Koyaanisqatsi

No, no, no, it's like water. Water can be a gas and a liquid and a solid (ice), see, but it's all still water!

Ahhh, the glory of the exploded, fallacious analogy.

Cracks me up everytime.

Aethari

1) I thought the book was amazing when I first read it, but after reading a lot of other books dealing with religious philosophy, Smith's book ended up seeming pretty superficial. Not that it isn't a good basic treatment of the basic arguments of atheism, but if you want a deep understanding on the arguments involved, that book isn't the place to look.

2) I'm not positive, but I'd imagine that since Jesus didn't have a human father, he couldn't have inherited the Sin of Adam from him. Just a thought.

~Aethari

SanDiegoAtheist

The author of Isaiah was actually writing several centuries pre-Jesus. This is one of those 'prophecies' which the Christians apparently interpreted to refer to Christ (in fact, Isaiah is considered by Jewish authorities, who I would guess would probably know better than anyone else, to be prophesizing about events which happened later IN Isaiah, not about some messiah several centuries hence).

Of course, the answer to the Matthew quote is quite simple. The author of Matthew was a lousy translator of Hebrew, and got the word for 'young maiden' confused with 'virgin'. The entire nativity myth smacks of editorializing to make Jesus APPEAR to fulfill numerous Jewish prophecies (e.g. the geneologies which don't match in various gospels which tie Jesus to David's bloodline, the nonexistant Roman Census which evidently forced Jesus' family to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem so Jesus could be born in Bethlehem to fulfill another prophecy, and Mary's supposed virginity. Oddly, of course, she did NOT surely name Jesus "Emmanuel", but I'm guessing the Gospel writers might have had a difficult time with having Jesus undergo a namechange or something of the sort).

The entire idea of a virgin birth is, of course, ludicrous.

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

sandlewood

1. I really inhaled that book when I bought it. I really enjoyed it and I think it’s great. But I remember when I went back and looked at some things a second time, I thought a couple points were questionable and I could think of arguments against. That was a while ago and can’t remember exactly which now.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Cannibal,

Welcome Cannibal...were you in the IG forums? Your name sounds familiar.

This book is certainly a well presented reference to classic atheistic argumentation.

Included are the classic atheist responses to...
-The Cosmological argument
-The Teleological argument

as well as the Argument from evil. It also includes Hume's critique of Paley's watch analogy.

Topics such as morality without God and ethics are also included.





What Koy said.





Again welcome,



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Jobar

Hi CCLC. We have a Biblical Criticism and Archeology forum, which would be the best place for you to ask questions specifically relating to scripture. EoG, here, is where we search, like Greek philosophers holding our lanterns high, for an honest theistic argument. Or, at least, a novel dishonest one.

So far, no luck.

CannibalCorpseLC

wow i gotta say this is the friendliest forum i have ever been to. and Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas, what are the IG forums? i haven't posted on a forum in such a long time.

diana

Welcome CannibalCorpseLC.

(I edited your OP only to add a url, btw.)

I found the book to be very accessible to the layman, which I think is something we should have more in philosophy. If something is important enough to discuss, it should be important enough to discuss in terms that communicate important ideas and objections to the average person. Philosophy is little more than intellectual mental masturbation, IMO, if it cannot be communicated to the general public.

I enjoyed the book, myself. I also seem to remember it oversimplifying a couple of issues (damned if I can remember what they are at the moment), but it's one of the best overall treatments of the atheist position I've seen.

d

exile

Though Jesus had no human father, the gospels are at pains to show his geneaology.

By the way, his MOTHER was human. Now if she was pure and sinless HER mother wasn't. The Catholic answer to this is that somehow she was conceived without inheriting original sin. However as the Catholics admit "No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture".

Now to me, if Jesus was the offspring of a God and a pure sinless human being he is not God in human form in any meaningful sense.

Not sure how protestant churches square this particular circle.

Infidelettante

Indeed it is Soma. Mother, Maiden, and Crone. The triune Goddess.

JT