Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> """
> Just because the same word, "slave", is used, doesn't automatically mean the 
> situations were comparable.
> """
> OK, so you're of the feeling that slavery *can* be good and moral.

  Assuming you understand what "slavery" means in the bible. It has little
to do with the slavery that happened eg. in the US in the past.

> Now, how 
> about the genocide, rape and pillage attacks, and murder of thousands of 
> innocent babies?  :-)

  How about death penalty in the US? Is it good and moral?

  I don't know your stance on that subject (and you don't have to answer),
but moral codes are different for different people. If we assume that God
did indeed exist, then it may be plausible that *his* moral code may be
slightly different than ours. If God indeed created us, then he basically
owns us, and can do whatever he wants with us. You might not agree with it,
in the same way as the child doesn't agree with his father about what he
wants.

  Also, just because God has the right to do whatever he pleases, that
doesn't mean *we* also have the right, without his express permission.

  The "murder of innocent babies" might sound horrible to you, but consider
these two completely hypothetical situations (assuming God did indeed exist):

  1) These babies are born to a depraved society where they may be raised
to hate, rape and kill people. (Usually when the bible tells about the
eradication of some people, it gives an indication of *why*.)

  2) These babies go to heaven before seeing or learning anything bad, and
are happy everafter.

  Maybe from your point of view situation #1 is preferable, but it might be
plausible that God considers situation #2 even more preferable, or at least
not that bad of an alternative.

  And no, this still doesn't give anybody permission to murder anybody.
No person can be the judge of who deserves to live.

> """
> And what kind of evidence do you want?
> """
> So, Jesus brings people back from the dead, cures illness, has a lecture 
> with thousands of people in attendance, and then comes back from the dead 
> himself. Yet none of the scholars and historians of the day mention him, the 
> head priest of the town where he overturns the tables of the money lenders 
> mentions the event, and in the whole of historical documents, there's maybe 
> one sentence that could be interpreted as a reference to Jesus, maybe.

  Do you have any estimate of how much of humanity's history has been lost
forever? Written history is very fragile and gets destroyed very easily
(by accidents, by deterioration and by vandalism).

  It's not completely implausible that only few records have survived.

> """
> Question #9: Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?

> I can't believe how fast these "questions" are degrading in quality.

> What do you not understand about symbolism? Do you have some kind of 
> difficulty in understanding metaphors?
> """

> Maybe you missed this story, wherein a student takes a piece of bread, and 
> the priest is as upset as if Jesus himself was kidnapped:

  I don't want to badmouth the Catholic church here, but suffice to say
that I don't agree with them, nor consider their intepretations of the
bible completely correct. (Which shouldn't be too surprising, as I'm from
a protestant country. Not that I consider myself "protestant" per se.)

> Just be glad you don't live in the religious nuthouse that's America these 
> days. When the religious leaders don't understand the metaphor, and are 
> ready to shoot at you for kidnapping Jesus himself, then this question makes 
> complete sense.

  It doesn't make any sense when it's presented as an argument that God is
imaginary (rather than that some christians are crazy).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> If the muslims here were rioting and murdering in the name of Islam here, 
> I'm sure there would be videos of ten things intelligent muslims need to 
> address, too. :-)

  I don't think so. Muslims are rioting in Europe, yet it's forbidden to
say anything bad about them. In Finland, for example, you can literally
get jailed if you made such a video about islam. There have been concrete
cases. (Christianity, on the other hand, is completely free to be bashed.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   In other words, it's basically the "why does God allow bad things to
> happen?" question.
> 
>   The answer the video offers to this question is "because God is imaginary",
> which is a non-sequitur.

It's only a non-sequitur if you ignore those who claim that all good comes 
from God and indeed God is 100% good. Of course, if you're going to define 
God as someone who makes no difference in the world, then it's a non-sequitaur.

>> I.e., it's more along the lines of "if you're not going to follow God's will 
>> in *your* marriages, what right do you have to impose God's will on the 
>> marriages of people who don't believe in your God to start with?"
> 
>   That's not what the video is saying, nor even implying. The video is
> purely questioning God's existence.

Well, yes. This is step one of asking "why do you impose your will?"

Again, a lot of the arguments look foolish or like shortcuts because they're 
not given the full time to develop. Following up on some of the referenced 
web sites etc will provide a better insight. I.e., the video is a poor 
argument. The arguments it addresses are quite reasonable and well thought out.

