WARNING:  Don't watch this video unless you have an IQ of about 
140...you're guaranteed to lose 30-40 points just by watching this video 
(or so the friend of mine who posted this claims)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF3L359yKjs

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF3L359yKjs

If nothing else, it's an example of
1) Not understanding that bananas are far from how they were created, and
2) Not understanding how and why fruit evolves.


But you want to hear something really weird? You know who was the first 
person to be diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's Disease?  It was Lou Gehrig! How 
freaky is that??

-- 
   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:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF3L359yKjs
> 
> If nothing else, it's an example of
> 1) Not understanding that bananas are far from how they were created, and
> 2) Not understanding how and why fruit evolves.
> 
> 
> But you want to hear something really weird? You know who was the first 
> person to be diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's Disease?  It was Lou Gehrig! 
> How freaky is that??
> 

Its not the only issue Mr. Comfort has. He is a grade A kook, and just 
"loves" to get things dead wrong. One of his latest idiocies is an 
"edited" version of Darwin's Origin of Species, which includes his own 
personal "introduction". PZ Myers, biologist, unapologetic atheist and, 
at times, writer of far more rants about the sort of stupid this man 
does than science articles, stated this:

"It's like a book with multiple personality disorder -- two parts that 
absolutely hate each other; an intro that is the inane product of one of 
the most stupid minds of our century, and a science text that is the 
product of one of the greatest minds of the author's century." PZ Myers, 
biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris

He is currently looking for someone to write a forward to his mangled 
book. lol He also, for no reason I can imagine, actually "has" that 
quote on his website, on the page where he babbles about finding someone 
to write his forward for him.

Another nice example of the man's logic (or rather total lack of any):

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/elephantine_errors_from_ray_co.php

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Its not the only issue Mr. Comfort has. He is a grade A kook,

Well, sure.

Actually, the first one in this I just stumbled across expresses what I was 
saying quite nicely: 
http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/09/26/five-atheist-logic-tests-and-how-to-pass-them-a-skeptical-response-to-how-to-make-an-atheist-backslide/

I also liked the argument that God must like gay sex, with a set of similar 
arguments to the banana argument that I don't think need to be repeated here.

-- 
   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:
>
http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/09/26/five-atheist-logic-tests-and-how-to-pass-them-a-skeptical-response-to-how-to-make-an-atheist-backslide/

  Some atheists do this same thing in reverse: They try to smartly debunk
christianity and the bible, and do so by abusing similar principles, ie.
distorting what christianity and the bible say, making false presumptions
and outright straw men, and then basing questions on those invalid premises,
and so on.

  I especially like the video called "10 questions that every intelligent
Christian must answer". It's completely full of fallacious argumentation,
but cleverly laid out by the authors so that most fellow atheists will be
mistaken into a false feeling that the video is actually proving some valid
points. Even atheists succumb to confirmation bias: They are more likely to
believe false statements when those statements confirm their own beliefs.
In this regard many of them are not much better than religious people.

  (Btw, that was not a statement about whether I believe God as taught by
Christianity exists or not or whether the bible is the truth or not. It was
a purely objective observation about the subject.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 4-7-2009 9:47, Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>
http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/09/26/five-atheist-logic-tests-and-how-to-pass-them-a-skeptical-response-to-how-to-make-an-atheist-backslide/
> 
>   Some atheists do this same thing in reverse: They try to smartly debunk
> christianity and the bible, and do so by abusing similar principles, ie.
> distorting what christianity and the bible say, making false presumptions
> and outright straw men, and then basing questions on those invalid premises,
> and so on.
> 
>   I especially like the video called "10 questions that every intelligent
> Christian must answer". 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ

> It's completely full of fallacious argumentation,

Why don't you point them out? I think it is horrible, very American, and 
assuming a type of religion that is not very common among European 
intellectuals, but that does not make the arguments false. In fact there 
is not much argumentation in this video, that is mostly left to the 
audience. Or is that what you are objection to? Anyway, I think that the 
banana proof and the elephants are in a whole different ball park.

> but cleverly laid out by the authors so that most fellow atheists will be
> mistaken into a false feeling that the video is actually proving some valid
> points. Even atheists succumb to confirmation bias: They are more likely to
> believe false statements when those statements confirm their own beliefs.
> In this regard many of them are not much better than religious people.

A couple of remark inspired by the video: The first few 'question' 
center around prayer. If you don't believe in prayer this will make no 
sense. I don't know how common it is for Americans to believe that 
prayer really helps, among the Christians that I know, it is AFAIK 
uncommon. (Though there was recently a book that claimed that you could 
get everything that you wanted if you visualized it every day and that 
was also popular here. Forgot the name.) Aside, some people say that 
praying to God to get (material) things is a sin against the second 
commandment, they might have a point.
Then follow a few things about selective usage of verses. Again if you 
don't claim that everything in the bible is the Truth that won't make 
any sense. It may come as a shock (at least it shocked me when I first 
noted it in real life) but there are people who seriously believe that. 
The remarks in this video are directed against those people. The bible 
is internally inconsistent, inconsistent with laws and constitutions of 
every western country, and inconsistent with science (though the 
examples may not be the most convincing). I think that if someone claims 
that every word in the bible is True, it is a reasonable to ask how that 
person handles all the inconsistencies. I also know that by definition 
no answer will ever satisfy the person asking.
Interesting thing is also that the examples are mainly from the 
old-testament and thus would be equally valid for jews and muslims. Yet 
the title only mentions Christians. Yet another example that the maker 
of this video is not able to abstract from his own cultural environment 
and attacking the world at large assuming everybody thinks like he 
assumes his neighbours think. All in all I think it is very shallow and 
hardly convincing. I don't think I would have listened to more than 30 
seconds of it if you would not have recommended it.

