Religious war is coming to America....

[Terrywoodenpic]

Just Muslims do this?

I think just about every single male on this planet thinks for some reason that he is in the position to dictate to a woman what he wants. Just about all of you think women are objects and property. And if a woman doesn't kowtow to the male aggenda she becomes a bwitch or shrew.

That is a very cynical view . Men as a gender probably deserve it, however it is not true.
I once thought that women should rule the world
However along came Margaret Thatcher ......
I now think a balance of each is best.....
The corruption of power effects women and men.

 

[jasonwill2]

It does not matter if some do and some do not. The religion justifies the practice and where the religion is also the state it is enforced by eticate police on the street. I have seen them drag a young women off the street because there was something minor wrong with her head gear. Where ever Islam is the dominate practice women are oppressed. The only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing about it.

Just like when the Christian Bible says that women should "remain silent" when in a Church....

...which is the verse that people told me for why women can't teach men, only children and other women on spiritual matters.

of course that's just one example... of many.

 

[Meow Mix]

I am not attempting to. Hitler used consistent evolutionary principles contained in On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. to justify racism. That is confirmed by the statement Dawkin's made that In evolution it can't really be stated whether what he did was in fact actually wrong. If Stalin had a belief in the sanctity of life that his atheism could not produce then he might have thought twice. Their actions are consistent with or at least nothing in their beliefs can be found to contradict their actions. Nature is red in tooth and claw.

When people jump right into numbered lists it seems condescending and snappy to me sometimes, so this is a sentence to preface a numbered list to avoid that appearance!

1) Evolutionary mechanisms aren't "principles" which can be "used" as some sort of worldview. Evolution, in general, is just a process involving changing frequencies of alleles in populations.

I don't understand your statement any more than I would understand it if someone said, "Newton used the principles of his theory of universal gravitation to justify shaking apples out of trees which weren't his -- so there must be something morally lacking about the theory of universal graviation!"

Now, that's not to say that I'm naïve about where you could be coming from; or that I'm new to this particular debate. I'm merely pointing out that processes/mechanisms aren't worldviews -- and that anyone who attempts to twist evolutionary mechanisms into a justification for genocide simply doesn't understand evolutionary mechanisms.

As for Dawkins, I'm not a huge fan of his forays into metaphysics (he's a bit sophomoric, though granted, his target audience were laypersons) -- he should stay in biology, where he is very knowledgeable and keen. If you considered his quote to be significant though, I'd like to see the direct quote to get an understanding of what Dawkins might have been talking about.

2) Atheism, again, isn't a worldview any more than bald is a hair color; asserting that the notion of being unconvinced by some position (in this case, theism) is in itself a worldview is sort of like calling not-playing-the-lottery a "lifestyle."

For instance, consider for the sake of argument that perhaps there may be extraterrestrial life elsewhere in the universe (and let's ignore the Drake Equation and Fermi Paradox for brevity).

Consider Erin (moi), who as a cosmology student is aware of the vast potential elsewhere in the cosmos; yet who is also aware of the staggering odds against the formation of life. Then consider that Erin neither affirms the proposition, "Extraterrestrial life exists" nor its negation, "Extraterrestrial life doesn't exist" -- is Erin's lack of commitment to the positive proposition and its negation constitute a worldview?

Or is it the case that all that can be said about Erin, knowing this, is that she's skeptical concerning extraterrestrial life, and nothing more could be deduced reliably without further information?

Atheists do have worldviews -- it's just important to recognize that skepticism qua atheism is not a worldview in itself.

3) Atheists don't have any problem valuing the sanctity of life, nor do theists enjoy a metaphysical foundation for cherishing life with superior justification to atheists.

You hypothetically muse that perhaps Stalin might have stayed his hand if his worldview could "produce" a notion of sanctity of life (I interpret this to mean justify acting on the notion, correct me if I'm wrong). I agree with you -- if he had a different worldview, then perhaps he would have stayed his hand!

However, I don't think theism or atheism have much to do with it. There are worldviews held by some atheists which appear to trivilialize life (e.g. extreme nihilism); but that's not any different from worldviews held by some theists which also trivialize life (dystheism, *edited out an insensitive, unthinking example which was baseless*).

If Stalin were a humanist then I doubt anyone would have died or suffered if he could have helped it -- but his worldview had a less altruistic agenda; and people paid for it dearly.

If you kept reading this injuction was only for the Jews and only for a specific time. It was meant to make their example unique in the world to heighten the impact of Christ when he came. It also says that both parents must consent, it also adds that even then the issue must be taken to a priest. Only if all three agree was this done. It is easy to see that only the most desparate cases would have been folllowed through with. Considering that the stakes are millions of future souls saved or lost by Israel's actions it is not unreasonable. Either way it is no general injuction.

