting them to inhuman or degrading treatment.

          State officials here means the authority sending the folk to be tortured to the place of torture.

          Your God is a lousy piece of shite, what does that make you?

        • Candy Smith

          God is not responsible for it. He provided a way out and unbelievers didn’t accept the way out. Therefore, they it is their own fault that they are there. Not God’s.

          God sends people to hell, and they are tortured there due to the consequences of their sin and their rejection of God.

          “The reasons are irrelevant. God is culpable.”

          The reasons are not irrelevant and God is not culpable.

          The only person that the unbelievers should blame is themselves, since they are the reason God sent them their, based on their choices and their actions.

          “Article 3 prevents state officials from torturing people or subjecting them to inhuman or degrading treatment.

          LOL!! So now your applying, the “Liberty Humans Rights”something from Humans, and applying that to God, as if He is under the same authority as humans. He’s not. He’s not under the same authority. Meaning, the rules don’t apply to Him. Know why? Because he’s God. He created us, and has the right to do with us as He pleases.

          “Your God is a lousy piece of shite, what does that make you?”

          Well, since this is merely your opinion, it doesn’t really matter what it would make me.

          “NOBODY SHOULD EVER BE TORTURED OR TREATED IN AN INHUMAN OR DEGRADING WAY – NO MATTER WHAT THE SITUATION.”

          That is again your opinion, and it isn’t up to you, to decide.

          It is not your decision or your right to decide whether or not God is right or wrong. He knows everything and you dont. Your a sinner and He isn’t. He knows better and you don’t.

          https://www.gotquestions.org/loving-God-send-someone-hell.html

          https://www.gotquestions.org/why-does-God-send-people-to-hell.html

        • Ignorant Amos

          Are you mentally retarded Candy? Just saying, because if you are, I will just leave your fuckwittery alone and put you back on blocked.

          God is not responsible for it.

          Nah, you see if the god you believe in exists, it is responsible for everything. It knows everything, past, present, and future. It can do anything.

          That you are here apologising for it, is evidence it doesn’t exist. No entity with the so-called attributes of your god would rely on your pathetic arse to defend it.

          He provided a way out and unbelievers didn’t accept the way out. Therefore, they it is their own fault that they are there. Not God’s.

          Nope. That’s not how it works with Free Will, remember? Your God gives us Free Will then tortures us for eternity for acting on it. How is that just? God’s to blame whichever way ya wanna cut it up. You are tying yourself in knots here Candy. That’s because you are an silly dumbarse. You should leave this stuff to the grown ups.

          God created everything. God knows everything. God can do anything. Remember?

          God sends people to hell, and they are tortured there due to the consequences of their sin and their rejection of God.

          God doesn’t have to send anyone to Hell to be tortured. God does it because he wants to. Nobody can make God do anything he doesn’t want. This is God we are talking about, remember?

          The reasons are not irrelevant and God is not culpable.

          The reasons why God does what he does are irrelevant. God does what it wants, when it wants. All powerful God, remember.

          The only person that the unbelievers should blame is themselves, since they are the reason God sent them their, based on their choices and their actions.

          Nope. Free Will remember? God give us Free Will, then punishes us for acting on it. God’s fault.

          LOL!! So now your applying, the “Liberty Humans Rights”something from Humans, and applying that to God, as if He is under the same authority as humans.

          You’re a special kinda thick, aren’t ya?

          I don’t believe in your imaginary god thingy, remember?

          I’m pointing out that human morality is better than your shite piece of crappy god’s.

          He’s not. He’s not under the same authority. Meaning, the rules don’t apply to Him. Know why? Because he’s God. He created us, and has the right to do with us as He pleases.

          Bingo! Now you’re getting it…finally.

          Well, since this is merely your opinion, it doesn’t really matter what it would make me.

          Nope, not an opinion, an accurate observation.

          That is again your opinion, and it isn’t up to you, to decide.

          Nope. It has already been decided and God played no part in the decision. Get over it.

          It is not your decision or your right to decide whether or not God is right or wrong.

          I don’t believe god’s exist, remember? The God in the story book is a piece of crap in comparison to the worst human being in history. That’s not an opinion, that’s just a fact.

          He knows everything and you dont.

          Your a sinner and He isn’t. He knows better and you don’t.

          Come back and talk when you can support that loada nonsense with evidence. Until such time, you are just a bloviating shithead full of mindwankery.

        • Candy Smith

          “Come back and talk when you can support that loada nonsense with evidence. Until such time, you are just a bloviating shithead full of mindwankery.”

          Again, another Ad-Hominem Fallacy. You are being obnoxious and attacking me, cussing like a mental person, instead of talking like a normal and mature human being.

          There is no reason for me to continue this conversation, since it is obvious that you would rather act like an obnoxious human being, making multiple ad-hominem fallacies, then telling me to learn what an ad-hominem fallacy, when it is quite clear that you don’t actually know what it is yourself.

        • Susan

          Again, another Ad-Hominem Fallacy.

          No. If you continue to make assertions without providing models or evidence, then IA is right.

          You don’t seem to have bothered to look up what ad hominem means. You think if you feel insulted, that someone has committed ad hominem against you. But that’s wrong.

          https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumento_ad_hominem

          There is no reason for me to continue this conversation.

          There are lots of reasons for you to do so.

          You have made all kinds of claims and have not supported a single one of them.

          Until you do, there is no reason for anyone here to continue this conversation.

          If you have something you can support, go ahead and do so.

          If you can’t, then go away and come back when you can.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Again, another Ad-Hominem Fallacy.

          Again, go away and learn what the ad hominem fallacy is ya dolt. It is embarrassing looking at your train wreck comments.

          You are being obnoxious and attacking me, cussing like a mental person, instead of talking like a normal and mature human being.

          I’m mocking and ridiculing you at this stage. Your total ineptness to engage rationally leaves me nothing else.

          You are the mental person. You are certainly not a normal and mature human being, that’s a fact. Anyone that believes it is okay to keep other human beings as property, deserves nothing less, and probably a lot more.

        • Candy Smith

          Your embarrassed by my comments?

          You should be embarrassed based off of your comments. You keep cussing your brains out. Insulting me, calling me names, and being immature.

          And also, I’m not going to stop with the ad-hominem fallacy until you stop. Why would I? You keel making them, so I will continue to point it out.

        • Candy Smith

          “Anyone that believes it is okay to keep other human beings as property, deserves nothing less, and probably a lot more.”

          They are not property.

          “Frequently, “slavery” in Bible times was much more of an employer/employee relationship than an owner/slave situation. Even the words used to delineate between a hired servant and a slave are difficult to separate.”

          http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=1587

        • Candy Smith

          “You are the mental person. You are certainly not a normal and mature human being, that’s a fact.”

          You’re the one who is insulting me over and over again and you for some reason thing that this is the only thing left for you to do??

        • Candy Smith

          “Anyone that believes it is okay to keep other human beings as property, deserves nothing less, and probably a lot more.”

          Why is owning another person as property wrong if we are just rearranged pond scum? You have no basis for why “owning another person as property” is even wrong to begin, other than it being your own opinion.

          What is your basis for why that is even wrong to begin with? Please tell me.

        • Candy Smith

          “The God in the story book is a piece of crap in comparison to the worst human being in history. That’s not an opinion, that’s just a fact.”

          It isn’t a fact. It is your opinion. Like I said, it needs to be proven. You need to prove it, instead of being obnoxious and cussing your brains out. Provide actually evidence to support this claim.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It isn’t a fact. It is your opinion. Like I said, it needs to be proven. You need to prove it, instead of being obnoxious and cussing your brains out. Provide actually evidence to support this claim.

          The evidence is the Old Testament itself ya dolt. That you haven’t read it isn’t my fault.

          “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” ~Richard Dawkins.

          Many years ago, I wrote a comment on the old RDFRS site which itemised that statement and supported each attribute with a quote from the buybull. I was asked by Richard Dawkins if I would mind if it was elevated to a stand alone article. It was. Here is a copy of the e-mail I got…

          Sent: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 22:33
          Subject: Excellent post on richarddawkins.net

          Hi Ignorant Amos

          We loved your post on the Religion Strikes Again thread and drew Richard’s attention to it. This was his response:

          “It is too good to languish as a comment on another thread. I think it would be nice to ask Ignorant Amos if we can lift it out and put it on the the front page with a thread of its own, encouraging others to add examples for each of the key words. For example, under ‘infanticidal’ he missed the Passover. God, through Moses, commanded the Israelites in Egypt to label their doorposts with lambs’ blood. Then the spirit of God passed over the town slaughtering the firstborn children of all the Egyptians but sparing the Israelites’ children, whose houses were labelled with the lambs’ blood.”

          Would you be happy for us to do this?

          The article is no longer archived, but I like to think it was the inspiration for Richard Dawkins to later request Dan Barker to research and write a whole book on the subject. He did.

          God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction

          What words come to mind when we think of God? Merciful? Just? Compassionate? In fact, the Bible lays out God’s primary qualities clearly: jealous, petty, unforgiving, bloodthirsty, vindictive – and worse. Originally conceived as a joint presentation between influential thinker and bestselling author Richard Dawkins (who wrote the foreword) and former evangelical preacher Dan Barker, this unique book provides an investigation into what may be the most unpleasant character in all fiction. Barker combs through both the Old and New Testament (as well as 13 different editions of the ‘Good Book’), presenting powerful evidence for why the Scripture shouldn’t govern our everyday lives. This witty, well-researched book suggests that we should move past the Bible and clear a path to a kinder and more thoughtful world. The author frequently appears at conferences to address issues related to atheism and his writings often appear in atheist-related publications. He also has his own radio show and is a regular radio and television personality.

          https://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Most-Unpleasant-Character-Fiction/dp/1454918322

          Dan Barker is a well published and once ordained evangelical Christian preacher, he knows the buybull inside out, so I think he knows what he is talking about.

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

          Pick an attribute from the list and I’ll cite a passage from the OT that defends it, sound good?

          Or ya could just watch this video…

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

        • That’s a nice bit of feedback from Dawkins!

          The article is no longer archived,

          If you have the original URL, you can use that at the internet archive. I’ve found many lost pages there.
          https://archive.org/web/

        • Candy Smith

          Yeah I am aware of Dawkins claim. Most of the words, don’t even actually apply to God, and it is Dawkins who is actually ignorant of reality of what the Bible says.

        • Candy Smith

          I already know, I have printed a whole bunch of Barker book. I am completely aware.

          And if you want to cite me some verses, fine, I’ll just turn around and refute it and prove that it is condoning what Dawkins claims is being condoned.

          I have no problem doing that, because I have done it many times before.

        • Candy Smith

          Let’s start with Misogynistic.

          Cite me the verses, and I’ll prove to you that they aren’t Misogynistic, since they have already been proven to not be Misogynistic, and it is only Dishonest Skeptics, like Barker and other Skeptics who continue to lie to their audiences that the verses support something that they don’t really support.

          In reality, it is being taken out of context.

        • Candy Smith

          ” For example, under ‘infanticidal’ he missed the Passover. God, through Moses, commanded the Israelites in Egypt to label their doorposts with lambs’ blood. Then the spirit of God passed over the town slaughtering the firstborn children of all the Egyptians but sparing the Israelites’ children, whose houses were labelled with the lambs’ blood.””

          https://creation.com/evil-bible-fallacies

          “Exodus 13:1-2; 11-16: An average, rational person would have trouble seeing what this has to do with human sacrifice, so the atheistic argument must be spelled out: apparently, the priests are threatening to kill the kids unless they are redeemed with a burnt offering. This isn’t the case. The firstborn males are consecrated to the Lord, which means the firstborn males of the clean animals are destined to become burnt offerings (and the firstborn males of other animals and of humans must be redeemed with a burnt offering of the clean animals). Atheists unanimously ignore the context and symbolism of the consecration.”

          If this isn’t refering to the correct Bible Verse, then please, just respectfully tell me.

        • Greg G.

          But the law hadn’t been given. That happened after the Israelites left Egypt. Mt. Sinai is not in Egypt.

          Apologetics are just an excuse for believers to stop thinking.

        • Candy Smith

          Not only am I aware of Barker and his dishonest book but the chapters that I have printed, I have gone through and written responses on the print out of the chapters, Refuting it and explaining how it has already been addressed and answered and how Barker is either lying or is ignorant of the factual explanation that has already been given.

        • Candy Smith

          He’s not. He’s not under the same authority. Meaning, the rules don’t apply to Him. Know why? Because he’s God. He created us, and has the right to do with us as He pleases.

          Bingo! Now you’re getting it…finally.

          I’m confused.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I’m confused.

          We all know.

          Keep taking the medication.

        • Candy Smith

          Wow!! More insults that don’t prover amy thing and are also your opinion.

        • Candy Smith

          God sends people to hell, and they are tortured there due to the consequences of their sin and their rejection of God.

          “God doesn’t have to send anyone to Hell to be tortured.

          When people reject God and don’t accept Jesus as their Savior and ask for forgiveness, God does have to send them to Hell, because He is a Just God and He cannot let Sin go unpunished.

          https://www.gotquestions.org/loving-God-send-someone-hell.html

          https://www.gotquestions.org/why-does-God-send-people-to-hell.html

          https://www.gotquestions.org/eternity-hell-just.html

          God does it because he wants to. Nobody can make God do anything he doesn’t want. This is God we are talking about, remember?”

          There is zero evidence to support the claim that God sends people to Hell because He wants to. Absolutely Zero evidence!!

          God sends people to Hell because they have rejected Jesus and not asked for their own forgiveness and therefore are full of Sin and cannot be with God. God provided the way for Sinners to be with Him in Heaven by sending His Son to die on the Cross. When Unbelievers to choose to reject that and not do what they have to do in order to go to Heaven, that is their own fault, not God’s. God provides the way and people reject Him.

        • Candy Smith

          “I’m pointing out that human morality is better than your shite piece of crappy god’s.”

          Which is your opinion. In your Subjective Opinion, Human Morality is better than God’s. It is nothing but your opinion.

        • Candy Smith

          “Nope. That’s not how it works with Free Will, remember? Your God gives us Free Will then tortures us for eternity for acting on it. How is that just? God’s to blame whichever way ya wanna cut it up. You are tying yourself in knots here Candy. That’s because you are an silly dumbarse. You should leave this stuff to the grown ups.”

          God gives us FreeWill so we can choose to love Him, instead of being Robots, where we would be forced to love Him. Also, children have freewill, but they are still punished regardless, so your argument does not work.

          How is it Just to punish children for their actions when they have FreeWill, and they are merely acting on it? How is it Just to send people to jail, when they have FreeWill, and they are merely acting on it?

        • Candy Smith

          He provided a way out and unbelievers didn’t accept the way out. Therefore, they it is their own fault that they are there. Not God’s.

          Nope. That’s not how it works with Free Will, remember? Your God gives us Free Will then tortures us for eternity for acting on it. How is that just? God’s to blame whichever way ya wanna cut it up. You are tying yourself in knots here Candy. That’s because you are an silly dumbarse. You should leave this stuff to the grown ups.

          That is exactly how it works. God provided a way for Sinners to not end up in Hell and to be with Him in Heaven. Sinners choose by their own freewill, to reject God, not ask for forgiveness for their own sins, and not accept Jesus as their Savior.

        • God provided a way for Sinners to not end up in Hell and to be with Him in Heaven.

          Nope. This route isn’t available to me. I can’t believe the unbelievable.

        • Candy Smith

          It isn’t unbelievable. You just don’t want to believe it. Please tell me what is unbelievable and I will explain it to you.

          And it is available for you, if you choose to become a Christian, and repent of your sins.

        • Please tell me what is unbelievable and I will explain it to you.

          Demonstrate how one believes supernatural claims on pretty much nonexistent evidence. Pick something incredible–let’s say believing in unicorns. Do that and show us how it’s done.

        • Candy Smith

          There is plenty of evidence for the Christian God. One can find the evidence if they truly and sincerely look for it.

        • That’s what the Muslims say about Allah. That’s what the Scientologists say about Xenu. And so on for the other 1000+ religions now active.

          See the problem?

        • Candy Smith

          The difference is, is that, in other religions, they contradict each other, have scientific inaccuracies that haven’t or can’t be explained, or contradictions that haven’t or can’t be explained.

          This is leading into a much bigger conversation, about the Bible and so-called Contradictions and so-called scientific errors.

        • I’ve written posts here about how Christianity contradicts science and reality and how the Bible contradicts itself.

          You’re not following evidence; you’re simply supporting your conclusion, regardless of the evidence. Nothing would make you change.

          Not much point in having a conversation about this, is there? I can inform you of lots of stuff, but you have no interest in hearing it. Regardless of what it is, you’ve concluded up front that it won’t sway you. And you can’t inform me of anything because your arguments are simply links to flabby arguments that I’ve already rebutted.

        • Candy Smith

          Where are the posts that show “how Christianity contradicts science and reality and how the Bible contradicts itself.”

        • Greg G.

          The difference is, is that, in other religions, they contradict each other, have scientific inaccuracies that haven’t or can’t be explained, or contradictions that haven’t or can’t be explained.

          You can throw your religion into the mix with all other religions.

        • Candy Smith

          I am most likely going to stop for tonight and continue this conversation tomorrow. My dad is going to put on Live PD, and I need to stop this debating thing before I go to bed, anyways, or I wouldn’t be able to go to sleep.

          I know what you said about the links, but what I sent you about Slavery is relevant and shows the differences between them. So I think it is important to send it to you.

        • What’s Live PD?

          I know what you said about the links, but what I sent you about Slavery is relevant and shows the differences between them.

          There’s a 99.9% probability that any link you would send me contains stuff I’ve already heard. It’s pretty rude of you to want to dismiss my responses to those ideas and start over, doncha think? You respond to my stuff. Much easier.

        • Candy Smith

          Live PD is a TV show that me and my folks watch. It is similar to Cops if you know what that is. It’s where police men go to scenes and a camera man films what happens, whole the police men is there. It is really good and a lot of fun too watch.

        • Candy Smith

          Goodnight!!

        • Candy Smith

          Goodnight!!

        • Greg G.

          If you insincerely look for a particular god thingy, you will find it. If you sincerely look for truth, you do not find god thingies.

        • Candy Smith

          Also, you saying that “this route isn’t available for you”, is your choice, that you have made, from your own FreeWill.

        • No, not my choice. I can’t believe in unicorns.

          But you can? Demonstrate that to us. Then I’ll see how you can believe the unbelievable.

        • Candy Smith

          If God hadn’t given us FreeWill, then we would be nothing more than robots, forced to obey our masters. Would you prefer that?

          Also, God created the World without Sin. Adam and Eve brought Sin into the world when they choose to disobey.

          https://carm.org/how-could-adam-sin-if-he-was-good

        • Uh, yeah. God is the champion of humans’ free will.

          Go tell the rape victim that their free will was violated so that the free will of the rapist could be honored. I’m sure that would be comforting.

        • God is not responsible for it.

          If I’m not perfect, blame my Creator.

        • Candy Smith

          That’s funny.

        • Not supposed to be. The Christian view is idiotic. I’m to be sent to hell for not being good enough, but I’m not good enough because God made me that way.

        • Candy Smith

          “The Christian view is idiotic. I’m to be sent to hell for not being good enough, but I’m not good enough because God made me that way.”

          No. That is not how it works

        • Candy Smith

          It isn’t God’s fault that we are not perfect. I am going to talk about Adam and Eve for a minute and I know that you do not think that they existed, so I don’t need you to tell me that. I am trying to make a point.

          Adam and Eve were created Perfect, but they still had FreeWill. They choose to Sin and they brought Death, and Suffering into the World. However, we do not suffer because of what Adam and Eve did, and we are not punished because of what Adam and Eve did. We are punished for our own Sin.

          https://www.gotquestions.org/I-did-not-eat-the-fruit.html

          https://www.gotquestions.org/sin-nature.html

        • God gave them a moral test (following his command to not eat the fruit) before they had knowledge of good and evil. Do you not see the problem with God’s little experiment?

          We are punished for our own Sin.

          You mean the sin that we can’t help committing because we’re made inherently imperfect? Yeah, take it up with my Creator.

          Do you ever stop to think about the effort you must put in to make this sorta/kinda make sense?

        • Candy Smith

          “God gave them a moral test (following his command to not eat the fruit) before they had knowledge of good and evil. Do you not see the problem with God’s little experiment?”

          Slow down a second.

          First of all, even if they didn’t know good and evil, that doesn’t excuse them. They still choose to disobey.

          https://carm.org/did-adam-eve-know-they-were-doing-wrong-when-they-ate-the-fruit

          This article specifically deals with your claim.

        • First of all, even if they didn’t know good and evil, that doesn’t excuse them. They still choose to disobey.

          So they chose to disobey. So what? That wasn’t wrong—at least not from their standpoint, since they didn’t know good and evil.

          This article specifically deals with your claim.

          No more homework.

        • Candy Smith

          No more homework.

          Okay. Fair enough.

          Did Adam and Eve know they were doing wrong when they ate the fruit?
          by Matt Slick
          1/23/15

          Given what we find in Scripture we can see that Adam and Eve had been made aware that they were not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil…

          “The LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die,” (Genesis 2:16-17).

          We see later that Eve repeated the command to the serpent. However, it’s worth noting that she added three words, “or touch it.” Most probably since God gave the instruction to Adam, Adam then gave it to Eve. Eve then repeated it to the evil one.

          “The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die,'” (Genesis 3:2-3).

          So when they chose to eat the fruit, we must conclude that they knew they were doing wrong.

          But some might say that Eve was deceived and that she did not intend to do wrong, so she may not have known she was doing wrong by eating the fruit. This might be the case, but we know that she quoted God’s prohibition against eating the fruit to the serpent. Therefore, she knew what God had said, and she went against it, deceived or not. Being deceived about eating the fruit does not automatically mean she was guiltless.

          Adam, on the other hand, apparently made a willful choice to rebel against God because there was no apparent deception on his part. Eve gave him the fruit, and he willingly partook. So, Adam, without a doubt, knew he was rebelling against God and was doing wrong.

        • Candy Smith

          “No more homework.”

          Okay, fair enough.

          Did Adam and Eve know they were doing wrong when they ate the fruit?
          by Matt Slick
          1/23/15

          Given what we find in Scripture we can see that Adam and Eve had been made aware that they were not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil…

          “The LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die,” (Genesis 2:16-17).

          We see later that Eve repeated the command to the serpent. However, it’s worth noting that she added three words, “or touch it.” Most probably since God gave the instruction to Adam, Adam then gave it to Eve. Eve then repeated it to the evil one.

          “The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die,'” (Genesis 3:2-3).

          So when they chose to eat the fruit, we must conclude that they knew they were doing wrong.

          But some might say that Eve was deceived and that she did not intend to do wrong, so she may not have known she was doing wrong by eating the fruit. This might be the case, but we know that she quoted God’s prohibition against eating the fruit to the serpent. Therefore, she knew what God had said, and she went against it, deceived or not. Being deceived about eating the fruit does not automatically mean she was guiltless.

          Adam, on the other hand, apparently made a willful choice to rebel against God because there was no apparent deception on his part. Eve gave him the fruit, and he willingly partook. So, Adam, without a doubt, knew he was rebelling against God and was doing wrong.

        • Candy Smith

          They choose to disobey? So what?

          Your child chooses to disobey? So what? You’re just going to let them disobey and not punish them for disobeying?? Really?

          They blatantly disobeyed God. They were aware of the consequences. Eve repeats the consequences back to Satan, even though she added three words. Her repeating the instructions back to Satan, implies that she is aware of what the consequences will be.

        • Candy Smith

          “You mean the sin that we can’t help committing because we’re made inherently imperfect? Yeah, take it up with my Creator.”

          We were not made Imperfect. Adam and Eve were made Perfect but had FreeWill. They choose to disobey…..

        • We were not made Imperfect.

          But are we imperfect? If so, how can that be when God controls everything? My being imperfect must be part of the Plan®.

        • Candy Smith

          No. You being imperfect is not part of the plan. You having freewill and having a choice to be able to choose to Love God instead of being forced to love God.

        • God can do anything. If something is the way it is, it’s either because God made it happen like that deliberately, or he let it happen like that deliberately.

          If something is, it’s because of God. That makes it part of God’s plan.

          I don’t love things that don’t exist. And you still have your homework: believe in unicorns so we can see that someone can will themselves to believe things that don’t have enough evidence. Once we see that from you, that will show us how we’re supposed to believe in the God story.

        • Candy Smith

          “God can do anything. If something is the way it is, it’s either because God made it happen like that deliberately, or he let it happen like that deliberately.”

          People choosing to disobey and sin, is not God’s fault, and He is not responsible for it. People are responsible for their own actions, and when they do something wrong, they are punished for their own actions. Yeah God let that happen. That’s because He gave us FreeWill.

