Common Arguments
Introduction
This document contains responses to points which have been
brought up repeatedly in the Usenet
newsgroups devoted to discussion of atheism. Points covered
here are ones which are not covered in the document
"An
Introduction to Atheism"; it's recommended that you read that
document first.
These answers are not intended to be exhaustive or definitive.
The purpose of FAQ documents is not to stifle debate, but to raise
its level. If you have something to say concerning one of these
questions and which isn't covered by the answer given, please feel
free to make your point in the newsgroup.
Overview of contents:
"Hitler was an atheist, and look at what he
did!"
Adolf Hitler was emphatically not an atheist. As he said
himself:
The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each
in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking
superficially of God's will, and actually fulfil God's will, and
not let God's word be desecrated. [original italics]
For God's will gave men their form, their essence, and their
abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the
Lord's creation, the divine will. Therefore, let every man be
active, each in his own denomination if you please, and let every
man take it as his first and most sacred duty to oppose anyone who
in his activity by word or deed steps outside the confines of his
religious community and tries to butt into the other.
[...]
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the
Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. [original
italics]
[Adolf Hitler, from "Mein
Kampf", translation by Ralph Mannheim.]
Hitler certainly appeared at times to be a theist, and claimed
to be a Christian:
The Führer made it known to those entrusted with the Final
Solution that the killings should be done as humanely as possible.
This was in line with his conviction that he was observing God's
injunction to cleanse the world of vermin. Still a member in good
standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy
("I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so" [quoting
Hitler]), he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the
killer of God. The extermination, therefore, could be done without
a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging
hand of God -- so long as it was done impersonally, without
cruelty.
[John Toland (Pulitzer Prize
winner),
from "Adolf Hitler", pp 507, talking about the Autumn of
1941.]
The "I am now as before a Catholic..." quotation from Hitler was
recorded in the diary of Gerhard Engel, an SS Adjutant, in October
1941. Hitler was speaking in private, not before a mass audience,
and so it is difficult to dismiss the comment as propaganda
lies.
Of course, someone bad believing something does not make that
belief wrong. It's also entirely possible that
Hitler was lying when he
claimed to believe in God. We certainly can't conclude that
he's an atheist, though.
"In the Bible it says that..."
Most atheists feel that the Bible is of questionable accuracy,
as it was written thousands of years ago by many authors who were
recording oral tradition that existed many years before. Thus, any
claimed 'truth' in it is of questionable legitimacy. This isn't to
say that The Bible has no truth in it; simply that any truth must
be examined before being accepted.
Many atheists also feel that because any passage is subject to
"interpretation", any claim that a passage 'means' one thing and
one thing only is not legitimate.
Note that this feeling tends to extend to other books.
It is also remarkable to many atheists that theists tend to
ignore other equally plausible religious books in favor of those of
their own religion.
"If you believe in God and turn out to be
incorrect, you have lost nothing -- but if you don't believe in God
and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is
foolish to be an atheist."
This argument is known as Pascal's Wager. It has several
flaws.
Firstly, it does not indicate which religion to follow. Indeed,
there are many mutually exclusive and contradictory religions out
there. This is often described as the "avoiding the wrong hell"
problem. If a person is a follower of one religion, he may end up
in another religion's version of hell.
Even if we assume that there's a God, that doesn't imply that
there's one unique God. Which should we believe in? If we believe
in all of them, how will we decide which commandments to
follow?
Secondly, the statement that "If you believe in God and turn out
to be incorrect, you have lost nothing" is not true. Suppose you're
believing in the wrong God -- the true God might punish you for
your foolishness. Consider also the deaths that have resulted from
people rejecting medicine in favor of prayer.
Another flaw in the argument is that it is based on the
assumption that the two possibilities are equally likely -- or at
least, that they are of comparable likelihood. If, in fact, the
possibility of there being a God is close to zero, the argument
becomes much less persuasive. So sadly the argument is only likely
to convince those who believe already.
Also, many feel that for intellectually honest people, belief is
based on evidence, with some amount of intuition. It is not a
matter of will or cost-benefit analysis.
