Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Heddle

[another lurker]

Why do stupid people think it clever just to put the answer they want to hear into someone's mouth? I never understood the satisfaction of the "Oh I see [insert words] that clears it up. Thank you. Got it." response. Why go through the trouble? Wouldn't an imaginary slam-dunk conversation in your own head do just as well?

I am glad to have been exposed to this point of view, and appreciate the time you took to express it.

Hard to believe it, but I'm beginning to miss The Prussian!

I saw him on TFA and said hi but he ignoreded me:( sadpenis :cdc:

[windy]

God surrounds us and penetrates us.

Ha! That explains why my ass was so sore this morning.

Hart describes an highly attenuated deism. Which is no solace to biblical literalists like heddle, who believe God actually had a power breakfast with Moses, lived inside a magic box for a while, knocked up an Earth woman, and sent his angels chasing after Virginia Madsen onto a Navaho reservation.

Although heddle's version is ethically much more distasteful than Hart's foofy cosmic principle, at least he's giving it the old college try. "God is the condition of possibility", okay, then what? Say what you will about the tenets of Calvinism, at least it's an ethos.

[Robbie]

Hart's definition of god isn't anything new, but it is reasonable. When you equate the totality of nature or reality to god, and not some personal being existing within it, a lot religious writings actually make some sense. Of course, modern Christians abhor such ideas.

It all about them.

[windy]

Hart's definition of god isn't anything new, but it is reasonable. When you equate the totality of nature or reality to god, and not some personal being existing within it, a lot religious writings actually make some sense. Of course, modern Christians abhor such ideas.

What's so reasonable about it? If you equate the totality of nature or reality to god, then "god" is entirely superfluous.

[Robbie]

In the sense that it's really just as another word for the totality, it points the same concept. We have a hard time nowadays using the word and it is probably superfluous, but I think in proper context it's useful. If only to piss theists off.

[windy]

In the sense that it's really just as another word for the totality, it points the same concept. We have a hard time nowadays using the word and it is probably superfluous, but I think in proper context it's useful. If only to piss theists off.

Why would it piss theists off? At least for the more 'liberal' variety of theist, it allows them to equivocate between their emotional attachment to "God" and a materialistic understanding of the world. What do you think is the market for the Karen Armstrong or David Bentley Hart type of popular theology? Atheists?

[another lurker]

When I was 8 or 9 I had a good talk with my mom about how God was 'everything'. This was after I had gone to Sunday school and left disapoint because no one could tell me who or what had made God:(

[windy]

I'd say views on genocide have to be black/white "simplistic morality".

Phil,

You might think the same thing about two bombs that killed a quarter of a million. But as I said, I think (you may disagree) that there are reasonable people who are not amoral who would struggle mightily with simple yes/no question on whether Truman was right.

If they struggle with the question, that means they must at least admit the possibility that Truman could have been wrong.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Although heddle's version is ethically much more distasteful than Hart's foofy cosmic principle, at least he's giving it the old college try. "God is the condition of possibility", okay, then what? Say what you will about the tenets of Calvinism, at least it's an ethos.

Calvinism is the religion of the smug, by the smug, and for the smug.

Which is funny, because heddle's been such a charmer so far.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Hart's definition of god isn't anything new, but it is reasonable. When you equate the totality of nature or reality to god, and not some personal being existing within it, a lot religious writings actually make some sense.

Which religious writings make sense?

Hart's definition of "God" is for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from "the universe", or "the m-branes that create universes." He adds this veneer of a deity just to provide a causa sui, when the universe can itself be causa sui. Occam's Razor, QED. It's only our primitive, homo faber human minds that require a 'maker' for everything. Break out of that obsolete paradigm, and problem solved.

... Unless, of course, you're still not down with when-you're-dead-you're-dead.

[Gefan]

Although heddle's version is ethically much more distasteful than Hart's foofy cosmic principle, at least he's giving it the old college try. "God is the condition of possibility", okay, then what? Say what you will about the tenets of Calvinism, at least it's an ethos.

Calvinism is the religion of the smug, by the smug, and for the smug.

Which is funny, because heddle's been such a charmer so far.

I was hoping he'd go into the "nuances" of genocide a bit more.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

What about Elisha and his weird story of having 42 children mauled to death by bears because they mocked his baldness? Just askin'

[Gumby]

What about Elisha and his weird story of having 42 children mauled to death by bears because they mocked his baldness? Just askin'

If nothing else, we got a fairly hilarious youtube video out of that dumb story.

[youtube]C2jmT35fygc[/youtube]

[heddle]

I am always curious that some people will somehow accept without comment that I believe that God created the universe, but are appalled that I believe Jesus walked on water. It is a kind of innumeracy. Same thing here--you want to question me about bears mauling (or genocide)--when the real question should be about the infinitely greater suffering of hell.

create the universe : walking on water :: hell : mauling bears

Just saying.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

What about Elisha and his weird story of having 42 children mauled to death by bears because they mocked his baldness? Just askin'

Great way to victim-blame, Phil. Bears needs to learn to stop mauling! We should put up posters in the woods.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I am always curious that some people will somehow accept without comment that I believe that God created the universe, but are appalled that I believe Jesus walked on water. It is a kind of innumeracy. Same thing here--you want to question me about bears mauling (or genocide)--when the real question should be about the infinitely greater suffering of hell.

create the universe : walking on water :: hell : mauling bears

Just saying.