>   (Btw, that was not a statement about whether I believe God as taught by
> Christianity exists or not or whether the bible is the truth or not. It was
> a purely objective observation about the subject.)

sure

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:47:08 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF3L359yKjs
> 
> If nothing else, it's an example of
> 1) Not understanding that bananas are far from how they were created,
> and 2) Not understanding how and why fruit evolves.

Very true....

> But you want to hear something really weird? You know who was the first
> person to be diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's Disease?  It was Lou Gehrig!
> How freaky is that??

LOL

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> distorting what christianity and the bible say,

To be fair, you probably see a different bunch of christians than the 
outspoken atheists do. Here we have regular problems with christians passing 
discriminatory laws and such, based on the belief that you are evil if not 
christian and the belief that the bible is 100% true and correct.

When they start teaching the Earth is 6000 years old, and fire biology 
teachers that mention evolution, and murder doctors that do what they think 
the bible says they shouldn't, in *your* country, let me know what the straw 
man is.

Oh, and let me know when the Pope thinks atheists are human, again.

>   I especially like the video called "10 questions that every intelligent
> Christian must answer". It's completely full of fallacious argumentation,

It's only fallacious if you don't assume a literal reading of the bible and 
so on. I mean, we have a really big number of people here who really think 
the universe is only 6000 years old.

Honestly, I think most of these arguments are pointless, since the entire 
idea behind religion is to be irrational if not illogical. Making arguments 
like this isn't going to change the mind of atheists *or* the faithful. All 
the arguments are old and tired, and if you[1] already believe you know 
God's will enough to enforce your views on others, yet God's will is too 
ineffable to understand, then pointing out fallacies in your logic isn't 
going to help.

[1] Generic "you" here, not "You, Warp". :-)

> Even atheists succumb to confirmation bias: They are more likely to
> believe false statements when those statements confirm their own beliefs.

Well, of course. That's why people invented science.

> In this regard many of them are not much better than religious people.

Atheists are better than the faithful in this sense because atheists *know* 
they have confirmation bias.

-- 
   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

Jim Henderson wrote:
> WARNING:  Don't watch this video unless you have an IQ of about 
> 140...you're guaranteed to lose 30-40 points just by watching this video 
> (or so the friend of mine who posted this claims)
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF3L359yKjs
> 
I was sure it was satire until I read teh rest of this thread

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:36:01 -0400, Jim Charter wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> WARNING:  Don't watch this video unless you have an IQ of about
>> 140...you're guaranteed to lose 30-40 points just by watching this
>> video (or so the friend of mine who posted this claims)
>> 
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF3L359yKjs
>> 
> I was sure it was satire until I read teh rest of this thread

My first thought was that it had to be some form of humour, but yeah, it 
does seem like the guy is serious...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> My first thought was that it had to be some form of humour, but yeah, it 
> does seem like the guy is serious...

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_Law

-- 
   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

On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:56:29 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> My first thought was that it had to be some form of humour, but yeah,
>> it does seem like the guy is serious...
> 
> http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_Law

<G>

Jim

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> A couple of remark inspired by the video: The first few 'question' 
> center around prayer. If you don't believe in prayer this will make no 
> sense. I don't know how common it is for Americans to believe that 
> prayer really helps, among the Christians that I know, it is AFAIK 
> uncommon. (Though there was recently a book that claimed that you could 
> get everything that you wanted if you visualized it every day and that 
> was also popular here. Forgot the name.) Aside, some people say that 
> praying to God to get (material) things is a sin against the second 
> commandment, they might have a point.
> Then follow a few things about selective usage of verses. Again if you 
> don't claim that everything in the bible is the Truth that won't make 
> any sense. It may come as a shock (at least it shocked me when I first 
> noted it in real life) but there are people who seriously believe that. 
> The remarks in this video are directed against those people. The bible 
> is internally inconsistent, inconsistent with laws and constitutions of 
> every western country, and inconsistent with science (though the 
> examples may not be the most convincing). I think that if someone claims 
> that every word in the bible is True, it is a reasonable to ask how that 
> person handles all the inconsistencies. I also know that by definition 
> no answer will ever satisfy the person asking.
> Interesting thing is also that the examples are mainly from the 
> old-testament and thus would be equally valid for jews and muslims. Yet 
> the title only mentions Christians. Yet another example that the maker 
> of this video is not able to abstract from his own cultural environment 
> and attacking the world at large assuming everybody thinks like he 
> assumes his neighbours think. All in all I think it is very shallow and 
> hardly convincing. I don't think I would have listened to more than 30 
> seconds of it if you would not have recommended it.
> 

Yeah, this is the, "You don't understand the *deep* arguments, so you 
argue about the shallow ones which no one believes.", assertion. Its 
made *a lot* by two sorts of people: 1) Those that have no concept what 
the deeper issues are, but haven't observed believers around them making 
the stupid arguments that are being attacked, **often** due to being 
European, and 2) believers that want to side track the issue, without 
actually bothering to say what those deeper issues are. The sad thing 
is, there are no deeper issues. A while back someone asked a number of 
"prominent" religious scholars, including European ones, what they 
believed the deeper issues of their religion where. They inexplicably 
babbled 10 or so things they claimed where "huge" issues, ranging from 
creation vs. evolution, to whether or not someone can *be* moral without 
their own god and following his Bible, etc. In other words, their 
"deeper issues" where precisely the nonsensical stuff that everyone from 
Dawkins to you non-religious neighbor might complain about with 
religion, and precisely the arguments, ideas, concepts, and/or bad 
reasoning that believers always insist, "Miss the issue, because they 
are dealing with the shallow matters, not the *deeper* and more 
important things that people with **real knowledge** of religion think 
about."