          “I don’t love things that don’t exist”

          Okay? Well, first of all, it is your opinion that the Christian God doesn’t exist. That needs to be proven, and it hasn’t. Furthermore, since you don’t know everything, you can’t possibly claim that there is no evidence for the Christian God, because there is always the possibility that you just haven’t seen a piece of evidence yet.

          And I was trying to make a point with the “Love God” thing. God gave us FreeWill, so that we can choose to Love Him, instead of, if we were robots, we would be forced to love Him. I’m not saying you do, I’m just making a point is all.

        • Candy Smith

          “If something is, it’s because of God. That makes it part of God’s plan.”??

        • Candy Smith

          “If something is the way it is, it’s either because God made it happen like that deliberately, or he let it happen like that deliberately.”

          Maybe there is a third option. I believe there is one.

        • Candy Smith

          How can that be when God controls everything?

          So God should force us all to be perfect? Really?

        • Greg G.

          If a god creates an imperfect creation, then the god is not perfect.

        • Rudy R

          Adam and Eve made an imperfect choice, so they were made imperfect.

        • Candy Smith
        • Candy Smith

          I forgot abut the link thing, if you were the one who said that?

        • Yes, I don’t want you to send me a link in lieu of you actually writing a paragraph to tell me what your argument is.

        • Candy Smith

          Okay?

        • Candy Smith

          You mean the sin that we can’t help committing because we’re made inherently imperfect? Yeah, take it up with my Creator.

          The Sin we can’t help committing?

          You have children, right? They can’t help disobeying or sinning, yet you still punished them anyways. Should that be considered Unjust since they couldn’t help committing it?

        • Stupid comparison.

          They can’t help disobeying or sinning, yet you still punished them anyways.

          I’m not omnipotent! I didn’t have the option of creating them perfect or imperfect. God did.

        • Candy Smith

          “The first paragraph says nothing about God not torturing anyone. It is a version of Divine Command Theory.”

          Evidence??

        • Candy Smith

          And why?

        • Ignorant Amos

          And why what?

        • Greg G.

          Second, God is not the one torturing. To torture someone means to be actively involved in the action of inflicting pain. But God does not do this. God sends people to hell, and they are tortured there due to the consequences of their sin and their rejection of God.

          Do you even read what you link to? It is like saying that if you lock someone in a building and burn down the building, you are not responsible for their suffering since you are not actively participating.

          It is pathetic what religion has done to your mind.

        • Ignorant Amos

          God doesn’t torture anyone.

          Then later links to the AiG buck eejits where it states…

          The principle of delegation means that when one in authority commands an action, he can rightly be given credit for it, even if he has an agent perform the action. In this case, God delegated the announcement of destruction to the angels. The principle holds true because God is the one with the power to enable the action and authority to order it.

          Ya couldn’t make it up.

          It is pathetic what religion has done to your mind.

          Pathetic and a crying shame that the God Virus can fuck people up so badly.

        • BlackMamba44

          I swear this is a 12-13 year old doing homeschool work for Mommy and Daddy Teachers.

          They have really stunted her ability to think.

        • Otto

          Matt Slick (at least his name fits him)…ugh

          First sentence in your link…

          This question is usually asked by atheists, but the first problem is that they have no objective moral standard by which they might say God’s judgment is right or wrong.

          He hasn’t shown his religious morality is in any way ‘objective’, he just assumes it is and expects his readers to agree. If he cannot demonstrate his morality is actually objective we have no reason to think it is.

          So is his religion objective? No…it is just his opinion that it is true. So how in the world can one claim their morality that is derived from their subjective religious views is in fact objective? It’s not and therefore I had no reason to read further because his first premise is demonstrably false and everything after that is based on that faulty reasoning is garbage.

          Presuppostionalist claptrap.

          I suggest you try thinking for yourself Candy.

        • Candy Smith

          Why are you saying “his religion Objective”?

          The article is talking about Morality.

        • Otto

          He derives his morality from his religion. His religion is not considered objective so why would his morality be considered objective?

        • Candy Smith

          I am trying to understand the question. The best answer that I can give you for now, is that God, the Christian God, provides an Objective Basis for Right and Wrong, that is an Absolute, Unchanging Standard, regardless of what people consider Christianity to be.

          https://answersingenesis.org/morality/the-source-of-moral-absolutes/

        • Otto

          There is nothing objective about the Christian god, not even its existence…or morality. The Christian god is a subjective belief, so the morality that its followers adhere to is also subjective. I have no idea why this is a difficult concept for you.

        • Candy Smith

          I’m just having difficulty understanding, is all.

        • Otto

          Something is objective if it can be shown to exist outside of personal feelings or opinion. All religious belief is personal opinion (including Christianity), there is no religion that can be shown to be objectively true, any morality based on religious opinion is not objective it is subjective. Therefore Matt Slick’s opinion about morality is NOT objective.

        • Candy Smith

          Without an Objective Basis or Right and Wrong, all one has is their own opinion.

        • Otto

          What is the “Objective Basis”? What exactly makes it objective?

        • Candy Smith

          What do you mean?

        • Otto

          You said…

          Without an Objective Basis or Right and Wrong, all one has is their own opinion.

          So the question is what is the objective basis and what makes it objective? This is a pretty straight forward question.

        • Candy Smith

          What do you mean “what is the objective basis”??

          I apologize for having such a difficult time with understanding.

        • Susan

          What do you mean “what is the objective basis”???

          He means by what standard do you claim that Yahwehjesus is the standard of morality?

          I apologize for having such a difficult time with understanding/.

          As Otto said, this is a pretty straight forward question.

          If you claim that Yahwehjesus is the source of morality, you’ll have to show your work.

        • Otto

          The objective basis ostensibly is the Christian god, I was just trying to get you to say that God is your basis. Your position that the Christian god is true and real is just an opinion….therefore any morality based on said god is also opinion, i.e. subjective.

    • ThaneOfDrones

      I would assume that the author is referring to examples in the Old
      Testament most of which are not that bad and are being taken out of
      context in order to make them bad.

      Killing every human being on earth except for eight closely related people, along with all the animals on earth except for two or seven of each “kind”.

      Please, give us the context which makes that “not that bad”.

    • Yet again: it’s in the link. You can see it in the post, right?

      Follow that link, read the post, and you’ll see my answer to your question about God’s lack of morality.

      • Candy Smith

        “God’s lack of Morality”.

        According to what standard is “God’s lack of Morality” accurate?

        IOW, what is your basis for judging God, than it simply being your opinion?

        • It’s my own opinion, obviously. What else do I have? And what else do you have but your opinion?

          And if you’re going to point to some sort of supernatural source, give us the reason why we should agree that it exists.

        • Candy Smith

          That’s the problem. Morality cannot be based on Humans opinions. Humans contradict each other. How does one decide who is right?

        • Humans contradict each other.

          Correct. Welcome to reality.

          How does one decide who is right?

          Are you from some other planet, or what?

          You’ve never had an argument? You’ve never watched a debate?

        • Candy Smith
        • Candy Smith

          I’m not giving my opinion. My standard for right and wrong is based on God, which isn’t based on His opinion.

          https://answersingenesis.org/morality/the-source-of-moral-absolutes/

          This article deals with that.

        • Show us that God exists and is the source of morality, and I’ll accept that. As it is, you’re simply parroting what I said: we each define our own morality. I get input from other people, just like you. I get input from books, just like you.

          The buck stops here.

        • Candy Smith

          Parroting what you have said??

        • Are you trying to make the conversation bog down?

          Explain how you decide moral issues that (1) isn’t just like how I do it and (2) doesn’t invent a supernatural without sufficient evidence/justification.

        • Candy Smith

          I don’t understand what you said here. That’s why I quoted you and put a question mark on the end. That means I don’t understand. Can you explain it to me? I’m not trying to make the conversation bog down?

        • Can you explain it to me?

          Apparently not.

        • Candy Smith

          Why is that?

        • rationalobservations?

          Writing religionist propaganda fails to validate or justify that propaganda.
          Posting links to dishonest creationist lie factories just makes you look even more ignorant and gullible with each of your entries.

          https://pics.me.me/in-the-entire-first-christian-century-jesus-is-not-mentioned-17397524.png
          https://66.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3s63prCz61rvhzj2o1_400.jpg

        • Greg G.

          Regarding “a single piece of private correspondence” from the first century about Jesus, if early Christians knew of something like that, we would expect to see it mentioned and/or copied in the ancient writings of the church fathers.

        • rationalobservations?

          We are asked to believe that some kind of first century Billy Graham who actually worked magic (miracles) and drew crowds of thousands who listened to him speak, perform magic including reanimating dead bodies, and ride in triumph into the capital city was not interesting enough for anyone to record or write about?
          Yet not even 1st century graffito mentions “Jesus”.

          It’s such fantasy that it’s little wonder believers decline in number so rapidly today?

        • Greg G.

          His own standards, according to you.

        • Ignorant Amos

          What is your basis for judging your God, than it simply being your opinion? Or more likely, the opinion of others since you are totally unable to think for yourself.

        • Candy Smith

          I’m not judging my God??

          https://answersingenesis.org/morality/the-source-of-moral-absolutes/

          I can certainly think for myself. I choose to send the articles, though instead.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I can certainly think for myself.

          There is no evidence to support that assertion.

        • Candy Smith

          Neither is there any evidence to support your assertion either. Just because I haven’t shown you that I can think for myself, that doesn’t mean, I can’t.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I’m not judging my God??

          Of course you are, ya knuckle-dragging Dime Bar.

          Stop quoting creotard websites. They are full of lies and bullshit.

        • “I’m not judging my God??”
          Of course you are, ya knuckle-dragging Dime Bar.

          Agreed. Every time she resorts the evidence to take the pleasing verse and dismiss the unpleasant verse, she’s judging God.

      • Candy Smith

        And what makes your opinion and right and not someone elses?

        • For any moral opinion I have, I can argue why it’s correct. I’m sure you can and do the same for yours.

          I’m sensing that you imagine an objective morality. I see no evidence of such a thing. If you do, justify that for us. Please (1) define “objective morality” (different people use different definitions), (2) show that objective morality exists, and (3) show that we imperfect humans can reliably access it.

          I see a lot of claims of objective morality and very little evidence.

        • Candy Smith

          http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4101

          Objective Morality

          “Why do most rational people believe in objective morality? That is, why do people generally think that some actions are “right” and some actions are “wrong,” regardless of people’s subjective opinions? Why do most people believe that it is “evil” or “wicked” (1) for someone to walk into a random house, shoot everyone in it, and steal everything in sight? (2) for a man to beat and rape a kind, innocent woman? (3) for an adult to torture an innocent child simply for the fun of it? or (4) for parents to have children for the sole purpose of abusing them sexually every day of their lives? Because, as evolutionist Edward Slingerland noted, humans have metaphysical rights—rights that are “a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses” (“Metaphysical,” 2011)—and “rely on moral values.” The fact is, most people, even many atheists, have admitted that real, objective good and evil exist.”

          “Antony Flew”

          “During the last half of the 20th century, Dr. Antony Flew, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Reading in Reading, England, was considered one of the world’s most well known atheistic philosophers. From 1955-2000, he lectured and wrote extensively on matters pertaining to atheism. Some of his works include, but in no way are limited to, God and Philosophy (1966), Evolutionary Ethics (1967), Darwinian Evolution (1984), The Presumption of Atheism (1976), and Atheistic Humanism (1993). In September 1976, Dr. Flew debated Dr. Thomas B. Warren, Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Christian Apologetics at Harding Graduate School of Religion in Memphis, Tennessee. Prior to this four-night debate on the existence of God, Warren, in agreement with the rules of the debate, asked Flew several questions in writing, including the following: “True/False. In murdering six million Jewish men, women, and children the Nazis were guilty of real (objective) moral wrong.” Flew answered “True.” He acknowledged the existence of “real (objective) moral wrong” (Warren and Flew, 1977, p. 248). [NOTE: In 2004, Flew started taking steps toward theism as he acknowledged the impossibility of a purely naturalistic explanation for life. See Miller, 2004 for more information.]”

          “Wallace Matson”

          “In 1978, Dr. Warren met Dr. Wallace Matson, Professor of Philosophy at the University of California in Berkeley, California, in a public debate on the existence of God in Tampa, Florida. Once again, per the agreed-upon guidelines, the disputants were allowed to ask up to 10 questions prior to their debate. Once more, Warren asked: “True/False. In murdering six million Jewish men, women, and children the Nazis were guilty of real (objective) moral wrong.” Like Flew, Matson answered “True:” “real (objective) moral wrong” exists (Warren and Matson, 1978, p. 353). Matson even acknowledged in the affirmative (i.e., “true”) that “[i]f you had been a soldier during World War II and if the Nazis (1) had captured you and (2) had given you the choice of either joining them in their efforts to exterminate the Jews or being murdered, you would have had the objective moral obligation to die rather than to join them in the murder of Jewish men, women, and children” (p. 353, underline in orig.). Do not miss the point: Matson not only said that the Nazis were guilty of objective moral wrong, he even indicated that a person would have the “objective moral obligation to die” rather than join up with the murderous Nazi regime.”

          I’m not going to paste the entire article here, but the entire section on “Objective Morality” is a good section to read.

          “So were the Nazis guilty of “real (objective) moral wrong”? According to atheist Antony Flew, they were (Warren and Flew, p. 248). Atheist Wallace Matson agreed (Warren and Matson, p. 353). Whether theist or atheist, most rational people admit that some things really are atrocious. People do not merely feel like rape and child abuse may be wrong; they are wrong—innately wrong. Just as two plus two can really be known to be four, every rational human can know that some things are objectively good, while other things are objectively evil. However, reason demands that objective good and evil can only exist if there is some real, objective point of reference. If something (e.g., rape) “can properly be the subject of criticism (as to real moral wrong) then there must be some objective standard (some ‘higher law which transcends the provincial and transient’) which is other than the particular moral code and which has an obligatory character which can be recognized” (Warren and Matson, p. 284, emp. added).”

          You asked for evidence of/for Objective Morality. The Nazis are a good example.

          Would the Nazis still have been wrong even if everyone had been brainwashed to think that it was okay?

        • Fail. Don’t give me a chapter, give me a paragraph. You tell me in your own words; don’t copy a big pile of stuff that may or may not give what I asked for.

        • Candy Smith

          The part that I copied to you does address what you have asked for.

        • I’m certain that it doesn’t.

          I write a post, someone gives me a link, I spend time reading it, it turns out to be nothing new and does nothing to rebut my post, I point this out, and my antagonist either says, “Nuh uh!!” or dredges up yet another link and assigns it as homework.

          Then repeat.

          Not useful. You must (1) define “objective morality” (different people use different definitions), (2) show that objective morality exists, and (3) show that we imperfect humans can reliably access it.

          I’m sure you can’t and won’t. Prove me wrong.

        • Candy Smith

          I’ve addressed some of those already.

        • Yet another evasion. Let’s check my prediction about your responding to my request: “I’m sure you can’t and won’t.” Bingo!

          Hey, who’s on a roll here, people?? If I make many more correct predictions, I’m going to put “Prophet” on front of my name!

        • Candy Smith

          What? If I already addressed them, then I am not evading anything. I already addressed them so I don’t need to address them again but regardless, see my comments that I have already made.

        • Candy Smith

          http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4101

          The section called “Objective Morality” gives many pieces of evidence of it, and sometimes, it’s even Atheists the selves who agree with them.

          I thought that should definitely spark your interest.

        • I’m going to read it and find that there’s nothing new. That’s a waste of time.

          But I’ll tell you what: you take the time to summarize your argument for objective morality, and I’ll read it and respond. Deal?

        • Candy Smith

          Okay. You don’t have to read the entire article, just the section on “Objective Morality”. That’s the most important part. I don’t have any problem with your reading the entire article but I really am only interested in a response from that section (only, for now).

        • tl;dr

          Give me a paragraph in your own words.

        • Candy Smith

          Okay.

        • Candy Smith

          “Most rational people believe in Objective Morality. Why do you think that is? Why do some people think certain things are wrong no matter what people’s own subjective opinions are?”

          This is my own words to the best of my ability. It shouldn’t really matter.

          “Why do most people believe that it is “evil” or “wicked” (1) for someone to walk into a random house, shoot everyone in it, and steal everything in sight? (2) for a man to beat and rape a kind, innocent woman? (3) for an adult to torture an innocent child simply for the fun of it? or (4) for parents to have children for the sole purpose of abusing them sexually every day of their lives?”

          “Because, as evolutionist Edward Slingerland noted, humans have metaphysical rights—rights that are “a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses” (“Metaphysical,” 2011)—and “rely on moral values.” The fact is, most people, even many atheists, have admitted that real, objective good and evil exist.”

          This is from the article because it is easier for you to just read this part as it is, rather than have me try to make up other examples, so that it is in my own words.

          Same thing with the following paragraph. It is quoting someone so I’m not going to change that, and almost the entire paragraph is a quote.

        • “Most rational people believe in Objective Morality. Why do you think that is?

          I suspect that those who do either have a different definition than I’ve used (WLC’s) or haven’t thought it through.

          Every Christian whose been here and claimed objective morality exists (a couple dozen?) has been unable to justify the claim. Just like you, I’m afraid.

          Why do some people think certain things are wrong no matter what people’s own subjective opinions are?

          The reason many people agree on what’s really wrong or really right is that we’re all the same species. We have similar moral programming. And yet we still differ.

          Objective moral truth is confused with a moral claim that is either universally agreed to or is deeply felt. Yes, universally agreed to + viscerally felt morality exists. That’s not necessarily objectively true—you’ve got to prove that.

          “Why do most people believe that it is “evil” or “wicked” (1) for someone to walk into a random house, shoot everyone in it, and steal everything in sight?

          Because we’re the same species. We share moral instincts.

        • Candy Smith

          But where does the basis of Right and Wrong come from? Do you believe in Subjective Morality or Moral Relativism?

        • Susan

          where does the basis of Right and Wrong come from?

          You are claiming it requires Yahwehjesus.

          On what basis do you claim that?

        • epeeist

          Totally off-topic, today is the 200th anniversary of the Peterloo massacre. There is an exhibition in the John Rylands library and there will be a tribute in Manchester.

          However, I thought a song about the event might be nice.

        • I’d never heard of it. The Napoleonic Wars were over, and the War of 1812 (which I suppose was a sideshow by comparison) was also over. Was this exacerbated by poor conditions from that wartime period, or was Parliamentary representation the bigger issue?

        • epeeist

          Was this exacerbated by poor conditions from that wartime period, or was Parliamentary representation the bigger issue?

          Both, Manchester didn’t have parliamentary representation at the time, many parliamentary seats came from pocket and rotten boroughs. It was one of the events that led to parliamentary reform in 1832 and was the direct cause of the foundation of the Manchester Guardian, now The Guardian.

        • All I know about rotten boroughs I learned from Black Adder.

        • Ignorant Amos

          But where does the basis of Right and Wrong come from?

          Where do you imagine those who don’t believe in your YahwehJesus get there basis of right and wrong (why ta fuck did ya capitalise those two words ya cretin?) from? Where do you think those that have never heard the yarns in yer silly book get that basis?

          This will blow yer simple coupon, where do those animals that have it, get their basis of right and wrong?

        • Our moral sense comes from evolution.

          I reject objective morality for lack of evidence. Let’s not add yet more labels to the conversation.

        • Susan

          “Most rational people believe in Objective Morality”

          Citations needed.

          What is a “rational person” and what is “objective morality” and how can you show this is so?

          “Why do most people believe that it is “evil” or “wicked” (1) for someone to walk into a random house, shoot everyone in it, and steal everything in sight? (2) for a man to beat and rape a kind, innocent woman? (3) for an adult to torture an innocent child simply for the fun of it? or (4) for parents to have children for the sole purpose of abusing them sexually every day of their lives?”

          Because it’s cruel. Because it causes pain to innocent beings for which there is no argument that can justify it.

          But, clearly the evidence is that pain was caused (and is still being caused to innocent beings) for hundreds of millions of years.

          Even if you deny the evidence, you are bound by your cultish thinking that it has been happening for around six thousand years.

          All created by an omnipotent being who plucked all of reality out of metaphysical nothingness.

          Why?

          This is from the article because it is easier for you to just read this part as it is

          Nothing in the article addresses the problems with your position.

          You just like to think that someone explains complicated problems with your position.

          What standard do you use to determine that Yahwehjesus is an objective model of morality?

          (This should be easy for you to answer, if you have put any thought into it, rather than just provide shorty links.)

        • Candy Smith

          “Because it’s cruel. Because it causes pain to innocent beings for which there is no argument that can justify it.”

          But why is it wrong? If we are just highly evolved animals, why it is wrong to cause pain on animals? Animals cause pain to other animals all the time.

        • Candy Smith

          “All created by an omnipotent being who plucked all of reality out of metaphysical nothingness.”

          ???

        • Susan

          ???

          That is the claim. That there was only Yahwehjesus and (he) created reality out of nothingness.

          I notice you haven’t explained what a “rational person” is and shown that they necessarily accept “objective morality” (which you haven’t defined, nor have you shown that it means anything.)

        • Candy Smith

          I’m going to take a break for a few days. I will respond back to your comments after a few days

        • Candy Smith

          The next parts where it is mentioning atheists and what they have said, I don’t really know how I word use my own words to summarize what they have said. I guess I can just quote only what they said.

          “Antony Flew”

          “Prior to this four-night debate on the existence of God, Warren, in agreement with the rules of the debate, asked Flew several questions in writing, including the following: “True/False. In murdering six million Jewish men, women, and children the Nazis were guilty of real (objective) moral wrong.” Flew answered “True.” He acknowledged the existence of “real (objective) moral wrong” (Warren and Flew, 1977, p. 248).”

          “Wallace Matson”

          “Once more, Warren asked: “True/False. In murdering six million Jewish men, women, and children the Nazis were guilty of real (objective) moral wrong.” Like Flew, Matson answered “True:” “real (objective) moral wrong” exists (Warren and Matson, 1978, p. 353). Matson even acknowledged in the affirmative (i.e., “true”) that “[i]f you had been a soldier during World War II and if the Nazis (1) had captured you and (2) had given you the choice of either joining them in their efforts to exterminate the Jews or being murdered, you would have had the objective moral obligation to die rather than to join them in the murder of Jewish men, women, and children” (p. 353, underline in orig.). Do not miss the point: Matson not only said that the Nazis were guilty of objective moral wrong, he even indicated that a person would have the “objective moral obligation to die” rather than join up with the murderous Nazi regime.” This is in 1987.

        • Here, again, I don’t care what other atheists have said. I’m not bound by what they say.

          I think the Holocaust was wrong; I don’t think it was objectively wrong. You think it is? Then show us.

          Look up “morality” in the dictionary. Go on, I’ll wait.

          Notice that there’s nothing about it having to be “objective.”

        • Candy Smith

          Why don’t you think it was Objectively Wrong? Saying that it Objectively wrong, means that it would be wrong no matter what others think? Why would it not be Objectively Wrong?

        • There’s a big difference between a widely accepted moral claim (“torture is wrong” or whatever) and objective moral truth that must be valid and binding whether there are people or not. What would ground such a thing?

          You’ll say, without evidence, that God does, but now we’ve replaced one puzzle with another one. At some point there must be evidence, whether for objective morality or God.

          Objective morality doesn’t help explain anything. It’s only added to the conversation to give God a reason to exist.

        • Candy Smith

          Okay the dictionary definition for Morality does not say anything about Objective Morality. What is your point?

        • The point is that we can discuss morality without imagining objective morality.

          You see how the game is played, right? A Christian uses widely accepted moral claims (which anyone will agree to) and labels them objectively true. Then they say, “But what ground these objectively true moral claims, hmm??” and then they offer God as the answer.

          Don’t play that game. If the God hypothesis isn’t necessary, don’t jam it into the conversation.

        • Candy Smith

          Okay your not bound by what other atheists say but my point in mentioning what they have said, is that Atheists agree that Objective Morality exist.

        • And now you see the importance of defining objective morality first. If they’re atheists, their definition wouldn’t include any dependence on a deity.

          And this is another game Christians like to play–they’ll use confusion over what “objective” means to slip God (unnecessarily) into the discussion.

          I say “Christians” and not “you” because I’d like to encourage you to separate yourself from the conversation enough to have your own opinions of these arguments rather than just take them as gospel from your pastor, teacher, parents, whatever.

        • Candy Smith

          Most important part to me, is what I meant to say.

        • Candy Smith

          Sure. Deal.

        • Candy Smith

          I’m not dredging up anything and assigning it as homework. I provided a medium size section for you to look at that addresses one of the numbers that you asked about. It addresses it, so you should have no problem reading it.

          I’m not assiigning it as homework. I’m providing information for you to read.

