Search This Blog

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Cain and Abel, who is to blame?

The concept that god is all knowing gets glossed over with this story. God is all knowing. He is fully aware that Cain will kill Abel. He knows why Cain will kill Abel. Does he warn Abel? Does he mention to Adam and Eve that Cain is unstable? Does he give a talk to Cain about the evils of pride and killing? Does he offer Cain some compliments to make him feel better about himself? No, he does nothing.
He is all powerful and all knowing. He knows that people makes mistakes, after all, he is still mad about the whole eating of the forbidden fruit thing. But he does nothing.
Yet the debate is focused on Cain. The debate should be focused on god. He is the only one in the story who knows what will happen and he is also the only one who can change it. But he does nothing.
Christians say that god is all knowing, but they really do not comprehend what the concept means.

Friday, June 17, 2011

Can free will exist?

Free will and god being all knowing


If I have free will, I can make any choice I want. However, if god is all knowing, he is aware of every choice I will make before I make it. Therefore, I am unable to make a choice that god is unaware of. If I am unable to make a choice that god is unaware of, then my choices are not actually choices. They have been predetermined. I am incapable of making an an actual choice because the choice I end up making is pre-known by god. If the choice is known before it is actually made, then it is simply a completion of a pre-arranged event. Therefore, my free will is meaningless. I am not capable of actually making a real decision. In other words, if God already knows the future, then humanity is destined to corroborate with his knowledge of the future and not have true free will to deviate from it


The only way free will can exist is if god is not all knowing. However, if god is not all knowing, then he is not all powerful and is not god. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.


This also presupposes the problem of an omniscient god who has free will directly in arguing that the will of God himself would be bound to follow whatever God foreknows himself doing throughout eternity.

According to Jeremiah 18, god does not know what he will do in the future. "At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it. And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it" (Jer. 18:7-10).

Aspects of the biblical god, being all powerful vs. being all knowing.



The Christian god is considered to be all powerful and all knowing. That is not possible. If god is all powerful, then he can make any change that he wants. However, if he is all knowing, then he already knows how everything will turn out. If he makes a change, then something new occurred that he was not previously aware of. He, therefore, would not be all knowing. However, if he does not know everything, then he can’t be all powerful, as there is something he does not have complete control over. And if he is incapable of making a change, then he is once again, not all powerful.  The two concepts are mutually exclusive. Just as a square circle cannot exist, the biblical god cannot exist either.

I occasionally have Christians tell me that god cannot do something that is contrary to his nature. He therefore cannot change his mind. However, the bible does not agree with that view. Jer. 18:7-10 "If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it."

In this verse, god says he plans to uproot, tear down and destroy a nation. That, therefore, would be his plan. But if he relents and does not do this, then he changed his mind. It does not say that if they change their ways, he will have accomplished his goal by making them see the error of his ways. It says he will relent. If he knew that they would change their ways, then he would not be relenting. Relenting is deciding not to do something one already planned on doing. It is not completing an original plan. 

This point becomes even more evident with the idea that god answers prayers. For prayer to work, that implies that god is willing to change events for a specific person. However, if god is willing to change events, then he cannot be all knowing. If he was all knowing, then he already knows how everything will turn out. Therefore, the prayer is pointless. It either coincides with what god always has planned or it does not. If it does coincide, then there was no need to pray because the outcome was already what you needed before you prayed for it. If it does not coincide, then praying is pointless because it never had a chance to change anything. 
If prayer actually does change events, then god cannot be all knowing. If god is not all knowing, then he is not all powerful. Since the standard model of god says that he is all knowing and all powerful, then he cannot be answering prayer and changing events to something he did not already plan for.

Can prayer work?

For prayer to work, that implies that god is willing to change events for a specific person. However, if god is willing to change events, then he cannot be all knowing. If he was all knowing, then he already knows how everything will turn out. Therefore, the prayer is pointless. It either coincides with what god always has planned or it does not. If it does coincide, then there was no need to pray because the outcome was already what you needed before you prayed for it. If it does not coincide, then praying is pointless because it never had a chance to change anything.
If prayer actually does change events, then god cannot be all knowing. If god is not all knowing, then he is not all powerful. Since the standard model of god says that he is all knowing and all powerful, then he cannot be answering prayer and changing events to something he did not already plan for.