Perhaps that should tell me not to stick my nose where I'm mainly ignorant, or I'll get burned

I find the notion unpalatable, but fair enough -- I won't fallaciously engage in an argument against adverse consequences. I'll concede concerning the New Testament and violence.

The Jews were fiercly inclusive. They had long ago quit straying away from their religion. They did not adopt outside influences under any circumstances by this time. In fact they were so fiercly resistant that they killed Jesus because they mistakenly thought he was bringing something new. There is no evidence that any outside influence had any effect on Christianity. They especially resented Roman and resisted everything Roman. By the way there are no general injunctions to violence in the old testament either.

I wasn't arguing explicitly about external influences such as to say something like "Christianity stole its mythology from Mithraism!" (as I have seen argued; and then refuted). Really, it was almost a comment to myself; as the idea is from a perspective I doubt you'll agree with: I was noting that it was interesting how religions seem to turn out depending on the situation and the interests of the culture they spring out of at the time.

If you will look up progressive revelation you will understand hopefully. Just the same as a child has different rules as he grows so too mankind.

I vaguely grasp the general idea, but I'm afraid I don't understand it -- by that I don't mean that I don't understand what it's supposed to be, but rather that I don't understand why an omnipotent and omniscient being would use a means to an end.

Do you think that my admission that it happened and sober explenations are gymnastics?

Ha ha, which one of us is the girl again? You sound like the peeved girlfriend who incredulously retorts, "Did you just call me fat?!"

Just kidding! You're a wonderful debater, I wasn't accusing you of sophistry.

I will provide it but I need an area. How about general violence on unbelievers?

Sure! Anything you have some knowledge on. Hopefully some of our Muslim friends will chime in on it as well so I can maybe get both perspectives.

I've seen a few brow-raising lines in the Quran, for sure, but those were mostly outrageous due to inherent inequality between the sexes -- haven't really looked at any verses supposedly commanding violence in general.

Do you believe that anything qualifies as a bowling ball? Of course not. A tree is not a bowling ball. Some things are bowling balls and some things are not. This is no fallacy. It does have an application but not in Christianity.

Fair enough; but this implies an exhaustively defined line between x and ¬x; and I'm not sure that you would be able to elucidate that distinction without resolving Euthyphro's Dilemma.

So there has never been a suffecient reason to destroy a culture? If you can prove that then I will entertain your fallacy.

I didn't say that (boy am I glad Nazis are gone!) -- I was more making the epistemic argument that a claim like this:

i) Genocide is malevolent
ii) x commands genocide
iii) x is not malevolent because of x's ineffable nature

...doesn't work. The argument can't be presented, it's just a fallacy, even if it might seem prima facie explanatory -- it's really not. There's a paper written by an interesting guy named Mark Vuletic about invoking the special pleading fallacy when it comes to God and especially as God relates to goodness that I'd love for you (and anyone) to read if you have the time: this is the link.

The Cliff's Notes version: consider that no matter what suffering God causes or commands (or allows), Tom always relies on special pleading to rescue his notion that God is good: "Normally x is bad, God did x, but God is good, therefore God doing x isn't bad even if it normally is." Bill always responds, "But how, if x is normally bad, is God still good for doing it?"

Tom says, "Because God is so inconceivably great! For instance, God might have knowledge that we don't have when we're evaluating the badness of x, such that if we did have God's infinite knowledge, we would see how God doing x was in fact good." (This is the special pleading fallacy)

Now, skip ahead to Tom's death. He's standing in front of God's throne, and say that God just gets up and starts beating the living (er, un-living?) snot out of him. "It's ok," he reasons, "God is good by definition, and is so ineffable that my mind can't process just exactly how beating me is good, but I have faith that it's in fact good for God to do so."

Can you see how literally nothing can change Tom's mind once he has started adopting the fallacy of special pleading?

(Continued...)

 

[Meow Mix]

(Continued...)

Suppose that God continues to beat Tom every day for the rest of eternity. Since special pleading is fallacious -- i.e., ultimately stems from ignoratio elenchi (ignorance of argument), which is ultimately to lack justification for one's belief -- Tom will always be able to "rescue" the notion that God is good, no matter what God actually does (and no matter whether it is actually good), because he has found it acceptable for whatever reason to utilize a logical fallacy instead of reason in order to deal with an apparent contradiction between God and goodness.

If you can prove you have sufffecient knowledge to prove God's actions wrong then please do so. I am sure Saul thought something along these lines when he refused to kill Hamen. Turns out as usuall he was wrong and God was right. Is it a fallacy to leave people alive who torture children as the Cannanites did. What about the Aztecs that cut more that 30,000 hearts out of victums each year while alive for their false God's. My theological clarity (or in this case Cortez's) allows me to act where your philosophy causes you to debate as thousands die. You can debate Hitler and discuss fallacies I will terminate his actions. That is why God and objective standards are appealed to when it really matters.

