Origin of life, Adam and the Dinosaurs

[shmogie]

I know what it means.

You seem to have appointed yourself referee. I do not recognize your authority, nor defer to what you judge to be true or false, so perhaps its time for you to rethink how you want to deport yourself.

I consider you the narrow-minded one. Your purpose is to promote Christianity, not the pursuit of dialectic. That will define what you allow yourself to think.

I've already explained why I consider any intelligent outsider's interpretation of Christianity to be more valid that that of an insider defending the faith from criticism. I already know in advance what such a person will see:God is good, the Bible is accurate, and Christians are great people - those not being so great are also not true Christians.

Did I leave anything out?

Oh yeah - atheist have no reason to not kill everybody around them, nor could their lives have any meaning or purpose.

So then, why the plethora of posts ? You know what I will say, I certainly know what you will say. You know what I believe, and defend aggressively, I know what you believe and your zeal. So, is there any point to this ? Your barrages will result in counter barrages ( in time ) that I consider as effective as your posts. While this goes on, I am involved in other threads and other forum's. I think we have passed the point of worth and will . apparently, essentially,continue to poke one another in the metaphorical eye.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So then, why the plethora of posts ?

Why not? I enjoy this activity.

You know what I will say, I certainly know what you will say. You know what I believe, and defend aggressively, I know what you believe and your zeal. So, is there any point to this ?

Yes, there is a point, at least for me. Apart from enjoying myself, this kind of activity offers an opportunity to learn,to share information with others, to observe the mental habits of large numbers of believers and unbelievers and discern the commonest differences, to practice reasoning skills and crafting arguments, and to practice writing skills.

With regard to you in particular, I've enjoyed our interactions, and perhaps you have gotten something from them. You originally took umbrage at my position on organized religion and my unwillingness to defer to your judgment, had an emotional response that included a shunning, and we have have managed to get past that and now communicate more evenly.

What I'd like you to understand is that I offer opinions that you might find impious or blasphemous, and which you seemed to interpret makes me a bad person with malicious intent, but which are believed sincerely and offered constructively. I'm a well intentioned person who tries to make his world a little better just like you. I happen to have a different viewpoint regarding how that might be accomplished. I'd like you to see that eventually.

I think we have passed the point of worth and will . apparently, essentially,continue to poke one another in the metaphorical eye.

I didn't feel that you were poking me in the eye, and don't know why you think I was poking yours. We were just disagreeing, not attacking one another. If you felt otherwise, I apologize.

What did you perceive as a personal attack from me? That I called your unsupported claims "hunches"? Consider our recent discussion on the relative generosity of Christians and humanists. You made an unsupported claim that you felt that Christians just had to be more generous. I provided two references contradicting that which I know you didn't look at because you called them one.

Then you referred to things you recalled reading but didn't link to that you claimed contradicted me. You ought to know better than that. I'm a skeptic. You know what that is and means. It means that I will ignore any unsupported claim.

I followed this with more data from the Mother Teresa ministries and the Mormon church, both indicating a very small fraction of total receipts going to the needy, but billions going to building a commercial mall in (if I recall correctly) Salt Lake City.

Once again, you just rejected it out of hand and made more unsupported claims.

Would that be an example of poking you in the eye?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I am against the death penalty because I think it is wrong to kill people when you can incarcerate them. Is that really such a foreign concept?
Do not ignore the firstborns killed in Egypt according to the bible. Or the children that where surely present in Noah's day, Sodom, and Gomorrah according to the bible.
I find it appalling that you think it is okay to kill children.

The parents were ' executed ' for the sake of the righteous ones.
There is a difference between killing, murder and an execution for the sake of justice for righteous people.
And since parents are responsible for minor children according to 1 Corinthians 7:14 then the blood guilt in on the parents, and Not on God. Remember: those people were warned in advance to mend their ways.
So, I think that since we can Not read hearts, but God can, then He knows the point of No return for those people.

Ancient Israel had No jails, they had 'cities of refuge' for people.
So, if a person was in a city of refuge then the Avenger of Blood could Not come after him.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

The parents were ' executed ' for the sake of the righteous ones.
There is a difference between killing, murder and an execution for the sake of justice for righteous people.
And since parents are responsible for minor children according to 1 Corinthians 7:14 then the blood guilt in on the parents, and Not on God. Remember: those people were warned in advance to mend their ways.
So, I think that since we can Not read hearts, but God can, then He knows the point of No return for those people.

