Monday School: Evidence is not an assumption

When AUUB was posting the original Monday School series, she would often post notes that were left by his readers and offer counter arguments to them for the enjoyment of all his readers. So today I will present a similar entry to share a lively debate I’ve been privately having with a diary member named Despicable Me. I don’t do this to poke fun at him, quite the contrary. What we are discussing is quite interesting and I think my readers will take something good from it and enjoy reading it.

So here is the theme for today’s Monday school: How do we convince someone who is religious that our atheism is a result of evidence which is far different than their own wild assumptions?

Yesterday, I posted a rather interesting entry about billboards that showcased the more ugly passages of the bible. In response to that entry, Dispicable Me went on to post an entire diary entry in an effort to refute what he believed were teh billboard’s ‘misinterpretations’ of his hopy scripture. Let’s break this down one piece at a time. I will show the billboard, then Despicable Me’s response, and then provide my own response. This should be fun.

Here is Dispicable Me’s response to this Billboard: Psalm 137, when read in its entirety is a song of lamenting. It was written as the children of Israel were dragged from their promised land. They were under siege for months, starved out, cannibalizing each other to survive. They’d been beaten and slaughtered and enslaved and now they were in this strange land and the soldiers were mocking them. Verse 9 is a plea to God for vengeance. It’s a cry of anguish and anger and desperation. It’s also the appropriate thing for a Christian to do. We are commanded not to act on vengeance. God clearly claims, that He will recompense.

So basically according to Dispicable Me, it’s okay for someone to smash a child against a rock if that person was dragged from their home, under seige for months and starved out? It’s okay to threaten children as long as you’re angry and desperate? Sure, but wouldn’t that clearly contradict that whole part that asks you to frogive your enemies and turn the other cheek? But hey, smash that kid against the rock if you’re really angry… you’ll still be blessed.

Here is Dispicable Me’s response to this Billboard: Paul, in the Holy Spirit, gives Timothy a command for the church. Women are not to teach or usurp authority over a man. There’s even an explanation given. The woman (Eve) was deceived by the devil in Genesis. The man (Adam) wrongly, but willingly and deliberately followed the woman off the cliff. There is an order to the church. Women are not to be preachers. I know it’s not politically correct. That’s not really important. This doesn’t make women lesser creatures. Doesn’t mean they’re stupid. It’s just the way things go.

Of course it’s not politically corret… it’s sexist! Women are not lesser than men, they are and should be treated as equals. This passage is a result of a very sexist man, who was raised in a very sexist time. It has nothing to do with any almighty being, as no ‘all good’ god would ever order a gender to be discriminated against. yeah, and that whole Adam & Eve bullshit doesn’t fly with most atheists either.

Here is Dispicable Me’s response to this Billboard: Your translation is wrong. I wonder if that’s deliberate. Verse 28 is talking about fornication. That’s any sexual act outside of marriage. The man is required to pay a betrothal and marry the woman. It’s not talking about rape. Verse 25 talks about rape and it clearly says that rape is a sin worthy of death. Doesn’t sound like the Bible is endorsing rape to me. What about you?

This passage is not translated incorrectly. The passage translates into rape because it comes from the Hebrew words taphas, which means ‘to be seized, be arrested, be caught, be taken, captured’ and shakab which means to ‘lie down on and lodge’.

No offence Dispicable Me, but if you seize/take/capture a woman and then lay down with her without her consent, you’re raping them. That is why the passage is translated that way.

Here is Dispicable Me’s response to this Billboard: Given that the entire Old Testament is given for examples, I have a little theory. I think slavery was allowed by God because there is no better example of what sin is. I think this is part of the reason we really don’t understand today what sin does to our lives. We don’t see slavery now. We can’t visualize that wicked master that torments and compare him to the Good Master that loves us. Types, my friend. It’s all about Christ from beginning to end.

By the way, when you get saved, Christ purchases you. This means that you belong to him. A servant.

No offence, but being a slave to anyone… even Christ, is not cool.

The fact that religion condoned slavery, which was likely because they didn’t want to upset their followers who had slaves is what makes their actions immoral and unjustifyable. Slavery was and is wrong, no matter what time period this was written in.

Here is Dispicable Me’s response to this Billboard: Judgement is coming. Is this a surprise? Haven’t preachers been saying this for almost two millenia in the church? Jeremiah was a prophet, preaching the coming judgement. If you think God is just cruel, check out what happened to the Assyrians in Ninevah when Jonah (in the book of Jonah) preached God’s judgement. They repented and He spared them. It’s only four chapters. Go read it. That was why Jonah didn’t want to go in the first place because he hated the Assyrians and didn’t want God to spare them.

I have read it. Everyone always ‘assumes’ I never read it. Just because he spares one people, doesn’t negate the fact that there are other passages where God did not. There are sections in the bible where God commits mass genocide. He allegedly drowns the whole planet except for Noah and the animals, remember?

Could you imagine if a lawyer walked into court with that argument. Sure he killed all these people here, but he did spare those Assyrians, so it all evens out, right? Wrong. It doesn’t even out. One good act of God doesn’t negate the rest of the death and bloodshed that does occur in the rest of the bible.

Here is Dispicable Me’s response to this Billboard: Would it surprise you that this verse is talking about the people of Israel, specifically Jerusalem?