Formally speaking, the argument consists of four statements:
- One does not know whether God exists.
- Not believing in God is bad for one's eternal soul if God does
exist.
- Believing in God is of no consequence if God does not
exist.
- Therefore it is in one's interest to believe in God.
There are two approaches to the argument. The first is to view
Statement 1 as an assumption, and Statement 2 as a consequence of
it. The problem is that there's really no way to arrive at
Statement 2 from Statement 1 via simple logical inference. The
statements just don't follow on from each other.
The alternative approach is to claim that Statements 1 and 2 are
both assumptions. The problem with this is that Statement 2 is then
basically an assumption which states the Christian position, and
only a Christian will agree with that assumption. The argument thus
collapses to "If you are a Christian, it is in your interests to
believe in God" -- a rather vacuous tautology, and not the way
Pascal intended the argument to be viewed.
Also, if we don't even know that God exists, why should we take
Statement 2 over some similar assumption? Isn't it just as likely
that God would be angry at people who chose to believe for personal
gain? If God is omniscient, he will certainly know who really
believes and who believes as a wager. He will spurn the latter...
assuming he actually cares at all whether people truly believe in
him.
Some have suggested that the person who chooses to believe based
on Pascal's Wager, can then somehow make the transition to
truly believing. Unfortunately, most atheists don't find
it possible to make that leap.
In addition, this hypothetical God may require more than simple
belief; almost all Christians believe that the Christian God
requires an element of trust and obedience from his followers. That
destroys the assertion that if you believe but are wrong, you lose
nothing.
Finally, if this God is a fair and just God, surely he will
judge people on their actions in life, not on whether they happen
to believe in him. A God who sends good and kind people to hell is
not one most atheists would be prepared to consider
worshipping.
"Did Jesus exist? If not, then there's not much
to talk about. If he did, he called himself Lord. This means that
either:
- He was Lord,
- He was a liar, or
- He was a lunatic.
It's unlikely he was a liar, given his morals
as described in the Bible, and his behavior doesn't sound like that
of a lunatic. So surely we must conclude that he was Lord?"
Firstly, note that this argument hinges on the assumption that
Jesus did in fact exist. This is at least debatable.
Secondly, the argument attempts a logical fallacy which we might
call "trifurcation", by analogy with "bifurcation" (see the
"Constructing a Logical
Argument" document). That is, the argument attempts to restrict
us to three possibilities, when in fact there are many more.
Two of the more likely alternatives are:
- He was misquoted in the Bible, and did not claim to be
Lord.
- The stories about him were made up, or embroidered with
fictitious material by the early Christians.
Note that in the New Testament Jesus does not say that he is
God, although John 10:30 claims that he said "I and my father are
one". The claim that Jesus was God was first made after the death
of Jesus and his twelve disciples.
Finally, note that the possibility that he was a "lunatic" is
not easily discountable. Even today in the western world there are
numerous people who have managed to convince hundreds or thousands
of followers that they are the Lord or his One True Prophet. People
like L. Ron Hubbard, Sun Myung Moon, Jim Jones and David Koresh
continue to peddle their divinity. In more superstitious countries,
there are literally hundreds of present-day messiahs.
Incidentally, the "Lord, Liar or Lunatic" argument is based on
arguments in the book "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis, the well
known author and committed Christian. He wrote many books
containing Christian apologia, and also a number of fantasy and SF novels
influenced by Christian themes. His most famous books, the Narnia
series of novels, are a fantasy retelling of many aspects of
Christian faith, with Aslan taking the place of Jesus. Amusingly,
some Christian fundamentalists in the USA have attempted to have
Lewis's books banned from schools, alleging that they are "Satanic"
in influence.
"People keep talking about Occam's Razor. What
is it?"
William of Occam formulated a principle which has become known
as Occam's Razor. In its original form, it said "Do not multiply
entities unnecessarily." That is, if you can explain something
without supposing the existence of some entity, then do so.
Nowadays when people refer to Occam's Razor, they often express
it more generally, for example as "Take the simplest solution".
