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

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?

They're attacking the belief that the bible applies to those who choose not 
to believe it. Those who try to apply the bible's morality to those who 
don't believe it are exactly those people who believe it's a universal moral 
code.

>   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.

>   For example, some people think that abortion is genocide, while other
> people think it's acceptable. Whose moral code is the correct one here?

MINE!

> Whichever you choose, are you going to tell the others that their moral
> code is wrong?

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.

>   Americans who advocate the death penalty have their own moral code about
> that subject. Is their moral code wrong? Why?

You're missing the point.

>   There is no such thing as a "universal moral code". You can't argue that
> something in the bible is universally "wrong" because there is no such
> universal measure of what is right or wrong.

And if every Christian agreed that the moral code in the bible wasn't 
universal, we'd not be having this coversation.

One problem with monotheism is that it leads to the presumption that since 
there's only one god, its opinions apply even to those who don't worship it.

If you're a Christian that rejects any of the following premises, then you 
don't really need to be watching atheist videos:

1) There's exactly one God;
2) It's the God described by your Holy book;
3) That God created the universe;
4) That act of creation gives that God the authority
    to tell humans how to live their lives;
5) Your holy book gives an accurate description of
    what that God wants all humans to do;
6) Your interpretation of that holy book is correct;
7) Your holy book authorizes you to enforce your God's will.

As soon as you are open to the idea you might not agree with all of those 
principles, then you're not the kind of religious fanatic that outspoken 
atheists try to discredit.

I have never, ever seen an atheist screed against Quakers, Amish, or any 
other very Christian sect that says "leave other people alone."  If you know 
of one, let me know.

>> 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.

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.

>   Well, they clearly don't want to discuss, they clearly don't want to
> listen nor hear any answers. Their attitude is "whatever you say, you are
> just rationalizing". In other words, they are simply and purely being
> provocative.

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.

>   In other words, they are trolling.

The preemptive dismissal is indeed assuming that you're not going to come up 
with a valid counterargument.

In the sense that you can't really answer a video, yes.

>> The Bible has God promoting genocide, slavery, mass slaughter of 
>> infants, rape, etc.
> 
>   That's a pure straw man.
> 
>   If a history book tells us that the president of the US ordered a nuclear
> bomb to be dropped in Japan, does that imply that this history book is
> promoting genocide? Of course not. It's simply stating what happened. It's
> not promoting anything.
> 
>   If the bible says that God told some people to get rid of some nation,
> is it promoting genocide? No, it's only stating that God told those people
> to get rid of that nation.

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?

> 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?

> 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.

The point is to point out to intelligent people "hey, are you really saying 
that genocide and infantcide is sometimes OK?  Would you really go murder an 
entire country full of people if your God told you to?"

>   Nobody has the right to say "hey, this passage tells about killing
> people, thus I can go there and kill those people" because that's not
> what the passage is telling. It's not giving permission to anybody to
> do any such thing.

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.

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.'"

>   Of course some people will interpret such passages as they please, but
> the bible is not the only text being abused like that, nor does being abused
> tell anything about the veracity of the text.

Correct. That's why there's someone imploring intelligent people not to be 
dicks and interpret things that way.

>   You can ask "but *why* did God order killing those people?" That's a
> different, theologically interesting question. You can disagree with any
> answers if you want, but it still doesn't say anything about the existence
> of God or the veracity of the text.

That God ordered the genocide is presuming the existence of God. The video 
is asking you to consider what the logical rational implication is of 
accepting that portion of the bible to be true.

> 
>> Why is that good? Is it good because God does it? If 
>> not, isn't God doing bad? Or are you in agreement that slavery and genocide 
>> *can* be good?
> 
>> That last seems to be what you're arguing with your ice cream analogy.
> 
>   You are now misinterpreting *my* writing. I didn't say that it's good.

You said that believing the more wise father and avoiding the ice cream you 
want is good, yes? Or am I misunderstanding that?

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.

> I said that perhaps it's that we don't understand now what's going on
> because we don't have all the info nor the necessary intellect and
> experience. Just like the child may be unable to understand why he is
> being denied things.

Certainly. Doesn't that argument lead towards the conclusion that everything 
God commands is good? Or are you willing to admit that God may order people 
to do evil things, and you have no way of knowing whether his orders are 
good or evil?

I don't really see a fourth possibility:
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.
2) God may order you to do evil things, and you'd not know whether it's
    evil or not. This means God sometimes wants you to do evil things at
    his bequest, meaning he's not 100% good.
3) God may tell you to do something evil, and you know it's evil.
    Conclusion: You probably shouldn't do it anyway, and if you do,
    it's because you're afraid of the giant bully who will punish
    you again forever for disobeying his evil instructions.
4) God is fictional.

Am I missing a possibility?

And (as an aside) if we can't understand why it's good or evil, why were 
humans kicked out of the garden of eden after eating from the tree of 
knowledge of good and evil and becoming like god in that respect? :-)

>   Those well-known arguments have their answers, which atheists simply refuse
> to listen to, or consider in any way acceptable. 

I've never really seen a reasonable answer to most questions. At some point, 
one has to simply accept there are different premises at work, different 
axioms, and no amount of rational argument will argue people out of 
positions found via irrationality.

>   Some of the questions are truely complex and difficult. However, most of
> the questions are trivial and have completely simple answers to them.

Yes, and usually that answer is "God is fictional."  :-)  I've looked at a 
lot of these things, talked for tens of hours to deeply religious and highly 
trained ministers and such, and I've never found an answer to these 
questions that aren't trite.

> 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?

>   (Often they also choose the most ridiculous and misguided answers out
> there, just to make fun of them and ridicule them. That is, to make straw
> men out of them.)

No, it's more like the most ridiculous and misguided answers are the most 
dangerous. The people who are moderate don't get any time because there's no 
need.

>   Still doesn't say anything about the existence of God (which is the core
> point of the video).

Depends. Which God. Your God? Or the God of the people who think everything 
in the bible is literally true?

>>> Of course you have to understand that it *is* a
>>> metaphor, and what it is trying to say. (Naturally different people may
>>> have different interpretations, which is why we have a myriad of different
>>> churches, branches, sects and whatnot.)
> 
>> A myriad of different churches, branches, sects, explosions of airplanes, 
>> murders of abortion doctors, and beheadings of apostates.
> 
>   Still not the point of the video.

Yes it is. It's just poorly expressed, probably due to time constraints.

>> Then you're not the type of person this video is addressed to. :-)
>   Its straw men about what the bible is saying just bother me a lot.

It's really not. It's what many of the religious fanatics here actually 
claim the bible says. You're taking your interpretation of the bible, and it 
doesn't match up with what the video is arguing, because the video is 
arguing with someone else's interpretation of the bible.

Given that every sect and really every person interprets the bible 
differently, it's impossible to make a video arguing about the bible that 
many people won't think is arguing against points not made in the bible.

If you think Genesis is a metaphor, then anyone arguing against a 6-day 
creation is "attacking a straw-man."  But then you go to places like the 
Genesis Museum, or the Texas school board, trying to prevent biology 
students from learning about evolution, and you realize it's not a straw 
man; you're just already convinced.

> That's why I wrote them that open letter. (And in fact, I got a polite
> response from the website admin.)

Yep.

-- 
   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