Don't fret, I'd be there with you (at least insofar as a lanky girl can "be there" in such a scenario) stopping the sacrifices and Hitler. That is quite a different issue, though, from engaging in genocide (or even a single murder of someone innocent, such as a baby).

The bible is the most textually attested book in ancient history. There is more textual evidence for Christ than any other figure of antiquity. Simon Greenleaf the greatest expert in evidence presentation in human history said the Gospels meets every standard of modern law. I wouldn't challenge me on this if I were you.

I don't doubt the existence of Jesus, I find no reason to doubt the man never existed. I'm just not convinced of all the extraordinary claims.

A difference about the wafer or music in church does not allow anyone to mistake though shall not murder for go kill everybody. There is no connection here but I do admit many third and fourth tier issues are disputed. I do not see how the most cherished and contended book in human history that deals with the most profound subjects human face would ever be perfectly agreed on, however that does not mean the crusades are God's fault.

It was just a trivial example, as I said. By way of analogy I was implying that perhaps there is a larger scope of interpretive dissonance, though I don't have a specific verse or chapter I'm thinking of -- it's a hypothetical question.

They have no basis what so ever outside of God. The bast you can get is preference and opinion. Wrong and right have no actually meaning.

Well, I'd love to discuss ethics with you in fact -- but before a lot of it will make sense, we must first settle Euthyphro's Dilemma so that we start from a good foundation. I know you only haven't responded to that portion because you had to run, but this is I think the most relevant part if you don't want to bother having to wade back through posts looking for where this chord of the argument left off:

Ok, that's more sensible if you're just speaking to the universally binding aspect of God's commands rather than their objectivity -- but that also denies their transcendence. Keep that in mind when making claims that they're transcendental, as that has a specific meaning that you deny when you speak only to God's commands being binding rather than objective.

Also, I'd like to point out that now you're only essentially saying "might makes right," if all we're concerned with is that God can make commands and back them up rather than explicitly discussing whether the commands have a je ne sais quoi which makes them good. See the issue there?

After all, God could command that we rape and pillage; and it would be "absolutely binding," would it not? But would we call that "good?" In essence, you haven't answered the objection. You've pointed out perhaps that if God makes His wishes known that we had better pay attention, but you have yet to speak to the actual goodness -- and this particular part of the debate is about exactly that: the foundation of morality, of goodness. You must abandon the notion that you have a transcendental foundation for morality that atheists lack unless you attest to the goodness, not the power behind a command.

Otherwise there's just a guy with a big stick and you happen to be on his side. That isn't necessarily good. Recall your Hitler example.

The difference is that Christians have an absolutely suffecient justification for their actions. Atheist can do them they just can't suffeciently justify any actual meaning to them. Why without God is sympathy good? Or I should say prove it is actually good without God. I am gone, for a few hours. Shalom

Sympathy is good for the same reason if there is a God as if there is not a God. We really need to cover more ground on the Euthyphro's Dilemma segment before you can really start understanding secular ethics -- why your objections don't work as you're intending them (or at all, really), and how your claims that theism has a superior moral position are in fact incoherent.

 

[jasonwill2]

However, I don't think theism or atheism have much to do with it. There are worldviews held by some atheists which appear to trivilialize life (e.g. extreme nihilism); but that's not any different from worldviews held by some theists which also trivialize life (dystheism, or violent theistic Satanism perhaps).

Ya... you just HAD TO MENTION Satanism to a Baptist... name such a violent group that's actually one anything or this is moot.

Your only feeding the views that my religion is murderous.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

For starters, it's NOT Muslims, but a small group of extremist that are hardly any different than other religious terrorist groups such as IRA. And what you are accusing Muslims of is the exact thing that America done in Iraq.

And we think we are in America that we are somehow sheilded from that, buddy you better take your head out of the sand, to the zealots who want to make America a muslim state, america is just another place in the annuls of history, they have done this before...

As with Spain, Denmark, and so on. It is believed by those extremist that once a place is under Islam control it must remain so. But again we are talking about a very small minority. They can do some damage, as it has been demonstrated time and time again, but the probability of them successfully taking over America is far less than the threat of the Religious Right taking over. And honestly, where do you see any looming Muslim influence? Last I checked anyone who looks Middle Eastern or wears a turbin or other head dress that may appear to be similar to something a Muslim would wear gets people treated very poorly. Even those on the far-right do whatever they can to make such people feel unwelcome here.

Dont look now isnt our president a muslim....

Then why would he have went to a Christian church, state many times he is a Christian, discuss his thoughts from his Christian religious perspective, etc., etc.

A word of advice and wisdom for you: Often times the greatest threat does not come from the outside, but it comes from within. And indeed if you are worried about a religious group taking over, look no further than the far-right nutcases that do have power, money, and influence here, right now, that are trying day after day to promote there interpretation of the Bible as law. You mentioned homosexual rights, but the Religious Right has spent millions to fight, and even overturn, such rights.