The relevance to atheism is that we can look at two possible
explanations for what we see around us:
- There is an incredibly intricate and complex universe out
there, which came into being as a result of natural processes.
- There is an incredibly intricate and complex universe out
there, and there is also a God who created the universe. Clearly
this God must be of non-zero complexity.
Given that both explanations fit the facts, Occam's Razor might
suggest that we should take the simpler of the two -- solution
number one. Unfortunately, some argue that there is a third even
more simple solution:
- There isn't an incredibly intricate and complex universe out
there. We just imagine that there is.
This third option leads us logically towards solipsism, which
many people find unacceptable.
"I want to tell people about the virtues and
benefits of my religion."
Preaching is not appreciated.
Feel free to talk about your religion, but please do not write
postings that are on a "conversion" theme. Such postings do not
belong on atheist newsgroups, and will be rejected from
alt.atheism.moderated
or soc.atheism. Try the
newsgroup
talk.religion.misc.
You would doubtless not welcome postings from atheists to your
favorite newsgroup in an attempt to convert you; please do unto
others as you would have them do unto you!
Often theists make their basic claims about God in the form of
lengthy analogies or parables. Be aware that atheists have heard of
God and know the basic claims about him; if the sole purpose of
your parable is to tell atheists that God exists and brings
salvation, you may as well not post it, since it tells us nothing
we have not been told before.
"I know from personal experience and
prayer that God exists."
Just as many theists have personal evidence that the being they
worship exists, so many atheists have personal evidence that such
beings do not exist. That evidence varies from person to
person.
Furthermore, without wishing to dismiss your evidence out of
hand, many people have claimed all kinds of unlikely things -- that
they have been abducted by UFOs, visited by the ghost of Elvis, and
so on.
"Albert Einstein believed in God. Do you think
you're cleverer than him?"
Einstein did once comment that "God does not play dice [with the
universe]". This quotation is commonly mentioned to show that
Einstein believed in the Christian God. Used this way, it is out of
context; it refers to Einstein's refusal to accept some aspects of
the most popular interpretations of quantum theory. Furthermore,
Einstein's religious background was Jewish rather than
Christian.
A better quotation showing what Einstein thought about God is
the following:
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly
harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with
fates and actions of human beings."
Einstein recognized Quantum Theory as the best scientific model
for the physical data available. He did not accept claims that the
theory was complete, or that probability and randomness were an
essential part of nature. He believed that
a better, more complete theory would be
found, which would have no need for statistical interpretations
or randomness.
So far no such better theory has been found, and much evidence
suggests that it never will be.
A longer quote from Einstein appears in "Science,
Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium", published by the
Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to
the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941. In it he
says:
The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all
events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left
by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different
nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine
will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure,
the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events
could never be refuted [italics his], in the real
sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in
those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able
to set foot.
But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of
representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also
fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear
light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on
mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their
struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the
stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up
that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast
power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to
avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating
the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is,
to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy
task...
Einstein has also said:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not
believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have
expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called
religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of
the world so far as our science can reveal it.
The above quote is from a letter Einstein wrote in English,
dated 24 March 1954. It is included in
"Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas
and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press.
Also from the same book:
I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I
consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no
superhuman authority behind it.
More of Einstein's comments on religion are available on the web
at
<URL:http://www.stcloud.msus.edu/~lesikar/ESR.html>.
Of course, the fact that Einstein chose not to believe in
Christianity does not in itself imply that Christianity is
false.
"Everyone worships something, whether it's
money, power or God."
If that is true, everyone is a polytheist. Theists care just as
much about those things that atheists care about. If the atheists'
reactions to (for example) their families amount to worship then so
do the theists'.
Also, holding something as more important than all other things
does not constitute "worship" by any meaningful definition of the
word.
"The presence of design in the universe proves
there is a God. Surely you don't think all this appeared here just
by chance?"
This is known as the Argument From Design.
