evilbible.com

[looking_forward]

i notice a lot of atheists using this site to back up their claims. i went to it and think it is great, and i dont see how it could immediatley cause theists to realize how silly their religion is. I have never seen a theist reply to this site at all (maybe because they know they cant argue with the perfect logic) but i would like to hear some theists respond to this and stop evading the question. The site is big, and i wont even say anything about the stuff related to the bible because the theists use their ace in the hole--mistranslation! mosty i would like to hear theists' opinions on this part in particular.

http://www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm

 

[KennyJC]

Well when shown how 'evil' the bible really is, they just end up hiding behind the apparent sound moral teaching of Jesus (or whoever wrote his lines).

This was none more obvious than when I watched a cardinal or a bishop (whatever he was) be interviewed on TV about some of the dodgy things the Bible said, and he blatantly evaded every difficult question by saying "I say to you, just focus on Jesus, because he is the most important bit".

If the Bible was there purely for some philisophical purpose and was regarded as figurative, I would have no problem. But it's not... even the moderates on this forum defend this book no matter what craziness can be extracted from it. At school, we were never allowed to read the Bible, only teachers and the priest could read it to us. Why is this? Later I learned it was because of some of the crazy things which God said in the Old testament, it's condoning of murder etc, as well as many obvious contradictions which were throughout the book itself.

When in the process of being indoctrinated: your abusers will be careful to portray it as true with no contradictions or immoral teachings. So you are left to grow up and find all of this out for yourself... Many people don't however. Why do you think different parts of the world have different religious beliefs?

When I argue with an American Christian on this forum, I always think that if this guy was born in Sweden, he'd probably be atheist, or if he was born in Saudi Arabia would probably be shouting "ALLAH AKBAR!" every time an infidel bites the dust.

 

[wsionynw]

i notice a lot of atheists using this site to back up their claims. i went to it and think it is great, and i dont see how it could immediatley cause theists to realize how silly their religion is. I have never seen a theist reply to this site at all (maybe because they know they cant argue with the perfect logic) but i would like to hear some theists respond to this and stop evading the question. The site is big, and i wont even say anything about the stuff related to the bible because the theists use their ace in the hole--mistranslation! mosty i would like to hear theists' opinions on this part in particular.

http://www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm

Looks interesting, I see many a thread opening up before me.....
Let us hope Lawdog has a good read of this website!

 

[Hapsburg]

Actually, the phrase would be "Allahu Akbar"

Anyway, evilbible.com is awesome. I have it bookmarked and use it as a reference.

 

[Jenyar]

What's interesting to me is that in looking up the links atheists have provided to it, I have found more than just a few factual errors (I won't go into its contradictions, because I don't think isn't trying to be consistent in content, just in message). Yet this doesn't stop atheists from revering its "perfect logic" or "infallible argument". By their own standards of what makes a text trustworthy, I don't see how they can keep referring to it.

Or is there such a thing as atheist fundamentalism?

 

[S.A.M.]

Or is there such a thing as atheist fundamentalism?

Its a human failing; anyone who feels they know the "truth" feels compelled to convince everyone else of it.

 

[Jenyar]

Its a human failing; anyone who feels they know the "truth" feels compelled to convince everyone else of it.

Even at the cost of their own integrity...

 

[perplexity]

Its a human failing; anyone who feels they know the "truth" feels compelled to convince everyone else of it.

failing?

Were this not so, with a need to argue through, what sort of truth would you have?

--- Ron.

 

[KennyJC]

Yet this doesn't stop atheists from revering its "perfect logic" or "infallible argument". By their own standards of what makes a text trustworthy, I don't see how they can keep referring to it.

I'm not sure if I have misunderstood you, but when referring to it being infallible I am stating the point: It is infallible to you, yet it say's all these things which any 21st century man must disagree with, hence you do not follow it the way it was intended as written.

Which begs the question why you do not regard something relevant as divine?

