Is belief in a god just self-delusion?

[tony1]

Re: It does have its merits

*Originally posted by tiassa
And?*

You sensed the absence of a point, no doubt.
Exactly, no code means no nothing.
No evolution.

*And?*

Like I said, it was to difficult for you to understand.

*What does that have to do with anything?*

Hmmm.
I guess you forgot what your point was.
Evolution assumes living creatures, so dead creatures don't evolve, except into putrefaction.

*Your point being?*

Seeing as my point was agreeing with your point, I'm not surprised that you wouldn't recognize your own point.
I had some difficulty distinguishing it from nothingness, myself.

*Hmmm ...Easy enough?*

Well, definitely stupid enough.

*I'm sure that had a point?*

What a risky thing to say when we're discussing the top of your head.
And, yes, it does have a point.

*Thank you for reinforcing my point. I'm sure that if you go back and read the context of the citation you chose, you'd think differently about your response.*

Without that reinforcement, it would have been pure hot air.
Glad to help a little.
And I don't think I'd want to change my response, since your response is based on pot smoke.
You'll see what I mean if you ever reread your own post.

*Then you pushed it, and blew it.*

It's tough discussing the ToE.
The slightest joke, or comment of any kind, and it blows the ToE all to hell.

*And maybe by the time they get out of the water, they're not fish anymore?*

Presumably, you are talking about some slooooooooooooooow animals here.
You're thinking that these mythical fish/animals are going to take, what, like 20 million years to get out of the water.
Isn't that a little slow even for a total stoner like yourself?

BTW, where will they be mating while they are taking so long to get out of the water?
In the water, on the beach, or just at the waterline?

*Well, I prefer a deliberate joke to that crap you call debating. I admit, your way is really easy. You don't even have to think, it seems.*

It depends on the opposing side, so no, I don't think much when I'm debating you.

*I know more about where gods come from than you do. So there.*

I was thinking from an ontological perspective.
I agree that on a minute-by-minute basis, you are right up to speed.
A few tokes, and the gods and goddesses just float right on over.

*It's not like we couldn't see that one coming from a mile away, Einstein.*

Since you liked it so much...

He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
(Psalms 2:4, KJV).

I'd ponder that a bit, to find out what that might mean.
It doesn't mean the same as the laughing Buddha, you know.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Re: ... and thanks for all the fish

Tiassa,

Thanks for your reply.
Obviously I don't agree with your analasys, but i would also like to stop the bickering that occurs between my and yourself, because we are not going to see eye to eye.
If its alright by you, i would like to start a fresh new correspondence.

Below i have printed a couple of chapters out of the 'Srimad Bhagavatam,' which is a more detailed, description of the creation of the universe, from a spiritual scientific point of veiw.

Love

Jan Ardena.


DIVISIONS OF CREATION
CANTO 3 Ch.10

Sri Vidura said: O great sage, please let me know how Brahma the grandfather of the planetary inhabitants, created the bodies of the living entities from his own body and mind after the disappearance of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

O greatly learned one, kindly eradicate all my doubts, and let me know of all that I have inquired from you from
the beginning to the end.

Suta Goswami said: O son of Bhrgu, the great sage Maitreya Muni, thus hearing from Vidura, felt very much enlivened. Everything was in his heart, and thus he began to reply to the questions one after another.

The greatly learned sage Maitreya said: O vidura, Brahma thus engaged himself in penances for one hundred celestial years, as advised by the Personality of Godhead, and applied himself in devotional service to the Lord.

Thereafter Brahma saw that both the lotus on which he was situated and the water on which the lotus was growing were trembling due to a string, violent wind.

Long penance and transcendental knowledge of self-realization had matured Brahma in practical knowledge, and thus he drank the wind completely, along with the water.

Thereafter he saw that the lotus on which he was situated was spread throughout the universe, and he contemplated how to create all the planets, which were previously merged in that very same lotus.

Thus engaged in the service of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Brahma entered into the whorl of the lotus, and as it spread all over the universe he divided it into three divisions of worlds and later into fourteen divisions.

Lord Brahma is the most exalted personality in the universe because of his causeless devotional service unto the Lord in mature transcendental knowledge. He therefore created all the fourteen planetary divisions for inhabitation by the different types of living entities.

Vidura inquired from Maitreya: O my lord, O greatly learned sage, kindly describe eternal time, which is another form of the Supreme Lord, the wonderful actor. What are the symptoms of that eternal time? Please describe them to us in detail.

Maitreya said: Eternal time is the primeval source of the interactions of the three modes of material nature. It is unchangeable and limitless, and it works as the instrument of the Supreme Personality of Godhead for His pastimes in the material creation.

The cosmic manifestation is separated from the Supreme Lord as material energy by means of kala, (time) which is the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Lord. It is situated as the objective manifestation of the Lord under the influence of the same material energy of Vishnu.

This cosmic manifestation is as it is now, it was the same in the past, and it will continue in the same way in the future.

There are nine different kinds of creations besides the one which naturally occurs due to the interactions of the modes. There are three kinds of annihilations due to eternal time, the material elements and the quality of one’s work.

Of the nine creations, the first one is the creation of the mahat-tattva, or the sum total of the material ingredients, wherein the modes interact due to the presence of the Supreme Lord. In the second, the false ego is generated in which the material ingredients, material knowledge and material activities arise.

The sense perceptions are created in the third creation, and from these the elements are generated. The fourth creation is the creation of knowledge and of working capacity.

The fifth creation is that of the controlling deities by the interaction of the mode of goodness, of which the mind is the sum total. The sixth creation is the ignorant darkness of the living entity, by which the master acts as a fool.

All the above are natural creations by the external energy of the Lord. Now hear from me about the creations by Brahma, who is an incarnation of the mode of passion and who, in the matter of creation, has a brain like that of the Personality of Godhead.

The seventh creation is that of the immovable entities, which are of six kinds: the fruit trees without flowers, trees and plants which exist until the fruit is ripe, creepers, pipe plants, creepers which have no support, and trees with flowers and fruits.

