F Rosa Rubicondior: How Do You Know Satan Didn't Write The Bible?

Friday 14 October 2011

How Do You Know Satan Didn't Write The Bible?

Okay, Christians. Tell me how you know for sure that Satan didn't write the Bible.

Yes, I know. I'm an Atheist so I don't believe in Satan or any other spirits, evil, benign or supremely indifferent - but YOU do.

So, how can you tell that your god either wrote the Bible or inspired its authors and not Satan, the Great Deceiver?

One problem you have is that you claim that morality, and especially our knowledge of right and wrong, was revealed to us by your god in the Bible or by communication through various prophets and saints as recorded in the Bible. So you have no external references by which to judge the morality of the Bible.

So, what if Satan wrote the Bible to mislead you? What if your god has given us science so we can discover the lies Satan wrote in the Bible?

I could now give a long list of supporting evidence for that view with examples of the god of the Bible telling us to do plainly immoral things, but I don't believe it myself, since I don't believe in Satan, as you do, so I'll spare you that list. You can probably find examples for yourself in Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, the various epistles of Paul, etc.

BTW, have you ever read Leviticus 26:16-46? Doesn't it strike you as written by someone who got just a tad carried away at the thought of making people suffer in unspeakably nasty ways? I could almost still see the flecks of spittle...

Over to you. Just a simple proof that Satan couldn't have written the Bible, please. Obviously, you can't quote the Bible as evidence because Satan could have included that to fool you. And you can't use any external reference points to judge right and wrong because there aren't any.... are there?

If you can't prove that Satan didn't write the Bible, then how do you know you aren't condemning your children, and anyone else whom you persuade that the Bible is your god's word, to an eternity in Hell?

Don't you have a moral obligation to be sure? Or is your need to persuade others to agree with you more important to you than the consequences that might have for the other person? Are you 'saving souls' or just boosting your own ego?

BTW, if you don't agree that we get our knowledge of right and wrong from your god via the Bible, then I'm fine with that. You are confirming that we need neither your god nor the Bible to lead a good and moral life. You are confirming in fact, that Christianity has nothing to offer us.


Ten Reasons To Lose Faith: And Why You Are Better Off Without It

This book explains why faith is a fallacy and serves no useful purpose other than providing an excuse for pretending to know things that are unknown. It also explains how losing faith liberates former sufferers from fear, delusion and the control of others, freeing them to see the world in a different light, to recognise the injustices that religions cause and to accept people for who they are, not which group they happened to be born in. A society based on atheist, Humanist principles would be a less divided, more inclusive, more peaceful society and one more appreciative of the one opportunity that life gives us to enjoy and wonder at the world we live in.

Available in Hardcover, Paperback or ebook for Kindle


Thank you for sharing!

submit to reddit


  1. Did Satan have time to write the bible, when he was busy thinking of all the fun he would have writing the Koran to throw the cat among the pigeons? I suppose he had a few hundred years between them so that was long enough for both.

  2. Awh buddy, is that a trick question. Really...which bible. Standard, King James,SAB and what about the gospels that didn't make it into the NT: Q, Judas and my favorite Mary Magdelene (hooray for the ladies). Maybe all Christian bibles are written by this Satan you speak of, and that ridicules Moron, err, Mormon book is the one, or Islam, or (insert whatever bible here). I think you're trying to trick us, buddy. So Awesome.


    1. Standard, King James, SAB--they're all the same bible, just different translations. Also, the Koran was written by the Profit Mohammed, so pretty sure Satan didn't write that one. Unless you consider Mohammed to be Satan, which many do.

    2. How do you know?

      In fact, as Qur'anic scholars know, Muhammad never wrote a word of the Qur'an. It was written initially by Zayd ibn Thabit, then a second edition was compiled on the orders of the Third Imam by a committee headed by Zayd ibn Thabit and the first edition was destroyed.

      The question you need to be answering is, how do you know it wasn't Satan dictating the Qur'an and the Bible? How can you prove that if your knowledge of right and wrong comes from one or other of those books?

  3. Plasma Engineer.

    To play Devils' Advocate - Satan might have inspired the Koran for two reasons:

    1. Because his Bible just wasn't being believed enough by people in Arabia, Persia, North Africa and Central Asia where Rome never had much influence.

    2. To make both Christians and Muslims think each other had the wrong faith so 'confirming' they had the right one.

    Both worked well, eh? No one could accuse Satan of being unintelligent.

  4. krissthesexyatheist.

    The simple logic here is that, if you believe you get the ideas of right and wrong from a book, there is no way you can judge the author as good or evil.

    If you claim to be able to, you are using some external references and so rendering the book useless as a moral guide, since you are assuming you already have a higher set of morals and are qualified to judge it.

    If not, you have no basis for claiming to be good since you could with equal likelihood, be evil - if you believe in such things - and you have no moral authority to tell others what's right and what's wrong.

    IOW, no book and indeed no individual, can be the source of our morality.

  5. A couple of reasons how we know satan didnt write the Bible:

    1) it fails to provide the preconditions for human intelligibility.. ie, we would never know what is true or know anything at all, since deception and illustions is at the core (not even this question). Why would satan do this at all? if he has a reason then there is a purpose, then there is rationality, then there is truth.....like atheism, it reduces to absurdity with the exception that irrationality and chance are the underlying presuppositions (one could argue the same about satan). By impossibility of the contrary, Christian Theism is true and we MUST assume God's revelation.

    2) Satan is a created being...if he is a created being then he is not A SE (self-sufficient) and *something else* created him...if he is not self sufficient then there is something "outside" of himself that he must appeal to...what could this be? if chance and irrationality and non-purpose is what he appeals to like the atheist, we then again fall into absurdity, and the preconditions to human intelligible fails.

    3) if you say satan is not a created being...id like to hear your argument for saying so...also, you would have to argue who created us if satan wrote the bible

    1. In no way did you answer this question at all. Your incoherent rambling is very, very funny to read out loud to a group of people, however.

    2. The real WTF is that SquareCircle believes (pretends to believe?) any of his/her comments to be an argument, let alone a good one. Let's look at just the first paragraph of his/her first comment:
      > 1) it fails to provide the preconditions for human intelligibility.. ie, we would never know what is true or know anything at all, since deception and illustions is at the core (not even this question). Why would satan do this at all? if he has a reason then there is a purpose, then there is rationality, then there is truth.....

      To simplify, there are two arguments here:
      Argument A.
      1) We may be/are being deceived.
      2) We cannot know anything.
      3) No truth exists.
      The fallacy is that existence of truth does not depend on our ability to know it.

      Argument B.
      1) Satan requires a reason
      2) Reason implies truth exists
      There is a seed of something interesting here, but it would take some time to get into it.

      There is no contradiction present because the first argument is fallacious.

      >like atheism, it reduces to absurdity with the exception that irrationality and chance are the u
      nderlying presuppositions (one could argue the same about satan).

      Not even coherent enough to be wrong.
      Will assume it is referencing the alleged contradiction.
      In addition it appears to be attacking the common straw man that atheism is the positive position that there is no god, rather than acceptance of a suitable null hypothesis. While this position does exist, it is extremely rare.

      >By impossibility of the contrary, Christian Theism is true and we MUST assume God's revelation.

      False dilemma. 'We are being deceived' is not the contradiction of christian theism.
      Rests on false premises.

  6. The problem with this question is that its a faulty one. Its similar to the "when did you beat stop beating your wife?" question. It has faulty assumptions built in.

    Not only that, but its a straw-man against Christian Theism (CT). CT claims that Scripture is God breathed, not Satan breathed. When one asks a question like this they redefine attributes that are to God and assign them to whatever "god" (satan, allah, generic deceiving god). In order for you to show that CT is false you have to show an internal contradiction from the claims CT makes. Unfortunately for the atheist, this is impossible.

    However, the Christian can demonstrate the contrary is impossible. The contrary is: Satan wrote the Bible.

    1) If Satan wrote the Bible, we are being deceived
    2) If we are being deceived, we have no justification for knowledge or reality
    3) It is the case that nothing can be known to be the case
    4) Internal contradiction
    5) CT is true by impossibility of the contrary

    1. It only claims that scripture is God breathed IN THE BIBLE and idk what you're talking about but there are an incredible amount of internal contradictions in the bible.

      2)If we are being deceived, we have no justification for knowledge or reality. The bible has nothing to do with the bible or reality. I'm an atheist, meaning no belief in the bible or in your God and I still have plenty of knowledge and am aware of reality...your proof makes no sense.

  7. "The simple logic here is that, if you believe you get the ideas of right and wrong from a book, there is no way you can judge the author as good or evil."

    This assumes that its just a book. The book is God's word and so the Christian has justification for his or her ideas of right and wrong if he or she presupposes God's special revelation. We don't judge the Author, the Author judges us.

    "IOW, no book and indeed no individual, can be the source of our morality. "

    oh, no? Not even yourself for your own morality from an atheistic worldview? Not even an atheistic philosopher?

    1. "The book is God's word"

      It only says in the bible that it's god's word. And if they devil wrote it, he would say that, wouldn't he?

    2. You`re not any good at this logic thing are you?

  8. Square Circle.

    >1) If Satan wrote the Bible, we are being deceived<

    Indeed. How do you know you're not being so deceived?

    >2) If we are being deceived, we have no justification for knowledge or reality<

    Non sequitur. If you are being deceived about the authorship of a book that has no bearing on your knowledge of anything else other than the validity of the contents of that book. You might just as well argue that if you are being deceived about the authorship of the Qur'an then you have 'no justification for knowledge or reality'. You are presupposing that Satan DIDN'T write the Bible and then feeding that presupposition into your 'proof'.