It is a matter of dispute whether there is any element of design
in the universe. Those who believe that the complexity and
diversity of living creatures on the earth is evidence of a creator
are best advised to read the newsgroup talk.origins for a while,
or consult the archive at <URL:http://www.talkorigins.org/>.
There is insufficient space to summarize both sides of that
debate here. However, the conclusion is that there is no scientific
evidence in favor of so-called Scientific Creationism. Furthermore,
there is much evidence, observation and theory that can explain
many of the complexities of the universe and life on earth.
The origin of the Argument by Design is a feeling that the
existence of something as incredibly intricate as, say, a human is
so improbable that surely it can't have come about by chance; that
surely there must be some external intelligence directing things so
that humans come from the chaos deliberately.
But if human intelligence is so improbable, surely the existence
of a mind capable of fashioning an entire universe complete with
conscious beings must be immeasurably more unlikely? The approach
used to argue in favor of the existence of a creator can be turned
around and applied to the Creationist position.
This leads us to the familiar theme of "If a creator created the
universe, what created the creator?", but with the addition of
spiralling improbability. The only way out is to declare that the
creator was not created and just "is" (or "was").
From here we might as well ask what is wrong with saying that
the universe just "is" without introducing a creator? Indeed
Stephen Hawking, in his book "A Brief History of Time", explains
his theory that the universe is closed and finite in extent, with
no beginning or end.
The Argument From Design is often stated by analogy, in the
so-called Watchmaker Argument. One is asked to imagine that one has
found a watch on the beach. Does one assume that it was created by
a watchmaker, or that it evolved naturally? Of course one assumes a
watchmaker. Yet like the watch, the universe is intricate and
complex; so, the argument goes, the universe too must have a
creator.
The Watchmaker analogy suffers from three particular flaws, over
and above those common to all Arguments By Design. Firstly, a
watchmaker creates watches from pre-existing materials, whereas God
is claimed to have created the universe from nothing. These two
sorts of creation are clearly fundamentally different, and the
analogy is therefore rather weak.
Secondly, a watchmaker makes watches, but there are many other
things in the world. If we walked further along the beach and found
a nuclear reactor, we wouldn't assume it was created by the
watchmaker. The argument would therefore suggest a multitude of
creators, each responsible for a different part of creation (or a
different universe, if you allow the possibility that there might
be more than one).
Finally, in the first part of the watchmaker argument we
conclude that the watch is not part of nature because it is
ordered, and therefore stands out from the randomness of nature.
Yet in the second part of the argument, we start from the position
that the universe is obviously not random, but shows elements of
order. The Watchmaker argument is thus internally inconsistent.
Apart from logical inconsistencies in the watchmaker argument,
it's worth pointing out that biological systems and mechanical
systems behave very differently. What's unlikely for a pile of
gears is not necessarily unlikely for a mixture of biological
molecules.
"Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem
demonstrates that it is impossible for the Bible to be both true
and complete."
Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem applies to any
consistent formal system which:
- Is sufficiently expressive that it can model ordinary
arithmetic
- Has a decision procedure for determining whether a given string
is an axiom within the formal system (i.e. is
"recursive")
Gödel showed that in any such system S, it is possible to
formulate an expression which says "This statement is unprovable in
S".
If such a statement were provable in S, then S would be
inconsistent. Hence any such system must either be incomplete or
inconsistent. If a formal system is incomplete, then there exist
statements within the system which can never be proven to be valid
or invalid ('true' or 'false') within the system.
Essentially, Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem revolves
around getting formal systems to formulate a variation on the "Liar
Paradox". The classic Liar Paradox sentence in ordinary English is
"This sentence is false."
Note that if a proposition is undecidable, the formal system
cannot even deduce that it is undecidable. (This is Gödel's
Second Incompleteness Theorem, which is rather tricky to
prove.)
The logic used in theological discussions is rarely well
defined, so claims that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem
demonstrates that it is impossible to prove (or disprove) the
existence of God are worthless in isolation.
One can trivially define a formal system in which it is possible
to prove the existence of God, simply by having the existence of
God stated as an axiom. (This is unlikely to be viewed by atheists
as a convincing proof, however.)
