Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>   What I'm talking about is that whenever atheists attack the bible, they
>>> seem to assume there exists an universal moral code accepted by the
>>> majority, and then they proceed to show how the bible breaks this universal
>>> moral code.
> 
>> Atheists aren't attacking the bible: how is your argument going to affect a 
>> book?
> 
>   Now you are nitpicking on words. You know what I meant.

I'm not nitpicking. Try to understand why I'm giving that response, other 
than just "because I'm arguing with Warp." :-)

Seriously. My point is that the bible *is* different for different people. 
You don't believe in the same bible that Fred Phelps believes in. You don't 
believe in the same God that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei believes in. One cannot 
attack the bible, but only particular interpretations of it. One cannot say 
"God doesn't exist", but only particular sets of traits attributed to a 
particular God.

One way people get around having no evidence for their god is to claim, when 
push comes to shove, that "my god is really the laws of physics" or some 
such nonsense. Just as an example.

>   Atheists seem to do a quite good job at showing that they have some kind
> of universal moral code as well, when they criticize the bible.

Errr, no?  What moral rules must one follow in order to disbelieve that the 
bible holds a truthful account of supernatural events?

>>>   That's a shaky premise because there is no such a thing as a universal
>>> moral code accepted by the majority.
> 
>> But many people believe there is, and many people believe they know what it 
>> is, in spite of the fact that many of those people disagree with each other.
> 
>   Atheists included. (At least those who point out how the moral code in
> the bible is wrong.)

Um, no? I suppose to the extent that people think evolution encourages 
certain rules of morality, one could think there's a "universal" morality 
for any given species or something. But I think arguing that there is no 
universal morality isn't the same as arguing that my morality is universal.

>> Not only are you going to tell them it's wrong, you're going to MURDER THOSE 
>> PEOPLE who you believe is wrong.  You're also going to lobby to prevent 
>> life-saving medical research from being carried out because you erroneously 
>> think your holy book says it's evil.
> 
>   You are constantly side-tracking. I'm not talking about the moral code of
> religious people. I'm talking about the moral code of atheists who attack
> christianity and criticize the bible for having the wrong moral code. You
> probably understand this, but you are still deliberately side-tracking.

Oh. If you mean "atheists have a universal moral code" because they believe 
*your* moral code is wrong, then you're having a logical fallacy moment. 
It's entirely possible to say "I think you're wrong" without saying "I think 
everyone thinks you're wrong."

Indeed, most times, I see it phrased as "do you *really* think that's 
right?? You must be kidding me."

>   My point is: There is no such universal moral code, and atheists who seem
> to assume there is, and based on this imaginary universal moral code
> criticize the bible, are being hypocrites.

The universal moral code is only imaginary to you. (Well, it's imaginary to 
everyone, but some people don't realize it.) As I said, attacking a 
universal moral code is only a straw man if you don't believe there's a 
universal moral code.

If, on the other hand, it's not enough to say "I think homosexuality is 
wrong" and instead you say "God says homosexuality is wrong, so it's OK to 
murder you", then I'm assuming a universal morality based on the bible.

>   No, it seems that you are. I'm talking about the atheists who criticize
> the bible. I'm not talking about religious people.

Oh, sorry. What universal morality do you think atheists believe in, and 
what in that video (or other arguments) makes you think that?

>>>> And yet, that's exactly what Jesus tells people in the Bible, and that's the 
>>>> excuse some crazy people use for killing their children.
>>>   Jesus also tells people that their prayers don't get answered because
>>> they don't have faith. The message seems clear to me: God does not answer
>>> all prayers.
> 
>> He doesn't answer the prayers of the unfaithful. If you're willing to starve 
>> your child to death because you have the assurance that Jesus will resurrect 
>> him, I'm pretty sure you have faith.
> 
>   Now you are using a different meaning for the word "faith" than I am.
> You are talking about a psychological phenomenon, while I was talking about
> a theological one. Those are two wildly different things.

Are they? That's your *assumption* based on your belief that there's 
something outside your brain in the real world that is indeed God.

I'm saying that if you believe in God enough to starve your own children 
with the expectation they'll come back to life because God loves them, you 
have every kind of faith I can think of you having.

>> See, I'm explaining that the video is addressed to the religious fanatics 
>> who think God talks to them daily and if he doesn't talk to you, you're 
>> going to burn in hell for eternity, and that it's their job to help you get 
>> there. You're arguing "not all Christians are like that."  Sure.
> 
>   If that's the case, then the video does a very good job at hiding the fact.
> It just looks like its point is that God doesn't exist, period. 

That's certainly part of it, yes. That's the fundamental underlying message 
it's trying to express.

However, it's expressing it with argument targeted at the fanatical 
believers. If someone would want to convince a moderate Christian that their 
faith is misplaced, a different set of arguments would need to be used. 
However, it looks like a straw man to *you* because there aren't too many 
moderate Christians that get in the news or tick people off or blow up 
abortion clinics or whatever.

