Cooter Brown wrote: I challenge you to prove the God of the Abrahamic faiths (Jehovah/Yahweh) doesn’t exist.
Yes, the god of the Abrahamic myths can be demonstrated not to actually exist by pointing out fatal contradictions in that god’s alleged character.
There is a contractions between Abrahamic god’s alleged omnibenevolence and his creation of hell. Infinite compassion does not condone or abide infinite torture. This is a fatal contradiction which demonstrates that your god cannot logically exist.
There is another clash with beings claimed to be both intrinsically immortal and omnipotent (all powerful/can do anything). Your god cannot be both, take for example suicide. If your god cannot be killed (immortal) then killing itself is beyond its power, but if your god could kill itself then it by definition cannot be immortal?
It’s been argued that such an example is irrelevant because your god cannot do things that conflict with its nature. This, however, redefines omnipotence by taking "the ability to do anything" and adding "that doesn’t conflict with the beings other properties." By that new definition I am omnipotent as I have the ability to anything which doesn’t conflict with my other properties. By myself I cannot fly or breath water, not because I’m not omnipotent but because they conflict with my nature.
Divine free will and divine omniscience present another contradiction. Does your god know or does it not know that a certain individual will be good or bad? If your god knows then it necessarily follows that the individual is compelled to act as your god knew beforehand he would act, the individual would predestined; not free. If the individual were free and could choose to do otherwise, your god’s knowledge must be imperfect. These two ideas cannot both be true, therefore your god cannot logically exist.
A biblical example of this would be the myth of Adam and Eve. An omniscience god would have known about the serpent beforehand, there could be no divine anger as your god would have known they would not obey it and could have prevented it from occurring. It makes no more sense for your god to be angered by and punish Adam and Eve as it would if you decided to drop a brick from head level knowing that gravity would cause it would break something important to you.
The mythical flood of Noah is another example, your god is said to have brought the flood after becoming disappointed with its creation of mankind. Disappointment is the non-fulfillment of what one hopes; an omniscience being does not hope, it knows.
In Genesis 22:12 An angel of god stops Abraham from killing his son saying "…now I know that thou art a god-fearing man…" ‘Now I know’? An omniscience god would already know.
For stories concerning surprise, emotion, and reassessment to be true, divine omniscience must be false. As your god is said have engaged in these contradictions your god cannot logically exist.
Finally, your god is asserted to be perfect. This sets up a problem as illustrated by Matthew 7:18 which says "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit." So a PERFECT GOD creates a PERFECT HUMAN and imperfection comes of it? How could a perfect being sin? We can’t say "because it just decides to" Why? What possible need would it be serving, an imperfect need? Where did the imperfect need come from?
When we work backwards to find the transition from perfection to imperfection the problem is unworkable. Freewill or not, perfect beings (human or gods) do not make imperfect choices. To argue otherwise is to argue that a good tree CAN bear bad fruit.
There is more but I’m out of space, needless to say your god is one gigantic mess of self-contradiction. As good as you might feel being deluded in your beliefs, your god cannot logically exist.
by John Tremblay
| Comments Off on Challenge Accepted!
Now that the proverbial shit has hit the fan about Phil Robertson, a devout Christian, expressing his devoutly Christian views on homosexuals to a writer from GQ Magazine, I would like to take a step back and point out the depressing stupidity of A&E and those who agree with them.
After the author writes “He is a man who preaches the gospel of the outdoors and, to my great envy, practices what he preaches.” He then turns suddenly and writes “…here’s where things get a bit uncomfortable … he thumps that Bible hard enough to ring the bell at a county-fair test of strength.” Now perhaps I do not find Bible thumping uncomfortable because I was raised in Phil’s religion but the author is a journalist, his personal feelings are irrelevant. I suspect he inserted this tidbit to distance himself from the ideas he seems to think are criminal to express.
