Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Along the way, I have asked myself some basic questions. What do I know? What do I actually know? What do I only think that I know? What do I believe? Why do I believe this? How sure am I, about what I believe? Results have varied. The story of Noah and the Great Flood? Profoundly ludicrous, with impossibilities built up over absurdities. The story of Exodus? The evidence for it is weak to none. It's a major Bible Book. Something that important should have tons of evidence to back it up. Thousands of Hebrew slaves in Egypt. The Egyptian Army, drowned in the Red Sea. All the first born of Egypt, dead. All those people, wandering about in the desert for 40 years. It would have taken two weeks following the coast line. Where is the evidence? Christians and Jews have been digging up the Middle East for centuries, looking for evidence. Examining the extensive Egyptian archives. They found, nothing. So far, we have only been discussing history. Now we come to the Supernatural elements of the story. You believe. I actually get that. I have no response to belief. Except one. With my lack of belief, I find the story to be implausible, improbable and unlikely. I can not pretend objectivity. There are limits on my knowledge. My past mistakes are beyond cataloging. For all that, I do have a strong sense of things, based on what I do know and understand. In the end, my sense of things tells me that nothing in Exodus is based on reality. To be clear, this is in the context of all the other Bible history, that I simply can not take seriously. If I were obsessed with being right and winning arguments, this would be a problem for me. Happily, I don't need my friends -- or my enemies -- to agree with me on such matters. Does God need defending? No. In the end, God either is or is not. I hold that belief, non-belief and dis-belief are all equally meaningless. No doubt, you have a different perspective. So be it.

If the Exodus story were the only thing in the Bible; I would have to say -- maybe. The supernatural elements seem unlikely at best -- but alright. Maybe. Is Exodus the only improbable element in the Bible? The Creation account in Genesis: The Sun and Moon show up on the fourth day. What was the Earth doing for the first three days, without the Sun? The Stars were installed on the fourth day. An afterthought. "He made the stars also." Seriously? "He made the stars also"? Billions of galaxies. Billions of stars in each galaxy. Pretty little sparkly things, stuck in the firmament -- to decorate the night sky. The firmament? The glass like thing with windows, that lets in the rain? No. Cosmology has come a long way since then. The people who wrote Genesis didn't know where the Sun goes at night. They had no concept of what the stars are. They had no idea that the Sun is a star. The Creation of Earth was a six day process. The rest of the Cosmos -- "He made the stars also" -- were just flashed into existence? An afterthought? After that, it seems petty to note that plant life shows up on the third day. According to Christian Bible authorities, The Creation began at 4004 Before the Common Era. Jewish authorities have dates for everything that happened in the Bible, on the Jewish calendar. On that calendar, this is the year, 5779. The light from distant stars, billions of light years away, is only now arriving. The Garden of Eden story? No. Still, an "A" for effort to the Young Earth Creationists -- for trying to make Scripture conform to Reality. How if Adam had cut down a tree in the Garden -- it would have had rings. If he had dug into the ground, he would have found fossils. At best, we have a twisted trickster God who made the Earth about six thousand years ago, to seem old. The story of the Great Flood? We have written records from China and India that are older than that. No mention of the flood. Almost as though it never happened. Let's take the story at face value. It rained and rained and the oceans overflowed and covered the entire world in salt water. It didn't just destroy all animal life. It destroyed all plant life. No more oxygen carbon cycle. The world was killed and made lifeless. Where did the animals go? There was nothing, anywhere, to sustain them. No food for the predators. No food for the plant eaters. Just the endless bog going off in all directions. Imagine the stink of rotting flesh and vegetation. What does Noah do? An animal sacrifice. Like they have genetic diversity to spare. All the other issues -- how big was this boat that had two of every "kind" and seven of some? Do you know how much food and water it takes to sustain one elephant? Or one lion? A lot. Besides eating and drinking, all the animals would be pissing and **ting. Think of the tons of manure. Actual tons. Think of the methane gas. One window for ventilation. I could keep going. Enough. The Tower of Babel? Again, we have written records from China and India that are older than that. The Empire State Building in New York City, is taller than anything the ancients could have hoped to build. The current world has taller buildings. We never did reach Heaven, as God had feared. Not even the Moon landings. Even the probes we sent to Mars and the outer Solar system, never crashed into the Firmament, much less Heaven. Must I keep going? No. Based on the historical accuracy of the Bible -- there was no Exodus and there was no Mosses.

