Why I am not a Christian

[Berzerker]

He CHOSE to make woman from a rib for symbolic purposes that you can infer if you don't already know.

This story comes from Mesopotamia and the Sumerian word for rib also means life spirit or that which animates. That's why Eve is both the lady of the rib and the lady of life/living. The biblical author was confronted with a Sumerian word with multiple meanings and incorporated both into Eve's persona (thats my guess).

As for God choosing, that could be the action of an omnipotent being but why cause Adam to fall asleep during the operation? Another choice so Adam wouldn't feel the pain God was inflicting upon him to get his rib? How about when God couldn't find Adam and Eve in the Garden after they dis-obeyed him? When God was considering the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, he sent two "angels" to investigate the cities. Why? There are just too many examples of God behaving in very limited ways, i.e., acting like a being subject to existence, not above it.

He warned Pharaoh over and over BWO Moses, and the last plague worked.

So why would a moral and omnipotent deity need a plague that kills the innocent along with the guilty?
Think about what actually happened, well, according to the Bible anyway, Pharaoh (a dictator) wouldn't let the hebrews go. So God murders the first born of Egypt. This could be the action of an omnipotent being, but not a moral one. Therefore the source's contradictions make any claims problematic without outside corroboration.

[Whaleboy]

Would you say the Russell debates were more of the chess game type for his own amusement, or the proposition of a idea for public consumption?
If the latter, I can assume the hostility applies?

Nein mein Freund. Russell, to coin a phrase, was preaching to the converted, effectively articulating what the audience already knew, and if there were any who disagreed in the audience, they would have had to capacity to mount a defence in the “chess game” manner. Note that some rare people can be convinced of a differing philosophy by virtue of the argument behind that philosophy, this lack of dogmatism is probably which differs many philosophers from other people (not a completely accurate statement but you get the picture). The lecture itself has been used frequently in debates to refer back to, again the chess game, although the quality of the game depends on its players at the time not the references, many such debates degenerate. In other senses, it is also used to confront those who might disagree, as if to say “look this guy has provided arguments that refute you so haha”, which is something I try to avoid but it’s valid, because the proponent has provided an argument and reason, it is up to his opponent to either counter or concede. I still don't like it though because it uses the assumption that one is better at debating than another, which stagnates the arguments and proves embarrassing if refutations exist and the opponent is aware of them.

If you wanted to market Russell’s views to convince people, a novel or a film would work better; to paraphrase MtG’s old sig, “lead them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow”. I see no better example than the number of people who suddenly became professed Christians after watching “The Passion of Christ”. Of course, how I look at such a work in the light of popular opinion depends on its artistic merits, hence I’m far more inclined to read broadsheets than tabloids or anything that appeals to the lowest common denominator.

I can agree the world would be a better place if more people would follow the example of Jesus’ life.

Agreed, though imo people would be better off following Socrates. Of the great men, he is surely greater. Well except for the whole Greek paedophilia thing

But he did. He told the disciples "If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father" and "the Father and I are one"

Would that not mean something on the order of family? I could say the same of my father but it doesn’t make us the same person, or have the same job.

If we are pondering the existence of an omnipotent (all powerful- all things within His control), isn't it possible that He could interrupt the Flux Capacitor, affect mankind however He wants, and then re-harmonize time and space? Or does omnipotent stop at the waters edge of what we think He can do?

To do so would be analogous to the grandfather paradox. He could, but we wouldn’t know it. The sum over histories concept holds that a particle will take every path to go from A to B, obviously that’s how it seems at point A… hence uncertainty principle. God cannot interact or communicate with this universe but he might be able to change something in a temporal sense (where time is like length, width or depth to him, which would apply if he is infinite). That, to cut a long story short, would result in a new universe being created at the point time = 0, our universe as we perceive it would be unaffected. The grandfather paradox is solved in this respect, if you go back in time and kill your grandfather before your parent was born, you will still exist in the time you have visited, your former universe will continue without you and the new one will continue deterministically. One universe would not be able to communicate with the other. In other words, if God were to interfere, our universe would be unaffected, the new universe would be unaware of any change since it occurred at time = 0, so we would have no way of knowing about God so no grounds to infer his existence.

Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t the flux capacitor the time travel device used in “Back to the Future”?

