The Fallacy of Biblical Stories, Part 3: The 10 Plagues of Egypt
For Part 3 in my series on the fallacies of biblical stories, A few individuals have suggested I explore the veracity of the 10 plagues of Egypt, as it seems quite fitting since we are all dealing with a modern day plague in the form of Covid-19. As far as biblical stories go, the plagues of Egypt story is probably one of the more likely possible occurrences. Although, probably not in the way the bible or biblical proponents describe. Many of the plagues are also easily explained. Taken as a whole, the plagues of Egypt also show God as He is oft depicted in the Old Testament, that of a malevolent deity with little concern for anyone caught in his retributive blast radius. So lets get into it. The 10 Plagues of Egypt story goes something like this:
In ancient Egypt, the ancient Hebrews were enslaved and ruled over by a rather cruel Pharaoh. Moses, who apparently won a lottery to be God's representative (why does god need a middleman?), asked the Pharaoh to allow all the Hebrews to be set free and return to their homeland. Naturally, the Pharaoh didn't want to give up his free labor force (after all, building pyramids is an expensive project when one has to pay the laborers). As a result, God decided to show off his cosmic vanity by unleashing 10 plagues on Egypt to show everyone just how powerful he is (talk about overkill). Because a single, precision lightning bolt strike to the Pharaoh somehow would not have been an effective demonstration. Apparently, God also decided to "harden" the Pharaoh's heart (so much for free will) which cause the Pharaoh to refuse to release the Hebrew people, even after each plague occurred, until the 10th plague hit. At that point, the Pharaoh would be free from God's mind control and decided that the Hebrew slaves were too much trouble to have around. Even free pyramid construction just wasn't worth it.
Now let's look at each of the 10 plagues and see the evidence for them and how plausible they are. Bibleinfo lists the Plagues in the bible, as I will briefly address each below. A report in Time Magazine , suggests a volcanic eruption on the island of Santorini in the south of Greece around 1620-1600 BCE resulted in the chain event of the plagues:
Winds would have carried the volcanic ash to Egypt at some point over the summer, and the toxic acids in the volcanic ash would have included the mineral cinnabar, which could have been capable of turning a river a blood-like red color.... The accumulated acidity in the water would have caused frogs to leap out and search for clean water. Insects would have burrowed eggs in the bodies of dead animals and human survivors, which generated larvae and then adult insects. Then, the volcanic ash in the atmosphere would have affected the weather, with acid rain landing on people’s skin, which in turn caused boils. The grass would have been contaminated, poisoning the animals that ate it. The humidity from the rain and the subsequent hail would have created optimal conditions for locusts to thrive. Volcanic eruptions could also explain the several days of darkness — which means nine plagues are accounted for.
Well, that does explain things. But I'll look into the plagues a little bit deeper and try to offer other logical possibilities.
1. Turning water into blood : Two words to easily explain this one: "Red Tide." A red tide is an algae bloom which occurs when conditions are favorable to the algae growth. The ancient Egyptians may have been fantastic engineers to design and build the pyramids. But apparently, they knew little about ecology. So to them, a red algae bloom would have looked like the water turning to blood. Red algae blooms can also be toxic to local marine life, as well as release toxic fumes that can affect people and animals nearby. There is another possible explanation: The Ethiopian highlands are made up of red clay. So it was possible that torrential rains could have started a mud-red flood that turned the Nile red and choked out the fish, which got infected with disease.
2. Lots and lots of frogs : The second plague involves vast quantities of frogs that effectively swarmed everything. This is not an unknown phenomenon. It occurs even today. Thousands of frogs have been known to emerge from their watery habitats in search of food or due to ecological changes. There's nothing to suggest this could not have been a similar occurrence in ancient Egypt. It's possible that the "blood water" from the first plague caused all these frogs to flee from their altered environment, where they subsequently died from the toxins.
3. Lice and Gnats : The third plague involved lots of insects. This is also an easy explanation: Once all the frogs were dead, the bugs had a smorgasbord feasting on the dead frogs (and later dead livestock and dead humans. But I'll get to that soon). And there were no frogs left to keep the bug population in check. In addition, the insects might have been vectors for the transmission of disease, which infected people and animals. Insects causing the effects of disease as described in the 10 Plagues story is supported by science, in the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine (2008).
4. A plague of flies : This one could have been combined with the third plague. I suppose biblical writers needed to pad the numbers a bit to get 10 plagues (which follows George Carlin's thoughts on the number 10, ala the 10 Commandments). Still, dead frogs and rotting frog (and later cattle) flesh means more flies. It's quite simple really. In addition, flies could also have been vectors for disease transmission, which also contributed to the later pestilences.
5. Pestilence that killed livestock : The fifth plague saw lots of cattle bite the dust. Which isn't really surprising considering the previous three plagues contributed to it either by livestock becoming infected with disease and/or their grazing areas turning toxic. There was a real viral disease called Rinderpest ("Cattle Plague" in German), which is known to have devastated livestock in Europe and Africa in the 18th-19th centuries. The disease is thought to have originated in Asia and spread to Egypt around 5000 years ago. As a side note, the resulting mass death of livestock could also contribute to starvation and death of the populace. Notice how each plague seems to segue into the next naturally? No magic required or necessary.
6. Boils : So what happens when you have diseased, dead, and rotting animals around, with insects travelling between them and people? Yep, you get diseased people. And boils are a sign of a person infected with a disease. Boils are commonly caused by Staphylococcus aureus, which is naturally on the skin. However, there are strains which can cause severe illness and even death. Boils are also famously associated with the appearance of smallpox , which is thought to have affected communities in Egypt at least 3,000 years ago, based on evidence of smallpox scars found on several mummies dating back to that period. The boils could have been the symptoms of the same disease which infected livestock or other animals.
7. Hailstorm : This one is explained by the aforementioned volcano eruption. Volcanic ash could have mixed with storm clouds above Egypt and result in a destructive hailstorm. That must have been quite a sight.
8. Locusts : While locusts are a "plague," they are hardly "biblical." Swarms of locusts are common in the world today, including Egypt, especially after storms in in high humid conditions. It's not surprising this plague would occur right after a hail or thunder storm. The Weather Channel recently reported the threat of a large swarm of locusts in the Middle East. If locust swarms occur today in the region, it should come as no surprise that it might have occurred during the Plague events too.
9. Who turned out the lights (Darkness) : Uh, maybe it was just simply nighttime? Ok, I'm kidding. But there are a couple explanations for this one, again including volcanic activity. Ash clouds from a volcano would certainly block out any sunlight and cause darkness. Another is the possibility of a large dust storm. Winds may have blown dust and sand from neighboring regions and made worse by the loss of crops (i.e. Dust Bowl). Another possible explanation, put forth in a study by Iurii Mosenkis , states that the darkness coincided with an eclipse on March 5, 1223 B.C., which is supported by NASA . If an eclipse was the case, then that might explain the 10th and final plague (see below), as ancient cultures often viewed solar eclipses as an ill omen or harbinger of doom.
