"Satan doesnt want people talking about God."

[charlou]

Thanks Coito.


Lion, you actually believe that stuff happened?

[JimC]

Thanks Coito.


Lion, you actually believe that stuff happened?

Or he may believe that it is a metaphor which supports a particular religious stance.

Science, logic and plain old common sense demolish the literal belief (or leave its holder exposed as utterly delusional), while well-crafted rational dissection like Coito's and others shows the metaphor to be threadbare, inconsistent and fundamentally ethically unsound.

All that is left is an emotional attachment to a belief system...

Sometimes, the stained old child's comfort blanky is hard to discard...

[Tigger]

Thanks Coito.


Lion, you actually believe that stuff happened?

Or he may believe that it is a metaphor which supports a particular religious stance.

Science, logic and plain old common sense demolish the literal belief (or leave its holder exposed as utterly delusional), while well-crafted rational dissection like Coito's and others shows the metaphor to be threadbare, inconsistent and fundamentally ethically unsound.

All that is left is an emotional attachment to a belief system...

Sometimes, the stained old child's comfort blanky is hard to discard...

Despite the fact that the stains are piss, vomit, shit and other unpleasantness, much like the babble.

[tattuchu]

Why wouldn't Satan want people talking about God? Belief in God implies belief in Satan, and vice versa
I remember when my born-again sister, after I told her I absolutely did not believe in anything as ridiculous as a god, asked if I believed in the devil. And I was like, "The fuck? If I don't believe in God, how can I believe in The Devil? It's all part of the same mythology, for Christ's sake."

Anyway, I think the original point was that Hitchens et al talking about God was good for God, because it got people thinking about God at least. I dunno. I think that may be a little over-optimistic, since people in this context aren't thinking about God necessarily, as much as they're thinking about the idea of a god. And if you think about the idea of a god, surely you realize just how silly that idea is.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why wouldn't Satan want people talking about God? Belief in God implies belief in Satan, and vice versa

This stupidity is based on the idea that if people talk about God some of them will start believing in God, irresistibly. So "any discussion of God is good for the cause". Satan wants you to not think about God, because if you do you might realize you're going to Hell if you don't believe in the misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, genocidal cocksucker.

[tattuchu]

Why wouldn't Satan want people talking about God? Belief in God implies belief in Satan, and vice versa

This stupidity is based on the idea that if people talk about God some of them will start believing in God, irresistibly. So "any discussion of God is good for the cause". Satan wants you to not think about God, because if you do you might realize you're going to Hell if you don't believe in the misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, genocidal cocksucker.

It seems to me that belief in a god really depends upon not thinking about it. Or, at least, not thinking too hard about it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why wouldn't Satan want people talking about God? Belief in God implies belief in Satan, and vice versa

This stupidity is based on the idea that if people talk about God some of them will start believing in God, irresistibly. So "any discussion of God is good for the cause". Satan wants you to not think about God, because if you do you might realize you're going to Hell if you don't believe in the misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, genocidal cocksucker.

It seems to me that belief in a god really depends upon not thinking about it. Or, at least, not thinking too hard about it.

And that's where we get them. The OP assumes that thinking about God will automatically lead to belief in God. However, most of us are here because we DID think about God. Too much, as you noted.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Lion IRC]

Hi All,
I can’t believe it. 6 Pages.
Here’s the replies I owe a couple of people.

@ Gawdzilla
Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda or Propagandaministerium never got back to me. I left heaps of messages. How many years worth and billions of bibles need to get printed before everyone has 3 or 4 dozen laying around at home gathering dust? The storyline doesn’t change. The characters don’t change. Why so many unwanted copies still getting produced after all these years? Coito ergo sum basically said that the MORE the text is read the MORE likely it is to be found false. Wouldn’t that be an argument AGAINST Christians printing lots of bibles and handing them out? I think the opposite. Christians have faith that the words have an effect to the advantage of Christianity not against.

@ Ian
Mao’s Little Red Book can’t really be put into the category of voluntary/optional reading.

@ Ayaan
I disagree with your claim that few bibles sold are ever read. That’s like saying few copies of The God Delusion were ever read. Why buy something and then not read it? Admittedly, the God Delusion was probably read cover to cover whereas many people perhaps buy the bible with the intent to read it in sections. Of course it goes without saying that the bible is freely distributed by many organisations. But even then, why would a person take a free bible if they weren’t interested in reading anything in it.

@ Coito ergo sum

Thanks for answering Charlou’s query about the verse where satan says you will not die to Adam and Eve.

I understand you don’t think the bible is true. Do you think there was ever an Assyrian King named Sargon? Neither did archaeologists until the 1840’s The bible mentions places like Petra which wasn’t corroborated by archaeology until 1812. The hydrological cycle mentioned in the bible wasn’t verified by science until…..etc etc etc.
I think you should be a bit more specific about which parts in the bible you don’t “believe”.