    >3) It is the case that nothing can be known to be the case<

    No. It is only the case that you can't prove that Satan didn't write the Bible. Again there is that fallacious presupposition. You might just as well argue that, if you can't prove someone else didn't write "Tale of Two Cities" then you have 'no justification for knowledge or reality'

    So, how do you know that Satan didn't write the Bible? You haven't said but you've performed an interesting feat of mental gymnastics to avoid the fact that you haven't.

  9. Rosa,

    I noticed you did not mention anything in my first part of the comment that CT claims Scripture is God breathed and in order to show it is false you would need to do an internal critique. Anyways, I am going to restate my demonstration that Satan could not have written the Bible to make the argument a bit more specific and focus on one particular area of reality. But first there is an issue that needs to be sought after.

    THE ISSUE: You claimed "Obviously, you can't quote the Bible as evidence because Satan could have included that to fool you." This assertion implies that it is at least POSSIBLE that Satan wrote the Bible. This assumption has no defense on your part and you must demonstrate it in order for your assertion to be valid. Since, if it were not possible that Satan wrote the Bible and that God did indeed write it, then obviously I can appeal to it. So please tell me, why should I accept your implied assertion that it is even possible?

    1) Logic depends on the Bible being true
    2) If Satan wrote the Bible, then the Bible is false
    3) If the Bible is false, then there is no justification of logic (from 1)
    4) If there is no justification of logic, then one cannot intelligibly argue the possibility of Satan writing the Bible
    5) Therefore, if Satan wrote the Bible, one could not intelligibly argue that it was possible for Satan to write the Bible
    6) We are intelligibly arguing about whether Satan wrote the Bible
    7) Therefore, Satan could not have written the Bible

    If you respond to "the argument" without responding to "the issue" then I would feel it not necessary to even consider your assertions to be valid. Thanks.

    1. Regarding "the argument": Your first premise is false. Logic came into being independently from the Bible. You would know this if you googled the history of logic.

      Regarding "the issue": Satan is portrayed as a much nicer person than God in the Bible. According to the Bible, Satan killed Job's servants, animals and children and later "smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown", only because God made a bet with Satan (Isn't that a bad thing in itself?) and ordered him to do it. Aside from that, the Bible doesn't say that Satan killed anyone. On the other hand, God personally killed millions of people and animals, even many who didn't deserve it, like the firstborn sons of Egypt (for punishing the pharaoh for not letting the Israelites go, which was the logical consequence of God hardening the pharaoh's heart beforehand instead of softening it), according to the Bible. The portrayal of God in the old testament inspired Richard Dawkins to say/write: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." I don't know about you, but if I wrote books in which I am a central character, I'd portray myself as a very nice person and my antagonist as a very bad person.

  10. Square Circle.

    So basically, your 'proof' that Satan couldn't have written the Bible is your assertion that it's impossible.

    What I'm puzzled by is how your assertion can prohibit Satan from doing something in the past.

    Could you explain this power, please.

    BTW, logic no more depends on the Bible being true that it depends on Peter Pan being true.

    But thank you for showing the mental contortions an apologist needs to perform to get by.

  11. "So basically, your 'proof' that Satan couldn't have written the Bible is your assertion that it's impossible."

    I did not say it is impossible in my argument, only that you are assuming it is possible. As you have made the first argument in this post, you own the burden of proof to support that argument

  12. Square Circle.

    Yes I am assuming it's possible for Satan to write the Bible, if you believe in Satan, that is.

    If you best argument is that it is impossible for him to do so, YOU have to prove that claim, not me.

    Attempting to shift the burden betrays a lack of confidence in your own argument and an attempt to disclaim responsibility for it. That's what makes shifting the burden so intellectually and morally dishonest.

    So, again, how do you know Satan didn't write the Bible?

  13. Rosa I have a quick question in response. If you can answer this plainly and unequivocally, I will do the same:

    How do you know 1 + 1 *isn't* 3?

    Parameters: Obviously you cannot appeal to math or logic or science because they presuppose each other.

    1. "How do you know 1 + 1 *isn't* 3?

      Parameters: Obviously you cannot appeal to math or logic or science because they presuppose each other."

      Now if your only source for knowing ANY math was from reading 1 math textbook and that math textbook stated that 1+1=3 then if you blindly followed the book you would truly believe that 1+1=3. (see the problem?)

      Lets look at it like this -> There is a good-guy-god in the sky and created all of us. One of his creations Satan decides to turn against god and spread lies and deceit by writing a book claiming to be from God. The book from Satan is elaborately written and claims to be from god and informs you about both God & Satan (whom you didn't even know existed until you read the Bible).

      For simplicity's sake I'm going to say that Good-guy-god really likes Vanilla ice cream. Satan likes Chocolate. Satan writes a book called the bible to tell you how awesome Chocolate ice cream is because chocolate is God's favorite. The book also tells you how vanilla is bad because Vanilla is Satan's favorite. You have now been deceived by reading the bible because all of god's words from the bible are actually Satan's.

  14. Matt.

    I'm sorry about your sad dyscalculia but this isn't the right place to look for help.

    The question here is how do you know Satan didn't write the Bible. Would you like to have a go at answering it?

  15. Rosa,

    Well, I was truly hoping we could've put off the ad homs until we've depleted rational argumentation. But, consider it forgiven :)

    You don't seem to understand the reason I'm asking. I'm trying to get an idea of what kind of answer you would consider valid. As such I have constructed a question perfectly analogous to yours to see what you would accept as an answer (assuming an answer is what you want), and how you would answer a question with such stringent parameters.

    If that is out of line, I apologize. I am simply trying to get an idea of where exactly the goalposts are at the moment.


  16. Matt.

    The simple matter is that 2 is defined as 1 + 1 hence you 'analogy' was nothing of the sort. It was a far too blatant attempt to change the real question, which was:

    How do you know that Satan didn't write the Bible?

    I note you still haven't attempted it. It's probably obvious to most people why.

  17. Rosa,

    Well, despite what you may think, this exercise is in fact progressing in what I hope is a beneficial direction.

    You said, " It's probably obvious to most people why."

    Yes, it should be, for anyone paying attention. I said once I receive an answer, I will answer. Unless what I'm asking is unanswerable in your judgment.

    You said, " 2 is defined as 1 + 1."

    Defined by what? Or who? Logic?


    1. "Defined by what? Or who? Logic?"

      Defined by mathematics. l+l=ll
      If ducks could potato, are squirrels bankers?

  18. OK. Let me clarify the whole situation.

    Your question: "How do you know Satan didn't write the Bible?"

    My Answer: "Because the Bible claims to be God breathed and defines who Satan is and who God is"

    Now this is where you object, right? This is where you say (assertion #1): "You cant use the Bible because it is possible that Satan wrote it"

    Assertion #1 needs to be defended with *reasons*. If you can't tell us why it is possible that Satan could have wrote the Bible, the we can dismiss the question all together as it is just an arbitrary claim.

    Matt has also shown the absurdity in the question itself by showing you that you are limiting the parameters in which things can be defined within our worldview. As I said in one of my earlier comments, you are redefining terms. You are defining these terms based upon *your* worldview and then placing them upon *our* worldview.

    Side note: I find it highly inconsistent for someone that holds a subjective view of morality to make the statement "That's what makes shifting the burden so intellectually and morally dishonest". This makes no sense under your worldview, as it may be the case that it is morally honest to do so in another person's belief system as all systems (under your worldview is subjective)

    1. One could ask the question, "How do you know men didn't write the Bible?" (meaning men who were not inspired in any way and who wanted to deceive). That would be a much more reasonable question to atheists and religious people alike and would have far more evidence and arguments to back it up. The original question seems to be directed more towards fundamentalists who believe Satan put dinosaur bones in the ground and such.

  19. Square Circle.

    Opps! You appear to have tried to use the words in the Bible to try to prove Satan couldn't have written them.

    Of course, he could have written those words just to fool you. After all, so you believe, Satan IS the Great Deceiver.

    So, how do you know Satan didn't write the Bible, including the words you quoted?

    Trying to shift the burden onto me doesn't help you since it's YOUR claim that Satan couldn't have written the Bible which you're defending.

    BTW, I DID try to explain why you need to look OUTSIDE the Bible for your proof to help you avoid falling into that trap. Did you not understand what I said?

  20. Matt.

    I'm afraid merely trying to change the subject whilst feigning dyscalculia and difficulty with simple logic isn't working for you.

    The question you need to be address is how you know Satan didn't write the Bible.

    Are you going to attempt that or are we to have yet more amusing prevarication, mental summersaulting and attempts to change the subject to cover your difficulty?

  21. "Yes I am assuming it's possible for Satan to write the Bible, if you believe in Satan, that is." - Rosa

    Rosa, you offered an argument as to why SquareCircle cannot appeal to the Bible - namely, that Satan might have written it. What SquareCircle asked you to do (which you have not yet done) is support your claim that it is possible for Satan to have written the Bible. Since your argument depends on this being established (rather than merely assumed a priori), you still have your work cut out for you. If you don't provide some sort of justification for this claim, then your argument will never get off the ground.


    1. Rosa can assume that some satan wrote the bible because we have no proof who wrote it or under what circumstances, outside of what the book itself proclaims. Since we don't know, the null hypothesis is to withhold belief until there's evidence, and making and testing hypotheses is how evidence is generated.

    2. Ding Ding Ding!

      We ALWAYS fail to reject the Null Hypothesis UNTIL we have sufficient data to reject it.