>>>   Even if all that is true, how does the "answer" given in the video, ie.
>>> "God is imaginary", related to this? It doesn't make God imaginary if people
>>> don't follow what the bible says.
> 
>> It makes God "imaginary" in the sense that God has no physical effect or 
>> cause any change in the world.
> 
>   No, it only tells us that God doesn't affect all (or any) marriages.
> No more.

But all the other arguments are also along the lines of "God has no physical 
effect."

God doesn't exist because religious marriages fail exactly like 
non-religious marriages. God doesn't exist because religious medicine fails 
exactly like non-religious medicine. Etc. Apply induction, lather, rinse, 
repeat. That's why the arguments sound repetitive.

>> If nothing God commands comes to pass, why 
>> believe in God's ability to command things?
> 
>   If your boss tells you to do something and you don't do it, does that
> mean that your boss doesn't exist?

If nobody anywhere has or ever had any actual evidence for my boss, does it 
mean he doesn't exist?  There's a big difference between "nothing happens" 
and "sometimes something doesn't happen."  You know this.

-- 
   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

andrel wrote:
> Wasn't that one tested a couple of years ago?

Yes. Often, actually.

> With surprising results? 

Only surprising to the faithful.

> Anyone can find that reference?

Feel free. I certainly never saw it.

-- 
   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:
>   Congratulations: You just proved that God doesn't actively force people to
> stay married. Of course you haven't proven anything about God's existence.

You're talking about a different god. That's my point.  The video sounds 
foolish to you because you reject the premises it's arguing against *already*.

-- 
   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:
> I'm sorry, but I live in California, where they just passed an amendment 
> to the constitution to strip the right to marry from gay people. Now, 
> *maybe* it wasn't religious, and perhaps you can offer me an actual 
> rational secular reason why this happened.

Personally, I don't think the government should have anything to do with 
marriage.  Its an entirely religious matter, and the Civil authorities 
should keep their hands off it.

Then, if gay people wanted to get married, all they would have to do 
would be to find a church that allows them to.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> >   "Why do christians get divorced at the same rate as non-christians?
> > Because God is imaginary."
> > 
> >   That answer is a complete non-sequitur.

> Sorry, but you can not judge a video by what you decide is it's main 
> point. Nor is it your prerogative to decide for me what I should 
> consider the most important points.
> About that quote: It *is* a non-sequitur and therefore I dismissed it as 
> of being of no value and I won't discuss any such nonsense that is not 
> defended by anyone here.

  I don't really understand what you are saying. Are you saying that yes,
there is a flaw in the video, but that I shouldn't judge it for that flaw?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom_no_underscores> wrote:
> Personally, I don't think the government should have anything to do with 
> marriage.  Its an entirely religious matter, and the Civil authorities 
> should keep their hands off it.

  That would make some things a bit difficult, such as who inherits all
the stuff of the deceased. It's a legal matter, and thus the legal system
has to know about marriage.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 5-7-2009 22:38, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Many religious people are very tolerant. Problem is that you mainly 
>> hear the others.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I live in California, where they just passed an amendment 
> to the constitution to strip the right to marry from gay people. Now, 
> *maybe* it wasn't religious, and perhaps you can offer me an actual 
> rational secular reason why this happened.
> 
> Many religious people are tolerant.  A majority of them around here are 
> *not*.

A majority of voters, which may not be the same, but I can see why you 
are angry.

>>> When it's still the death penalty to change which prophet you believe 
>>> in large parts of the world, there's still good reason to argue it, 
>>> methinks.
>>
>> With China a nice example that a government can be atheist and still 
>> put people to death for having a religion with one or more gods. 
> 
>  From everything I've heard from people actually *in* China, one doesn't 
> get punished for being religious. One gets punished for using religion 
> as an excuse to advocate overthrow of the current government.
> 
> YMMV, but I have religious relatives in China, so maybe one of us is 
> hearing propaganda.

Probably me. I keep hearing stories about various religions being 
illegal and followers having been prosecuted for convening. It is hard 
to judge from here, and probably they were indeed trying to overthrow 
the government.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   That would make some things a bit difficult, such as who inherits all
> the stuff of the deceased. It's a legal matter, and thus the legal system
> has to know about marriage.

Then have a quick-n-easy "Next of Kin" specification.  Anything not 
covered by a will is left to your next of kin and, if they don't claim 
it, then it goes to the State.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message