It may be possible to succeed in producing a formal system built
on axioms that both atheists and theists agree with. It may then be
possible to show that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem holds for
that system. However, that would still not demonstrate that it is
impossible to prove that God exists within the system. Furthermore,
it certainly wouldn't tell us anything about whether it is possible
to prove the existence of God generally.
Note also that all of these hypothetical formal systems tell us
nothing about the actual existence of God; the formal systems are
just abstractions.
Another frequent claim is that Gödel's Incompleteness
Theorem demonstrates that a religious text (the Bible, the Book of
Mormon or whatever) cannot be both consistent and universally
applicable. Religious texts are not formal systems, so such claims
are nonsense.
There are a number of books which talk specifically about
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, and explain concepts such as
axiomatic systems, consistency and completeness:
-
Gödel's Proof by Ernest Nagel and James R.
Newman.
A thorough discussion of the argument in Godel's proof, as well as
its limitations; plus an overview of its historical
context.
-
Forever Undecided: A Puzzle Guide to Godel by Raymond
Smullyan.
Through puzzles, Smullyan guides the reader through the basic ideas
relevant to Godel's proof.
-
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems, also by Raymond
Smullyan.
A more formal, but still very readable, overview of the
theorems.
"Did George Bush really say that atheists
should not be considered citizens?"
The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between
Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and
George Bush, on August 27 1987. Sherman is a fully accredited
reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press
corps. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce
federal disaster relief for Illinois. The discussion turned to the
presidential primary:
- RS:
- "What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are
atheists?"
- GB:
- "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God
is important to me."
- RS:
- "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of
Americans who are atheists?"
- GB:
- "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as
citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one
nation under God."
- RS:
- "Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the
separation of state and church?"
- GB:
- "Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just
not very high on atheists."
UPI reported on May 8, 1989, that various atheist organizations
were still angry over the remarks.
The exchange appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera on Monday
February 27, 1989. It can also be found in "Free Inquiry" magazine, Fall 1988 issue,
Volume 8, Number 4, page 16.
On October 29, 1988, Mr. Sherman had a confrontation with Ed
Murnane, co-chairman of the Bush-Quayle '88 Illinois campaign. This
concerned a lawsuit Mr. Sherman had filed to stop the Community
Consolidated School District 21 (Chicago, Illinois) from forcing
his first-grade atheist son to pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States as "one nation under God" (Bush's phrase). The
following conversation took place:
- RS:
- "American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit
yesterday. Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this
filing?"
- EM:
- "It's bullshit."
- RS:
- "What is bullshit?"
- EM:
- "Everything that American Atheists does, Rob, is
bullshit."
- RS:
- "Thank you for telling me what the official position of the
Bush campaign is on this issue."
- EM:
- "You're welcome."
After Bush's election, American Atheists wrote to Bush asking
him to retract his statement. On February 21st 1989, C. Boyden
Gray, Counsel to the President, replied on White House stationery
that Bush substantively stood by his original statement, and
wrote:
"As you are aware, the President is a religious man who
neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be
unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the
government."
For further information, contact American Atheist Veterans at
the American Atheist Press's Cameron
Road address.
"I know where Hell is! Hell is in Norway!"
There are several towns called "Hell" in various countries
around the world, including Norway and the USA. Whilst this
information is mildly amusing the first time one hears it, readers
of Usenet are now getting pretty fed up with hearing it every
week.
"Does anyone have a list of Biblical
contradictions?"
American Atheist Press publish an
atheist's handbook detailing Biblical contradictions. See the
accompanying document on Atheist Media for
lists of other such books.
Jim Meritt's list
of Biblical contradictions is also available in hypertext form.
The Freedom From Religion
Foundation have a list of bible contradictions on their web
pages. The address is <URL:http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/contra.html>.
Of course, the newsgroup
soc.religion.christian
has
a selection of files which claim to rebut most of the alleged
inconsistencies in the Bible.
"Because of the religious beliefs of the
founding fathers, shouldn't the United States be considered a
Christian nation?"