  22. Wow. I guess this is the kind of conversation we get when engaging with a fundamental atheist. Clog your ears and scream "la la la la la"

    "2 is defined as 1 + 1."

    oops! You appear to have tried to use logic and math to try and prove 1 + 1 doesn't equal 3. Tsk, Tsk...didnt Matt inform you of the parameters?

    of course, your logic could have failed you. After all, so you believe, you are NOT all-knowing. (perhaps you do)

    "After all, so you believe, Satan IS the Great Deceiver."

    Yet we also believe God is in control of this deceiver and everything He creates. Stop redefining terms and excluding beliefs within the Christian Worldview just to suit the irrationality of your own worldview.

    So far, there are no reasons to accept your assertion that it is possible for Satan to write the Bible. It is dismissed as illogical.

    While you are at it, can you please you write your next comment without any form of communication?

    1. "Yet we also believe God is in control of this deceiver and everything He creates."
      Yes, that's one that intrigues me. If this is the case, why does your God allow Satan to spread deceit and lies? Why does he allow suffering?

      Because if God does this knowingly, it means he's hardly the great and good God you people claim.

    2. Problem, Square Circle. Mathematics and logic have internal consistency and predictive power. Your holy book has neither. I trust consistency....it's a useful way to not get scammed.

  23. Rosa,

    Christians' knowledge of God (and also Satan) is informed by the Bible. Knowing this, to then posit a question about Satan while disallowing the use of the source of knowledge about Satan is just as absurd as to ask a question about mathematics, while disallowing the use of logic and mathematics. Surely you could point to some "independent" source of knowledge from which you can determine the answer to my question?

    If 1 + 1 = 2 "by definition," then Satan did not write the Bible, "by definition."

    If "the simple matter is that 2 is defined as 1 + 1," then it's also "the simple matter," that Satan did not write the Bible. You appeal to logic, the source of your knowledge about math. I appeal to the Bible, the source of knowledge about Satan. This is precisely why you find my question, with its parameters, absurd (and it is, I'll readily admit). And this is precisely why I find yours, with its parameters, equally as absurd.

    What is the difference?


  24. Matt.

    Interesting though unconvincing mental gymnastics.

    Are you ever going to say how you know that Satan didn't write the Bible or are we expected to just be impressed by the skill with which you avoid doing so?

  25. Square Circle.

    It seems you can't bring yourself to answer the question either. Do you think anyone is impressed by your avoidance techniques?

  26. Anonymous.

    It's also clear they YOU can't answer the simple question either. One wonders why you bothered to come here. Was it to show off your skill at avoiding these sorts of questions too?

  27. "It's also clear they YOU can't answer the simple question either. One wonders why you bothered to come here. Was it to show off your skill at avoiding these sorts of questions too?"

    You mean it is your opinion I can't answer it.

    Now, will you support your claim that it is possible for Satan to have written the Bible, or will you continue your hand-waving in a poor attempt to distract from this fact?


  28. Rosa,

    I need to clarify. Are you talking about the Satan of the Bible? Or no?

    Regards, Matt

  29. Matt.

    As I suspect you know, I'm talking about the Satan in the Bible; the one Christians an Jews believe in.

    Now, will you be saying how you know Satan didn't write the Bible soon or should I simply record the fact that you were either unable or unwilling to say judging by your constant prevarication?

  30. Anonymous.

    Yes, it's my opinion you can't answer the question. I cite the evidence above of your failure to answer the question as evidence.

    Will you be prevaricating much longer or should people write you off as just another phoney who can't answer the question but who lacks the honesty and integrity to say so?

  31. Rosa -

    Great ... glad to know you agree it's your opinion. Most atheists I come across aren't brave enough to say such a thing.

    Regardless, once you have established the truth of the assumption that your argument (the initial one leveled, I might add) relies upon, let me know. Perhaps then we can have a meaningful discussion.

    Thanks in advance ...


  32. Rosa,

    Alright, so you've appealed to the Bible's definition of Satan, and are now asking me how I know Satan didn't write the Bible. And I...*can't* use the Bible to answer how I know Satan didn't write it?

    Are you suggesting Satan wrote all these nasty things about himself? If Satan wrote that Satan is the Great Deceiver, was he then lying? Or telling the truth? If the truth, why? Are you seeing how this makes no sense? Are Christians to blame for your apparent failure to ask a rationally consistent question?

    Your question cannot be answered in the manner you're asking that it be. Just like my question could not be answered in the manner I was asking that it be (Unless you really can give an answer, which would be REALLY helpful).

    If your entire point in this blogpost is to highlight that Christians gain everthing they believe about Satan from the Bible, then...Yeah. We kinda do. And we are glad to admit it.

    If you can claim victory for stumping people with nonsensical questions, then so can I.

    Due to Rosa's Dyscalculia (which is professionally diagnosed, by the way), she is simply unwilling and unable to answer my question. Notice how she habitually avoids such a simple question. I have stumped her.

    Please consider your ways, if you really are looking for honest, rational discussion.

    In any case, thank you for taking the time to reply when you have.


  33. Anonymous.

    Noticeably, you still haven't answered the question.

    Is that to be your best attempt at rationalizing you very evident inability to, or would you like one last attempt to either answer the question or to try for a less transparently sanctimonious excuse for not doing so?

  34. Matt.

    Thank you for your condescension.

    Would you like one last try at either answering the question or at coming up with a more convincing excuse for not having done so, or have you given it your best shot?

  35. "or would you like one last attempt to either answer the question or to try for a less transparently sanctimonious excuse for not doing so?"

    I suppose you can make up any old rules you want for people posting comments on your blog. If that's what you need to resort to, then don't expect many people to come back (except those who already agree with you.) But all is not lost. Be confident that this discussion will live on, as there are other blogs out there to continue it on.

    As to condescension, notice that the tone of my responses changed to match yours (yours being the one initially condescending).

    And finally, for the third time, you have proffered a challenge to those who believe the Bible and what it says about it's author (God). The functionality of that challenge hinges on the idea that it is *possible* that Satan could have authored the Bible. You are being asked to defend that possibility, as the *possibility* of your challenge being true depends on it.

    Furthermore, you have appealed to the Bible in support of your argument that Satan is a deceiver in an attempt to lend support to the notion that Satan *might* have written the Bible. At the same time, you refuse to let those who disagree with you appeal to the Bible in support of their view; an amazing double-standard on your part.

    So, it's in your hands now. Either retract your appeal to the Bible in support of Satan as the "great deceiver", thus removing any possible positive reason to believe he wrote the Bible, or allow us to also appeal to the Bible in support of our belief. And while you're at it - support that pesky assumption of yours that it is even possible that Satan wrote it in the first place.

    Best of luck.


  36. Anonymous.

    What a very long-winded way to say you still can't tell us how you know that Satan didn't write the Bible.

  37. Rosa,

    I think I've given it my best shot. If pointing out that your question with its parameters is illogical doesn't convince you, then, well, let's just say you have a lot in common with fundamentalists. And as I'm sure you know, it's difficult to reason with fundamentalists.

    On the other hand, if you'd like to answer my question, following the parameters I set forward, you're more than welcome to do so. I stand by my word, that if you answer, I will. (Saying something is "defined as" something requires a source, something that defines. This is why I did not accept your answer. It did not follow my parameters.)


  38. Rosa,

    I believe I've given it my best shot. If demonstrating that your question is illogical isn't enough to convince you, then there's really not much left I can do, is there?

    If, on the other hand, you would like to answer my question within the parameters I set forward, I will stand by my word, and answer as well. (To say it's "defined as" something is to appeal to the source of your knowledge of addition, which violates the parameters.)


  39. Matt.

    And still couldn't say how you know Satan didn't write the Bible...

  40. Rosa,

    Sorry for the double-posting. My phone was giving me trouble...and obviously I retooled a couple points.

    In any case, I won't answer a question that makes no sense, as if I understand what it is you're asking. I've tried, and you do not allow for clarification. You've set out contradictory parameters in your question, and as such cannot be answered except contradictorily.

    If the Satan of the Bible wrote the Bible, it wouldn't be the Satan of the Bible. You're simply asking a contradictory question.


  41. Matt.

    There is nothing contradictory in asking how you know Satan didn't write the Bible.

    I'm sorry you were unable to come up with a more convincing excuse for not being able to answer it.

    No doubt readers will draw their own conclusion.

  42. Rosa,

    Please explain how you can use the Bible's definition of "Satan" and then speak as if it's "possible" that he wrote it? If you are allowing the Bible to define Satan, then that definition of Satan also includes the fact that he didn't write it. You are positing a square circle (no pun intended). A married bachelor. You are in essence asking, "Given A, how do you know it's not ~A? But you can't appeal to the source of knowledge of A."

    Surely if you don't recognize the problem, your more astute readers will.

    If your question is in any way different from what I've explained above, *PLEASE* explain it. If nothing else, then out of common courtesy.

    Also, if I might ask, what is the larger idea you're getting at with this question? What seeming flaw in Christian theology are you attempting to highlight?


  43. Matt.

    Dunno. Satan is a belief YOU got from the Bible. You explain it. As I made clear in the blog I don't believe a word of the superstitious nonsense.

    BTW, your continued wriggling is still amusing but is becoming just a tad repetitive.

    I've given up expecting you to actually explain how you know your Satan didn't write your Bible.

  44. Rosa,

    You don't believe a word of it, and you also seem to be unable to take our entire position even just for the sake of argument.

    Otherwise, you'd realize that the entire description/definition of the Satan of the Bible (which you admitted is the one you're talking about) precludes the possibility of this same Satan having written the Bible.

    Only some *other* Satan might possibly have written some *other* bible. And Christians are in no way either obligated or interested to defend or answer to such a belief that isn't their own.


  45. Matt.

    Unfortunately you've reverted to citing the Bible again as evidence that Satan couldn't have written it.