The eighth creation is that of the lower species of life, and they are of different varieties, numbering twenty-eight. They are all extensively foolish and ignorant. They know their desirables by smell, but are unable to remember anything within the heart.

O purest Vidura, of the lower animals the cow, goat, buffalo, krishna-stag, hog, gavaya animal, deer, lamb and camel all have two hooves.

The horse, mule, ass, gaura, sarabha bison and wild cow all have only one hoof. Now you may hear from me about the animals who have five nails.

The dog, jackal, tiger, fox, cat, rabbit, sajaru, lion, monkey, elephant, tortoise, alligator, gosapa, etc., all have five nails in their claws. They are known as panca-nakhas, or animals having five nails.

The creation of the human beings, who stock their eatables in the belly, is the ninth in the rotation. In the human race, the mode of passion is very prominent. Humans are always busy in the midst of miserable life, but they think themselves happy in all respects.

The creation of the demigods is of eight varieties: (1) the demigods, (2) the forefathers, (3) the asuras, or demons, (4)the Gandharvas and Apsaras, or angels (5)the Yaksas and Raksasas, (6) the Siddhas, Caranas and Vidyadharas, (7) the Bhutas, Preas and Pisacas, and (8) the superhuman beings, celestial singers, stc. All are created by Brahma, the creator of the universe.

Now I shall describe the descendants of the Manus. The creator, Brahma, as the incarnation of the passion mode of the Personality of Godhead, creates the universal affairs with unfailing desires in every millennium by the force of the Lord’s energy.

CALCULATION OF TIME,
FROM THE ATOM
CANTO 3 Ch.11

The material manifestation’s ultimate particle, which is indivisible and not formed onto a body, is called the atom. It exists always as an invisible identity, even after the dissolution of all forms. The material body is but a combination of such atoms, but it is misunderstood by the common man.

Atoms are the ultimate state of the manifest universe. When they stay in their own forms without forming different bodies, they are called the unlimited oneness. There are certainly different bodies in physical forms, bur the atoms themselves form the complete manifestation.

One can estimate time by measuring the movement of the atomic combination of bodies. Time is the potency of the almighty Personality of Godhead, Hari, who controls all physical movement although He is not visible in the physical world.

Atomic time is measured according to its covering a particular atomic space. That time which covers the unmanifest aggregate of atoms is called thje great time.

The division of gross time is calculated as follows: two atoms make one double atom, and three double atoms make one hexatom. This hexatom is visible in the sunshine which enters through the holes of a window screen. One can clearly see that the hexatom goes up towards the sky.

The time duration needed for the integration of three trasarenus is called a truti, and one hundred trutis make one vedha. Three vedhas make one lava.

The duration of time of three lavas is equal to one nimesa, the combination of three nimesas makes one ksana, five ksanas combined together make one kastha, and fifteen kasthas make one laghu.

Fifteen laghus make one nadika, ehich is also called a danda. Two dandas make one muhurta, and six or seven dandas make one fourth of a day or might, according to human calculation.

The measuring pot for one nadika, or danda, can be prepared with a six-pala-weight (fourteen ounce) pot of copper, in which a hole is bored with a gold probe weighing four masa and measuring four fingers long. When the pot is placed on water, the time before the water overflows in pot is called one danda.

It is alculated that there are four prahares, which are also called yamas, in the day and four in the night of the human being. Similarly, fifteen days and nights are a fortnight, and there are two fortnights, white and black, in a month.

The aggregate of two fortnights is one month, and that period is one complete day and night for the Pita planets. Two of such months comprise one season, and six months comprise one complete movement of the sun from south to north.

Two solar movements make one day and night of the demigods and that combination of day and night is one complete calendar year for the human being. The human being has a duration of life of one hundred years.

Influential stars, planets, luminaries and atoms all over the universe are rotating in their respective orbits under the direction of the Supreme, represented by eternal kala.

There are five different names for the orbits of the sun, moon, stars and luminaries in the firmament, and they each have their own samvatsara.

O Vidura, the sun enlivens all living entities with his unlimited heat and light. He diminishes the duration of life of all living entities in order to release them from their illusion of material attachment, and he enlarges the path of elevation to the heavenly kindom. He thus moves in the firmament with great velocity, and therefore everyone should offer him respects once every five years with all ingredients of worship.



Vidura said: I now understand the life durations of the residents of the Pota planets and heavenly planets as well as that of the human beings. Now kindly inform me of the durations of life of those greatly learned living entities who are beyond the range of a kalpa.

O spiritually powerful one, you can understand the movements of eternal time, which is the controlling form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Because you are a self-realized person, you can see everything by the power of mystic vision.

Maitreya said: O Vidura, the four millenniums are called the Satya, Treta, Dwapara and Kali yugas. The aggregate number of years of all of these combined is equal to twelve thousand years of the demigods.

The duration of the Satya millennium equals 4,800 years of the demigods; the duratioin of the Treta millennium equals 3,600 years of the demigods; the duration of the Swapara millennium equals 2,400 years; and that of the Lali millennium is 1,200 years of demigods.

As aforementioned, one year of the demigods is equal to 360 years of the human beings, The duration of the Satya-yuga is therefore: 4,800 x 360, or 1,728,000 years.
The duration of the Treta-yuga is-------------------- 3,600 x 360, or 1,296,000 years.
The duration of the Dwapara- yuga is------ 2,400 x 360, or 864,000 years.
The duration of the Kali- yuga is------------- 1,200 x 360, or 432,000 years.

The transitional periods before and after every millennium, which are a few hundred years as aforementioned, are known as yuga-sndhyas, or the conjunctions of two millenniums, according to the expert astronomers. In those periods all kinds of religious activities are performed.

O Vidura, in the Satya millennium mankind properly and completely maintained the principles of religion, but in other millenniums religion gradually decreased by one part as irreligion was proportionately
admitted.

Outside of the three planetary systems (Svarga, Martya and Patala), the four yugas multiplied by one thousnd comprise one day on the planet of Brahma. A similar period comprises a night of Brahma, in which the creator of the universe goes to sleep.

