Even more ironic considering Occam was a theist.
Here is a conversation (note conversation, not debate) with a Christian (he has a really good YouTube Channel - Vlogs of Knowledge) that I did - both him and I kept it civil, so I'd like to show it here.
He seems to follow the New Testament, which while I'll argue isn't perfect, I'm mostly fine with it (Nietzsche would not be proud!).
Um, "the bible would never say to kill someone?". I know I sound like an angry atheist, but the Old Testament includes some atrocities. Not trying to bash on you - I really like your videos - but I disagree with your conclusion there.
Oh there's plenty of that in the Bible I agree. Like the comment below I was mostly referring to the New Testament stuff. But that's not even getting into the context of the Bible and why some of these things were written. You don't sound like an angry atheist at all! I really appreciate the comment :D
Yeah, I do understand the context argument, and some quotes from Jesus really had some beautiful quotes. [poor grammar, sorry] However, regarding your "context" argument - in some cases I just don't believe it - for example when God stated that being gay was an "abomination" - I just don't think that was a dispassionate commandment. You could argue that he meant sleeping with temple prostitutes was the abomination (people used to sleep with temple prostitutes - usually male - to worship their Gods), I think he should referred to that specifically. I don't know - I'm no expert of the Bible. By the way, as a Christian, what parts of the Bible would you recommend? I'm trying to learn more about religion. Sorry for the long comment, and thank you for replying to my previous one!
Hmm.. This is a complicated answer so I'll try my best. I haven't read too much/nor am I too familiar with the Old Testament. As a Christian, I should be reading more the bible but I am not. So a lot of what I say is my personal understanding on the matter.
That being said, I am know that God is against being gay, that is man to man sexual relationships. I'm also pretty sure that the abomination thing is correct as well, as I have heard of it before. Now please, hear me out first. I am not against gay people. Frankly, I really don't care it doesn't affect me they can do whatever they want. Although, I cannot support that because I do not believe that this was the way that we were meant to be created. This is a personal belief and I keep it to myself because it has no purpose to be said out loud, in today's society.
What I mean by "I can't support" is simply you will never hear me suggest to somebody to be gay. I will accept it, i will be happy if anybody is gay, I will be their friend I will treat them like they deserve to be treated but I won't encourage it. That being said, I will not discourage them either. People have a right to live their lives how they want and love who they want. Who am I to object to that. I know plenty of gay guys and I really enjoy hanging out with them and having them as my friends.
I have no problems there. I really don't even care if they display affection, as long as its not excessive. Which would bother me if it was a man or a woman too, as would most people. I really don't agree with people who go out and petition against gay people saying that they are an abomination, because they are not. That's only hurting others and outcomes in nothing positive. These are people who take this too far. Like I said in the video, the Bible's message (the New Testament's) is love and kindness. Not hatred. But then there's the Old Testament. Which has been written in many years by different people, so they say. I stand by my argument that the context matters. Because there was a time when the Jews needed a wrathful God and then there was another time later on where they needed a loving God. Which is why in the Old Testament you see God destroying cities and killing people, but then you also see him being loving and generous. To answer your question about what to read in the Bible, I don't know. I personally really enjoy the 4 gospels. I read them and try to live a life by Jesus' example. And just to add a final point, I completely understand the angle you are coming from to look at a specific verse and question it and its meaning.
However, that is not how I choose to approach religion. I look at the big picture, which is: don't be an idiot, be kind, be generous, give back and love one another. All the details about it don't really matter. But then somebody could say that by ignoring the details, I am avoiding proofs that God makes no sense. I agree, that's a fair argument. But it's just how I choose to look at things. I can point you to many points in the Bible where God makes no sense and I have no answers too. That's ok. My belief is about the bigger picture. Sorry for the book. Lol. It's just something I'm passionate about! I really don't expect an answer because I understand this is too long.
< This comment was too long to picture >
Wow, thanks for the reply! I admire your worldview, so I think I can agree to disagree on this issue. You've obviously thought about your viewpoint a lot, and I respect that. I would argue that your point of view could be seen as unfalsiable [sic] (in that whenever I point to a bad verse you a good), but I have some mild belief in Creator - which I'd say is unfalsifiable - so that wouldn't be entirely honest. Thank you for the great conversation - I'll be looking forwards to see more of your content!