    Satan could have written that to fool you, as I'm sure you know by now, since I've told you at least twice before.

    But, as I said, your amusing wriggling to avoid answering the question is now becoming merely tedious.

    It's abundantly clear now that you would rather sacrifice your integrity than answer the question.

    I'm sorry my question provoked you into this sad display of moral cowardice.

  46. Rosa,

    Where do you expect Christians to get their idea of Satan from?


  47. Matt.

    From the Bible, same place you get your ideas of your god from.

    How do you know your God wrote the Bible and not your Satan?

    I know you won't answer that one either but it'll be amusing watching another display of the mental gymnastics you'll need to perform to avoid it.

  48. Rosa,

    Alright, so then you're aware that the definition of the Satan you're asking about includes the fact that he did *not* write the Bible?


  49. Hi, I'm the new guy:

    Can I interject for a moment? …WOW! What a great discussion. It blew my mind. :)

    So you are correct, 2 Timothy 3:15-17 does say the bible is truly God's word.

    The faithful might argue that the book's continued existence itself is God's divine origin. The bible has survived more or less as one unified book for more than 1500 years, as many as 50 authors, translations, but it remains a unified book living book.

    Also, the biblical prophecies are very detailed. Many fulfilled prophecies in the old testament foretold Jesus in the new testament.

    The bible's strength, is unlike any other book ever written, in resonating with people could be evidence? It has changed the worst of us for the better through its message.

    The bible details historical events, and many of those things have been verified. Supporting its truthfulness.

    Also, the human authors were very diverse, but every one honest and sincere men. Men willing to die horrible deaths for their testimonies. Many had seen and spent time with Jesus, and knew the truth.

    God protects the bible? It has survived so many attacks throughout time, yet it survives strong and is as true and relevant today as it was then. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."

    1. "Also, the biblical prophecies are very detailed. Many fulfilled prophecies in the old testament foretold Jesus in the new testament"

      When you Reverse Engineer the Greek version of the Hebrew OT to CREATE the NT, of course they're fulfilled. So wonderfully that Mark, Matthew & Luke all show how they RE'd it. Matthew misunderstood a lot.

      Paul Tobin's Central Thesis shows all the ways it was done.

    2. You mean prophecies such as the town that would be utterly destroyed, never to be rebuilt or remembered, still stands to this day?As prophecy goes, the bible has a lot of bad and ridiculous ones. Such as Jesus saying BRB lol, and then 2000+ years later is still very much missing from the picture.

  50. Hi new guy.

    Unfortunately, you fallen into the trap of trying to quote the Bible to prove who didn't write it.

    As I clearly warned, since Satan, the Great Deceiver, could have included all the things you cite just to fool you, none of them prove Satan didn't write it.

    Did you actually read the blog or have you just come here to rehearse all the traditional, and refuted, arguments that the Bible is not just made up?

    You need to use external references to prove Satan didn't write it otherwise all you may be doing is showing how well Satan has deceived you.

    Can you do that?

  51. new guy.

    Further... I don't know which blog you read but neither this one nor any of the comments mention 2 Timothy 3:15-17. Was your comment merely a boiler-plate comment used to spam blogs which mention the Bible?

    If so, I'd appreciate it if you had the good manners not to abuse this blog simply to post your propaganda, otherwise its rather like you going into someone's home and taking a dump on their living-room carpet simply because you feel you have the right to.

  52. Matt

    I'm aware, as must every other reader of this blog be, that you are doing anything and everything to avoid answering the simple question, "How do you know Satan didn't write the Bible?"

    It's very obvious why you won't do that, and why you need to invent more and more implausible excuses for not doing so....

  53. Rosa,

    I've told you "by definition." If the Satan you're talking about does not include the description that he did not write the Bible, then you're not talking about the Satan of the Bible.

    I keep commenting as if you'll eventually get it. Your question is simply an exercise in silliness, as Christians aren't required to get anything they believe about God or Satan from anything other than the Bible.

    You wrote this post thinking you've already stumped Christians. *Perhaps* you should rethink it?

    You wrote, "As I clearly warned, since Satan, the Great Deceiver, could have included all the things you cite just to fool you, none of them prove Satan didn't write it."

    Then by virtue of that fact, *you* can't simply use that definition without considering whether or not the very description of Satan is itself misinformation. "Well, I don't believe in Satan." That does not change the fact that in your view it could simply be incorrect information, upon which you are basing your entire argument.

    Your question must be fixed before any rational person can answer it.


    1. You should send me all your money, because I say it's the right thing to do. You know it's right because I said so, and everything I say is the truth. You know I'm telling the truth, because I just told you I tell the truth. My logic is irrefutable by your own reasoning, so where's my check?

  54. Matt.

    I expect others, like me, are wondering how many more excuses you can make up to cover the very evident fact that you don't have the courage to answer the simple question:

    How do you know Satan didn't write the Bible?

    Have you many left?

  55. Rosa,

    Courage? What is the answer you're saying Christians are afraid to give? Am I supposed to say, "I don't"? If some deceitful being wrote the Bible, I guess I'd question whether or not there was a Satan to begin with. But you're taking a specific "Satan" for granted as part of your question, so I can only wonder what it is you really hope to accomplish.

    I could construct a system in which the number red cars as I see in a given day corresponds to how many times better than everyone else I am. I make the rules, so I always win. The thing is, no one else is bound by those rules, so all I've done is construct a fantasy world because I can't accept what is reality.

    Ask a question about "the Satan of the Bible" but define it as something other than the Satan of the Bible, and all you've done is equivocated. You know what that means? It's a basic logical fallacy. Surely you understand this? If you do, you're plain being deceitful. If not...well then I'm trying to help you.


  56. Matt.

    Is avoiding saying how you can tell your Satan didn't write the Bible, and thinking up excuses for it, a hobby of yours?

  57. Rosa,

    Ok, it's evident you've not read a thing I've written.


  58. Matt.

    It's evident that nothing whatever is ever going to give you the courage to say how you know Satan didn't write the Bible.

    It's painfully and sadly obvious why.

    But your performance has been entertaining.

    1. Rosa, sorry to say, you're being stupid. For the first time I see a couple of reasonable and logical theists defending their believes and you give no room for debate just stick to your question.
      I could give some logical expressions, with both assumptions and none would be false, proving you cannot know who wrote it.
      Instead I invite us atheists to respect the capability of these persons to feel what we can't. If you were incapable of feeling love, don't be a douche running around telling people love is unreal, it's a state of dementia triggered by chemicals released by the body, there is no big meaning, no connection, just our brain going a little nuts.

      Atheism needs to mature, religion is necessary in every culture, we need a level of madness to keep sane. Respect it.

      On the other hand, I invite theists to keep their delusions to their selves, don't walk around saying "god bless you", "almighty god" and worse, trying to impose your tales to everyone around you and to disprove facts and truth with fairy tales. If you believe this and feel right with it, I congratulate you, you will have a happy death.

      Religion needs to mature, its purpose is to keep the folk healthy-minded and happy, not to debate facts to maintain solid. Accept yourself as a philosophy not a reality.


    2. So how do you know Satan didn't write the Bible? You seem to have forgotten to say...

      Nice attempt to cover your failure with ad hominem abuse though. I expect other readers will understand why you needed to.

    3. You're asking the wrong guy here.
      I know Satan didn't write the bible, because Satan does not exist, and the bible was written by men.


  59. Hi, new guy again,

    ha, :) No really, I was being sincere, but you probably do get a lot of boiler plate comments, i get it. I only included the Timothy verse as a confirmation that the bible indeed says in it that it is the word of God, just as a place to start. I then laid out some other points, but yes based around the bible itself, sorry.

    So, I asked my wife after church: What if it was that there is a devil who actually wrote all the religious texts claiming divine origin, including the bible. If that WERE the case, then what? We discussed and had these thoughts:

    Well, if the Devil actually appeared and took credit for writing the bible and had a photograph proving it or something…well, apart from the fact that there is hard proof that the devil exists! Ahhh, run!!!! I think at that time we would have to reevaluate where we go to for our spiritual compass. At that time, non theists would be doing the same?

    But what if without knowing for sure, is it a possibility that the Devil actually wrote the bible to trick us all? Well, consider us tricked. It falls down to the same reason any denomination follows their particular teachings and not any of the other 14 major religions, faith. But that is a whole other blog topic. To say that I don't believe the devil wrote the bible, but I also don't think the devil wrote the Koran, or other non Christian religious texts either. But this is the one that feels right to us on our spiritual journey. For instance, we went to many different Christian churches before we found ours. We didn't like the others because they interpreted the bible in ways we didn't connect with. I can see how someone could then just quit religion because of the inconsistencies. But we believe because it feels right to us.

    If God wrote the bible, humans could still screw it up and do harm. If the Devil wrote the bible, humans could still screw it up and do good. So, without hard evidence either way, even with the possibility that the devil did write the bible, I'm okay continuing to worship it because I see God in it and see the potential for more good, then harm from it.