 

[KennyJC]

Or is there such a thing as atheist fundamentalism?

Why is someone an atheist fundamentalist if they quite rightly bring attention to how parts of the bible are immoral and other parts far-fetched to the point where it can't be truth.

 

[Jenyar]

Why is someone an atheist fundamentalist if they quite rightly bring attention to how parts of the bible are immoral and other parts far-fetched to the point where it can't be truth.

When they insist on flawed arguments to do it; When they rely on websites like evilbible.com even though they show no indication of being scholarly or historically supported, and even their "logical" arguments seem to be little more than arguments from outrage. You can spot a fundamentalist when they try to make their points valid by overwhelming someone with emotion.

The kind of "righteous indignation" it tries to provoke is no less self-righteous than it might be at the other end of the equation.

I'm not sure if I have misunderstood you, but when referring to it being infallible I am stating the point: It is infallible to you, yet it say's all these things which any 21st century man must disagree with, hence you do not follow it the way it was intended as written.

I was referring to evilbible.com, obviously, and it seems far from infallible to me. But looking_forward calls it "perfect logic"...

I have no problem with its intention or its message - that's clear enough. My problem is that if atheists consistently applied the "21st century" criteria by which they disbelieve the Bible's message, they should believe evilbible's claims with even more difficulty (since it was actually written in the 21st century). I showed you the factual errors it made regarding the meaning of "consecration". Especially considering the way it doesn't hesitate to push the interpretation that it refers to human sacrifice, as self-evident and logical, doesn't that make you just a little skeptical about this as an informed, trustworthy source? Even its supporters must surely be able to recognize that it's far from objective.

 

[Jenyar]

failing?

Were this not so, with a need to argue through, what sort of truth would you have?

--- Ron.

There's a difference between following through with an argument and pushing one through at all costs.

 

[charles cure]

When they insist on flawed arguments to do it; When they rely on websites like evilbible.com even though they show no indication of being scholarly or historically supported, and even their "logical" arguments seem to be little more than arguments from outrage. You can spot a fundamentalist when they try to make their points valid by overwhelming someone with emotion.

i have to say, i have looked at the evilbile website once for about ten seconds. i didn't find anything there that i hadn't already thought of. although i must say the particular link that was originally posted here does not critique the bible per se, but the whole concept of god as it has been defined roundly by christians themselves. what the article is saying is that thise god so clearly violates any rules of logic that all you have to do is think about it a little and realize that at the very least the god portrayed in the bible is self-nullifying and impossible. you may not like it, but the fact remains that you don't have to be a scholar to recognize bullshit when its peddled as fact. i think that the points in that article were relatively well thought out and constitute an age old attack on the christian god that none in the church or anywhere else have ever bothered to address in a way that makes any sense. most responses that i've seen to critiques like that consist of "you don't know god because he hasn't revelaed himself to you yet", which to me basically means "you haven't abdicated your ability to reason yet to the point where you think impossible things are possible".

The kind of "righteous indignation" it tries to provoke is no less self-righteous than it might be at the other end of the equation.

I was referring to evilbible.com, obviously, and it seems far from infallible to me.

I have no problem with its intention or its message - that's clear enough. My problem is that if atheists consistently applied the "21st century" criteria by which they disbelieve the Bible's message, they should believe evilbible's claims with even more difficulty (since it was actually written in the 21st century). I showed you the factual errors it made regarding the meaning of "consecration". Especially considering the way it doesn't hesitate to push the interpretation that it refers to human sacrifice, as self-evident and logical, doesn't that make you just a little skeptical about this as an informed, trustworthy source? Even its supporters must surely be able to recognize that it's far from objective.

while i agree that evilbible is neither objective or authoritative, whether its arguments are infallible or not is irrelevant. its arguments at the least bring up valid points, and they are certainly not the first people to make such arguments and be brushed off by believers as unimportant because they obviously have an anti-christian agenda. many relatively similar questions to the ones posed by evilbible will continue to plague christians for many years to come unless they find a way to develop a response to them that makes some kind of sense or applies to reality.