A "nuanced" way of saying, 'c) It is always justifiable for God to commit genocide, because: Heaven.'

[Gumby]

I am always curious that some people will somehow accept without comment that I believe that God created the universe, but are appalled that I believe Jesus walked on water. It is a kind of innumeracy. Same thing here--you want to question me about bears mauling (or genocide)--when the real question should be about the infinitely greater suffering of hell.

create the universe : walking on water :: hell : mauling bears

Just saying.

People accept that you believe God created the universe because they know that is a central tenet of your religion. People accept that you believe hell exists because they know that is a central tenet of your religion. After all, belief in a universe-creating, hell-throwing-into God are key constituents of the very definition of being a Christian. Now, the people you discuss those beliefs to might not accept those beliefs for themselves as true, but they understand they are core concepts for you. So they may be less likely to HAW! HAW! in your face about such statements, because you wouldn't be much of a Christian without those beliefs. In other words, such beliefs are a given, and hardly surprising for a Christian. Plus, stating that God creating the universe and stating that Hell exists are largely unfalsifiable religious bullshit. People grow weary of arguing unevidenced and unfalsifiable core tenets with people who can deepen the rabbit-hole of apologetics bafflegab all day long.

However, many many many many SPECIFIC stories in the bible... Teh Flud/Ark, the aforementioned Elisha's Bears, the aforementioned walking on water, the outlandish cure for leprosy mentioned in Leviticus, contradictions in verses, disparities in Gospel accounts of ostensibly the same events, a multitude of scientific and common-sense errors etc. etc. etc. - all can be rationally dissected and argued from historical, logical or scientific points of view. I notice a lot of you thumpers get annoyed when the details of your holy book can be so easily shredded with logic, and I notice that y'all inevitably try to turn the focus back to the grand, unfalsifiable concepts as a way to avoid dealing with the inconvenient reality that the Bible is a fucking mess.

"Hey, why argue about trivial things like the efficacy of the Leviticus leprosy cure when we should be talking about hell!" is disingenuous crap designed to drag a discussion from evidenced-based reality into the realm evidence-free and unfalsifiable cosmic bullshit - which is the only rhetorical refuge for believers. Most non-believers recognize that obvious dodge, which is why people like you end up saying "I am always curious that some people will somehow accept without comment that I believe that God created the universe, but are appalled that I believe Jesus walked on water."

It's not "innumeracy", as you say - it's a refusal to fall for your fucking bullshit.

[heddle]

It's not "innumeracy", as you say - it's a refusal to fall for your fucking bullshit.

It's not "innumeracy", as you say - it's a refusal to fall for your fucking bullshit.

No, it is innumeracy.

Anyway, jackass, who is asking you to fall for my "bullshit?" Again, I have not proselytized once or asked you or anyone else to believe what I believe. Nice. Red. Herring.

When I was an atheist I certainly asked (as many do, just not brites like MC and--well--you) "how can you believe in a god that sends people to eternal punishment?" I recognized (it's not rocket science) that such was a more serious potential indictment. The others are in the noise. If you can justify that God can punish people forever for unbelief [1], then you don't have to bother justifying finite punishments not matter how horrible.

If you can't see that, that is not my fault.
-------------
[1] By the way, I can't and don't pretend that I can.

[Gumby]

Anyway, jackass, who is asking you to fall for my "bullshit?" Again, I have not proselytized once or asked you or anyone else to believe what I believe. Nice. Red. Herring.

http://img.scoop.it/Hnvf4MhDcOf4Ws0gTB0 ... 2ss5Ku7Cxt

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Anyway, jackass, who is asking you to fall for my "bullshit?"

A nuanced way of saying, 'I shot my rhetorical rod somewhere on the last page, so now I'm reduced to cunt kicks.'

When I was an atheist

A nuanced way of saying, 'Before I realized religious sanctimony could facilitate my narcissism and need to feel superior.'

If you can justify that God can punish people forever for unbelief [1], then you don't have to bother justifying finite punishments not matter how horrible.

Nuance for 'I'm down with Teh Genocide.'

If you can't see that, that is not my fault.

Nuance for, 'if you can't recognize that the emperor's new clothes are simply gorgeous, then you have no taste.'

[heddle]

MC,

If I could only match you and your:

"Proof by putting words in someone's mouth" which is similar to "proof by sockpuppeting." Unfortunately I think you may be the world's expert--I clearly cannot hope to compete. I'm stuck with the boring approach of actually addressing someone's argument (if they make one.) But I'm just one of the little people.

Or I could try gumby's "proof by posting a funny picture which will make my likeminded buds chuckle, ergo I win" proof. I seem to recall you are pretty good at that one too. But let's be realistic--there's no hope for me.

Your intellectual skills are dazzling.

[Robbie]

In the sense that it's really just as another word for the totality, it points the same concept. We have a hard time nowadays using the word and it is probably superfluous, but I think in proper context it's useful. If only to piss theists off.

Why would it piss theists off? At least for the more 'liberal' variety of theist, it allows them to equivocate between their emotional attachment to "God" and a materialistic understanding of the world. What do you think is the market for the Karen Armstrong or David Bentley Hart type of popular theology? Atheists?

I don't really think that the type of theists (or atheists) who would be attracted to that type of popular theology is all that much of a problem, at least not for those who don't go all too new-age-neo-buddhist with it. I'm not sure they identify with a personal god in the same way heddle-types do, who certainly attach a lot more value to emotion with their beliefs.