 

[Meow Mix]

Ya... you just HAD TO MENTION Satanism to a Baptist... name such a violent group that's actually one anything or this is moot.

Your only feeding the views that my religion is murderous.

I retract the example, I was tired and it was early and I was just going for the easiest, most cliche example. I'm really embarrassed about that, I'll edit the original post :foot:

 

[1robin]

Just like when the Christian Bible says that women should "remain silent" when in a Church....

...which is the verse that people told me for why women can't teach men, only children and other women on spiritual matters.

of course that's just one example... of many.

It is hardly a meaningfull comparison to equate a letter to a single Church that was having a problem with dissruptions in it's congregation with that of dragging a young lady off the street by force because her head cloth wasn't perfect. Or the claims in the Quran that say women are stupider than men, as well as giving Muslim men permission to beat their wives. Nice appeal to the obsurd. Comparing to unequal things as though they are equivalent has no explanitory value.

 

[1robin]

When people jump right into numbered lists it seems condescending and snappy to me sometimes, so this is a sentence to preface a numbered list to avoid that appearance!

You find numbered lists offensive. That is a new one. Let me say that besides that strange statement you are truly a breath of fresh air. I disagree with most of your points but they are well reasoned and you have a competance and civility that is absent in many people who challenge the Bible.

1) Evolutionary mechanisms aren't "principles" which can be "used" as some sort of worldview. Evolution, in general, is just a process involving changing frequencies of alleles in populations.

Evolution in the absence of God is something claimed by many professional evolutionist debaters to have produced morals. I disagree but it definately has moral implications. For example without God the sanctity of life, the equality of man, and our rights have no justification. Things like racism and population control are perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory.

I don't understand your statement any more than I would understand it if someone said, "Newton used the principles of his theory of universal gravitation to justify shaking apples out of trees which weren't his -- so there must be something morally lacking about the theory of universal graviation!"

Humans alwasy seek a higher or possibly objective standards to base morals on. Without God evolution as can be seen by Hitler's statements becomes the only alternative. For example racism is evident in evolution and so justifies it's practice. Tribalism as well.

As for Dawkins, I'm not a huge fan of his forays into metaphysics (he's a bit sophomoric, though granted, his target audience were laypersons) -- he should stay in biology, where he is very knowledgeable and keen. If you considered his quote to be significant though, I'd like to see the direct quote to get an understanding of what Dawkins might have been talking about.

You said it, they should lock him in the lab.
Richard Dawkins said in an interview, "What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question..."

Richard Dawkins - Conservapedia

2) Atheism, again, isn't a worldview any more than bald is a hair color; asserting that the notion of being unconvinced by some position (in this case, theism) is in itself a worldview is sort of like calling not-playing-the-lottery a "lifestyle."

Atheism means the absence of belief in God. In other words it rejects the only system that can justify morality in any absolute sence.

For instance, consider for the sake of argument that perhaps there may be extraterrestrial life elsewhere in the universe (and let's ignore the Drake Equation and Fermi Paradox for brevity).



3) Atheists don't have any problem valuing the sanctity of life, nor do theists enjoy a metaphysical foundation for cherishing life with superior justification to atheists.

Yes they can have any view they wish they just reject the only justification for them. This becomes very meaningfull in many areas.

You hypothetically muse that perhaps Stalin might have stayed his hand if his worldview could "produce" a notion of sanctity of life (I interpret this to mean justify acting on the notion, correct me if I'm wrong). I agree with you -- if he had a different worldview, then perhaps he would have stayed his hand!

The same may be said for many actions.
Dostoevsky himself wrote the sentence "If God does not exist, everything is lawful."
Dostoevsky meant by that, that it is impossible to have a moral system without God

However, I don't think theism or atheism have much to do with it. There are worldviews held by some atheists which appear to trivilialize life (e.g. extreme nihilism); but that's not any different from worldviews held by some theists which also trivialize life (dystheism, *edited out an insensitive, unthinking example which was baseless*).

The rejection of the only possible moral foundation is about as meaningfull as it gets.

If Stalin were a humanist then I doubt anyone would have died or suffered if he could have helped it -- but his worldview had a less altruistic agenda; and people paid for it dearly.

Correct, humanists have a different set of negative implications.

Perhaps that should tell me not to stick my nose where I'm mainly ignorant, or I'll get burned

Experience is that which is gained a second later than it was needed.

I find the notion unpalatable, but fair enough -- I won't fallaciously engage in an argument against adverse consequences. I'll concede concerning the New Testament and violence.

Experience is that which gives the test before the lesson. Actually risking being mistaken is often how we learn. I appreciate your humility.

I wasn't arguing explicitly about external influences such as to say something like "Christianity stole its mythology from Mithraism!" (as I have seen argued; and then refuted). Really, it was almost a comment to myself; as the idea is from a perspective I doubt you'll agree with: I was noting that it was interesting how religions seem to turn out depending on the situation and the interests of the culture they spring out of at the time.