        • Candy Smith

          2.)show that objective morality exists

          https://carm.org/why-necessary-to-appeal-to-god-for-objective-morals

          “Objective Morals”

          “In the context of our discussion, an “objective moral” would be a moral truth that is not based on a person’s subjective experience, that applies to all people and does not change with circumstances. By contrast, a subjective moral would be a moral that is based on opinion and does not apply universally. For example, one person might think that drinking alcoholic beverages is wrong, where another person has no problem with it. This would be an example of a subjective moral based upon personal preference.”

          “Example of an Objective Moral”

          “It is always wrong for anyone to torture babies to death merely for their personal pleasure.”

          “Important points about this moral proposition.”

          “This statement is universally applied to everyone all the time, “It is always wrong for anyone…””

          “”…merely for their personal pleasure” designates the reason the action is performed. There are no other conditions.”

          “Now, if someone were to say that the statement is not universally true, then he or she would be arguing that there are cases in which it is morally good to torture a baby to death merely for a person’s personal pleasure — and nothing more. In that case, we would be justified in asking for an example of when and where it would be morally proper to torture babies to death merely for a person’s personal pleasure. Otherwise, the statement cannot be falsified. But, who would want to argue in favor of the moral goodness of torturing babies to death merely for a person’s personal pleasure?”

        • Candy Smith

          “show that we imperfect humans can reliably access it.”

          Do you mean that we can’t be able to reliably account to it?? IOW, use it as our basis for Morality? Is that what you in are asking?

        • Suppose objective morality exists, but it’s (metaphorically) locked up in God’s library and we don’t have a library card. That is, objectively correct answers to every moral question exist, but they might as well not since we don’t know what they are.

          The point is that proving that objective morality exists (which you still need to do) is only the first step. Showing that we can access that is step 2.

        • Candy Smith

          Humans can’t account for Objective Morality. It is not possible for them to be able to provide an Objective, Absolute, Unchanging Standard for Morality.

        • Humans don’t need to account for objective morality until you show that it exists.

          Try to imagine how much this seems like a waste of time for me.

        • Candy Smith

          https://www.compellingtruth.org/moral-argument-existence-God.html

          “At issue are the requirements for being able to have objective moral laws. Three things are needed: (1) an absolute and unchanging authority; (2) an absolute and unchanging standard; (3) absolute truth. Atheism and naturalism admit to nothing being absolute, that everything is random, and that everything is changing. In such an environment, no one can ever be sure anything is truly and objectively right or wrong.”

          “Without an unchanging, absolute authority that uses an unchanging, absolute standard, which is based on the right and unchanging truth, ethics simply becomes emotive and opinion. Rape doesn’t become wrong, but rather the strongest statement that can be made about it is, “I don’t like rape.” C. S. Lewis put is simply when he said: “A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.” For those without God, that unchanging straight line does not exist.”

          “However, the rub comes from the fact that every human being recognizes moral absolutes. They may not practice them, but they understand and acknowledge them.”

          “Where does this universal understanding of moral right and wrong come from – an understanding that transcends human opinion? Why does a small child immediately know when they’ve been treated unfairly or know that it is wrong to have something stolen from them? They know because there is a universal moral law that has been intrinsically woven into them by their Creator.”

          Yes, I know this is assuming that the Christian God exists. Bare with me for the moment and I will get back to that.

        • Candy Smith

          1. Define “objective morality” (different people use different definitions).

          Such as? Can you provide an example of different people using different defintions, please?

          https://carm.org/why-necessary-to-appeal-to-god-for-objective-morals

          I already said this but just to show that I am addressing the first point, I am saying it again:

          “In the context of our discussion, an “objective moral” would be a moral truth that is not based on a person’s subjective experience, that applies to all people and does not change with circumstances. By contrast, a subjective moral would be a moral that is based on opinion and does not apply universally. For example, one person might think that drinking alcoholic beverages is wrong, where another person has no problem with it. This would be an example of a subjective moral based upon personal preference.”

        • Wm. Lane Craig uses this definition of objective morality: “moral values that are valid and binding whether anybody believes in them or not.” That’s what I’ve been using.

          BTW, are you completely new to this topic? I guess you’ve got to learn somewhere, but your bravado far outmatches your understanding.

        • Candy Smith

          I agree with Craig’s definition the most but I think it is saying the same thing, but it us just slightly different.

        • Candy Smith

          I am not completely new to this topic at all. Objective Morality is one of the most common topics that I discuss when I debate with people.

        • And yet I ask simple questions, and I get a dozen back and forth comments.

        • Candy Smith

          ????

        • Candy Smith

          Objective Morality is of great importance, as to whethe or not it exists, and it creates a big problem for Atheists who can’t account for it, and yet attempt to Judge God and His actions in the Bible, which is ultimately based on nothing more than their own opinion.

          And don’t just say that it is merely my opinion or God’s opinion, because it’s not and that has already been addessed in this Feedback Article:

          https://answersingenesis.org/morality/the-source-of-moral-absolutes/

        • No, I can’t account for objective morality. Oddly, neither can you.

          No more links. Your words only. Put some effort into this conversation.

        • Candy Smith

          “No more links. Your words only. Put some effort into this conversation.”

          I’m doing the best that I can. The links make it easis to explain what I am trying to say.

        • Candy Smith

          “No, I can’t account for objective morality. Oddly, neither can you.”

          God does and can.

          https://answersingenesis.org/morality/the-source-of-moral-absolutes/

          This article deals perfectly with this subject.

        • God? What God? I see zero evidence for any god or indeed any supernatural anything.

        • Candy Smith

          You see zero evidence or you don’t want to see the evidence? I just asking.

        • I see zero evidence. Like I said.

        • Candy Smith

          How much effort have you put into finding evidence for the Christian God?

          Did you use to be a Christian?

        • I was raised Presbyterian. I stopped going to church when I went to college.

          Do I remember that you’re in high school or college?

          How much effort have you put into finding evidence for the Christian God?

          I’ve been blogging largely full time for about 10 years. I’ve engaged with the best Christian arguments I’ve found. So the answer to your question is: I’ve put in more effort than 99% of the world’s Christians.

        • Candy Smith

          OK.

        • Candy Smith
        • tl;dr

          Yet more material that almost certainly wouldn’t repay a reading.

        • Candy Smith

          I am speaking of and only of the Christian God.

        • You mean the God I don’t believe in and for which there is insufficient evidence?

          You can’t support one thing (objective morality) by using another unsupported thing (the supernatural).

        • Candy Smith
        • Candy Smith

          GTG!! TTYL!!!

        • Candy Smith

          Anthony Flew and Wallace Matson, two atheists mentioned in the article that I provided talk about how the Nazis were Objectively Wrong in what they did.

          Do you see that in the article and do you understand what that means?

        • I’m not talking to them; I’m talking to you.

        • Candy Smith

          I’m just telling you what they have said and what they believe.

        • epeeist

          https://answersingenesis.or

          As well as not regarding the bible as authoritative nobody here has any respect for the charlatan Ken Ham.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And no respect for anyone that cites the brainless moron either.

        • Pofarmer

          Why anyone believes this shit is beyond me.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Defo a mental incapacity of some sort.

        • Candy Smith

          “As well as not regarding the bible as authoritative nobody here has any respect for the charlatan Ken Ham.”

          Speak for yourself. Atheists have no respect for Ken Ham. But that doesn’t actually prove anything, anymore than Christians not having any respect for Richard Dawkins.

          And actually, people do have respect for Ken Ham. They just aren’t people who necessarily agree with you.

          And also, I would love to know how it is that you have spoken to EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET in order to claim that “NO ONE has any respect for Ken Ham”??

          Have you really spoken to every single person on planet earth?

          If not, then your statement is quite absurd.

        • epeeist

          And also, I would love to know how it is that you have spoken to EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET in order to claim that “NO ONE has anyrespect for Ken Ham”??

          You really ought to read for comprehension.

          nobody here has any respect for the charlatan Ken Ham

          Glad to see that you didn’t dispute the fact that he is a charlatan.

        • Candy Smith

          Actually, I missed that word, because I was too focused on responding to the other part of the comment. I didn’t even see or acknowledge the word at all.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You missed the word because you are stupid and struggle with basic literacy…probably because you are/were homeschooled by fuckwit parents.

        • Candy Smith

          “You missed the word because you are stupid and struggle with basic literacy…probably because you are/were homeschooled by fuckwit parents.”

          No, I missed the word because of the reasons that I gave. I was focused on something else so I missed the wprd. That is a perfectly logically reason. And the insults and ad-hominems fallacies are still unnecessary.

          Also, I am not homeschooled.

          Yeah, I do struggle with “basic literacy”. So what? That’s because I am human and I make mistakes. Get over it.

        • Candy Smith

          You don’t know anything about my education because I made some mistakes and misread some stuff, and asked for clarification. Me asking for clarification is perfectly fine. The normal thing to do would be to clarify it for me and help me to understand, instead of insulting me, because you clearly haven’t nothing better to do.

        • Greg G.

          You also missed “nobody” but substituted “NO ONE” so you did get the meaning. But you missed “the charlatan”, too. In that sentence, “here” and “charlatan” are key words.

          Maybe you are a creationist because you miss key words in your reading of science texts.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Maybe you are a creationist because you miss key words in your reading of science texts.

          I get the impression Candy is a not very well educated youth.

        • Greg G.

          I get the impression Candy is a not very well educated youth.

          I get the impression that Candy is a very well mis-educated youth.

          She has been shown repeatedly what the Bible actually says but she still goes back to Ken Ham and such to tell her what the Bible says.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Or even that.

        • Candy Smith

          And, he isn’t a charlatan!!!

        • Ignorant Amos
        • Candy Smith

          And also, I would love to know how it is that you have spoken to EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET in order to claim that “NO ONE has any respect for Ken Ham”??

          You really ought to read for comprehension.

          How about you just answer the question??

        • epeeist

          How about you just answer the question??/blockquote>

          Why should I respond to a question about a claim I never made?

        • Candy Smith

          You said “nobody here”? What exactly does that mean? I am just trying to understand. I most likely misunderstood what you said.

        • Greg G.

          here = this forum

        • Candy Smith

          I am done for tonight. I will read these three new comments tomorrow. Goodnight!!

        • Ignorant Amos

          And actually, people do have respect for Ken Ham.

          Even Christer super evangelists deem Ken Ham an embarrassment. Making you a special kind of dope.

          https://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/pat_robertson_begs_ken_ham_to_shut_up/

          https://relevantmagazine.com/god/so-pat-robertson-says-young-earth-creationism-is-embarrassing-nonsense/

          Ken Ham is a lying simpleton. And by extension with you repeating his garbage, that makes you one too.

          http://www.godofevolution.com/young-earth-creationist-ken-ham-caught-fibbing-once-again/

        • Pofarmer

          Uhm, actually Objective Morality creates a big problem for Theists who can’t demonstrate it.

        • Pofarmer

          Wow. That, was horrible. It’s an pld bit of apologetics that simply states that anything God orders is moral. Great. So it’s moral to murder people if God commands it. It’s moral to steal if God commands it. In fact, anything God commands is moral. In fact, this is the ultimate SUBJECTIVE morality. The ignorance is astounding. The God virus is real.

        • epeeist

          The ignorance is astounding.

          This is Candy Smith you are responding to…

        • Ignorant Amos

          A special kind of stupid.

        • Candy Smith

          “So it’s moral to murder people if God commands it. It’s moral to steal if God commands it. In fact, anything God commands is moral. In fact, this is the ultimate SUBJECTIVE morality. The ignorance is astounding. The God virus is real.”

          Slow down for a second. First of all, God is Sovereign over all life and therefore has the right to get rid of anyone whenever He pleases.

        • Pofarmer

          This doesn’t help your case. It actually makes it worse.

        • Ignorant Amos

          They walk amongst us.

        • Candy Smith

          This doesn’t help your case. It actually makes it worse.

          First of all, God is Sovereign over all life and therefore has the right to get rid of anyone whenever He pleases.

          Why? You have no Objective, Absolute, Unchanging Standard that you can use to judge God as being Objectively wrong. You have your opinion that what He does is wrong and that’s it. I don’t know how what I said makes my case worst.

          God created us. He has the right to get rid of us whenever He wants. It’s his Prerogative, not ours.

        • Pofarmer

          If God can suddenly say that something is moral, then you don’t have that objective, unchanging standard, now do you? God orders the Israelites to kill babies and pregnant women. The Catholics happily embarked on the Albigensian Crusade because they thought God wanted them to stamp out other believers who thought differently. God doesn’t do anything. His people do.

        • Candy Smith

          It does.

        • Helpful, thanks.

        • Pofarmer

          What is it with these idiots and Anthony Flew? I would never have heard of him if apologists didn’t bring him up.

        • Apologists are eager to celebrate Flew as the 20th century’s leading atheist philosopher (or similar), now that they can (kinda) count him as one of their own.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Conveniently ignoring the way the Christers exploited him in his senile dotage.

          http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/11/antony-flew-bogus-book.html

          https://infidels.org/kiosk/article/antony-flew-considers-godsort-of-369.html

          But then lying for Jesus is what they do…cause they’ve got nothing else.

        • Yep. Pretty sad what they did to him and his reputation.

          I read “Flew’s” book. There was a fair amount of “him” quoting himself from previous books.

          I wonder if they helped him sign the contract with the publisher as well.

        • Pofarmer

          Uhm, Candy. The Nazi’s DIDN’T think what they were doing was morally wrong. When the Japanese indiscriminately killed Chinese, they didn’t think it was morally wrong. When mainly white folks in NA genocided the Native population WE didn’t think it was wrong.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The Nazi’s DIDN’T think what they were doing was morally wrong.

          They believed it was morally right and a God given obligation. They were Christers obliterating the Christ killers.

          Furthermore, there are lots of Christer US citizens to this day that believe they were morally justified.

        • Candy Smith

          I’m going to take a break for a few days. I will respond back to your comments after a few days

        • Candy Smith

          Yeah I know they didn’t think that. Did I say otherwise?

        • Pofarmer

          If there was this objective sense of morality, how was this behavior even possible?

        • epeeist

          “Antony Flew”

          I see your Anthony Flew and raise you Richard Swinburne:

          “Swinburne at one point attempted to justify the Holocaust on the grounds that it gave the Jews a wonderful opportunity to be courageousand noble”

          and

          “Suppose that one less person had been burnt by the Hiroshima atomic bomb. Then there would have been less opportunity for courage and sympathy; one less piece of information about the effects of atomic radiation”

          So a professor of religion from the University of Oxford who thinks that there objective moral values claims that both the Holocaust and Hiroshima were morally justified.

        • Greg G.

          We cannot actually know what is objectively moral so maybe Swinburne is right. It might be objectively immoral to stop torturing people to death because that would diminish the greatest objectively moral act: providing wonderful opportunities to be courageous and noble.

        • “Swinburne at one point attempted to justify the Holocaust on the grounds that it gave the Jews a wonderful opportunity to be courageous and noble”

          Reminds me of Lincoln’s comment, “Whenever I hear anyone arguing over slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.”

          Maybe Swinburne would like to put his money where his mouth is as Lincoln suggests and try out five years of the Holocaust himself

        • (Trivia: it’s Antony Flew, not Anthony.)

        • Greg G.

          Click the link and read his argument, then argue specifically what is wrong with his opinion.

    • rationalobservations?
  • Candy Smith

    “If God is all-powerful, he can just forgive our sins, which sounds reasonable since we’re imperfect and sinful because he made us that way.”

    This is an argument that Richard Dawkins used. It has also already been addressed and answered. The author is simply using already refuted arguments.

    And also, “just forgive people” is not logical. Just like a judge isn’t going to just forgive a murderer. So it really doesn’t make any sense.

    https://creation.com/dawkins-dilemma

    • JustAnotherAtheist2

      Why is forgiveness illogical?

      • Lambchopsuey

        Only for her “god”. It requires the REST of us to “forgive”.

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          Exactly. The is no alternate to “just” forgiveness because anything else is retribution. It can only be forgiveness if nothing else is exchanged.

    • NS Alito

      And also, “just forgive people” is not logical.

      I forgive people who have wronged me all the time for a variety of reasons. In fact, if people never overlooked wrongs, they’d be feuding all the time. What a horrible society!

    • eric

      “just forgive people” is not logical.

      [throws out New Testament]

    • Lambchopsuey

      Yet your jeez REQUIRES that people “just forgive people”!

      Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven. (Matthew 18:21-22)

      WHY are fallible, *created* humans being held to a higher standard than God Itself? And why are humans condemned for simply having been born HUMAN? (“Original sin”, without which the performance-art “sacrifice” charade of the phony poseur “jeezis” would clearly be just a self-serving bit of “Look at MEEE!!” grandstanding)

      • Ignorant Amos

        Ah…missed that earlier…well ya know what they say about great minds and all that jazz.

      • Jack the Sandwichmaker

        The same reason that civilians are held to a higher standard with regards to the application of violence than police officers.

    • I will pray Eldath, Goddess of peace, springs, waterfalls, pools, and druidic groves, for you.

    • Doubting Thomas

      And also, “just forgive people” is not logical.

      But torturing and killing an innocent person so that you can forgive the guilty is logical?

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      How is ‘disbelief’, a victimless ‘crime’, somehow a ‘sin’ that’s beyond forgiveness?

      • Candy Smith

        How is ‘disbelief’, a victimless ‘crime’, somehow a ‘sin’ that’s beyond forgiveness??

        I don’t understand what you are asking??

    • Ignorant Amos

      And also, “just forgive people” is not logical.

      Ya got that right.

      Unfortunately you are hoist by yer own petard, because the whole Christian shebang is about forgiveness?

      It’s part of the mantra ffs…

      “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.”

      Don’t ya know “The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant” in gMatthew…

      21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?”

      22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.

      And the punishment for not forgiving is torture, by the Heavenly Father.

      https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18%3A21-35&version=NIV

      • JustAnotherAtheist2

        I’m still confused what the alternative to “just” forgiveness is. Isn’t forgiveness devoid of compensation by definition? Wouldn’t it be retribution otherwise?

        • Ignorant Amos

          A wonder does it mean ya feel good about it, as opposed to it being a necessity under duress? Or just plain old religious nonsense word salad.

        • No forgiveness = no more contact with him/her thus ignoring him/her, no for example lending him/her money when (s)he ask for it, etc.

        • Lambchopsuey

          Forgiveness too often serves as license for the abuser to continue to abuse the victim. Social censure is one of the strongest behavioral-modification tools we have as people. Letting people off the hook = no consequences = why not do it some more??

          Too bad that stupid jeez of theirs couldn’t foresee THAT and decide something else, something that might actually protect “the least of these” he supposedly cared so much about…

      • Candy Smith
        • Ignorant Amos

          You seem to be having severe problems understanding basic concepts here.

          The apologetic at that link you provided doesn’t address my comment. It conveniently for you, fails to address the relevant verses of the parable, what happens when forgiveness is not forthcoming. Or didn’t you read it?

          32 “Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33 Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ 34 In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

          35 “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”

          Jesus said the punishment for not forgiving will be the same as that of the servant who would not forgive, he was tortured. That he heavenly Father would inflict the same punishment to those sinners who won’t forgive. They’ll be TORTURED.

          Is your reading comprehension so fucked up, or can’t you see anything through those Jesus shaped blinders?

          We know that Christers can scour the buybull and the plethora of various exegesis in order to find an apologetic, that’s why the buybull is referred as the proverbial Rorschach Test. Even Christers admit the problem. That’s why there are 45,000+ different flavours of the bastard cult.

          https://theviewfromthisseat.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-bible-is-like-rorschach-test.html

          The $64 million question is why a super multi-oni universe creating entity, can only manage to get its message through to humanity, in such an ambiguous way that is no better than that of a bunch of ignorant middle eastern fuckwits who didn’t know where the Sun went at night. Then needed a later bunch olf knuckle-dragging fuckwits to decipher the crap that has more combinations than a 6 digit lottery ticket. That later needed a bunch of apologetics constructed to get the square pegs to fit the round holes in order to keep the Dime Bars onboard?

          This dovetails nicely into a an article I was reading last night…

          https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rolltodisbelieve/2019/08/10/hillsong-songwriter-marty-sampson-has-left-the-jesus-building/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Imagine+No+Religion&utm_content=44

          …so am not going to lose complete hope on you just yet.

    • Jack the Sandwichmaker

      I wish we had judges like God on Earth. The Judge would hear the whole case, conclude that the murderer was indeed proven to be guilty. Then the judge’s son would come out, the judge would shoot his son in the head and tell the murderer he was forgiven and free to go.

      • Otto

        We also wouldn’t need categories of crimes…all crime would be equal under the law. Murder…Life in prison. Stealing…Life in prison. Traffic ticket…Life in prison.

        • Greg G.

          Someone recently posted that the Jews followed all 613 commandments “religiously” because a mere mortal would have no way to know if God thought one was more important than another nor which one that might be.

          Having the death penalty for parking violations would make it easier to find a place to park, not that I am advocating for that.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • Greg G.

          Yup, that was the post I was thinking of. Thank you!

      • ThaneOfDrones

        The Judge would hear the whole case…

        Why would Mr. Omniscient need to hear the whole case?

    • It has also already been addressed and answered.

      Nope. This is no answer.

      A “That’s been answered” dismissal is meaningless. You’ve found an error? That’s great–tell us about it, yourself.

      And also, “just forgive people” is not logical.

      That’s not what I’ve heard. You’re a worthless sinner who doesn’t deserve heaven, right? But God is going to forgive you and let you into heaven anyway.

      Explain that one.

      • Candy Smith

        First of all, I don’t know where you came up with the term”worthless sinner”, as that is completely unbiblical.

        • I don’t care about biblical; I’m using a term I’ve heard Christians use. If you’re saying that your flavor of Christians don’t use that phrase, I’ll accept that.

          If “worthless sinner” isn’t the term you’d use then tell us what it is. Is it secret?

          I’m asking you to explain your concept of cosmic justice.

        • Candy Smith

          Christians have used the words “Worthless Sinners??

          You should care about what Biblical since that it is what matters. What Christians say, it does not matter if it does not agree with the Bible.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Christians have used the words “Worthless Sinners??

          Yip, all the time. Are you a flower in the attic being homeschooled?

          You should care about what Biblical since that it is what matters.

          Why? Christers don’t give a fuck about belief in what’s in the buybull, or not.

          Jesus birthday being the 25th December being a doozie.

          The word or explicit description of a holy Trinity

          Jesus was a carpenter.

          The “rapture” mentioned anywhere in the book of Revelation.

          “Personal relationship with Jesus.” Not in there.

          “God helps those who help themselves.” Not in there.

          “Cleanliness is next to godliness.” Not in there.

          Lots of other shite, but that’ll do for now.

          What Christians say, it does not matter if it does not agree with the Bible.

          And what about all the shite that IS in the buybull that Christers conveniently ignore. Does that matter?

          ETA: “or not” for clarity.

        • Greg G.

          Never mind what Christians and the Bible say, pay attention to reality.

        • Ignorant Amos

          There’s been a marginal improvement in Candy’s approach to engaging since two visits ago, when all we got was “that’s just your opinion”.

          It’s still not anywhere near rational, but it’s a point in the right direction. At least there is a modicum of something to address.

        • I engage with Christians. They get their views from lots of places, not just the Bible.

        • Ignorant Amos

          They get their views from lots of places, mostly not just the Bible.

          FTFY…and I think Candy is one such Christian.

          All the Christians I know in meatworld, get their buybull information, or what’s purported to be from the buybull, from third party sources.

          In other news, God played a blinder with poor wee Nora Quoirin.

          She died from internal bleeding probably caused by hunger and stress, a post-mortem examination revealed.

          Malaysian Police said there was no suspicion the 15-year-old, who was discovered following a 10-day search, was the victim of foul play.

          Nora died two or three days before she was found, the force believes.

          “The cause of death was upper gastrointestinal bleeding due to duodenal ulcer, complicated with perforation.”

          A special needs child lay on the jungle floor for around a week before dying. Go Team Jesus!

        • Pofarmer

          It’s convenient the Bible says just what they think.

        • It’s convenient that the Bible can be twisted to say just what they think.

          FTFY

        • Ignorant Amos

          Did ya notice the, “look, over there, squirrels!” body swerve with the “worthless sinner” nonsense in order to avoid …

          “That’s been answered” dismissal is meaningless. You’ve found an error? That’s great–tell us about it, yourself.

          She can’t stand the heat, but won’t leave the fire. A right piece of work this Candy is, no?

        • Good catch.

        • Ignorant Amos

          If you’re saying that your flavor of Christians don’t use that phrase, I’ll accept that.

          Given that there are as many varieties of Christian as there are Christers, that seems unavoidable.

          But even if we stick to the 45,000+ flavours, concepts are going to go from the sublime to the ridiculous.

          But Candy probably doesn’t know what concept she’s supposed to run with. She strikes me as a bit of a muddle headed Dipped Soda.