  60. hello from Lishka

    wow all this back and forth pointless arguing is making me go cross-eyed so let me say this: just because words were written, doesn't make them true (Pet Semetary anyone?). there is no proof whatsoever that the words credited to god are really the words of god and not just the words of a bunch of schmucks with god complexes. there is no proof that the words are written by satan either. but considering the hateful and violent words (kill non-believers, women can't own property, it's ok to rape your daughters, yes the jews can kill the canaanites and have their land, and no inter-racial marrying so be sure to kill all rival tribes-genocide much?-or the next 10 generations of mixed races won't be forgiven, stone false prophets to death) from "god" it seems more likely that those words and orders would be from a malevolent source. since god is kind and loving and all. but jealous and childish at the same time? can't handle a little theistic competition from other gods? come on. but then there's no proof that satan exists, so one has no choice but to assume that these are the words of men (not women, they're unworthy of *snort* divine guidance) who "divinely" came up with them to promote their own selfish and controlling agendas. the long-running campaign of the bible is due to brainwashing by death threats and extortion, and by now it's tradition because not enough people actually think about the horrible and contradictory things the bible preaches and have the nerve to reject the trash. seriously just because you were raised that way doesn't mean you have to believe it. use some common sense! do we believe that snakes can talk today? of course not. so why in the world do some believe it happened so long ago, when there's less of a chance at proof than we have today? go to a shrink with these tales and you'll be diagnosed and medicated, and if you're lucky you'll get a cozy jacket and cushy room. but if you call the stories "religion" it's all of a sudden ok? insanity! It’s proven by science that a certain area of the brain lights up when thinking about god, so that’s about the closest thing we have to proof that "god" is all in your head.

  61. Lishka

    I'd be interested in see that science you refer to with the brain lighting up. Do you have a reference at all?

    Many thanks.

  62. a note for the new guy from Lishka:

    belief in god is not a requirement for kindness and generosity. that being said, kindness and generosity should not be discredited when "sanctioned" by another deity, or no deity at all.

    also, we do know that pen was put to paper by men. god didn't bother to come to earth and write it all himself. unless someone can prove me wrong here?

    ok that was two notes. sorry


  63. Anonymous.

    Your attempt to get away with the intellectually dishonest shifted burden fallacy is noted.

    Did you try it because you knew you couldn't substantiate your claim but lacked the intellectual integrity to admit it?

  64. hi Rosa

    this is the first link that came up when I googled "area of the brain responsible for religious experiences" http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger.html but by no means the last link



  65. Lishka


    It's well documented that people suffering from temporal lobe epilepsy often have 'religious' experiences. If fact, St Paul appears to have been suffering from this condition when he 'saw the light'. One characteristic of it is the feeling of the presence of some other person. Of course, we know that this is just the conscious interpretation of the inventions of a malfunctioning brain.

  66. so back to the original question, how do we know satan didn't write the bible. if these "revelations" are the awareness of the brain malfunctioning, should that not mean that the words of god in the bible really just depend on the disposition and opinions of the host of said malfunctioning brain? hmmm...


  67. Fascinating!

    Well, if I may. 1+1=2 because... You know what, your right Matt, lets just throw that math and logic stuff right out the window and start from scratch. While we're at it, let's throw the bible out and start that all over again there as well. Where would we begin if we had to begin again?

    I imagine we would do so much as the people who first had to figure it out would have: by first defining the singular. Then figuring out what two singulars are together. Then three. And so on, and eventually we would arrive at the same exact point as we are today.

    How would religion get to the same point it is today? For starters, christianity can't, at least not according to its own book. Plus, it depends very greatly on where you are born in the world, as to what religion will be "true" for you. Even if All religions start over, there will be fractures, and divisions, and...

    Math, logic, etc do not have that limitation. Why? Because the rules that govern how the world works do not change. No matter where you are in the world, nor who your parents are, 1+1 will always equal 2.

    Of course, you could fall back on "god made it that way", but then Whose god made it that way. It doesn't matter which god decided it thus because by their very own natures they can't All be right. By contrary, no matter what religion you ascribe to, any culture, anywhere on the planet, the sum of 1+1 will never be anything other than "2". And there lies the difference between religious truth and plain truth.

    When, or rather "if", you guys can wrap your heads around just how that works then Rosa's question will make absolute perfect sense.


    1. JoE, you *rock*!! (in the best possible way.....)

  68. JoE,

    If you can't help but speak of "2" in terms of "1+1", how can someone possibly speak of Satan except in terms of what defines it in the Bible?

    Rosa's question will not make sense until she disposes of the silly parameters (i.e. "You can't use the Bible" which defines Satan). This is precisely why asked for the reason that 1+1 *isn't* 3, in terms of something *other* than what defines it. If she (or you) can answer that question in the way I asked it, then I will answer as well. So far, all she's said is "by definition." Notice how blatantly that begs the question, violating my parameters.

    Since logic is largely self-referencing, then ultimately it is perfectly appropriate to reason in a circular fashion. However, when silly parameters such as Rosa is proposing undercut the "defining" of a particular thing, you have to come up with something arbitrarily. Rosa sees this problem. That's why she responded, "by definition."

    Simply put, there is a double-standard at play. And I hope your non-malfunctioning, non-dyscalculate, enlightened brains will eventually see that.


    1. 1+1=2 is not defined by mathematical books, it is defined through relational evidence. Geometric shapes define the numbers we use and mathematical book summarize these experiments and conclusions so that you can do them yourself. The abstraction of numerical notation is something we use for simplicity so that you do not have to redo the geometrical exercises over again because it tedious. If you doubt the existence of these numbers you can do the experiments yourself, which Euclid and Pythagoras and many other mathematicians performed previously. That is why these books have value, they can be tested and repeated. It is not a light subject to take relational sizes and put values on these. Fundamentals of geometry is not an easy subject, but those before us have made it easier producing systems of numbers that are much like language we use today. If you would like to preform some of these experiments feel free, you only need string and a marked stick(once you mark it we would call it a ruler, though the length is arbitrary) This is a reasonable review of how humans obtained numbers through simple relational geometry. http://polly.phys.msu.ru/~belyaev/geometry.pdf

    2. From passed experience, Matt thinks logic argument is defining your conclusion then putting words next to one another into groups that look like sentences and eventually, when your groups of sentences look large enough, writing out the conclusion you started with. There is no need for joined up thinking or logical progression, or even real facts where he includes any.

      The important thing is the conclusion and that little bit of self-satisfaction he feels when he sees it written down.

  69. Matt.

    Should we just summarise today's excuse for not saying how you know Satan didn't write the Bible, as that he couldn't have written about himself in just the same way that I, Rosa Ricondior, can't write about myself?

  70. Rosa,

    Are you defined as the Great Deceiver whose word cannot be taken as truth?

    Or are you saying Satan could possibly have been lying when he called himself the Great Deceiver?


  71. Matt, please, if your going to comment about what I write then the least you could have done was read it...

    If satan exists (or even a god for that matter), in the here and now that we consider the real world, then they certainly don't need some book to confirm it. I mean you sound as though if All the bibles on the planet were destroyed, god and satan would then cease to exist. Is that your stance, that the bible is the only thing that makes your god "real"?

    Lets take you for instance, in the way you are presenting your argument: Are you defined simply by your birth certificate, school records, pay stubs, drivers license, internet presence, blog comments, etc, etc, etc? How would we glean anything about YOU if all of those were lost in some freak mishap? Wouldn't the way you live your life account for anything?

    And for the sake of further discussion on it, can you give me any examples, genuinely honest examples that is, of any person or situation that disputes the existence of your god AND disputes that 1+1=2? And how about those that believe in your god But dispute that 1+1=2?

    (...and just to throw a wrench in there, the bible does actually define that arithmetic conundrum)


  72. P.S. Matt,I speak in terms of the equation because it is not in dispute anywhere in the world! No matter what sane, honest person you ask you will not get any answer other than "2".

    Now, go to the other side of the planet to ask a Hindu to define "satan". No luck? Try a Buddhist. Still nothing? I mean, still nothing as to why you don't get why christianity is in dispute and? And in your mind, apparently, the answer is "3"?


  73. Matt.

    Yes. I hereby define myself as The Great Deceiver.

    So, by your logic I can't have written that, eh?

    I think I'll start collecting your arguments for a future blog about how theophobic superstition inhibits rational thought.

  74. JoE,

    The point is not whether something would cease to exist or not exist if there was nothing known about it. The point is precisely *that there would be nothing known about it.*

    What Rosa's done here, is appeal to the Bible in her question about Satan (i.e. the Satan of the Bible) and then demand that it be answered in terms of something else *other than* where I as a Christian get all my belief about God and Satan - the Bible.

    What I've essentially done in response is pose the question to her, "How do you know that the '1 + 1' of Logic *isn't* 3? Oh, btw, you can't use Logic, because it might be mistaken."

    How ridiculous is that?


    If that's how you're understanding my logic, you're simply not understanding it. My belief, plain and simple, comes from the Bible. You've said the definition of Satan you're using also comes from the Bible. I've attempted to show to you the contradiction that exists if Satan actually had written the Bible.

    If you recall, I said, "If Satan wrote that Satan is the Great Deceiver, was he then lying? Or telling the truth?"

    How about this. I'll let the definition of Satan that you're using be my answer. Remember, if you're going to use the Bible's definition, you have to use the sum total of it. You cannot atomize. If you're allowed to appeal to the Bible in your answer, and I'm not, I'll let your definition be my answer. Surely such isn't an appeal to the Bible?


    1. Matt, look up 'null hypothesis'...if you don't accept that as an answer and try to wriggle out, I'll know you're being at least intellectually dishonest

  75. Rosa,

    Unless you start *actually* talking about the Satan of the Bible, and not merely saying you are, your question deserves no serious attention beyond telling you how absurd it is.


  76. Matt.

    So today's new excuse for not saying how you know that Satan didn't write the Bible is that I'n not *actually* asking you the question.

    Let's see if you can get any sillier...

    Okay. I'm now *actually* (I assume the asterisks have some magical property) asking how you know Satan didn't write the Bible.

    What excuse can you make up this time, or will you be recycling an old one?