There is a subset of scholar that "do" imagine themselves thinking on 
deeper matters, and will tell you that they don't think, can't imagine, 
and simply refuse to believe, that 90% of the other people that call 
themselves Christian all believe such *silly* things as god watching 
them all the time, answering their prayers, like a customer service 
desk, or spending all his time tinkering with things to make sure the 
universe happens the way its supposed to. These people are delusional in 
an entirely odd way. They deny the very ideas and concepts that 90% of 
Christianity ***do*** believe in, yet, when asked what their "deeper 
concepts" are... well, lets just say that they don't have answers, and 
their questions just wander around until they run aground on the same 
bad ideas and false premises that everyone else does, leaving them 
looking like the very people they insist, "don't exist".

It would be rather funny, if it wasn't so sad, or dangerous. I mean, how 
do you plan to fight the supposed "false(r?)" perceptions, when you, as 
some high and mighty scholar, deny that the majority of people hold any 
of them in the first place? When they deny that "they" hold them, 
because it would contradict their claim that they actually do more than 
circular logic, designed to mask the very things they insist they don't 
subscribe to. If they admit that the unmasks, crazy, version is 
dangerous and wrong, how do you fight it, when all your doing is 
supporting a masked version of the same thing, "while" insisting that 
most people don't follow the crazy unmasked version? Talk about 
dissonance...

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> My first thought was that it had to be some form of humour, but yeah, 
>> it does seem like the guy is serious...
> 
> 
> http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
> 

Wow.  I am really naive.  But what does it all mean?

Actually, I have never 'gotten' Steven Colbert.  For me the absurdist 
vein to his humor undercuts the sactimony, satirical or otherwise.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 00:07:37 -0400, Jim Charter wrote:

> Actually, I have never 'gotten' Steven Colbert.  For me the absurdist
> vein to his humor undercuts the sactimony, satirical or otherwise.

The thing that makes Colbert work for us is knowing there are people who 
think he's serious....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 5-7-2009 3:38, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Yeah, this is the, "You don't understand the *deep* arguments, so you 
> argue about the shallow ones which no one believes.", assertion. Its 
> made *a lot* by two sorts of people: 1) Those that have no concept what 
> the deeper issues are, but haven't observed believers around them making 
> the stupid arguments that are being attacked, **often** due to being 
> European, and 2) believers that want to side track the issue, without 
> actually bothering to say what those deeper issues are. The sad thing 
> is, there are no deeper issues. A while back someone asked a number of 
> "prominent" religious scholars, including European ones, what they 
> believed the deeper issues of their religion where. They inexplicably 
> babbled 10 or so things they claimed where "huge" issues, ranging from 
> creation vs. evolution, to whether or not someone can *be* moral without 
> their own god and following his Bible, etc. In other words, their 
> "deeper issues" where precisely the nonsensical stuff that everyone from 
> Dawkins to you non-religious neighbor might complain about with 
> religion, and precisely the arguments, ideas, concepts, and/or bad 
> reasoning that believers always insist, "Miss the issue, because they 
> are dealing with the shallow matters, not the *deeper* and more 
> important things that people with **real knowledge** of religion think 
> about."
> 
> There is a subset of scholar that "do" imagine themselves thinking on 
> deeper matters, and will tell you that they don't think, can't imagine, 
> and simply refuse to believe, that 90% of the other people that call 
> themselves Christian all believe such *silly* things as god watching 
> them all the time, answering their prayers, like a customer service 
> desk, or spending all his time tinkering with things to make sure the 
> universe happens the way its supposed to. These people are delusional in 
> an entirely odd way. They deny the very ideas and concepts that 90% of 
> Christianity ***do*** believe in, yet, when asked what their "deeper 
> concepts" are... well, lets just say that they don't have answers, and 
> their questions just wander around until they run aground on the same 
> bad ideas and false premises that everyone else does, leaving them 
> looking like the very people they insist, "don't exist".
> 
> It would be rather funny, if it wasn't so sad, or dangerous. I mean, how 
> do you plan to fight the supposed "false(r?)" perceptions, when you, as 
> some high and mighty scholar, deny that the majority of people hold any 
> of them in the first place? When they deny that "they" hold them, 
> because it would contradict their claim that they actually do more than 
> circular logic, designed to mask the very things they insist they don't 
> subscribe to. If they admit that the unmasks, crazy, version is 
> dangerous and wrong, how do you fight it, when all your doing is 
> supporting a masked version of the same thing, "while" insisting that 
> most people don't follow the crazy unmasked version? Talk about 
> dissonance...
> 

I think there may be deeper issues, only those can be fundamentally 
different for different persons. For a gnostic it is totally different 
than for a true Roman Catholic or for a member of a pentecostal church 
or...
Like you I noticed that devout christians sometimes change a lot when 
they study theology. Often the 'God' becomes more abstract and/or their 
believe becomes more personal or gnostic. That is not strange, but it 
may result in a gap with the 'lay-man'. I don't have a problem with 
that, but it may appear hypocritical in certain circumstances.
As long as we take one another's religion serious and don't try to make 
fun of what differs from what we believe, there should not be a problem. 
This video fails pathetically in that respect.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > It's completely full of fallacious argumentation,

> Why don't you point them out?

  Done that a long time ago:

http://warp.povusers.org/OpenLetters/ResponseTo10Questions.html

> I think it is horrible, very American, and 
> assuming a type of religion that is not very common among European 
> intellectuals, but that does not make the arguments false.

  My point is not really whether what they are *trying* to say is, in the
end, true or false (because that's the whole question in atheism and
religion). My point is that the *way* they are saying it is wrong because
they present a bunch of fallacious distorted arguments and outright straw
men, and then present questions and conclusions based directly on them.
I think the term for this is petitio principii: Start from a fallacious
statement and then formulate a question assuming the statement is valid.