After the end of Brahma’s night, the creatioin of the three worlds begins again in the daytime of Brahma, and they continue to exist through the life durations of fourteen concecutive Manus, or fathers of mankind.

Each and every Manu enjoys alife of a little more than seventy-one sets of four millenniums.

The duratiion of life of a Manu comprises seventy-one sets of four millenniums, as described in the Visnu Purana. The duration of life of ine Manu is about 852,000 years in the calculation of the demigods, or, in the calculation of human beings, 306,720,000 years.

After the dissolution of each and every Manu, the mex Manu comes in order, along with his descendants, who rule over the different planets; but the seven famous sages, and demigods like Indra and their followers, such as the Gandharvas, all appear simultaneously with Manu.

In the creation, during Brahma’s day, the tree planetary systems-Svarga, Martya and Patala-revolve, and the inhabitants, including the lower animals, human beings, demigods and Pitas, appear and disappear in terms of their fruitive activities.

In each and every change of Manu, the Supreme Personality of Godhead appears by manifesting His internal potency in different incarnations, as Manu and others. Thus He maintains the universe by discovered power.

When the night of Brahma ensues, all the three worlds are out of sight, and the sun and the moon are without glare, just as in the due course of an ordinary night.

The devastation thkes place due to the fire emanating from the mouth of Sankaresana, and thus great sages like Bhrgu and oter inhabitants of Maharloka transport themselves to janaloka, being distressed by the warmth of the blazing fire which rages through the three worlds below.
At the beginning of the devastation all the seas overflow, and hurricane winds blow very violently. Thus the waves of the seas become ferocious, and in no time at all the three worlds are full of water.

The Supreme Lord, the Personality of Godhead, lies down in the water on the seat of Ananta, with His eyes closed, and the inhabitants of the Janaloka planets offer their glorious prayers unto the Lord with folded hands.

Thus the process of the exhaustion of the duration of life exists for every one of the living beings, including Lord Brahma, One’s life endures for only one hundred years, in terms of the times in the different planets.

The one hundred years of Brahma’s life are divided into two, the first half and the second half, The first half of the duration of Brahma’s life is already over, and the second half is now current.

In the beginning of the first half of Brahma’s life, there was a millinnimm called Brahma-kalpa, wherein Lord Brahma appeared. The birth of the Vedas was simultaneous with Brahma’s birth.

The millennium which followed the first Brahma millennium is known as the Padma-kalpa because in that millennium the universal lotus flower grew out of the navel reservoir of water of the Personality of Godhead, Hari.

O descendant of Bharata, the first millennium in the second half of the life of Brahma is also known as the Varaha millennium because the Personality of Godhead appeared in that millennium as the hog incarnation.

The duratioin of the two parts of Braha’s life, as above mentioned, is calculated to be equal to one nimesa (less than a second) for the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is unchanging and unlimited and is the cause of all causes of the universe.

Eternal time is certainly the controller of different dimensions, from that of the atom up to the superdivisions of the duration of Brahma’s life; but, nevertheless, it is controlled by the Supreme. Time can control only those who are body conscious, even up to the Satyaloka or the other higher planets of the universe.

This phenomenal material world is expanded to a diameter of four billion miles, as a combination of eight material elements transformed onto sixteen further categories, within and without, as follows.

The layers of elements covering the universes are each ten times thicker than the one before, and all the universes clustered together appear like atoms in a huge combination.

The Supreme Persssonsality of Godhead, Sri Krishna, is therefore said to be the original cause of all causes. Thus the spiritual abode of Vishnu is eternal without a doubt, and it is also the abode of Maha-Vishnu, the origin of all manifestations.

 

[bdmart]

Far out, way out!!

 

[John Como]

A coupla subscribers to this particular thread, in my opinion, have become too obtuse, nasty and long-winded in support of indefensible and illogical faith. Cheers.

 

[Cris]

John,

Some of us can see no point in engaging in any further comments with such posters so there is a mechanism here that helps that process - control panel - ignore list.

When hostility becomes dominant and it is clear they have their own agendas, then why bother with them. There are others here who do present opposing views in a polite, freindly and civilized manner, and I would rather debate with them than have to deal with unnecessary vitriol all the time.

Cris

 

[John Como]

Cris, many thanks for cure of annoyances. Although I've worked with computers (particularly word processing) since even before they appeared on the retail market, my knowledge is quite limited and only recently was I informed of method(s) to block out ignorant and hostile e-mail subscribers.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by bdmart
Far out, way out!!

Why?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[John Como]

Srimad Bhagavatam

Colourful language, wonderful unpronouncable names, unscientific, spiritual hogwash. About 30 years ago, I was among a group immersed in this kind of stuff, and studied diligently before returning to a path of reason. Some folks enjoy wallowing in passages such as: "The devastation takes place due to the fire emanating from the mouth of Sankaresana, and thus great sages like Bhrgu and other inhabitants of Maharloka transport themselves to janoloka, being distressed by the warmth of the blazing fire which rages through the three worlds below."

But I ain't one of 'em.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I don't remember insulting you!

Originally posted by John Como
But I ain't one of 'em.

Thats fair enough, but do you have to be so insulting?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Teg]

*Originally posted by Teg
My eyes and ears.*

Teg, Teg, Teg, you're missing the point by so much that I think you've slipped into an alternate universe.

Your eyes and ears are what you used to arrive at your present conclusions.
What OTHER results do you have to verify the accuracy of your "eyes and ears?"

*No Tony1, that would be your logic.*

I use that logic to discuss things with atheists, i.e. it is borrowed, and from you.
What other method did you use to prove that the scientific method is a valid method?
So far, all you've done is assumed that it was valid.

*Case in point. Where is your evidence?*

You believe in evolution, with no evidence.
Furthermore, the "scientific method" you used to arrive at the ToE is itself unproven as a valid method for arriving at conclusions.

You call that a rebuttle? Step one: view phenomena, step two: read scientific theory that explains phenomena, step three: confirm theory through observation. I observe that I am standing still on a moving object, conclusion: something must be holding me here. Science offers me an explanation via a theory that hold uniform results. I observe that no matter where I stand the force exerted upon me is the same. Science tells me that this force is slightly greater or smaller, but with negligable difference.