Hart's definition of god isn't anything new, but it is reasonable. When you equate the totality of nature or reality to god, and not some personal being existing within it, a lot religious writings actually make some sense.

Which religious writings make sense?

This short video (from a member here incidentally, Kevin Solway) describes what I mean:

[youtube]b0W-eLjuGJw[/youtube]

[Gumby]

MC,

If I could only match you and your:

"Proof by putting words in someone's mouth" which is similar to "proof by sockpuppeting." Unfortunately I think you may be the world's expert--I clearly cannot hope to compete. I'm stuck with the boring approach of actually addressing someone's argument (if they make one.) But I'm just one of the little people.

Or I could try gumby's "proof by posting a funny picture which will make my likeminded buds chuckle, ergo I win" proof. I seem to recall you are pretty good at that one too. But let's be realistic--there's no hope for me.

Your intellectual skills are dazzling.

:lol:

Fuck you, you obsessed angry little crank.

I gave you a perfectly reasonable post summarizing my opinion. An opinion you apparently couldn't handle, because in return you offered nothing of substance but more bafflegab, And you proved you didn't even understand my main point, with your (intentional?) misrepresenation of what I said.'

Then you descend into angry bluster because of a picture that was supposed to get you to re-read what I wrote.

You're a moron and a fraud. No wonder you get mercilessly mocked in every site I see you in.

I won't waste any more time on you.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Here's the defense of genocide that heddle believes is too nuanced for us jackasses to comprehend. Short answer: the Amalekites deserved it.

I can't comment on it just now, as Teh Dumb in it gave me a migraine and I have to lay down for a bit.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I'm stuck with the boring approach of actually addressing someone's argument (if they make one.) ... But let's be realistic--there's no hope for me.

Heddle admits defeat? That's not like him!

[youtube]ikssfUhAlgg[/youtube]

[Tigzy]

Here's the defense of genocide that heddle believes is too nuanced for us jackasses to comprehend. Short answer: the Amalekites deserved it.

I can't comment on it just now, as Teh Dumb in it gave me a migraine and I have to lay down for a bit.

Fuck me, but that some desperate work to salvage god's reputation. Clearly, those Amalekites were just begging for a good genociding there, weren't they? :shock:

[another lurker]

Here's the defense of genocide that heddle believes is too nuanced for us jackasses to comprehend. Short answer: the Amalekites deserved it.

I can't comment on it just now, as Teh Dumb in it gave me a migraine and I have to lay down for a bit.

Fuck me, but that some desperate work to salvage god's reputation. Clearly, those Amalekites were just begging for a good genociding there, weren't they? :shock:

Same shit in this podcast, if anyone is interested:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/reasonabled ... -genocide/

Interestingly enough, even other *Christians*were appalled at the genocide-apologetics going on. It takes a truly desperate believer to try to justify this stuff.

[another lurker]

I am always curious that some people will somehow accept without comment that I believe that God created the universe, but are appalled that I believe Jesus walked on water. It is a kind of innumeracy. Same thing here--you want to question me about bears mauling (or genocide)--when the real question should be about the infinitely greater suffering of hell.

create the universe : walking on water :: hell : mauling bears

Just saying.

People accept that you believe God created the universe because they know that is a central tenet of your religion. People accept that you believe hell exists because they know that is a central tenet of your religion. After all, belief in a universe-creating, hell-throwing-into God are key constituents of the very definition of being a Christian. Now, the people you discuss those beliefs to might not accept those beliefs for themselves as true, but they understand they are core concepts for you. So they may be less likely to HAW! HAW! in your face about such statements, because you wouldn't be much of a Christian without those beliefs. In other words, such beliefs are a given, and hardly surprising for a Christian. Plus, stating that God creating the universe and stating that Hell exists are largely unfalsifiable religious bullshit. People grow weary of arguing unevidenced and unfalsifiable core tenets with people who can deepen the rabbit-hole of apologetics bafflegab all day long.

However, many many many many SPECIFIC stories in the bible... Teh Flud/Ark, the aforementioned Elisha's Bears, the aforementioned walking on water, the outlandish cure for leprosy mentioned in Leviticus, contradictions in verses, disparities in Gospel accounts of ostensibly the same events, a multitude of scientific and common-sense errors etc. etc. etc. - all can be rationally dissected and argued from historical, logical or scientific points of view. I notice a lot of you thumpers get annoyed when the details of your holy book can be so easily shredded with logic, and I notice that y'all inevitably try to turn the focus back to the grand, unfalsifiable concepts as a way to avoid dealing with the inconvenient reality that the Bible is a fucking mess.

"Hey, why argue about trivial things like the efficacy of the Leviticus leprosy cure when we should be talking about hell!" is disingenuous crap designed to drag a discussion from evidenced-based reality into the realm evidence-free and unfalsifiable cosmic bullshit - which is the only rhetorical refuge for believers. Most non-believers recognize that obvious dodge, which is why people like you end up saying "I am always curious that some people will somehow accept without comment that I believe that God created the universe, but are appalled that I believe Jesus walked on water."

It's not "innumeracy", as you say - it's a refusal to fall for your fucking bullshit.