  The people who made the video are trying to be clever, and to many people
(especially fellow atheists) they do it rather convincingly, but they are
still basing their arguments on fallacies and straw men.

> Then follow a few things about selective usage of verses. Again if you 
> don't claim that everything in the bible is the Truth that won't make 
> any sense.

  I wouldn't use the words "some christians don't claim that everything in
the bible is the Truth" because that sounds like they believed that some
parts of it are false. (Ok, there certainly *are* some people who call
themselves christians *and* believe there are outright falsities in the
bible, but I'm not referring to those.)

  Some christians understand that the bible uses a lot of metaphors and
similes, but they believe that the *message* these metaphors and similes
are expressing is 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.)

  Some christians take some metaphors too literally and they are way too
dogmatic about them. Some of them are so fanatic that it seems like they
thought that anyone who didn't interpret these parts literally is claiming
the bible contains lies. Ironically, they are themselves most probably
misinterpreting and distorting the bible by obscuring the true message
these metaphors are trying to convey and replacing it with their own
interpretations.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 5-7-2009 12:24, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> It's completely full of fallacious argumentation,
> 
>> Why don't you point them out?
> 
>   Done that a long time ago:
> 
> http://warp.povusers.org/OpenLetters/ResponseTo10Questions.html

How was I supposed to know that?

>> I think it is horrible, very American, and 
>> assuming a type of religion that is not very common among European 
>> intellectuals, but that does not make the arguments false.
> 
>   My point is not really whether what they are *trying* to say is, in the
> end, true or false (because that's the whole question in atheism and
> religion). My point is that the *way* they are saying it is wrong because
> they present a bunch of fallacious distorted arguments and outright straw
> men, and then present questions and conclusions based directly on them.
> I think the term for this is petitio principii: Start from a fallacious
> statement and then formulate a question assuming the statement is valid.
> 
>   The people who made the video are trying to be clever, and to many people
> (especially fellow atheists) they do it rather convincingly, but they are
> still basing their arguments on fallacies and straw men.
> 
>> Then follow a few things about selective usage of verses. Again if you 
>> don't claim that everything in the bible is the Truth that won't make 
>> any sense.
> 
>   I wouldn't use the words "some christians don't claim that everything in
> the bible is the Truth" because that sounds like they believed that some
> parts of it are false. (Ok, there certainly *are* some people who call
> themselves christians *and* believe there are outright falsities in the
> bible, but I'm not referring to those.)
> 
>   Some christians understand that the bible uses a lot of metaphors and
> similes, but they believe that the *message* these metaphors and similes
> are expressing is 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.)
> 
>   Some christians take some metaphors too literally and they are way too
> dogmatic about them. Some of them are so fanatic that it seems like they
> thought that anyone who didn't interpret these parts literally is claiming
> the bible contains lies. Ironically, they are themselves most probably
> misinterpreting and distorting the bible by obscuring the true message
> these metaphors are trying to convey and replacing it with their own
> interpretations.

Ok, so you are from the metaphor interpretation side of the church. That 
is good to know. ;)
I agree with you on that point, but I disagree that that is the common, 
the best, or the only sensible interpretation and I think the above and 
your ResponseTo10Questions at least suggest that.

I am afraid that there is a large group of Christians that claim the 
bible is the Truth and that e.g. the earth was indeed created in 6 days. 
Where 'day' has the conventional meaning of 24 hours. Many also claim 
that woman is inferior to man because of Genesis 2:21-22 (and won't 
answer to questions about Genesis 1:27-29). The literal truth of the 
bible also plays a vital role in the evolution debate.

Under your interpretation (that the bible contains metaphors and that it 
is the underlying message that is important) the assumptions made in the 
video are wrong. But does that mean that the arguments are absolutely 
wrong or that the maker used 'Christians' where he should have used a 
much more elaborate definition to make sure you were not included but 
the ones he meets everyday were? How fruitful is it to argue that any 
general statement about Christians, Buddhists, atheists, men, women, 
etc. is wrong because there are always exceptions? That would imply that 
you can not even say that Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe in one 
God because I know a few that don't. Ok, we could argue that this is so 
fundamental to e.g. Christianity that they can not be called Christians 
anymore, but that's a slippery slope. Who is going to decide what is 
fundamental?

Or perhaps your point is simply that we shouldn't make any general 
statement about groups at all because everybody is unique. I can agree 
with that, although I fear that there are even exceptions to that.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Ok, so you are from the metaphor interpretation side of the church. That 
> is good to know. ;)

  I don't really like being categorized based on belief systems.

> Under your interpretation (that the bible contains metaphors and that it 
> is the underlying message that is important) the assumptions made in the 
> video are wrong. But does that mean that the arguments are absolutely 
> wrong or that the maker used 'Christians' where he should have used a 
> much more elaborate definition to make sure you were not included but 
> the ones he meets everyday were?

  There were clearly wrong assumptions being made in the video. For example,
there's no claim in the bible, literal or metaphorical, that people who
believe in God and are saved never divorce. I don't even remember hearing
any christian making such claim. (Well, I'm sure that there exist people
who make all kinds of claims, eg. that if two people divorce they are not
"true" christians, or whatever. But that's not what any mainstream christian
church teaches.)

  I really can't understand why they included that one. Even I can think of
plenty of tougher questions.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 5-7-2009 15:08, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Ok, so you are from the metaphor interpretation side of the church. That 
>> is good to know. ;)
> 
>   I don't really like being categorized based on belief systems.