I also observe that the bible is silent on the subject. History and science tells me that this book was written by primative people. I delve deeper, surely some must have been sophisticated. History describes these Greek/Roman fellows whose use of logic led them to correct conclusions about the shape and nature of Earth. While they were incorrect about a few details, they were more correct than primative bible fellows. Another observation: end of enlightened Roman people, fall of civilization and death of art harkened by Constantine's acceptance of christian religion. Conclusion: primative bible people had no awareness about their surroundings, only rants about cryptic moral positions.

Logic and its extrapolation: science win every time. In time perhaps, the world may catch up.

 

[John Como]

No insult intended

When I describe my political/sexual/religious background and disbelief, there is no intention to insult others. To a devoted atheist such as myself, belief in gods is self-delusion, fulfilling a complicated human need, period. When others insult my intelligence with their new or old-time religions, my response is often taken as caustic arrogance. Diplomacy, they tell me I gotta work on it, or forget about winning popularity contest.

 

[Teg]

John Como

But I ain't one of 'em.

Jan Ardena may have heightened sensitivities. Arrogance is not a trait I have seen you to display. That term may be more applicable to another person...

I am only saying that Jan Ardena seems to have some ideas differing to the majority. While in this respect I can relate, I can say that I too lack the sensibilities that might make one more inclined toward following those beliefs. Fringe or mainstream, religion is always the same. Person A says something coherent, and then person B takes every word after that as absolute truth. Perhaps such gullibility is labeled as faith because they are are gullible in synchronous.

That is why we have the ability of objective perspective. As long as we exercise this trait we will be safe from such lies and false promises.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by John Como
When I describe my political/sexual/religious background and disbelief, there is no intention to insult others.

So when you say,

I'm so used to being under attack from Christian blockheads.

or use the term,

, spiritual hogwash.

or when you say,

Unlike you, I don't respect people of faith. On the contrary, my automatic reaction is one of distaste.

You don’t think you are being insulting?
OK! We’ll see.

To a devoted atheist such as myself, belief in gods is self-delusion, fulfilling a complicated human need, period.

What is a devoted atheist?
Did you have to take some kind of vow?
Cats and dogs and hogs are also atheist.
Could they become devout?

When others insult my intelligence with their new or old-time religions…

I am not trying to insult you, but you’ve set yourself up on this one.
I have seen no evidence of any intelligence to insult, as you have not written anything of any real worth, as far as I can see, on this board.
So I don’t think you have any need to worry on that front.
Maybe you will prove me wrong, in your next post.

my response is often taken as caustic arrogance.

Now why am I not surprised.


Diplomacy, they tell me I gotta work on it…

Please listen to them.


Colourful language, wonderful unpronouncable names, unscientific, spiritual hogwash.

Maybe I should post some nice pictures. Would that help?

…and studied diligently before returning to a path of reason.

Unlike you, I don't respect people of faith. On the contrary, my automatic reaction is one of distaste.

Sounds like you have plenty of reasoning.


My only expectation is not to be bombarded by verbal and written fairytales of faith.

Like the atheistic theory of evolution.


The idea of soul, like a lotta other religious nonsense, was imagined in the brain,

I wasn’t aware that people imagined ‘in the brain,’ did you aquire this information when you became a ‘devout atheist,’ because it sounds just like the ‘hogwash’ that most atheists spout.

Originally posted by Teg
I am only saying that Jan Ardena seems to have some ideas differing to the majority.

Good choice of words Teg, it seems to differ but I can assure you everything is relative.

While in this respect I can relate, I can say that I too lack the sensibilities that might make one more inclined toward following those beliefs.

What makes you think you have to follow.
The intelligent thing to do is to have a philosophical debate, that way you will see just how silly and futile the atheistic concept of ‘evolution’ is.
Then you can make your own mind up. Following blindely, is both stupid and animalistic.

Fringe or mainstream, religion is always the same. Person A says something coherent, and then person B takes every word after that as absolute truth.

If that’s how you see it, then it is hardly surprising that you don’t understand God consciousness.

Perhaps such gullibility is labeled as faith because they are are gullible in synchronous.

You have an idea of gullibility and no idea of faith.
You are gullible and have no faith.

That is why we have the ability of objective perspective. As long as we exercise this trait we will be safe from such lies and false promises.

You mean as long as you remain in the dark, you will be safe from the nasty old sun.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Tiassa]

Two cents on blockheads

Jan Ardena

So when you say,

I'm so used to being under attack from Christian blockheads

I just wanted to ask why you include yourself with the Christian blockheads? Every psychospiritual movement suffers myriad levels of intelligence and idiocy among its followers. Even the most fundamentalist and ridiculous Christian faiths still attract smart minds: consider the number of MD's who are also SDA's.

Not all Christians are blockheads in the same way not all alcoholics are violent and dangerous. Christianity is a choice that people undertake; even if one's family raised them to be utterly unyielding, there is a point as an adult when each person must choose to either be part of the world or not. To choose mastery of the world, as Christianity does, is not to choose to be part of the world.

There are those who think that the spread of Christianity actually wins humanity something. These people I find most often among quieter sects such as the Society of Friends. But even they have their blockheads. Far and away, what we see in Tony1, KalvinB and a couple others is about on par for the more consistent manifestations of Christianity in my life. Even those living associations which resemble the exchanges I have with Taken eventually break down over some idea or another. But part of it is whether or not communication is possible. Some of our Christan posters embody the state of mind among Christians whereby the faith becomes a social and therefore human detriment. And these are the blockheads of that faith. I agree entirely with John Como about the amount of spiritual hogwash put up by such blockheads. One of the tragedies of this situation, however, is that the expected unity of the body of Christ incites some faithful to defend poor interpretations of Christianity.