10. God commits infanticide : Now this shows just how evil god really is. He orders the death of all the firstborn infants (and some people take issue with abortion?). Apparently, God had some angels swoop down and kill first born babies. But the angels couldn't distinguish friendly "targets" from enemy ones without lamb blood smeared on the doors of the Hebrews' houses, indicating a no-kill zone. Why God couldn't do this himself is anyone's guess. Although, it's probably better that way, as God has biblically historic bad aim and doesn't worry so much about collateral damage. I mean, just look at the previous plagues. God doesn't take out the one guy responsible. Instead, he takes out the country. But looking at this objectively, one possibility is that when all the other plagues are going on (especially the darkness plague), the Egyptian people probably thought it best to sacrifice their newborn children in the hope that it would appease the angry god/s (human sacrifice was practiced in various cultures throughout history). Another might be the possibility that infant mortality was raised to new levels, considering all the plagues that happened before it.
Unlike Part 1 or Part 2 of the Fallacy of Biblical Stories series, which has empirical evidence to contradict the veracity of those respective stories, The 10 Plagues of Egypt story is actually explained and supported by logical and scientific analysis. However, that does not mean that God was the cause of the plagues or directly controlled them. Each of the plagues has occurred and been observed naturally over time and even today. No divine intervention needed or required. To the ancient Egyptians, it may have seemed to them that some deity was super pissed off at them. But in reality, it was probably just natural world occurrences.
Tags
Who is online
158 visitors
Part 3 of the series is now ready for your reading pleasure. If you haven't already, check out Part 1 and Part 2 of the series. Thanks.
Tracking...
How is the parting of the waters to allow the Hebrews to cross the sea, and the flow back to drown the Egyptian soldiers chasing after them explained scientifically?
"...a coastal phenomenon called a " wind setdown "—very strong winds, in other words—could have blown in from the east, pushing the water to create a storm surge in another part of the lake, but completely clearing water from the area where the wind was blowing."
Of course, crossing the Red Sea does not mean the actual Red Sea itself was crossed. It's more likely the "crossing" occurred at the Eastern Nile Delta region.
Read this hypothesis a few years ago. makes a certain amount of sense.
Exactly. Once again, science can logically explain with real world observations what might have occurred in the past that ancient people could not understand. No God required or necessary.
Well, There's this.
There's an app for that!
Nicely done. I like how you provided explanations for the plagues presuming that they all actually happened as described.
To me, the plagues are just part of the collection of stories. Ancient men writing tales will draw from their experiences when creating imaginative stories to show that their God is the best God. They certainly would have common knowledge of smaller versions of these plagues and conditions such as red bloom.
Given the Bible is errant and self-contradicting, I am entirely convinced that it is simply the words of ancient men with pens operating under their current political conditions and naturally using the power (fear) of God to help achieve cooperation by the masses. It is historical fiction with a main character that cannot possibly exist by virtue of the contradiction in its definition.
Thank you.
I tend to agree. The 10 Plagues strike me as a compilation of various other "plagues," all packaged together in one story.
As am I. Even if the specific plagues described occurred at some point, it's doubtful they all occurred at the same time in the exact same location, or in the exact level of "severity." They were only written that way.
Well the stories had to sell. Ordinary events are not sufficiently exciting so naturally they will be exaggerated and embellished to be exciting, scary and interesting to discuss with others.
Indeed. Toss in a pissed off god that will smite you mercilessly and you have a best seller on your hands, Lol
Here is an interesting article about how the 10 plagues could be very true:
Thank you Perrie. I saw that while doing my research for this article. Once again, science delivers logical explanations over "magic."
Invoking god is akin to using magic. "God did it" or something like that is like casting a magic spell. It certainly doesn't explain anything, much less rationally or logically.
That's nice. Prove it!
You made the claim, so the onus of proof is on you! Of course, you'll have to start by proving there's a god to begin with, as your claim rests on that factor.
Okay that is demonstrably wrong. What are the natural laws / science that enable resurrection of the dead, talking animals, flooding the entire planet, extemporaneous fluency of various natural languages (Babel), walking on water , etc.?
Uh, magic! Right?
Well, as a start, I would love to see the rules of physics that allow the feet of a grown man to displace sufficient water to maintain bouyancy for the entire weight of the man's body.
The only way that would be scientifically possible, without the aid of equipment or technology, would have to be webbed feet with a large enough surface area to maintain buoyancy. Jesus would need to have freakishly large feet to pull that off. But I doubt Jesus had sandals large enough to accommodate a size 100 shoe, Lol
I doubt that image appears on any church walls.
If it did, church might be a little more interesting.
Hallucinogens - Mushrooms, peyote, salvia, Jimsonweed, poppy, or Ayahuasca could alter reality and make people hallucinate. Hell... there's even a plant that makes people act as though they're a "zombie"; when a pulse is sought after, it's so faint or heart-rate is so low that it's not "found," therefore, buried. And upon the effects wearing off [if quick enough after being determined as "dead"], they "rise from the dead."
There's science behind a lot of things... I like the History channel and various science shows about the strange and macabre.
Then you're just talking BS and lack any credibility.
Then you're just intentionally flat out lying and/or being misleading and you will be called out on it every time!
It's meaningless platitudes like that which shows your claims are essentially BS!
Better living through chemistry?
..... and all of it based upon nothing that can be established by data, facts, or scientific method.
Just to reiterate..... Humans by study of history, have invented/created at a minimum 2,400 different gods, with the upper range being 28,000,000 using statistical extrapolation.
Based upon these very simple historical and mathematical details, and for the fact that there is no scientific evidence to support existence of any god, one has to conclude that man created god C4P.....
What's the saying: man is not the creation of God. God is the creation of man.
I wonder if, far in the future, Hollywood movies will be treated as being gospel as the bible is by some today.
I would hope that at that point in the future, we would be collectively intelligent and rational enough to see movies for what they are, just like with biblical stories, as just stories. Some are meant to entertain. Some are meant to inspire. And some are meant to frighten.
Yeah... notice women didn't write these stories.
That reminds me of something George Carlin once said (paraphrased):
"If there is a God, I am convinced God is a he. Because no woman would ever fuck things up this bad."
Exactly.
On Ridiculousness, the majority of those videos are of boys / men. *shrug*
We'd also not write ourselves of ever being subservient. Just sayin'.
I heard something similar to that regarding the Three Wise Men. If there had been 3 wise women they would have gotten soon enough to help with the delivery, done the clean up, and brought casseroles not fancy perfumes
Or wander the desert for 40 years cuz Moses didn't want to ask for directions?