I was discussing the uneven distribution of species around the world with a friend last night, and he pointed out the problem of rattlesnakes in the new world. If not every animal was taken on the Ark (which would explain Australia for example), but instead many of the world's species were taken from the slopes of Mount Ararat and transported around the world by native peoples - then why did Native Americans take rattlesnakes to the new world but not horses?

[heddle]

MC,
Is that my defense? A: It is not. You, once again, are putting words in my mouth. You are also a baldfaced liar, because I never said a defense was too nuanced (although in your case any explanation is probably too nuanced). I said that your simple yes/no question should be rephrased as a more nuanced question. You really are a dishonest piece of work.

Gumby

Bullshit. Plus you are the one who appears to be tiny balls-of-fist angry. Yes, you gave your opinion such as it was, which was nothing more than an incoherent "People accept A is a tenet of your religion. But we want to argue about B." Well, duh, B is also a tenet of my religion. Not only that, all miracles are unfalsifiable (by definition they cannot be explained by science, which is why we call them miracles) so it is irrelevant that the creation account is unfalsifiable--so is Jesus walking on water. And here is a hint, jackass, if you actually want to engage someone you give your opinion and ask for a response, you don't end with "it's a refusal to fall for your fucking bullshit."

Besides I knew you were a loser when you wrote:

which is why people like you end up saying "I am always curious that some people will somehow accept ..."

Because that is not a common response at all--and here you are pretending like you hear it all the time so that you can dismiss it out of hand. I call bullshit.

No wonder you get mercilessly mocked in every site I see you in.

I don't of course--but I'm sure it gives you a warm and fuzzy to say so. You are pathetic. Please keep your promise to ignore me.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

OK, the pamprin's kicked in. A few take-aways from that genocide defense:

* The Amalekites had it coming, because they hated the jews, and kept on fighting them. Of course, omnipotent God made the Amalekites jew-haters, and omniscient God knew they'd keep on fighting, but: free will, so the Amalekites deserved to die;

* By acting the way God made them, the Amalekites were impeding God's Higher Purpose for His Chosen People, so they just had to go;

* When you get down to it, all of us deserve to have our heads bashed against rocks, because: original sin;

* Just not believing in God is sufficient cause to suffer the eternal fires of hell. As for those people who'd never even heard of the God of the Jews (and now Jesus), well the answer is nuanced;

* God is one bad-ass motherfucker, so it's best to stay on His good side.


I'm still interested in what Robbie's saying about deism, and will return to that in a bit, but I need to lay down again because all this nuance is making me faint.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

If not every animal was taken on the Ark (which would explain Australia for example), but instead many of the world's species were taken from the slopes of Mount Ararat and transported around the world by native peoples - then why did Native Americans take rattlesnakes to the new world but not horses?

Because: Free Will. Jackasses totally deserved the genocide they got.

[free thoughtpolice]

Poor heddle is kind of getting dogpiled here so I thought I might help him out.
As the good professor has rightly pointed out, pointing out all the cruel things God does on earth are moot:

When I was an atheist I certainly asked (as many do, just not brites like MC and--well--you) "how can you believe in a god that sends people to eternal punishment?" I recognized (it's not rocket science) that such was a more serious potential indictment. The others are in the noise. If you can justify that God can punish people forever for unbelief [1], then you don't have to bother justifying finite punishments not matter how horrible.

There is no point in pounding away about genocides and shebear maulings, they are after all trivial compared to eternal punishment in hell.
heddle will correct me if I'm putting words in his mouth, although hopefully he won't stoop to name calling, but it seems apparent that he admits his God is an evil sadistic monster.
Fortunately for heddle, as a Calvinist Satan God will spare him.
He might want to stay safe though and do lots of toadying and praying. :pray:

[Robbie]

Not only that, all miracles are unfalsifiable (by definition they cannot be explained by science, which is why we call them miracles) ...

An explanation of an event is causal. Any miracle would be itself an event, and so therefore is causal - it was caused to happen. Since every empirical causal event can be examined by science, which then gives us a possible or eventual explanation, miracles therefore can absolutely be examined and explained by science.

Uncaused events don't happen. Or in other words, miracles don't exist.

[another lurker]

If not every animal was taken on the Ark (which would explain Australia for example), but instead many of the world's species were taken from the slopes of Mount Ararat and transported around the world by native peoples - then why did Native Americans take rattlesnakes to the new world but not horses?

Because: Free Will. Jackasses totally deserved the genocide they got.

I was listening to an interesting conversation about free will on The Rawstory the other day:

Q1: If YHWH (The Christian god) knows that a pregnant woman is going to miscarry, and *can* prevent it, but does *not* prevent it, does that make YHWH a murderer, [or at least an accomplice] according to the Christian belief system?

Q2: If YHWH Knows a meteor will strike you, and does nothing about it to stop it, and it kills you, did YHWH murder you?

A: To understand this, you have to understand the nature of the Christian belief of YHWH. YHWH created the systems and methods by which the universe works -- the "rules". One of the biggest rules is Free Will - that humans will have the ability to choose him in place of other gods like Moloch, Allah, Shiva, etc., or atheism, in which the person substitutes most of the role of "god" in their life. In order for this to work, there can be both no definitive proof that YHWH exists, and also no definitive proof that YHWH does *not* exist.

If YHWH were to prevent one woman from miscarrying, why would he not prevent other women from miscarrying? Why would miscarriage even be a "thing" at all? During the construction process of anything (computer, car, plane, bridge, etc.), there are several stages of construction, and if there are problems during construction process, sometimes you have to start all over again. Free Will requires imperfection.