You say the bible didn't even exist as a single book until the late 4th century and yet that is like dismissing the books in a library simply because they weren’t all stored in one place until after a certain date. Christians accept as Canon books written long before the 4th century. So what’s the argument? If one of the eye witnesses to a biblical event gets arthritis and starts going blind does that prevent them from having their account which they have been repeating orally for years eventually having their story recorded for posterity before they die and it is lost forever?

You made reference to the Gnostic gospels - the partly true gospels, the wannabes, the outright fakes, the heretical gospels, the well intentioned but misheard gospels (Jesus said Peace makers not Cheesemakers) I don’t think it is fair to expect there to be none of these given the magnitude of the event in question. The fact that so many assorted texts about the event needed to be codified to sort the real from the not quite right actually seems quite logical. The exclusion of certain books as non-canonical by one denomination over another doesn’t detract from the books which both denominations HAVE adopted as required reading. Abraham didn’t have ANY books to read – Protestant or Catholic.

You assert that the four Gospels conflict. I don’t accept that. The bible errancy crowd call it a contradiction when one person says purple and another says scarlet. They say it’s a contradiction when the Gospels don’t have synchronised watches by which to agree on the exact time “the Crucifixion” happened. It would be like disputing with witnesses about when exactly did the Titanic sink? When was the iceberg struck? When people started to think it MIGHT sink. When did it actually did start to sink? When eventually did it completely disappear under water several hours later? When it finally came to rest on the ocean floor? It simply is NOT contradictory that different observers of the exact same event report varying versions of the truth..

You have a lot of bible errancy stuff bottled up. I would like to take them one at a time but sufficed to say that none of your suggested examples frightens me off from a full debate. Nobody asserts that “The Book OF Moses” should NOT include an account of Moses death. Do you really think that the people who compiled all those words into one book were oblivious to your supposed …how could Moses write about his own death in the past tense “bible error”? They didn’t need to use the word “epilogue”. They didn’t need a “post script” note to readers living in 2010. The Noachian Flood is an epic thread to try and fit in here but yes I actually do think the Flood occurred and occurred by the hand of God. I have never found myself struggling to explain that God can do anything.

I do think snakes can talk to each other and I have never had any difficulty understanding what a snake wanted when I found myself inadvertently blocking its escape path or accidentally standing on its tale. I think donkeys do have the ability to make vocal noises as well as biting, kicking when someone unjustly smotes them. I wouldn’t argue with a person who claimed witches are real all I would do is ask them to define what they mean by witch. If they meant someone who kidnaps children (Hansel and Gretel) and tries to cook them alive in an oven I would not at all be surprised if the death penalty was applied in some legal jurisdictions.

Finally, you raise the “moral lesson” issue and “unjust killing of innocents”. Once again this is an epic thread topic but I can answer fairly succinctly that in the bible all war and violence is started by humans and the intervention of God comes second. I would argue (and will if you want a more formal separate discussion) that Gods subsequent intervention into the violence of humans against other humans from Cain and Abel onwards is based on shortening the war – not prolonging it. Innocent babies were killed in Hiroshima. In preventing the spread of disease among animals, innocent victims are killed when we cull 10,000 animals just because a couple dozen of them have foot and mouth disease or swine flue or avian influenza. The surgeon who removes perfectly healthy tissue to prevent the spread of cancer understands very well the notion of being cruel to be kind. When we talk about the end justifying the means do we really know what the End really is?


@ MrFungus420
You still don’t believe in satan yet? Never mind he doesn’t want you to either. Adam and Even along with everyone else to whom God was referring when He said “YOU WILL DIE” did die. God was talking to ALL humans and that statement about the future fate of humans commenced FROM that very day. Sorry you think the word day meant Adam and Eve were supposed to die before midnight. Your point that satan and God BOTH understood the consequence for Adam and Even of eating from the tree of knowledge is a bit of the bleeding obvious. God said to Adam and Eve don’t go there! You won’t like it. Ignorance is bliss. Knowledge of good and evil will make you stress out. It will make YOU responsible for your actions. You can do it if you really really want but don’t say I didn’t warn you! Having weighed up the alternatives and opted to take the risk they were saying to God we are gonna try our luck out there in the real world. So long Garden of Eden. Satan doesn’t always lie – only when it suits him. Satan didn’t say there’s no God. He wasn’t ignorant of Gods word. In fact, satan proves himself to be quite the bible scholar when he feels like it.

@ Feck
I see you at least agree with me that Mr Hitchens has “stirred up a hornets nest of Believers”
My sole point in this thread (which Charlou set up) is to ask people/New Atheists – was that being a bit too smart by half on the part of Mr Hitchens?
No need to write a book or start a thread about IPU’s or FSM’s celestial teapots – and if you did I wouldn’t waste my time posting comments on what you wrote there I promise.

@Charlou
No I don’t believe it. I think it. I am way past cross your fingers, “faith” that it happened.