Parralelism is what you were insinuating I think. You can watch a debate by Dr James White on it if you wish to see why it is not the case. Also as most religions are concerned with the same issues then they are bound to have similarities.

I vaguely grasp the general idea, but I'm afraid I don't understand it -- by that I don't mean that I don't understand what it's supposed to be, but rather that I don't understand why an omnipotent and omniscient being would use a means to an end.

A finite mind will never fully comprehend an infinate one. The bible says God's ways are not our ways.

Ha ha, which one of us is the girl again? You sound like the peeved girlfriend who incredulously retorts, "Did you just call me fat?!"

Was I misstaken to assume an insinuation posted to me did not apply to me?

Just kidding! You're a wonderful debater, I wasn't accusing you of sophistry

You have quite the vocabulary.

Sure! Anything you have some knowledge on. Hopefully some of our Muslim friends will chime in on it as well so I can maybe get both perspectives

Sura (48:29) - Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves
Sura (8:12) - I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them
Sura (9:123) - O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness
TheReligionofPeace - CAIR's Hate Speech
I could keep going for days. Let the chimeing begin.

I've seen a few brow-raising lines in the Quran, for sure, but those were mostly outrageous due to inherent inequality between the sexes -- haven't really looked at any verses supposedly commanding violence in general.

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.
The Quran's Verses of Violence

Fair enough; but this implies an exhaustively defined line between x and ¬x; and I'm not sure that you would be able to elucidate that distinction without resolving Euthyphro's Dilemma.

Read John's verses where Jesus told Nicodemus how to become a Christian. It is very clear.

i) Genocide is malevolent
ii) x commands genocide
iii) x is not malevolent because of x's ineffable nature

I did not claim that the battles God ordered were justified because he ordered them. I said we have very little way to meaningfully evaluate that. I did however point out that the Cannanites and the another "ites" (i Can't remember the prefix) are known to have been a dispicable culture and practiced child sacrifice among other things that would argue in God's favor. As can be seen in the OT God condemns the Hebrew's for fighting unjustified wars. So there is nothing actually known that implies God acted unjustifiably and what little we do know suggests he did.

(Continued...)

Ditto

 

[jasonwill2]

-conservapedia link-

You have forever lost all credibility in my eyes. Conservapedia is run by only one guy who is serious and all the top admins of his are pretty much undercover parodists. The site is a joke and obviously biased and stuck in Poe's law of sometimes being parodied and sometimes being serious. Virtually every major conservative figure condemns the site.

 

[1robin]

You have forever lost all credibility in my eyes. Conservapedia is run by only one guy who is serious and all the top admins of his are pretty much undercover parodists. The site is a joke and obviously biased and stuck in Poe's law of sometimes being parodied and sometimes being serious. Virtually every major conservative figure condemns the site.

I wasn't debating web sites, it just happened to be the first I saw. I always find that whenever a critic meets something he can't argue against then insinuations of bias, appeals to sympathy, hair splitting, double standards, semantics, and equating unequal things in an appeal to the obsurd are what is substitute for an argument that could not be made.


What's to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn't right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question.
Atheist Quotes / Atheism Quotes - Richard Dawkins Quotes | True Freethinker

Well, one thing is certain, he has nothing more to say. As far as atheism goes, this is just about the very best explanation he could give—which is not saying much, as you can see. He is also seconding Richard Dawkins who stated, “What's to prevent us from saying Adolf Hitler wasn't right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question” (see Richard Dawkins: The Atheist Evangelist), the term speak of yourself readily comes to mind.
Why was Adolf Hitler wrong? - National Worldview and Science | Examiner.com

Athiest Richard Dawkins on Hitler
Sat Jan 21 2012 14:54
When asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren't right?", Dawkins replied, "What's to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn't right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question, but whatever [defines morality], it's not the Bible. If it was, we'd be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath."The interviewer wrote in response, "I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own philosophical position did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments. His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point."
" + artTitle.replace("-","") + " - " + "Daily Nebraskan" + " - " + "Opinion" + "

“”The interviewer noticed this, and when prompted to respond Dawkins replied “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right?”.
“Liar, liar, pants on fire”? Ten Tough Questions for Professor Dawkins. | Uncommon Descent

I can post these faster than you can arbirarily dismiss the sites because they are inconvenient. What a copout? I don't deny the genocide in the Ot why can't you accept this well known statement? I have the courage of my convictions.

 

[1robin]

(Continued...)

Suppose that God continues to beat Tom every day for the rest of eternity. Since special pleading is fallacious -- i.e., ultimately stems from ignoratio elenchi (ignorance of argument), which is ultimately to lack justification for one's belief -- Tom will always be able to "rescue" the notion that God is good, no matter what God actually does (and no matter whether it is actually good), because he has found it acceptable for whatever reason to utilize a logical fallacy instead of reason in order to deal with an apparent contradiction between God and goodness.