 > After all,
> count how many times it says "God is imaginary". Also count how many times
> it mentions that people who believe in God are delusional. (They are not
> saying that people who interpret the bible in a certain way are delusional.
> They are saying that people who believe in God, period, are delusional.)

Yes. The conclusion may apply to you even if the arguments are unconvincing 
because you have a different set of background assumptions.

Just like trying to convince a muslim that God doesn't exist because there's 
no historical evidence of Jesus rising from the grave wouldn't make any 
sense. Yet take away the "Jesus rising from the grave" part and many 
Christians would seriously question whether the rest of the God part made 
sense too.

>> No, I honestly think it's more like "we've heard all 2000 answers to this, 
>> and they're all full of crap, and if you think about your answer, you'll see 
>> why it's likely full of crap."  It's not like the same arguments aren't on 
>> interactive forums also.
> 
>   Are the answers "full of crap" because they seriously listened to them,
> considered them, thought about them, and then came to the informed conclusion
> that they make no sense whatsoever, or was it because they are prejudiced and
> automatically dismiss *all* answers which do not conform to their views?

The former. There are lots of places that address things in details, as well 
as a number of books.  Certainly things like Dawkins' books, Sagan's 
writings, talkorigins.org, and so on all actually address the questions and 
don't just dismiss them.

But really, there are some questions that are so absurdly illogical you just 
can't really argue against them anyway.

>   It's quite easy to use the word "rationalization". It's a very strong word,
> and it sounds intelligent, and it's very hard to counter. If your answer is
> dismissed as a "rationalization", then how do you respond to that? "No, it
> isn't" just sounds childish and doesn't convince anybody. It's a very clever
> word, and it can be abused to dismiss anything you don't like.

This is true. But if you follow an argument and the person throws out the 
rules of logic (as in Modus Ponens and all) before they throw out their 
belief that Jesus listens to them every day, it's a pretty safe bet it's a 
rationalization. When they assert they know God's will, except when you ask 
a hard question and it becomes ineffable, then it's probably a rationalization.

Just like you can talk to a heroin addict and see all the rationalizations 
as to why they're not off heroin.  "I like the feel of the needle going 
trough my skin. It itches there, and the poke from the needle makes it itch 
less."  I mean, there are *some* arguments you can look at and say "you're 
rationalizing."

For those that you can't, there are lots of reasonable arguments against. In 
the end, since religion is by definition irrational[1], arguments are going 
to have to appeal to the gut instead of logic.

>> Wait. So if God tells his chosen people to go to a country, murder everyone 
>> but the young virgins (including women, infants, the infirm, etc), and then 
>> take the young virgins home as slaves...  Is that moral? Or is that immoral? 
>> Is God telling you to do something good?
> 
>   If we assume for a moment that God does indeed exist and the bible is
> telling the truth, then all that it is saying is that God did order for
> that nation to be eradicated, for whatever reasons God saw fit. The passages
> are not taking a stance of the moral reasons or consequences, besides
> usually mentioning that the eradicated nation had reached a level of
> depravation that God wanted it removed.

OK. But now couple that with a stance on whether God's will is always good, 
and you have a problem.

>>> It's not giving permission for the readers to
>>> go and murder someone. 
> 
>> And phrases like "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" are indeed giving 
>> permission for the readers to go murder someone, yes?
> 
>   Do you have the right to judge who is a witch and who isn't?

Isn't that what God is plainly telling people to do? Isn't that exactly what 
the words are saying?  I can't see any other interpretation for "don't let 
witches live" other than "kill witches".

Or maybe the commandment "thou shalt not kill" isn't giving people 
permission to be merciful?  Doesn't "love thy neighbor" command you to do 
something?

>   The problem is not the laws and commandments. The problem is people
> making themselves judges and executioners, without authorization. They
> are putting themselves into a position they don't have a right to.

I agree. It always amazes me when people think the creator of the universe 
and all powerful superbeing needs their help enforcing his views.

>>> You might completely disagree with the *reasons*
>>> stated in that passage why God gave this order, but that's not related to
>>> whether the passage *promotes* doing it again and again.
> 
>> I don't think you're getting the point of the argument.
> 
>> If God's will is by definition good, then sometimes genocide, rape, and 
>> murder of infants (like the first born sons of every family in an entire 
>> country) are sometimes good.
> 
>   Is death penalty in the US "by definition good"?

No. Why would you ask? It is by definition legal.

>> It's giving permission to the historical people to do that historical act. 
>> The act itself is either good or evil. You must admit that God either 
>> ordered something evil to be done, or that genocide is OK if God says to do it.
> 
>   Is putting someone in jail "good"? Is death penalty "good"?

No. But we don't claim that the source of all that is good in the world 
flows from the US legal system and therefore you should dedicate your life 
to making sure everyone from all over the world obeys it.

>   There are reasons why people are put in jail and executed, and that doesn't
> necessarily have to do with whether the act itself is "good" or "evil". It
> may be something that simply has to be done for a purpose.

OK, so it sounds like you believe that God is sometimes evil. Fair enough.

The problem for many people who want to impose God's will on others is this: 
if they admit that God can sometimes do evil and bad things, then they have 
a hard time because then they have to rationally justify why the bit of 
God's will they want to impose on you is not one of the evil bits.

