Learn how to diferenciate between MYTH and LEGEND

[TagliatelliMonster]

But you are posting all of this to imply that deception is wrong or bad, and therefor any god that would do this is also wrong or bad. Aren't you.

I'm just stating the facts.
Upto you if you wish to call deception good or bad.

Personally though, if the context is "you should believe this or I will punish you if you don't", then actively going out of your way to give people many reasons to NOT believe it, is a bad form of deception, sure.

But that presumption is based entirely on the fact that you think you deserve not to be deceived. And yet you can't possibly know this.

Doesn't matter. I'm just stating the facts.
And the fact is that it covering up your tracks and even planting false evidence in addition to that, IS being deceptive.

So if that is what god did, then god has been deceptive. Another way of saying that is that god lied.

If you wish to argue why that is supposedly maybe, perhaps, who knows, a good thing, be my guest.
Doesn't change the facts of deception either way.

It shows that the point you made is both unfounded and selfish.

The point is just about stating the facts. Go back and read what I actually said. I didn't make any moral judgements. It seems that you are making those assumptions though.

I'm merely stating the facts. Covering up your tracks and planting false evidence is deceptive. A form of lying.
Go ahead if you wish to argue that it is a good thing.
I didn't say anything about it being good or bad.

I'm just stating the facts: if god did that, then god has been deceptive and a liar.
Do you disagree with these facts?

If not "deceptive", what would YOU call the covering up of tracks and the planting of false evidence?

You can conclude whatever you want. What you can't do is prove that the deception is wrong or bad.

Once again, I didn't say anything about it being wrong or bad. I was merely stating the facts.
Do you think acting deceptively and lying is bad?

Yes, you keep repeating this over and over

Yeah, because it is the singular point I was making. But for some reason you feel the need to keep on rambling on and on about.
Do you disagree that covering up tracks and planting false evidence is deceptive?

What is it exactly about my posts that you were disagreeing with? Quote the specific statements you disagree with and explain why. And please do it without putting words in my mouth. Stick to what I actually wrote.

, because you think it somehow condemns God.

Well, it sure shows that this god had no problem with lying and acting deceptively, right?

But you only think that because you think you deserve not to be deceived. You think you have the right to judge and condemn God for being deceptive. But your point here falls flat with creationists because they do not place themselves in a position of thinking that they have a right to judge God.

I'm sorry.... was there a creationist here who actually agreed that god acts deceptively and has no qualms about lying by covering up his tracks and planting false evidence? Who?

It seems to me that creationists aren't even willing to recognise the evidence. Instead, they'll just deny / ignore all of geology and physics and just make silly statements about how the grand canyon etc was made by a global flood.

So your 'clever condemnation' has no sway with them. And you aren't clever enough to understand why, so you just presume them to be willful idiots. Right?

Once again you are putting all kinds of words in my mouth.
Where have I said anything remotely like this?

I can only repeat myself: I merely mentioned the facts.
Those facts being that covering up your tracks and planting false evidence makes for deception and lying.
Do you disagree?

I have no stake in any of this nonsense. Creationists can believe whatever they want about God, and so can you. I'm just explaining to you why your arguments have no sway over most theists.

More specifically, you are complaining about arguments I never even made.
It's you who's getting bent all out of shape merely because I stated facts.
Perhaps the problem is with you and not with me.

 

[PureX]

I'm just stating the facts.

No, you have not stated any facts at all. All you've stated is a "what if". What if God deceived us? It's meaningless nonsense intended to make God 'look bad' by labeling God deceitful based on ignorance and ego. But there's no way for you or any human to actually know this happened, or why. So it's just meaningless nonsense.

But now you're going to keep repeating over and over like an imbecile. Because you think it's very clever, and that it makes God 'look bad'.

Upto you if you wish to call deception good or bad.

Personally though, if the context is "you should believe this or I will punish you if you don't", then actively going out of your way to give people many reasons to NOT believe it, is a bad form of deception, sure.