I do not think Tom nor anyone else in this situation would act the way you describe it. I was in the military and was trained in interrogation and know what these actions cause a men to think. I personally get mad at him when far less happens than what you describe above. I am thankfull he can handle it. Again I say that there is precious little by which to determine whether God's actions in the OT were justified. What little there is, is all on the side of his being justified. I give God the benefit of the doubt when his complete self revelation is considered.

Don't fret, I'd be there with you (at least insofar as a lanky girl can "be there" in such a scenario) stopping the sacrifices and Hitler. That is quite a different issue, though, from engaging in genocide (or even a single murder of someone innocent, such as a baby).

You may have been, any atheist or evolutionist may have been. What you can't do is justify in any real sence why you are there. How can anyone without God justify a million wives loosing their husbands to stop someone from killing some other strangers. That takes God and so that is what was appealed to, to justify what needed doing. You philisophical types must abandon your philiosophy to act. If you acted consistent with it you would not act. That is not an insult I love philosophy, I just have a governing dynamic that superceeds it and allows action.

I don't doubt the existence of Jesus, I find no reason to doubt the man never existed. I'm just not convinced of all the extraordinary claims.

To say the rest of the claims are unreliable means that the people who wrote of them would have known they were false but chose to risk death and some even died to spread that message, it also means they spent their entire lives suffering for a cause they knew was false, There was no reward that justified the cost they paid to spread what they knew would have been a lie. A case can be made but not supported for wish fullfilment. Why then would they invent a Hell that no one wishes for? Why in a book that made false predictions would it's own authors who knew this demand that it's prophecies be 100% accurate or they are not from God? Why would they have invented a story that made themselves look so pathetic and cowardly? Why would men who invented an idea of spiritual birth have suggested that only by having this experience would we ever see Heaven? These are things that should have destroyed Christianity in the cradle if they were false. As it is billions would testify to having this experience. There are thousands of those reasons.

It was just a trivial example, as I said. By way of analogy I was implying that perhaps there is a larger scope of interpretive dissonance, though I don't have a specific verse or chapter I'm thinking of -- it's a hypothetical question.

I usually only debate specifics. Many things that sound theoretically right are shown false when actually applied.

Well, I'd love to discuss ethics with you in fact -- but before a lot of it will make sense, we must first settle Euthyphro's Dilemma so that we start from a good foundation. I know you only haven't responded to that portion because you had to run, but this is I think the most relevant part if you don't want to bother having to wade back through posts looking for where this chord of the argument left off

Euthyphro's argument is antecdotal. The exact same situation exists and the same effect is in place from our perspective regardless of which dynamic is chosen. It is a question who's answer has no relevance to our daily lives. It makes good dinner conversation at a Berkley alumni dinner but if we will all stand before God one day and are accountable it will not suffice to debate the issue with God. Either way the delimma is academic.

Sympathy is good for the same reason if there is a God as if there is not a God. We really need to cover more ground on the Euthyphro's Dilemma segment before you can really start understanding secular ethics -- why your objections don't work as you're intending them (or at all, really), and how your claims that theism has a superior moral position are in fact incoherent.

This is inaccurate. If there is a God who values human well being, has assigned value and worth to man, and has instructed us to help one another then sympathy is firmly rooted in his sovereignty. If he does not exist there is no way to justify why I should suffer so that another may gain. There is no way to even say that suffering or gain has any actuall value beyond arbitrary preference.

 

[crocusj]

You may have been, any atheist or evolutionist may have been. What you can't do is justify in any real sence why you are there. How can anyone without God justify a million wives loosing their husbands to stop someone from killing some other strangers. That takes God and so that is what was appealed to, to justify what needed doing. You philisophical types must abandon your philiosophy to act. If you acted consistent with it you would not act. That is not an insult I love philosophy, I just have a governing dynamic that superceeds it and allows action.

This is - easily - the scariest statement I have yet read on RF.

 

[1robin]

This is - easily - the scariest statement I have yet read on RF.

I am glad. Life including morality without God is scary indeed. My statements are very well understood issues that even most atheist and evolutionary debaters admit to some extent. If you will pick a specific statement we can discuss it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Evolution in the absence of God is something claimed by many professional evolutionist debaters to have produced morals. I disagree but it definately has moral implications. For example without God the sanctity of life, the equality of man, and our rights have no justification. Things like racism and population control are perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory.

What is a professional evolutionist? Last I checked no one got paid for evolving. And why call someone an "evolutionist?" We don't call people "gravitist" because they "believe" in gravity.
And your personal believes have nothing to do with it. There have been some Christians that have been monsters, and plenty of non-theists that are more Christ-like than many Christians are.