Well, Moses was a man after all. And men hate asking for directions, right? Lol
Wellll....the 3 Wise Men did stop and ask for directions...and then all hell broke loose
Yep... my hubby & I have that running joke when we are on rode trips. I start calling him Moses.
My hubby trusts me with the map!!!
And we have PAPER MAPS! Gotta love Rand-McNally!
I got pretty good with a paper map (Love Rand McNally) but now we use our Navigators in our vehicles
I love the Road Atlas. We usually plan out route & I tell him when to turn....
I use that with my sister after we plot our road trips with the atlas, but hubby hates the electronic gadgets (as he calls them).
Exactly. Our Road Atlas has yet to take us the wrong way.
I own a 2012 Fiesta [no nav. system], a 1979 Firebird, and the hubby owns a 1973 F250. So, we are "old school." I've been directed the wrong way with nav. systems before.
Oh...we have, too, especially when we went to Florida. Sometimes those things are tricky and you have to go with your gut
The 40 year wander was to let the old ways learned from Egypt to die out and to build an army because there would be resistance to them moving into someone else's territory.
That reminds me of a funny Israeli commercials for a GPS device:
That's a good one alright, Lol
The same can be asked of you and your claims!
Don't recall any women being invited to the first council of Nicaea.
Calm down. It was a joke to begin with, but seriously? You believe that any woman had any part of writing the stories of the bible? One of the most male-centric book in the world? I'm very much assuming that women had nothing to do with the stories in the bible.
I second what Gordy asked; how do you know that they did?
Reminder... it was a joke and this particular discussion had nothing to do with Ruth, Ethyl, or Deborah.
As I believe I mentioned previously, there is one defense of these stories that makes perfect sense to me. (I'm not sure if i believe it or not-- but its hard to argue with).
And that is, simply this: these stories are not meant to be taken literally. Rather, they are allegories (that's perhaps the more common word although personally I prefer the word "symbolic". They are symbols used to represent certain concepts and happenings--not to be taken literally).
I have known some people in various religions who feel their holy books contain the literal words of Gods (or perhaps in some cases his prophets). But there are some people-- often devout followers of a religious tradition*-- who insist these stories are not literal but rather symbolic.
____________________________________
* One except = Islam. In that religion you must believe the Holy Koran is the literal word of God-- as dictated to Muhammed (PBUH) by the Archangel Gabriel-- and not one word, not on comma has been changed. Basically if you don't accept that as fact you are not a MUslim
Interpreting the Bible as allegorical literary works conceived by ancient men with pens is a highly defensible position.
It might be a little early to bring up Part 4. But I'm thinking doing Jonah and the Whale story. Considering the outright absurd nature of that story on the surface, that one might be brief, as scientifically speaking there is really nothing to back it up. But still worth a look. Of course, I always take suggestions too.
[Taunting]
First, the flood was a fallacy because it was physically impossible, improbable, there was insufficient evidence, and no one has ever seen anything like that.
But now the plagues are a fallacy because they can all be explained scientifically and happen naturally all the time.
That is so illogical and inconsistent that it boggles the mind anyone would try and present it as a legitimate series of arguments.
Also, this anti-religion article - one of a series of anti-religion articles - brought to you by the same person who claimed they rarely do this kind of thing. Talk about having it both ways!
Help me out here. How are "militant atheists" trying to have it both ways? As far as I can tell, the article lays out how the plagues were / are naturally occurring and that how they are described int he bible are fiction.
See 8.3
I did explain that, but I'm happy to reiterate it. First, in the Flood seed they made the argument that a miracle recorded in the Bible is impossible because that kind of thing can't happen. Then they make the argument here that other miracles are impossible because they could happen naturally.
They have therefore made the argument that no miracles are possible. You just have to decide whether or not you think a thing could happen naturally and then pick the appropriate attack. But none of it is logical. It's just confirmation bias. This technique guarantees that no matter what we're talking about, you can "prove" God had nothing to do with the events or they didn't happen at all.
No, it says such a thing could occur naturally, which is to say the article tells us nothing. It doesn't show that the specific plagues in the specific places and times mentioned in the biblical account did or did not happen and it doesn't tell us anything about whether or not God was the immediate cause of those events. Go back and skim the article and you'll see it's thick with words like "it's possible," "it could be," "might be," "maybe" and so on.
There is no evidence of any actual "miracles" that supposedly occurred. Miracles are nothing more than unexplained unusual phenomenon (often attributed to fortuitous events). For something to be a "miracle," one would first have to prove there's a supernatural agent behind the so called miracle.
Not at all. It's all about the evidence. Provide evidence that something is indeed an actual, divine based miracle, then we can talk. As far as the flood goes, t's just assumed it's a miracle or caused by divine intervention. How one considers drowning the world and killing everything a "miracle" is beyond me.
Then you haven't been paying attention.
Bear in mind we only have the bible to go by. The plagues supposedly affected Egypt (Hence the "10 plagues of Egypt) and was probably centered around the Pharaoh's location. The times can vary considerably and I explicitly stated in a previous post the plagues likely did not occur all at the same time. Most biblical adherents (especially those who take the bible literally) probably believe that God was the cause of the plague event, as it's explicitly described in the bible. Although there is no evidence outside the bible to suggest that being the case.
Is that a problem? I've made no declaration of certainty. I've dealt with the probabilities of causes and occurrences.
None? You are literally discussing evidence. i.e the Biblical account.
You don't appear to be open to the idea that something in your argument might be flawed.
So you believe the Biblical account is possible?
Um, how strong do you really think that evidence is?
The evidence suggests natural occurrences. Not miracles or divine influence. How do you not get that?
Then demonstrate and explain what is flawed. Provide evidence to support your assertion. All you've done is made an empty declaration.
I don't go by belief. From a probability standpoint, based on the evidence, it is mathematically possible for the sequence of plague events to occur. But very highly unlikely. Even then, there is still nothing to suggest a divine cause of events.
Again, that is not Gordy's argument (and Gordy is not plural). You continue to push a ridiculous argument and claim it is Gordy's. As I explained @9.4, Gordy is not saying the plagues are a fallacy because they are natural, he is saying the belief that plagues necessarily are acts of God is fallacious: this is the divine fallacy. Another example of this fallacy is concluding that a volcanic eruption is necessarily the result of an angry Vulcan or that a thunderstorm is necessarily the result of an angry Zeus.
Since when is Gordy plural? And where does this article make the claim that no miracles are possible? Strawman after strawman ...
The article explains, in terms of science, how these various phenomena could manifest (at least in the small) and thus be witnessed by ancient men (who then went on to wrote tales using this phenomena as inspiration).