That would have been a valid remark if that was a full category. Here it 
is only a detail based on what you wrote yourself. If you don't like it, 
consider it a 'note to self' that you accidentally read. BTW you forgot 
to shed doubt on the church part. Now we could read it as a confession 
that you are member of a church. ;)

>> Under your interpretation (that the bible contains metaphors and that it 
>> is the underlying message that is important) the assumptions made in the 
>> video are wrong. But does that mean that the arguments are absolutely 
>> wrong or that the maker used 'Christians' where he should have used a 
>> much more elaborate definition to make sure you were not included but 
>> the ones he meets everyday were?
> 
>   There were clearly wrong assumptions being made in the video. For example,
> there's no claim in the bible, literal or metaphorical, that people who
> believe in God and are saved never divorce. I don't even remember hearing
> any christian making such claim. (Well, I'm sure that there exist people
> who make all kinds of claims, eg. that if two people divorce they are not
> "true" christians, or whatever. But that's not what any mainstream christian
> church teaches.)

Matthew 19:1-12 especially 19:6

>   I really can't understand why they included that one. Even I can think of
> plenty of tougher questions.

The assumption is that people who believe that God united them in 
marriage will be more hesitant to divorce, more so because God 
explicitly forbids it. Divorce rates were indeed much lower in the first 
half of the 20th century because of this here. Apparently the words of 
Matthew became less important during the last century.

The only accepted reason for divorce was adultery (following Matthew 
19:8). My mother even mentioned the existence of the concept of the 'big 
lie' (or a name something like that). If two people decided that they 
had to divorce but this condition did not apply, one or both would admit 
adultery that had never taken place.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> BTW you forgot 
> to shed doubt on the church part. Now we could read it as a confession 
> that you are member of a church. ;)

  In fact, I'm not.

> >   There were clearly wrong assumptions being made in the video. For example,
> > there's no claim in the bible, literal or metaphorical, that people who
> > believe in God and are saved never divorce. I don't even remember hearing
> > any christian making such claim. (Well, I'm sure that there exist people
> > who make all kinds of claims, eg. that if two people divorce they are not
> > "true" christians, or whatever. But that's not what any mainstream christian
> > church teaches.)

> Matthew 19:1-12 especially 19:6

  That's a command, not a promise. It commands that people should not
divorce. It doesn't promise that people won't want to divorce. If you
read the next verses you'll see a direct admission of that: People *do*
divorce, even if God has put them together, and that's why some laws were
put in place for those occasions.

  If the bible made any kind of promise that people who believe in God
won't even divorce, why would there be any need for such laws?

  The video asks a very loaded question: "Why do christians get divorced
at the same rate as non-christians?" It's a loaded question because it
assumes that the bible or christians teach that God doesn't allow christians
to divorce. Nowhere is there such a promise. On the contrary, it's readily
admitted in the bible that people divorce even though God wouldn't want
them to.

  I suppose the correct answer to the question would be: "Because people
don't always follow God's will." The answer the video gives to the question
is inconsequential.

> >   I really can't understand why they included that one. Even I can think of
> > plenty of tougher questions.

> The assumption is that people who believe that God united them in 
> marriage will be more hesitant to divorce, more so because God 
> explicitly forbids it. Divorce rates were indeed much lower in the first 
> half of the 20th century because of this here. Apparently the words of 
> Matthew became less important during the last century.

> The only accepted reason for divorce was adultery (following Matthew 
> 19:8). My mother even mentioned the existence of the concept of the 'big 
> lie' (or a name something like that). If two people decided that they 
> had to divorce but this condition did not apply, one or both would admit 
> adultery that had never taken place.

  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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 5-7-2009 16:19, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> BTW you forgot 
>> to shed doubt on the church part. Now we could read it as a confession 
>> that you are member of a church. ;)
> 
>   In fact, I'm not.

Oh no, you shouldn't say that either. ;)

>>>   There were clearly wrong assumptions being made in the video. For example,
>>> there's no claim in the bible, literal or metaphorical, that people who
>>> believe in God and are saved never divorce. I don't even remember hearing
>>> any christian making such claim. (Well, I'm sure that there exist people
>>> who make all kinds of claims, eg. that if two people divorce they are not
>>> "true" christians, or whatever. But that's not what any mainstream christian
>>> church teaches.)
> 
>> Matthew 19:1-12 especially 19:6
> 
>   That's a command, not a promise. It commands that people should not
> divorce. It doesn't promise that people won't want to divorce. If you
> read the next verses you'll see a direct admission of that: People *do*
> divorce, even if God has put them together, and that's why some laws were
> put in place for those occasions.
> 
>   If the bible made any kind of promise that people who believe in God
> won't even divorce, why would there be any need for such laws?

I can only assume that you contrasting commands and promises relates to 
some theology that I am not familiar with. It appears that your claim 
that it is a 'clearly wrong assumption' that Christians should not 
divorce somehow rests on this distinction. So enlighten me.

>   The video asks a very loaded question: "Why do christians get divorced
> at the same rate as non-christians?" It's a loaded question because it
> assumes that the bible or christians teach that God doesn't allow christians
> to divorce.

Actually He wouldn't. He accepts it reluctantly only when one party has 
already broken it's vows. Which is sort of logical because the unity of 
the two people has already been compromised.
> Nowhere is there such a promise. 

there is that promise again.

> On the contrary, it's readily
> admitted in the bible that people divorce even though God wouldn't want
> them to.

Also note that Jesus here overrules Moses, at least that is how I read it.

>   I suppose the correct answer to the question would be: "Because people
> don't always follow God's will." 

And that is, I think, the point the guy is trying to make. That God 
forbids it has zero effect on the Christians. As such it is a 
reiteration of the well known fact that even the people who say they 
take the bible literally still pick and choose what suits them. Again, 
apparently a century ago this command was in the set of things to follow 
and now it has joined the food-laws. Another reason for inclusion might 
be that this change has take place within living memory (just as the 
acceptability of gays and unmarried living together here in the 
Netherlands), but I think I might be grossly overestimating the 
intelligence of the creator of this video with that.

> The answer the video gives to the question
> is inconsequential.