Ancient Israel had No jails, they had 'cities of refuge' for people.
So, if a person was in a city of refuge then the Avenger of Blood could Not come after him.

NO.

Are you seriously saying that your god has the right to kill children just because he has power?

By your logic you should worship Satan if he where god!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

NO.

Are you seriously saying that your god has the right to kill children just because he has power?

By your logic you should worship Satan if he where god!

I just finished listening to atheist talk show host (The Atheist Experience out of Austin) and formal debater Matt Dillahunty speaking to a Christian caller who had been trying to defend biblical slavery, and Dillahunty was trying to get the man to say that owning and/or beating another human being was immoral, but the caller was squirming and deflecting while refusing to answer the question.

After the call ended, Dillahunty spoke these words to the camera:

“My question was simple: Is this moral or not? The reason Mike (the caller) wouldn’t answer it is the same reason that Christians all over the world avoid this question. It’s because they intrinsically understand that it’s not moral, and they cannot reconcile this with the fact that it’s in a bible that they want to adhere to as a literal, moral guide.

“The simple solution is to chuck the Bible out. We don’t need it for anything. Even if there were things that were true – there undoubtedly are – even if there are things in it that are good – which there undoubtably are – they’re not good because they’re in the Bible. They’re not good because they come from a god.

"They are good because they are good. They’re things that we can discover without ever appealing to an old book and without having to tap dance around and sacrifice our humanity to make excuses about how we treat rape victims, and how we own people as property, and how there’s some grand context in which all of this isn’t very bad.

"You have sacrificed your humanity for the sake of genuflecting to your religion, and its abominable.”

This is one of the costs Pascal overlooked with his wager when he claimed that one has nothing to lose by believing and being wrong.

 

[Kemosloby]

I just finished listening to atheist talk show host (The Atheist Experience out of Austin) and formal debater Matt Dillahunty speaking to a Christian caller who had been trying to defend biblical slavery, and Dillahunty was trying to get the man to say that owning and/or beating another human being was immoral, but the caller was squirming and deflecting while refusing to answer the question.

After the call ended, Dillahunty spoke these words to the camera:

“My question was simple: Is this moral or not? The reason Mike (the caller) wouldn’t answer it is the same reason that Christians all over the world avoid this question. It’s because they intrinsically understand that it’s not moral, and they cannot reconcile this with the fact that it’s in a bible that they want to adhere to as a literal, moral guide.

“The simple solution is to chuck the Bible out. We don’t need it for anything. Even if there were things that were true – there undoubtedly are – even if there are things in it that are good – which there undoubtably are – they’re not good because they’re in the Bible. They’re not good because they come from a god.

"They are good because they are good. They’re things that we can discover without ever appealing to an old book and without having to tap dance around and sacrifice our humanity to make excuses about how we treat rape victims, and how we own people as property, and how there’s some grand context in which all of this isn’t very bad.

"You have sacrificed your humanity for the sake of genuflecting to your religion, and its abominable.”

This is one of the costs Pascal overlooked with his wager when he claimed that one has nothing to lose by believing and being wrong.

The bible never says it's good to be a slave. As a matter of fact slavery is both literally and metaphorically used as the place you don't want to be. Hence the "let my people go" thing, leading folks metaphorically from the slavery of sin.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The bible never says it's good to be a slave. As a matter of fact slavery is both literally and metaphorically used as the place you don't want to be. Hence the "let my people go" thing, leading folks metaphorically from the slavery of sin.

That's not relevant to the argument. The argument does not claim that the Bible lauds slavery.

The criticism is for condoning slavery rather than condemning it as immoral explicitly. That only makes sense if the writers of the relevant scriptures discussing slavery were human beings living in another time and place under a different world view.

I'd bet that the first time you discussed slavery with your children, you clearly indicated to them that it was immoral. We get the impression from the Bible that had you lived in the centuries during which it was written that that would not have been part of your discussion because you would not have thought in those terms.

Furthermore, people didn't need to be told that slavery is undesirable for the slave, or as you phrased it, is "the place you don't want to be." The slavers and those facilitating them needed to be told it was immoral to own and beat people, steal their labor, and sell their wives and children. It seems incredible from a modern perspective.

The skeptics main interest in this matter is that what we see is the naturalistic progression of human culture including its moral values. The Old Testament is harshest, the New Testament already shows hints of a change of values, and we have the history of the world since wherein most if not all governments have now outlawed slavery, and most people consider it immoral. This is exactly what would be predicted if no god were involved in the process.