If they want to say "Homosexuality is bad because God disapproves of it", 
but the counter argument is "God approved of genocide", then you kind of 
have to argue that genocide is good when approved by God. And then you get 
into the argument where atheists go "Really? WTF are you smoking?"

>> Then you have to ask yourself "is genocide really OK, ever?  Would I 
>> actually participate in dashing the brains of infants against rocks if my 
>> God told me to, and said 'you don't understand why, but do it anyway.'"
> 
>   Ah, that verse in that psalm is the favorite of atheists attacking the
> bible, isn't it? Most people, including most christians, just don't
> understand it. About the only people who understand it are the people who
> wrote it, ie. the people in the semitic cultures.

So you're saying that God's commandment to wipe out a neighboring country, 
killing everyone but the young virgins, who are to be taken back to camp and 
raped, that was just a really strong *insult*?

You're saying that burning hail and the death of every firstborn egyptian 
was just God talking smack? It didn't really happen?

> That doesn't mean he literally wants for the children to be killed. It's
> just an expression.

But the bible is full of this stuff, including things like the plagues of 
egypt.  Arguing that one sentence doesn't mean what it says is like arguing 
that the US having the death penalty means we have no morals.

>   (Yes, go ahead and dismiss this as a "rationalization". After all, no
> explanation is ever good enough.)

That's a fine explanation, but you're ignoring the dozens of other genocides 
that God commands and commits.

>> You said that believing the more wise father and avoiding the ice cream you 
>> want is good, yes? Or am I misunderstanding that?
> 
>   To the child getting the ice cream is good, while not getting is bad.
> Thus some decisions made by the father are "bad" from the child's point
> of view.

Right. But you're arguing that even tho the child thinks they're bad, 
they're *actually* good. Right?

So you're arguing by analogy that everything God commands is *actually* 
good, because if we think it's bad, it's just because we don't understand 
why it's ultimately good?

>> The isomorphic mapping would be that committing genocide and rape when 
>> instructed to do so by your God is good, even if you don't understand why.
> 
>   You keep mentioning that rape thing. Did God order rape somewhere?

Yes.  He tells some group of people to go off, kill all the men and women 
and children, except for the young female virgins, who are to be brought 
back forcefully and married off. He even gives the proper proportions of 
virgins to conquerors.

Now, if having your family slaughtered and being dragged off to a foreign 
country and forced to have sex with the stranger who gets you isn't rape, 
I'm not sure what your definition includes.

> Just because the soldiers did commit rape doesn't mean they were given
> permission to do so, or that it was acceptable. It's just mentioned that
> they did.

No, this was commandments from God as to who they should go conquer and how.

>   Of course from a modern western point of view you can consider taking
> wives from other cultures by force as "rape", especially if it was an
> eradicated nation. You are now contrasting the modern world situation
> what that of thousands of years ago, which was rather different.

But now you're being logical and reasonable. And rationalizing. "It wasn't 
really rape. It was saving women whose family you had killed."

 > Think
> about what would have happened to those women back then if all the men
> had been killed (just assume for a moment there was a good reason for
> God to order such eradication, so don't nitpick about it) and the women
> left alone there, with nobody to support them.

I understand. You're saying "Rape is better than death." Does that make rape 
*good*?  Is it morally right to kidnap and rape the young virgins?

Oh, wait, morality changes over time. Congratulations! You no longer get to 
use bible verses written 4000 years ago to condem homosexual behavior today. 
You're a much better Christian than Fred Phelps or Ray Comfort.

>> 1) Everything God orders you to do is good, including the things like
>>     widespread genocide, infantcide, rape, even if you don't understand it.
>>     This seems to imply that genocide, slavery, murder, human sacrifice,
>>     etc is not necessarily immoral.
> 
>   You know, I'm becoming tired of you repeating the straw men. I don't feel
> like discussing anymore if you keep doing so.

OK. I'm trying to give the possibilities. Since you picked this one out as 
the one that offends you, I can only guess that this is the possibility in 
which you most strongly believe.

If I'm repeating straw men, then tell me what you really think about the 
morality of (say) God killing the first born egyptian babies. Or the flood. 
Or turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt. Or allowing Sampson to kill so 
many police. Or subjecting everyone at the end of time to unutterable 
torment unless you're saved during the Rapture.

I'm arguing against real positions that real christians actually hold here. 
You're telling me it's a straw man. It's only a straw man if it's actually 
an exaggeration. I point out Ray Comfort and you tell me it's a straw man, 
which makes no sense.

>>> However, a bit like conspiracy theorists, they refuse to let go even of
>>> the most ridiculous questions.
> 
>> Oh come on. You watch Ray Comfort convincing you God exists because the 
>> banana is curved and changes colors when it ripens, and you think *atheists* 
>> have ridiculous questions?
> 
>   That's a straw man right there, plain and simple.

Sorry? What's the straw man? You think Ray Comfort isn't a Christian? Or 
that he doesn't actually believe what he's saying? I don't understand.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message