 

[Jenyar]

what the article is saying is that thise god so clearly violates any rules of logic that all you have to do is think about it a little and realize that at the very least the god portrayed in the bible is self-nullifying and impossible. you may not like it, but the fact remains that you don't have to be a scholar to recognize bullshit when its peddled as fact.

What the article is saying is that the God of their understanding violates their rules. The logic of morality depends on what we might do under the circumstances, and we're not God.

Logic can be used any way you wish depending on the first assumptions. Have you bothered to look at the assumptions made in each argument?

Argument 1: "What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it" - why not? Because we crave equilibrium?
Argument 2: "God could ... just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness" - The "God could have made square circles, square circles don't exist, therefore God doesn't exist" argument;
Argument 3: "A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer is impossible" - A compassionate judge can also punish, or he would not be a judge, nor "compassionate", just permissive.
Argument 4: "Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment" - Are offenses measured by time or by gravity? A murder may take only a second; are murders only punished for a second?
Argument 5: "If we are to believe the Christians, all of these people will perish in the eternal fire for not believing in Jesus" - But if you believe Jesus, God knows who belongs to Him and who doesn't.
Argument 6: "The Bible is supposedly God's perfect Word" - maybe it's just His sufficient Word, perfectly tailored to its message and intention.
Argument 7: "No two men will ever agree what this perfect word of God is supposed to mean" - millions already agree about the core meaning.

The weight of the arguments seem to be that "if we can't imagine it, it can't exist": "An omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect God who experiences emotion is impossible" because "Humans experience longing for things we lack". It's seems perfectly logical, but it isn't, because it assumes God wants and does things for the same reasons we do. Don't give logic too much credit - it's just a tool.

i think that the points in that article were relatively well thought out and constitute an age old attack on the christian god that none in the church or anywhere else have ever bothered to address in a way that makes any sense. most responses that i've seen to critiques like that consist of "you don't know god because he hasn't revelaed himself to you yet", which to me basically means "you haven't abdicated your ability to reason yet to the point where you think impossible things are possible".

Then you've been consulting more websites with popular opinion. The reason scholars of either side don't bother with the arguments presented there is because they don't stand up to the scrutiny of scholars.

I might think my arguments are relatively well thought out and you might think the same about your, or their, arguments, but that just comes down to "I think they/we are right". We not only rest on our own assumptions, but also on theirs.

while i agree that evilbible is neither objective or authoritative, whether its arguments are infallible or not is irrelevant. its arguments at the least bring up valid points, and they are certainly not the first people to make such arguments and be brushed off by believers as unimportant because they obviously have an anti-christian agenda. many relatively similar questions to the ones posed by evilbible will continue to plague christians for many years to come unless they find a way to develop a response to them that makes some kind of sense or applies to reality.

Sure it brings up valid points. Nothing a serious Christian who wants to be honest with himself wouldn't have asked himself - and shouldn't be afraid to consider. Doesn't it occur to you that the arguments are brushed off because someone who has studied the Bible seriously - or even better, has a personal relationship with God - might have discovered the flaws, assumptions and strawmen in them?

It's much easier to question something than to believe it, but simply questioning something doesn't make it unbelievable. Though many people seem to assume so - "if it can be doubted to be true, it probably isn't". It's called a skeptical bias, and it's great to make oneself feel safe from believing something false "by accident", but it's also great to keep oneself from believing anything, whether it's true or not.

If you really want to be able to say you have considered the Christian's answers to those philosophical questions, first read something like Hans Küng's Does God exist? Don't simply assume that because you can't find the problems with those arguments, or satisfactory answers here on sciforums or from the Christian next door, that there aren't any. If you want to be skeptical, at least be consistently skeptical.