        • muddle headed Dipped Soda

          🙂

        • Ignorant Amos

          For those wondering.

          A colloquialism that means a stupid ass.

          A dipped soda is Irish soda bread shallow fried in oil and served with a fried breakfast.

          http://ukcdn.ar-cdn.com/recipes/port250/100509.jpg

          Take the “dip” and “so” to make the portmanteau “dipso”.

          A dipso is a person suffering from dipsomania.

          Dipso
          A stupid ass
          Shaye maybe you should use your brain instead of being such a dipso

        • And here I thought I was fluent in English. Thanks.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • I didn’t notice “wain” (child), which I learned on “Derry Girls.” The only definition I’d ever heard was that it was archaic for “wagon.”

        • Ignorant Amos

          It’s we’an ya Philistine…lol

          Nah, there’s loads not on there, but it’s on this on…

          https://happydomesticity.wordpress.com/norn-iron-speek-or-northern-irish-dictionary/

        • Ah–clearer.

          Have you watched Letterkenny (streaming on Hulu)? It might be to you what Derry Girls is to me. It’s about Canadians, eh.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I’ll have a wee look at it, ta.

        • Greg G.

          It’s not unChristian. Amazing Grace is an old favorite hymn with the line, “that saved a wretch like me”.

        • Ignorant Amos

          First of all, I don’t know where you came up with the term”worthless sinner”,…

          You’ll need to take that up with your fellow Christards. Bob is just repeating what many Christians believe.

          Your Identity: Are You a “Worthless Sinner”?

          For most of my life I believed I was a worthless sinner, only tolerated by God because of Jesus’ work on the cross. Sure, I “knew” that God loved me, but I believed that I was still a “wretch” with minimal value.

          Throughout my years in ministry, I’ve known many missionaries, college students, men, and women who also view themselves this way, whether consciously or subconsciously. Perhaps you default to holding a similar view? That, at a conscious level, you believe you have little to no value? That there’s something inherently wrong with who you are? That you’ll never fit in, and never measure up? That you’re a failure? And that God agrees, seeing no more value in you than the trash you threw out last night?

          Where could those fellow fuckwit Christers of yours get such an idea?

          Romans 3:12 “All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

          What does Romans 3:12 mean?

          Paul is quoting from Psalm 14 to show that his bold statements are not new ideas, even if the Jewish religious leaders have misunderstood or forgotten them. Judging by Paul’s remarks here, it was commonly held that the Jewish people had the law and were circumcised, therefore they were therefore a righteous people in God’s eyes. This would have led people to feel protected from God’s judgment. Paul has contradicted that idea, teaching that every individual person will be judged by God for their actions, whether right or wrong. And every one of us will be found to be “under sin” and deserving of God’s anger. Verse 10, which began this citation, makes this clear by stating that there is “not one” who is naturally righteous.

          Paul’s paraphrase of David’s words in Psalm 14:3 describes what God found when he searched humanity looking for any righteous—sinless—people. Of course, God already knew the outcome, but Scripture states this to emphasize that it’s something clear and obvious. We have all turned aside from following God’s path. We have all become worthless; we are all corrupt. Not one single person is found to do good, by the standards of a holy and perfect Creator.

          Neither of these Scriptures implies that no human ever does anything that can be described as good. Of course, people do isolated good things all of the time, at least by our standards. We are capable of knowing the difference between right and wrong, and choosing what is right…when we want to. The ultimate problem, as David wrote and Paul agreed, is that nobody’s heart is naturally oriented toward doing good. We are all, every one of us, pointed in a self-serving direction and away from God’s definition of goodness.

          The bottom line is that humans are capable of doing good, but we universally choose not to, by God’s standards. We want what we want and not what He wants.

          See, YahwehJesus already knew the answer, but searched for a “sinless” person in anycase…Bwahahahaha!

          …as that is completely unbiblical.

          Not quite, but anyway, there is loads of stuff that Christers believe that are not literally found in the buybull. I’d have thought you’d have known that.

        • Greg G.

          I think Romans 3:20 says “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (That’s without looking it up.) It gives the latter half of the phrase. I’d forgotten about Romans 3:12.

  • Candy Smith

    “God changed his mind: “The Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people” (Exodus 32:10–14). He dithered about whether Balaam (the one with the talking donkey) should go on his trip or not (Numbers 22).”

    https://carm.org/exodus-3214-lord-changed-his-mind

    https://www.gotquestions.org/Balaam-in-the-Bible.html

    These verses all have explanations.

    • Michael Neville

      The article in CARM about Ex 32:10-14 does a lot of tap dancing and hand waving to explain why God changed his mind. However it does admit that God did change his mind.

      Balaam was not a wicked prophet. Wicked people do not ask God for permission to do things and, when permission is not given, then they don’t do it. Who ever wrote that nonsense was trying, and failing, to explain away Ol’ Yahweh dithering about Balaam going to Moab.

      But nice try, at least you didn’t blow these two things off.

      • Lambchopsuey

        Why do you suppose their god had such a hate-on for the Moabites?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          One’s nearest relatives are one’s most dangerous competition when resources are scarce…

        • Probably demons. After all one Fundy I know of claims Amalekites, etc. were that.

        • Greg G.

          Genesis 19:37-38 (NRSV)37 The firstborn bore a son, and named him Moab; he is the ancestor of the Moabites to this day. 38 The younger also bore a son and named him Ben-ammi; he is the ancestor of the Ammonites to this day.

          This refers to Lot’s two daughters. Either the two virgins knew how to get a man just drunk enough to black out but still be able to ejaculate or Lot got drunk and raped them on consecutive nights. Lot was the only person in Sodom and Gomorrah that God considered righteous.

    • Jack the Sandwichmaker

      Christians obviously don’t think that God doesn’t change his mind, or else they wouldn’t bother to pray.

    • These verses all have explanations.

      These verses all have bullshit explanations. To see this, explain them yourself and see how convincing they are.

      • Candy Smith

        They aren’t BS. They explain it and it makes perfect sense. You just don’t want to admit that you are wrong so you have to make an excuse.

        Why should I have to explain them to you?

        Is there something confusing about this particular explanation.

        • I’m pointing out that “there are explanations” means nothing if the explanations are weak. I’m certain that there is an “explanation” for every problem I point out. I’m also certain that if Christianity were as manmade as I say it is, you’d still be able to find those explanations. Some Christians start with the conclusion. I follow the evidence.

        • Candy Smith

          The explanations are not weak. Otherwise, you should have been able to disprove the articles that I have sent you and shown me how are why they are wrong. Instead, all you’ve done is say”they are weak, or they are BS explanations” which doesn’t ultimately make them wrong.

          Show me how and why the articles that I sent to you, are wrong.

        • Show me an argument that I haven’t responded to. No, don’t give me an article as homework (I’m pretty sure I’ve already seen it). You do the work–compare your article with my post and show me any arguments I haven’t addressed. Then I’ll be interested to read it.

          I’m sure you’re so entrenched in your beliefs that nothing I write will convince you.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Oh fer feck sake, the Candy Smith Clown Circus is back in town.

          Been to Croydon and pressed the reset button have ya?

          They aren’t BS.

          Yeah, they are BS.

          They explain it and it makes perfect sense.

          To the gullible fuckwit with confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, of course they do. Does the BS explanations that Muslims, Scientologists, Mormons, Hindus, Sikhs,…or even the different BS explanations that among the contradicting flavours of Christianity make perfect sense to you? If not why not? They make they explain it and make perfect sense to them.

          You just don’t want to admit that you are wrong so you have to make an excuse.

          Nope. Nothing wrong to admit about. No excuses, ya might have noticed that there are hundreds of articles on this blog that covers just about everything Christian, some more than once.

          Why should I have to explain them to you?

          You don’t. But then what is your purpose for being here? If it’s to troll and preach, then I suggest ya fuck off, we’ve seen it all before, from far better at it and a lot more interesting than you.

          Bob…and the rest of us, would just like to see if you have the nous to present something near a cogent argument yourself. See, we don’t think you are anywhere near clever enough to do anything more than be a fuckwit knuckle-dragging parroting sheeple. We don’t believe you are aware of the contents of yer own silly book, so have to rely on the apologetics of others.

          Prove us all wrong and shame the Devil.

        • Candy Smith

          ” We don’t believe you are aware of the contents of yer own silly book, so have to rely on the apologetics of others.”

          I am completely aware of whats in the Bible. I rely on Apologetics because they provide answers by people have done this their entire lives, and see seeking the truth, not seeking to mispresent or lie to people because they can’t admit that they are wrong.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I think you are lying.

          You rely on apologetics because you are demonstrably an incompetent troll.

          The worse thing about your incapability is the pathetic apologists that you rely on. But you are too stupid to know even that much.

        • Candy Smith

          “You rely on apologetics because you are demonstrably an incompetent troll.”

          No. That is your opinion I have not demonstrated that I am a troll.

          If anything you might be the troll, because of your obnoxious behavior and cussing and use of ad-hominems over and over again. You can certainty chose to believe that I am a troll. That is certainty your right but it is nothing bit your opinion.

        • Candy Smith

          “The worse thing about your incapability is the pathetic apologists that you rely on. But you are too stupid to know even that much.”

          Another Ad-Hominem Fallacy.

          I’m going to keep pointing out the Ad-Hominems until you choose to stop using them, and actually make an argument.

        • Candy Smith

          Calling me names over and over again is not making an argument. Saying that Apologists are Pathetic without providing actually evidence does not prove anything.

        • Candy Smith

          “Prove us all wrong and shame the Devil.”

          I already proved you wrong by the answers/links that I gave you. You haven’t shown me why or that they are wrong. If the articles are wrong, then prove it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          FFS, reading for comprehension is another major malfunction of yours a see.

          Construct a cogent argument of your own and present it here. Show us that you know the contents of your own scripture. Quit riding on the coattails of internet fuckwit Christers whose apologetics are less than substandard. At the very least, cite half decent theologians with a bit more substance.

          That’s what a meant by…

          “Prove us all wrong and shame the Devil.”

          …ya moron.

        • Candy Smith

          If the articles that I have sent to you, specifically are wrong, then please provide the links that specifically deal with those articles.

        • Candy Smith

          “Quit riding on the coattails of internet fuckwit Christers whose apologetics are less than substandard.”

          Why would I stop doing anything that you ask me to do when you ask like that? I certainty hope that your mother taught you better? Usually when you want to someone to do something, you ask respectfully, instead of being obnoxious. Also, this is another Ad-Hominem Fallacy, that proves nothing.

        • Candy Smith

          They aren’t BS.

          “Yeah, they are BS.”

          That does not prove anything. If they are BS, then prove it. Show me where and why the articles are wrong.

        • Candy Smith

          You see making excuses which is exactly why you won’t actually deal with the articles. You haven’t actually proven to be wrong. All you’ve done is say “they are BS” and etc, over and over again. That doesn’t prove anything.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You see making excuses which is exactly why you won’t actually deal with the articles.

          Oh Candy, yer a doll in a quaint nieve kinda way. This isn’t my first twirl around the dance floor, and believe you me, your skill is deplorable. Citing those fuckwits you cite, won’t get you out of the starting blocks. They are designed for gullible sheeple like you. Do some research rather than confirmation bias as a result of cognitive dissonance.

          You haven’t actually proven to be wrong. All you’ve done is say “they are BS” and etc, over and over again. That doesn’t prove anything.

          Huge sigh!!!

          Why don’t you employ that redundant organ between your ears and ask the more important questions?

          You cite a less than mediocre arsewipe Christian apologist who claims a mistranslation. He has no authority whatsoever. He is a biased source pandering to his own audience. He is pulling nonsense from his rear end and you are spoon feeding it down yer throat like there is no tomorrow. Why you think those of us here should gobble the crap up like you have, is anyone’s guess.

          That dickhead Matt Slick is reading millennia later Christian nonsense back into another religions scripture. It is fuckwittery of the highest order.

          Now, to the point of the matter.

          Your first question should be to yerself. Why did all those theologians that translated the word from the Hebrew to English fuck it up so badly if it is so obvious to a moonbeam like Matt Slick?

          Well, the fact of the matter is, the Yahweh of the OT isn’t the multi-omni YahwehJesus of the NT.

          The word “nacham” is used 3 times in Exodus.

          Exodus 13:17; Exodus 32:12; Exodus 32:14

          17 Now when Pharaoh had let the people go, God did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines, even though it was near; for God said, “The people might change their minds when they see war, and return to Egypt.”

          12 “Why should the Egyptians speak, saying, ‘With evil intent He brought them out to kill them in the mountains and to destroy them from the face of the earth ‘? Turn from Your burning anger and change Your mind about doing harm to Your people.

          14 So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.

          In the story, God was going to annihilate the Chosen, Moses intervened, God didn’t annihilate the Chosen. There was a change. Stop with the nonsense.

          Your problem is, that you don’t know enough to sit at the adults table.

          The OT god was a god for the OT authors and ancient Jews. That god fucks modern Christers like you, right up. But you’re umbilically tied to it, so ya end up tying yerself in pretzels trying to make excuses.

          Do yerself a favour and learn a wee bit before going on atheist forums and making a complete ballix of yerself, there’s a good child.

          Let me help…

          In the Hebrew Bible, God plays many roles and has many personalities. God is a judge, lawgiver, liberator, creator, father, king, and shepherd. Oftentimes, God’s attributes seem contradictory. God is said to be, “merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love” (Exodus 34:6), but God is also a vengeful warrior. Unlike the conception of God as perfect, all-knowing, and all-powerful developed by the medieval philosophers, the God of the Bible is conflicted. As Jack Miles puts it in God: A Biography: “After each of His major actions, He discovers that He has not done quite what He thought He was doing, or has done something He never intended to do.”

          https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/early-jewish-conceptions-of-god/

          And regarding the particular bit of scripture at hand…

          https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Scripture/Parashah/Summaries/Ki_Tisa/Nacham/nacham.html

          See the problem yet Candy?

        • Ignorant Amos

          The bullshite articles have been dealt with. On this site, and elsewhere. No one is going to do your work for you, ya lazy bastard.

          Saying that, I dealt with the Exodus fuckwittery here…

          https://disqus.com/home/discussion/crossexamined/top_10_most_common_atheist_argumentsdo_they_fail_2_of_4_13/#comment-4580602837

          If there is a point in your Numbers link, fucking make it, so we can move on.

        • Candy Smith

          “If there is a point in your Numbers link, fucking make it, so we can move on.”

          Ask nicely, otherwise I will not do anything, when you ask me so disrespectfully. Why should I, when you can’t act like a mature adult?

  • Doubting Thomas

    The Bible has “historical and geographical corroboration.” Compare that against fairies, Santa…

    There was a Saint Nicholas and there is a North Pole.

    • Michael Neville

      There’s also a “bottom of the garden”, at least for those gardens which have bottoms.

      • al kimeea

        glad I kept reading

      • Lambchopsuey

        Better a bottom *of* the garden than a bottom *in* the garden…

    • NS Alito

      [Side note: I was part of the 2011 project that moved Santa and the whole operation from the melting North Pole to Antarctica.]

      • Maltnothops

        What’s Plan B when Antarctica melts?

        • NS Alito

          Start swimmin’!

    • Jim Jones

      And of course:

      http://www.bibviz.com/

      • Ignorant Amos

        Excellent resource.

      • Candy Smith

        This website is simply another dishonest website. Most of the complaints have already been answered answered dealt with.

        For example:

        In the section: Scientific Absurdities & Historical Inaccuracies

        This is mentioned:

        And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters: And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.

        Genesis 5:26-27

        Yet, this has already been dealt with.

        https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/impossibly-old/

        Cruelty & Violence

        Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

        Exodus 31:15

        I’m notrying sure what the confusion is with this or why it’s a problem. God created us, He makes the rules. When people disobey, there are consequences.

        https://carm.org/should-we-keep-sabbath-or-not

        The so-called Misogyny Verses are the ones that are most often taken out of context.

        Misogyny, Violence & Discrimination Against Women

        But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel. Then… the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die.

        See, the verse is being taken out of context. The person who owns this website is mentioning only verses 20 and 21. But one needs to understand and read more of the chapter to understand what it going on, and not just selectively pick the berse that he doesn’t like.

        Deuteronomy 22:20-21

        https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/stone-woman-not-being-virgin

        https://www.gotquestions.org/stone-non-virgin.html

        • Ignorant Amos

          This website is simply another dishonest website. Most of the complaints have already been answered answered dealt with.

          Nope. It is you that is dishonest…and fucking lazy too.

          For example:

          In the section: Scientific Absurdities & Historical Inaccuracies

          AiG is a lying cretard outfit pandering to stupid idiots like you.

          People don’t live to those ages. There is no examples of such anywhere. What is more reasonable, it’s a story or it’s a fact?

          In other news, Jack sold the family cow for some magic beans. When are you likely to grow, that’s if indeed, you are already an adult of course.

          Cruelty & Violence

          I’m notrying sure what the confusion is with this or why it’s a problem. God created us, He makes the rules. When people disobey, there are consequences.

          Given that aside from the fact that makes you a heinous human being. You’re answer misses the point completely. No one is contesting the rule exists, the problem is that it does, which makes your God a moral monster, capiche.

          Or would you be okay living in a Gilead where anyone caught working on the Sabbath, is hung on the wall?

          What about most of all the other fucked up silly rules? About 613 of them?

          http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

          You do know you are a freakin kook, right?

          Misogyny, Violence & Discrimination Against Women

          See, the verse is being taken out of context. The person who owns this website is mentioning only verses 20 and 21. But one needs to understand and read more of the chapter to understand what it going on, and not just selectively pick the berse that he doesn’t like.

          Oh, so all the misogyny, violence and discrimination against women for the past two millennia and still to this day by Christians, are because verses were taken out out of context? Well that’s very comforting. It was all a huge error. That’ll be okay then. We can all forget about it it, nothing more to see here. Gods interpreters fucked up…not God’s fault.

          You are a disgrace to your sex…a disgusting human being…you’re a real life Serena Waterford…ughhh! I need a shower now.

        • Candy Smith

          No. I’m not being dishonest or lazy. When verses that an Website complaints about have already been addessed, that makes them dishonest, because they could and should have spent the time reading the answer/explanation, instead of lying to audiences.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You have yet to demonstrate dishonesty.

          Your linked websites have been refuted, time and again, here and plenty of places elsewhere.

          The sites you link to are full of lies which you’ve been shown, but avoid responding to, making you a lazy liar too.

        • There’s a lot of that going around.

          Very few Christian web sites take into account what I’ve said, so when people like you point me to some Christian page, it’s all just crap I’ve seen a dozen times before, never anything new.

        • Candy Smith

          A lot of what going around?

        • Candy Smith

          “AiG is a lying cretard outfit pandering to stupid idiots like you.”

          That needs to actually being proven. Until you do that, this is nothing more than ad-hominem fallacy and your opinion.

          Also, you need to actually show me where the individual articles are wrong. If there is something in them that is wrong, then you should have no problem proving and showing me where and why they are wrong.

        • Ignorant Amos

          That needs to actually being proven.

          It has, ad nauseum. That you don’t know that already, is just your asinine incredulous dumbarse at work.

          Google is your friend.

          Until you do that, this is nothing more than ad-hominem fallacy and your opinion.

          First of all, learn what the ad hom/i> fallacy is before citing it. Secondly, all AiG articles are the opinions of ignorant fuckwits based on a silly book. Last, but by no means least. I can support my opinions with evidence, something you’ve consistently failed at since you’ve got here.

          There is no evidence that human beings have lived, do live, or will live, to more than 900 years old. It is a myth in a book.

          Possibly (just possibly), the Bible is not a mathematically/scientifically accurate source concerning human longevity (or anything scientific, really).

          A starting point for your education…

          http://www.talkorigins.org/

          But anyway…

          What is your claim here and what method do you use to support it? Define the god you believe exist and what evidence you use to support it? Tell us why anyone here should give you the time of day any longer?

        • Candy Smith

          “all AiG articles are the opinions of ignorant fuckwits based on a silly book”

          Wow!! Yeah and I’m the one who needs to learn what an ad-hominem is. I know exactly what it is. You have just made an attack on AIG, and didn’t actually make an argument, let alone provide any evidence. All you did was provide your opinion about AIG. You didn’t give me any evidence for why your claim is true.

        • epeeist

          In logic there is a thing called modus tollens:

          if A then B
          ~B
          ∴ ~A

          Here is an example:

          P1: If bats were birds they would lay eggs
          P2: bats do not lay eggs
          C: therefore bats are not birds

          So let’s look at AiG

          P1: According to AiG the world is around 6,000 years old
          P2: Evidence shows that the world is older than 6,000 years
          C: The claim by AiG is false

          Now of course you would want me to justify my second premiss, here you go:

          Dating Late Glacial abrupt climate changes in the 14,570 yr long continuous varve record of Lake Van, Turkey

          Absolute dating of late Quaternary Lacustrine sediments by high resolution varve chronology

          Consistent dating for Antarctic and Greenland ice cores

          Visual‐stratigraphic dating of the GISP2 ice core: Basis, reproducibility, and application

          or even

          Sun storms could confirm ancient historical dates.

          Now you can attempt to rescue AiG’s claim by showing my evidence is wrong. Off you go.

        • Candy Smith

          I will respond and dive into this more tomorrow.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Dendrochronology even demonstrates the claim is pure silly pants ffs.

          A fully anchored and cross-matched chronology for oak and pine in central Europe extends back 12,460 years, and an oak chronology goes back 7,429 years in Ireland and 6,939 years in England. Comparison of radiocarbon and dendrochronological ages supports the consistency of these two independent dendrochronological sequences. Another fully anchored chronology that extends back 8500 years exists for the bristlecone pine in the Southwest US (White Mountains of California).

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

          When she claimed Talk Origins were liars, she had to get culled. Too much of a dishonest Christer fuckwit even for me.

        • epeeist

          The gotcha word in this is “radiocarbon”, this leads it to be discarded out of hand (not that she has any understanding of how it is done, but there are lots of articles on AiG that she can copy-paste).

          I chose the specific set because it relies on simple counting, layers in ice cores, in varves etc.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I chose the specific set because it relies on simple counting, layers in ice cores, in varves etc.

          Assuming Candy can count.

          Did I ever tell ya the story about drinking whisky on the Antarctic survey ship HMS Endurance while at the Falkland Islands in 1982?

          We had ice in the whisky, that according to creotard thinking, formed before their God created the universe.

        • A fully anchored and cross-matched chronology for oak and pine in central Europe extends back 12,460 years

          What part of “the earth is 6000 years old” do you not understand??

        • Ignorant Amos
        • 50 million years old, you say? You’ll be explaining that to your Maker pretty soon, my friend.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Daft as a brick, ya brainless child.

          Let me help you out with a wee bit of education.

          If I’d said, “AiG articles are wrong because AiG is a lying cretard outfit pandering to stupid idiots like you.”, you’d have have a point, but only because there is nothing to support my assertion.

          I didn’t say that, I made an observation. AiG spews lies and gullible fuckwits like you gobble it up and that’s a fact.

          So given what I said about AiG lying, the argument would go something like, one can’t trust what they say, because they are a lying bunch of knuckle-dragging fuckers.

          You are too stupid to get the better of me. Like I said, go learn the ad hominem fallacy before making a further arse of yerself.

          And since the only form of argument you know is cite links…

          https://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/aig_and_algae_revisited.htm

          https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis

          https://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2016/02/how-answers-in-genesis-shattered-my-faith-in-creationism.html

          So no, not just my opinion, even your fellow Christers know Ken Ham is a lying bastard.

          http://www.godofevolution.com/young-earth-creationist-ken-ham-caught-fibbing-once-again/

          Now go take your head for a shite, you’re dribbling verbal diarrhea.

        • Candy Smith

          “There is no evidence that human beings have lived, do live, or will live, to more than 900 years old. It is a myth in a book.”

          Well, that was back then, and Humans didn’t continue to live that long, did they?

        • Candy Smith

          http://www.talkorigins.org/

          Yes I am aware of TalkOrigins and their dishonesty.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Oh fer feck sake…your retardness is beyond reproach…you are blocked again.

        • Candy Smith

          Good. That’s fine with me. You’re the one who won’t behave like a mature adult and stop making ad hominem fallacies. So, if you want to block me go ahead. Nevertheless, I’m going to take a break for a few days. I will respond back to your comments after a few days. So if do choose to keep making comments to me, I’m taking a break.

        • Candy Smith

          Blah blah blah

        • Candy Smith

          Possibly (just possibly), the Bible is not a mathematically/scientifically accurate source concerning human longevity (or anything scientific, really).