Correct, Gordy did not claim these plagues are impossible.
Correct. Gordy does not claim that God did not cause these events. That was not his point.
Are you able to rebut what Gordy actually wrote instead of playing this strawman game?
Not only did I not claim the plagues are impossible, I specifically acknowledged in the article they are possible, based on the evidence and what we know from observed natural occurrences. I'm glad somebody here gets it. Thank you.
Strawman or just complaining? Some people seem to start out feeling attacked for no good reason, and respond in kind.
It is much easier to make up allegations and strawman arguments than to do the work of thoughtfully rebutting your argument.
Both actually. The main strawman argument is the claim that you are saying that because these phenomena have scientific explanations (at least in the small) then God could not have 'done it'. Why bother reading what you write when one can invent a bullshit argument and attribute it to you? Recently, one example (of several):
Pure strawman.
Pure BS too. Or maybe just an outright lie, as we ("they") never made such an argument. The statement: "other miracles are impossible because they could happen naturally" also has a logical flaw: if a "miracle" occurs naturally, then it's not really a miracle, is it? Miracles (as the term is commonly used in a theistic context) are supposedly caused by or at least implied to be caused by a supernatural agent or source, which by definition means it cannot be natural.
It's evidence. That's the point.
Quality matters.
Then you can build an argument that it's poor evidence and explain why. But you must also acknowledge the use of similar evidence as sufficient in many other instances and explain why this is somehow different. Simply saying there is "no evidence" is false.
And now the goalposts will move, but the movement is arbitrary.
Such has already been built, repeatedly, on this site.
The Bible has been demonstrated by empirical evidence to be wrong on many points, right from its first words. Why should we be expected to accept it as reliable?
Deliver the evidence then that these acts were divine. The biblical account is only evidence that ancient human beings wrote the plague stories; not that they were true and certainly not that they were divine acts. Show the evidence that these plagues actually happened and that they were divine acts. I would really love to see that.
Even with your incredibly loose usage of the word 'evidence', if you could 'evidence' these as divine acts you would have finally accomplished something that countless billions have wanted to accomplish over thousands of years. Good luck.
What do you think the bible is evidence of exactly? Using the bible as evidence for biblical stories is circular logic. I didn't use the bible as evidence for anything. I used the bible as a reference for the story it tells. I used actual scientific evidence to support or refute that story.
See first statement!
And they are not wrong. It. Physically. Cannot. Happen.
These have happened and have been scientifically explained how they happen.
There is no "attack". What you perceive as an attack is logical dismissal of a fictitious story (flood) and natural occurring events (plagues).
If you can't fathom that these could and have happened then you need to do a lot of research.
Which I think I mathematically demonstrated using the volume of water required. I also included geological and paleontological evidence which suggests it could not have happened.
Which I also explained with science. But some seem upset that I did not include "miracles" or "god did it" as a possibility.
Some seem to interpret a challenge or dismissal of a belief or story as an "attack."
Fortunately, I provided some research. Apparently, some either didn't read it or understand it.
You did. [deleted] Both this and Part 1 are dead on. Now some "believers" are feeling threatened by provable fact.
Ah, of course [slaps forehead]. Silly me.
Thank you.
Indeed. That assertion is also supported by some of the emotional based replies here.
Seems kind of meta.
That's nice. Prove it!
Back in the day, everything that happened locally was considered to happen globally. Point of reference.
Not to mention that many cultures explained phenomenons occurred due to their various gods. The Greek/Roman gods are a prime example. The Abrahamistic God is no different. Just more streamlined. It's amazing that in this modern day and age, with all the amount and easy access to information, that some people still resort to god/s as an explanation (or excuse) for various things.
Exactly. I propose we ban articles on astronomy claiming that the Earth's rotation causes the sun to seem to rise and set. Such are clearly an anti-religion screed bashing Apollo and his golden chariot.
Next they're going to tell us lighting is the result of charged ions in the atmosphere, which is a slap in almighty Zeus' face. It's blasphemy I tells you! Blasphemy!
Do what you like, but I never suggested banning anything. I guess it's pretty upsetting when an atheist point of view is challenged, but when the Bible is challenged we should all just obediently nod and agree, hmm?
Do you consider it "challenging" Greek mythology to accept that the Earth's rotation gives rise to sunrises and sunsets, or it that being unfair to Apollo?
Your comments seem to indicate that accepting science is fine, so long as it challenges mythologies other than the Judaeo-Christian ones. Why the distinction?
What atheist "point of view" has been offered for challenge? Go ahead and challenge such views if you like. You'll just need objective evidence to mount a successful challenge.
Not at all. This isn't an echo chamber. You should consider the evidence presented. But I've noticed certain people become quite emotional and irrational when the bible and/or its claims are challenged. I wonder why that is?
You seem to be talking to yourself, what with asking and answering your own questions. Have fun with that, but I see no reason to direct it at me.
Pretty sure that's just because you don't like my replies, and recognize that calling science an attack on your mythology but not other mythologies is a pretty weak position.
Please provide evidence. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe your god is any more real than any other god.
Ad hom and whining aren't evidence.
That's nice. Prove it!
All god/s have an equal chance of actually existing. Of course, that chance is probably near zero. But it's an equal chance.
That depends on how the god is defined. For example, consider these gods:
There are no attributes offered other than sentient and creator and there is no evidence to suggest these are contradictions. So a sentient creator might exist.
Thor (the god of thunder) has plenty of mythology (claims) that lack any evidence. The lack of evidence after all this time suggests Thor is more likely not real than real. But worse, as defined Thor is the god of thunder yet we know all too well that thunder is not the result of Thor banging his hammer. The evidence suggests Thor is a character of fiction.
The Christian God is heavily attributed with omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omnipresence, eternal, perfect, etc. In addition there are stories galore of God's exploits (all with ancient human beings). The stories, however, contradict the definition of God. Notably, an omniscient entity cannot learn, cannot regret, cannot be surprised yet God is said to have those experience. The Christian God, as defined, is a contradiction and does not exist (again, as defined).
True. But I was speaking in general.
What do you mean? Remember when he fought Loki or Thanos? And he has a big hammer. What more evidence do you need?
Quite logical.
Everybody knows that lightning is the result of gods throwing bolts of energy at dart boards and that thunder is gods bowling. Please grow up and accept reality.
Of course. It all makes sense now. Silly me.
Entering with guns-a-blazin' and making it personal with the opening sentence.
Exactly. Did you have a rebuttal argument for that?
Not quite Gordy's point.