 

[charles cure]

What the article is saying is that the God of their understanding violates their rules. The logic of morality depends on what we might do under the circumstances, and we're not God.

humans are the only beings capable of defining and acting on moral principles. we have only our own abilities to judge the moral from the amoral, so considering that i do not believe in god, i judge the christian concept of god by the logic of human morality, because there is no other way.

Logic can be used any way you wish depending on the first assumptions. Have you bothered to look at the assumptions made in each argument?

not every argument presented on the site no, but the ones in the article, yes. firstly, there is no apparent "right" or "wrong" assumptions to make about christianity. any assumption can be justified by scripture, many others can be justified with past practice of the church in one of its many forms. a protestant has only to read the bible and decide what is relevant and what is not in order to form their own christianity. that, in my opinion, is its biggest flaw.
in terms of the article, are you challenging the assumption that christians portray their god as omnipotent, omnipresent, and benevolent? if not, how do you think that that does not conflict with the reality of what is presented to you everyday?

Then you've been consulting more websites with popular opinion. The reason scholars of either side don't bother with the arguments presented there is because they don't stand up to the scrutiny of scholars.

that's not true, some of these same arguments originated with the rise of biblical scholarship. when you flagrantly violate logicv, people tend to take notice and ask questions. the reason bible scholars don't debate these points is because they are debating the meaning of words and verses in the bible, they are debating translations, they are debating context. all of this relies on an assumption that the bible says something worth knowing to begin with, so of course those people don't dispute it on its face. there are however plenty of people who could be considered scholarly who raise these questions and are met with no response from the religious community.

Sure it brings up valid points. Nothing a serious Christian who wants to be honest with himself wouldn't have considered, and wouldn't be afraid to consider. Doesn't it occur to you that the arguments are brushed off because someone who has studied the Bible seriously - or even better, has a personal relationship with God - might have discovered the flaws, assumptions and strawmen in them?

no, it occurs to me that people who want to believe will find a way to justify their beliefs even if they have to do some fantastic mental acrobatics to acheive it.
in addition to that, i've met people who consider themselves serious christians who would not ever even countenance such a questioning of the validity of their god, personally or publicly. i think a lot of people are raised with religion and never question it, never challenege it, and rarely scratch the surface in terms of critically examining it. the clergy may have found what they consider to be "loopholes" in terms of these issues, but what it all comes down to is that christian belief is a mass of shifting, poorly defined interpretational rules and doctrines. if reality contradicts accepted religious belief, the believers often eschew that particular piece of dogma as having always been minor or unimportant when compared to the other aspects of their belief which cannot be refuted beyond the tiniest shadow of a doubt.

 

[Jenyar]

humans are the only beings capable of defining and acting on moral principles. we have only our own abilities to judge the moral from the amoral, so considering that i do not believe in god, i judge the christian concept of god by the logic of human morality, because there is no other way.

Like Paul said: "When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it." Your logic might not apply to the circumstances by which you judge God, and what would your judgement mean then?

not every argument presented on the site no, but the ones in the article, yes. firstly, there is no apparent "right" or "wrong" assumptions to make about christianity. any assumption can be justified by scripture, many others can be justified with past practice of the church in one of its many forms. a protestant has only to read the bible and decide what is relevant and what is not in order to form their own christianity. that, in my opinion, is its biggest flaw.

You're painting the worst case scenario. Not everyone lives or believes that way - in fact, Christian faith doesn't get along well with relativism. Something that only justifies itself has broken with its history and tradition - not kept it. What is relevant depends on what has happened, and why it's happened, and to find relevancy you have to examine and interpret history. There's no other way.

But you might be confusing explanation with justification. Many things are, and have been, condemned. Reasons are not excuses. The Bible isn't as vague as the people who wish to have it on their side, and Jesus was even less vague.

in terms of the article, are you challenging the assumption that christians portray their god as omnipotent, omnipresent, and benevolent? if not, how do you think that that does not conflict with the reality of what is presented to you everyday?