          This so-called problem has been addressed already.

          https://creation.com/living-for-900-years

          https://carm.org/why-did-people-old-testament-live-so-long

          https://askjohnmackay.com/why-dont-we-live-many-centuries-people-early-generations-bible/

        • Ignorant Amos

          I know you think it has been addressed, but that’s because you are stupid and pay too much attention to creotard liars and the mindwankery they write.

          Biblical longevity stories are myths.There is no evidence of people living for centuries. The simple explanation is it is fiction. They were common thing in antiquity.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longevity_myths#Biblical

          Citing creationist bilge isn’t impressing anyone here and it is plunging any credibility you might have had down into the sewer.

          You are a bug nutty, batshit, crazy, gullible, looper.

        • Candy Smith

          Blah blah blah. I’m going to start saying “blah blah blah” every time you choose to insult me and call me names over and over again.

        • Candy Smith

          “Citing creationist bilge isn’t impressing anyone here and because you are stupid and pay too much attention to creotard liars and the mindwankery they write.”

          “You are a bug nutty, batshit, crazy, gullible, looper.”

          Blah blah blah. I’m going to start saying “blah blah blah” every time you choose to insult me and call me names over and over again.

        • Candy Smith

          And Many of the other so-called Scientific errors, not like age of the earth, or dealing with evolution, or any of that stuff, but the other so-called errors, have already been dealt with, so if you want to mention any, I’ll show you why they aren’t an error.

        • Ignorant Amos

          So they are wrong and lie, except when they agree with you?

          That’s the epitome of confirmation bias.

          How do you know when they aren’t an error?

        • Candy Smith

          Huh?

        • epeeist

          Evolution now? If the theory is false then all of the following papers are in error, please tell us where the errors are:

          https://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html

          https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0888754306000504

          https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19355

          https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239744907_A_Century_of_Evolution_in_Spartina_anglica

          This is just a sample of course, I can produce many, many more papers showing how the theory has been confirmed.

        • Candy Smith

          I’m going to take a break for a few days. I will respond back to your comments after a few days. Later.

        • epeeist

          I’m going to take a break for a few days.

          Fine, I should mention that try as you might you aren’t going to find the answers to the papers I referenced on the age of the Earth or evolution on AiG or CARM. You will have to read them and think for yourself.

        • Candy Smith

          Okay, thank you for telling me, but there are other websites that I can go to. I will work on it. I’ll do both.

        • epeeist

          there are other websites that I can go to

          Sigh, if these are Christian apologetic sites then you won’t get answers to the links I gave. You will have to actually read the papers I have referenced and then look at sites that actually deal with evolution and the age of the earth from the scientific point of view.

          On evolution this site gives a good, basic and free course. For things like dating using varves, ice cores, coral growth rings etc. then you will need to look up the scholarly literature rather than relying on a general search engine.

        • Why are you here? What do you hope to accomplish?

          You seem determined to avoid learning anything from us, and you have nothing to teach us. Seems like a waste of time all around.

          Typing practice, perhaps?

        • Candy Smith

          I’m going to take a break for a few days. I will respond back to your comments after a few days.

        • What’s to prove? AiG rejects the scientific consensus. Any layperson would be an idiot to adopt their view and reject the scientific consensus. That would be adopting a viewpoint based on what’s pleasing rather than what the evidence says.

        • Candy Smith

          “AiG rejects the scientific consensus.”

          And what makes what the Majority agrees on, right? Just because the majority of Scientists agree with Evolution, that does not make it right. That seems to be an argument from Authority.

        • Your Creationist education has prepared you poorly for reality.

          Just because the majority of Scientists agree with Evolution, that does not make it right.

          I never said otherwise.

          The scientific consensus is the best approximation for why things are the way they are. Science never proves anything; it’s just that the consensus (where it exists) is the best bet for laymen like us.

        • Candy Smith

          It really hasn’t prepared me poorly for reality. I am doing perfectly fine and about to start my second year of college. I have a degree, I forget the name, for a teachers assistance. I am not poorly prepared.

        • Are you going to a Christian college? Do they teach the scientific consensus in the science classes?

        • Candy Smith

          No. I’m not going to a Christian College.

        • Candy Smith

          I’m not talking a Science Class

        • Ignorant Amos

          Your Creationist education has prepared you poorly for reality.

          Whaaa? She has a degree in something or other, to do with being a teaching assistance[sic]…just can’t remember what the degree is called.

          A degree from Clown School I imagine.

          Who studies for a degree and can’t remember the degrees title?

          It’s the children who end up being taught by Candy, I feel sorry for in all this.

          She can’t even read or write properly ffs.

        • Yeah, I assume she mean that she has a degree in being a teacher’s assistant.

          I wonder if it’s Liberty University. They claim 94,000 online students. Praise the Lord.

        • Ignorant Amos

          A degree going into second year of college? You lot must do things differently over there.

        • Pofarmer

          There is such a thing as an Associates degree which is typically a 2 year degree. If it’s from some Bible college somewhere then who the hell even knows.

        • Greg G.

          Found this (thanks Google):

          https://www.teachercertificationdegrees.com/careers/teachers-assistant/

          While many opportunities require assistant teachers to hold certification, in some cases the base qualification is a high school diploma or associate’s degree. Paraprofessional certifications are offered for teaching assistants who have the required education in many states.

        • I assume she has an Associate’s degree–it’s between high school and a bachelor’s. Some disciplines that don’t require a 4-year program will give such a degree.

        • And then there are certificate programs that are specialized degrees for what might be a 3- or 6-month program (welding, say?).

        • Ignorant Amos

          That wouldn’t be considered a degree here.

          Even a 5 year apprenticeship in artisan trades warrants a certificate or two. No one describes them as degrees.

          My sparky qualifications are City and Guild of London Institute Certificates.

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

        • I think, after wading through that pile of comments from her, I’m done. Remind me (public humiliation will do) if I spend much more time on her.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Will do.

          I’ve been just as bad. Dawkins has a point when he reasons not to debate creotards.

          Calling the scientific evidence at Talk Origins was the bridge far for me.

          I’ve given up the ghost on her, I’d forgotten why she was one of the few on my blocked list, now ave remembered, so she’s back on it.

        • Greg G.

          Oh, my. You are not exaggerating. I found it.

          It really hasn’t prepared me poorly for reality. I am doing perfectly fine and about to start my second year of college. I have a degree, I forget the name, for a teachers assistance. I am not poorly prepared.   –Candy Smith
          https://disqus.com/home/discussion/crossexamined/top_10_most_common_atheist_argumentsdo_they_fail_2_of_4_13/#comment-4581467210

          How can someone earn an actual degree and not remember what it was? Perhaps it was an honorary At-Least-You-Tried degree.

        • Perhaps it was an honorary At-Least-You-Tried degree.

          with a gold star.

        • Candy Smith

          “Any layperson would be an idiot to adopt their view and reject the scientific consensus.”

          Wow!! There are lots and lots of qualified Scientists with PHD’s who work at AIG, all the time. Not agreeing with Evolution, because the majority of Scientists agree does not make them anti-scientific…..

        • There are lots and lots of qualified Scientists with PHD’s who work at AIG

          Yeah? How many actual biologists are critiquing biology? Y’know, people with biology doctorates.

          Get a clue: Creationism isn’t following the evidence honestly, it’s selectively looking at the facts with a religious agenda. You’d laugh at someone doing the same thing from a Mormon perspective (to take just one religion that’s not yours). That’s how people see you.

        • Candy Smith

          https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/you-people-are-morons/

          https://answersingenesis.org/logic/hilariously-illogical/

          These two articles are Feedback Articles that deal with the Skeptics attacking and insulting AIG. Please read them.

        • Candy Smith

          What’s to prove??

          Am, that the article that I have sent you is wrong. You don’t prove that the article is wrong, by attacking the entire website based on your opinion of what the majority of Scientists say. The majority of Scientists agreeing with Evolution does not make them right, and that does not automatically prove that every single article from AIG is wrong.

          The articles from AIG, need to proved to be wrong, individually. Evidence needs to be given that the individual articles are wrong. If the individual articles that I provided to you, are in fact wrong, then please show me where they are wrong and why they are wrong.

          Like I already said (to you I believe, though it may have been to someone else), often times, Skeptics are never able to actually show me where the articles are wrong, which is why they feel the need to (generally speaking), make ad-hominems and make a big deal out of the Articles that I have sent them to.

          There should be no difficulty in showing me where the articles are wrong, and why they are wrong, if they are in fact, wrong.

        • No, the burden of proof is on the Creationist. You want to reject the scientific consensus in a field that you don’t understand? You have the burden of proof.

          Go.

          Skeptics are never able to actually show me where the articles are wrong

          Nor will they ever. You’ve insulated yourself from reality. Congratulations–you win. You get to live in your pre-scientific bubble.

        • Candy Smith

          Huh?

        • Candy Smith

          You want to reject the scientific consensus in a field that you don’t understand?

          Huh??

        • Candy Smith

          You want to reject the scientific consensus in a field that you don’t understand?

          Who says I don’t understand? And are we talking about Evolution?

        • Who says I don’t understand?

          You got a doctorate in biology? If not, you don’t understand it well enough to reject the consensus in that field.

          And are we talking about Evolution?

          Duh.

        • Candy Smith

          “The Purpose of Slavery”

          “In an ideal world, slavery would neither be an option nor a necessity. Because of the socioeconomic situation of Old Testament Israel, God did allow slavery, but He allowed it for a simple purpose: to help the poor survive. A person could sell himself into slavery (akin to indentured servitude) in order to pay off debt or provide a basic subsistence. God did not intend for Israel to have poverty (Deuteronomy 15:4), but sin made it inevitable (Deuteronomy 15:5), and God allowed slavery to deal with that reality.”

          “Note, there is nothing in the Old Testament Law that prohibits an Israelite slave from running away. Slavery was advantageous for the poor, and, apparently, if they thought they could do better elsewhere, they could leave. If, however, the debt was not fulfilled, the slave could be apprehended and sold like any other debtor.”

          “Foreign slaves were not automatically released after six years; foreigners were not allowed to own land in Israel, and it would have been next to impossible for them to earn a living on their own; to release such slaves against their will may have been cruel.”

          See what it says? “It would have been next to impossible for them to earn a living on their own, and to release such slaves against their will may have been cruel”.

          https://www.compellingtruth.org/slavery-Old-Testament.html

          These articles specifically show how different Biblical Slavery was.

        • Can you believe what your religion is forcing you to do? Your god is fine with slavery in the OT, fine enough to regulate how it should be done. If I was king and had rules about proper slavery, you’d be horrified. But your god does it, and you apologize for him. Think about it.

          If he didn’t like slavery, he would’ve said so. If it were to be avoided, he could’ve added an 11th commandment. And he’s magic! He could’ve changed the economic situation so that slavery would no longer be necessary.

          https://www.compellingtruth

          Yet another article that tells me nothing I didn’t already know.

        • Candy Smith

          “Your god is fine with slavery in the OT, fine enough to regulate how it should be done. If I was king and had rules about proper slavery, you’d be horrified. But your god does it, and you apologize for him. Think about it.”

          Slavery was something that already existed, just like Divorce happened. God was not okay with Divorce, yet it happened.

        • Candy Smith

          Again, yeah, He could have added an 11th Commandment, but Slavery was still going to exist, regardless.

        • Candy Smith

          “He could’ve changed the economic situation so that slavery would no longer be necessary.”

          Slavery was more like an employer/employee situation. One worked for r other to pay off their debt.

        • Candy Smith

          https://www.compellingtruth
          Yet another article that tells me nothing I didn’t already know.

          Well that’s the first time I have ever seen you say that. Thank you for letting me know.

        • Candy Smith

          And where have I apologized for Him?

        • Candy Smith

          God’s rules for slavery were actuallying for their benefit.

          Kidnapping them demanded the death penalty.

        • Greg G.

          That article is baloney. Exodus 21:16 is the only prohibition against kidnapping for ransom in the Bible and it includes selling someone into slavery, too.

          What kind of promise is Deuteronomy 15:4-5? If an omniscient being makes a promise with a condition, you should understand that he knows he won’t have to keep it because the condition will not be met. So the article is wrong that God didn’t intend for there to be poor people.

          The laws in Deuteronomy 24 are not to prevent slavery. They are about being charitable. But if God had intended to keep his promise in Deuteronomy 15:, he would have made it unconditional and there would be no need for charity.

          The article says:

          This was more like serfdom than slavery.

          This is false.

          Leviticus 25:44-46 English Standard Version (ESV)
          44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. 45 You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. 46 You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

          This passage says that you shall not rule over your Israelite indentured servants ruthlessly but notice that it does not say that one should not rule over their foreign slaves ruthlessly, that is, those who are a possession forever,

          In the paragraph on debtors, the author is conflating indentured servitude and slavery.
          An Israelite could become an indentured servant but if a foreigner sold himself into slavery, it was a lifetime commitment. Selling a daughter was a lifetime commitment for her with no way for her to get out, per Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Jacob became an indentured servant for his cousin, Rachel, then his uncle switched in her sister (his cousin, too), so he did another stint as an indentured servant.

          Exodus 21:20-21 does not say that an injured slave must be cared for. It says that if the slave dies soon after a beating, the owner will be punished, but if the slave lives a day (or two) there is no penalty, even if the slave dies. The passage makes no sense the way some Christians try to spin it, as saying if the slave doesn’t die, there is no penalty. Duh. Why would there be a penalty if the slave didn’t die?

          The article tells a half-truth about slaves eating the Passover. See Exodus 12:43-45 and Leviticus 22:10-11. It only allows slaves bought with money to eat, not hired hands nor indentured servants. Observance of the sabbath was for animals, too.

          the article says:

          A Hebrew slave was to go free after six years

          Those are indentured servants, not slaves. Slaves are foreigners bought with money.

          Is there anything else in this article that is not wrong about slavery? The author is completely flummoxed by slavery and indentured servitude.

        • richardrichard2013

          “Those are indentured servants, not slaves. Slaves are foreigners bought with money.”

          very good point. Recently an apologist said that taking slaves breaks the commandment , “do not steal”
          it is not theft if it is purchased

        • Greg G.

          The OT has explicit instructions about how to treat slaves. It says to not treat fellow Israelites harshly. The same passage says that slaves could be treated like slaves.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Except the slaves taken as war booty…are they stolen? I think so.

        • Candy Smith

          “Some people categorically condemn the Bible because it does not call for the universal abolition of slavery. What they don’t understand are the cultural conditions that made slavery a sad necessity. Even so, this was not chattel slavery—masters did not “own” their slaves’ humanity; they leased their work. Like divorce and polygamy, slavery was never in God’s perfect plan. But, because of sin, for a time and place, slavery was permitted by God, with certain restrictions.”

        • Greg G.

          Even so, this was not chattel slavery—masters did not “own” their slaves’ humanity; they leased their work

          Please stop lying about this. You have been shown the Bible verses that show that slaves were property. Christians and especially your sources tend to lie about slavery in the Bible. There were hired hands, indentured servants (Israelis only), and slaves (mostly foreigners). You have repeatedly been given the verses that show that each class of worker is different. READ THEM.

        • Rudy R

          Christians like Candy cannot believe slavery in the Bible is immoral, because it would mean their god is immoral. Two weeks ago on The Atheist Experience, Matt Dilahunty was conversing with a Christian caller on the morality of slavery and when asked if the caller would be his slave, she said yes. That’s most likely an outlier point of view, but it’s another example of how belief in a god can distort reason and logic.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Lies is all she has…what’s to be expected when one believes the bilge spewed at AiG?

        • What they don’t understand are the cultural conditions that made slavery a sad necessity.

          How difficult it must be for God to watch this! If only he were magic. If only he had some power to change things. If only he could issue commandments that people would obey.

          Wow—must be frustrating being the Big Man.

          Even so, this was not chattel slavery

          Liar. Lev. 25:44-46.

          Why tell me this when you know how I’m going to respond? Do you just ignore what I write? What does it say about your religion that you must reject evidence to hold on to your Bronze Age beliefs?

        • Candy Smith

          Even so, this was not chattel slavery

          Liar. Lev. 25:44-46.

          I’m not lying. I missed this verse, forgot about it or made a mistake but I’m not lying. Regardless the verse has already been explained.

        • Lev. 25:44-46 shows that they had slavery for life for non-Hebrews.

          Other verses show that beating was allowed.

          No, this hasn’t been explained. Old Testament slavery (slavery for life + indentured servitude) was the same as American slavery.

        • Candy Smith

          No. Beating was allowed as a manner of discipline. Just like how some parents spank their children. If the slave was disobedient and not listening, the master could discipline the slave may beating them.

          The verse has already been explained. It really isn’t immoral. It is just being taken out of context

        • Candy Smith

          “If only he could issue commandments that people would obey.”

          People have FreeWill. They choose not to obey.

        • Candy Smith

          “How difficult it must be for God to watch this! If only he were magic. If only he had some power to change things.”

          You are attempting to Judge God with your opinions, as if you know better than Him. You don’t know Better than Him.

          God knows better than you do, and if He decides to let things run there course, then He knows better. It is very arrogant of you to be sitting in judgement of God. You are basing your Morality on your own Subjective Opinion.

        • The earth is flat. There–prove me wrong.

          This is what it’s like responding to an argument like yours. Everyone apparently gets to decide their own truth (of course, this is from a Christian who demands that truth is objective).

          You pick the science you dislike based on your religious beliefs. You say that’s not the case? Then explain why you don’t fuss about quantum theory. That stuff is truly nuts.

        • Candy Smith

          “Everyone apparently gets to decide their own truth (of course, this is from a Christian who demands that truth is objective).”

          What??

        • Candy Smith

          Oh, so all the misogyny, violence and discrimination against women for the past two millennia and still to this day by Christians, are because verses were taken out out of context?

          Yeah pretty much.

          https://www.gotquestions.org/misogyny-Bible.html

          “Questions about misogyny in the Bible need to be separated from whether or not men have attempted to hijack Scripture to justify their prejudice. Men have also, at times, attempted to bolster misogyny using science, history, and even national laws, even when such interpretations are ridiculous. Neither the Israelites, Jesus, nor the early Christian church exhibited misogyny, and the Bible’s ethical framework leaves no room for it. In this way, the Bible cannot be blamed for misogyny or used to justify it. If anything, the need to tear Scripture from its context and twist its meaning shows the opposite: in order to claim misogyny in the Bible, one has to divorce passages from the rest of the text and from Christianity itself.”

        • Oh, please. You don’t get civil rights as understood in the West today from the Old Testament.

        • Candy Smith

          Huh??

        • Candy Smith

          It sure is interested how you didn’t actually didn’t with anything that I said. You just complained about AIG, gave me an ad-hominem fallacy about it, and your opinion, but didn’t actually prove anything of the links to be wrong. The same can be said about Carm.org.

          None of the things that you have said address the links that I gave you or refute them. You didn’t actually deal with them.

          “You do know you are a freakin kook, right?”

          This is another opinion that doesn’t prove anything.

          Also, what so your basis for deciding what is disgusting and what isn’t? It’s just your opinion and what makes your opinion anymore right than someone else’s opinion??

          I would strongly suggest that you take the time to actually deal with the links that I have sent to you. Actually read them, and then tell me why they are wrong. If they are so easily wrong, then this shouldn’t be difficult at all.

          But you actually have to prove that the individual articles are wrong, not attack the entire website as a whole, because you are unable to refute the individual articles.

        • This website is simply another dishonest website.

          Said the person who directs us to CARM every other comment.

        • Candy Smith

          Said the person who directs us to CARM every other comment.

          You haven’t at least to my knowledge shown that Carm is wrong. I may have missed a link if ou did provide something that proves it to be wrong. But to the best of my knowledge, I haven’t seen anything that proves any of the Carm Links to be wrong.

          That is always the thing with Atheists. I provide them with a link to an Apologetic Website, and they start (generally speaking) having hissy fits about it being an Apologetic Website, but when I ask them to show me how and why it is wrong, they pretty much never actually show me how and why it is wrong. They always continue to have hissy fits and use ad-hominem fallacies, instead of ad-hominem fallacies. I am dealing with one now on GoodReads, reviewing an atheist book, where she listed multiple verses and I provided articles dealing with them, and she hasn’t once responded to anything that I have said. Instead she makes Red Herrings and talks about anything and everything else except what I specifically talked about.

          My point is, if the links that I have sent you are wrong, then please prove it,

        • 1. Always use quotation marks (or something) to indicate the other person’s comment. It’s very hard to parse what you’re saying when every paragraph, from you or your antagonist, looks the same.

          2. Everyone’s different, but I personally dislike seeing links because it seems lazy. I write 3 paragraphs (say) and you reply with a link. As I’ve told you before, it invariably works out that I read the link, find that there’s absolutely nothing new, then I summarize that, then my Christian antagonist doesn’t engage with my response but gives me another link. That’s why I’d prefer to see a brief paragraph with your thoughts rather than just a link.

          I don’t like being assigned homework.

        • Candy Smith

          Ok.

        • Candy Smith

          I think if you read the article, and then we discuss it, that that works best. Do you not think that that is a good idea?

        • Nope. I’ve already read and responded to Christian arguments, and I’ve composed posts here. You want to dismiss all that and make me go back and do it all again, by starting with the Christian articles.

        • Candy Smith

          I don’t see them. You have responses to ALL of the links that I have sent you.

        • Candy Smith

          I don’t know if you have read the links that I send to you or not, and if you have then you can tell me. But I think that if there is an error in the link, that you should be able to tell me where it is and explain to me why it is wrong, and then we can discuss it.

          The links I have provided you, most recently, deal perfectly with you question about “Adam and Eve and Good and Evil”. That is why I think it is completely relevant and appropriate to send them to you

        • Rudy R

          The first link you use for dealing with old age is a prime example of a straw man argument. The OP cites an unnamed person’s claim that ears and noses continued growth is evidence that someone could not live to be 900 years old. First, by citing an unknown source, that persons credentials can’t be challenged. Secondly, it’s not true that ears and noses keep growing. If this type of flawed narrative is convincing to you, you would resort to any any nonsense to support your belief in your god.

        • Candy Smith

          I’m sorry, what link are you talking about. I am talking to so many different people. Can you please tell me what the link was that I sent to you?

        • Candy Smith

          Oh it was the Feedback Article from AIG called “Impossibly Old”, right?

        • Candy Smith

          Unknown source?

          Answersingenesis.org is not an unknown source. You may not agree with it. You may not agree with it, but it is not unknown.

          What do you mean “by citing an unknown source, that persons credentials can’t be challenged”??

        • Greg G.

          The unknown source is the source that AIG references that says ears and noses continue to grow.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Good luck in trying to press that point home.

        • Greg G.

          I expect that if she ever was able to understand the point, she would forget it in 6 seconds.

        • Rudy R

          —M.H., France Is an unknown source. For all we know, the OP could have invented this source to set-up a straw man argument. The OP should have known ears and noses don’t keep growing. He’s either being disingenuous or he is willfully being ignorant, but in either case, you should be very skeptical of this OP.

        • Rudy R

          On misogyny, can we agree the definition is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls? Misogyny manifests in numerous ways, including social exclusion, sex discrimination, hostility, androcentrism, patriarchy, male privilege, belittling of women, disenfranchisement of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification.

          Since you heavily cite scripture, how are the following scriptures not endorse misogyny? If your patented response is these scriptures are taken out of context, please explain.

          1 Corinthians 14:34-35:
          Let your woman keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
          And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

          And…

          1 Timothy 2:12:
          I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be quiet.

        • Candy Smith

          Since you heavily cite scripture, how are the following scriptures not endorse misogyny? If your patented response is these scriptures are taken out of context, please explain.

          Explain to me how they are Misogynistic to begin with. When one takes the time to understand what is going on, they are not Misogynistic.

          1 Corinthians 14:34-35:

          “1 Corinthians 14:34–35, “The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church”, must be seen in the light of its context. Three chapters earlier Paul did not condemn the practice of women prophesying in church, meaning that they were allowed to speak in church in some contexts. And in 1 Corinthians 14 he is talking about order in the church. Carson argues that Paul is prohibiting women from participating in the oral evaluation of prophecies; though they were allowed to prophesy themselves, they were to remain silent when prophecies were weighed.14”

          https://creation.com/bible-view-women

          1 Timothy 2:12

          “Paul is often called a “misogynist” because of his commands that a woman not teach or have authority over men (1 Timothy 2:12). But this is simply an instance of Paul affirming that in the created order, men and women are different, and have different roles in worship. The role of men is to teach, and the role of women is to learn in submission. But, again, Paul is not saying that the teacher is ontologically superior to the women learning from him. Paul only prohibits women from teaching men in the church; they are encouraged to teach other women and their children, including their sons (2 Timothy 1:5, 3:14–15).9 The word αὐθεντεῖν (authentein) in 1 Timothy 2:12 is a New Testament hapax legomenon which only occurs a few times in secular Greek literature. Some claim that this has a negative connotation, unlike the neutral term ἐξουσιἁζω (exousiazō) which can be positive or negative based on the context. All the same, Moo argues that authentein means simply “exercise authority”, in the neutral sense of “have dominion over”, not the negative sense of “lord it over”.10 This was based on the meanings of the word in the times closest to Paul’s writings,11, 12 and it was overwhelmingly the case in Patristic writings.13 Moo also argues that Paul used exousiazō only three times so it was hardly in his usual vocabulary.”