@tattchu
I think satan doesn’t want people talking about God because he wants them to FORGET about God – to not worry about God. My theology holds that satan has a grudge match going with God and humans are just collateral damage in an ego driven point scoring exercise. Satan mistakenly thinks he can stop people worshipping God and worship other “gods” instead.

Lion (IRC)

[Animavore]

Whoa! I thought you were a Catholic, Lion, not a creationist?

As for Bible errancy, are you really trying to say that the 2 accounts of what happened to Judas after Jesus' death are not complete contradictions? Or what about the fact that only one Gospel mentions the graves opening and the dead walking amongst the living? Kind of an odd detail to leave out. In fact, if something like that were to actually happen I'm pretty sure it would be known by everyone in that area and well documented. Kind of makes you wonder how people still didn't believe if this had've happened?
Anyway, I'm not interested in errancy. I don't take the Bible literally, or even seriously, so I'm not bothered arguing on that level.
At the end of the day, you believe a man came back to life after pallour-, algor-, livor-, and rigor mortis, as well as the early stages of composition, and that his death somehow washed us of a stain we carry and has any relevance to people in the 21st century. And now you're saying that you believe in a world-wide flood for which there is no evidence?!
It's pretty funny.

[MrFungus420]

@ MrFungus420
You still don’t believe in satan yet? Never mind he doesn’t want you to either. Adam and Even along with everyone else to whom God was referring when He said “YOU WILL DIE” did die.

Just not when he said they would. And, since they hadn't eaten from the Tree of Life, they were going to die ANYWAY.

God was talking to ALL humans

This is called "making up bullshit".

God was speaking specifically to Adam. Adam was the only one to whom God could possibly be speaking. If it was also meant for everyone to follow, then God knew that this was going to happen and still set everything up in such a way as to guarantee this little melodrama would play out. Adam did exactly what God had planned. The Serpent did exactly what God had planned. Eve did exactly what God had planned.

and that statement about the future fate of humans commenced FROM that very day. Sorry you think the word day meant Adam and Eve were supposed to die before midnight.

I'm sorry that you don't understand basic written English. "You will die in the day that you do X" means that if you do X, you will die within that 24-hour period.

See, this is typical apologetics, making up shit to cover for the inconsistencies, inaccuracies, contradictions and things that are just plain wrong in a set of religious beliefs.

Your point that satan and God BOTH understood the consequence for Adam and Even of eating from the tree of knowledge is a bit of the bleeding obvious.

Yes, they both understood. The difference is that one of them feared Adam and Eve being anything other than ignorant.

God said to Adam and Eve don’t go there! You won’t like it. Ignorance is bliss. Knowledge of good and evil will make you stress out. It will make YOU responsible for your actions. You can do it if you really really want but don’t say I didn’t warn you!

I think that you really need to read a Bible. God said nothing like any of that. God said NOTHING about it to Eve, just to Adam. God only told Adam that eating from the Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil would cause Adam to die that very day.

Having weighed up the alternatives

More made-up bullshit. What alternatives? God threatened Adam with death before there had been any death. Adam could NOT know what it meant.

and opted to take the risk they were saying to God we are gonna try our luck out there in the real world.

And yet MORE made-up bullshit.

Show me where it says anything like that in Genesis.

Or anything in Genesis to back up ANY of your claims here.

So long Garden of Eden. Satan doesn’t always lie – only when it suits him. Satan didn’t say there’s no God.

Of course not. If Satan exists, then God exists. It would be idiotic for Satan to say that.

He wasn’t ignorant of Gods word. In fact, satan proves himself to be quite the bible scholar when he feels like it.

Are you aware that the Bible didn't exist until about 356 CE?

I like how you ignore the fact that God himself verifies the Serpent's account of the reason that God does not want Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. Because God does not want Adam and Eve to become as gods.

The Serpent:

Gen:3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

God:

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

God wanted humans to be ignorant. God made sure that humans would die. God didn't want equals, he wanted ignorant masses to praise and worship him.

[JimC]

MrFungus420 wrote:

God wanted humans to be ignorant. God made sure that humans would die. God didn't want equals, he wanted ignorant masses to praise and worship him.

(It's a damn good thing he's mythical, he would be a nasty piece of work to have around if he was real)

[Hermit]

I can answer fairly succinctly that in the bible all war and violence is started by humans and the intervention of God comes second. I would argue (and will if you want a more formal separate discussion) that Gods subsequent intervention into the violence of humans against other humans from Cain and Abel onwards is based on shortening the war – not prolonging it.

What about your god thingy actually demanding humans to kill another? "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." [Luke 19:27]

[Feck]

Are we going to get given the answer that it's all man's fault for eating the fruit ?

[Trolldor]

1. Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
2. No knowledge of Good and Evil
3. "Disobeying God" could not be seen as an 'evil' act.
4. lol.