Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> The video isn't attacking the bible. It's attacking the interpretation of 
>> the bible that includes "God has something to do with the appropriateness of 
>> any given marriage".
> 
>   If that was true, then they would have said "your interpretation of the
> bible is wrong" as their conclusion to the posed question. However, that
> was not what they are saying. They are saying that the divorce rate is
> indicative of God not existing.

The God that has something to do with the approriateness of any given 
marriage does not exist.

>   I don't even understand why you are arguing that all they are doing is
> questioning some people's interpretation of the bible, while it's quite
> clear that they are questioning the entire christian religion and the very
> existence of God.

Because you're believing in a different God than Ray Comfort or Fred Phelps.

Do you believe in the same God that the people who flew planes into the 
world trade centers believed in?

-- 
   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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Because you're believing in a different God than Ray Comfort or Fred Phelps.

  Btw, I don't know if you have noticed, but I have never stated what
I believe in. For all you know, I could even be an atheist. I do believe
that even atheists can have a rational approach at things like the bible.
(And by rational I don't mean that they accept everything they read, but
that they don't try to distort what it says for their own motives.)

> Do you believe in the same God that the people who flew planes into the 
> world trade centers believed in?

  That kind of expression makes it sound like "God" was an ideology, and
consequently different people could have different "Gods", ie. different
ideologies. (Maybe it is like that in reality, but that's not what eg.
christianity is about.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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

Warp wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>>   (Yes, go ahead and dismiss this as a "rationalization". After all, no
>> explanation is ever good enough.)
> 
>   Oh, and by the way: Are atheists going to drop that specific verse from
> their arsenal after being explained what it means? Of course not. It's way
> too valuable of a straw man to be dropped. It's juicy. It makes christians
> (who don't understand the verse) uncomfortable. Atheists just *love* this.
> That's why they will never drop that verse, even if they silently admit
> that the explanation perhaps makes sense.

Likely true. :-)  Assuming *your* interpretation is correct.

See, one of the big problems is that everyone is convinced their own 
interpretation is correct. Atheists tend to look at the plain text of the 
book, I think, because arguing about the history behind it doesn't work 
well, exactly because many faithful assume their interpretation is the 
correct and only possible interpretation, as that is what they've been taught.

>   Part of it might also be that publicly admitting you were wrong can be
> really hard. How many atheists are going to say "yes, you are right, that
> explanation makes sense and I understand the verse now, and I will not use
> it anymore in my critique"?

I think more atheists would than faithful found in the same position.

-- 
   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

Stephen wrote:
> Why to religions insist that you have to believe in a god before you can go to
> the good place when you die? Why is it not enough to be a good person?

Only the monotheistic religions.

Buddhism, for example, says (in some sense) you have to stop believing in 
God in order to go to the good place. :-)

The Mayan religions held that you merely needed to die by blood in order to 
help save the world.  As I ever so vaguely understand it, all the actual 
gods were already dead. The sacrifices were to help keep the world going 
after all the gods sacrificed themselves to make it. (Disclaimer: this was 
the audio track on a tourist attraction, so take it with some large-granule 
sea salt.)

It makes sense that a monotheistic religion would need much more to convince 
you that their god is the right god.

-- 
   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

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Because you're believing in a different God than Ray Comfort or Fred Phelps.
> 
>   Btw, I don't know if you have noticed, but I have never stated what
> I believe in.

I believe in the past it has become clear, but that's fine. If I say "you" 
here, then take it as "the person who is upset that this video is attacking 
their personal interpretation of god". :-)

>> Do you believe in the same God that the people who flew planes into the 
>> world trade centers believed in?
> 
>   That kind of expression makes it sound like "God" was an ideology, and
> consequently different people could have different "Gods", ie. different
> ideologies. (Maybe it is like that in reality, but that's not what eg.
> christianity is about.)

Well, yes, that's kind of my point.

The problem with arguing against the point "God exists" is that the argument 
tends to go something like

"God does not exist."
   "What if God is really just the person who set up the laws of physics,
    and he has nothing to do with anything after that, and isn't even a
    personality, and has no effect on the world?"
"OK, maybe *that* God might exist."
   "By the way, he hates homosexuals."

By saying "you're believing in a different God", it kind of jars believers 
out of a rut of thinking that since there is only one god, whatever they 
believe about him must be universally true. Since we're arguing against the 
universal truth of God, this is a useful tactic. It's the same as saying 
"The god they believe in behaves differently than the god you believe in," 
but with a bit more of an assertion that keeps it from being dismissed offhand.

Like, when people ask me "Do you believe in God", I don't just say "No", I 
say "Not the way you do."  God has obvious influence in the world - just ask 
any homosexuals in California. That's a sense in which "god exists". But if 
you don't define "god" and you don't define "exists", then arguing whether 
"god exists" is always going to lead to this sort of conversation.

The video just skipped over defining which god and in what sense exists that 
it's arguing against.

-- 
   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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> 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*?

  Which part of "that verse in that psalm" did you not understand?

  Ok, I got tired of you seemingly having a reading comprehension problem.
You are constantly sidetracking rather than reading what I write and
aknowledging that you understand it.

  It seems that all atheists have reading comprehension problems when it
suits them.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>> 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*?
> 
>   Which part of "that verse in that psalm" did you not understand?

The part where I point out maybe half a dozen places (out of dozens) where 
God does seemingly bad things, and you avoiding answering the question about 
it by pointing out *one* of the verses isn't saying what it looks like it 
might be saying.