What answer? I didn't see one. There is only the somewhat over the top 
'To explain this, you have to create some convoluted rationalization'

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> As long as we take one another's religion serious and don't try to make 
> fun of what differs from what we believe, there should not be a problem. 

I don't think the atheists would have a problem with it if the faithful 
everywhere were tolerant as well. 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.

-- 
   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:
> http://warp.povusers.org/OpenLetters/ResponseTo10Questions.html

"""
Let me repeat: There's no such a thing as a "universal moral code".
"""

I think that right there distinguishes you from the Christians at whom this 
video is aimed. You don't think Jesus' message is universal? You don't think 
the ten commandments apply to everyone? OK, then most folks who agree with 
that don't have a problem with your beliefs.


"""
While some christians believe that, that doesn't automatically mean that 
christianity, as a religion, teaches that, or that (assuming God indeed 
exists) it's true.
"""

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.

"""
Question #1: Why Won't God Heal Amputees?
"""
This is more a specific instance of a more general question (as explained in 
the extensive web site referenced in the video). Basically, the actual 
question is "why doesn't God answer prayers that pray for things that don't 
happen statistically as often as chance?"  I.e., not that God doesn't heal 
anyone, but nobody can actually detect prayer having an effect on reality.


"""
In internet parlance this is called trolling.
"""
That's pretty insightful.

"""
You make an assumption of what the viewer believes and doesn't believe.
"""
I don't think the video is addressing those who don't believe that 
statement. Obviously, you can't address a video to every Christian (or every 
atheist), when even those calling themselves Christian can't decide who is a 
Christian and who isn't.


"""
Innocent of what? You are now talking about this "universal moral code" of 
yours, which doesn't exist.
"""
If you look at the arguments the video is based on, it's a traditional 
argument. The Bible has God promoting genocide, slavery, mass slaughter of 
infants, rape, etc. 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.


> My point is that the *way* they are saying it is wrong because
> they present a bunch of fallacious distorted arguments and outright straw
> men, and then present questions and conclusions based directly on them.

I think it's more like they're summarizing a whole bunch of well-known and 
extended arguments and presenting them as a monologue, so it comes across as 
a straw-man argument. Were the author capable of hearing and replying to 
you, there are good arguments against what you're saying, and said responses 
are scattered about the internet. You just can't do that in a 10-minute video.

>   The people who made the video are trying to be clever, and to many people
> (especially fellow atheists) they do it rather convincingly, but they are
> still basing their arguments on fallacies and straw men.

It's only a straw-man if you don't agree with the exageration. When someone 
argues "Yeah, and the Bible says the world is only 6000 years old, and it's 
easy to refute that," you only get to call that a straw-man if there aren't 
people in a position of power arguing the world really *is* only 6000 years old.

You only get to call an argument against a universal moral code a straw man 
if there really aren't people in a position of power arguing that their holy 
book is a universal morality code to be enforced via violence.

>   Some christians understand that the bible uses a lot of metaphors and
> similes, but they believe that the *message* these metaphors and similes
> are expressing is true.

But then they argue over which are literal, which are metaphors, and what 
those metaphors mean. And then they punish you for disagreeing with their 
evaluation.

> 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.

>   Some christians take some metaphors too literally and they are way too
> dogmatic about them. Some of them are so fanatic that it seems like they
> thought that anyone who didn't interpret these parts literally is claiming
> the bible contains lies. Ironically, they are themselves most probably
> misinterpreting and distorting the bible by obscuring the true message
> these metaphors are trying to convey and replacing it with their own
> interpretations.


Then you're not the type of person this video is addressed to. :-)


-- 
   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:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Ok, so you are from the metaphor interpretation side of the church. That 
>> is good to know. ;)
> 
>   I don't really like being categorized based on belief systems.
> 
>> Under your interpretation (that the bible contains metaphors and that it 
>> is the underlying message that is important) the assumptions made in the 
>> video are wrong. But does that mean that the arguments are absolutely 
>> wrong or that the maker used 'Christians' where he should have used a 
>> much more elaborate definition to make sure you were not included but 
>> the ones he meets everyday were?
> 
>   There were clearly wrong assumptions being made in the video. For example,
> there's no claim in the bible, literal or metaphorical, that people who
> believe in God and are saved never divorce. I don't even remember hearing
> any christian making such claim. 

I've never been to a Christian wedding that says "What God has joined, let 
no man put asunder."   Plus, of course, we have entire wars in Ireland and 
such over Catholic royalty trying to get divorced and such. Better to behead 
the wife than divorce her, because God doesn't like that.

In this country, Christians fight hard to keep gay people from marrying 
because God doesn't like it. However, God apparently does nothing to help 
the Christians follow God's law either. It's the hypocracy being pointed out.

Now, if you live in a country where Christians don't stick their fingers 
into the private lives on non-Christians, then sure.

>   I really can't understand why they included that one. Even I can think of
> plenty of tougher questions.

Because you live in a country where Christians aren't trying to amend your 
highest laws to prevent people from getting married based on their holy books.

-- 
   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:
>   If the bible made any kind of promise that people who believe in God
> won't even divorce, why would there be any need for such laws?

Because even in the Bible, it is acknowledged that God cannot affect things 
on earth, and that humans need to enforce with violence their interpretation 
of God's will against one another. That's pretty much what people who don't 
believe in that book dislike about it.

>   The video asks a very loaded question: "Why do christians get divorced
> at the same rate as non-christians?" It's a loaded question because it
> assumes that the bible or christians teach that God doesn't allow christians
> to divorce.

I think it's more the "if marriage is a holy gift from God, why don't those 
married in God's eyes have better marriages?"

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?"

>   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. If nothing God commands comes to pass, why 
believe in God's ability to command things?