Gordy notes that the plagues as described in the Bible are stories conceived by ancient men who (as we see throughout the Bible) likely took what they have seen or heard of and wove them into sensational stories through dramatization. It is akin to thriller/suspense movies such as 'Dante's Peak', 'San Andreas','2012', ... which build on the seed concept of ordinary, naturally occurring volcanoes, earthquakes, solar flares, etc. to create an exaggerated thriller movie. The fallacy is believing that plagues of these types are necessarily divine acts. This is not a contradiction-based fallacy as per his other articles; it is what is known as the 'divine fallacy'. Yes, it is a different fallacy; this story is different from the others.
Gordy even offered his perspective in his summary paragraph:
He is not saying the plagues are a fallacy because they are natural, he is saying that belief that plagues necessarily are acts of God is fallacious: the divine fallacy. This is akin to believing that a volcanic eruption is the result of an angry Thor or that a thunderstorm is the result of an angry Zeus.
Now this is just funny. These articles were actually inspired in part by you . You attempted to show that religious critical analysis articles were not occasional as I had noted and wound up proving me correct. Gordy, realizing by your statistics how infrequent these articles are decided to write his series. You were wrong in your challenge (proven so by your own stats) and now you come back after the fact and try to claim: ' see, I told you so '. Slimy sophistry.
Exactly. And?
Did you even read the article? The plagues were never described or declared a fallacy, as the evidence support they could have happened. Where the story gets murky is when it's deemed that "god did it." That means the plague event was a supernatural occurrence and not a natural one.
Then go ahead and refute it with facts and reason. Empty declarations mean nothing!
Exactly how is it "anti-religion?"
I have you to thank for that actually. I rarely posted such articles, which you somehow considered a "series." So you inspired me to write an actual series of articles. Thanks for that.
People should Google the 'divine fallacy' since that is the underlying fallacy offered by this article.
I.E. "God did it." Note how easy and convenient it is to use. It can be used for just about anything and doesn't require a neuron of extra or rational thought.
Well, that's not true. I actually posted links to several such articles and you know it.
"God did not do it" is no better.
Which is why I objectively analyzed the story and provided scientific evidence and explanation rather than simply declaring "God didn't do it." Those that declare "god did it" often leave it at that and offer nothing empirical to support that assertion.
That bothers you? Why??
Are you really going to try to claim that you are not anti-religion and these articles are not the product of that?
I've posted only a few articles specifically dealing with religious topics. Other articles had religion incorporated into them, but religion was not the focus. Apparently you failed to make the distinction.
I didn't say it bothers me. I'm curious why you would claim this is "anti-religious?"
Yes! I've explained before these articles are objective analyses of religious stories. That does not mean they are "anti-religion" by default.
Who here has ruled out the possibility that God did?
Nobody.
Straw man.
Over a three year period you were able to find 7 articles from Gordy that had something to do with religion. Yet you continue to push a ridiculous claim that an average of 1 article every 156 days (1 every 5 months) is NOT infrequent.
Fascinating. Don't let the facts get in the way of a desired allegation.
I don't understand why it's such a big deal to begin with? Whether I publish a religious based article every several months or every day, what difference does it make? We see some people here on NT who post political or pro/anti Trump articles on a daily basis. But somehow, when I supposedly do the same, it's an issue? Who cares?
You did not. You assumed it to be false and set about supporting that assumption. There is zero analysis on the possible validity of the story itself. No exploration of oral traditions, ancient texts, alternative sources. Nothing.
You arbitrarily limit acceptable evidence to empiricism when you know very well that believers have reached their conclusions using other means. You engage with the question in a way that supports your preexisting bias. You don't deal with the matter on its own terms with your mind open to other possibilities.
I also reference two dozen other articles I did not link to.
So, right back at you.
It goes to bias. You claim an objective analysis, but you neither admit your bias nor acknowledge it in your discussion. That's kind of dishonest, even if only via omission, and it makes it harder to accept your claim of objectivity as legitimate.
No, he didn't. He has said the plagues could have happened. That's not assuming it's false. You want him to accept the assumption that God did it, with no evidence for the existence of God.
What other means?
Are you actually (now) claiming Gordy has written or seeded 24+7 or 31 articles on religion on NT? If so, that is a demonstrable lie. Not even close. And any member can just look at Gordy's article history to see this for themselves.
Funny, even if your false claim were true (and it is not even close to the truth) that would not even be one article per month.
You know this? How? How could you know that Gordy, during his lifetime, has not come to a reasoned conclusion that the biblical stories are likely false? You presume that he has not conducted this analysis and that he just mindlessly assumes they are not true.
How many dimensions should an author try to address in a single article? You continue to grasp at straws.
If you want to try to prove/evidence that these plagues were acts of God then write an article. (Good luck.)
Wrong! I didn't start with a conclusion and then worked with the evidence to fit in. I started with the story itself and examined the evidence using empirical scientific evidence and explanation.
Empirical evidence is the most objective and reliable means of evidence. Mere belief is just that, a belief, and often lacking any empirical evidence. At best, it is subjective and anecdotal, which is the lowest form of "evidence." Why would I use lesser "evidence" over stronger evidence?
If you want to propose other ideas, go for it. Just back it up with empirical evidence. Because saying it's a belief is hardly convincing or persuasive. More likely, it shows a lack of actual evidence and is just wishful thinking or dogmatic bias.
Feel free to point out where I have not been objective or otherwise biased! I didn't start out saying "this story is false!" I started out telling what the story says and then looking at the available evidence (with links to some sources) to determine its veracity. I offer my conclusion at the end, based on an analysis of the evidence. And if you'll notice, I did state the plague story was possible based on the evidence. The only part I took issue with is the biblical account of the story itself, namely divine influence or intervention as depicted, as there is no empirical evidence to support such an assertion.
Is it Christ-like to enjoy imagining misfortunes befalling others?
As soon as it happens and you have evidence for it, let me know. Until then, that is nothing more than a fantasy story.
Right?! Isn't it awesome how "Christians [aka Christ-like]" think as mean as us "heathens" that question the stories?
Why is it so terrible to question the words written by "ancient men" but then be okay for the "Christians" to wish ill upon those that do the questioning?
"Ancient men", those "ancient men" were just as smart as we are now, the only difference is we have learned much since then. You could take one of the "ancient men", bring them into the future and after learning the language differences and getting over culture shock, they would be texting and driving like the best/worst of us. Now let me know when in the past do you think that "ancient men" ceased being "ancient men".
Well, they were smart enough to know how to con or control people with religious BS. Although, invoking god as an explanation or reason for anything and everything doesn't seem very smart.
So, you're saying that today's men and women are the same as they were then?
I am the financial provider for my family. That would NEVER have been allowed by "ancient men." If men and women were the same as they ever were, I'd also have 10+ children and probably been dead by this age, because I've been divorced and would've likely been labeled a witch or a prostitute because I wasn't "married" before having relations. I'd have been stoned or burned to death for my modern actions and not being subservient to men.
