agno-atheist-blog

[agno-atheist-blog]

Intelligent Design is Stupid: Neil deGrasse Tyson (by ricoatheist)

I love this guy, he are absolutely right.

[agno-atheist-blog]

Vote Obama!

[agno-atheist-blog]

Pristine article.

[agno-atheist-blog]

God Having a Penis or Emotions

I read some interesting responses to my recent post about God not having emotions since emotions have physical causes and reasons in biological organisms (as do penises and noses). Yes, God "having" emotions explains OT inconsistencies. Yes, emotions are crucial to existence. Which is precisely why God "having" emotions shows that it's merely the projection of humanity on what God would be like. But God in his omniscience shouldn't need emotion!--chemical responses to changing stimulus in the environment. This is why the argument is so strong: man made God. I encourage reading the whole chapter in "The End of Christianity."

[agno-atheist-blog]

If I asked you whether God has a nose or a penis, what would you say? Most Christians would say probably not. A nose is for breathing and smelling. A penis is for sex and for peeing. God has no need of either. In the same way, I would argue that God has no need for emotions--intricate chemical reactions designed to activate and direct bodily responses to the external environment. As wonderful as emotions are, they are made of and for the fabric of this natural world.

Dr. Valerie Tarico--"God's Emotions: Why the Biblical God is Hopelessly Human" inThe End of Christianity

[agno-atheist-blog]

David was punished by the death of Bathsheba's child....David prayed for God to spare the child, fasted, and spent the night on the ground, for seven days. Then the child died. This kind of "punishment" that David suffered should call into question the adequacy of the classical understanding of suffering: yes, David spent days in agony, and the outcome was not good for him. He suffered. But he didn't die. The CHILD died. And the child hadn't done anything wrong. Killing one person to teach someone else a lesson--is that really how God acts? If we are to be godly people, does that mean we should act that way too? Kill someone's child to teach the parent a lesson?

God's Problem, Bart Ehrman

[agno-atheist-blog]

sorry for blowing up your feed. i'm done now. ^_^

[agno-atheist-blog]

God himself has caused the misery, pain, agony and loss that Job experienced. You can't just blame the Adversary. And it is important to remember what this loss entailed: not just loss of property, which is bad enough, but a ravaging of the body and the savage murder of Job's ten children. And to what end? For "no reason" (Job 2:3)--other than to prove to the Satan that Job wouldn't curse God even if he had every right to do so. Did he have the right to do so? Remember, he didn't do anything to deserve this treatment. He actually was innocent, as God himself acknowledges. God did this to him in order to win a bet with the Satan. This is obviously a God above, beyond, and not subject to human standards. Anyone else who destroyed all your property, physically mauled you, and murdered your children--simply on a whim or a bet--would be liable to the most severe punishment that justice could mete out. But God is evidently above justice and can do whatever he pleases if he wants to prove a point.

God's Problem, Bart Ehrman

[agno-atheist-blog]

Are we to imagine a divine being who wants to torment his creatures just to see if he can force them to abandon their trust in him? What exactly are they trusting him to do? Certainly not to do what is best for them: it is hard to believe that God inflicts people with cancer, flu, or AIDS in order to make sure they praise him to the end. Praise him for what? Mutilation and torture? For his great power to inflict pain and misery on innocent people? It is important to remember that God himself acknowledged that Job was innocent--that is, that Job had done nothing to deserve his torment. And God did not simply torment him by taking away his hard-earned possessions and physical health. He killed Job's children. And why? To prove his point; to win his bet. What kind of God is this?

God's Problem, Bart Ehrman

[agno-atheist-blog]

The reality is that most suffering is not positive, does not have a silver lining, is not good for the body or soul, and leads to wretched and miserable, not positive outcomes....A lot of times, what does not kill you completely incapacitates you, mars you for life, ruins your mental or physical well-being--permanently. We should never, in my view, take a glib view of suffering--our own or that of others. I especially, and most vehemently, reject the idea that someone else's suffering is designed to help US. I know there are people who argue that recognizing the pain in the world can make us nobler human beings but, frankly, I find this view offensive and repulsive. Sure, our own suffering may, on occasion, make us better people, stronger, or more considerate and caring, or more humane. But other people do not--decidedly do not--suffer in order to make us happier or nobler.

God's Problem, Bart Ehrman

[agno-atheist-blog]

I'm reminded of the scene we have all observed at one time or another on the televised news, when there has been a major airline disaster, a plane wreck with hundreds of people killed, and one of the survivors comes on the air thanking God for being with him and saving him. You wonder what people are thinking--or if they are thinking. God saved YOU? What about those other poor souls who had their arms and legs ripped off and their brains splattered all over the seat next to you? By thanking God for your good fortune, aren't you implicating him for the misfortunes of others?

God's Problem, Bart Ehrman

[agno-atheist-blog]

There came a time in my life when I found that I simply could no longer thank God for my food. And the irony is that it was because I came to realize (or, at least, came to think) that if I was thanking God for providing me with my sustenance, and acknowledging that I was fed not because of my own good efforts but because of his gracious actions toward me, then by implication I was saying something about those who didn't have food. If I have food because God has given it to me, then don't others lack food because God has chosen not to give it to them? ...What would we think of an earthly father who starved two of his children and fed only the third even though there was enough food to go around? And what would we think of the fed child expressing her deeply felt gratitude to her father for taking care of her needs, when her two siblings were dying of malnutrition before her very eyes?

God's Problem, Bart Ehrman

[agno-atheist-blog]

Hosea 13:4-9 This is not the kind, loving, caring, forgiving God of nursery rhymes and Sunday school booklets. God is a fierce animal who will rip his people to shreds for failing to worship him. Or as Hosea states in his most disturbing image of all: Samaria [i.e., the capital of the northern kingdom] shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open. (Hosea 13:16)

God's Problem, Bart Ehrman

[agno-atheist-blog]

Amos 4:6-12 In this context, obviously "meeting your God" is not a happy prospect. This is the God who starves people, destroys their crops, and kills their children--all in an effort to get them to return. And if they don't, only worse things lie ahead. What could be worse than all that? The total destruction of their nation and their entire way of life.

God's Problem, Bart Ehrman

[agno-atheist-blog]

The claim that free will stands behind all suffering has always been a bit problematic, at least from a thinking perspective. Most people who believe in God-given free will also believe in an afterlife. Presumably people in the afterlife will still have free will (they won't be robots then either, will they?). And yet there won't be suffering (allegedly) then. Why will people know how to exercise free will in heaven if they can't know how to exercise it on earth? In fact, if God gave people free will as a great gift, why didn't he give them the intelligence they need to exercise it so that we can all live happily and peaceably together?

God's Problem, Bart Ehrman

[agno-atheist-blog]

god is not natural...pt2

As a follow up thought, God necessarily mustnot be natural--at least to the Christian. If he was natural, aka physical and comprised of atoms, then he would be just like us. Which leaves us with three(ish) options (a) there really is nothing supernatural about God, why bother to worship him, or (b) we are God! or (c) God IS everything (pantheism). I don't think Christians like any of those options.

[agno-atheist-blog]

god is not natural

I was talking with an old Christian friend the other day, and he tried to pull the, "I can't see the wind but I can feel it--same with God's existence."

"But the wind is physical, it's natural. God isn't natural or physical...you can't compare the two," I replied.

"God is natural though...he's present in everything," he said.

I said, "So...like panentheism?"

"No, but God is actively involved in his creation. He's all around us."

Didn't know you could claim God wasn't supernatural to avoid the subject...

Did you?