Doesn't matter. I'm just stating the facts.
And the fact is that it covering up your tracks and even planting false evidence in addition to that, IS being deceptive.

So if that is what god did, then god has been deceptive. Another way of saying that is that god lied.

If you wish to argue why that is supposedly maybe, perhaps, who knows, a good thing, be my guest.
Doesn't change the facts of deception either way.

The point is just about stating the facts. Go back and read what I actually said. I didn't make any moral judgements. It seems that you are making those assumptions though.

I'm merely stating the facts. Covering up your tracks and planting false evidence is deceptive. A form of lying.
Go ahead if you wish to argue that it is a good thing.
I didn't say anything about it being good or bad.

I'm just stating the facts: if god did that, then god has been deceptive and a liar.
Do you disagree with these facts?

If not "deceptive", what would YOU call the covering up of tracks and the planting of false evidence?

Once again, I didn't say anything about it being wrong or bad. I was merely stating the facts.
Do you think acting deceptively and lying is bad?

Yeah, because it is the singular point I was making. But for some reason you feel the need to keep on rambling on and on about.
Do you disagree that covering up tracks and planting false evidence is deceptive?

What is it exactly about my posts that you were disagreeing with? Quote the specific statements you disagree with and explain why. And please do it without putting words in my mouth. Stick to what I actually wrote.

Well, it sure shows that this god had no problem with lying and acting deceptively, right?

I'm sorry.... was there a creationist here who actually agreed that god acts deceptively and has no qualms about lying by covering up his tracks and planting false evidence? Who?

It seems to me that creationists aren't even willing to recognise the evidence. Instead, they'll just deny / ignore all of geology and physics and just make silly statements about how the grand canyon etc was made by a global flood.

Once again you are putting all kinds of words in my mouth.
Where have I said anything remotely like this?

I can only repeat myself: I merely mentioned the facts.
Those facts being that covering up your tracks and planting false evidence makes for deception and lying.
Do you disagree?

More specifically, you are complaining about arguments I never even made.
It's you who's getting bent all out of shape merely because I stated facts.
Perhaps the problem is with you and not with me.

*Sigh*

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

But I do think it is important to be extremely slow to accuse someone of consciously lying.

The evidence is clear that the ID program was an attempt to get creationism into school curricula after the Supreme Court had ruled that it was unconstitutional to teach it in public schools. That's why the cdesign proponentsists finding was so significant. The ruling above came down while Of Pandas and People was being prepared for publication intended for public school science classes. So, the writers and editors changed their text to attempt to circumvent that ruling. The thinking was that if they called it intelligent design without specifying their god as that intelligent designer, that they could teach the same religious beliefs in public schools.

These are not honest people. Creationist apologetics is pretty much nonstop lying. They're also not decent people. They understand that they need to get to minds before they learn critical thinking skills, and the schools contain children whose parents aren't teaching them Christianity or taking them to a church. They want access to defenseless minds.

Somehow saying that a myth like the Lord of the Rings, or How Zebras got their Stripes, is "speculation" seems off. I think people know up front that these stories are fiction

If these are intended to be explanations of some aspect of reality and they come from the imagination (speculation divorced from empiricism), they are myths in the sense that Genesis contains mythology. If it was understood that they were fiction, then they are just fun stories for people into fantasy.

I don't think that people in the bronze age asked where fossils come from.

They knew where they found them. The question was how they got there.

Perhaps you're thinking of petrified fish or fish-shaped impressions in stone. Finding seashells would be sufficient.

Imagine living in antiquity and you and your people finding seashells scattered over multiple mountains. Explain that to your satisfaction without a modern understanding of seafloors becoming mountaintops. You're left with global flooding. Then explain how that happened given a belief in a judgmental, tri-omni god. Please do try to come up with another story for how those shells got there given belief in such a god? You could speculate that God put them there without flooding the mountains, but the question of why the deity would do that would remain unanswered.

A common motif for these stories is God punishing man. That's why he doesn't live in paradise. That's why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. That's why man speaks multiple mutually unintelligible languages. And that's why seashells appear on mountaintops.