          “Note also, Paul doesn’t ground his teaching on cultural factors but on a straightforward understanding of the Genesis creation account. I.e. Paul accepts Adam and Eve as real people, and even affirms the facts that Adam was created first (Genesis 2) and that Eve was deceived while Adam was not (but sinned anyway, Genesis 3).”

          https://carm.org/is-christainity-or-the-bible-misogynistic

          “1 Corinthians 14:34, “Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says.”

          “The cultural context is important because it sheds light on the meaning of the text. In the culture of that day, men and women had certain social orders. Women were dependent upon their husbands for protection and provision, and their speaking in the context of the church, where male and females were separated, would be an act of public independence demonstrating a rebellion against the social norms. Furthermore, when it says “let them subject themselves,” we must understand that subjection is voluntary. It is not stated that they are to obey – which is mandatory. Rather, they are told to “subject themselves.” Women who chose to do that were revered in that culture.”

          “1 Timothy 2:12–13, “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.”
          Notice that Paul bases the issue of authority to the created order of God. This is not a cultural norm. Furthermore, the next chapter states in 1 Timothy 3:15 that Paul is giving instruction on how people are to behave in the church, not society. The critic has no right to judge what should and should not be done in the Christian church. He certainly has a right to disagree and voice his opinion, but such a disagreement is nothing more than his opinion.”

        • Rudy R

          So what you are saying is that Paul contradicts himself. Christians treat the Bible like a smorgasbord… just pick out the bits you like and ignore what you don’t like. That’s mainly the reason for so many Christian denominations. Disagreements in the interpretation of scripture.

        • Rudy R

          Your first link in defense of Deuteronomy 22 starts with:

          “Critics of the Bible must be careful not to impose their present-day moral system upon that of an ancient culture found in Scripture and then judge Scripture as though it is inferior to their own subjective morality.”

          It’s simply a fact that morality has changed since the ancient culture found in the Bible. Genocide, misogyny, and slavery are no longer universally acceptable. Secondly, critics of the Bible usually judge it from the standpoint that a god-inspired message should have condemned genocide, misogyny and slavery.

        • Candy Smith

          There is no Misogyny in the Bible. Just Skeptics taking them out of context.

        • Candy Smith

          Critics of the Bible usually judge it from the standpoint that a god-inspired message should have condemned genocide, misogyny and slavery.

          Okay. And?

        • Rudy R

          So genocide, misogyny and slavery are still moral today?

        • Candy Smith

          I said I misread what you said? Why is that confusing?

        • Rudy R

          It’s not confusing…just responded to both.

        • Susan

          I said I misread what said. Why is that confusing?

          Wait a sec. You said to me less than a day ago, that you were going to take a few days off. But here you are pretending not to get what the problems with your endless, unsupported assertions are.

          I’ve been working pretty much non-stop since yesterday morning, and was about to make a chartiable comment, along this line (because, I understand wha it’s like to be too busy to participate in an honest discussion):

          “Sure, Candy. But make sure that when you come back, you don’t just hit the reset button. Make an effort to support your claims and address the interlocutors who made an honest effort to address the subjects you raised.”

          But now I see that you’re just using the same old tactics, and that that’s all you’re interested in doing.

          And it’s only a few hours later.

          As Kodie has said occasionally*and importantly) throughout my participation here:

          “Send us an honest christian.”

        • Candy Smith

          “It’s simply a fact that morality has changed since the ancient culture found in the Bible. ”

          No.

        • Rudy R

          So owning another human being is moral today?

        • Candy Smith

          No.

        • Candy Smith

          I misread it. Never mind.

        • Candy Smith

          ““Critics of the Bible must be careful not to impose their present-day moral system upon that of an ancient culture found in Scripture and then judge Scripture as though it is inferior to their own subjective morality.”

          Okay? Can you respond to the rest of the article. And does what you say refute this or what exactly?

        • Rudy R

          I’ve proven the premise of the article is faulty. What else should I respond to?

      • Candy Smith

        Discrimination Against Homosexuals

        If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

        Leviticus 20:13

        https://carm.org/discrimation-homosexual-wrong

        https://carm.org/leviticus-homosexuality-old-testament-law

        Men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

        Romans 1:27

        https://www.gotquestions.org/New-Testament-homosexuality.html

        To disagree with a person’s chosen lifestyle is not showing discrimination.

        • epeeist

          Leviticus 20:13

          Thing is Candy, it is pointless posting references to the holy book of a minor Middle Eastern tribe because we don’t regard it as either true or authoritative. It’s just another mythos of a whole series of myth systems that the human race has come up with over the millennia.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Indeed. A holy book that most of the followers of it don’t even bother to read, let alone regard as true or authoritative.

        • Candy Smith

          Why see you trolling me this. Leviticus 20:13 is the verse that is mentioned on the website? I am addressing it. None of what you have said means anything to me or proves anything. I am simply addressing the chapter and verses that was mentioned.

        • epeeist

          Why see you trolling me this.

          Why are you preaching at us?

          As I said, nobody here gives a toss what Leviticus says because nobody here regards it as either true or authoritative.

        • Candy Smith

          Nice dodge!!

        • Jim Jones

          Deliberate mistranslation.

        • Candy Smith

          Or I made a simple mistake. That is always a possibility and is the correct answer in this case. Let me look into it and I will get back to you.

        • Jim Jones

          Google (centurion pais)

          Google “lyings of a woman”

          They will get you the correct translations.

        • Candy Smith

          Ok.

        • Greg G.

          To disagree with a person’s chosen lifestyle is not showing discrimination.

          But to interfere with their lifestyle is discrimination. One’s sexuality is not a choice.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Leviticus and Romans demonstrates that homosexuality was a thing back in the day and that there were bigots even back then.

          Leviticus doesn’t count. That was part of the old covenant which according to you Christers, was superseded with Jesus.

          To follow Leviticus is to fuck the lot of ya right up. Because you ignore all those other rules that can get ya in the stew.

          Who wrote Romans and why should we care?

          Christers all over the place give zero fucks for those rules, so why should you care?

          Remember Jesus’s message of charity, compassion, and good will to all men, how’s that been working out for ya in practice?

        • Do you still abide by the OT’s rules on slavery? If you say that times change and that, though slavery was cool long ago, it’s not now, have the same attitude about homosexuality. That is, tell us that homosexuality wasn’t acceptable in OT times, times change and it’s OK now.

      • Candy Smith

        In the list of so-called Contradictions at the bottom are more so-called contradictions that have already been addessed.

        #53 Who was to blame for original sin?

        https://answersingenesis.org/sin/original-sin/who-gets-the-blame-for-original-sin/

        #93 Is childbearing sinful

        https://www.gotquestions.org/unclean-daughter-longer-son.html

        Most (if not all) of these so-called contradictions have already been addressed in Jason Lyle’s book “Keeping Faith in an Age of Reason”.

        • Jim Jones

          Nope!

        • Candy Smith

          For some reason I cannot see my comments when I click on this. It will not bring up my previous comments. Is there anyway that you send me what it was that I send, so that I now? I’ve already tried to get it to load.

        • Jim Jones

          No idea.

        • Candy Smith

          Any chance you can send me what it was that I sent to you, if you can find it?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Keep drinking the Kool-Aid fountain there Candy, yer a gift for it.

      • Candy Smith
        • Jim Jones

          ?????

        • Ignorant Amos

          Woo-woo Candy believes everything that she reads others write about the buybull, except when she doesn’t.

        • Ignorant Amos

          #121Who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah?

          Oh that’s a cracker. Shot yerself in the foot on that one. From yer AiG link…

          The principle of delegation means that when one in authority commands an action, he can rightly be given credit for it, even if he has an agent perform the action. In this case, God delegated the announcement of destruction to the angels. The principle holds true because God is the one with the power to enable the action and authority to order it.

          Wooow there Hoss. Didn’t you want to claim that YahwehJesus was off the hook for the torturous Hell and damnation of billions, because he merely sent them there? Ya can’t eat yer cake and have it too.

          And even here in the example of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, God is guilty of torturing.

          I just love the smell of napalm in the morning…or the smell of simple Christers being blown up by their own petard.

          Btw…no one destroyed the biblical Sodom and Gomorrah…it’s a story in a book of fiction. Likely plagiarised from an earlier culture.

          #129 is divorce ever permissible?

          ???? Your links support the link at #129 ya dope.

        • Candy Smith

          #129 is divorce ever permissible?
          ???? Your links support the link at #129 ya dope.

          Maybe I made a mistake in the link that I posted. I’ll check and see what the link was.

        • Candy Smith

          “Btw…no one destroyed the biblical Sodom and Gomorrah…it’s a story in a book of fiction. Likely plagiarised from an earlier culture.”

          That needs to be proven, not just claimed, without any evidence.

        • Ignorant Amos

          …proven…

          Whaaa?

          No, that’s not how it works. The onus probandi is on you to demonstrate it is more than just a story in a book of myths.

          If I claim that Kings Landing is an actual place that was destroyed by a fire breathing dragon, it is not up to you to demonstrate it didn’t.

          That said.

          The status of the archaeological evidence for either town has essentially gone from “not a scrap” to “it might be possible if you squint just right”. In 1995, a couple of geologists published an article detailing a hypothesis on how a scenario that might possibly form the basis of the biblical tale could at least be feasible, geologically speaking. This hypothesis posited that if such a settlement existed, a massive earthquake and landslide could have destroyed them, with the fiery destruction being the ignition of local bitumen pits or methane. Missing from this hypothesis, however, was any actual town. Conversely, archaeologists have found a large city that was abandoned and appears chronologically consistent with the story. However, this city showed no sign of the cataclysmic destruction that the Bible describes and one suggestion, made by Israel Finkelstein, an archaeologist at Tel Aviv University, was that later people coming across the ruins of the great abandoned city came up with “an etiological story, that is, a legend that developed in order to explain a landmark. In other words, people who lived in the later phase of the Iron Age, the later days of the kingdom of Judah, were familiar with the huge ruins of the Early Bronze cities and told a story of how such important places could be destroyed.” The current status is thus that we have a cataclysmic destruction hypothesis without an actual city and an actual city without any signs of a cataclysmic destruction, which adds up to preciously little in terms of actual, solid evidence.

          A meteor may be the root of the yarn.

          https://phys.org/news/2018-12-meteor-air-years-obliterating-dead.html

          As to plagiarism…it is well known that much, if not all, of the OT is plagiarised, ya Muppet. Some of it not even disguised…

          The pagan origin of many Old Testament stories has long been known. Sometimes the scribes who did the borrowing did little to disguise their plagiarism, for example failing to amend the text to its new home. Thus, in the Jerusalem Bible, Proverb 22:20 makes reference to thirty chapters of advice and knowledge, alluding to the Wisdom of Amenemophis, on which, as is confirmed in a footnote, “this whole passage is based”. Psalm 104 contains material from the Hymn to the Sun of the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten, dating from around 1340 BC. Other psalms were originally written in honour of Baal18. Again, biblical texts are so similar to older pagan Canaanite texts that it has been possible to explain certain odd-looking Hebrew passages by referring to the Canaanite versions — they turn out to be either mistranslations or mistranscriptions.

          http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/aa0_ot.htm

        • That needs to be proven, not just claimed, without any evidence.

          Why? It doesn’t matter to you one way or the other. Your belief isn’t based on evidence, and you won’t be dissuaded by evidence.

          It’d be fewer words for you to just say, “Nuh uh!!” if argument and evidence aren’t what your belief is grounded on.

        • Candy Smith

          “My Belief isn’t based on Evidence.”

          My Belief? And what is “my belief”?

        • Ignorant Amos

          From your comments, you are a buybull believing, inerrantist, creationist, Christian fuckwit.

        • Christianity, Creationism, whatever.

        • Candy Smith

          “And even here in the example of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, God is guilty of torturing.”

          ????

    • Lambchopsuey

      And Harry Potter traveled through the London train station. Both London and that train station exist.

      • Ignorant Amos

        The best analogy I’ve found is Sherlock Holmes.

        The “Cult” of Sherlock Holmes?

        Other aspects of Holmes’ life could easily be equated with those of many religious figures, in particular, that of Jesus Christ. As did Christ, Holmes had his own “followers” in the stories in the form of Watson (or “Saint” John, his “evangelist,” who penned so many “gospels” describing Holmes’ exploits) and the original Baker Street Irregulars (young, rough “apostles”), among others. Holmes in effect “healed” the lives of many of those whose cases he solved. He thwarted by his life and “death” his own personal “devil” (Moriarty again, as “the adversary”) and cast out of the lives of their victims such “demons” as John Clay, Baron Gruner, Josiah Amberley, Lysander Stark, Grimesby Roylott, and many, many others. (He did not, of course, cast any of these “demons” into a herd of swine, although the term “swine” could easily be applied to any of them.) Holmes even faced the temptation of the “devil” when Moriarty first appeared to him at Baker Street, hoping to intimidate the detective. Holmes faced down the temptation to cease his pursuit of the villain, just as Christ resisted the temptations of Satan in the wilderness. (Although, fortunately for Holmes, he didn’t need to fast in the wilderness for 40 days and nights during his trials.)

        After Holmes’ “death” and subsequent “resurrection,” he “appeared” to Watson, who did not immediately recognize him (because of Holmes’ disguise), just as the resurrected Christ appeared to two disciples on the road to Emmaus, who also did not recognize their risen savior. Although Holmes, like Christ, returned to his followers after death, he, too, did not remain for a great period of time. (Well, Holmes did remain in London for almost a decade before he retired, rather than just a period of weeks, but our future historians may not have enough of the Canon remaining to verify more than the fact that he did indeed leave London and his loyal chronicler again, although not in death this time.) But just as Christ ascended to heaven after his time on earth was at an end, Holmes “descended” to the South “Downs” to await the time when he was to return to again take up his “holy” mission against increasing evils in the world (this time, as Altamont in pursuit of German treachery). Another similarity to Christ (and other religious figures, too) can be found in the large body of noncanonical literature about both. Just as many apocryphal “gospels” were written about Christ after the last of the New Testament books were penned, so we have the many apocryphal stories written about Holmes in the form of pastiches. (The same holds true of other religious figures; many apocryphal tales were written about Mohammed after his death, for example.) So again, the parallels could prove compelling to future researchers in increasing their belief in the existence of a Cult of Sherlock Holmes.

        http://surrey-shore.freeservers.com/CultHolmes.htm

        • Lambchopsuey

          Oh, that’s brilliant!! Thanks for posting it!

        • Lambchopsuey

          many apocryphal tales were written about Mohammed after his death, for example.

          The earliest extant writings about Mohammed are two centuries after his supposed life, and they’re riddled with supernatural garbage just like the Gospels are (means unreliable and not historical). We don’t actually know *anything*.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I read somewhere that it was 20 years or so, cobbled together from bits and bobs, a scrap here, a palm leave there, a bit of oral tradition. Not that it matters to the resulting clusterfuck. The oldest extant Qu’ran is much later.

          Here’s where a seen it…

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran#Compilation

        • Erp

          Actually the earliest seems to be almost contemporary though not from the Muslim point of view. For example the “Fragment on the Arab Conquests” folio 1 of BL Add. 14461 which apparently dates from shortly after the Battle of Yarmouk (636CE). The earliest coin mentioning his name is dated 66AH. Not much information but is something.

    • zenmite

      Fairies were an integral part of the Celtic faith. Up until a few centuries ago, lots of adult adherents of the Celtic faith actually believed in the fairy folk. So, while adults these days do not generally believe in fairies, they sure did believe in them then. Hopefully the same will be true of the Christians’ imaginary characters….angels, demons, god, etc. one day. People of a certain age also believed in Zeus and Venus, etc.

    • Curses!

      • Doubting Thomas

        If you were my child in OT times I could legally stone you to death.

  • Lambchopsuey

    Do they fail? It doesn’t matter. In the end, the simple fact is that atheists do NOT believe in the Christian “god” or “jeezis” or “holy spook” or Christianity’s doctrines. It doesn’t matter if anyone else approves or disapproves; the fact is that the CHRISTIANS cannot convince the atheists.

    So the problem lies with the Christians, not with the atheists.

    • rubaxter

      Christers can’t even convince other ‘Christers’ what the fundamental tenets are of ChristerDumb, hence the 45,000 sub-cults cited, above.

    • abb3w

      Depends whether or not the arguments are being used by the atheist to attempt to persuade the Christians.

  • Jim Jones

    > Getting the basics of history and geography correct—countries, rivers, kings, cities, and the like—earns you no praise.

    OTOH, getting any of them wrong is pretty shocking. And the bible gets some wrong.

    Geographical Errors Within The New Testament

    • Cozmo the Magician

      That whole ‘four corners of the earth’ thing is a good start. FFS Sir Terry Pratchett had a MUCH better self consistent world with his ‘DiscWorld’ novels than what you will find in the wholy babble.

    • Helpful, thanks.

      BTW, is cachedview.com like the Wayback Machine? I’ve never used it.

      • Jim Jones

        It’s Google’s sort of thing – sometimes it works. There’s a down arrow at the end of your search.

  • Lambchopsuey

    Declaring that “atheists’ arguments fail” does not obligate the atheists to convert to Christianity, you know. The atheists’ arguments are what make sense to the atheists; they’re *in response to* Christians’ pressure to convince them and convert them. All the Christians need to do is ACCEPT that these arguments make sense to the atheists; the Christians are not required to accept them for themselves. If Christians want to understand atheists, though, they shouldn’t have any problem accepting atheists’ accounts of what makes the most sense to them.

    Christians’ problems go far deeper than just dismissing atheists’ arguments as invalid. Because as Mark Twain famously said, “You can’t believe something you know ain’t true.” And that’s Christians’ problem right there – their whole jeezis story is childish and dumb.

    • al kimeea

      Your honest opinion of the sordid tale will insult many xians, as will this comment

      Some, some will look inward. The rest will wail aboot meanness. They just can’t understand how anyone couldn’t be impressed by the BuyBull.

    • abb3w

      Declaring that “atheists’ arguments fail” does not obligate the atheists to convert to Christianity, you know. The atheists’ arguments are what make sense to the atheists; they’re *in response to* Christians’ pressure to convince them and convert them. All the Christians need to do is ACCEPT that these arguments make sense; the Christians are not required to accept them.

      Depends whether the atheists are recounting the arguments that persuaded them to deconvert, or whether they are trying to use the arguments to persuade current Christians to deconvert.

      The key seems to be variations in what measure of “fail” is intended.

  • Maltnothops

    “Christians can’t even agree what their own holy book says…”

    Even at the most fundamental level. Christians can’t even agree what the second commandment is. It isn’t like they got confused after seven or eight commandments. No, they can’t even make it past one lousy commandment before the bickering starts!

    • Jack the Sandwichmaker

      They got a list of about 12 statements, some of which qualify as commandments. Then someone decided that there should be 10! commandments. So then they had to argue about which was which.

      I insist on using one of the lists that separates the “Thou shalt not covet” rules in to two separate commandments, partly because it’s what I remember as a child, and partly because it’s delightfully absurd.

  • Maltnothops

    Does the Bible actually claim that it’s god is omnibenevolent? Of the three omnis, that one is the most obviously false.

    • Ignorant Amos

      Nope…it is inferred.

      What isn’t inferred is…

      https://barbarasreality2.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/isaiah45-7.jpeg

      …which sorta sinks the attribute of omnibenevolence. The 3 omni’s are an “Inconsistent Triad”.

    • ThaneOfDrones

      My understanding (which may be wrong) is that the omni-God is not from the Bible, it is from philosophical discussions about what properties a being would have to possess in order to qualify for the definition of “God”

      The bait-and-switch of one God for another is one of the biggest lies in apologetics. I.e. pretending that God cannot be disproven. We have an abundance of evidence that the God of the Bible did not exist.

      • Maltnothops

        I’ve occasionally made the point with believers that the god of the bible might exist — but not as described by the bible. In other words, the god of the bible might exist but that is possible only if and only if the bible is wrong.

      • JustAnotherAtheist2

        Omnibenevolence is also something of a necessity because, otherwise, Christians have to concede that the shit that appears heinous may very well be so.

    • Raging Bee

      God is infinitely wise, loving and benevolent, according to standards he made up himself and won’t share with us mortal schmucks. So stop being an ingrate and shut up, that’s why.

    • You just need a new definition of “omnibenevolent.”

  • Michael Neville

    OT: Brad Feaker, who was an occasional poster at Cross Examined, has been dying of cancer for the past several months. When he thought it was time then he was going out on his own terms. He’s just posted on Roll to Disbelieve that the time is now.

    I have had a wee drop of a good single malt in his honor and memory.

  • Jack the Sandwichmaker

    Santa Claus is associated with Saint Nicholas, a early Christian Bishop in present day Turkey.
    That’s a geographical and historical corroboration.
    That gives absolutely ZERO weight to the stories of Santa’s magical qualities and activities.

  • Scooter

    “if God is omniscient (knows everything), he knows the future. But how can he be omnipotent (can do anything) when he can’t change the future without violating his omniscience?”

    Here’s a thought: yes God is omniscient and does know the future but why does He fundamentally know the future? Since God is sovereign He would ordain the future thus His knowledge is not based on God simply watching the future unfold and thus knowing what will happen. If He ordains what will happen then there would be no need to change the future and consequently there would be no violation of omniscience.

    • Ignorant Amos

      Oh fer feck sake…who let you outta the box again?

      Here’s a thought: yes God is omniscient and does know the future but why does He fundamentally know the future? Since God is sovereign He would ordain the future thus His knowledge is not based on God simply watching the future unfold and thus knowing what will happen. If He ordains what will happen then there would be no need to change the future and consequently there would be no violation of omniscience.

      Absolute incoherent, pish, stuff, and nonsense….stuff that my ears have to undertake abuse of, when I attend the funeral of someone whose internment am obliged to attend for etiquette reasons, but on which such occasions I struggle to bite my lip.

      Fuck off!

    • Pofarmer

      Which makes prayer absolutely useless.

    • Maltnothops

      “Here’s a thought: …”

      Where?

    • Zeta

      Scooter: “yes God is omniscient”

      Omniscient my foot!
      Genesis 11:5 “The Lord came down to see the city and the tower.
      He did not know what the people were doing without coming down from heaven to see? You call this omniscience?

      Genesis 18:20 “And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
      21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

      Again, he had to “go down” to find out what was happening around him.

      Your god was nothing more than an imaginary and ordinary tribal war deity who was not omniscient, not omnipotent and not omnibenevolent.

      You have been worshiping the wrong god! You do not even know that. How pathetic!

      • Jack the Sandwichmaker

        Don’t forgot
        “Holy sh‌it! I put the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil right next to the people who didn’t know the difference between right and wrong and expected them to follow my command not to eat the fruit. And they eat the fruit anyway? How could I have not seen THAT coming?”

    • emeritus123

      Look at the replies you got and then ask yourself what kind of morons these people are.
      This blog is a joke. It’s an echo chamber for angry halfwits, as you can see. (i hope)

      • Ignorant Amos

        Spoiiiinnnng! goes another boat load of irony meters.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Go for the *virtual* irony meters.

          When one blows up, just stop it and instantiate a new one!

          😉

      • Zeta

        Hi Moron. Why not try to rebut the points raised? If not, you are nothing more than a clueless coward.

        • emeritus123

          Points? What points?

        • Zeta

          Scooter claims that his Christian god is omniscient. I quoted his holy book to show that this claim is nonsense. Do you have a comprehension problem?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Do you have a comprehension problem?

          Hmmmm!

        • eric

          After reading the thread, he seems to be more interested in taking offense and discussing what he finds offensive about people’s comments than the substantive points in them. I can’t remember the name for that fallacy…

        • Ignorant Amos

          Fuckwit fallacy?

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        Uh, the replies I’m seeing are refuting ‘Scooter’s assertions with everything from logic to quotes from your own ‘bible’…so get over yourself.

        • emeritus123

          Scooter did not state anything about the bible. From his comment alone you can not even deduce whether he is a christian or not.

          1. Comment: denied that he even articulated a thought. (““Here’s a thought: …” Where?)
          2. Comment talked about prayer, which is irrelevant to the point he made.
          3. Comment called his comment incoherent and insulted him (Absolute incoherent, pish, stuff, and nonsense (…)Fuck off!)

          Those were the replies to his comment by the time i commented.

          Will you, at least, admit that these replies were silly?

        • Zeta

          Scooter has been around a few blogs for several years. He frequently posts some apologetic garbage and when confronted, at times disappeared and reappeared sometime later.