Yes, I believe future generations will feel the same way I do regarding "ancient men" when it comes to our current way of life. The Ancient Men thought process doesn't hold to our modernized society. A lot of fighting occurred for the way our society is today. Do you think that women should still be subservient?
The ancient men who wrote the Bible were typically learned and imaginative. They demonstrate exceptional writing skills and, given the by-committee nature of the Bible, held it together rather well.
The comment is NOT that these men were stupid, but rather that they were products of their time. They only knew what was knowable by human beings back then. Thus, relative to modern human beings, they were naive.
Critically, this is one of the evidences that the Bible is man-made. God (omniscient, omnipotent, ...) would surely know more than the men of ancient times. He could have imparted wisdom that they would reflect in the Bible (for example, the wisdom that owning another human being as property is immoral). He could have provided insight that was beyond what they could see with their eyes and hear with their ears; for example, the knowledge that the Earth (although it seemed this way to ancient human beings) was NOT the center of the universe and that it actually orbited one of those orbs of light (the sun) and that the other tiny lights in the night sky were other planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.
There simply is nothing in the Bible that even hints at a sentient intelligence that goes beyond the abilities and knowledge of scholarly ancient men. But there exist plenty of errors and contradictions in the Bible; just what one would expect if written by ancient men over a thousand years and subjected to numerous transcriptions sans a divine editor.
There's a whole series of books by Mark Henricksson (think that's his name) that's about aliens crash landing on Earth because they were shot down during a war in space. Anyway...it goes all the way from Biblical times to the modern age.
It's called "Origins" and each subsequent book has "Origins: (insert time period)"
I voted you up because you seem more open minded to the possibility of God or something beyond us, and then with that sentence, how do you know God didn't?
Where I'm coming from, Noah knew a flood was coming and prepared without knowing about tsunamis, A&E could've been God created Adam and in the same way created Eve but instead used a "rib" why? And now we have Moses knowing about the coming plagues and using them to his advantage to, as Gordy put it, control his people into following him.
I am working right now and need to get back to it.
Most every atheist accepts the possibility of a supreme entity; it is simply that we are not persuaded by what we have observed / experienced in our lives to actually believe this is true.
And I do not know that ancient men operated sans a supreme entity guiding their hands; it is simply that the evidence strongly leads one to hold that they were educated, errant, motivated men writing stories to influence the masses based on what they knew and imagined without the insight of a deity.
So, I'm guessing that bccrane does believe women should be subservient considering you were answered, but I wasn't.
I already have. You dismiss all criticism.
The TITLE literally calls the story a fallacy and you came up with the title before you wrote the story. So, you figuratively did start out by saying the story is false.
That is your personal philosophy and it limits your ability to analyze these things.
Empirical evidence isn't the most objective and reliable means of evidence?
Didn't you teach math or something? I thought you were a numbers person of some kind. Numbers people rely on empirical evidence don't they?
Because your "criticism" seems overly emotional and downright false! You complain about how I analyze the story, but offer nothing empirical to debate the points made, much less refute them.
The title is the same for all stories in the series. But apparently you didn't notice where I acknowledged the plagues were indeed possible based on the evidence. The fallacy rests in how they are presumed to have occurred.
No, that is a scientific position used in real world experiments and observational analysis. But since you seem to disagree with it, then explain what is a better, more objectively reliable form of evidence than empirical evidence!
Maybe you are more intimidating.
Looks like it does not matter how many times this is explained to you; you are going to just keep repeating your original claim.
The fallacy here is known as the divine fallacy. To be a divine fallacy one must claim that a natural event necessarily is the result of a deity. When presenting a divine fallacy, it is best that the presumed act of a deity has already been established as something that can indeed occur naturally (without any divine act).
Anyone besides Tacos! not understand what I have written here? If so, please give me a hint as to where the confusion lies.
I'm sorry but I'm not going to argue something that I never claimed.
In the A&E seed, something similar happened, when pointing out what I believed the missing "rib" meant, I typed in man and woman, I thought about it when I did it and almost typed male and female, but I had a feeling what would happen so left it man and woman. Sure enough, the argument was going to be that I was saying that only humans had the XY and XX in their DNA which I never claimed in the first place.
Understood. Any comments on my reply to your inquiry?
Indeed. However, that is not the topic of your seed. No real world experiment or present day observational analysis is possible for something God may or may not have caused to happen 3,000 years ago. That's why it's of no use to answering the question "Did God do it?" You need to consider other methods of reaching an answer to a question. Science cannot help you.
Might as well accept it then. You are free to simply disagree and stop trying to attack me for it.
This is where my observations and experiences tell me there is a supreme entity and I realized that the "ancient men AND women" were having the same observations and experiences and writing them down as best they could understand them.
For instance, I have related something that happened to me a couple times here in NT and NV, I have no other explanation,a the time the one incident, of many, kind of freaked me out, but now I find it fascinating.
You 'disagree' yet offer no supporting argument as to why. You have claimed that this article is trying to 'have it both ways', that it is illogical and inconsistent and not a legitimate argument based on your entirely confused repeated premise that Gordy is arguing (in your words):
Ignoring the explanation @9.4 @9.2.8 @9.5.1 and @9.5.37 as to why your repeated allegation missed the point (completely misses the concept of the divine fallacy) while offering no rebuttal or even a basic explanation as to why you disagree, illustrates that your allegation is meritless and gratuitous.
Your comment is interesting as a frame, but you provide no details. So I am at a loss as to a response.
A baseless assumption.
Science explains how the plagues might have occurred and uses observable, real world explanations too. Any claim of "God did it" is merely a baseless religious claim with no supporting empirical evidence beyond mere belief or story. But I'm not asking if God did it. That's the claim adherents to the story make. But there is nothing to support such a claim. Therefore, there is no reason to accept or use such an explanation. It would be no different than saying fairies, leprechauns or gnomes caused the plagues. But using any tripe just for the sake of reaching an "answer" is intellectually dishonest and lazy. Fortunately, science gives the best possible answers.
Not everyone understands that 'God did it' refers to the divine fallacy. Although once informed, it is difficult to continue to give one the benefit of the doubt.
Also, not everyone understands that "God did it" is not really an explanation for anything. Its a failure to explain, albeit a possibly emotionally satisfying one.
And the key reason why is because it kicks the can down the road. Declaring 'God did it' offers an explanation for the question at hand but then opens up an even greater question: the existence of a supreme entity. Posing a more complex problem as the solution for a problem is ridiculous.
A downright lazy and poor "explanation" to boot.
Not to mention no one seems able to provide any evidence or proof of said supreme entity.
I have yet to see any other "method" or evidence that can more effectively and accurately reach an objective, rational answer than science.
