Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

[Danieltwotwenty]

It's quite simple, and I do not have to appeal to any authority. The very nature of being biased is being unjust, that is to say having a prejudice.

As I said, earlier, for lack of a better word. The definition you use presumes it to be unfair, so following this, I would reject the term, and retract my earlier statment. I was thinking of bias more in the sense of someone who has knowledge being biased towards a certain order. To say God is unfair is just a bald assertion. Arbitrary. We came to this same place on the other thread. If God defined roles for men and women, and placed man in authority, then it isn't bias. Specifically if God has a plan. God, being just and omniscient, decreed it as such. You have no AUTHORITY to judge. It is simply your opinion, which you are certainly entitled to. You say it is wrong, and I say it is wrong for you to dismiss the distinctions God has provided.
You obviously aren't a Thomist.

You could also use the same argument to say that God is biased towards Humans because he gave us greater powers of reasoning while animals got bubkis, seems more like the natural order than a bias.

Dan

[Butterfly]

It's quite simple, and I do not have to appeal to any authority. The very nature of being biased is being unjust, that is to say having a prejudice.

As I said, earlier, for lack of a better word. The definition you use presumes it to be unfair, so following this, I would reject the term, and retract my earlier statment. I was thinking of bias more in the sense of someone who has knowledge being biased towards a certain order. To say God is unfair is just a bald assertion. Arbitrary. We came to this same place on the other thread. If God defined roles for men and women, and placed man in authority, then it isn't bias. Specifically if God has a plan. God, being just and omniscient, decreed it as such. You have no AUTHORITY to judge. It is simply your opinion, which you are certainly entitled to. You say it is wrong, and I say it is wrong for you to dismiss the distinctions God has provided.
You obviously aren't a Thomist.

What I am speaking of is men being placed in authority for no other reason than the fact that they are male...that is called gender bias. The examples I use in my articles are ones that show the bias of God being exhibited for no other reason than gender. There certainly are distinctions between men and women, or roles based on physiology, but this is not what I am speaking of. What I am speaking of is women being denied equal human rights based on the sole reason of gender, as I address in the article posted below.

The Bias of the Biblical God

A Good Theory


Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. As philosopher of science Karl Popper has emphasized, a good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a number of predictions that could in principle be disproved or falsified by observation. Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory.



The Bias of the Biblical God

To make the statement that the God of the Bible is a just and righteous god, it must be shown that he is not biased, but perfect in all his judgments. This is the premise by which I can disprove the “Just” nature of the Biblegod. To disprove a theory one needs only to find a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory, and in this case I have found many more than one.

I have shown in my article The Male Bias of the Bible how the god described within the pages of the Bible is not only unjust, but also biased. If my argument is valid then the Biblegod cannot be a true creator god because he is not perfect in all his ways. My proof begins with the biblical description of the equality of the male and female who were created by its god. Not only are the male and female created equally in the image of God, but they are also created equally in the manner of flesh and bone.

Gen.1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.



Gen.2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

If male and female are created spiritually, and fleshly equal, then any judgment they receive should be based on individual merit and not gender. Yet, over and over again throughout the pages of the Bible it is noted that judgments are meted out based solely on gender. I would like to present my case from the book of Leviticus. In reading through the listed verses it immediately becomes apparent that the sole fact of gender is what determines the length of time for uncleanness and purification after childbirth, and this was a specific command from God.

Lev.12:1-5 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days (7 days); according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days (33 days); she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks (14 days), as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days (66 days).

Everyone knows that there is absolutely NO difference in giving birth to a male child verses giving birth to a female child. If because of religious traditions a woman is in need of purification after giving birth to a child, the same exact method would be applicable regardless of the gender of her baby. In the Levitical verses not only is the mother unclean twice as long after giving birth to a female child, but also must undergo a purification period that is twice as long. This is clearly a case of bias based solely on gender. Without the need to list any more verses (of which there are many) our requirement has been met in finding a single observation that disagrees with the theory of the “Unbiased Nature of God”, thus showing that the God of the Bible is unjust, and therefore not perfect. This directly leads to my conclusion that the god described in the Bible is made up from the minds of men who are indeed biased.