I challenge the assumption that everybody knows how God should be omnipresent, omnipotent and benevolent. The reality we live in is at least as complex as any of those concepts, and equally misrepresented by generalizations, simplifications and pat definitions.

that's not true, some of these same arguments originated with the rise of biblical scholarship. when you flagrantly violate logic, people tend to take notice and ask questions. the reason bible scholars don't debate these points is because they are debating the meaning of words and verses in the bible, they are debating translations, they are debating context. all of this relies on an assumption that the bible says something worth knowing to begin with, so of course those people don't dispute it on its face. there are however plenty of people who could be considered scholarly who raise these questions and are met with no response from the religious community.

I have some contact with such a religious community, and none of those questions are new, so we may be arguing past each other here. "These points" isn't precise enough to indicate what has or hasn't been addressed. And if you wish to argue that language and context isn't relevant to meaning, there's nothing I can say to you. Literally.

no, it occurs to me that people who want to believe will find a way to justify their beliefs even if they have to do some fantastic mental acrobatics to acheive it.

I agree, and it's a characteristic of fundamentalism. Evilbible looks like such an example.

in addition to that, i've met people who consider themselves serious christians who would not ever even countenance such a questioning of the validity of their god, personally or publicly. i think a lot of people are raised with religion and never question it, never challenege it, and rarely scratch the surface in terms of critically examining it.

And ironically, that's why their faith will probably not last very long. I've been raised as a Christian, and I've been taught to examine every claim. I can't imagine how someone who doesn't know what or why he believes can have any kind of bearing on their faith. An unexamined faith is no better than wishful thinking, and no more reasonable than the next conspiracy theory.

the clergy may have found what they consider to be "loopholes" in terms of these issues, but what it all comes down to is that christian belief is a mass of shifting, poorly defined interpretational rules and doctrines. if reality contradicts accepted religious belief, the believers often eschew that particular piece of dogma as having always been minor or unimportant when compared to the other aspects of their belief which cannot be refuted beyond the tiniest shadow of a doubt.

Loopholes? Maybe what throws you is that Christianity is supposed to be the reflection of relationships - the relationship between people and God, and between people among themselves. All the rules are geared towards securing those relationships, not putting them into little easily defined boxes. It's when people lose sight of this that they start veering into one direction or another, materialism, fundamentalism, superstition, egotism... Attempts to find security somewhere other than in those relationships. If it's true, it will be real, and nothing else could take its place; if it's not true, then no amount of mental gymnastics will make it real.

 

[KennyJC]

It's much easier to question something than to believe it

If you include religion in this then I disagree. Religion was/is never questioned in any majority. Only really within the last century has some parts of the world wised up. But largely, it remains much easier to believe without question.

but simply questioning something doesn't make it unbelievable.

That might be true, except when you question the son of God put on Earth only to ascend up to heaven after death.

You are full of such statements which are designed to sound logical whilst distracting from what it is you are actually talking about. I mean, it's not just God you believe in - you believe in the God the Bible tells us about.

 

[Jenyar]

If you include religion in this then I disagree. Religion was/is never questioned in any majority. Only really within the last century has some parts of the world wised up. But largely, it remains much easier to believe without question.

I take it you assume everybody who questions it, loses it.

That might be true, except when you question the son of God put on Earth only to ascend up to heaven after death.

You are full of such statements which are designed to sound logical whilst distracting from what it is you are actually talking about. I mean, it's not just God you believe in - you believe in the God the Bible tells us about.

The only reason the Bible exists is because certain people throughout history have believed in the same God. Without that history, my "god" would be as likely (or unlikely) as any. I believe in a particular, living God, not a philosophical contruct - however simple and convenient that might be.