  77. I haven't read everything yet Matt, but I did want to address this one right now.

    "The point is not whether something would cease to exist or not exist if there was nothing known about it. The point is precisely *that there would be nothing known about it.*"

    Just because we do not know something does NOT preclude us from ever being able to learn about it!! Just 500 years ago "logic" told people that the world was flat, until some guy sailed west and eventually ended up back where he started.

    We were already at a point where we "knew nothing about" numbers and math, thousands of years ago. But we, as a species, explored, learned, advanced. And primarily by people who had NEVER EVEN HEARD of your god. I mean really, Infants can learn 1+1 by playing with blocks!

    Who cares what we don't know about, we don't know it. THE POINT is precisely that we CAN learn about it. By simply questioning the world around us.

    So tell me, why is Allah necessary for me to be able to count?

  78. Matt, do you deny that 1+1=2?

    (and the above as well)

  79. Rosa,

    Did you seriously read me to be saying you didn't ask a question at all? I said that the Satan you're talking about is not the Satan of the Bible. You're saying you are asking about the Satan of the Bible, but you're asking a question about something else, if the description of Satan doesn't already include the fact that he didn't write the Bible.

    As far as a straight answer goes, I suppose the only thing I can really say is that apart from the Bible I can't know Satan didn't write it, much less who he is.

    You can also simply say that, apart from Logic, you can't know that 1 + 1 doesn't equal 3.


  80. Matt

    > I suppose the only thing I can really say is that apart from the Bible I can't know Satan didn't write it,<

    Well done! At last an honest answer, albeit one wrapped up inside a lot of waffle.

    Now you've accepted that Satan could have written the Bible and that you've no way of knowing if he did or not, on what moral basis are you pushing belief in the Bible knowing, as you now accept, that it COULD be Satan's way of ensuring people go to Hell?

    After all, if the Bible IS Satan's master plan, your god must be feeling absolutely devastated at his triumph, eh? If he's anything like the god Satan might be describing in the Bible, his wrath must be boiling over by now.

    But then Satan might have been lying about that too and your god, if it exists at all, might be a weak and puny thing, unable to defeat Satan...

  81. Rosa,

    "Now you've accepted that Satan could have written the Bible and that you've no way of knowing if he did or not..."

    No. I did not need to accept that in order to answer your question. Simply put, my knowledge of Satan comes from the Bible. If I can't use the Bible, as you insist in your silly question, I have no reason to believe "Satan" (whoever that is) wrote the Bible (whatever that is). Without the Bible, knowledge about Satan at all is impossible, as even you are depending on it to make your case (though not by any means consistently or honestly), which turns out to be moot.

    Were you to answer my question above like I did, would it be appropriate for me to say then, "oh, so now that you accept that 1 + 1 could = 3 and you have no way of knowing..."? Obviously you couldn't possibly part ways with what you know for a fact is necessary (Logic) for knowledge of the math equation. So, neither can I.

    You still haven't justified your assertion that it is possible that Satan, as the Bible describes him, could have written the Bible. This is what BK and SquareCircle were asking you to do. If you have no justification, I really don't have to accept it.

    The Satan of the Bible could not possibly have written it.


    You need to read up and see the reason I brought up the math equation. Obviously I don't deny that 1 + 1 = 2.


  82. Matt

    > Simply put, my knowledge of Satan comes from the Bible. <

    So your knowledge of Satan could be exactly what he wants you to know; nothing more and nothing less.

    I'm sorry you feel compelled to withdraw the only honest answer you've found the courage to give, BTW. I had hoped you'd finally fessed up.

    I don't think I've ever 'asserted that Satan could have written the Bible', have I? I've merely set it up as a hypothesis and challenged you to falsify it.

    So far you not had the courage to try and have only once managed to admit you can't, though you've now realised the ramifications of that admission and have tried to withdraw it.

    Horse and stables and cat and bags spring to mind...

    So, once again, how do you know Satan didn't write the Bible?

  83. Rosa,

    I beg your pardon?

    You said, "Obviously, you can't quote the Bible as evidence because Satan could have included that to fool you."


    "Yes I am assuming it's possible for Satan to write the Bible, if you believe in Satan, that is."

    Upon what basis is it possible "if you believe in Satan"? Certainly not upon the basis of the definition you say you're assuming, which comes from the Bible, which Christians believe in. Your assertion is that Christians who believe in Satan must believe it's possible Satan could have written the Bible. OK. Why? This is the very hinge upon which your entire argument turns. And it stands as yet unsubstantiated. If it's merely a hypothesis based on what *you* consider possible, we can simply disagree, as you're not representing Christianity at that point.

    I have not withdrawn my answer. I stand by it. The only source of Christian knowledge about Satan comes from the Bible. Therefore, without it, Christians have no knowledge of Satan. But if the source cannot be allowed, then neither, to be fair, can your defintion of it. Your question is insincere and, as I said, silly. But you believe you've thoroughly stumped Christians. Well, whatever gets you through the night I suppose.

    I feel no more guilt about my answer than to say, "I have no way of knowing 1 + 1 isn't 3 if I can't use logic." To most people that would be perfectly reasonable.

    This is my last post. I've probably given this way more attention than it deserves, and you've demonstrated you simply aren't interested in an answer that doesn't comport with your prejudices.


  84. Matt,

    If by "read up" you mean somewhere outside of these comments then you will have to provide links. I have been following the comments, and worry not for we are nearly there...

    So, we can both agree that 1+1=2, meaning that neither of us dispute its validity, nor the method of how we arrived at such an equation. Correct?

    So, if I happened to overhear you arguing with a street vendor about how much money he should have given back to you for your purchase, I could step in for your defense, because the mechanism for mathematics are universal, understood, and agreed upon. Do you disagree?

    What does christianity have that is equivalent? The Bible? Ok, sure, but WHICH ONE? I have a KJV and an NAB on my shelf and they are rather dissimilar from each other. Should we even get into what vastly different interpretations a proper Biblical exegesis will bring out of the original texts? And then which variation of those original texts should be used?

    There is only One version of mathematics, and we all agree on it.

    Of the Thousands of versions of christianity, which one do we agree on?

    How can you not see the difference here? Some people compare religion with fairey tales, but c'mon, not even fairey tales have as many different variations...


  85. Matt.

    So today's excuse is that 1+1 does not = 3, eh?

    Lets' see if you can go even lower:

    How do you know that Satan didn't write the Bible?

  86. The answer is actually quite simple. However, to give you the right answer is of no benefit neither to you nor to your fellow pagans. Fools just won't get it. Now fools in the context of Biblical teaching doesn't mean stupid or intellectually primitive. The reality is that neither pagans or call them atheists if you like, nor satanists can perceive, let alone fully understand the truth is because God has deprived you from clear vision, finely attuned hearing and sharp enough mind to know the truth. All your inability to understand is nothing to do with your intellectual disability, it is all to do with God's will to deprive you the complete truth. Soooo don't even try.

    1. You're really full of yourself, aren't you?

  87. Anonymous (Sorry you lacked the confidence to use a name, BTW)

    >The answer is actually quite simple.<

    I expect other readers will have noticed that you didn't manage to say what it is...

    I'm sorry I've provoked you into condemning yourself irretrievably to Hellfire, BTW (Matthew 5:22)

    I guess you should have read the Bible, eh?

    Thank you for those fine Christian sentiments, BTW. I do so love these examples of Christian hypocrisy in full glory.

    So, How do you know Satan didn't write the Bible? Would you like another try, or was that your best shot?

  88. If he did he prophesied his own torment because the Bible says the devil (satan) will be tormented in the lake of fire day and night for ever.
    (revelation 20 v 10)

  89. Anonymous.

    If Satan wrote that in the Bible to fool you, looks like you fell for it, eh?

    Tis is why you can't quote from the Bible to prove who did or didn't write it. You need an external source.

    Do you have one or is there no way you can prove that Satan didn't write the Bible?

  90. God is just a member of the Asgard high counsel. Neither Satan nor God inspired the Bible or any religious text, they are just a collection of rules and stories men thought were important at the time.

    All hail Thor!

  91. "I'm talking about the Satan in the Bible"

    If I write a story about a person being held prisoner/unable to write, it would clearly not be about me. If I give them the same name, intentions, personality as me, I'm still not the person as defined in the story - they cannot have written it in that situation.

    I would say that it's impossible for "the Satan in the Bible" to have written it due to the torture/lack of power/etc, whoever the "actual" writer is. Even if written by an evil god, whether they have the name Satan or not, they're not the same figure as they have written.

    I'm not contesting that a Bible written for evil purposes is a concern but if you are stating "Satan" as specifically the figure as written in the story then how that story defines it is applicable to the question.

    1. The Bible isn't a story about a person held prisoner and unable to write, but even if it were, how could you tell if that person wasn't writing a misleading story about himself being held prisoner and unable to write in order to make you think he hadn't written it?

      Once again, and for the umpteenth time, you can't quote the Bible or allude to anything in it as evidence that Satan couldn't have written it, because he could have written that to deceive you.

      Sorry if you can't escape from that logic.

    2. I'm not saying he couldn't have written it. I think it's a perfectly valid concern. (to someone who does believe in either deity)

      I'm just contesting the line "I'm talking about the Satan in the Bible" - to say this would make the content of the story relevant in such a decision.

      Let's say a record was found with the note "Dave, a man who cannot write, did not write this record".

      Could there be a man with the name Dave who wrote this with the intention to decieve others about himself? Yes. As a single piece of writing it's not evidence at all to the contrary.

      Could "the Dave in the record" have written this? No, the character as stated would be unable to write. If a person named Dave did in fact write the character to decieve others about himself, that still does not make them that character: that's the first case not the second.

      By stating "I'm talking about the Satan in the Bible" you are making this the second case, about the character in terms of the story (which does make the text relevant), not whether any deity of similar motives could.