The argument that goes “why should God follow your rules” is a common one I face, and I counter by saying that God supposedly has a sphere of influence. If you wish to claim him as omnipotent, omniscient or infinite, there are certain properties of this that we are aware of, and anything contained within that concept (God, the Giant Pixie, Robert Plant) is subject to the properties. It is effectively an exploration of the concept of infinity. I’ll use an example I often use.

Picture a tramampoline, or any stretched out rubber mat. This represents Einsteinian space-time. Now if you put a body of mass, say, a cricket ball on the mat, there will be an indentation created, which represents the warping of space-time by mass. Now a cricket ball weighs about 300g, and has a diameter of about 8cm. Imagine that you keep the mass constant, but you halve the diameter. The pressure on the mat will obviously increase (pressure = force/area) and the indentation too. If you keep halving the diameter of the ball, eventually the pressure on the mat will get so great that it will break and the ball will drop through and hit the ground beneath. What I have described is a simple analogy for the creation of a black hole; a point of infinite density, infinitesimal size and infinite gravity (so a good example when dealing with infinities).

Now we can perceive perfectly well what has happened on the mat because it exists within dimensions that comply with our senses and consciousness. Now imagine that your plane of existence was that rubber mat. You could perceive only what is on the mat, nothing else. To you, a black hole has just been created and yet *we* can see what has happened. What I am trying to say is that infinity is relative to dimensions, God, in his dimensions, is finite. To us the notion is that he is infinite but by that conclusion we would be unaware of him. Note that my example is not perfect since our extra dimension of time to the fictitious little people on the mat is not perpendicular to their world…. Theirs is still a 4D world, hence they would be aware of us placing a ball on the mat, and we would be perceptible and finite to them, but you get the idea .

God needed a rib from Adam to create Eve, does that sound omnipotent? To punish Pharaoh, God murdered Egypt's first-born. Does that sound moral or logical? As to your question: an omnipotent deity can by definition do what it wants.

This raises an interesting point. God *could* be some finite alien but of much greater prowess than us humans. That of course implies moral relativism, and that perhaps with all the evil in the world, since God can be involved and cannot have an infinite master plan, we should consider him hostile. An interesting idea to toy with certainly!

You know, I've heard there is an Egyptian lawyer suing for gazillions over the gold and household effects that the Israelites took with them during the exodus.

Atheism: Good for the Muslim economy

[Berzerker]

hit em back with a slave reparations lawsuit

[Whaleboy]

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by bayraven
that's why i went with three references

But the only one that really seems to indicate it is the "I AM" statement, which is from John. Having not participated in our previous biblical discussions, you wouldn't have known that I consider John to be total horse poop when it comes to any accuracy about the life of Jesus. Considering it was probably written over 70 years after the supposed events by someone who wasn't there, I don't have much faith in its accuracy.

What does Paul say about Jesus' divinity, I wonder? Here's the guy whose writings are closest to the time when Jesus supposedly was running around. Does Paul ever make a claim to his divinity?

[bayraven]

WB,
Flux capacitor- operates according to the principles of the M&M theory.

WRT omnipotence, It seems you begin with the premise that such a state is impossible, and then accept the science that says you are right. If such a state did exist, by definition it would not be bound by any protocol. I think it intellectual dishonesty to dismiss by science the concept of omnipotence by considering it (omnipotence) to have limitations. IOW, anything less than omnipotence would be subject to, and thereby discredited by, the qualifications / quantifications you list.

I believe the excerpt from Russell beginning this thread was a speech, but didn't I read here somewhere that he engaged in public debates with Christians? And although a movie might be more to your liking, doesn't the public debate format allow for the presentation of conflicting ideas by their proponents, as opposed to a synthetic presentation of the concepts by a single entity?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by bayraven
I'm finally having fun with this, but it's past one in the morning so I'll leave with one more response. He CHOSE to make woman from a rib for symbolic purposes that you can infer if you don't already know.

Erm, we know differently, because women were not made from a rib at all. Remember that we evolved as a species from other primates.

Unless you believe the Bible literally, one has to accept the rib story as a metaphor/fable. If so, the point is that the Bible is full of such symbolism, and considering that Jesus' words appear contradictory, the most likely explanation is that he is speaking in symbolic terms as well.

[Elok]

Well, the discussion's back to quibbling over semantics like most religion threads, but on a brief note, I'm aware that Social Darwinism as a doctrine is a huge stretch. I meant that the idea of evolution puts us in the position of regarding continuation of our bloodline as the ultimate end to our existence, which might well be ethically problematic.