< This argument was poorly constructed - what I could have was probed into the inconsistency of the laws or something like that - but remember, it's a conversation, not a debate. >
I wouldn't necessarily always point you to a good verse in return. It's not about "one-upping" one another. I'd most likely agree with you on it, if your argument made sense and was rational. I'm a very logical person and a lot of things from the Bible make no sense and I can't explain. It's just that I've been through enough things in my life that my personal experience has given me a faith that believes even when the proof says I shouldn't. Thank you as well for commenting and I'll be glad to keep making videos :D
< As I said, it was a very poor argument I made - I was constructing a Strawman. >
Thanks to Vlogs of Knowledge for the conversation - he has a great YouTube channel!
Here are a series of questions regarding whether one should be an atheist or not. It will be narrated by my neutral character 'Man', of whom you can see here.
Are you a so-called militant atheist?
Should kids be raised Christian?
Will you raise your kid atheist?
Isn't that the same as raising your kid Christian?
Even if you are so sure that you are right - and that your beliefs are a source for good, don't Christians too?
If they genuinely believe that, is it not right for them to believe that?
(Assuming they are a 'so-called militant atheist')
Will you teach them science?
Will you teach them Christian science?
Is that bias?
Are you part of the problem?
Will you teach your kid to be rational?
Will you teach him to be rational from an atheist point if view?
How will you feel if he becomes a Muslim?
Some people think that the Free Will Defense is a checkmate against The Problem of Evil.
Whilst reading 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra', I had a minor epiphany reading this line:
'And if our ears are to blame, why did he give us ears that were unable to hear him properly?'
I've recently joined a group of atheists known as the International Atheist society - if you want to join, click here for a survey.
In Nietzsche's 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra', he says an interesting line which caught my attention - I immediately illustrated it and posted it to my atheist pin-board. To me, its seems like a good prophecy for the future focus on Humanism within the atheist community (oh, and he probably also prophesied the atheist community itself). 'Could you create a God? - so be silent about all Gods! But you could surely create a Superman!'. Regardless of whether you follow Nietzsche's ethics of the 'Will to Power' and such (I don't), this is saying that we should put our focus away from the Gods above (which have very different morals to us - the Biblical God, for example, thinks mass-genocide is okay to punish humans, such as in Noah's Ark), an onto us; onto our ethics; onto our problems - not a God who we cannot even relate - and who probably doesn't exist.
His second line is an advocation of Empiricism and Humanism: saying that we should only conceive of things that human. This could have also resonated with Deists if they are apathetic about God, if only Nietzsche didn't state at the start 'God is a superstition'.
He also told us to 'follow our own senses until the end', advocating empiricism, but also advocating following our instincts, the force that drives us - the Will to Power.
Recently I have been researching evolution, and consequently, Biblical Creation. Whilst reading Genesis 1 and 2 alongside a healthy dose of skepticism (reading the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible alongside it — this also gives me a taste of the King James version), I noticed and misalignment before Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.
Whilst reading ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra’ by Friedrich Nietzsche, I noticed the strange disconnect between Nietzsche's opinion of Christians:
In the famous debate ‘Bill Nye vs Ken Ham’, there was a noticeable flaw — or not so much flaw as missed opportunity — to expose Ken Ham for his argument from ignorance.
Note: This is a reupload of my essay and critique of ‘The God Delusion’, from my website, Wopism. You can download it for free here! For the 2nd Edition I’ve reorganized the references to add to the conciseness, and cleared up some grammar errors. I’ve also elaborated on some points and tried to make some of my phrasing more clear.
The Aesthetics of Atheism
In The God Delusion Richard Dawkins mentions the aesthetic qualities of evolution*, and also of other religions. Whilst this often strengthens his arguments, they sometimes give bias to his views, and these biases often have interesting parallels to religion. Here are a series of essays looking at the advantages and disadvantages of this view, all based of quotes from his book. Since these often come attached with intentions not clear in the writing, maybe I was not critiquing what he intended, but this is my subjective interpretation. Firstly I have attached an essay which was also included in ‘Short Essays, Short Dialogues’**.
A Wopism production.
Welcome to the Tea-Drinking Atheist, my blog where I talk about all things atheism and philosophy! I try to make my posts short enough to read whilst draining a nice cuppa!
See my more academic writing on my website, Wopism; follow me on Twitter @KilledByAGhost and on Instagram at 'hegelz'.
Check out my atheist memes and promotion of rationality as a whole!