Plus, you don't seem to be reading what *I* am saying well. I didn't ask if 
the verse said God told people to dash out the brains of infants against 
rocks. I asked if you, the hypothetical Christian who interprets the bible 
the way you argue here it should be interpreted, would feel that it's 
morally good to dash out infant brains against rocks if God so commanded.

I'm talking about whether a good Christian would do things that Christian 
now thinks are evil and contemptible if that Christian's God told him to do 
it for reasons he couldn't understand. The question really has nothing to do 
with the psalm except that I used the same wording. You're saying "it was 
just an insult". I'm saying "what would you think and/or do if God actually 
commanded it?"



I'm also asking about the *other* verses I mentioned.

When I say "The bible says A, B, C, and D, what do you think?"  And you 
answer "C isn't what you say it is", what am I supposed to concludes about 
A, B, and D, other than that you're dodging the question? OK, maybe not 
dodging, but you failed to answer it, and when I ask it again, you can't 
reasonably accuse me of reading incomprehension. :-)

>   Ok, I got tired of you seemingly having a reading comprehension problem.

Oh, I have a full reading comprehension. I fully understood your answer. It 
just wasn't answering the question I'd actually asked.

> You are constantly sidetracking rather than reading what I write and
> aknowledging that you understand it.

OK. Sorry. Perhaps I was unclear there. I said elsewhere that yes, I 
understood your point, but I didn't say that in this post specifically. I 
see I posted it a bit later, so maybe you didn't read it before this one.

I understand your point about that particular verse being an insult. 
However, I asked you about a whole bunch of verses, and how you think 
someone who believed in God and the bible as you *seem* to be arguing would 
address these other instances of God apparently promoting and engaging in 
violence against apparent innocents.

It still seems to me that my earlier list of four possibilities hasn't been 
addressed. Either God has ordered people to do what seems to me to be 
unspeakably horrible things yet in reality are actually good for reasons we 
can't comprehend, or God has ordered people to do what seems to me to be 
unspeakably horrible things that really are evil. (Or God is fictional, of 
course.) I'm just trying to figure out if your ideal Christian would go with 
#1 there or #2. If your ideal Christian goes with #1, it seems to be 
implying a universal morality, namely that which God says is good. If your 
ideal Christian goes with #2, it would seem to be implying that God isn't 
100% good and nice and loving and kind and such.

Of course, many argue that God isn't necessarily loving and kind, but simply 
a power that must be obeyed even if he says to do something bad. But that 
doesn't get a whole lot of traction amongst the only-slightly-faithful.

>   It seems that all atheists have reading comprehension problems when it
> suits them.

We're both having a bit of trouble keeping on track, methinks. :-) For one 
thing, we're each pulling the conversation in different directions.

-- 
   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

Darren New wrote:
> 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.

Forgot the footnote:

[1] Irrational is not necessarily bad. Love at first sight, the awesomeness 
of the Hubble Space Telescope, and the cuteness of a kitten are all 
irrational. Religion is irrational to the extent that it teaches to shun 
evidence in favor of faith without evidence. That doesn't make it bad per 
se, any more than preferring cabbage over broccoli is bad per se.

-- 
   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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >>>> 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*?
> > 
> >   Which part of "that verse in that psalm" did you not understand?

> The part where I point out maybe half a dozen places (out of dozens) where 
> God does seemingly bad things, and you avoiding answering the question about 
> it by pointing out *one* of the verses isn't saying what it looks like it 
> might be saying.

  So you *did* understand that I was talking exclusively about that one
single verse, yet you regardless went and accused me of trying to explain
*all* the verses related to the subject with the same explanation, even
though I did no such thing.

  I did not answer your question because I have already written in length
about it and I didn't want to write it again. However, I did point out
that one verse you referred to because it's one of the pet verses for
atheists when they want to mock the bible and christianity, and which
they just don't understand.

  If you want to think that I'm avoiding the question, that's your
prerogative.

> Plus, you don't seem to be reading what *I* am saying well. I didn't ask if 
> the verse said God told people to dash out the brains of infants against 
> rocks.

  Does that mean I cannot comment on that particular verse, as a side note?
I really think the comment was appropriate and valid in this context.

> It still seems to me that my earlier list of four possibilities hasn't been 
> addressed. Either God has ordered people to do what seems to me to be 
> unspeakably horrible things yet in reality are actually good for reasons we 
> can't comprehend

  You can't comprehend, or you are not willing to?

  The nazi regime and World War 2 was ended by a full-fledged attack on
Germany. Lots of civilians and innocent people died on that attack, and
one could argue that the attack was "unspeakably horrible". However, few
people would deny that in the grand scale of things it was a good thing
because it ended a reign of terror, oppression and mass killings. We can
only imagine how many lives were saved because of the attack, which killed
so many innocent people.

  If 3000 years ago there was a local nazi regime oppressing a region
and God ordered for it to be stopped by force, was it a good or a bad
thing? People were killed, yes, but how many were saved?

  It's easy to show outrage about some war which happened some 3000 years
ago when you don't have all the details nor the exact reasons why that
war was fought.

> or God has ordered people to do what seems to me to be 
> unspeakably horrible things that really are evil.

  Was the final attack on Germany an "evil" act? Technically speaking you
could say it was. However, I wouldn't say it's that black or white. It's
a complicated issue.

  I think that the question you posing at least borders the false dilemma.
You assume that an act must be either "good" or "evil", even though it's
not necessarily that simple. There may be additional options.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message