Atheists in prisons

The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of inmates per religion category:

Response Number %

---------------------------- --------

Catholic 29267 39.164%

Protestant 26162 35.008%

Muslim 5435 7.273%

American Indian 2408 3.222%

Nation 1734 2.320%

Rasta 1485 1.987%

Jewish 1325 1.773%

Church of Christ 1303 1.744%

Pentecostal 1093 1.463%

Moorish 1066 1.426%

Buddhist 882 1.180%

Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%

Adventist 621 0.831%

Orthodox 375 0.502%

Mormon 298 0.399%

Scientology 190 0.254%

Atheist 156 0.209%

Hindu 119 0.159%

Santeria 117 0.157%

Sikh 14 0.019%

Bahai 9 0.012%

Krishna 7 0.009%

---------------------------- --------

Total Known Responses 74731 100.001% (rounding to 3 digits does this)

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

Hmmm, atheists make up around 4-6% of the US population but are less than one quarter of one percent in prison populations. Catholics and Protestants make up 74%. Even those "peaceful" Muslims are adding 7.2% to the prison populations. So, who is actually the group engaging in anti-social, immoral behavior?

Friday, June 10, 2011

Muslims keeping sex slaves

KUWAIT: A female political activist and former parliamentary candidate has recommended the introduction of legislation to legalize the provision of enslaved female concubines for Muslim men in Kuwait in a bid, she says, to protect those men from committing adultery or corruption.


The activist, Salwa Al-Mutairi, suggested apparently seriously in a video broadcast online that she had been informed by some clerics that affluent Muslim men who fear being seduced or tempted into immoral behavior by the beauty of their female servants, or even of those servants 'casting spells' on them, would be better to purchase women from an 'enslaved maid' agency for sexual purposes.

She suggested that special offices could be set up to provide concubines in the same way as domestic staff recruitment agencies currently provide housemaids.

"We want our youth to be protected from adultery," said Al-Mutairi, suggesting that these maids could be brought as prisoners of war in war-stricken nations like Chechnya to be sold on later to devout merchants.

"This is not religiously forbidden," she added, indicating that Caliph Haroun Al-Rashid (766-809 AD) was married to one woman but possessed 200 concubines.

Further reading: Men should be allowed sex slaves and female prisoners could do the job - and all this from a WOMAN politician from Kuwait. To reiterate from that article:


"Mutairi said that during a recent visit to Mecca, Saudi muftis said it was not forbidden to own a sex slave."

Further reading: Men should be allowed sex slaves and female prisoners could do the job - and all this from a WOMAN politician from Kuwait. To reiterate from that article:


"Mutairi said that during a recent visit to Mecca, Saudi muftis said it was not forbidden to own a sex slave."

http://feeds.feedburner.com/FreethoughtNation


So, according to Muslims, having sex slaves is more moral than committing adultery.

EXPELLED ON THE BLOCK?

Now this is ironic. I saw this article and wanted to pass it along.

https://www.google.com/accounts/ServiceLogin?service=groups2&passive=1209600&continue=http://groups.google.com/group/ncse-news&followup=http://groups.google.com/group/ncse-news

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed -- the 2008 creationist propaganda
movie fronted by Ben Stein -- is scheduled to be auctioned, lock,
stock, and barrel, pursuant to the bankruptcy proceeding of Premise
Media Holdings LP. According to a document filed in the United States
Bankruptcy Court of the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division,
on May 31, 2011, the trustee of the bankruptcy estate is seeking to
auction "[t]hat certain feature-length motion picture ('Picture')
'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed' and all collateral, allied,
ancillary, subsidiary and merchandising rights therein and thereto,
and all properties and things of value pertaining thereto." The
auction is scheduled to take place on-line from June 23 to June 28,
2011.