It is hardly a meaningfull comparison to equate a letter to a single Church that was having a problem with dissruptions in it's congregation with that of dragging a young lady off the street by force because her head cloth wasn't perfect. Or the claims in the Quran that say women are stupider than men, as well as giving Muslim men permission to beat their wives. Nice appeal to the obsurd. Comparing to unequal things as though they are equivalent has no explanitory value.

Actually the Church does not have a very good record when it comes to equality of the sexes. The Quakers were alittle ahead of most, but even today many churches still view women as inferior.

Humans alwasy seek a higher or possibly objective standards to base morals on. Without God evolution as can be seen by Hitler's statements becomes the only alternative. For example racism is evident in evolution and so justifies it's practice. Tribalism as well.

Not everyone does. There are some people, like me, who are amoral because they realize that morals are subjective, and if you aren't causing harm to anyone then you do not need to justify your actions or base them on anything other than treating others with mutual respect. And were is racism to be found in evolution? After all we are all descended from Africans, and genetically we all have the potential to be very dark skinned.
As for Hitler, he very frequently stated his actions were for God, and for a Christian Germany.

Atheism means the absence of belief in God. In other words it rejects the only system that can justify morality in any absolute sence.

Morals are only what you think they are. To the Amish you are very immoral because you are using a computer. And you do not need God or religion to be a good person. You don't need a book to tell you not to steal, hurt others, kill, wasteful, etc.
So just where is it you get that you have to have religion and God to be moral? After all I know plenty of Christians that lie, cheat, steal, and hurt others for more often than I do, and I'm a follower of the Left Handed Path.

Correct, humanists have a different set of negative implications.

So what are these negative implications?

Experience is that which gives the test before the lesson. Actually risking being mistaken is often how we learn. I appreciate your humility.

Sometimes, and mistakes are definitely a learning opportunity. But you don't have to make them or set yourself up to make them to learn. My own views are to accept you will make them, but strive to avoid them.

A finite mind will never fully comprehend an infinate one. The bible says God's ways are not our ways.

The first part even Einstein, who was an Agnostic Pantheist (or many Panentheist, his views seemed vague at times), was an Agnostic because he realized our minds and senses are too few and too limited to fully comprehend all of reality. And he abhorred organized religion.
The second part I see as a cop out used by someone who needs to excuse their own malevolency, such as destroying two cities, killing almost everyone on this planet, allowing the torture of your own followers, demanding infants be ripped from the wombs of their mothers, and so on.

Sura (48:29) - Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves
Sura (8:12) - I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them
Sura (9:123) - O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness
TheReligionofPeace - CAIR's Hate Speech
I could keep going for days. Let the chimeing begin.

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)
I too can go on for days.

wasn't debating web sites, it just happened to be the first I saw. I always find that whenever a critic meets something he can't argue against then insinuations of bias, appeals to sympathy, hair splitting, double standards, semantics, and equating unequal things in an appeal to the obsurd are what is substitute for an argument that could not be made.

Conservapedia is a terrible source, as the guy who runs believes the Bible today ascribes too much of a Liberal-bias on Jesus. Personally I doubt Jesus would have aligned himself with any political ideologies, but he did preach social justice and equality and he spoke of peace rather than war, which today in America are usually associated with Liberals.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What's to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn't right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question.
Atheist Quotes / Atheism Quotes - Richard Dawkins Quotes | True Freethinker

He was a genocidal lunatic that advocating the butchering, torture, mad scientist-like medical experiments, and he created a wide awake nightmare for millions. I don't see how anyone could even fancy the idea that he wasn't wrong. As for Dawkins, there are plenty of people out there that sorely wishes he would stick to biology as he often makes an *** of himself when he talks about religion.

What you can't do is justify in any real sence why you are there. How can anyone without God justify a million wives loosing their husbands to stop someone from killing some other strangers.

The justification for some people is the want good Karma, some people want to be a good person, and some people just want to live their lives in peace. I fall into the later, and while some things about my life some people would find immoral, at the end of the day I can say that I have not lashed out at anyone who didn't deserve, and often times not even at those who did because by doing so is to make something that may have started off as a small and insignificant incident into something quite ugly.
And when you look at the broad picture, most religions and people that are considered great teachers (such as the Buddha or Gandhi) teach "love thy neighbor" in some way or another.