          There is no need to “deduce whether he is a christian or not”.

          Do you agree with Scooter that “God” is omniscient? Are you a Christian?

        • emeritus123

          “Scooter has been around a few blogs for several years. He frequently posts some apologetic garbage and when confronted, at times disappeared and reappeared sometime later.”

          Still, whether or not he is a Christian is irrelevant to the point he made.

          “Are you a Christian?”

          No, im not a Christian.

          “Do you agree with Scooter that “God” is omniscient?”

          In the philosophical tradition of classical theism, ‘God’ is by definition omniscient, in the same way, Frodo is by definition a hobbit.
          Since Anselm, God is defined as the greatest conceivable being. A being that is not omniscient is not seen as ‘God’, since it is not the greatest conceivable being, lacking omniscience.

          Whether or not God exists or what the bible teaches about God is irrelevant to the point Scooter made.
          I thought Scooter’s point was a point that even an atheist can surely agree with: How does God know the future? If he is, so to say, the author of the future and brings it about, there is little to no mystery about his ability to know it.

          What did he get? Insult and abuse. I fail to understand this.

        • Ignorant Amos

          How does God know the future? If he is, so to say, the author of the future and brings it about, there is little to no mystery about his ability to know it.

          Too many steps just assumed.

          What did he get? Insult and abuse.

          Not just that.

          I fail to understand this.

          Which can only be put down to your ignorance of the experience others here have with Scooter.

          Scooter is a troll from past experience. Trolls don’t warrant any respect whatsoever.

        • Zeta

          emeritus123: “Still, whether or not he is a Christian is irrelevant to the point he made.”

          Of course, it is relevant. It is already well-known that Scooter is a Christian (and he has posted a lot of Christian apologetics before) and, as Ignorant Amos has already pointed out, Scooter uses the big G god and a capitialized He. Are you denying that he was talking about the Christian god YahwehJesus being omniscient? Isn’t his statement that “yes God is omniscient and does know the future” about YahwehJesus?

          “In the philosophical tradition of classical theism, ‘God’ is by definition omniscient, ”

          By definition? You can of course define anything to your own satisfaction. This does not make it true unless you can produce credible and verifiable evidence to support it.

          “Anselm, God is defined as the greatest conceivable being. ”
          Anselm, like numerous other theologians and apologists, could pull anything out of his hind part. You simply accept what he said?

          “even an atheist can surely agree with: How does God know the future?”

          You are showing that you are a theist. An atheist does not even believe that there is any verifiable evidence for any god’s existence. How do you expect them to agree that the question “How does God know the future?” makes sense?

        • emeritus123

          “Are you denying that he was talking about the Christian god YahwehJesus being omniscient? Isn’t his statement that “yes God is omniscient and does know the future” about YahwehJesus?”

          I can not peer into his mind , i took the comment for what it is and there was no mention of Jesus or Yahweh, it simply mentioned ‘God’.
          ‘God’ is being discussed in philosophical circles (sometimes know as the God of the philosophers) without assuming the truth of any particular revelation.

          “By definition? You can of course define anything to your own satisfaction. This does not make it true unless you can produce credible and verifiable evidence to support it.”

          You don’t seem to understand what i am saying. I am not defining God into existence, i am defining what is meant by the term ‘God’
          In the tradition of classical theism, ‘God’ is being defined as omniscient.

          “Anselm, like numerous other theologians and apologists, could pull anything out of his hind part. You simply accept what he said?”

          As i am saying, he defined ‘God’ in this way and the philosophical tradition (at least in the western hemisphere) has used the term ‘God’ in this way, meaning the greatest conceivable being.

          “An atheist does not even believe that there is any verifiable evidence for any god’s existence. How do you expect them to agree that the question “How does God know the future?” makes sense?”

          Quite easy, if God did exist, this is why and how he would know the future.
          A whole lot of Philosophy of Religion is done by atheists in this way, analyzing the concept of God as a purely intellectual enterprise.
          Take for example the esteemed atheist philosopher J.L. Schellenberg, who developed the argument from divine hiddenness, arguing against the existence of God on the basis of the nature of God.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I can not peer into his mind , i took the comment for what it is and there was no mention of Jesus or Yahweh, it simply mentioned ‘God’.

          You gonna keep digging this hole? Let me help you out with that huge intelligence you are lumbered with, but are struggling to employ.

          The name of this blog is…

          https://media.patheos.com/~/media/patheos-images/wordpress/writer-themes/crossexamined/crossexamined-theme-logo.png

          The God in the OP is the God of Christianity. That’s the God Scooter was responding to in the offending comment. Even a simpleton like me can grasp that basic premise.

          ‘God’ is being discussed in philosophical circles (sometimes know as the God of the philosophers) without assuming the truth of any particular revelation.

          Indeed. And if this was such an arena and Scooter was a philosopher spewing dross about such an ambiguous god, you’d nearly have a defence. But it’s not, Scooter isn’t, and you don’t. But keep digging, if only for entertainment value at you making a fool of yerself.

          You’ve already been told, a lot of us are not new to Scooter, but carry on pinning yer flag to that mast.

        • Zeta

          emeritus123: “I can not peer into his mind , i took the comment for what it is and there was no mention of Jesus or Yahweh, it simply mentioned ‘God’.”

          You are still refusing to admit that you jumped into a discussion too early using some strong and insulting language and without knowing the background which is clear to regular commenters here.

          emeritus123: “You don’t seem to understand what i am saying. I am not defining God into existence, i am defining what is meant by the term ‘God'”

          You are the one who does not understand what i am saying:

          Zeta: “By definition? You can of course define anything to your own satisfaction. This does not make it true unless you can produce credible and verifiable evidence to support it.

          If you would only read carefully, I did NOT say that you are defining God into existence. Following from your earlier statement, the “it” obviously refers to the attribute of “omniscience”. I restate that statement here: “This does not make the attribute of omniscience true unless you can produce credible and verifiable evidence to support it.

          “A whole lot of Philosophy of Religion is done by atheists in this way, analyzing the concept of God as a purely intellectual enterprise. ”

          Yes, a lot of word play and word salad. These may be interesting intellectual games but philosophers need to come down to earth and demonstrate that they are talking about something verifiable. Don’t you agree?

        • emeritus123

          “You are still refusing to admit that you jumped into a discussion too early using some strong and insulting language and without knowing the background which is clear to regular commenters here.”

          1. I did not jump into a discussion, i observed three silly and insulting responses to a comment that was itself not a reply, so there was no discussion.
          2. I did apologize for calling the commenters here morons.

          “I restate that statement here: “This does not make the attribute of omniscience true unless you can produce credible and verifiable evidence to support it.””

          “I did NOT say that you are defining God into existence. Following from your earlier statement, the “it” obviously refers to the attribute of “omniscience”. I restate that statement here: “This does not make the attribute of omniscience true unless you can produce credible and verifiable evidence to support it.” ”

          In this case, i simply do not understand what you are talking about. “”This does not make the attribute of omniscience true …”
          What makes an attribute true? What do you mean by that?

          “Yes, a lot of word play and word salad.”

          So you studied J.L: Schelleberg’s philosophical writings?

          “These may be interesting intellectual games but philosophers need to come down to earth and demonstrate that they are talking about something verifiable. Don’t you agree?”

          Philosophers such as Schellenberg discuss arguments for and against the existence of God. I think that is a very valuable enterprise.

        • Ignorant Amos

          1. I did not jump into a discussion, i observed three silly and insulting responses to a comment that was itself not a reply, so there was no discussion.

          Jeez…ya jumped in to defend the indefensible during an interlocution, since ya are being pedantic, that’s because you lacked enough data to be informed enough to refrain. Scooters comment was a response to the OP. It was a lot of gibberish. A few of us regulars who know Scooters form and history, took his nonsense, and Scooter, to task for it. Here you are doubling done again. You are being an idiot.

          The issue seems to be the concept of omniscience and a particular deity holding such an attribute. Do you think that’s rational and possible? If so, can you support that position?

          What other philosophers of religion hold about such stuff, while might be interesting, it’s like discussing the number of angels that can dance on the point of a pin. Naval gazing nonsense.

        • Pofarmer

          Philosophers such as Schellenberg discuss arguments for and against the
          existence of God. I think that is a very valuable enterprise.

          Meh.

          Arguments are not evidence.

        • Ignorant Amos

          By definition? You can of course define anything to your own satisfaction. This does not make it true unless you can produce credible and verifiable evidence to support it.

          Did ya notice the non-answer to your question, “Do you agree with Scooter that “God” is omniscient?”

        • Ignorant Amos

          Frodo is by definition a hobbit.

          Frodo is an imaginary character in a series of fantasy fiction books too. Can we agree on that?

          Frodo had a magic ring that made him invisible and rode on the back of a giant eagle flying in the sky.

          The thing about imaginary characters in books of fantasy fiction, anything can be applied to them, whether it makes sense or not. That’s the beauty of imaginary characters in fantasy fiction, the author can have them do all manner of fantasy fictional stuff that defies all rational and critical thinking.

          Are ya sure ya want to go down this route? You being such an intellectual and all that jazz.

        • Jack the Sandwichmaker

          In the philosophical tradition of classical theism, ‘God’ is by definition omniscient,

          Only in some religions.
          Zeus, Osiris and Odin were never treated as omniscient.

        • eric

          What he got was a point that God being the author of the future undermines the concept of free will. I’d add that with that gone, any claim that God is merciful or just or forgiving goes out the window too, as well as any notion that the afterlife is at all fair or even has some criteria people can reach. For God cannot be just/merciful/forgiving if his actions and decisions do not depend at all on what people do – if what we do has no effect on what he decides. And there can be no meaningful sense of ‘having faith’ if all our actions, feelings, and beliefs are predetermined.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Watch that superior intellect doesn’t slice ya…even paper cuts can sting, much less are deadly,,,,daft batard that he is….zzzzzzzz

        • Ignorant Amos

          Scooter did not state anything about the bible.

          Scooter was replying to an OP that was refuting attributes of Buybull big “G” god thingy of Christianity aka YahwehJesus. Don’t make an embarrassing fool of yerself trying this weasel tactic in trying to defend a fellow fuckwit.

          From his comment alone you can not even deduce whether he is a christian or not.

          Perhaps you can’t read for comprehension, but don’t load the rest of us with your incredulity. This is a counter Christian apologetics blog, Scotter used God and He in his reply, it is safe to infer Christian belief of some sort. Besides, Scooter is not new around here.

          1. Comment: denied that he even articulated a thought. (““Here’s a thought: …” Where?)

          Because it is absolute incoherent, pish, stuff, and nonsense…the comment was assuming that the thought being referred to was one of rationality, ergo the “where?” bit.

          2. Comment talked about prayer, which is irrelevant to the point he made.

          Nope…if some fool is going to big up omniscience, then pointing out that it makes prayer redundant, is very relevant. Omniscience and prayers are contradictory. YahwehJesus is a nonsense.

          3. Comment called his comment incoherent and insulted him (Absolute incoherent, pish, stuff, and nonsense (…)Fuck off!)

          That’s because the comment is incoherent verbal diarrhea. Scooter gets mocked and ridiculed from the get-go because we are au fait with Scooters modus operandi to the point of being chew toy status. Scooter clogs up the threads with the same old bullshit after returning having pressed the reset button. The “Fuck off! request was an attempt to safe guard our sanity from the asinine drivel Scooter spews.

          Those were the replies to his comment by the time i commented.

          Will you, at least, admit that these replies were silly?

          When you’ve demonstrated why they are silly, sure, why not…have at it?

        • emeritus123

          Im sorry. You may be a very nice person and i may have gone overboard in my first comment, calling the people commenting here ‘morons’ but i don’t think you, in particular, are intelligent enough to seriously discuss these issues.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Im sorry.

          No need to apologise for having an opinion. Just support it. You jumped in here without being fully prepared or in full possession of the facts. You seem to be defending what you assume was an injustice, not a bad trait, just understand the background data first.

          You may be a very nice person…

          Most people that know me would say so, but not everyone. I tend to not suffer fools gladly and Scooter has demonstrated on numerous accounts that a fool is an accurate description.

          …and i may have gone overboard in my first comment, calling the people commenting here ‘morons’…

          Yeah, ya did.

          …but i don’t think you, in particular, are intelligent enough to seriously discuss these issues.

          I could give zero fucks what you think about my intelligence, or lack thereof, to discuss these issues, on that score I defer to my peers here, and elsewhere on the net and in meatworld in regard to that position.

          And since you haven’t demonstrated much of an intelligence here so far, I’ll withhold judgement on calling you a moron, but rest assured, it looks like you are earning it, so pah!

        • Pofarmer

          I think you don’t want to underestimate the posters here, or overestimate yourself.

        • Pofarmer

          Prayer is relevant to an omniscient , omnipotent, omnibenevolent being.

        • Mike Panic

          It is? Wow, that god is far more petty than I thought

        • Ignorant Amos

          Anno…according to the silly book anyway.

        • Scooter

          Emeritus, I appreciate your effort to bring a little common sense and civility into play here. I marvel at the hostility that immediately erupts whenever someone would offer a comment that offends atheist sensibilities. However I bear no animosity especially when I think of this C.S. Lewis quote: “To be a Christian means to forgive the inexcusable because God has forgiven the inexcusable in you.”

        • Ignorant Amos

          Emeritus, I appreciate your effort to bring a little common sense and civility into play here.

          Common sense? Give me a break.

          Civility? You reap what ya so.

          I marvel at the hostility that immediately erupts whenever someone would offer a comment that offends atheist sensibilities.

          You haven’t offended anyone’s sensibilities here. What you’ve done is dropped a surface laid pile of meaningless shite, like your prone to do, and we’re fed up with it because you are a dishonest and disingenuous interlocutor that won’t address the issues with your nonsense when put to you, fuck off to Croydon where you press the reset button, then return here after a while and pretend that the stuff that was pointed out before, never was. Emeritus has unwarely picked the wrong horse.

          However I bear no animosity especially when I think of this C.S. Lewis quote: “To be a Christian means to forgive the inexcusable because God has forgiven the inexcusable in you.”

          Lewis wrote a lot of shite too.

        • Mike Panic

          Just as it has forgiven all the child rape for 17 CENTURIES. Yet I will never forgive you for the xtian arrogance and persecution heaped upon billions of unfortunate people. Stop being so condescending to others–you might be seen as something other than an arrogant, overberaring supercilious fools.

        • Zeta

          Quoting Lewis is just a silly excuse to avoid justifying your earlier assertions. It serves no purpose.

          I am still waiting for your counter-argument to my comment that your Christian god is NOT omniscient.

        • Joe

          Except, in Christian theology, the “inexcusable” seems to simply be being born.

          Thanks, I guess.

        • eric

          Otto’s comment WAS insulting…but you both ignored his first sentence, which contained the actual argument, which goes unanswered by either of you.

          Ugh. Now I have to go shower…

        • Greg G.

          Scooter did not state anything about the bible. From his comment alone you can not even deduce whether he is a christian or not.

          Scooter is a regular here. He normally does refer to the Bible and makes it clear that he is a Christian.

        • Ignorant Amos

          These clueless eejits don’t even realise how clueless they are being here.

          Omniscience is just an attribute pinned onto a god thingy. It is meaningless mumbo-jumbo.

          What test can be made to demonstrate an entity is omniscient? The entity setting the test would have to know everything that is possible to know. And the test could never be settled.

          Then there is this…

          One of the things that I know is how to find out things that I do not know; I know how to find out what I do not know about solving differential equations, for example. Were an omniscient being to have all propositional knowledge, there would be nothing it did not know in the propositional sense. There must then be a form of knowledge how that I have but that any such being would lack: knowing how to find the propositional knowledge it lacks. Any being that possessed all propositional knowledge would for that very reason lack a form of knowledge how.

          Knowledge by acquaintance also raises clear impossibilities for any traditional and omniscient God. Among those feelings that non-omniscient beings know all too well are lust, envy, fear, frustration, and despair. If a God is without moral fault, he cannot know lust or envy, and thus cannot qualify as omniscient. If a God is without limitation he cannot know fear, frustration, or despair.3 Here too the argument can be pressed without appeal to other attributes. One of the feelings I know all too well is the recognition of my own ignorance. An omniscient being would have no ignorance, and thus this is a feeling no omniscient being could know. There can then be no omniscient being.

          https://www.skeptic.ca/Impossibility_Arguments_for_God.htm

          Then my favorite, for a god thingy to be omniscience…God Maximally Enjoys Getting Gangbanged.

          …God, not having a body and never having done certain things, lacks experiential knowledge–what it is like to do or experience certain things. But in particular, Lovering argues God cannot really know what it is like not to know something. Because God can only know what it’s like not to know something if he’s not omniscient. By definition. Therefore, either God is not omniscient, or humans know something God cannot know, in which case God is…not omniscient. Ooops. There goes an omniscient God, zap, in a puff of logic, faster than if we discovered the babelfish.

          https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/4932

      • Lex Lata

        Hey, who you callin’ angry?

      • Mike Panic

        Than you for proving once again that kristers have only name calling and lies in their defense. IF you want your (obviously imaginary) god taken seriously, it will have to get over here IN PERSON. YOU mouthing off about gods, ghosts and goblins that must rule my life only makes me extremely suspicious of YOUR ideas of control over others. When your god gets over here and tell the ENTIRE WORLD IN PERSON about this I will listen to it. Your words are mere babbling until it does get over here.

        Angry? No, your claims re fr more comical than angering. We get the same s h i t and demands about ghosts and golblins daily from kristers like you. Now take your little goddy thing and run along. Let your imaginary friend tell us in person, https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/34e76369d90751e3f05700b4e010a02ac90f239ffa098e2b05281fabef04206f.jpg

      • Raging Bee

        U triggered bro?

      • Joe

        A wild centrist appears! All to tell us how ridiculing a ridiculous and unproven position is worse than asserting an unproven, imaginary reality on others!

        Consider us chastised.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      Why not start by demonstrating this ‘god’ you posit EVEN EXISTS?

      Until then, stop mas tur bat ing in public.

    • Otto

      If he “ordains” the future the whole concept of free will goes out the window. This is the whole problem with theological nuttery, one idea or concept fundamentally contradicts another. When presented with that conundrum theists tend to hand wave it away and pretend like it isn’t a problem.

      • Ignorant Amos

        Tut, tut…you are attempting to rationally engage in the irrationally unengageable. Step away from the fuckwittery.

      • Scooter

        There is no contradiction. Would you agree that history is comprised of the events that result from human free will decisions? And in conjunction with these free will choices there is a sovereign God who has the ability to tamper with the wills of humans to bring about His ordained future. I would suggest that if God didn’t work in and through men’s wills earth likely would have self-destructed by now or be totally chaotic.

        • ildi

          Would you agree that history is comprised of the events that result from human free will decisions?

          No.

          And in conjunction with these free will choices there is a sovereign God who has the ability to tamper with the wills of humans to bring about His ordained future.

          No.

          I would suggest that if God didn’t work in and through men’s wills earth likely would have self-destructed by now or be totally chaotic.

          Newsflash, “earth” is in the process of self-destructing, if by “earth” you mean the environment on this planet becoming inhospitable enough for the potential of our species going extinct in the next hundred years (though I think more likely a massive decrease in human population numbers, whether “civilization” and “technology” survive is open to question – though I’m a hapless believer in the deus ex machina of science). As it is, things seems pretty chaotic, but then that’s evolution for ya.

        • Joe

          Do you think that, in the event that mankind manages to make our planet uninhabitable, and stifle the science needed to escape the dead planet: if the last human alive just happened to be a Christian apologist, would they still say the universe was perfectly designed for life?

        • Ignorant Amos

          I’m hoping Christianity will be a distant in the past myth by that time.

        • Our world certainly looks like a godless world. What clues am I missing?

        • Scooter

          clues? care to elaborate?

        • Uh, I’m asking you. Do you not understand my question?

        • Scooter

          Maybe not-so clarify

        • Our world certainly looks like a godless world. If you disagree, help me understand that position.

        • Scooter

          It’s interesting that the prophet Isaiah in Isaiah 10:6 speaking for God also uses the term “godless” in describing Israel’s situation during the days of the prophet. In the same sense I would agree with you that the world looks godless. In his letter to the Thessalonians the apostle Paul refers to “the mystery of lawlessness” that was already at work. Again Paul writes that in the last days there will come times of difficulty and he lists a number of characteristics that more and more appear in our daily newscasts. But in spite of this God has not removed Himself from achieving His purposes-mainly to collect a harvest of souls from every nation, tribe, tongue and people. The mainstream media doesn’t report on this but its reported that there are 60 million Chinese Christians gathering in underground churches in spite of much persecution by the communist government.

        • Uh, OK. This is your worldview. Thanks for sharing. This does nothing to convince me that there is a supernatural of any sort, Christian or otherwise.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It’s interesting that the prophet Isaiah in Isaiah 10:6 speaking for God also uses the term “godless” in describing Israel’s situation during the days of the prophet. In the same sense I would agree with you that the world looks godless.

          First off, there’s no such thing as an real “prophet”. Second, the term “godless” is an interpretation not found in all buybulls.

          Brenton Septuagint Translation
          I will send my wrath against a sinful nation, and I will charge my people to take plunder and spoil, and to trample the cities, and to make them dust.

          Sinful doesn’t mean Godless, because Godless folk don’t believe in sinning.

          The word is also translated from the Hebrew as “hypocritical”.

          http://www.qbible.com/hebrew-old-testament/isaiah/10.html

          The text isn’t necessarily referring to Israel’s situation during the days of the “prophet”…

          Against an hypocritical nation – Whether the prophet here refers to Ephraim, or to Judah, or to the Jewish people in general, has been an object of inquiry among interpreters. As the designs of Sennacherib were mainly against Judah. it is probable that that part of the nation was intended. This is evidently the case, if, as has been supposed, the prophecy was uttered after the captivity of the ten tribes; see Isaiah 10:20. It need scarcely be remarked, that it was eminently the characteristic of the nation that they were hypocritical; compare Isaiah 9:17; Matthew 15:17; Mark 7:6.

          Do you know what propaganda means? The OT is a book of excuses for why Yahweh had forsaken the Chosen One’s. They turn their back on God, get punished, repent, attain redemption…rinse and repeat. It was how the ancients came up with reason why bad stuff happened to the in-group, i.e. conquest, exile, and captivity.

          In his letter to the Thessalonians the apostle Paul refers to “the mystery of lawlessness” that was already at work. Again Paul writes that in the last days there will come times of difficulty and he lists a number of characteristics that more and more appear in our daily newscasts.

          Paul was an apocalyptic preacher. The “last days” were in Paul’s time. He believed that the end times were imminently coming. That “the mystery of lawlessness” was happening in his here and now. He was talking shite of course. A lot of “lawlessness” water has flowed under the bridge of the last two millennia, most of it a lot worse than the stuff that appears in our daily newscasts.

          Try reading some scholarship.

          A Study of a Pauline Apocalypse. I Thess. 4:13-18

          https://www.jstor.org/stable/3141752?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

          When Paul was writing to the Thessalonians there was a lot of bad vibe in the air between the Jews and the Romans. So it ain’t surprising Paul’s writings would reflect said.

          All that said, 2 Thessalonians is widely disputed as a pseudepigrapha forgery by modern scholars.

          But in spite of this God has not removed Himself from achieving His purposes-mainly to collect a harvest of souls from every nation, tribe, tongue and people.

          Where do ya get this nonsense from? Do you have a godphone?

          The mainstream media doesn’t report on this but its reported that there are 60 million Chinese Christians gathering in underground churches in spite of much persecution by the communist government.

          Contrary to your fuckwit conspiracy theory hyperbole, this really is not the secret ya think it is, ya Dime Bar.

          2010: the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life estimated over 67 million Christians in China, of which 35 million “independent” Protestants, 23 million Three-Self Protestants, 9 million Catholics and 20,000 Orthodox Christians.

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

          And they are not all gathering in underground churches to avoid persecution.

          Do you know what percentage of the total population of China 60 million is by the way? About 4.22%…not great is it?

        • Zeta

          Scooter: “there is a sovereign God who has the ability to tamper with the wills of humans to bring about His ordained future.”

          So he ordained that 6 million of his “Chosen people” and millions of others should be cruelly murdered by Hitler. Why? Was it because he could not or chose not to override Hitler’s free will?

        • Seems to me that 6 million people had their free will overridden.

          So much for God being a champion of free will. (Since the Bible never said this about God, and since the free will argument falls flat, maybe the Christians should stop putting words in God’s mouth.)

        • Pofarmer

          Would you agree that history is comprised of the events that result
          from human free will decisions? And in conjunction with these free will
          choices there is a sovereign God who has the ability to tamper with the
          wills of humans to bring about His ordained future.