The high bidder will become the owner of the movie that The New York
Times (2008 Apr 18) described as "[o]ne of the sleaziest documentaries
to arrive in a very long time ... a conspiracy-theory rant
masquerading as investigative inquiry ... an unprincipled propaganda
piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike" and that was
denounced by the American Association for the Advancement of Science
for its "profound dishonesty" and condemned by the Anti-Defamation
League for its "outrageous" misuse of the Holocaust to "tarnish those
who promote the theory of evolution." (NCSE's Expelled Exposed
provides a collection of reviews, commentary, and resources
documenting the extensive problems with Expelled.) Caveat emptor!

Thursday, June 2, 2011

The Christian worldview

I was asked to read an article on Christianity and why it is the only consistent, coherent worldview. Here is a link to the article if anyone is interested in reading it.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/whywhat.pdf

The author stated the following: ” Given the sum of what you assume and reject just when buying milk, you act like you believe that you live in a world described by Christianity.” He also stated this, “When you stand in line with others, expecting others to respect you space and person, you reveal your rejection of moral relativism and your deep trust in absolute ethical norms.”


Now, what is interesting is that the author never bothers to explain exactly what is uniquely Christian about the idea that buying milk, or any standard activity, invokes Christian worldviews. It is simply assumed that it does, in fact, invoke these nebulous ideals. I would submit that it does not invoke these ideals. If I am a Christian, I would expect the following is possible given my worldview. I would have to assume it is possible that dead people could be walking around the store as well as living people. I would have to assume it is possible that the sun could stop at any given moment. I would have to assume that a donkey or a snake might decide to start talking to me. I should expect to see unicorns and fairies when I walk around my city. I would have to assume many implausible events could actually start to happen, because according to the bible, they happened before. I would have to expect not only implausible events, but events that confound known reality.
Regarding the comment that I expect absolute moral norms, one cannot show that the Christian viewpoint provides any of that. Based on the bible, it should not surprise me that people expect to own slaves, desire to stone non virgins or kill people for minor issues such as cutting their beard. In fact, the bible is the complete opposite of an absolute moral authority. The god of the bible is Jesus. He is the god in the OT and he is the god in the NT. However, in the OT, he says that we should kill people for committing adultery. In the NT, he says only someone without sin should cast the first stone. We cannot know what to expect from him because his law is not constant. He says not to kill people, but then commands us to kill or kills people himself. Even if you want to argue that he has the right to kill us because he created us, he should not tell us to break his laws by killing people. Especially since he is perfectly capable of killing mankind all by his loving self. We expect our leaders to be better than us. When god commands us to kill, in spite of his commandment not to kill, he is asking us to commit sin on his behalf. A moral leader would never ask that of his people.

When people try to explain that Jesus has done away with the rules of the OT, that does not help any. They were his rules in the first place. Even if he did change his mind, all that does is show his laws are not consistent. And besides, he told us himself that he was not here to change the laws.

Verse 17) ‘Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfil.

(Verse 18) For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

(Verse 19) Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

(Matthew 5:17-19 – NKJV).

One cannot refer to the bible as an authority on moral behavior. One cannot refer to god as an absolute. One cannot refer to the Christian mindset as a consistent worldview. All one can do is make the claim that it actually does what you hope it does. But the concepts and reality show you are are completely wrong.

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Egyptian military performs 'virginity tests'

According to a report by an international activist group (see which one), the Egyptian military is accused of performing "virginity tests" on detained female protesters (see which senior official confirmed the accusations). The 2011 Egyptian revolution (learn more about it), which forced former president Hosni Mubarak out of power, has resulted in the military controlling the country until elections later this year.

http://specials.msn.com/A-List/Lifestyle/Egyptian-military-performs-virginity-tests.aspx?cp-documentid=28946425

A very disturbing news article, but hardly surprising. The Muslims continue to demonstrate that they have no appreciation for the value of people. It does not explain how they perform this test, but it safe to say they are looking for an intact hymen. Since a woman can break her hymen during normal physical activities, they could be accusing a woman of immoral behavior and be completely wrong with their accusation.