      Could there be an evil deity with the name Satan that has written the Bible to decieve others? Yes.

      Could specifically "the one Christians an Jews believe in" have written the Bible? I'm very sure their belief includes that the other deity wrote it instead, therefore no.

      Even if a deity named Satan did write the Bible to decieve others about himself, they still aren't that character: that's an argument for the first question ("could any such Satan..."), not the second. ("could the Satan in the Bible...")

      Because of this "he could have written that to decieve you" is not applicable to the question as clarified to Matt. If the character is a lie the writer can't be that character.

  92. I am an atheist, but here is an answer that I think would make sense coming from a Christian's point of view, if there were actually Christians intelligent enough to make the argument:

    I feel that Satan did not write the Bible because I follow the bible and I feel God's grace inside me, and I have faith that he is pleased with my actions because he has kept me safe through my battle with cancer and the other hardships in my life. The feeling of being loved by a God makes me happy, and going along with that feeling is the faith that the Bible I follow is the correct one, and it is written by my God and not Satan. I know that I can not logically attribute my survival directly to God, but "fate" is something that has always been personified in almost every religion, and it is something that transcends logic, something that cannot be known, something that guided the doctor that performed my surgery, and had guided him through medical school, back to he was born, and guided his parents and grandparents before him. Therefore, it is not possible to "know" that satan didn't write the bible, even though it is possible to know that 1+1=2. So you are correct in your original idea and in your argument with Matt. However, if I go under the assumption that God wrote it, and I feel his grace and appreciate the beauty of his creation and take it with a grain of salt because humans had to write it for Him, in the end it does not even matter because I am getting the same thing out of it either way.

  93. One could simply say that they feel that following the god of the bible and believing its word bring them joy, happiness, and luck. measured in a logical way, it doesnt make any sense, but faith is not about logic it is about faith. Intelligent Christians understand that religion should not interfere with their understanding of scientific phenomena or other facets of life that need to be explained with logic. Anyway, since believing the bible is the word of god, and following it brings good feeling, and good feeling comes from good entities, satan probably did not write the bible. if he did, it doesnt matter either way, because the believer still reaps the same benefits. what you dont know cant hurt you

    1. When christians stop trying to legislate the bible into the secular law books (this latter group based on secular morality and ethics, and asymptotically approaching perfection), I'll leave them alone. Until then, I'm going to make sure they know that religion and logic are foes.

  94. The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he was the God of the Bible.

  95. And convincing atheists that he doesn't exist.

  96. Rosa,

    Unlike the other members of this discussion, I understand your question. Please allow me to simplify it for those who do not.

    For proof that it IS possible that Satan wrote it, one must simply use logic. According to the bible, which must be assumed as false anyway, Satan is a liar. Liars can and do say whatever they please. Assuming that this definition of liars is universally accepted, Satan could have easily written the bible, or any other text for that matter. The name Satan may well be a lie as well. What I believe Rosa is getting at is that the only thing that provides evidence towards the truthfulness of the bible is indeed the bible itself. By this logic, I'm god because I said so, and you had better believe me, because I'm god. Get the inherent error in the logic?

    The basic question can be rephrased, "prove the bible true," which simply cannot be done. "Satan," if you so desire to name him such, could have written whatever he pleased, including the bible. Liars are quite capable of such things.


  97. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. The above comment has been removed because the unfortunate poster seemed to be under the impression that explicit sexual abuse would convince people that Satan didn't write the Bible.

  98. I would say, in a basic answer, if God is the most supreme being (or the being to the greatest extent) it would not matter if Satan authored the Bible, because the most supreme being most likely would be able to use that authorship to his advantage. Say X writes the Bible to deceive Y, but Z uses this deception for good to save Y and ultimately thwart X. I guess my answer could be summed up as: do I think it matters? Not very much.
    How much sense am I making to others?

    1. That does work. If God is truly all powerful then he would be able to use this Satan written Bible for good. If God is all powerful he could do anything, and if he is all loving and all knowing, then the world would not be as it is.

      I think the point of this argument was to make people question the fundamental concept of God writing the Bible. For many, it is the one reason with which they can justify believe in God. God wrote the Bible, the Bible says God exists, therefore God exists. If it can be conceived of as being possible that God didn't write the Bible, then for these people, it can be conceived possible that God doesn't exist.

      Questioning fundamental assumptions is necessary to change beliefs, so Rosa's question is a good attempt to get people to recognize that the foundation of their beliefs isn't as solid as they thought.

    2. Along these lines, if there were a religion whose sacred texts were full of the most horrific tales of murder and rapine, barbarity and oppression, but everyone who was devoted to that religion was of the most exemplary character and noble and self-effacing and kindly and charitable and generous and patient, then I'd have to say that's a good religion, despite the content of its scriptures.

      Christianity doesn't come anywhere close to putting me in that quandary, I'll note.

  99. From what I take away from all these posts, as old as they may be, this is just a simple thought experiment.

    Start by defining Satan in the sense as described in the Bible, or the Great Deceiver. Meaning you can't be sure of what Satan says is true or false.

    To get around Matt's argument that you can't define Satan with the Bible then say the Bible is false, hold two ideas of the Bible in your head, one written by God and one written by Satan. Use the version written by God to define Satan.

    Now, prove that Satan did not write the Bible.

    Start with the assumption that Satan wrote the Bible and try to come up with a logical argument why it is false. Based on our definition of Satan, if Satan wrote the Bible the words in the Bible cannot be trusted to be 100% true. This is why you can't use the Bible and must look for outside sources to prove Satan did not write the Bible.


    1. There's no reason to prove Satan did or did not write the Bible. The burden of proof falls on the person with the claim, not the person questioning it. The claim is that God wrote it. The question is why couldn't Satan have? This question itself is pointless though. It just leads to rationalization which is already too rampant in religious thought. Rationalization is coming up with evidence to fit a conclusion. Rational thought dictates that conclusions come from evidence, not the other way around. The scientific process involves making a hypothesis and then trying to prove it wrong, not prove it right. You should try to prove all your beliefs wrong. That's how you get rid of false beliefs and come closer to actual truth.

    2. >This question itself is pointless though.<

      Not when the point of the question is to point out the absurdity of claiming moral authority based on what it says in a book when that claim itself precludes you from having any references by which to judge the morality of the author.

    3. I'm sorry, the question was not pointless. I said that without really clarifying my feelings. The question is great for getting people to look at their fundamental assumptions and possibly recognize that those fundamental assumptions can be wrong. One such assumption is that God wrote the Bible, so if you can pose a situation that can explain the origin of the Bible without invoking God as the creator, then that's great.

      When I said it was pointless, what was going on in my head was that the real problem is a lack of rational thought by believers, so encouraging rational thought would do more to fix the real problem.

      This question is an example of a question that a rational person might ask, but unfortunately it is also a question that wouldn't phase many believers because they don't think rationally. In spite of that failure on their part, some do think rationally and this question could stimulate scepticism in them, and any progress is good. Baby steps are required, and I can't hope for a question that crushes belief in all people.

      Sorry for the criticism. Reading some of these comments just put me in pessimistic mood.

  100. @Anonymous Mar 7, 2012 06:17 PM--

    " You can't loose if you don't play."

    Nor can you tighten.

    You get NOTHING. YOU LOSE! Good day, SIR!

  101. I read about half of these absurd posts and gave up. These people are idiots. We can safely say that 1 + 1 = 2 not because it is defined by math, but because we have observed it. We have evidence. You have 1 thing here and 1 thing there, and together they equal 2 things. The great thing about math is that it comes directly from logic, which is not something man has created. Logic is inherent in the universe and has been observed and used by humans. We notice patterns, and we reason and make decisions based on our observations. Evidence leads to conclusions.

    Back to the point, 1 + 1 = 2 is not defined by math. It is a conclusion based on evidence. What evidence is there that proves God created the Bible besides the Bible saying so? The burden of proof doesn't fall on the person questioning a claim. The burden of proof falls on everybody who adheres to some belief. If you have a belief that doesn't have evidence to support it, then it is held irrationally.

    We cannot logically assert that there is a god unless we have actual proof to justify it. We can't assert that God wrote the Bible unless we have evidence to justify it. If this belief cannot stand up to questions such as "is it possible that Satan wrote it?" then it is a falsely held belief.

  102. Haha reading some of these comments is infuriating! I'm glad I don't have to come in to contact with idiotic religious people in my country very often.

  103. Matt, you are retarded. Just say it can't be proven.

  104. Hello everyone. I to am in agreeance with this question how do you not know that satan didn't write the bible? But I want to add a little more to it. How do you know that satan didn't write the bible to make himself look like god and to make god look like satan? The bible says that satan is a liar, deciever, and pretty much all evil. So maybe this was his plan to turn uyou against the real god and make us worship him. Doesn't that say it in the bible that Satan desires everyone to worship him? Also doesn't it say that you shouldn't worship idols aand yet christians worship jesus on a cross(an idol).

  105. Rosa,

    I think it unfair of you to ask a question to a group of people who obviously have been so brainwashed by their faith, that they are unable to look outside of their only frame of reference..therefore I feel I've got to give them a hand.

    If satan did write the bible then I would have expected some mention of it in the Book of Enoch (look on the wiki...lots of references at the bottom) as it mentions quite a bit about the fallen angels, but nothing about them writing a book to con mankind.

    BUT...i did find it interesting (i'd forgotton) that very early on there is a bit in genesis that implies that god is a deceiver..
    2 The woman answered the serpent, "We may eat from the fruit of the trees of the garden,
    3 but about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden God said, 'You are neither to eat from it nor touch it, or you will die.'"