The importance of a claim, dictates the quality of evidence, required for that claim. If you want to tell me what you had for lunch, I will take your word for it. No proof required. If you want to tell me what you believe, regarding the Bible, that is also fine. No proof required. Your beliefs are your beliefs. I can accept and respect that. No proof required. If you want to influence my beliefs regarding the Bible; show me something. In my view, the Bible is mythology. Ludicrous mythology, not to be taken seriously as history. I'm not looking for an argument. I'm not looking to change your views. If you want to change my views -- I need evidence. I am prepared to change my views regarding the Bible -- and God -- if presented with compelling evidence. Arguments are not evidence. Scripture is not evidence. Assertions are not evidence. I want to be clear on that point. Assertions made without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. That brings us to the topic of God. I am Agnostic. In the total absence of objective, verifiable, information about God -- I don't actually know whether or not God exists. Nobody else knows either, regardless of belief. I am also an Atheist. In the total absence of objective, verifiable, information about God -- I don't believe that God exists. In truth, I don't know what it would take, to get me to believe. I can only tell you that it has not happened yet. I am also an Apatheist. In the total absence of objective, verifiable, information about God -- I don't care whether or not God exists. To be clear, what I'm not is an Anti-Theist. The beliefs of others are not my concern, and I am not here to vex anyone. Welcome back to the board. I hope you find your return enjoyable.

As you say. What we leave behind is interpreted by the future. Again, I think the Buddha is a prime example. How would Buddha feel, if he came back to modern day Burma? He could witness Buddhist monks, committing violence -- and mass murder -- in the name of his teachings. In fairness, living religions all undergo change over time. I can't imagine what the Jews of 2,000 years ago -- the time of the 2nd Temple, would make of modern Orthodox Judaism -- much less the Reform movement. We can only speculate, what would happen, if the historic Jesus came back -- and found 40,000 flavors of Christianity waiting for him. (Hi, Dan ) There is also the Pagan and Neo-Pagan world. I doubt the Goddess worshipers of 10,000 years ago, would recognize much. So yes, things change. The founders have nothing to say about it.

In his lifetime, the Buddha insisted that he was not a god. It is ironic, that Hinduism has claimed Buddha, as an incarnation (avatar) of Vishnu.

Tibetan Buddhism is an exception. I have taken initiation to Medicine Buddha and White Tara. Still, there is no "worship" as practiced in most Theistic religion.

From a Skeptic's blog -- a look at the Skeptics in Unitarian Univeralism. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2019/05/unitarians-are-mostly-skeptics/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=BRSS&utm_campaign=Nonreligious&utm_content=459 I found the article interesting. I am not a member of the church and I have no axes to grind.

Good.

Alright.

Apatheism, is not my "philosophy of life". Apatheism is my attitude towards God. You do not understand the meaning of Agnosticism. You do not understand the meaning of Atheism. It is small wonder that you are confused by Apatheism. You really do have a problem, understanding words. As to my understanding of Scripture -- I read what it says. Unfiltered by faith. Scripture is not what I want it to be. Or what you want it to be. I read Scripture with the best objectivity I can manage. Much of it is silly. Much of it is horrible. What I don't find in Scripture, is a reason to believe -- or care. Do you really want to assert that the Great Flood -- and the Tower of Babel -- are history? Back to your question. Where does everything come from? I find the answers provided by Cosmology and Evolution compelling. They are evidence based. These answers are also subject to revision, pending further information. In my opinion, an honest -- I don't know -- is worth much more than a false certitude. I would like to add -- even if the answer should turn out to be -- a god did it -- this takes us no further than Deism. There is still no reason, to credit your God, with anything. This is the answer that Anthony Flew decided upon. The answer that you, falsely claimed to be Christian.

All words to Dan. Logic, Evidence, Non-belief, Atheism...... It's hard to argue anything, with someone, who can't grasp the meaning of basic words. Who clearly disdains the meaning of words. Who disdains external reality, in favor of faith. Seriously. He thinks the Creation story is literal history. He thinks it's proof. He thinks it's answers. Well, the horse is still twitching.