You implied that today's men and "ancient men" are no different and I quote "ancient men" because I didn't men MALE, I mean the human species. I asked a question based on that; I'm not arguing. I am asking a question. I answer questions when they're asked because it's rude not to answer if you ask me... I suppose you didn't ask me though. I find it interesting that you're purposely ignoring or neglecting to respond to a question that I directed specifically to you.
It's worth noting that the Abrahamistic religions are quite patriarchal in their tenets and practice.
Agreed, but somehow I've insulted bccrane by asking him if he feels that females should be subservient still. To me, his implied thoughts on ancient beings [men, women, whatever] are the same as they ever were, suggest that the thought processes of said ancient beings have never changed really... so, that's why I posed the question if he thought in the same manner as said former / ancient / previous generations [however one wants to state it]. I think it's a pretty valid question, because I'm a woman that has fought very hard to get where I am today because of that thought process. Unfortunately, many religions still maintain the mentality that women [FEMALE] should be subservient to man [MALE]. That premise is insulting to modern women. How long do we have to fight for equality? My opinion, as long as Abrahmistic religions exist, we will have to fight for equality. But that's just my opinion. Maybe some women [FEMALE] are okay with that, but I'm not one of them.
I have told what happened, about a dream in the morning about my family and I in a parking lot with a huge hot dog and talking to a man I hadn't seen in three years, I thought well that was a weird dream only to have it happen later that day.
I listened to one of my co-workers explain what was bothering him about a fight with his wife that morning about what he said in his sleep that she was so pissed off about and the last thing he said to her, as he slammed the door behind him, was what he said in his sleep less the five first words "For the last time, there's 'No Mary, let it go'".
One morning I woke up with a start, I had dreamed that the washing machine had sprung a leak and damaged the wood floor, seeped through and was rotting the 2x12 floor joists, and was heaving the 5 block basement wall in. When I got up I went into the bathroom/laundry and pulled the washing machine out, my son asked what I was doing, I said I had a dream that it was doing water damage and was just checking, well our floor is a waterproof ceramic tile, so no wooden floor damage, I went to the basement, our floor joists are engineered BCI not 2x12 pine, and the basement wall is a poured reinforced concrete 11 block tall not 5 block, so it was just a dream. My son and I went to my shop and my brother walked in stating that he needed the house jack, we helped find and asked why, he had just come from a friend of his house and apparently the washing machine had sprung a leak that they didn't know about, what alerted them something was wrong was the room was sloping to the wall, my brother pulled the machine to fine the wood floor ruined, he went into their 5 block crawl space and the joists were rotted and the water, being this happened in the winter, had drained down the outside of the house and the freeze/thaw cycle had heaved the block wall in. I looked at my son and said that was my dream this morning.
My take on it is this isn't just happening to me, the co-worker experience, it happens to everyone/thing, what is that dog actually dreaming about?, and ancient men AND women were also experiencing this.
There sure seems to be similar mentalities between ancient thinking and modern thinking, no doubt largely due to religious influence.
Maybe that will be an article I write; why in many societies women are still expected to be subservient to men and the connotations in relation to religions.
I look forward to reading it, should you decide to write it.
That would be a great article. I would enjoy reading your take on the subject.
I believe I've just decided to write it.
That's great. Provide a link when you're done and I'll check it out. Thanks.
Will do.
Can't wait to read it!
What do you conclude from these experiences?
Well, there's no way logically to know the future. Say God exists, then the phrases Alpha & Omega and the Father (past), Son (present), & Holy Spirit (unknown future) means to me that time means nothing to God and visions of future events are statements of "I Am". Now say God doesn't exist then it could be as simple as memories of the future that somehow the subconscious is tuned into.
I do know one thing that when I realize the dream is actually occurring, in real time, I cannot change it.
Written. See link in my reply to Gordy.
Written. Link is in my reply to Gordy.
Thank-you, Ma'am
I'm there, thank you
You're avoiding the central point of the comment you responded to. So I will say it again. Science cannot help you. Until you can admit that to yourself, you are stuck.
And you're avoiding providing anything better than science! And considering science can and does explain how the plagues could have happened, then I'd say that helps. So what do you have to offer?
Science can absolutely tell you if those event could happen naturally. But your inquiry is supposed to be about whether or not God did it, not whether or not it could happen under any circumstances. That's the "divine fallacy" you keep claiming is the central thesis of your seed.
I never inquired whether "god did it." That was not the point of the article. I examined the plagues to determine if they could have actually happened. The science shows that it could have. Others have claimed there was a divine cause. But there is nothing to support that being the case.
So you think it's possible God did do these things?
I never said it wasn't possible. But since there is no evidence to suggest god actually did anything (or that there's a god to begin with-but I digress), then there is no reason to assume, believe, feel, ect., that to be the case. So any claim of "God did it" is unconvincing at best.
Generally speaking, one must hold that anything is possible unless it has been proven impossible. Very few things can be proven impossible. One method is to find a contradiction in how something is defined (e.g. a perfect, omniscient entity that learns, is disappointed, is surprised). Another is a situation within a formal system (e.g. arithmetic) where formal proof is possible.
The existence of a supreme entity causing plagues cannot be ruled impossible. Extremely unlikely based on myriad factors, but it remains possible.
Note: it is the certain claim of: 'God did it' (i.e. these plagues necessarily are acts of God) that is the divine fallacy. Thus if one were to claim that the plague story is true for no reason other than belief the Bible is divine, we have the divine fallacy.
You are one of the reasons Gordy chose to do this set of articles.
Well, he did accuse me of writing a "series" of religious themed articles. And I didn't want to disappoint.
So you made him right by doing so.
I love it!
Well, I didn't want to make him a liar after all.
No, I did not. That is a lie. I accused you of seeding anti-religious articles and of commenting in pro-religious articles. And, in fact, when you tried to claim I said "writing" instead of seeding, I corrected you. I have also explained to you multiple times that I feel your seeding and commenting history is relevant to bias in your analysis, so I know you know better than to spread this falsehood.
Furthermore, I am not supposed to be the topic.
An accusation which itself is false!
Oh well, since we are going by your feelings.... >sarc<
Looks like your claim has withered ...
Well, yes Tacos!, Gordy (me too) has indeed seeded some articles that critically review religion and presented faults with same. And indeed Gordy (me too) has commented heavily on religious articles seeded by others which make grand claims of certainty with zero supporting evidence.
If that is all you are accusing then you should have just said that upfront instead of trying to disprove my absolutely demonstrably factual and indeed proven observation that religious articles from Gordy (and from me) have been infrequent.
Imagine how heads will explode when I get to the Jesus story
Unfortunately I expect no contrary comments will be thoughtful. Just more complaining and feeble attempts at trivial ‘gotcha’s.
I think so too. At least, that seems to be the pattern emerging here.