Re: "re ligio," a regular body of knowledge is regarded as essential for all things we consider definitively true. While there are dangers in any regulation of ideas (for example, President Bush and his trusted group of yes-men informing him of "junk science" that might keep companies from, say, drilling for oil in the Everglades, or some such), if an idea has any validity at all it makes sense to establish a formal study, doesn't it? And if it has no validity there's no purpose to studying it at all. The only middle ground is to proceed with caution in "formal study."

[bayraven]

Borris,
IMO there seems to be a straw horse here. By saying that you dismiss the book of John, can i infer your dismissal of that text is relative to the rest of the NT, which you accept as factual?
WRT evolution, some continue to consider that a theory

[Whaleboy]

Flux capacitor- operates according to the principles of the M&M theory.

You mean M theory? (M&M theory is an economic concept IIRC) As it was used string theory was obsolete, essentially a 1950's idea that was only given a new credence in the mid 80's. Nonetheless the same implies... you'll note how my argument renders time travel in the linear sense, impossible.

It seems you begin with the premise that such a state is impossible, and then accept the science that says you are right

Not saying it's impossible, just incommunicable, nontheless... ->

If such a state did exist, by definition it would not be bound by any protocol. I think it intellectual dishonesty to dismiss by science the concept of omnipotence by considering it (omnipotence) to have limitations. IOW, anything less than omnipotence would be subject to, and thereby discredited by, the qualifications / quantifications you list.

Omnipotence is a concept that has limitations however, the word itself is misleading and contradictory by this logic, the term "infinite" is more useful.

Note it *is* just a theory but such a distinction is useless here since we are discussing its merits and demerits. For something to have full knowledge of this universe (in the deterministic sense) and be able to communicate would latterly require it to have a sense of time which would mean the former condition could not apply). Again also the term "universe" which is also misleading because it implies there is only one and that is all there is (ignore the problems of the word "is" for the minute). I refer instead to the bubble of four-dimensional matter and energy this is our plane of existence and empirical perception.

If there exists a model of "omnipotence" that allows for communication, the same temporal dimension, and still infinite scope, well I'd certainly be eager to hear it!

I believe the excerpt from Russell beginning this thread was a speech, but didn't I read here somewhere that he engaged in public debates with Christians? And although a movie might be more to your liking, doesn't the public debate format allow for the presentation of conflicting ideas by their proponents, as opposed to a synthetic presentation of the concepts by a single entity?

Ideally yes, but it would only work with a capable audience with whom to appeal to, but then firstly such a debate would end up being like the "chess game" and secondly such an audience would likely already have an essentially immoveable opinion on the subject. Nonetheless, if a public debate can be found of the same quality as a private debate (and more importantly an instruction manual on how to do it), I'd be more than happy to concede this point! The problem of conducting a public debate in the private style is illustrated clearly by Russells treatment at the hands of the City College of New York and the admissions boards etc who rejected him because of his "irreligious, immoral and anti-christian" views. I'll post a link later, I have to pick up my brother from school.

The reason however that I'd dislike popular debate is because one tends to neglect a thorough analysis of opinions and dialectic. Views tend to be entrenched and people will often appeal to the lowest common denominator. Consider the US presidential election. Ad hominems and fallacies flying all around, both candidates would know that kinda stuff wouldn't work in a "proper" debate, but it still won them votes.

Re: "re ligio," a regular body of knowledge is regarded as essential for all things we consider definitively true. While there are dangers in any regulation of ideas (for example, President Bush and his trusted group of yes-men informing him of "junk science" that might keep companies from, say, drilling for oil in the Everglades, or some such), if an idea has any validity at all it makes sense to establish a formal study, doesn't it? And if it has no validity there's no purpose to studying it at all. The only middle ground is to proceed with caution in "formal study.

Obviously formal study is a great idea, indeed biblical scholars and theologians are involved in a fascinating field like all literature fans but there is a difference methinks between that (which could be conducted at a university for example), and actually putting the ideas into practise as a group, with all of the Machiavellian tendencies of human nature to play with.