God is a patient and merciful God. He does, however, have a limit. One can’t say he’s not fair, though. He was just as willing (and truly more) to punish his own children as to go after those that didn’t know about him.

Nothing reallysurprises me concerning the bible anymore, let alone it’s blatant form of anti-semitic hate isn’t entirely shocking.

Just a few lines ago, Dispicable Me was talking about God’s good graces… but apparently they have a limit when it comes to the Jewish people. Whatever bud. That quote is a good example of how immoral this book is and why it should never be a source of any moral code.

Here is Dispicable Me’s response to this Billboard: Selling your daughter and redeeming her back. It was a fact of life in the ancient times that people sold their children into slavery to pay their debts. This verse is actually a mercy on her because we know that once the novelty has worn off, men are notorious for abusing women they don’t respect. She was not to be sold out. She was to be redeemed back to her father (or near kinsman, as it were). This doesn’t mean it was a happy situation, but there was a view then that children belong to their parents. It’s one I think is generally more healthy, except in these circumstances.

You seem to miss the point entirely: daughters are not supposed to be sold at all because slavery of any kind is bad!

Women are not cattle, they are people!

This was the entire reason why this passage was used, because for some reason the bible is still a-okay with slavery and that your children are your property to do with as you will. I disagree with that, human trafficing of any kind is immoral and wrong, and for you to even try to pass if off as okay as long as Dad can buy her back later is beyond belief. I hope you don’t have any daughters.

Here is Dispicable Me’s response to this Billboard: Judgement. Again. Israel was meant to be a type of seperation unto God. They weren’t to worship false gods because it lead to destruction. They were the instrument God used to teach the world his law. I know we’re not big fans of crime and punishment in this day and age, but this was a serious thing that was repeated over and over in Israel’s history.

The question that should be asked is why we are so willing to quickly deny God?

Here’s the problem: which God?

There are still many other forms of religion. Other gods that are not the same as the one you claim to be the one true god.

If it is such a crime to worship other gods like the people of Isreal did, how come your god doesn’t feel the need to punish those who are worshipping different gods today? Why would a god that didn’t hesitate to bring down his wrath on those who didn’t believe allows billions of people (muslims, buddists, etc) to worship a different god and not believe in his allegedly only son?

There is a perfectly sound reason to why none of the other religious people are being punished by your god: he doesn’t exist. He nevere did back then, and doesn’t now.

Now after reading that and posting my own note, Dispicable me came back and posted the following note in my diary:

I don’t expect you to follow anything. Your first assumption is that you are your own god. You determine what is right and wrong, what is moral and indecent and you set yourself up as judge against my God. That’s only going to get you so far. Keep on truckin’, Petey-boy. Never mind that by your own logic, there is no morality to judge by in the first place because everyone makes their own.

It’s an interesting approach, but one that is false in its application. I responded to his note by saying:

I don’t make assumptions. I draw conclusions based on facts, and those facts have evidence presented to support their claims. If someone presents new evidence that challenges those said conclusions, I am open minded enough to examine it and if necessary make alterations based on evidence presented. How is that making assumptions?

You’re the one who believes in superstitions and takes them on faith, which means you accept them as gospel without any evidence being presented.

So who is the one making assumptions? That would be you.

I happen to think it was a decent response. I presented the process in which I present my views. This is what Dispicalbe me said in response to that note:

Your first assumption is that they are just superstitions, bub. That’s an assumption. You can try to deny it, but it doesn’t pass your own criteria.

There’s also the fact that there is evidence to contradict your own beliefs but you reject it out of hand because it doesn’t fit in your well-packaged view on life. You assume that the evidence is just misinterpreted or not fully understood.

Once again Dispicable Me is pretty much ignoring what I said and making his own baseless claims. The reason is because I don’t assume anything. My conclusions are based on the fact there is no evidence to support any of his claims.

I’ll repeat that: there is no evidence. None.

I do not accept any religion not based on assumption, but conclude them all to be false based on a lack of evidence. When evidence is presented, I might alter that view, but so far that hasn’t happened. If Dispicable Me assumes there is evidence to reject my claim, I suggest he provides it and shares it with the rest of the class.

There are countless artifacts and fossils that back up the theory of evoultion, a claim which contradicts Dispicable Me’s ‘well packaged view on life’. He is the one who is rejecting the truth, which is that we evolved as species over millions of years, rather than the assumption that we were created by a sky daddy only 6000 years ago.

Science has moutains of evidence to back up all of its claim. Anyone can see them by visiting a museum. Religion has not presented anything. I don’t assume religions are false, I call them superstitions because no one has presented a shred of evidence to prove tnat any of them have any place in the real world. If religions had any evidence (and believe me, there are people out there looking for it) then the church wouldn’t require people to have faith. That’s the lynch pin right there. Faith.

According to the dictionary, faith is belief that is not based on proof. There you have it Dispicable Me. The whole reason why the chuch depends on faith is because there is no evidence. If you claim there is evidence, let’s see it. Until then you are just another con man trying to sell snake oil to the masses.

I base my conclusions on facts. Gravity isn’t a form of the truth, it is the truth. The same goes for the truth which is Evolution, which has evidence to back up it’s claims. Dispicable Me is blindly following a belief that is not based on reason or knowledge.

Guess what the dictionary calls any ‘belief or notion that is not based on reason or knowledge’?

A superstition.

Peter