Let's put it this way: If a meteor were coming right now, and it was, according to all calculations, about to hit the Kasbah, and it's on the news, and everyone is watching it, and the meteor comes down, and then is, in front of everyone, vaporized and becomes nothing, and no damage is done to any part of Mecca, and the Kasbah turned white and gold instead of black, do you think that Muslims may point to that as an example of why Allah is the One True God®? There would be no room for doubt anymore. And all the people who all of a sudden started believing, because they have proof -- would they be considered "real" Muslims? Even by people who believed before there was real proof?

I cannot truly speak for Christians, just like I cannot speak on behalf of YHWH, and honestly, I'm feeling a little "icky" putting words in the mouth of a god I don't believe in, but I enjoy the intellectual debate. But YHWH would probably say here that while human life is precious, and he would never *cause* a miscarriage, he also cannot prevent it, because of a lot of reasons, first among them that it would corrupt the experiment to see how much of human kind, of its own free will, turns to him. Also bear in mind that the Earth is the realm of the evil power, and has been given to evil for a period of time. And finally, it could be that the baby being formed had some issue where it wasn't able to survive, or shouldn't (I mentioned examples before).

This is in contradistinction to Allah, who causes everything to happen. In a Muslim view of this, Allah *is* a murderer, because He personally caused the miscarriage that killed that baby, or personally directed the meteor at the guy that died

So you're upset because god is doing everything possible to maintain our Free Will? But you're A-ok with Asslah *personally* allowing a woman to be raped, *personally and directly* causing someone to die a slow death from a horrible illness, *personally* causing each and every death in the Holocaust. The Christian god could have interceded and didn't, for reasons we cannot understand, but can guess at (and I have in another response to you, but the most convincing to me has to do with Free Will).

The reason for waiting to punish evil doers after they have committed a crime is because they could have decided, even at the last minute, not to commit that crime, and thus, not be deserving of it. it is FREE WILL. As an atheist, I am *most* free. I am free to make up my own rules, and free to follow them (or not) as I wish, so long as I don't hurt someone else in a way that will get me into trouble.

In your worldview, a man could find a woman attractive, see that she is going down an alleyway by herself, then say to himself "I want to rape this woman, insha'Allah", and if he is stopped by something, it would be (in his mind) Allah's will that he not, but if he's not stopped by anything, then it must be Allah's will that he do it, right? In fact, at that point, he is nothing more than a "tool" for Allah to rape that woman with. And apparently, Allah *loves* him some raping

Anyways, interesting stuff. I had never thought about the differences between Christianity and Islam specifically in regard to the concept of free will.

[heddle]

Not only that, all miracles are unfalsifiable (by definition they cannot be explained by science, which is why we call them miracles) ...

An explanation of an event is causal. Any miracle would be itself an event, and so therefore is causal - it was caused to happen. Since every empirical causal event can be examined by science, which then gives us a possible or eventual explanation, miracles therefore can absolutely be examined and explained by science.

Uncaused events don't happen. Or in other words, miracles don't exist.

Nice word salad and you are partly correct. A miracle could be examined by science. But it cannot be explained by science. That's why it is called a miracle. To be sure there may be no such thing as a miracle--but if there is then by definition it is supernatural. Observable, recordable, subject to scientific study, but ultimately inexplicable.

[Robbie]

Nice word salad and you are partly correct. A miracle could be examined by science. But it cannot be explained by science. That's why it is called a miracle. To be sure there may be no such thing as a miracle--but if there is then by definition it is supernatural. Observable, recordable, subject to scientific study, but ultimately inexplicable.

Any event that is, as you say, observable, recordable, and subject to scientific study, will have causes that can either be explained or not. Note however that this doesn't mean that there can never exist an explanation to x or y event. Even if there isn't any explanation available to us, that still doesn't mean there can never ultimately be an explanation, and since what we're talking about is a causal event, we can be sure that there absolutely does exist an explanation.

Supernatural and miracle are hollow words, their only utility are to point out how to correctly think about how our minds work. In much the same way you may have believed in magic tricks as a kid.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Here's what happens when you hold the scientific method in abeyance --

... all miracles leprechauns are unfalsifiable (by definition they cannot be explained by science, which is why we call them miracles leprechauns) so it is irrelevant that the creation account Ragnarok is unfalsifiable--so is Jesus walking on water reincarnation. And here is a hint, jackass ...

Only a fool would believe in leprechauns. Heddle the Fool was droll for a while, but this chewing gum has lost its flavor.

[Gumby]

Here's what happens when you hold the scientific method in abeyance --

... all miracles leprechauns are unfalsifiable (by definition they cannot be explained by science, which is why we call them miracles leprechauns) so it is irrelevant that the creation account Ragnarok is unfalsifiable--so is Jesus walking on water reincarnation. And here is a hint, jackass ...

Only a fool would believe in leprechauns. Heddle the Fool was droll for a while, but this chewing gum has lost its flavor.

Just goes to show that all fundies are basically the same, whether they're professors with advanced degrees or knuckle-dragging creationist country bumpkins who use the word "satin" in place of "Satan" out of superstitious fear. They all have to defend the same pile of drivel; only the superficial complexity of the "argument" varies from one fundie to the next.