Take fundamentalism, for instance. Fundamentalism, by its popular definitions, includes religious blockheads by the boatload. But let's take a look at the criteria for funamentalism set by the fundamentalists. From Renau's translation of Reisebrodt's Pious Passions:

Fundamentalism was coined in 1920 by Curtis Lee Laws, the editor of a Baptist periodical called the Watchman-Examiner. He used the term to designate a broad conservative movement made up of various groups within American Protestantism. It stated its position in a series of brochures, "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth", which appeared between 1910 and 1915. Published by leading conservvative theologians of the time, approximately three million of these tracts were disseminated. Sixty-four authors--theologians, preachers, and missionaries--contributed ninety articles, which discussed contested points of dogma primarily in defense of biblical literalism.

This new movement represented a minimal consensus among various conservative positions rather than an independent, closed theological system. Unanimity was founded on five fundamentals of faith. The most important point was the infallibility of the Bible, which was considered the verbally inspired word of God and consequently was to be interpreted literally, not symbolically. The other four principles of faith--the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, Christ's proxy atonement of sin, and the Second Coming--were concerned with making precise claims of biblical literalism. The selection of these elements was in no way accidental; theologically, they represented fundamentalism unified opposition to the modern biblical criticism of liberal theology and the socialist reformist theology of the Social Gospel. Beyond that, the fundamentalist camp unified opposing currents, postmillenarian as wel as premillenarian, religious nationalist as well as pacifist. (11)

Now, I consider fundamentalist adherence to five such points as the basis for truth in the living endeavor quite blockheaded. I can even be critical of these fundamentalist points in the company of, say, Quakers, who know that, despite the common fundamentals of fundamentalist Christianity, they are not the subject of such statements. So that when I'm furious at an event in society, and refer to the destruction of fundamentalism, these people well understand that they are not violent and, if they choose to undertake the fundamentalist part, usually take the time to rhetorically separate the common points of fundamentalist agreement from those not common. In the end, such an approach has helped me to understand a great deal about the differences 'twixt Christians. They're quite aware of what the term fundamentalist brings, but rather than seeking out a conflict, they choose to let the issue come to them; once in their house, the issue can quickly be resolved.

Using fundamentalism and Quakers as an analogy, Jan, why do you include yourself among the religious blockheads? It seems to me that you're stretching by asking the basis of two quotations from different discussions.

Is it that you're Christian? Well, you post Vedic texts, so that shows that you're not quite, say ... Tony1? Do you believe those texts literally? Without any clarifying comment, what are we supposed to think?

What I'm after, in the end, is that you're only a blockhead if you choose to be. Has it occurred to you that the hogwash to which Mr Como refers may have nothing to do with the philosophies you present? He is speaking of his whole life in those generalizations, and if the generalization is based on different traits than your own, I would ask that you accept the classification of blockheads and, in search of that Christian compassion, attempt to understand what about the experience leads one to conclude blockheaded hogwash of spiritualism. As even Teg noted, your ideas differ from the central vein. You seem to have taken some offense to that, choosing instead to classify yourself with the more blockheaded majority that has so many of this forum's atheists frustrated. If the Christians at this forum don't want to be included in such sweeping generalizations as blockheaded and hogwash then perhaps they should start showing something other than the traits which compel people to such conclusions. Posters of this forum's history, like Lori, used to remind me that not all Christians are "the same" (e.g.--not all Christians are blockheads); the tragedy of that claim is that she never really demonstrated it, and more often than not, when she lost her temper, she made herself out to be a blockhead.

What I'm after is that you're obviously not the norm, Jan: Why do you choose to downgrade yourself to that level? A few times we've come to blows on things that I think neither of us thought should have gotten that loud. Why? Because we both seem to be reading that norm in each other. Think of it this way: no Christian ever offers me Vedic texts to give detail to the human relationship with God. When John Como speaks of blockheads, I like to think I know approximately where he's coming from. The only real blockheaded traits you show evaporate in the confusion of what you're presenting. So far all we can tell about you is that you're as arrogant as the next guy, and that you devote much thought to God. Neither of these necessarily qualify you as a blockhead. Did you ever notice how some spiritualities claim to benefit people (collectively) while the adherents seem to focus on the selves? There must be some larger involvement to this than the self, or else society and all its rules--including those established by the religions which governed and aided society--become pointless, and God is reduced to a petty taskmaster with nothing better to do than f--k with life on Earth. The blockheads don't understand this larger part. I can guarantee John Como that many a fine, fine Christian has slipped right by him in his day, and that many a fine, fine atheist has seemed to be religious. I'm quite sure that those religious people that slipped by aren't blockheads, or else he would have noticed. And those atheists seeming religious? Well, that is pretty blockheaded, isn't it? (Seriously, undereducated atheism is as dangerous as undereducated theism; the point is that the common dimension is undereducated. Without education, people have the tendency to do the same things to any idea: internalize, project, justify a priori, fight. )

What it comes down to is that there is an element of truth in John Como's generalizatons. Especially if, as we cannot at this time know, such blockheaded hogwash dominates the data set relevant to the issue. In that sense, I know the feeling. It is my persistent hope in human nature that compels me to even bother with that menace called Christianity. If I merely assumed, as they did, the darkness of being born into sin, I would be prepared to expect the worst out of people, and thus would have stopped communicating, and possibly proactively worked to destroy Christianity. The data set by which my perceptions and expectations are colored is a dreary one, indeed, where religions are concerned. Perhaps it is God's will, then, that you be the aberration from Mr Como's data set? Perhaps it is God's will, then, that such not be the aberration, but the standard? God demands faith, logic demands demonstration. One can never demonstrate the existence of God, but one can demonstrate quite clearly what belief in God earns the individual and the society in the living endeavor. And I'm willing to bet cash that, like my own data set, Mr Como's experiences with religion are dominated by the observational result that belief in God gets nobody anything good. Where this results in or else reinforces his atheism, I've merely chosen to take the only applicable definition of God that works and run with it. Most religions are no less superstitious than knocking on wood, throwing petty coinage into a fountain, or tossing salt over your left shoulder after spilling it.