WRT evolution, some continue to consider that a theory

Indeed, it *is* a theory, like all scientific theories. But saying that it is a theory doesn't mean that it is on the same level as the "theory" that God created the world in six days and that the Earth is flat. As I have said earlier, one accepts theories provisionally, but that doesn't mean that the evidence behind them is rock solid*, as is the case with evolution. Indeed, the ideas that the Earth orbits the Sun, that we breathe oxygen to live, continental drift and modern geology, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction... are all theories. That doesn't mean that this, under the umbrella of modern science shouldn't be taken any more seriously than creationism, superstition and what are imo little more than fairy tales.

The crux of my argument is that if people want to believe, or have faith in "fairy tales", and it stops them from getting into drugs, violence and the rest of it (I have known a couple of people "saved" by Christianity), then that's great and a wonderful turnaround for them. If it helps people recover from loss or make some sense of their lives, again fantastic; but would you teach Rapunzel as canonical or scienfic fact to that end?

*Figure of speech, non absolute.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by bayraven
Borris,
IMO there seems to be a straw horse here. By saying that you dismiss the book of John, can i infer your dismissal of that text is relative to the rest of the NT, which you accept as factual?

I don't know how much of the NT is factual (probably not much wrt the life of Jesus, since we can see a clear progression in the gospels of the earliest account being the least detailed and then the latest account being greatly embellished, in addition to outright contradictions). But John is quite far out there, and it is easily the most disputed of the gospels in terms of its authorship and authenticity. It is also rife with symbollic language, far moreso than the other gospels. Of course, we then have to acknowledge all the gospels are not historical texts, but rather religious/political propaganda written by people with an agenda, which means we have to take them with heaping grains of salt. From what I can see, the agenda transformed from preaching the philosophical message of a religious reformer to proclaiming is divinity and forming a new religion entirely.

But the overall point I'm getting at is that it is entirely possible, IMO, for someone to look at the NT and, taking most of what it says as true, still believe that Jesus was just a good man who preached (mostly) good things, and that it makes sense for people to live by those tenets.

And I have no problem with such people calling themselves Christian, as Jefferson did. Hell, most Christians can't even agree that other people who believe Jesus was divine are Christians. You can ask BK what he thinks of the Mormons being Christian. Or ask most Evangelicals what they think of Catholics. Or a lot of Catholics what they think of Protestants. Or what the Jehovah's Witnesses think of anybody else.

WRT evolution, some continue to consider that a theory

Are you suggesting those folks are ignorant of what the word "theory" actually means in the context of science (i.e., it's not a "guess").

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IIAjusttheory.shtml

Heliocentricity is also just a "theory," and one that the Bible contradicts as well, if taken literally...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
(M&M theory is an economic concept IIRC)

Wrong. It's the theory that it melts in your mouth, not in your hands.

[bayraven]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


You mean M theory?

Flux capacitor, M&M theory VS. G-string theory... Satire at the expense of my own scientific jargonal ineptitude. Smile with me, Ben

Omnipotence is a concept that has limitations however, the word itself is misleading and contradictory by this logic, the term "infinite" is more useful.

Are you saying the Hebrew should be not translated as 'all powerful', or that it is more easily discussed as 'infinite'? If the translation is correct, to say that omnipotence has limitations 'dumbs down' the concept to make it defeatable.

Enough semantics for me, too.

[Whaleboy]

Oh damn! I remember using it a couple of years ago describing the behaviour of children and the motivations for war! What a ***** I must have looked!!

That's a great site Boris, I've bookmarked it

[Whaleboy]

Flux capacitor, M&M theory VS. G-string theory... Satire at the expense of my own scientific jargonal ineptitude. Smile with me, Ben

I'm on drugs; I'm doing my best here!!

Are you saying the Hebrew should be not translated as 'all powerful', or that it is more easily discussed as 'infinite'? If the translation is correct, to say that omnipotence has limitations 'dumbs down' the concept to make it defeatable.

I should say the translation is inaccurate and demonstrative of the problem of using ambiguous terms (like "benefit" as discussed earlier) where precision is called for. I don't think it's dumbing it down though, since all I'm really doing is establishing a relative context to the word. In effect, I'm redefining "universe" to fit more accurately with post 1940's cosmology.

"Infinite in this universe, but..... (otherwise can't be infinite)"

"Finite in what you might call an exoverse"

Not the most imaginative wordplay I've ever done but you get the point . Of course, like infinity one can only deduce an exoverse but you don't need to see something in order to model it. Consider the hypercube/hypersphere. Topological mathematics can model it, though if we were to ever see one it would appear as an infinity.

And yes too much semantics!