          These two sentences right there clearly contradict one another. But wait, there’s more. If you have a God that is truly omniscient and omnipotent, it already knows what will happen. There would be no need to tamper with anyone’s will. It’s all predestined. Furthermore, praying to this god would be pointless, because the plan is already laid out and known beforehand. Something will either happen or it won’t. We don’t know it, but that god does. So there is no point.

          I would suggest that if God didn’t work in and through men’s wills
          earth likely would have self-destructed by now or be totally chaotic.

          The Earth made it for billions of years just fine without men. Maybe God worked through something else for a few hundreds of millions of years first?

        • Susan

          There is no contradiction.

          Of course, there’s a contradiction.

          in conjunction with these free will choices there is a sovereign God who has the ability to tamper with the wills of humans

          That is not free will. Either for the tampered or the untampered. It is a direct contradiction.

          Also, you have provided no reason for anyone to believe there is any sort of “being”,let alone a “supreme” one.

          I would suggest that if God didn’t work in and through men’s wills earth likely would have self-destructed by now or be totally chaotic.

          Suggest it all you like. You have provided zero support for it.

        • Otto

          Would you agree that history is comprised of the events that result from human free will decisions?

          Not if my decisions were “Ordained” before I even existed. Of course there is a contradiction. If the ‘decisions’ I make were determined before I made them….I DIDN’T MAKE THEM.

          And in conjunction with these free will choices there is a sovereign God who has the ability to tamper with the wills of humans to bring about His ordained future.

          This is breathtakingly inane.

          I would suggest that if God didn’t work in and through men’s wills earth likely would have self-destructed by now or be totally chaotic.

          Wow…God made us in his image AND tampers with our will…and this is all the better he can do. Pretty inept deity ya got there.

        • Joe

          “history is comprised of the events that result from human free will decisions? And in conjunction with these free will choicesthere is a sovereign God who has the ability to tamper with the wills of humans to bring about His ordained future”

          Tell us, how does one tell the difference? Was it human free will that Hitler caused the Holocaust, and God’s intervention that caused Alexander Fleming to discover penicillin, or vice versa?

    • Doubting Thomas

      So god ordains what people do then punishes them for doing it?

      What an ass. Once again someone trying to defend god just makes him look worse.

      • Susan

        So god ordains what people do then punishes them for doing it?

        Which annihilates the free will defense for the problem of suffering.

        Both post hoc rationalizations (super weak on their own) that directly contradict each other.

    • Damien Priestly

      Real nice God you describe there. Let’s all thank this God for his ordained AIDs, Ebola, Wars (millions dead) Holocaust, Black Death Plague (merely a third of Europe killed). Real nice God we got there. Important we all worship him to thank him or his ordained chaos.

    • Phil

      Here’s a thought “if God is omniscient” he can’t have given us free will because he would be powerless to do anything about the choices we make. God can’t be powerless in anything otherwise no omniscience. If he can change our minds, we don’t have free will.

      • Ignorant Amos

        The paradox of the omni attributes of YahwehJesus can be such an enigma, amarite?

      • Scooter

        Phil, one last thought:
        This topic of free will can be puzzling. I hesitate to respond to your comment since we may not be on the same page defining free will. I believe the most common definition says “free will is the ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition.” In other words your choices are made from a neutral position with no bias at all. This sounds reasonable but making a choice in this way would mean that we would make a choice for no reason and so spontaneous choices would have no moral significance-neither good or bad. A second problem is if neutral how can a choice even be made? A motive is required to make a choice.

        Another definition of free will is “the ability to choose what we want.” This means we choose according to our desires. The will always chooses what we desire. The noted philosopher theologian Jonathan Edwards went a little farther and said that a human being is not only free to choose what he desires but he MUST choose what he desires to be able to choose at all. Edwards’ idea of choice was that “the will always chooses according to its strongest inclination at the moment.” This sounds contradictory on the surface but this means that every choice is free AND every choice is determined. But “determined” to Edwards didn’t mean some form of outside coercion of your will. I’m thinking that this is the point of error where it’s thought that God forces you to will something against your will.
        It means rather your internal motivation or desire. For example why did you choose to read this answer I’ve written to your comment? For whatever reason you had to read this you obviously decided that it was better or more desirable for you to read this than not to. So as Edwards shows we always choose according to our strongest inclination or what we want at that moment whether good or bad. With every choice we are free and self-determined.

        I believe the will is a natural ability given to us by God. And if God sees that a man is willfully going down a path that leads to death because of his choices (of drugs for example) and if God in his omniscience seeing the end of that man’s life caused that man to change his desires that would impact his will to buy or use more drugs would that mean that God had violated that man’s free will? No, because the man would exercise his free will and make different choices based on new or better desires.

        • Susan

          This topic of free will can be puzzling.

          Especially when people claim it without definining it.

          we may not be on the same page defining free will

          If you’re going to claim it exists, define it and support it.

          every choice is free and every choice is determined

          If someone else determines your choice, it is not free.

          The next couple of paragraphs are vacuous nonsense.

          I believe the will is a natural ability given to us by God.

          You haven’t explained what you mean by “the will” nor shown that it was provided by something you call “God” nor even made a case that this something you call “God” exists.

          So, believe it all you want but there is no reason to take it seriously.

          And if God…

          See just above.

          You’ve been doing this for years. You talk about what you believe, never support your beliefs, run away when people ask you to do so, and then you hit the reset button.

          How do you find that to be “meaningful”?

        • Scooter

          Re read my comments. I provided 2 definitions of free will

        • Susan

          I provided 2 definitions of free will.

          Indeed, you did. I was mistaken when I suggested you didn’t. My apologies.

          Here they are:

          “free will is the ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition.”

          Give me an example.

          “the ability to choose what we want.”

          Give me an example.

          I have to point out, along with my apologies, (the mistake was genuinely mine) that you made no effort to justify your claim(s) about your pet deity.

        • epeeist

          This topic of free will can be puzzling.

          For you possibly, so let’s reduce it to as simple a level as we can:

          1. If your god is omniscient then it will know what we will choose in any situation where there is (apparently) a choice. Thus we do do not have free will.

          2. If we do have free will then your god will not know what we will choose in any situation where there is a choice. Thus your god is not omniscient.

          Which horn are you going to choose?

        • I heard a rebuttal to this objection by apologist Greg Koukl. His thought experiment is as follows.

          Imagine that you’re watching a game on TV on Wednesday. Let’s say that all the players are making free will choices. Now you take a record of that game and send it back in time to yourself yesterday. This Tuesday you watches the game and so knows how it will all play out. So now a day has past, and this earlier you watches the game, live, on TV. He knows how everything will go, and yet the players are still acting with free will. That shows that God can be omniscient and yet the people still have free will.

          Any thoughts? I don’t have a response to this. (I’ve avoided free will discussions, so this probably explains why.)

        • epeeist

          Now you take a record of that game and send it back in time to yourself yesterday.

          So you don’t know what choice was made until you receive the tape from the future. Sounds like you aren’t omniscient to me.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Exactly, nor would I know how the game would play out everyday before I got the tape from the game that I’d watched on Wednesday. Then sent back to my younger self to watch on Tuesday, so I’d know the outcome on how the game played out ahead of time.

          On Monday I wasn’t omniscient on how the game played out on Wednesday, nor was I omniscient any day prior to the moment I watched the tape of the game I sent back to my younger self.

          I’d have had to have watched and recorded the game played on Wednesday, then send the game recording back to the day I was born, in order to have always known the result of the game. And that would need to be the case with every second in time everywhere at all time, present and future, for ever action for everything. Which is pure nonsense.

          And where ta fuck is the time to review the near infinite number of tape recordings?

          Now, the woo-woo merchant would claim that that isn’t beyond the scope of an omnipotent entity. And they could have a point in principle.

          The fly in the ointment is, where ta fuck would a multi-omini god thingy be sending all those tapes back to?

          Given that an attribute of their god thingy, YahwehJesus, is past eternal.

          They don’t think these thought experiments through at all. It’s like playing Whac-a-Mole, they think they’ve found an apologetic that covers one nonsense, and two more nonsenses pop up.

          How much does Koukl earn?

        • Right. It’s a simulation of omniscience.

          The claim is that this proves that omniscience doesn’t prohibit free will. I guess the idea is that the actors have free will; it’s just that you happen to know with 100% accuracy all the choices they’ll make.

        • Ignorant Amos

          For omniscience to apply, if the claim is God has always been omniscient, God has to have known how the game was going to play out for past eternity. The game couldn’t have played out any other way than it did, ergo freewill was never present. An omniscient God has no need for a recording of the game, it already knows.

        • You’re saying that the players thought they had free will but didn’t? I guess it comes down to whether your actions can be foreordained (or known) while you still have free will.

          Back to the game example, the players’ actions seem to be identical whether I’m watching, correctly predicting in my mind what they’re going to do or not.

  • Thanks for the video. It’s always good to start the day with some wisdom from St. George.

  • Steven

    I would say, as well as other Christians, that God is omnipotent in that He has all power and authority over everything that exists. There is nothing that exists that is more powerful or has more authority than Him. God is not omnipotent in the sense that He can literally do anything (including logically impossible things). So, if God cannot lie, then it would not make him any less powerful in the sense that I mentioned. He would still have all power and authority over everything that exists. No omnipotent being could exist in the other sense (that he could do the logically impossible) because he would be logically impossible. I think we both agree on that. I hope this helps clears things up.

    • Ignorant Amos

      I would say, as well as other Christians, that Space Ponies are omnipotent in that they have all power and authority over everything that exists. There is nothing that exists that is more powerful or has more authority than Space Ponies.Space Ponies are not omnipotent in the sense that they can literally do anything (including logically impossible things). So, if Space Ponies cannot lie, then it would not make them any less powerful in the sense that I mentioned. They would still have all power and authority over everything that exists. No omnipotent beings could exist in the other sense (that they could do the logically impossible) because they would be logically impossible. I think we both agree on that. I hope this helps clear things up.

      Did a fix yer fuckwittery for ya…Dime Bar?

  • Candy Smith

    Point being that Epicurus didnt actually providea definition for evil. Sure you can provide a definition but that’s not the issue. The issue is that Epicurus didn’t provide one.

    “”Evil” is the unnecessary suffering, by which we mean suffering (understood as a mental state where one desires that circumstances be otherwise).”

    https://carm.org/atheism/unnecessary-suffering

    What is your basis for deciding what is “unnecessary suffering”that isn’t just simply your opinion? And what makes your opinion right, and what TN gives you the right to impose your opinion on others?

    “1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.”

    “2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.”

    “C. (Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being”

    1.) Is an unproven assumption. You don’t know this and neither does William L. Rowe, where you copied his quote from.

    I don’t really understand the second one.

  • Candy Smith

    I’ll respond to the rest later. I’ve got to go for now.

  • Candy Smith

    “This prick is as dumb as they come. The PoE presupposes a religious world with moral absolutism and a 3 omni god thingy that knows everything and can do anything. In that world, the source of the absolutism is thing at the centre of the problem.”

    How about you answer the questions and also avoid the immature name-calling as well?

    “Back to this Free Will nonsense. Victims don’t have Free Will. How can you be so asinine with aa single head. God sent disasters that kill thousands don’t have Free Will. There is no Free Will involved in the suffering and excruciatingly painful deaths of Harlequin (ichthyosis) Babies.”

    Yes, the freewill argument does not apply when there are natural disasters, and etc……..

  • Candy Smith

    “In biblical times, it was right to keep slaves. All nations did it. So the Hebrews put words into imaginary God’s mouth to make it an okay practice. Nowadays the consensus opinion of most folk say that was not okay, so most folk don’t do it. If most folk think keeping slaves is not okay, in spite of Gods instructions in the buybull, then whoever wrote the God instructions in the buybull was wrong.”

    One could sell themselves as a Slave if they had a large debt that needed to be made off. They worked for the owner, payed off the debt and were released after 6 or 7 years.

    • Ignorant Amos

      Nope. Multi-omni God remember?

      BTW…What you are talking about is indentured servitude.

      You really don’t know jackshit.

      Ya see, you are undone by history. For centuries Christians read the bible and used it to justify slavery. Because the words spoke for themselves.

      https://blackpressusa.com/the-catholic-church-played-major-role-in-slavery/

      So don’t come here with yer lies and apologetic nonsense. We see right through yer fuckwittery.

      What is the real truth about the Bible and slavery? According to many Christians the slavery of the Bible was just voluntary. Indentured servants agreed to become slaves to pay off debts. But the truth about the Bible and slavery, bond servants, bond maids and bond gents is that scripture outlines and describes 8 types of slavery. After having a few discussions on social media with Christians and others, and experiencing utter frustration at people of faith who appear so afraid to take a closer look at slaves, slavery and the system of slavery according to the Bible. It seems the world often knows more than the people of faith. This is a shame!

      1. Purchased Slaves, the buying and selling of slaves Genesis: 17:12
      2. Voluntary Slaves: Exodus 21:5-6
      3. Slaves by birth, born into slavery: Exodus 21:2-4
      4. Slaves that were Captured in war time Deuteronomy 20:11-14
      5. Debt Slaves who owed money they could not pay: 2 Kings: 4:1
      6. Slaves because of arrest: Exodus 22: 2,3
      7. Slaves who were inherited in family lines: Leviticus 25:46
      8. Slaves who were given as gifts: Genesis 29:24-29

      https://medium.com/@farimagdalamaliakanagast/the-sad-and-horrendous-truth-about-the-bible-and-slavery-fari-magdala-e132f77cd88a

      Bob has written about this too.

      Yes, Biblical Slavery Was the Same as American Slavery

      https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2014/08/yes-biblical-slavery-was-the-same-as-american-slavery/

      • Candy Smith

        Yeah they weren’t the same thing because one was based on skin color and one wasn’t. The Slavery in the Bible was not based on skin color.

        • Slavery for life was tribal, both in the OT and in America. Let’s not pretend that God’s idea of slavery was different than that in America.

        • Candy Smith

          “Let’s not pretend that God’s idea of slavery was different than that in America.”

          I am not pretending that they were different. They were in fact different. There is no pretending. The evidence that they were difference is substantiate. There is plenty of evidence that proves that they were different. Only someone who wants to pretend that they weren’t different, were choose to ignore the evidence.

          And yes I am aware of the article that attempts to refute J. Warner Wallaces other article on Slavery, so you don’t need to point it out to me.

          https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/why-would-god-have-permitted-any-form-of-servitude-or-slavery/

          “As we examine what the Bible says about servitude and slavery, it’s important to remember the cultural context of the ancient world and God’s redemptive plan for all of us in this life. Ancient New Testament Servitude cannot seriously be compared to the New World Slavery we all know from European and American history. Those who claim these two forms of slavery are identical are simply ignoring the facts. It would be equally unfair to judge God based on what we think God should do about slavery. In the end, God is immensely concerned about each of us as separately and He uses the worst parts of our lives (and societies) to accomplish His goals through the supernatural conversion of individuals.”

        • Yes, I’ve responded to Jim Wallace. He’s simply wrong. My post explains why.

        • Candy Smith

          I really do not think that Wallace is wrong. I haven’t had the time to look into your article in more detail and attempt to respond to it, but I plan to.

        • Candy Smith

          Is there just two articles, two parts, dealing with his article, or is there more?

        • Candy Smith

          Okay. Thanks.

      • Candy Smith

        “Evil even since slaves were beaten within an inch of their lives, and masters were not charged with crimes, if the slave lived 3 days”

        Yes, another verse taken out of context.

        Another verse that has already been addressed and dealt with many many times before.

        https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/doesnt-the-bible-support-slavery/

        If men contend with each other, and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but is confined to his bed, if he rises again and walks about outside with his staff, then he who struck him shall be acquitted. He shall only pay for the loss of his time, and shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed. And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property. (Exodus 21:18–21)
        This passage follows closely after Moses’s decree against slave traders in Exodus 21:16. We include verses 18 and 19 to show the parallel to servants among the Israelites. The rules still apply for their protection if they already have servants or if someone sells himself or herself into service.

        Regarding Exodus 21:20–21, consider that many of those who sold themselves into servitude were those who had lost everything, indicating that they were often times the “lazy” ones. In order to get them up to par on a working level, they may require discipline. And the Bible does say to give discipline—even fathers were to give their children “the rod;” to withhold it is considered unloving (Proverbs 13:24, 23:13). So beating with a rod (or more appropriately “a branch”) is not harsh, but required for discipline. Even the Apostle Paul reveals he was beaten with a rod three times (2 Corinthians 11:25), and he didn’t die from it. In fact, the equivalent in today’s culture (spanking) was commonplace in public schools until just a few years ago. Only recently has this been deemed “inappropriate.”

        According to verses 20–21, if an owner severely beat his servant, and the servant died, then he would be punished—that was the law. However, if the servant survived for a couple of days, it is probable that the master was punishing him and not intending to kill him, or that he may have died from another cause. In this case there is no penalty other than that the owner loses the servant who is his temporary property—he suffers the loss.4

      • Candy Smith

        3. Slaves by birth, born into slavery: Exodus 21:2-4

        https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/doesnt-the-bible-support-slavery/

        Does the Bible Support Harsh Slavery?
        There are several passages that are commonly used to suggest that the Bible condones harsh slavery. However, when we read these passages in context, we find that they clearly oppose harsh slavery.

        If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing. If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. But if the servant plainly says, “I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,” then his master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever. (Exodus 21:2–6)

        This is the first type of bankruptcy law we’ve encountered. With this, a government doesn’t step in, but a person who has lost himself or herself to debt can sell the only thing they have left: their ability to perform labor. This is a loan. In six years the loan is paid off, and they are set free. Bondservants who did this made a wage, had their debt covered, had a home to stay in, on-the-job training, and did it for only six years. This almost sounds better than college, which doesn’t cover debt and you have to pay for it!

        Regarding Exodus 21:4, if he (the bondservant) is willing to walk away from his wife and kids, then it is his own fault. And he would be the one in defiance of the law of marriage. He has every right to stay with his family. On the other hand, his wife, since she is a servant as well, must repay her debt until she can go free. Otherwise, a woman could be deceitful by racking up debt and then selling herself into slavery to have her debts covered, only to marry someone with a short time left on his term, and then go free with him. That would be cruel to the master who was trying to help her out. So this provision is to protect those who are trying to help people out of their debt.

        This is not a forced agreement either. The bondservants enter into service on their own accord. In the same respect, a foreigner can also sell himself or herself into servitude. Although the rules are slightly different, it would still be by their own accord in light of Exodus 21:16 above.

      • Helpful links.

    • You’ve read my posts about slavery, right? Old Testament slavery was pretty much identical to American slavery.

      • Candy Smith

        Yes I have. It wasn’t the same. One was based on the color of the slaves skin, because they were black and the other wasn’t. The Slavery in the Bible had nothing to with the color of ones skin. That alone is a major difference between the two types of Slavery and therefore refutes the argument that they were “identical”. They were not identical.

        • Africans were the Other. The same was true for those enslaved for life in the Old Testament.

          Slavery for life is moral; praise the Lord.

        • Candy Smith

          They were not held as slaves because of the color of their skin.

        • Why is this hard? (Kidding! I know why it’s hard–you must put as many roadblocks into the conversation to keep evidence at arm’s length.)

          Forget “color of their skin.” Slavery for life, whether in America or Palestine, was done to the Other. Someone from another tribe. Someone not like Us.

        • Candy Smith

          The reason why Slavery happened in the Bible was completely different from why it happened in the other one.

          People who had large amounts of debt could sell themselves into Slavery and work to pay off the debt. There is nothing wrong with that. Back then, you couldn’t go to the bank and pay off your debt or go wherever it is that you go to pay off your debt. Working to pay off your debt is perfectly fine and how things were done back then.

        • My patience is pretty much over for you hitting the Reset button.

          Slavery in the Bible is of two forms: indentured servitude (for people like Us) and slavery for life (for the Other).

          Ditto slavery in the US.

        • Candy Smith

          “The Old Testament is clear about capturing people and selling them as chattel: kidnapping was a crime punishable by death (Exodus 21:16).”

          https://www.compellingtruth.org/slavery-Old-Testament.html

          Was that something that the other type of Slavery had?

          Was kidnapping Slaves permissible and not punishable?

        • Lev. 25:44-46 explains slavery for life.

          But I’ve told you this before. You just ignore what I write? You refuse to adapt to what you learn? This is just closed mindedness on your part, right?

        • Candy Smith

          No. It doesn’t explain Slavery. You are either taking it out of context or misunderstanding it.

          Leviticus 25:38–46

          “Verse 44 discusses slaves that they may already have from nations around them. They can be bought and sold. It doesn’t say to seek them out or have forced slavery. Hence, it is not giving an endorsement of seeking new slaves or encouraging the slave trade.”

          https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/doesnt-the-bible-support-slavery/

          So this article that I am sending information from, that refutes your so-called “slavery for life” supporting verse has already been refuted. There is an article that attempty to refute this very article.

        • You’re having simultaneous conversations with many smart people here that know a lot that you don’t. And all you can do is blindly defend your ancient mythology (which is just a different take on all the other manmade religions) regardless of the evidence or argument.

          You’re determined to learn nothing. That’s sad for a college student.

          Congratulations, you win.

        • Candy Smith

          “The same was true for those enslaved for life in the Old Testament.”

          Bible Verses please that deal with this.

        • ?? You said that you’ve read my posts on slavery, right? I’ve spent hours on them; that’s the clear distillation of my argument.

          Sigh. Don’t you get tired of going back to square 1 every time? Exhausting and/or pissing off your antagonist is no way to win an argument.

          https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2018/04/yes-biblical-slavery-was-the-same-as-american-slavery-2/

  • Candy Smith

    Slavery was already a reality during the time of the Bible. God gave intructions on how to keep them safe.

    https://www.compellingtruth.org/slavery-Old-Testament.html

    https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/doesnt-the-bible-support-slavery/

    “Do you think the buybull passages from God on how to keep slaves are okay?”

    Yes, because they were not based on race or the color of one’s skin and in those times, slavery was sometimes better. Sometimes, it was either work as a slave or you starve to death. It’s beats starving to death.

    “The Purpose of Slavery”

    “In an ideal world, slavery would neither be an option nor a necessity. Because of the socioeconomic situation of Old Testament Israel, God did allow slavery, but He allowed it for a simple purpose: to help the poor survive. A person could sell himself into slavery (akin to indentured servitude) in order to pay off debt or provide a basic subsistence. ”

    “Sometimes, circumstances were such that the laws requiring care for the poor were not enough. In ancient agrarian societies, it was often extremely difficult to provide for oneself and one’s family. Many slaves in Old Testament Israel had sold themselves to prevent starvation; others had been sold by their family so the family wouldn’t starve.”

    • Ignorant Amos

      Slavery was already a reality during the time of the Bible. God gave intructions on how to keep them safe.

      Bwaaahahaha!

      Apparently God didn’t think much of slavery when the Hebrews were enslaved. Yet when he was dishing out the 613 rules, not keeping slaves wasn’t one of them.

      Tattoo’s and piercings? Not allowed.

      Eating prawn cocktail? Not allowed.

      Working on a Sabbath? Not allowed.

      Sharing company with a menstruating women? Not allowed.

      Keeping slaves? That’s okay, let me set out some ground rules though.

      You are horrible excuse for a human being Candy.

      Yes, because they were not based on race or the color of one’s skin and in those times, slavery was sometimes better.

      Waoh!

      Demonstrating you really don’t know the contents of the buybull and rely on lying apologists.

      Says it all really, ya shithead.

      Sometimes, it was either work as a slave or you starve to death. It’s beats starving to death.

      Did ya forget about God already?

      “The Purpose of Slavery”

      Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, sick fucker apologist human excrement blather.

      So why is slavery illegal now and has been for quite a while? A mean god given objectively moral sponsorship for it.

      Think of all the third word folk that we could all have slaving away for a loaf of bread in payment.

      The elephant in the room is God.

      A world with a god has no use for poverty. God can do anything and everything, remember? A charitable god would get it done ya imbecile. No slavery necessary.

      Oh, wait, the world we live in looks like a world with no perfect being at the helm.

      Fuck off Candy, you are an oxygen thieving piece of shite. The sooner you and yer likes all up sticks and die, the better the place will be for my grandchildren.

    • Ignorant Amos

      Slavery was already a reality during the time of the Bible.

      You really are too stupid for words.

      According to the buybull, there was no before “the time of the Bible” ya cretin.

      So, what you are saying is there was already slavery, then Yahweh came along and set down the rules for keeping slaves?

      You are a special kind of simple, ya dopey bint.

      • Candy Smith

        “You really are too stupid for words.”

        Another Ad-Hominem Fallacy. Attacking me instead of responding to my argument.

      • Candy Smith

        “According to the buybull, there was no before “the time of the Bible” ya cretin.”

        I don’t know what this means. Can you please explain?