Neither am I. So stop with these asinine attempts at assessing my motivations or intentions behind my articles and replies in others.
So you're "offended" about a series of articles that disprove your belief. You have 2 options:
The author has just as much right to post these articles as anybody else posting religious articles. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong or illegal.
Nope. never said I was offended.
Never said the author didn't have that right. Never even implied it.
I never even said I didn't like it and I sure didn't say it was wrong or illegal. Got anything else you want to pretend I said?
So you are claiming no one has a right to examine your bias in your analysis? That's fine. At least we all know it now.
Do you truly not comprehend that ‘examine the bias’ of an author is going personal? No problems if one honestly debates / refutes the content.
It would be refreshing to read an honest rebuttal based on facts, reason and without all the emotion.
You're going to have to do better than some platitude.
Except you haven't demonstrated any bias. Only an empty claim of one. You certainly haven't addressed the points and analysis of the article with any rational, evidence based rebuttal.
I don't need to imagine. As it won't be Jesus that will be my judge. Unlike your beloved Trump, the Creator does not slough off his own responsibilities to a lower court when it comes to making such important judicial decisions.
Oh come on MonsterMash, don't threaten people. It is perfectly reasonable to NOT be convinced that the Bible is divine (or even correct).
Yes but remember-- NT is, after all, a Social Media site.
Oh, how quaint!
That evokes a feeling of nostalgia-- reminds me of a past era....
You're assuming that what Gordy writes about Jesus will not be complimentary.
But what if Gordy's analysis of Jesus' personality is that Jesus was one really cool dude! In fact totally fitting to be the Saviour of us all!
That's what I say about Jesus! Stop messing with my mind!
Is that supposed to be one of those thoughtful response you like to claim you want? This whole article is a representation of your feelings. But no one else has a right to theirs, eh?
No, it's actually legitimate inquiry and highly relevant to any examination of a person's analysis.
For example, if you own a tobacco company and produce a scientific paper saying cigarettes don't cause cancer, any sensible person will point out the obvious bias. You don't get to hide behind "but it's science!"
Another example: If you're a conservative legislator with a history of being against abortion, you can't produce a law requiring abortion doctors to have hospital admitting privileges and expect people to believe you are just acting in the best interests of medical science.
Similarly, if you have a well-documented history of bashing religion and faith, it's pretty ridiculous to produce an allegedly objective analysis of religion and not expect people to consider your well-known bias.
If you think this article is about feelings, then you just didn't get it. I offered scientific and logical analysis and evidence. Not mere feeling or belief. Not surprisingly, some did respond rather emotionally.
So, you are claiming that you came into this analysis with no preconceptions or conclusions about God, religion, or faith? You had a totally open mind, examined all available evidence and the result could have gone either way? You really expect people to believe that? You have to be kidding.
I don't care what you or anyone believes. I care about what the evidence shows. If someone claims (and has claimed) god did it, fine. Show me the evidence. So far, there has been none offered or forthcoming.
Not on this site; that is making the author the subject. If an author writes or seeds an article, commenters are to focus on the content, not on the author/seeder.
So if someone seeds a pro-religious article or a Trump bashing article or anything else that makes it easy to psychoanalyze the author/seeder it is against the CoC to analyze the author/seeder. But it is perfectly okay to rip the content of the article to shreds.
Focus on the content, not the person.
Public figures who are not members are fair game. If you want to analyze how Trump thinks or psychoanalyze what gets into nutcases like Ken Ham or how anyone like Kenneth Copeland can live with himself or to try to understand how Dr. Francis Collins can be such an accomplished geneticist and still believe in the Christian God then that is all cool.
And if you were to write an article on how Penguins survived Noah's flood by floating on icebergs then it would not be fair game to criticize you, the author, based on what we think we know of how you think. But it would be fair to rip your hypothesis to shreds.
See 9.6.35.
It is indeed perfectly reasonable to NOT be convinced that the Bible is divine (or even correct).
The examples are many so I just will pick one. God is held to be the arbiter of objective morality. Yet God condones the act of owning other human beings as property. Never did God (Yahweh) or God (Jesus) ever condemn, as immoral, the practice of slavery. And for a couple thousand years now, not a single word from God that slavery is immoral. Luckily society has evolved to the point where most people understand the immorality of slavery.
I could go on about similar logical problems, errors and contradictions. Those factors are clearly sufficient for someone to reasonably be NOT convinced that the Bible is divine and that it is, rather, the work of ancient men reflecting the times in which they lived.
You didn't get it the first time?
Why? Because she stated what her beliefs are regarding the afterlife and they don't match up with yours?
How is that a swing and a miss?
True. And not a happy one at all.
Well, now that we (finally) have gotten around to discussing subjects like "What is the true nature of reality" I have a question for you-- do you think that the Universe and everything in it is composed of particles-- or is it all just actually wave energy?
Or-- could it possibly be both?
(Maybe a bit of a trick question-- but ultimately it does touch on some important concepts-- even perhaps the question of "If God exists-- what is the nature of God"?)
Gets down to the meaning of ' exists '. Which then raises the question: what is the most primitive substance of existence ... what is quintessential existence? If God exists then God either is ALL of existence or God is a complex form of existence ... a complex arrangement of quintessential existence. Take a toke and contemplate.
Probably a good topic for an article.
Let me know when you decide to write it. I'll save it for a weekend and finish off that half a joint I have left
I don't believe the Hebrews were slaves, they were a warrior people who lived on the eastern side of Egypt and were tolerated by the pharaohs because of the protection from the east the Hebrews provided. The problem started to arise when the pharaoh, who considered himself a god, started demanding that the Hebrews worship him and as all the other Egyptians did during the off seasons, start helping building temples to him and the Egyptian gods. Moses didn't take well to this being there is only one God and he seen some of his people start doing as the pharaoh wished, he needed to get the people to move elsewhere as a society. He saw his chance when he foresaw what was coming with the plagues. It wasn't working and he was making enemies of the Egyptians and also his own people, until the last one, now the pharaoh was so pissed that he was going to end it all by just wiping out the Hebrews even the ones sympathetic to him, now that was the kick in the butt to get the whole Hebrew society to move and move they did.
Coming soon! The Fallacy of Biblical Stories, Part 4: Jonah & the Whale.
The Fallacy of Biblical Stories, Part 4: Jonah and the Whale , is now posted. Comments and thoughts welcome.
He orders the death of all the firstborn infants
I thought that was Herod.
To be fair, There is a lot of murdering going on in the bible.
And a lot of murdering even in today's world going on that is done in the name of the Bible. And there is nothing 'Holy' about it.
George Carlin once said more people have been killed by religion than anything else. In religion, murder is negotiable.
I guess it depends on who, in which part of the Bible commanded you to do it.
The Bible can be used to justify just about anything