-- 
   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:
> http://warp.povusers.org/OpenLetters/ResponseTo10Questions.html

Ooops.

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

"""
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.

"""
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:

http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html

"It is hurtful," said Father Migeul Gonzalez with the Diocese. "Imagine if 
they kidnapped somebody and you make a plea for that individual to please 
return that loved one to the family."

Gonzalez said intentionally abusing the Eucharist is classified as a mortal 
sin in the Catholic church, the most severe possible.

A week later:

"One week after a University of Central Florida student snatched something 
sacred from church, armed UCF police officers stood guard during Sunday Mass 
to protect what Catholics call "The Body of Christ.""

OK, so we're ready to shoot someone who attempts to take home a piece of 
bread given to him, because you know, it's just a metaphor.

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.

-- 
   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've never been to a Christian wedding that says "What God has joined, 
> let no man put asunder."  

"""
Petitio principii. You assume that:

     * All christian marriages are caused by God.
     * God never allows two people to divorce.
"""

You're also pulling a straw man here, btw. It's not necessary that *no* 
Christians get divorced. Only that a statistically valid deviance exists 
between those married in the eyes of a God who doesn't want divorces and 
those married in sin.

I.e., it's the same bit as prayer. Surely if 50% of the Catholics with 
cancer who prayed for remission got better, and only 10% of the non-Catholic 
population got better from the same kind of cancer, you'd say "Hey, maybe 
the Catholics are on to something."  But when there's no difference at all, 
you kind of have to discount the effacy of prayer.

-- 
   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:
>   I especially like the video called "10 questions that every intelligent
> Christian must answer". It's completely full of fallacious argumentation,

Just to be clear, I'm not bashing you or any of your beliefs. I'm just 
trying to point out how a "reasonable" Christian who uses the metaphors and 
lessons of peace and love from the Bible isn't who that video is addressing.

It's the fanatical evangelists in America who are trying to control the 
lives of non-Christians by quoting the Bible as literal truth that the video 
is trying to shame.

I think few people here have problems with the kind of Christians who behave 
like most european christians seem to, any more than most people have 
problems with the jewish folks who wear yamacas and won't eat bacon compared 
to the jewish folks who invade foreign countries because their God promised 
them it belonged to them a few thousand years ago.

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. :-)

-- 
   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

On 5-7-2009 19:03, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> As long as we take one another's religion serious and don't try to 
>> make fun of what differs from what we believe, there should not be a 
>> problem. 
> 
> I don't think the atheists would have a problem with it if the faithful 
> everywhere were tolerant as well. 

Many religious people are very tolerant. Problem is that you mainly hear 
the others.

> 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. And you 
don't even need a god, a little collective exercise may be enough. The 
main reason most intolerant groups and governments are religious is 
simple because also most tolerant ones are.

Post a reply to this message

On 5-7-2009 19:57, Darren New wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> I.e., it's the same bit as prayer. Surely if 50% of the Catholics with 
> cancer who prayed for remission got better, and only 10% of the 
> non-Catholic population got better from the same kind of cancer, you'd 
> say "Hey, maybe the Catholics are on to something."  But when there's no 
> difference at all, you kind of have to discount the effacy of prayer.
> 
Wasn't that one tested a couple of years ago? With surprising results? 
Anyone can find that reference?

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On 5-7-2009 16:19, Warp wrote:
> > andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> >> BTW you forgot 
> >> to shed doubt on the church part. Now we could read it as a confession 
> >> that you are member of a church. ;)
> > 
> >   In fact, I'm not.

> Oh no, you shouldn't say that either. ;)

  It's ok to say it because it doesn't categorize me into anything.

> >   That's a command, not a promise. It commands that people should not
> > divorce. It doesn't promise that people won't want to divorce. If you
> > read the next verses you'll see a direct admission of that: People *do*
> > divorce, even if God has put them together, and that's why some laws were
> > put in place for those occasions.
> > 
> >   If the bible made any kind of promise that people who believe in God
> > won't even divorce, why would there be any need for such laws?

> I can only assume that you contrasting commands and promises relates to 
> some theology that I am not familiar with.

  No. What I'm talking about, and what you seemingly misunderstood from
the "10 questions" video, is that the video presents the question of why
christians divorce even though they have got married before God and people
pray for them. In other words, they are implying that if God existed, he
would not allow believers to get in such bad terms with each other that
they would divorce, and that the fact that christians divorce at the same
rate as non-christians is an indicative that there's no such God.

  This is made even clearer at the end of the video where they give their
own "answer" to the question: Christians divorce at the same rate as anyone
else because there is no God who would stop them.

  But that's petitio principii: They start with the *false* assumption that
christianity or the bible teaches that God stops believers from divorcing
each other. There is no such promise anywhere in the bible, nor is it the
teaching of any mainstrean christian church.

> >   The video asks a very loaded question: "Why do christians get divorced
> > at the same rate as non-christians?" It's a loaded question because it
> > assumes that the bible or christians teach that God doesn't allow christians
> > to divorce.

> Actually He wouldn't. He accepts it reluctantly only when one party has 
> already broken it's vows.

  I think there's a confusion here about the word "allow".

  When I say "allow", I'm talking about what the video is talking about:
That God would actively stop believers from getting into such bad situations
where they want to get divorced. That's what the video is implying.

  When you say "allow" you are talking about law: It's forbidden in the law
for people to divorce. That's not what I nor the video are talking about.

> >   I suppose the correct answer to the question would be: "Because people
> > don't always follow God's will." 

> And that is, I think, the point the guy is trying to make.

  No it isn't. Watch the video more carefully. They are trying to insinuate
that if there was a christian God, he would stop believers from divorcing,
but since christians divorce at the same rate as non-christians, that's an
indicative that there is no God.

  However, that's a false assumption.