[Lsuoma]

Here's what happens when you hold the scientific method in abeyance --

... all miracles leprechauns are unfalsifiable (by definition they cannot be explained by science, which is why we call them miracles leprechauns) so it is irrelevant that the creation account Ragnarok is unfalsifiable--so is Jesus walking on water reincarnation. And here is a hint, jackass ...

Only a fool would believe in leprechauns. Heddle the Fool was droll for a while, but this chewing gum has lost its flavor.

Just goes to show that all fundies are basically the same, whether they're professors with advanced degrees or knuckle-dragging creationist country bumpkins who use the word "satin" in place of "Satan" out of superstitious fear. They all have to defend the same pile of drivel; only the superficial complexity of the "argument" varies from one fundie to the next.

Coyne does a very good takedown of "Sophistimacated Theologiciacans" from time to time, proving that they are as full of the same shit, and to the same degree as the mouth-breathers from Pig's Knuckle, Arkansas, or Royston Vasey or wherever.

[heddle]

Coyne does a very good takedown of "Sophistimacated Theologiciacans" from time to time, proving that they are as full of the same shit

Yes of course he proves it. Like Robbie above proved that miracles can't happen.

Lesser beings would make good and perhaps even compelling arguments, but Coyne can prove it, like the Pythagorean Theorem.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Coyne does a very good takedown of "Sophistimacated Theologiciacans" from time to time, proving that they are as full of the same shit, and to the same degree as the mouth-breathers from Pig's Knuckle, Arkansas, or Royston Vasey or wherever.

Did you see Coyne's article in The New Republic about the supposed 'Best Proof For God , Evah'? Here it is:

God is unfalsifiable, QED.

Which, much to my delight, works equally well for an shibh beg.

When dealing with fools, we must remind them that the burden of proof lies with those making the claim.

[Tigzy]

This thread is a fucking hoot! :lol:

[Aneris]

Coyne does a very good takedown of "Sophistimacated Theologiciacans" from time to time, proving that they are as full of the same shit

Yes of course he proves it. Like Robbie above proved that miracles can't happen.

Lesser beings would make good and perhaps even compelling arguments, but Coyne can prove it, like the Pythagorean Theorem.

I really do wonder why people believe in the Bible. Provided you are left with no supporting evidence whatsoever, you have no reason whatsoever to believe in anything the Bible claims. There is no way around it, and no mountain of theology and wordplay can change that (fairly simple) fact. Even Sophisticated Theology™ can be shown to rest on false (or entirely unsupported) premises making it both tedious and pointless to argue about it. It's like beginning with “suppose 2+3 is 8” and then going on and writing an ultra complex formula, all well thought out and reasoned flawlessly that π was 137. It still not make it true. A theologian might insist that in his crude assumptions 342+882 is actually 666 the number of the beast! Checkmate atheist! But it remains unimpressive and it remains a mystery why Theologians seem incapable of understanding it.

Even if there was, say, a divine Ground of Being, derived from wordplay, how do you know it's the Biblical God? Even if there was a Prime Mover, likewise, how do you establish that it had to do with the Bible? And of course, once you accept something needs a Prime Mover, or Ground of Being, the question arises what's the ground of being of God, or what caused God and likewise, if you accept these things, why can't it be the Universe itself the Ground of Being or the First Mover?

[another lurker]

Noah took baby dinosaurs with him on the ark.

Just sayin'.

Bet you bitches can't disprove it.

[free thoughtpolice]

Noah took baby dinosaurs with him on the ark.

Just sayin'.

Bet you bitches can't disprove it.

You seem wise in the ways of science; can you tell me whether T-Rex was kosher or unclean?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Noah took baby dinosaurs with him on the ark.

Just sayin'.

Bet you bitches can't disprove it.

You seem wise in the ways of science; can you tell me whether T-Rex was kosher or unclean?

Do trilobites count as shellfish?

[another lurker]

Noah took baby dinosaurs with him on the ark.

Just sayin'.

Bet you bitches can't disprove it.

You seem wise in the ways of science; can you tell me whether T-Rex was kosher or unclean?

Do trilobites count as shellfish?

I read that as 'tribbles'

And I'm like hey...Tribble is here! Case closed! The bible is true!

[Ericb]

The Bible is much more effective when rendered in Leggo figures.

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_la ... 13-15.html

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I love the Brick Testament! Especially the plague of frogs, and when the Holy Spirit comes over Mary.

But it looks like the creator is now trying to sell it to religious families. Hmm: mere avarice; or a devious plan to undermine religious indoctrination?

[rpguest]

Coyne does a very good takedown of "Sophistimacated Theologiciacans" from time to time, proving that they are as full of the same shit

Yes of course he proves it. Like Robbie above proved that miracles can't happen.

Lesser beings would make good and perhaps even compelling arguments, but Coyne can prove it, like the Pythagorean Theorem.

I really do wonder why people believe in the Bible. Provided you are left with no supporting evidence whatsoever, you have no reason whatsoever to believe in anything the Bible claims. There is no way around it, and no mountain of theology and wordplay can change that (fairly simple) fact. Even Sophisticated Theology™ can be shown to rest on false (or entirely unsupported) premises making it both tedious and pointless to argue about it. It's like beginning with “suppose 2+3 is 8” and then going on and writing an ultra complex formula, all well thought out and reasoned flawlessly that π was 137. It still not make it true. A theologian might insist that in his crude assumptions 342+882 is actually 666 the number of the beast! Checkmate atheist! But it remains unimpressive and it remains a mystery why Theologians seem incapable of understanding it.