Based upon the writings of several important founding fathers,
it is clear that they never intended the US to be a Christian
nation. Here are some quotes; there are
more in a
companion document, and the archives at
ftp.mantis.co.uk
contain still more.
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had
on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a
spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many
instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political
tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the
liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public
liberty may have found an established clergy convenient
auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate
it, needs them not."
[James Madison, "A
Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785.]
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal
example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has
preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of
grief has produced!"
[John Adams, in a letter to
Thomas Jefferson.]
"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden
people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest
grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious
leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."
[Thomas Jefferson to Baron von
Humboldt, 1813.]
"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite
Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that
He is even infinitely above it."
[Benjamin Franklin, from
"Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", Nov. 20,
1728.]
"Is it true that George Washington said that
the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian
religion?"
No. The quotation often given is in fact from Article XI of the
Treaty of Tripoli (8 Stat 154, Treaty Series 358):
Article 11
As the government of the United States of America is not in any
sense founded on the Christian Religion, -- as it has in itself no
character or enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of
Musselmen, -- and as the said States never have entered into any
war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is
declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious
opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing
between the two countries.
The text may be found in the Congressional Record or in treaty
collections such as Charles I. Bevans' "Treaties and Other
International Agreements of the United States of America
1776-1949", vol. 11 (pp. 1070-1080).
The Treaty of Tripoli was signed in Tripoli on November 4th,
1796. The English text of the treaty was approved by the U.S.
Senate on June 7, 1797 and ratified by President John Adams on June
10, 1797. It was recently discovered that the US copy of the Arabic
version of the treaty not only lacks the quotation, it lacks
Article XI altogether. Instead it seems to contain the text of a
letter to the Pasha of Tripoli from the Dey of Algiers.
The person who translated the Arabic to English was Joel Barlow,
Consul General at Algiers, a close friend of Thomas Paine -- and an
opponent of Christianity. It is possible that Barlow made up
Article XI, but since there is no Arabic version of that article to
be found, it's hard to say. It seems unlikely, however.
In 1806 a new Treaty of Tripoli was ratified which no longer
contained the quotation. The 1815 Treaty With Algiers contains a
similar article, but does not state that the US government is not
founded on religion, only that it is not incompatible with any
religion.
Ignoring the question of the wording of the Arabic version of
the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli, we can conclude that the wording of the
English article XI fairly represents the opinion of the time, as it
was passed and approved by both the US Senate and the
President.
"The Bible says "Thou shalt not kill", yet many
Christians serve in the military. What hypocrites!"
The Hebrew word is 'ratsach'. Although this can mean 'kill',
it's one of the words less frequently used to mean 'kill' in the
Bible. It can, however, be translated as 'murder'. Most modern
translations of the Bible express the commandment as "Thou shalt
not murder".
"What does the abbreviation 'xian' mean? Is it
an insult?"
When writing the name "Christ", it is quite common to abbreviate
it to X or x, representing the first letter (chi) of the Greek
XPICTOC khristos. For example, "xmas" is a common
abbreviation of "Christmas". "Xian" just means "Christian".
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the use of the
abbreviation "xian" or "xtian" for "Christian" dates back at least
as far as 1634. Before that, it was more usual to take the first
two letters of XPICTOC, and write "xpian" for "Christian".
Priests would record Christenings using the shorthand "xpen" or
"xpn".
So no, it's not an insult.
In
I Kings 7:23, the Bible says:
And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the
other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and
a line of thirty cubits did compass it round
about.
If you make a molten sea with a circumference of thirty cubits,
you'll find that the diameter is 30/pi or 9.55 cubits. Or ten
cubits, to round to the nearest integer.
In short, the Bible does not say that pi must be three, unless
you are going to assume that the numbers given are accurate to more
than two significant figures, which is unjustifiable given the
wording.
Atheists don't believe in any kind of supernatural divine being.
They view Satan as being every bit as mythological and nonexistent
as God.
(This response assumes a Christian view of what's "Satanic";
those who call themselves Satanists often have a very different
concept of Satan.)
|