Contrarily, if a god were involved, we would expect it to prevent slavery.

 

[Kemosloby]

That's not relevant to the argument. The argument does not claim that the Bible lauds slavery.

The criticism is for condoning slavery rather than condemning it as immoral explicitly. That only makes sense if the writers of the relevant scriptures discussing slavery were human beings living in another time and place under a different world view.

I'd bet that the first time you discussed slavery with your children, you clearly indicated to them that it was immoral. We get the impression from the Bible that had you lived in the centuries during which it was written that that would not have been part of your discussion because you would not have thought in those terms.

Furthermore, people didn't need to be told that slavery is undesirable for the slave, or as you phrased it, is "the place you don't want to be." The slavers and those facilitating them needed to be told it was immoral to own and beat people, steal their labor, and sell their wives and children. It seems incredible from a modern perspective.

The skeptics main interest in this matter is that what we see is the naturalistic progression of human culture including its moral values. The Old Testament is harshest, the New Testament already shows hints of a change of values, and we have the history of the world since wherein most if not all governments have now outlawed slavery, and most people consider it immoral. This is exactly what would be predicted if no god were involved in the process.

Contrarily, if a god were involved, we would expect it to prevent slavery.

The Apostles had a different agenda. They did not oppose the authorities of this world, same as Jesus didn't. Saying that this is not his kingdom. They only tried to convince people Jesus was the Messiah, to save their souls from hell and inherit their eternal rewards. If the whole of Gods commands is "love your neighbor as yourself", what does that say about slavery? Because you reap in the eternal life what you sow in the mortal life, that's the bigger picture, not the short mortal life.

Governments have turned to systems of "soft slavery" or prison labor when possible.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The Apostles had a different agenda. They did not oppose the authorities of this world, same as Jesus didn't. Saying that this is not his kingdom. They only tried to convince people Jesus was the Messiah, to save their souls from hell and inherit their eternal rewards.

How is that relevant to a god forgetting to tell us that owning and beating people is immoral?

Governments have turned to systems of "soft slavery" or prison labor when possible.

Same question.

You really don't want to address this issue of the failure to explicitly condemn slavery, do you? We're talking about a Bible that specifically condemns hundreds of practices including stealing, homosexuality, blasphemy, adultery, dishonoring parents, fornication, wearing blended fabrics, what to not eat, how to kill what you do eat, worshiping idols, not to add to the commandments.

Apparently, there's even a commandment to not to leave a beast that has fallen down beneath its burden unaided (Deut. 22:4), but nothing saying not to own another person.

If the whole of Gods commands is "love your neighbor as yourself", what does that say about slavery?

It doesn't say that slavery is immoral.

It also doesn't tell us what constitutes love. It's somehow connected to blood sacrifice ("For God so loved the world ..."). It's also connected to being willing to throw a conscious soul into a lake of fire, a global flood that drowned nearly all life, another apocalypse coming, and a god that unleashed his fallen master demon on earth and humanity. This is from the god that loves us. So what is love in this worldview?

Also, you're quote mining. What do you think of this? :

"To the extent that you can find the good bits in religious scriptures, you have to cherry pick. You search your way though the Bible or the Quran and you find the occasional verse that is an acceptable profession of morality and you say, "Look at that. That's religion," and you leave out all the horrible bits and you say, "Oh, we don't believe that anymore. We've grown out of that." - Dawkins

It's been a pleasure chatting with you. I appreciate that you don't get angry over others expressing contrary opinions about what you consider sacred. I don't do it to offend or attack you. I do it because I disagree. People outside of your religion looking in will see things that a believer won't allow himself to see. A moral lapse from a god in which you believe is probably not an option for you, but as an unbeliever, I have no reason not to call the failure to expressly condemn slavery a moral lapse if due to a god, but just growing pains if due to ancient men alone.

 

[Kemosloby]

How is that relevant to a god forgetting to tell us that owning and beating people is immoral?



Same question.

You really don't want to address this issue of the failure to explicitly condemn slavery, do you? We're talking about a Bible that specifically condemns hundreds of practices including stealing, homosexuality, blasphemy, adultery, dishonoring parents, fornication, wearing blended fabrics, what to not eat, how to kill what you do eat, worshiping idols, not to add to the commandments.