Even if there was, say, a divine Ground of Being, derived from wordplay, how do you know it's the Biblical God? Even if there was a Prime Mover, likewise, how do you establish that it had to do with the Bible? And of course, once you accept something needs a Prime Mover, or Ground of Being, the question arises what's the ground of being of God, or what caused God and likewise, if you accept these things, why can't it be the Universe itself the Ground of Being or the First Mover?

why one non-evidenced scripture over any other

and when claiming evidence to differentiate your preferred scripture from the others, how can you ever fall back to espoused non-evidentiary faith as reasoning? it unravels everything back to that question

as well, bring scripture certainly doesn't matter, its just focusing on the theological direction

by what process do you believe anything, and when and where and why are you willing to adopt double standards?

[heddle]

I happened to come across Matt Cavanaugh's comment on Coyne's blog:

I’m enjoying a running debate with a biblical literalist troll by the name of Heddle, who admits that there’s no rational proof of God; you just get a message. If you don’t heed the message, you’re a “jackass” or an “idiot.” (Well, at least, per heddle, I am.)

Mr. Heddle doggedly refuses to answer straightforward … err, “simplistic” questions like, “is God Love?”, or “was it wrong for God to command genocide?” Instead, he tells us what the “actual question” ought to be, then refuses to answer even that, pleading that it’s all so very “nuanced.”

Despite Heddle’s mad dodgeball skillz, he did finally let it slip that exterminating the Amalekites, or nuking Sodom & Gomorrah, or children being mauled by bears, is piddly dink compared to the eternal fires of hell. So quit y’r whinin’, QED.

And if you simplistic jackasses can’t see that, it’s not heddle’s fault.

Unbelievable.

1) These comments were on a thread (this thread) that you created and labeled "Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Heddle". So I am a troll on the thread created specifically for a discussion of my theology. Well, if so it is not the textbook trolling--for that I refer you to your perfect example of textbook trolling on the fine tuning thread.

2) If you had an IQ over 50 you'd know that I am not a biblical literalist. I have affirmed an old earth (which can be inferred by anyone from my fine-tuning comments, if nothing else. The fine-tuning of the universe to make heavy elements makes no sense if the universe isn't old enough to have supernovae seeding space with the building blocks of life) and evolution. There is no point on this thread or any thread where I claim to be a literalist.

3) I have never said (show me once, asshole) that if you do not heed the message from god you are a jackass and/or an idiot. I have called you those--because you are, independent of whether you responded to the gospel call. I applied them to you on the basis of the quality of your comments, not on the basis of your atheism.

4) I answered the question about "Is God Love" about a thousand times-- that God's love is not infinite (ask Esau) and that is evident from the fact that he condemns some to eternal torment.

5) I didn't let anything "slip", and I didn't compare (as any reasonable person can gather for himself from reading) hell to genocide as a way to make light of the genocide--I pointed it out as way to say that if you really want to go after god as a monster, you should go after the fact that he sends people to hell, because that's infinite. Just as I pointed out that if you want to go after supernatural miracles, you should go after the big one--creation of the universe, not the little ones, like walking on water. Those points may be arguable, but they are not "letting slip."

You are a pathetic, stupid, lying, attention whore. You run, so manly, to another blog (Coyne's) to brag, and seek affirmation and validation, about how you are beating-up on an idjit theist. (You don't even provide a link back) You are worse than anyone I have encountered on Pharyngula. By comparison to you, Nerd is both stunningly honest and an intellectual giant.

[KiwiInOz]

snippety snip

By comparison to you, Nerd is both stunningly honest and an intellectual giant.

That's got to burn. :lol:

Like many here, I don't find your (or any) theological argument for the existence of God to be compelling - "God:QED". Aneris was spot on when she noted that when the base assumption is false or unsupported, the rest is irrelevant window dressing. This to me is theological discussion.

This being said, I find religious beliefs to be a fascinating area worthy of anthropological, sociological, political, or literary study. Religious beliefs say much about the human condition, and the respective god/s reflect the society.

Further, I've seen you around the traps for many years now and believe that you sincerely and rationally believe in your creator-redemptive God. I disagree with Matt that you are a troll. He is just annoyed that you haven't bowed to his superior powers of reasoning and logic, and converted.

Keep on keeping on, Heddle. It's good to be alive.

[free thoughtpolice]

heddle wrote:

There is no point on this thread or any thread where I claim to be a literalist.

How do you determine what should be taken as metaphor or a given as fact?
Also are there errors in the Bible?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

You are a pathetic, stupid, lying, attention whore.

This must be from the part of the bible that says, "Insult thy neighbor."

Fuck, heddle! That comment at WEIT must be like a month old. Y U troll teh atheist blogs? Get a fucking life. Get a dog, and throw it sticks. Go play outside.

Run along, now. Bye.

[heddle]

heddle wrote:

There is no point on this thread or any thread where I claim to be a literalist.

How do you determine what should be taken as metaphor or a given as fact?
Also are there errors in the Bible?

There are certainly errors in any bible that I have access to.The inerrancy of scripture would apply only to the original autographs, none of which survived. We all rely on the hope/belief that the essentials--the gospel--have been transmitted accurately and that any errors are in the weeds.