The Bible as evidence? In particular, the Creation myth? Alright. Let us consider. The Creation was a six day process. Trees and plants show up on the third day. On the fourth day, The Sun was created. The Earth existed for three days without the Sun? Trees existed for one day, without the Sun? But it's worse. On the fourth day, "He made the stars also." "He made the stars also?" An afterthought? Billions of galaxies. Billions of stars in each galaxy. The entire Cosmos. On the fourth day of a six day process. The Earth was a six day process. The rest of Creation? "He made the stars also." Little twinkly things -- that were stuck in the "Firmament" to "decorate" the night sky. The "Firmament" is the glass dome over the Earth. Like a snow globe. The thing with windows that lets the rain through. Shall we jump ahead to the story of Noah's flood? The Tower of Babel? The Exodus? We can jump ahead to the Gospels. Jesus has two genealogies with no overlap. A pointless exercise, since Joseph was not his biological father. Jesus had many, many followers. They had to pay Judas to point out Jesus, for an arrest. Remember the woman caught in adultery? The Jewish establishment had no problem ordering an execution. Until they got to Jesus. Then they needed the Romans. At the time of the Crucifixion, the tombs opened and zombies walked among the living. No historian thought it was worth mentioning. Just a normal day in Jerusalem. Seriously? The Bible as evidence? Oh, look! Trees! God must be real!

You don't care what words mean. Small wonder, that the concept of evidence continues to elude you. Math does not depend on a book. Math is self evident. Correct math can be proven. Incorrect math can be disproven. No book is required. Clearly, you think that all true things, come from a book. Your lack of independent reasoning, betrays you.

This is exactly what Dan said. There is no backing down from this. "If the truth can't be demonstrated, if the truth has no supporting evidence, and if the truth is unverifiable, then rejecting its solidity is logical."

You are asking Dan, to make a distinction between non-belief and dis-belief. Good luck with that.

I can't speak for Cuchulain. That is exactly, what I have been saying.

For me, Zeus does not exist and never did, so belief has nothing to do with it. But even so, its not illogical to believe something isn't real just because you can't prove its not. If the truth can't be demonstrated, if the truth has no supporting evidence, and if the truth is unverifiable, then rejecting its solidity is logical. Congratulations. All we have to do now is substitute the God of the Bible for Zeus -- and you will finally understand how I feel about God. There is no good reason to accept Zeus or your God. For me, they are the same. In other words, its logical to presume that a nonbeliever who saw Christ returning with all the power of heaven, might have reservations about their previous notion of believing that God does not exist. 'Reservations' may have been the wrong term, but I reckon you get the gist of what I'm saying. I do not believe in The Mighty Thor of Norse mythology. There is no evidence for his existence, and I need evidence to take a god seriously. Until such evidence for Thor becomes available, I don't care. If Thor should manifest before me -- show me his Hammer -- and demonstrate his powers over thunder and lightning, I am fully prepared to reconsider. Possibly, even to worship. In like manner, if Jesus chooses to manifest before me -- strut his stuff and display his power -- I am fully prepared to reconsider. Possibly worship. In the meantime, there is no evidence at all to demonstrate the reality of Jesus -- and I don't care. It doesn't bother me at all, that you choose to believe without evidence. It's your life and your business. If you want me to believe, that's different. If you want me to believe -- then show me something. Show me something plausible. Something more than the same old tedious arguments. If the evidence is compelling -- I will reconsider. Possibly, even worship. Until then --

I've had a few days to think about this. I must have reservations about what I don't believe? Why, must I have reservations about what I don't believe? That's just silly. Do your ears hear what your mouth is saying? I also don't believe in Unicorns. If someone can produce a Unicorn, I am prepared to reevaluate. In the meantime, I don't care.

It's not that funny. Just twisted.

Uh-huh.

It is only an insult, when the person has the ability, to understand words.

Alright. I think I see part of the problem. You think this is semantics. When I tell you that I don't believe in God -- this is a simple statement of fact. I don't believe. There is nothing to prove. When I tell you that God does not exist -- This is a different statement. When I assert that God does not exist -- I am making a claim. That kind of claim comes with a burden of proof. Now, I have the responsibility to demonstrate that God does not exist. It would be foolish of me to do so. It is not possible, to prove that something does not exist. So, no. It is not simple semantics. One statement does not create a burden of proof. One statement does create a burden of proof. Are we clear on this one point?