Floods happen, sometimes people survive a flood on a raft. That's the kernel of truth. Embellish that story, change the protagonist when appropriating from another culture and you've got yourself a fine legend. The fact that it's appropriated is also a hint at a legend. If it were an explanation for fossils, it would have a sentence like "and that is how what got marine fossils on mountains" in it - and it would include an explanation why and how the animals were turned into stone.

You wouldn't likely do that using a defamatory account of your god. And why would you throw in a near extinction event into such a story? Why would there be any deaths in the story, much less most of the world? Why would this "raft" be filled with all of the world's animals? Your idea doesn't require any of those, yet they're prominent features of the myth.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The evidence is clear that the ID program was an attempt to get creationism into school curricula after

Of course it was!!!! That is NO REASON to conclude that they are consciously lying.

If these are intended to be explanations of some aspect of reality and they come from the imagination (speculation divorced from empiricism), they are myths in the sense that Genesis contains mythology. If it was understood that they were fiction, then they are just fun stories for people into fantasy.

Myths do not intend to seriously explain some aspect of reality. In the myth of how the zebra got its stripes, it is not meant to be taken literally. It is a form of fiction. Thus, it is not "speculation."

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Sorry, no. This is not an opinion.
They wanted their religious beliefs (creationism) in science class.

Yes, they absolutely wanted their views taught in science class, and they made the attempt to work around the law by presenting that view in a different way, which included rebranding creationism as intelligent design. THAT IS NOT LYING. It is marketing their product in a very clever way, worthy of a politician. But it is not lying.

Listen, I feel like I'm starting to repeat myself, so I'm going to move on. Can we agree to disagree?

 

[Heyo]

Imagine living in antiquity and you and your people finding seashells scattered over multiple mountains. Explain that to your satisfaction without a modern understanding of seafloors becoming mountaintops. You're left with global flooding

And seagulls.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, you have not stated any facts at all.

What did I say that wasn't factual?
Assuming the premise that god flooded the world and then erased all evidence of this event and also planted false evidence to make everything look as if the flood never occured... Then god engaged in deception which is a form of lying. This makes god a liar.

What about that isn't factual?

All you've stated is a "what if". What if God deceived us?

Not at all.
I was replying to your post #183 where you said that "god deliberately erased it" (where "it" is the evidence of the flood => these are your exact words).
So I took that premise and brought it to its factual conclusion: if god did that, then god engaged in deception.

What about that isn't factual?

It's meaningless nonsense intended to make God 'look bad' by labeling God deceitful based on ignorance and ego.

It has nothing to do with ignorance or ego.
That god deliberately erased the evidence was YOUR statement.
I just took that statement and said: if that is the case, then god was deceitful.

How is erasing evidence NOT deceitful? How is that NOT covering up your actions?

But there's no way for you or any human to actually know this happened, or why. So it's just meaningless nonsense.

You said it. I was replying to your post. I took your statement and assumed it as a premise.
Remember? Learn how to diferenciate between MYTH and LEGEND

But now you're going to keep repeating over and over like an imbecile. Because you think it's very clever, and that it makes God 'look bad'.

"imbecile"?


Answer the question: if you do an action and then go out of your way to erase all evidence of you having engaged in that action... is that a deceitful thing or not?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, they absolutely wanted their views taught in science class, and they made the attempt to work around the law by presenting that view in a different way, which included rebranding creationism as intelligent design. THAT IS NOT LYING.

It is lying because they did that in an effort to pretend it wasn't creationism.

It is marketing their product in a very clever way, worthy of a politician. But it is not lying.

Not a clever way. A sneaky, dishonest way.
It's like trying to sell a bottle of wodka during prohibition by taking of the wodka label and replacing it with a label that says "water".
The liquid in the bottle is still wodka. And the seller knows it.

Listen, I feel like I'm starting to repeat myself, so I'm going to move on. Can we agree to disagree?

I could, if it were a matter of opinion.
But I don't think it is.