As to how I interpret...I’ll assume (probably to my regret) that was a serious question.

There is of course no bullet-proof way. The first thing to note is rarely stated: that I try to understand the bible to my satisfaction, not yours or anyone else’s. To that end I try to find a self-consistent interpretation—that is I look at the whole rather than the passage. So my standard is not proof that an interpretation is correct, but whether I can fit it in a holistic sense—perhaps requiring some adjustment of my overall view. And the measuring stick is plausibility. I don’t claim with certainty (even to myself) that a passage must mean what I think it means to make it fit—to satisfy myself I look for a certain threshold of plausibility.

There are some underlying guidelines:

1) You acknowledge the bible is a book and like any other book in can employ all figures of speech. For example you dismiss obvious metaphors (Jesus is a vine) as being literal. You allow for descriptive speech to be used (the sun rose) without it meaning the bible is teaching geocentricism. (Which doesn’t mean that the writers did not believe in geocentricism, they might have, but you understand, or try to, that there is nothing in scripture that teaches that as a fact—it is used descriptively, like we do today.)

2) You accept that parables were meant to portray simple truths, not literal reality. Essentially nothing in a parable should be taken literally—they should just be understood as illustrating something like a lesson, for example, about the evil of covetousness (the Rich Fool.)

3) You always go back to the Hebrew or Greek and see if there are (plausible) alternative interpretations—and even understand English anachronisms. This is especially important for the King James—where at the time, for example, evil was not just the opposite of good, but also the opposite of peaceful—i.e., evil could also be used for chaos. Similarly you understand that for the King James translators unicorn did not mean the mythical creature.

4) You understand that the writing is Eastern, not Western. For example—still today but definitely in ancient writing, the eastern style of quoting someone including paraphrasing (without saying so up front) where in the west when we quote someone we do our best to reproduce the exact words. Western style is also much more careful about numerical precision and temporal precision. In looking at (legitimate) alternative translations you consider they fact that a word might have been chosen contrary to science because the translator didn't know (or like) the science and had no reason to choose the alternative--which may be consistent with the science. For example--calling bats "birds." The translation could legitimately have been "flying things." Well, the translators did not know modern taxonomy (which isn't written in stone anyway) so it was not unreasonable for them to choose "birds".

5) You realize that different cultures were vying for dominance. So one writer must use “the nth hour” in the way the Romans would (like us) and others like the Jews did (starting at sunset.)

6) You respect genre. Some of the bible uses Jewish poetry and forms, like parallelism. Some of the books are in eastern apocalyptic style which is heavily into symbolism. So an apocalyptic book like Daniel would contain more figurative passages than, say Paul’s epistles.

7) You allow for the fact that people have messed with the bible--at least slightly. For example the story of the woman caught in adultery, and Jesus writing in the sand, as beloved as it is, is not found in the earliest manuscripts and so probably is not canonical. Nor (thankfully) is the Marcan appendix that deals with snake-handling. That is not in the earliest manuscripts. In this regard you give more weight to the recent scholarly translations (that are based on older extant manuscripts) than older translations, like the KJV, that used the newer Greek manuscripts available at the time. Also translators learn more and more about biblical Hebrew and Greek so they are simply more reliable.

I do all these things to make a self-consistent picture. If I try to fit something in I give it a smell test—if it looks like I have to interpret something in a way that doesn’t seem reasonably (to me) plausible, then I have to adjust my overall picture. But the bottom line is I am trying to satisfy myself, not anyone else.

[Søren Lilholt]

I do all these things to make a self-consistent picture. If I try to fit something in I give it a smell test—if it looks like I have to interpret something in a way that doesn’t seem reasonably (to me) plausible, then I have to adjust my overall picture. But the bottom line is I am trying to satisfy myself, not anyone else.

Which of the truth claims of Christianity do you find plausible, and why?

Do you believe, for example, that Jesus had magic powers?

[heddle]

I do all these things to make a self-consistent picture. If I try to fit something in I give it a smell test—if it looks like I have to interpret something in a way that doesn’t seem reasonably (to me) plausible, then I have to adjust my overall picture. But the bottom line is I am trying to satisfy myself, not anyone else.

Which of the truth claims of Christianity do you find plausible, and why?

I have no idea what you mean by this. You should provide specifics. For example, I have no idea if you think The earth is only thousands of years old to be in the category of a "truth claim of Christianity."

Do you believe, for example, that Jesus had magic powers?

Again I have no idea what you mean. If you are, in some cutesy way, asking whether I believe in the miracles, the answer is yes.

[free thoughtpolice]

heddle: Do you have a copy of the Bible where you cross out the obvious mistakes and interpolations, and if so would this commandment from Deuteronomy make it into the heddle Bible?

25:11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:
25:12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.

[heddle]

free thoughtpolice,

Yes. Why wouldn't it? The translation seems quite accurate. Did you read what I wrote above? It was not "toss out, willy-nilly, what you don't like."

[free thoughtpolice]

Why would a god, much less the God make such a ridiculous law? Was He beating up on Satan when Mrs. Satan hauled Him off him by His celestial orbs?
This sounds like the kind of thing the most backwards Taliban type would make up. For God to inspire a holy man to write something like this makes no sense. For a believer you have to accept that God is evil enough to punish the majority of the people that he created with eternal torment and silly enough to make up laws like this.