1.A true god must be just and perfect.
2.The Biblegod is biased.
3.Therefore the Biblegod is not a true god.

[Butterfly]

It's quite simple, and I do not have to appeal to any authority. The very nature of being biased is being unjust, that is to say having a prejudice.

As I said, earlier, for lack of a better word. The definition you use presumes it to be unfair, so following this, I would reject the term, and retract my earlier statment. I was thinking of bias more in the sense of someone who has knowledge being biased towards a certain order. To say God is unfair is just a bald assertion. Arbitrary. We came to this same place on the other thread. If God defined roles for men and women, and placed man in authority, then it isn't bias. Specifically if God has a plan. God, being just and omniscient, decreed it as such. You have no AUTHORITY to judge. It is simply your opinion, which you are certainly entitled to. You say it is wrong, and I say it is wrong for you to dismiss the distinctions God has provided.
You obviously aren't a Thomist.

You could also use the same argument to say that God is biased towards Humans because he gave us greater powers of reasoning while animals got bubkis, seems more like the natural order than a bias.

Dan

No you can't use the same argument comparing humans with other animals, you can try and construct a different argument, but you can't use my argument of "bias based on gender alone".
-

[Danieltwotwenty]

It's quite simple, and I do not have to appeal to any authority. The very nature of being biased is being unjust, that is to say having a prejudice.

As I said, earlier, for lack of a better word. The definition you use presumes it to be unfair, so following this, I would reject the term, and retract my earlier statment. I was thinking of bias more in the sense of someone who has knowledge being biased towards a certain order. To say God is unfair is just a bald assertion. Arbitrary. We came to this same place on the other thread. If God defined roles for men and women, and placed man in authority, then it isn't bias. Specifically if God has a plan. God, being just and omniscient, decreed it as such. You have no AUTHORITY to judge. It is simply your opinion, which you are certainly entitled to. You say it is wrong, and I say it is wrong for you to dismiss the distinctions God has provided.
You obviously aren't a Thomist.

You could also use the same argument to say that God is biased towards Humans because he gave us greater powers of reasoning while animals got bubkis, seems more like the natural order than a bias.

Dan

No you can't use the same argument comparing humans with other animals, you can try and construct a different argument, but you can't use my argument of "bias based on gender alone".
-

It would be the same just Bias based on species, same thing... it's still a bias.

[Butterfly]

It's quite simple, and I do not have to appeal to any authority. The very nature of being biased is being unjust, that is to say having a prejudice.

As I said, earlier, for lack of a better word. The definition you use presumes it to be unfair, so following this, I would reject the term, and retract my earlier statment. I was thinking of bias more in the sense of someone who has knowledge being biased towards a certain order. To say God is unfair is just a bald assertion. Arbitrary. We came to this same place on the other thread. If God defined roles for men and women, and placed man in authority, then it isn't bias. Specifically if God has a plan. God, being just and omniscient, decreed it as such. You have no AUTHORITY to judge. It is simply your opinion, which you are certainly entitled to. You say it is wrong, and I say it is wrong for you to dismiss the distinctions God has provided.
You obviously aren't a Thomist.

You could also use the same argument to say that God is biased towards Humans because he gave us greater powers of reasoning while animals got bubkis, seems more like the natural order than a bias.

Dan

No you can't use the same argument comparing humans with other animals, you can try and construct a different argument, but you can't use my argument of "bias based on gender alone".
-

It would be the same just Bias based on species, same thing... it's still a bias.

What?????

-

[Danieltwotwenty]

What?????

-

It is the same because it is not founded with fact, the fact is God was working with a people that were gender biased, God accommodated their bias so that he could bring about his ultimate plan for salvation without affecting freewill. If I use your method of Identifying bias I can apply that to any situation within the Bible.


Dan

[Butterfly]

What?????

-

It is the same because it is not founded with fact, the fact is God was working with a people that were gender biased, God accommodated their bias so that he could bring about his ultimate plan for salvation without affecting freewill. If I use your method of Identifying bias I can apply that to any situation within the Bible.


Dan

No, it wasn't God accommodating their bias, it was God giving laws and rules to ordain and sanction bias. Where do you get the idea that God was really only passively standing by doing nothing, when the Bible says he was very active in the giving of laws (all 613 of them)?
-

[Danieltwotwenty]

What?????