Apparently, there's even a commandment to not to leave a beast that has fallen down beneath its burden unaided (Deut. 22:4), but nothing saying not to own another person.



It doesn't say that slavery is immoral.

It also doesn't tell us what constitutes love. It's somehow connected to blood sacrifice ("For God so loved the world ..."). It's also connected to being willing to throw a conscious soul into a lake of fire, a global flood that drowned nearly all life, another apocalypse coming, and a god that unleashed his fallen master demon on earth and humanity. This is from the god that loves us. So what is love in this worldview?

Also, you're quote mining. What do you think of this? :

"To the extent that you can find the good bits in religious scriptures, you have to cherry pick. You search your way though the Bible or the Quran and you find the occasional verse that is an acceptable profession of morality and you say, "Look at that. That's religion," and you leave out all the horrible bits and you say, "Oh, we don't believe that anymore. We've grown out of that." - Dawkins

It's been a pleasure chatting with you. I appreciate that you don't get angry over others expressing contrary opinions about what you consider sacred. I don't do it to offend or attack you. I do it because I disagree. People outside of your religion looking in will see things that a believer won't allow himself to see. A moral lapse from a god in which you believe is probably not an option for you, but as an unbeliever, I have no reason not to call the failure to expressly condemn slavery a moral lapse if due to a god, but just growing pains if due to ancient men alone.

How is slavery relevant to this thread?

 

[viole]

The bible never says it's good to be a slave. As a matter of fact slavery is both literally and metaphorically used as the place you don't want to be. Hence the "let my people go" thing, leading folks metaphorically from the slavery of sin.

How is that relevant? I am sure that the Bible does not say that it is good to be murdered either.

The problem is that while it says that murder is wrong, it does not say that owning another human being is equally wrong. It actually gives tips on how to treat your human cattle.

Or maybe you have a passage I missed. The 10 commandments won't say.

And that Book is the source of your moral understanding, right?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kemosloby]

How is that relevant? I am sure that the Bible does not say that it is good to be murdered either.

The problem is that while it says that murder is wrong, it does not say that owning another being is equally wrong. It actually gives tips on how to treat your human cattle.

Or maybe you have a passage I missed. The 10 commandments won't say.

Ciao

- viole

I don't really recall any of Gods people putting other humans in chains as slaves. They didn't have a term for an employee, which is essentially a slave. Find employee in the bible. Some people sold themselves into servitude of another to pay off a debt, or other reasons. Anyway most things are symbolic of the coming kingdom where people are set free from the bondage of sin, and given rest from the slavery of this life....and all that.

The sum of the law "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" How does slavery fit into the law? or "love your neighbor as yourself, and your enemies too" So there you go.

 

[viole]

I don't really recall any of Gods people putting other humans in chains as slaves. They didn't have a term for an employee, which is essentially a slave. Find employee in the bible. Some people sold themselves into servitude of another to pay off a debt, or other reasons. Anyway most things are symbolic of the coming kingdom where people are set free from the bondage of sin, and given rest from the slavery of this life....and all that.

The sum of the law "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" How does slavery fit into the law? or "love your neighbor as yourself, and your enemies too" So there you go.

Is that law in the 10 commandments? Or are you just raising another internal contradiction in the book?

My personal suggestion is that you take your Bible now and rip off all of the Old Testament and throw it to the garbage bin. That is really your only chance, no matter how miniscule, to be able to make a case without suffering cognitive dissonances.

Unless you think that ripping with a sword your enemies pregnant women apart and dashing their kids to a wall, qualifies as love.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kemosloby]

Is that law in the 10 commandments? Or are you just raising another internal contradiction in the book?

My personal suggestion is that you take your Bible now and rip off all of the Old Testament and throw it to the garbage bin. That is really your only chance, no matter how miniscule, to be able to make a case without suffering cognitive dissonances.

Unless you think that ripping with a sword your enemies pregnant women apart and dashing their kids to a wall, qualifies as love.

Ciao

- viole

I believe the instruction was to dash their own disobedient children to a wall. It doesn't say anyone ever did it. Soloman was supposed to be a wise king, in the simliar wisdom of God. Soloman once ordered a child cut in two and distributed between two women both claiming ownership. They never cut the child in half.

God also destroyed Sodom and Gamorrah because they were wicked cities, destroyed them, pregnant women and all. God is love but also justice, righteousness, vengeance and creator of all authority etc etc.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How is slavery relevant to this thread?