 

[charles cure]

Logic can be used any way you wish depending on the first assumptions. Have you bothered to look at the assumptions made in each argument?

first of all, let me address your little ex post facto editing job:

Argument 1: "What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it" - why not? Because we crave equilibrium?

to be perfect means to be without flaw. to exist as a perfect being necessarily implies that you cannot make a mistake. to be omniscient and omnipresent and eternal means to have knowledge of the future consequences of your every act. if you are to say that god created something imperfect on purpose, then he cannot also be benevolent considering that his omniscience would allow him to understand the suffering that would be perpetrated on his creation as a result of creating an imperfect world. get it now?

Argument 2: "God could ... just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness" - The "God could have made square circles, square circles don't exist, therefore God doesn't exist" argument;

well, god's existence violates all the rules of the universe that he supposedly created and ordered. don't you find that baffling?

Argument 3: "A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer is impossible" - A compassionate judge can also punish, or he would not be a judge, nor "compassionate", just permissive.

the human judge does not create the rules, only decides whether the rules have been applied fairly or whether they apply to the scenario at all. the christian god supposedly created the world and its rules. this makes him far more than a mere passive judge. your analogy fails.

Argument 4: "Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment" - Are offenses measured by time or by gravity? A murder may take only a second; are murders only punished for a second?

you appear to not understand the meaning of the word limited. humans measure an offence by how much damage would be caused to society if the act were permitted. since the right to murder at will would preclude the existence of human societies, it is punished as a very wieghty crime. in the bible though, people are damned for eating the wrong thing, or worshipping a statue of a cow because their real god doesn't care enough to show itself, and then becomes angry. that is an arbitrary system of rules and punishments that even we imperfect humans find repulsive. certainly it does not fit in with the concept of benevolence.

Argument 5: "If we are to believe the Christians, all of these people will perish in the eternal fire for not believing in Jesus" - But if you believe Jesus, God knows who belongs to Him and who doesn't.

something tells me you can't make a convincing case for that little concept. the fact is that christians justify their cruel religion by lulling themselves into the illusion that people who are good, yet don't believe, will be recognized as good by god and saved nonetheless.

Argument 6: "The Bible is supposedly God's perfect Word" - maybe it's just His sufficient Word, perfectly tailored to its message and intention.

well, that depends on what version of christianity you subscribe to. which one is right and which one is wrong? who is fit to judge? not us puny humans, at least not by your logic.

Argument 7: "No two men will ever agree what this perfect word of God is supposed to mean" - millions already agree with the core meaning.

but they dont agree on how to apply that meaning, or on many of thousands of tiny specifics. in addition to that, there are millions of christians in constant dispute over what the core meaning is.

The weight of the arguments seem to be that "if we can't imagine it, it can't exist" - "An omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect God who experiences emotion is impossible" because "Humans experience longing for things we lack". It's seems perfectly logical, but it isn't, because it assumes God wants and does things for the same reasons we do.
.

but that's the point that you fail to grasp. if god experiences these emotions and purposely creates a world, not out of longing, but simply because he wants to, then the suffering he created on purpose is at odds with his supposed benevolence. its quite simple.

 

[KennyJC]

I take it you assume everybody who questions it, loses it.

People enjoy questioning their faith, because it just gives them an excuse to find God again and get that emotional high. They aren't for real. The only people who genuinely question their faith with rational questions, could only then lose their faith.

The only reason the Bible exists is because certain people throughout history have believed in the same God. Without that history, my "god" would be as likely (or unlikely) as any. I believe in a particular, living God, not a philosophical contruct - however simple and convenient that might be.

It's unusual for you to say anything direct regarding your personal beliefs.

If your God is as likely or unlikely as any other God, why so confident in attatching to a particular God despite the impossible odds? Mankind has created thousands of Gods, and all of them are impossible even if a God really does exist.

This is why I see zero importance in the Bible beside the fact it interestingly documents what a few/many people believed all that time ago... But with regard to God, it is meaningless as is any other man-made document on God.

I think it is reasonable to wonder if there is a God or not. I personally don't think there is one, but to not only believe there is one, but know his motives, know of an afterlife, prayer, soul, and a God who concerns himself with everyday human affairs... That is just a lustful craving.