> That God forbids it has zero effect on the Christians.

  That only tells us that christans are not perfect. It doesn't tell us
that God doesn't exist, which is what the video is trying to say.

> > The answer the video gives to the question
> > is inconsequential.

> What answer? I didn't see one.

  Did you even watch the video to the end? It's clearly there.

  "Why do christians get divorced at the same rate as non-christians?
Because God is imaginary."

  That answer is a complete non-sequitur.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >   The video asks a very loaded question: "Why do christians get divorced
> > at the same rate as non-christians?" It's a loaded question because it
> > assumes that the bible or christians teach that God doesn't allow christians
> > to divorce.

> I think it's more the "if marriage is a holy gift from God, why don't those 
> married in God's eyes have better marriages?"

  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.

> 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.

> >   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.

> 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?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I've never been to a Christian wedding that says "What God has joined, let 
> no man put asunder."   Plus, of course, we have entire wars in Ireland and 
> such over Catholic royalty trying to get divorced and such. Better to behead 
> the wife than divorce her, because God doesn't like that.

> In this country, Christians fight hard to keep gay people from marrying 
> because God doesn't like it. However, God apparently does nothing to help 
> the Christians follow God's law either. It's the hypocracy being pointed out.

> Now, if you live in a country where Christians don't stick their fingers 
> into the private lives on non-Christians, then sure.

  I completely fail to see the relation between what you wrote above, and
the video being discussed here. That's certainly not the point the video
is presenting.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> > I've never been to a Christian wedding that says "What God has joined, 
> > let no man put asunder."  

> """
> Petitio principii. You assume that:

>      * All christian marriages are caused by God.
>      * God never allows two people to divorce.
> """

> You're also pulling a straw man here, btw. It's not necessary that *no* 
> Christians get divorced. Only that a statistically valid deviance exists 
> between those married in the eyes of a God who doesn't want divorces and 
> those married in sin.

  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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 5-7-2009 21:49, Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I've never been to a Christian wedding that says "What God has joined, let 
>> no man put asunder."   Plus, of course, we have entire wars in Ireland and 
>> such over Catholic royalty trying to get divorced and such. Better to behead 
>> the wife than divorce her, because God doesn't like that.
> 
>> In this country, Christians fight hard to keep gay people from marrying 
>> because God doesn't like it. However, God apparently does nothing to help 
>> the Christians follow God's law either. It's the hypocracy being pointed out.
> 
>> Now, if you live in a country where Christians don't stick their fingers 
>> into the private lives on non-Christians, then sure.
> 
>   I completely fail to see the relation between what you wrote above, and
> the video being discussed here. That's certainly not the point the video
> is presenting.

It is background information. Why the video was made in the first place, 
who it is addressing and why someone does not want to make an hour long 
video with a balanced point of view that appeals to every person on this 
earth. But you knew that already, so why am I even answering. Perhaps to 
point out that you are taking this video literally and disregard it's 
historical context? Nah, I wouldn't do such a thing.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> """
> Let me repeat: There's no such a thing as a "universal moral code".
> """

> I think that right there distinguishes you from the Christians at whom this 
> video is aimed. You don't think Jesus' message is universal? You don't think 
> the ten commandments apply to everyone? OK, then most folks who agree with 
> that don't have a problem with your beliefs.

  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.

  That's a shaky premise because there is no such a thing as a universal
moral code accepted by the majority.

  For example, some people think that abortion is genocide, while other
people think it's acceptable. Whose moral code is the correct one here?
Whichever you choose, are you going to tell the others that their moral
code is wrong?

  What about age of consent? Canada had until recently an age of consent
of 14. There are some countries which go as low as 12. On the other extreme,
there are some countries where it's 21. If one of the latter countries comes
and tells you that your country is depraved because they allow sex with
minors, are you going to tell them that their moral code is wrong? Why is
your moral code right?

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

  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.

> """
> While some christians believe that, that doesn't automatically mean that 
> christianity, as a religion, teaches that, or that (assuming God indeed 
> exists) it's true.
> """

> 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.

> """
> In internet parlance this is called trolling.
> """
> That's pretty insightful.

  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.

  In other words, they are trolling.

> 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. It's not giving permission for the readers to
go and murder someone. 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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

> 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.
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.

> > My point is that the *way* they are saying it is wrong because
> > they present a bunch of fallacious distorted arguments and outright straw
> > men, and then present questions and conclusions based directly on them.

> I think it's more like they're summarizing a whole bunch of well-known and 
> extended arguments and presenting them as a monologue, so it comes across as 
> a straw-man argument.

  Those well-known arguments have their answers, which atheists simply refuse
to listen to, or consider in any way acceptable. They just dismiss anything
as "rationalizations", whatever it may be.

  Some of the questions are truely complex and difficult. However, most of
the questions are trivial and have completely simple answers to them.
However, a bit like conspiracy theorists, they refuse to let go even of
the most ridiculous questions. Maybe the reasons are the same as with the
conspiracy theorists (ie. shotgun argumentation).

  (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.)

> >   Some christians understand that the bible uses a lot of metaphors and
> > similes, but they believe that the *message* these metaphors and similes
> > are expressing is true.

> But then they argue over which are literal, which are metaphors, and what 
> those metaphors mean. And then they punish you for disagreeing with their 
> evaluation.

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

> > 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.

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

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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*.

>> 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.

-- 
   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

On 5-7-2009 21:41, Warp wrote:

> No. What I'm talking about, and what you seemingly misunderstood from
> the "10 questions" video, is that the video presents the question of why
> christians divorce even though they have got married before God and people
> pray for them.

That is your interpretation. Although I might understand why you would 
prefer that interpretation, I see no reason to change mine. Your and 
mine sensitivities are very different, let's leave it at that.

>   "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.

Post a reply to this message

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

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