Had enough?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't really recall any of Gods people putting other humans in chains as slaves.

Chains? Where did that come from?

This was the Bronze age? Did they have chains yet?

They didn't have a term for an employee, which is essentially a slave.

Are you an employer? I was. My employees were not slaves.

Some people sold themselves into servitude of another to pay off a debt, or other reasons.

Irrelevant. Some people were kidnapped, were considered property, were beaten, had their labor stolen from them, were stripped of basic human dignity, and had their families sold out from under them. Will you ever address any of that, or just keep deflecting to other things?

Anyway most things are symbolic of the coming kingdom where people are set free from the bondage of sin, and given rest from the slavery of this life....and all that.

The instructions on how to treat slaves are symbolic now?

Your religion and your defense of it are causing you take a position that you wouldn't otherwise, and one which diminishes the humanity of anybody holding it.

You simply refuse to countenance the fact that the Christian Bible condones slavery by describing how to do it right without calling it immoral, a major ethical faux pas for a god or even a decent modern man. Do you really want to play that part?

Perhaps you feel that your religion gives you no choice.

Do you feel free to call slavery immoral, or would that be blasphemy? I ask because like the god of the Bible, I haven't seen you do so yet. Is slavery immoral to you?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

God also destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because they were wicked cities, destroyed them, pregnant women and all. God is love but also justice, righteousness, vengeance and creator of all authority etc etc.

God is love? Vengeance is not love.

Nor is damnation. Nor is it turning the other cheek. Nor is it loving one another. Nor is it treating others as you would be treated.

How do you respond to this? :

"Love your enemies whilst I torture mine in the flames of hell for eternity" - Yahweh

 

[Kemosloby]

God is love? Vengeance is not love.

Nor is damnation. Nor is it turning the other cheek. Nor is it loving one another. Nor is it treating others as you would be treated.

How do you respond to this? :

"Love your enemies whilst I torture mine in the flames of hell for eternity" - Yahweh

He gave you a way out. God has it both ways, those who choose mercy can turn to Jesus, those who choose judgement can do something else.

God loved us while we were yet sinners.

Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

But for those who reject love, God is no tyrant and does not force anyone to be saved.

 

[Kemosloby]

Chains? Where did that come from?

This was the Bronze age? Did they have chains yet?



Are you an employer? I was. My employees were not slaves.



Irrelevant. Some people were kidnapped, were considered property, were beaten, had their labor stolen from them, were stripped of basic human dignity, and had their families sold out from under them. Will you ever address any of that, or just keep deflecting to other things?



The instructions on how to treat slaves are symbolic now?

Your religion and your defense of it are causing you take a position that you wouldn't otherwise, and one which diminishes the humanity of anybody holding it.

You simply refuse to countenance the fact that the Christian Bible condones slavery by describing how to do it right without calling it immoral, a major ethical faux pas for a god or even a decent modern man. Do you really want to play that part?

Perhaps you feel that your religion gives you no choice.

Do you feel free to call slavery immoral, or would that be blasphemy? I ask because like the god of the Bible, I haven't seen you do so yet. Is slavery immoral to you?

I suppose it's more to do with how your slaves are treated. A good master deserves respect.

Instructions to Servants
All who are under the yoke of slavery should regard their masters as fully worthy of honor, so that God’s name and our teaching will not be discredited. Those who have believing masters should not show disrespect because they are brothers, but should serve them all the more, since those receiving their good service are beloved believers. Teach and encourage these principles.…

 

[shmogie]

I am against the death penalty because I think it is wrong to kill people when you can incarcerate them. Is that really such a foreign concept?

Do not ignore the firstborns killed in Egypt according to the bible. Or the children that where surely present in Noah's day, Sodom, and Gomorrah according to the bible.

I find it appalling that you think it is okay to kill children.

The death penalty is superior to incarceration for the following reasons; 1. they cannot kill again, every year inmates and prison staff are killed in prisons by convicted murderers, there is no way to totally isolate them as they must have medical care, dental care, etc.. Further, cells they occupy must could be used for others in crowded prisons. 2. The cost of caring for a murderer for a lifetime must be much more expensive than just eliminating them. 3, most victim's families, for their healing in an unmitigated disaster for them, must feel more comfortable to know the murderer who killed their loved one has ceased to exist, rather than having ice cream on tuesday night and watching and enjoying tv. They have forfeited their right to live by destroying another, or more, as well as their families. God can forgive them, the civil law doesn't