The author then writes something which, coming from a journalist, is entirely hypocritical. “Out here in these woods, without any cameras around, Phil is free to say what he wants. Maybe a little too free.” That’s right, too free, as in Phil’s freedom to express himself has crossed some sort of imaginary line and should be curtailed. I wonder if the author of the article would appreciate being told that his freedom to write what he wants is a little too free. This brings me to the gravamen of my case, free expression being trampled by political correctness.
Sarah Kate Ellis – GLADD
Nancy Dubac – A&E
With the congratulatory praise of GLADD, A&E responded to the article by removing Phil from the “reality show” based on his family. What part of the article prompted this hard-handed response? Well it wasn’t the creationist nonsense, it wasn’t even his anecdotal denial that blacks were mistreated during the civil rights era, it was the fact that Phil Robertson had the [audacity!] to SAY he thought homosexual sex was revolting to him; that he did not understand why a man would not prefer sex with woman. Phil merely expressed in words his own ignorance concerning the person sex drive of other humans, not one mention of committing violence against homosexuals, which if he were true to what his religion actually says would be a given, just that he personally didn’t understand why anyone would engage in homosexual coitus. A view which fits perfectly with the other religious views, nothing surprising about this. A&E and GLADD would have us think that any dislike or inability to understand homosexuality is equivalent to hate, it isn’t, but that is also irrelevant.
This mole hill, turned mountain, reminds me of a lecture by the late Christopher Hitchens on the subject of hate speech where he recommended everyone take a refresher course on the classic texts on the matter; John Milton’s Areopagitica, “Areopagitica” being the great hill of Athens for discussion and free expression; Thomas Paine’s introduction to The Age of Reason. The most pertinent being John Stuart Mill’s essay On Liberty in which it is variously said that it is not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen, and to hear.
Every time you silence someone you make yourself a prisoner of your own action because you deny yourself the right to hear something. In other words, your own right to hear and be exposed is as much involved in all these cases as is the right of the other to voice his or her view. If all in society were agreed on the truth and beauty and value of one proposition, all except one person, it would be most important, in fact it would become even more important, that that one heretic be heard, because we would still benefit from his perhaps outrageous or appalling view. As Rosa Luxembourg said, freedom of speech is meaningless unless it means the freedom of the person who thinks differently.
Archie Bunker – All in the Family
When I first read what was happening the look on my face mirrored that of Archie (right). I’m an atheist, I don’t think for one second that we should base modern society on the archaic manuscripts which include such things as the death penalty for unruly children or working on the Sabbath. I think that gay relationships harm nobody and that gay marriages should be recognized and treated no differently than so-called traditional marriage. I think Phil Robertson, like the fictional Archie Bunker, is a product of the time and place in which he was raised and there isn’t very much anyone can do to change him. Phil Robertson isn’t attempting to force his personal views on others or calling for homosexuals to be persecuted in any way, his words caused no actual harm. The appropriate response should be the same as it was with All in the Family. People laughed at Archie Bunker’s bigotry because bigotry doesn’t deserve serious consideration. They did not raise hell, complain about being offended and then call for his removal from the show.
GLADD and A&E are justifying the removal of Phil with the claim that what he said was offensive to their LGBT views. Well I’m with Steven Fry in that “[i]t’s now very common to hear people say, ‘I’m rather offended by that.’ As if that gives them certain rights. It’s actually nothing more… than a wine. ‘I find that offensive.’ It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. ‘I am offended by that.’ Well, so fucking what.” Seriously GLADD, what Robertson thinks has ZERO effect on your members.
I’ll close with a suggestion to Phil and his family, stick together. As a family, refuse to take part in any further production until they reverse their decision. I may not agree with Phill but I’ll be damned if I’m going to support GLADD and A&E forbidding everyone else from hearing what he has to say.
by John Tremblay
| Tagged: A&E
, Phil Robertson
| Comments Off on Phil Robertson vs. A&E: I’m Offended! Well, so what!