So we must consider that if the clear and convincing majority of Mr Como's data set persuades him to regard aspects of spiritualism as blockheaded hogwash, it reflects a certain truth. If, for instance, I tell you that you look like shite, well? But if you've just come back from a four-day march hip-deep in mud and horsepucky and the blood of your slain enemies ... yeah, you look like shite. It's a proper reflection of the moment, not an insult. If, therefore, what Mr Como has before him to examine leads him to conclude blockheaded hogwash, it might well be that what he sees actually is blockheaded hogwash. If he chooses to be more specific about blockheaded hogwash, so much the better. If he chooses to leave it at that, it's still within the standards set by a couple of our theistic posters. Who says he ever has to tell us what he means? Isn't it left to you to figure out the same way we are all, often, left to figure out what the heck someone's talking about? I did, once, witness a fight over a racial insult that actually resulted from the insulted person not hearing the whole conversation; that the black ones were ugly spoke of hand-carved chess pieces, and not people. I must urge you not to include yourself among the generalized if you have to assume the range of generalization. By proactively engaging the idea, you run the risk of reinforcing such generalizations.

thanx much,
Tiassa

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by Teg
You call that a rebuttle?*

No.
Besides, I'd call it a rebuttal, if it was one.
It's actually more like snapping my fingers in front of your eyes to see if anyone is home.

*Step one: view phenomena, step two: read scientific theory that explains phenomena, step three: confirm theory through observation.*

That isn't the scientific method; that is the Teg method.

I was talking about the scientific method, and I asked what OTHER methods you use to verify your conclusions with.

*I also observe that the bible is silent on the subject.*

For good reason.
The results produced by the scientific method are unreliable.
They may be repeatable, as may many errors, but they are not verifiable.
Hence they are not reported in the Bible because they are wrong.

*History and science tells me that this book was written by primative people.*

Nowhere near as primitive as those who wrote the science and the history books.
Nowhere near as dumb, either.
Science and history book writers seem to think that they know something, when it is clear that they don't.
Big Bangers, for example, can't possibly know what they are talking about, but they write as though their thoughts are not pure random guesses.

*History describes these Greek/Roman fellows whose use of logic led them to correct conclusions about the shape and nature of Earth. While they were incorrect about a few details, they were more correct than primative bible fellows.*

Both said the Earth was round, so how is one "more correct" than the other?

*Another observation: end of enlightened Roman people, fall of civilization and death of art harkened by Constantine's acceptance of christian religion. Conclusion: primative bible people had no awareness about their surroundings, only rants about cryptic moral positions.*

I can see that you are unusually dense and uninformed about things.
Constantine accepted Catholicism, not Christianity.

*Logic and its extrapolation: science win every time. In time perhaps, the world may catch up. *

It'll be in flames long before then.
Science loses every time for the simple reason that it is an unverified process.
While it is easy to find those who will gladly intone that it is indeed verified, they are simply lying.

*Originally posted by John Como
my response is often taken as caustic arrogance.*

Nah, just foolishness.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God....
(Psalms 14:1, KJV).

*Originally posted by Teg
That is why we have the ability of objective perspective*

You seem to peculiarly unaware of what "objective" means.

*As long as we exercise this trait we will be safe from such lies and false promises.*

You may be safe from lieS, but you have fallen for the one big lie, namely science.
Furthermore, you have no promises and no hope, either.

*Originally posted by tiassa
To choose mastery of the world, as Christianity does, is not to choose to be part of the world.*

That is unusually perceptive of you.

*if they choose to undertake the fundamentalist part, usually take the time to rhetorically separate the common points of fundamentalist agreement from those not common.*

It is interesting that you are technically capable of doing that where the Quakers are concerned, but you are unusually incapable of doing that where the Catholics, Lutherans, et al, are concerned.

Understandably so, since you would have no point at all, if you did that.

*What I'm after is that you're obviously not the norm, Jan: Why do you choose to downgrade yourself to that level?*

While I can't speak for JA, it is possible that JA is choosing to downgrade to the level of the norm which you portray.
Admittedly, I congratulate JA for taking such a bold step, since it is presumably equivalent to pithing oneself.

*When John Como speaks of blockheads, I like to think I know approximately where he's coming from.*

Probably from the bathroom after looking in the mirror there.

*The data set by which my perceptions and expectations are colored is a dreary one, indeed, where religions are concerned.*

It is colored by your life.
Your life is like a gray, overcast, drizzly November day.

*If, therefore, what Mr Como has before him to examine leads him to conclude blockheaded hogwash, it might well be that what he sees actually is blockheaded hogwash.*

Given that people interpret things thru a filter of their own making, I wouldn't be surprised if everything that he, or you, sees is blockheaded hogwash.

 

[Tiassa]

Given that people interpret things thru a filter of their own making, I wouldn't be surprised if everything that he, or you, sees is blockheaded hogwash/

And this separates us from ... oh, say ... you, just how?

You see, some of us have no real problem with being human beings. It is, after all, what we are.

I believe it's the Christians who are supposed to be doing a little better than that? Have you noticed how much blockheaded hogwash you've pointed out with your disrespect? Welcome to it, Tony1 ... it's the problem with being born into sin, isn't it? This is the best you can expect of yourself or anyone, which pretty much makes the advantages of Christianity illusory and fantastic. It seems then, with nothing to gain by presuming the worst in people and working toward division, you'd eventually realize the futility of the process. Too bad you don't think you're allowed to look for the best in people. Then you'd be capable of separating the blockheaded hogwash from blockheaded hogwash. Just because blockheaded hogwash forms the consistent trend among experiential data sets doesn't mean you need to add onto it. In that case, all you're showing is the result that faith in God gets you nothing. And, frankly, I think most atheists are already in on that point.

Because that is the point.

It's blockheaded hogwash if you can't show its advantages. Don't just tell us what they're supposed to be. Any snake oil salesman can tell me what the product is supposed to do. Can you imagine that? When your customer asks you why the vacuum cleaner doesn't work, you can't even figure out to plug it in? Why would anybody, much less someone who is alredy used to witnessing that futility about the product, buy it? Heck, if you just tell us it sucks up the dirt, but can't make it do it, why should we bother? It's a crappy pitch.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by tiassa
And this separates us from ... oh, say ... you, just how?*

My blinders are off, while yours are still on.