    So god lied to Adam and Eve....ignoring the fact that the all powerfull also didnt know what the serpent was up to.

    So you could say God and Satan are one and the same...and the deceit is to make you believe and worship in the first place.

    1. Jon, God did not say anything to Eve - the instructions about not eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil were given to Adam before Eve had been created. So if Eve got a messed up version of the message, that's because God entrusted that all-important message to an incompetent. Which you would expect an all-knowledgeable being to be aware of, right? The original message had nothing about "touching it" in it, you'll notice. And, yeah - serpent etc. - WTF?? This story just makes God look like an incompetent.

      And furthermore, it is only AFTER God has cursed Adam and Eve that God apparently realizes that It left yet another all-important asset right there within easy reach - the Tree of Eternal Life! Upon realizing Its second huge mistake, God then concludes with banishing Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, lest they scamper right over, eat from that second Tree, and "become as gods themselves." In this tale (and reiterated in the Tower of Babel tale), God is afraid of competition from Its own creation. *snort* Some "god"...

      The Garden of Eden tale of Genesis 2 is the most odious and obnoxious entrapment - the equivalent of a parent putting a delicious-looking piece of poisoned chocolate cake within view and reach of a toddler and saying, "Don't touch." Would we call that person a loving parent??

  106. Ok, here goes the proof. You grant for the argument that we can assume Satan exists. I suppose that also allows us to assume that God exists. We shouldn't believe things without reason or argument, so there must have been some argument convincing us that God exists. Let's say then, for the sake of the argument, that the ontological argument is sound, so a an omnipotent omniscient perfectly good being exists, and for some reason it created Satan.

    Moving on, we have about three main possibilities about how the Bible came about. It was either inspired by God, inspired by Satan, or written without any kind of supernatural guidance.
    Suppose for reduction that it is inspired by Satan. That would mean that God has in fact not given humans any revaluation about how to be in a right relationship with him. This seems inconsistent with the character of the kind of being that the ontological argument told us there is. Hence, Satan could not have inspired

    1. >there must have been some argument convincing us that God exists<

      That's proof, is it?

      >That would mean that God has in fact not given humans any revaluation about how to be in a right relationship with him. <

      Er... which you know about because it's in the Bible Satan could have written to fool you.

      Try again.

    2. Again assuming Satan wrote the bible:

      > That would mean that God has in fact not given humans any revaluation about how to be in a right relationship with him.
      The Bible says we need such a relationship, maybe we don't.

      > This seems inconsistent with the character of the kind of being that the ontological argument told us there is.
      The Ontological Argument does not support a specific god or gods. You need to make it apply to your god otherwise you may have just "proven" Thor exists. Your god, I am assuming Yahweh, may not be the god the argument proposed and therefore he/she/it can be consistent.

  107. Hello, All --

    I am an omniscient, omnipotent being who always tells the truth. You know this is true because it is written here, and it was written by an omniscient, omnipotent being that always tells the truth.

    Thesists: disprove this statement.



  108. Don't forget omnibenevolent. You nasty deceiver you.

  109. Replies
    1. I thought you superstitious theophobics believe Satan is still around. Doesn't look much like losing to me. And how do you know he hasn't just fooled you into thinking that in the Bible he could have written?

      But in YOUR case of course, he seems to have won anyway - Matthew 5:22. LOL!

  110. As a Latter-Day Saint (Mormon) I believe that I can know the truth of the scriptures and divine teaching first and foremost through personal experience through prayer and experimenting on the word.

    God loves us and wants to communicate with us and confirm to us the truth of his teachings. He answers prayers and gives personal revelation. I know that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are the word of God because I have prayed to God and received a confirmatory witness of the Holy Spirit. Once one receives such a witness, you simply know that it is from God and not a deception. You feel the light and joy that flows when one receives divine insight.

    I also know these things are true because I have experimented by planting the seed of faith in my heart (See Alma Chapter 32 in the Book of Mormon). I have tried the principles that are taught and found them to be sweet. I have seen as good fruit grows within me as I embrace the divine teachings contained in the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

    1. So basically, you're saying Satan couldn't have written the Bible because you don't believe he did. Your superiority makes you immune from being fooled. You just 'know'.

      I don't suppose you could deign to tell us mere mortals HOW you just know this, please, other than just being superior to normal people? What, for example, if Satan had told you all that stuff you claim to 'just know' about your god in order to fool you?

      How can you prove he didn't, as opposed to simply asserting that you're too good for that, please?

      Has it ever occurred to you that quoting from a book written by a convicted fraudster and confidence trickster who then used it to trick people out of their farms, as though it were a book of unquestionable truths, undermines your implicit claim to not be able to be fooled?

      How do you know Satan didn't inspire the convicted criminal and liar, Joseph Smith to forge the Book of Mormon, to fool you, please?

    2. "He answers prayers"

      No, He doesn't. I have prayed for a grilled cheese sandwich to appear in my outstretched hand. I have asked Christians and Mormons to pray for a grilled cheese sandwich to appear in my outstretched hand, but this prayer has never been answered. John 14:12-14 quotes none other than JESUS stating that he will not only do WHATEVER the believer asks, but that believers will be able to do all his little magic tricks - and more! To this day, no Christian OR Mormon has managed to walk on water, and no Christian OR Mormon has fed the city of Detroit on a single chicken pot pie. Since you're so plugged into the Holy Spirit, symphonyofdissent, perhaps you can pray that all the amputees returning from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan will immediately see their amputated limbs grow back to original appearance and functionality. Surely YOU could do this, since you're so important and sweet and devinely insightful and all the rest.


  111. I would like to return to Matt's original disagreement with the argument, although I must say that this debate has been thouroughly entertaining and thought provoking, so kudos for constructing such a caustic thought experiment.

    You are asking us to prove that Satan did not write the Bible, without appealing to the Bible itself. The problem is that your very concept and idea of Satan comes from the Bible, and thus forbidding us from appealing to the Bible to disprove the argument is clearly fallacious. Everything you and I know about Satan comes from the Bible, so if you can draw from the Bible to construct this argument, why can't we draw from the Bible to refute it?

    Second, the burden of proof lies with you. You would have to prove somehow that A) Satan exists using evidence independent from the Bible (per your requirements) and B) it is possible for this Satan to have written the Bible (assuming that a Satan independent from the Bible exists).

    Finally, the Bible describes Satan as "the Father of Lies" and "the Great Deceiver". Why would Satan describe himself in such a way as to cast doubt on the veracity of his own statements? When Satan supposedly described himself as "the Great Deceiver", was he lying, or telling the truth? If he was lying, we have no reason to accept anything he or his Bible is saying. If he's telling the truth, we have no reason to accept what he says. Also, why would Satan impose rules and commandments instructing people to worship and ally with his sworn enemy? It seems preposterous for Satan to write such things that are so self-defeating and contradictory if he is trying to amass power for himself through the Bible.

    I send my love your way and will keep you in my thoughts and prayers! God bless!

    1. So how do you know Satan didn't write the Bible?

      Trying to shift the burden of proof onto me shows you are aware of your difficulty in this matter and demonstrates your moral cowardice and intellectual dishonesty, since YOU claim your god wrote the Bible, not me, and I make no claim that Satan did, merely pointing out that YOU can't prove he didn't.

      Nice avoidance strategy though.

      I particularly liked the way you ended with a condescendingly sanctimonious passive aggressive threat to make yourself feel smugly superior at my expense and so feel better about yourself. Non-consensual prayer has the same motive as non-consensual sex, of course - gratuitous power without responsibility.

      Where do you get your morals from again?

    2. The question "How do you know Satan didn't write the Bible?" is just a confirmation of that fact stated in your question in which you ask how one can know this. How do you know Satan didn't write the Bible? Because you just told me. Ask a better question next time.

    3. Understandably anonymous.

      What an amusingly inept way to avoid answering the question. Have you ever wondered why you need to avoid the question?

    4. Ok, let me answer it even though the way of questioning is confusing to say the least. Men wrote the Bible but Satan is the god the Bible speaks of. So in a way Satan wrote the Bible by influencing men. Those who follow the god of the Bible are deceived and worship Satan. The true creator is indifferent and doesn't need worship which would make him dependent. Satan is real and yes, he's the author.

    5. I must correct myself, God the Father and the Devil are one and the same. Satan is the same character as Jehovah and is divided against himself. Both the angel of God and God are Satan. Also Jehovah is the antichrist and Jesus is only the son of God who is Satan. And it is all written in the bible. Which doesn't make it true as such but it's there.

    6. I see I still didn't really answer the question, so I'll just ask those who follow god this: what god do you think you're actually worshipping who only is able to forgive people (who are unable to morally uphold immoral laws) after having his completely innocent son whipped to shreds and nailed to a cross? And let me guess, he promises you eternal life to worship him and you FALL FOR THAT? I wish to perish.

    7. "The problem is that your very concept and idea of Satan comes from the Bible, and thus forbidding us from appealing to the Bible to disprove the argument is clearly fallacious."

      So, Alex, you're clarifying that "Satan" is a character in a text in the same way that "Professor Snape" is a character in a different text?

      Hm. That's perplexing. See, Christians claim that Satan is REAL and active in the world the way any real being would be (like their "God"). But it sounds like YOU're saying that "Satan" is just an idea that's basically trapped between the covers of the Bible. Couldn't we all say the same thing about "God"??

  112. Even years later I still get a chuckle out of this... thanks.

  113. Who created "God"?


Obscene, threatening or obnoxious messages, preaching, abuse and spam will be removed, as will anything by known Internet trolls and stalkers, by known sock-puppet accounts and anything not connected with the post,

A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Remember: your opinion is not an established fact unless corroborated.

Web Analytics