Ignorance and the Bible
- Thread starter domer76
- Start date
I looked into it enough to know it’s one of the failed attempts apologists commonly use to try to prove their agenda. Your other “design” arguments also fall under those failed attempts. You have no idea whether there is purposeful design or not.
Until science unlocks the source of life on this planet, I won’t get my panties all in a knot about it. It’s not something I’m going to dwell upon. You can do that for me. What I DO know is that a deity making man out of mud is absurd. Or woman from his rib. And then disappearing for the rest of history. Children’s stories.
Last edited:
It may seem that way to you...but I attribute that to your ignorance.
In any case, if you want to be particular, you wrote, 'There is no “God of the gaps”.'
Okay, explain how you KNOW that...or is it just a blind guess on your part.
Mind you, I use the term "I do not know" often when there are things I do not know. YOU, on the other hand, often offer your blind guesses about things you do not know...so I am intrigued by your suggestion that "I do not know" should be sufficient.
Yeah, picking on the god of the Bible is an easy thing to do...which is most likely why folk like you do it so often in defense of your "atheism."
It is sort of like someone claiming to be an advanced mathematician...and using 2 = 2 in base 10 equals 4...as an example of proof.
Based Chad
Was it me?
you're a fucking idiot.
that's you, Christian Zionist.
Google is your friend.
Atheists insist on reading the Bible as strict literalists in the way Southern Baptists and Pentecostals do.
I just disagree with the premise that all Christians are superstitious and irrational fools, and the underlying implication that atheists in contrast are educated and enlightened.
I occasionally visit Episcopalian service down the street from me... The Pew polling organization found that Episcopalians by a wide margin were more likely to be college educated than atheists. The entire leadership of this Episcopalian Church is female. The laity is at least 50 percent female. The head Vicar is a lesbian.
Polling consistently shows that atheists are overwhelmingly white, male, and young. So the argument could be made that while they fancy themselves super-enlightened, atheists actually seem to have a problem with inclusivity, and gender and racial bias.
Last edited:
Yes it is...but you have not answered the question.
Too tough?
Distraction seems to be the national obsession lately. You ought not to fall into the trap.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Hitchens, like the other 3 Horsemen and personalities like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter rabble-rouse for money. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just not for me to sell my soul for mammon.
Everything You Need to Know About Daniel Dennett: Bio, Love & Lifestyle • Net Worth List
From career milestones to dating status, body measurements, and net worth—here's a full breakdown of Daniel Dennett in 2025.
networthlist.org
Obviously much of Genesis is allegorical. But are the "history" books also supposedly allegorical?
I know you don't like standard Christianity which integrates both the OT and the NT but we are stuck with a God in the NT that is, per every single line of the NT, the same God as the OT.
The reason many of us atheists focus on the OT is because that represents the ORIGIN of God. It represents the BASELINE of God. Given that Christianity does NOT allow one to ignore the OT (that is heresy) it means that the God of the OT has to be dealt with in any discussion of Christianity.
Personally I would recommend to Christians that they revisit Marcion and consider evolving the faith to be more focused on the NT and totally disavow the God of the OT. The God of the OT represents most of the bad intentions many modern Christians carry. Whether it is their homophobia (based on Leviticus) or their eschatology (wanting the return of Jesus via the Holy Land which is "supernaturally" given to one group etc.)
I personally love the teachings of Jesus for the most part. They are brilliant and I can definitely see the makings of a great religion that would be a net benefit to the world. Which it finally seems capable of being. It had a rocky adolescence with a lot of murdery stuff and intolerance.
I like the fact that modern Christians are evolving the faith away from the fire and brimstone stuff, but the fire and brimstone stuff still rides along far too much for my comfort.
That's good because I've not seen anyone except Hume call Christians as many names as you imagine in your posts that they are being called.
In reality most of these conversations have been quite pleasant overall. I don't see anyone really attacking Christians on this thread. But I also get the sense that some posters get really upset when anyone so much as points out a theologically problematic part of Christianity.
Again, no one on this side has said that.