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
(2 Corinthians 4:4, KJV).

*Have you noticed how much blockheaded hogwash you've pointed out with your disrespect?*

Lots and lots.
I've done nothing but point out blockheaded hogwash, mainly in your posts, since I got here.
And according to you, I've been doing it disrespectfully.

*...pretty much makes the advantages of Christianity illusory and fantastic.*

Nothing illusory about not being sick.

*It seems then, with nothing to gain by presuming the worst in people and working toward division, you'd eventually realize the futility of the process.*

I realized the futility of presuming the worst and working toward division a long time ago.

*Too bad you don't think you're allowed to look for the best in people.*

OK, help me out then.
What's the best in you, and, say, your mother?

* Just because blockheaded hogwash forms the consistent trend among experiential data sets doesn't mean you need to add onto it.*

So you admit that blockheaded hogwash forms the bulk of your data set?

*In that case, all you're showing is the result that faith in God gets you nothing. And, frankly, I think most atheists are already in on that point.

Because that is the point.*

So, what point are you in on then?
According to your own analysis, you would be missing the point of not only the Christians, but of the atheists as well.

Not that you missing all of the available points is anything new.

*It's blockheaded hogwash if you can't show its advantages. *

That leaves evolution out in the cold, along with atheism, agnosticism, satanism, paganism, and any form of antichristianity.

There is no demonstrable advantage to your way of life, either.
Besides, the advantages of Christianity are demonstrable, but simply declaring them undemonstrable makes them so for you.

 

[Tiassa]

You're on, Tony1

Besides, the advantages of Christianity are demonstrable, but simply declaring them undemonstrable makes them so for you.

I don't think you can demonstrate the advantages of Christianity without ignoring or actively dismissing without merit the most part of the history surrounding the passage of the Book and its ideas through time.

Can you demonstrate the advantages of Christianity without ignoring, dismissing, or otherwise avoiding the historical record?

Let me know when you think you can.

--Tiassa

 

[Teg]

Tony1,

That isn't the scientific method; that is the Teg method.

Observation, hypothesis, experimentation, conclusion, repeat as many times as deemed necessary and form a theory. Said theory will be tested until it is thrown out or accepted as truth. Needless to say religions have a lower burden of proof.

The typical reaction ussually falls under one of two categories:

1. Person doubts biblical propositions and questions said statements. Upon questioning person is removed from church environment.

2. Person has positive reaction to words said and remains in church setting.

A person's reaction to the religious stimuli is based inherintly on the individual's skepticism. Those who lack the skill are embraced. Those who require confirmation of claims that are labeled "absolute truth" are deemed unworthy. It is that simple.

You seem to peculiarly unaware of what "objective" means.

Objective: treating or dealing with facts without distortion by personal feelings or prejudices. Ignoring my personal feelings about any religion I observe that any given religion is incapable of doing likewise. Prejudice seems to embody the church. When was the last time you saw a female reverand or even a female at any post in the church. If it happens it is quite rare. This is in keeping with church positions on homosexuality and the role women play in general. The church is a backward and primative structure, led by individuals whose goals are selfish.

I also observe that Tony1 is incapable of having thoughts longer than three sentences at a time. I observe that he is unable bring any facts regarding any issue that do not originate in the bible. This is what makes his questioning of my objective position so laughable. It would be difficult to maintain such a position when you have read only one book. Tony1, your feelings have led you astray. You are blinded by emotions from stuborness to vengeance. You claim a moral high ground, but I see only an empty facade of contempt for all those who do not consider your version of the truth to be correct.

I have considered the theological debate that a god must exist. It is not a strong case yet I have at least weighed it. The holes are numerous: an assumption that a god must exist because noone can prove that such a god doesn't exist is a blatant missuse of logic. I could say that I am your deity and you would only have they same arguments against me. We cannot state something to be true because we have no evidence against it, reasoning disallows this idea. You also invoke insane arguments such as: "you were not there and so you do not know that dinosaurs existed or how the world began." In the end such arguments are self defeating. The same can be said about your version, only in your case no additional evidence is given. Your entire case resides on the reliability of one book. Any reasonable person would tell you that were that a secular book noone would believe it.

The problems go further. It cannot agree with itself:


From http://www.atheist.org
ON THE SABBATH DAY
"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." -- Exodus 20:8

"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." -- Romans 14:5




ON THE PERMANENCY OF THE EARTH
"... the earth abideth for ever." -- Ecclesiastes 1:4

"... the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." -- 2Peter 3:10




ON SEEING GOD
"... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30

"No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18




ON HUMAN SACRIFICE
"... Thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God..." -- Leviticus 18:21

[In Judges, though, the tale of Jephthah, who led the Israelites against the Ammonoites, is being told. Being fearful of defeat, this good religious man sought to guarantee victory by getting god firmly on his side. So he prayed to god] "... If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering" (Judges 11:30-31).

[The terms were acceptable to god -- remember, he is supposed to be omniscient and know the future -- so he gave victory to Jephthah, and the first whatsoever that greeted him upon his glorious return was his daughter, as god surely knew would happen, if god is god. True to his vow, the general made a human sacrifice of his only child to god!] -- Judges 11:29-34




ON THE POWER OF GOD
"... with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26

"...The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19




ON DEALING WITH PERSONAL INJURY
"...thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. " -- Exodus 21:23-25

"...ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." -- Matthew 5:39




ON CIRCUMCISION
"This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised." -- Genesis 17:10

"...if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." -- Galatians 5:2




ON INCEST
"Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother..." -- Deuteronomy 27:22

"And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter...it is a wicked thing...." -- Leviticus 20:17

[But what was god's reaction to Abraham, who married his sister -- his father's daughter?] See Genesis 20:11-12

"And God said unto Abraham, As for Sara thy wife...I bless her, and give thee a son also of her..." -- Genesis 17:15-16




ON TRUSTING GOD
"A good man obtaineth favour of the LORD..." -- Proverbs 12:2

Now consider the case of Job. After commissioning Satan to ruin Job financially and to slaughter his shepherds and children to win a petty bet with Satan. God asked Satan: "Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause." -- Job 2:3