-

It is the same because it is not founded with fact, the fact is God was working with a people that were gender biased, God accommodated their bias so that he could bring about his ultimate plan for salvation without affecting freewill. If I use your method of Identifying bias I can apply that to any situation within the Bible.


Dan

No, it wasn't God accommodating their bias, it was God giving laws and rules to ordain and sanction bias. Where do you get the idea that God was really only passively standing by doing nothing, when the Bible says he was very active in the giving of laws (all 613 of them)?
-

God gave laws through humans which accommodated the culture at the time, because they had a culture that was gender biased. God was never standing passively by, he was constantly working on all peoples hearts to bring about a close loving relationship with each and every individual as long as the freely chose it. The laws were harsh but the people were a harsh people, but look at them now, God's people are everywhere and hopefully following Christ's example.

Dan

[Butterfly]

It is the same because it is not founded with fact, the fact is God was working with a people that were gender biased, God accommodated their bias so that he could bring about his ultimate plan for salvation without affecting freewill. If I use your method of Identifying bias I can apply that to any situation within the Bible.


Dan

No, it wasn't God accommodating their bias, it was God giving laws and rules to ordain and sanction bias. Where do you get the idea that God was really only passively standing by doing nothing, when the Bible says he was very active in the giving of laws (all 613 of them)?
-

God gave laws through humans which accommodated the culture at the time, because they had a culture that was gender biased. God was never standing passively by, he was constantly working on all peoples hearts to bring about a close loving relationship with each and every individual as long as the freely chose it. The laws were harsh but the people were a harsh people, but look at them now, God's people are everywhere and hopefully following Christ's example.

Dan

Everything you just said was all made up by you, the Bible says nothing about any of that. Its pointless having a conversation with someone who continually justifies everything by making up their own version of the Bible. Good night...
-

[Danieltwotwenty]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

[Butterfly]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Sorry, that won't work. I draw from the Bible and use it in context.
-

[Byblos]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Sorry, that won't work. I draw from the Bible and use it in context.

Really? You mean like projecting modern day social norms back onto a society from 2 millennia ago? That context? Ok, gotcha!

[Butterfly]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Sorry, that won't work. I draw from the Bible and use it in context.

Really? You mean like projecting modern day social norms back onto a society from 2 millennia ago? That context? Ok, gotcha!

I'm not projecting anything. I'm calling bias, BIAS!
-

[jlay]

No you can't use the same argument comparing humans with other animals, you can try and construct a different argument, but you can't use my argument of "bias based on gender alone".

Butter, FWIW, I disagree with Daniel. I believe the distinctions and authority given to man were not simply because man was gender biased. I believe the order is ordained and decreed by God. God is a God of authority, and ideally His plans on earth did decree that men would have a role of authority over women. You've yet to provide anything but question begging and your own opinion. You are welcome to disagree, reject, etc., but you haven't proven that the Bible is wrong in ordaining these roles. You can say it isn't fair, or it's biased, but accoring to what? You say human rights. Where are these rights written? What is the source? If man is merely a product of unguided natural forces, then these rights only exist as an illusion of human consciousness. And thus they are meaningless. It's your preference versus another. You may say the GR, but what about the million even billion of women who believe that men, in certain roles do have authority over a woman. In other words they believe this and conform to it. Shouldn't you, according to the GR, concede that their view is right? I presume, you will just call them stupid, or irrational, sense they don't subscribe to your worldview.

I'm not projecting anything. I'm calling bias, BIAS!

No, you are not. That is begging the question. Since you reject the Bible, and you reject the idea that under no circumstances should a man have authority over a woman without the reverse also being possible, you naturally conclude bias. But who are you to force your BIAS on us? Why should we accept your presuppositions?

[Byblos]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Sorry, that won't work. I draw from the Bible and use it in context.

Really? You mean like projecting modern day social norms back onto a society from 2 millennia ago? That context? Ok, gotcha!

I'm not projecting anything. I'm calling bias, BIAS!
-

What J said above.

In addition, please define bias, objectively that is, where the definition is not only universally applicable but also applicable at all times.