Hitchens, like the other 3 Horsemen and personalities like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter rabble-rouse for money. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just not for me to sell my soul for mammon.
Just so long as we include every single Christian author in that list. They also get paid to proselytize and there's a lot more of them.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
See? You understand my point.
Hitchens and Dawkins strike me as having very superficial arguments against Christianity, and it's mainly just a litany of complaints about the Bible, or an objection to some atrocity from 800 years ago.Hitchens, like the other 3 Horsemen and personalities like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter rabble-rouse for money. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just not for me to sell my soul for mammon.
Christopher Hitchens was a British and American literary critic, political journalist, orator, and author of 18 books focused on faith, culture, and politics who has a net worth of $4 million.
Richard Dawkins is an English ethologist, writer, and evolutionary biologist who has a net worth of $10 million dollars.
Sam Harris is an American neuroscientist, philosopher, author, and podcast host who has a net worth of $12 million.
As of 2025, Daniel Dennett's estimated net worth is approximately $3 million. This figure encompasses his earnings from decades of academic teaching, book sales, and speaking engagements.Everything You Need to Know About Daniel Dennett: Bio, Love & Lifestyle • Net Worth List
From career milestones to dating status, body measurements, and net worth—here's a full breakdown of Daniel Dennett in 2025.
At face value, Hitchens is treated as a 'scholarly' because he has a nice English accent and is skilled with the rhetorical flourish
They never have any positive alternative worldview, other than to say people should attempt to accommodate themselves to a universe without any ultimate purpose or meaning, and the only thing waiting for us out there at the end of the day is the howling void.
I thought Sam Harris was going to be better, but he again just had a litany of complaints about the Christian Bible and Christian history, and he played some word games about how objective morality could be consistent with atheism
On the flipside, I am never going to waste time listening to Joel Osteen or any televangelists.
Last edited:
The words are what they are. “Make man in OUR image” is pretty clear.
Who said all Christians are superstitious and irrational? Good for the Episcopalians. Just Catholic Light. They still have to believe in the bizarre concept of the Trinity, don’t they?
That the poll indicates atheists are white, male and young says NOTHING about their inclusivity or gender and racial bias. That is a huge jump illogic on your part.
I can't stress enough that supposedly God is eternal. So 800 years ago is exactly the same as yesterday to God. The ONLY thing that changed was humanity settling into more stable configurations.
The reason atheists harp on that is because it shows God to be a wholly human invention. It changes with human needs.
No one is complaining about God per se. They are complaining that the author of these supposed "objective morality" commands himself changes over time. Sometimes he's OK with genocide, then later he's not.
Again, the whole point of raising it is not to laugh and say how silly God is but rather to point up the theological problems.
Unless you don't think a changing eternal God is a problem.
Give the man his due. He's fought against the incursion of creationism into his field for the past 40 years. A very real threat to his area of expertise.
You should definitely read some Harris. As well as countless other atheists who will tell you a positive world view. If you don't read any atheists I can see why you might have an incorrect view of the philosophy.
You need to read more atheist writers. Most are pretty positive.
Again, if you had read Harris you'd also know he doesn't pull any punches for other religions like Islam.
What is the God of the gaps? That’s the question?
The answer is Google is your friend.
That is not the question.
Looking back over the conversation is your friend!
I have extensively debated the god of the gaps...and intelligent design in other fora for years.
Stop supposing I am too stupid to converse with you and answer the question. It actually is an easy one. I gave you the answer when I asked it.
Yeah, you’re pretty fucking dense, or stubborn, or both when it comes to some of these topics. Your “blind guess” mantra is trite, wearisome and boring.
What I said Frank, is that there is no God of the gaps for atheists. They don’t have to fill in the blanks of our knowledge with a supernatural being.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Agreed on Osteen and televangelists. I'd include carnival barkers and snake-oil salesmen in that subset of human depravity. People who are legal, mostly, but totally lacking in common virtues.
Bullshit. What you wrote was, 'There is no “God of the gaps”.' (Your post #234)
No sense to bullshit...the words are right here for all to read.
I've already said what I have to say about the word "supernatural."