ON THE HOLY LIFE-STYLE
"Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart..." -- Ecclesiastes 9:7

"...they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not..." -- 1 Corinthians 7:30




ON PUNISHING CRIME
"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20

"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5




ON TEMPTATION
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." -- James 1:13

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." -- Genesis 22:1




ON FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
"Honor thy father and thy mother..."-- Exodus 20:12

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. " -- Luke 14:26




ON RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD
"...he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. " -- Job 7:9

"...the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth...." -- John 5:28-29




ON THE END OF THE WORLD
"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. " -- Matthew 16:28

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. " -- Luke 21:32-33

"And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light." -- Romans 13:11-12

"Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh." -- James 5:8

"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time." -- 1 John 2:18

"But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer." -- 1 Peter 4:7

These words were written between 1800 and 1900 years ago and were meant to warn and prepare the first Christians for the immediate end of the world. Some words are those supposedly straight out of the mouth of the "Son of God." The world did not end 1800 or 1900 years ago. All that generation passed away without any of the things foretold coming to pass. No amount of prayer brought it about; nor ever so much patience and belief and sober living. The world went on, as usual, indifferent to the spoutings of yet another batch of doomsday prophets with visions of messiahs dancing in their deluded brains. The world, by surviving, makes the above passages contradictions.




CONCLUSION
What is incredible about the Bible is not its divine authorship; it's that such a concoction of contradictory nonsense could be believed by anyone to have been written by an omniscient god. To do so, one would first have to not read the book, which is the practice of most Christians; or, if one does read it, dump in the trash can one's rational intelligence -- to become a fool for god, in other words.

To be an Atheist, one need only be able to laugh when such obvious nonsense is offered as being "divine" truth. If you are laughing, then you belong in the only organization dedicated to determined Atheist activism -- dedicated to doing something about the intrusion of religion into all areas of our government and our private lives.

All Bible quotes from the Authorized King James Version of the Bible (New York: Abradale Press, 1965)


You are not objective, nor is anyone whose sole source of knowledge is a single book that has been proven to be flawed.

 

[tony1]

Re: You're on, Tony1

*Originally posted by tiassa
I don't think you can demonstrate the advantages of Christianity without ignoring or actively dismissing without merit the most part of the history surrounding the passage of the Book and its ideas through time.*

OK, seeing as you've given me a choice, I will choose to actively dismiss without merit the most part...etc.
Your argument relating to the historical context of the Bible, is immaterial, simply because it amounts to an ad hominem attack upon some person or persons in past history who happened to be carrying or otherwise be in possession of the book.

What possible difference could it make if someone who happened to be in possession of, say, a dictionary, were to murder someone while they had it in their pocket?
Are all the definitions in the dictionary suspect if that happens?

*Can you demonstrate the advantages of Christianity without ignoring, dismissing, or otherwise avoiding the historical record?
Let me know when you think you can.*

Again, what difference does it make if some person committed a crime while carrying a copy of the phone book?
Does that make the phone company a criminal corporation?

*Originally posted by Teg
Observation, hypothesis, experimentation, conclusion, repeat as many times as deemed necessary and form a theory. Said theory will be tested until it is thrown out or accepted as truth.*

What you said earlier was something about "read the scientific theory" as step two.
In any case, what you are saying now is much closer to the scientific method.

That is what is unscientifically accepted as the scientific method.
What other method do you use to verify that "Observation, hypothesis, experimentation, conclusion, repeat" is actually a valid way to reach conclusions?

*Those who require confirmation of claims that are labeled "absolute truth" are deemed unworthy.*

Hardly.
The Bible itself says that proof follows belief.
The problem is that antichristians argue that the proof should precede the belief.

*Ignoring my personal feelings about any religion I observe that any given religion is incapable of doing likewise.*

Except that you feel that is wrong.

*I also observe that Tony1 is incapable of having thoughts longer than three sentences at a time.*

I speak to the audience.

*This is what makes his questioning of my objective position so laughable.*

What makes your position laughable is that you think that by taking an "impersonal" stance that you will somehow be able to avoid the very personal death you will face the same as everyone else.

*It would be difficult to maintain such a position when you have read only one book.*

I've read thousands more than you have.

*I have considered the theological debate that a god must exist. It is not a strong case yet I have at least weighed it.*

At least you have considered it.

*You also invoke insane arguments such as: "you were not there and so you do not know that dinosaurs existed or how the world began."*

While that isn't an exact quote, the argument applies to anyone who claims that observation is an essential part of science, and then follows it with a claim that such-and-so is true without having observed it.

*Any reasonable person would tell you that were that a secular book noone would believe it.*

I reject many secular books for no other reason.

*It cannot agree with itself:
...sabbath...*

That ignores the fact that Jesus fulfilled the old law.
Being fulfilled by Jesus, the old law no longer applies to me.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
(Matthew 5:17, KJV).

*PERMANENCY OF THE EARTH
the earth abideth for ever...*

Starting when?

*ON SEEING GOD
"... I have seen God face to face,...*

So he was wrong.
The truth in the Bible isn't in everything that everyone says.
The truth is that he was wrong.

*ON THE POWER OF GOD
"... with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26

"...The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley*

"He" who?
You say the Lord, the Bible says Judah could not drive out ... etc.

*...*

...

*CONCLUSION
What is incredible about the Bible is not its divine authorship; it's that such a concoction of contradictory nonsense could be believed by anyone to have been written by an omniscient god.*

Sounds like a direct unattributed quote from Dennis McKinsey, via some atheist organization.
In any case, who says that when God reports something said by someone else, that he must revise it to be true?
If that someone else lies, then the only reasonable way to report it, is as a lie.

*You are not objective, nor is anyone whose sole source of knowledge is a single book that has been proven to be flawed.*

Your atheist buddy offered only two choices in the fallacious form known as the false dichotomy.

True, most Christians don't read the Bible.
True, many throw out their brains.
However, those two groups overlap greatly.

There is a third option which is to read the Bible and NOT throw out one's brains.