To say the rest of the claims are unreliable means that the people who wrote of them would have known they were false but chose to risk death and some even died to spread that message, it also means they spent their entire lives suffering for a cause they knew was false,

Often times people do not like to be wrong, and will go through what can be incredible lengths to demonstrate they are right. It has nothing to do with if the person is actually right or wrong, but a basic psychological principle is that people tend to find anything they can to justify their actions or thoughts to feel good about them and their selves. I wish I could find a link for this letter that was wrote by a higher ranking Nazi official, who was writting of how difficult it was to kill Jews as they were being sorted, and how it became easier as he kept telling himself he was doing it to serve his country and protect his family from what he had been lead to believe was a major threat. He wrote of how his hand was very shaky at first, but after he told himself it was for the greater good enough times, he wrote that his aim became steady. It's actually very enlightening when you see it from that angle.

f there is a God who values human well being, has assigned value and worth to man, and has instructed us to help one another then sympathy is firmly rooted in his sovereignty. If he does not exist there is no way to justify why I should suffer so that another may gain. There is no way to even say that suffering or gain has any actuall value beyond arbitrary preference.

When I see just how much suffering their is in the world, that scores of people die every day from starvation, that children are panning through mercury to find slivers of gold to help feed their families, that people are horribly repressed and treated with great indignity and inhumanly, that Western civilization has brought great suffering and dire poverty to many people, I do not see any indications that there is a god that intervenes with worldly affairs. Even Mother Theresa doubted after she had been exposed to the very grim reality that is the existence of many people.
But why should the default approach to dealing with others be that of a cold heart just because you do not believe in god? Why is it there cannot be any justification for being a good person because you do not believe in god? I do not believe in god, yet I do not look down upon others. I see all humans as equals, and when one person has good fortune it can potentially benefit the entire community.

 

[1robin]

What is a professional evolutionist? Last I checked no one got paid for evolving. And why call someone an "evolutionist?" We don't call people "gravitist" because they "believe" in gravity.

I do not care about gravity. Chellists play the Chello, scientists do science, physicists do physics. There are evolutionary biologists and evolutionary geneticists. Who cares anyway it was a descriptive term not a title and that has nothing to do with the issue. I guess semantics and hairsplitting is all that is left.

And your personal believes have nothing to do with it. There have been some Christians that have been monsters, and plenty of non-theists that are more Christ-like than many Christians are.

I think you missed the point as this is not related.

Actually the Church does not have a very good record when it comes to equality of the sexes. The Quakers were alittle ahead of most, but even today many churches still view women as inferior.

I have never in 42 years of being around churches, Christians, and researching religion ever heard a single Christian doctrine that is oppresive to women. Once again whatever a man decides to do in contradiction to the Bible (which is the only suffecient basis for eqaulity) has nothing to do with the Bible or God.

Not everyone does. There are some people, like me, who are amoral because they realize that morals are subjective, and if you aren't causing harm to anyone then you do not need to justify your actions or base them on anything other than treating others with mutual respect. And were is racism to be found in evolution? After all we are all descended from Africans, and genetically we all have the potential to be very dark skinned.
As for Hitler, he very frequently stated his actions were for God, and for a Christian Germany.

How is it that you do not see racism in the book titled: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

Some political commentaries, including Walter Bagehot's Physics and Politics (1872), attempted to extend the idea of natural selection to competition between nations and between human races. Such ideas were incorporated into what was already an ongoing effort by some working in anthropology to provide scientific evidence for the superiority of Caucasians over non white races and justify European imperialism.
On the Origin of Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Many others including Hitler saw it.

Morals are only what you think they are. To the Amish you are very immoral because you are using a computer. And you do not need God or religion to be a good person. You don't need a book to tell you not to steal, hurt others, kill, wasteful, etc.
So just where is it you get that you have to have religion and God to be moral? After all I know plenty of Christians that lie, cheat, steal, and hurt others for more often than I do, and I'm a follower of the Left Handed Path.

Once in a debate a famous evolutionary atheist was asked how he determined what was right and wrong. He arrogantly relied "feelings" what else. The Christian then said in some cultures people love their neibors, and in some they eat them based on feelings do you have a preference? The place erupted with laughter. Explain how all your bad things above can be shown to actually be wrong in a more substantial way than arbitrary preference.

So what are these negative implications?

For one thing strictly within Humanism the sanctity of life, the equality of man, and our inherent rights have no foundation beyond preference.

Sometimes, and mistakes are definitely a learning opportunity. But you don't have to make them or set yourself up to make them to learn. My own views are to accept you will make them, but strive to avoid them.

Fine, my point was that most learning comes through mistakes so they are not as shamefull as many think.

The first part even Einstein, who was an Agnostic Pantheist (or many Panentheist, his views seemed vague at times), was an Agnostic because he realized our minds and senses are too few and too limited to fully comprehend all of reality. And he abhorred organized religion.

It is not quite as bad you describe:
1. I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.
2. Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.
Einstein
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/

The second part I see as a cop out used by someone who needs to excuse their own malevolency, such as destroying two cities, killing almost everyone on this planet, allowing the torture of your own followers, demanding infants be ripped from the wombs of their mothers, and so on.

If you can show that you even have 1% of the total knowledge necessary to evaluate what God did in history then I will entertain these claims. He did exactly what we do in our court systems every day. He is just perfect about it. The Bible's specific and temporary instances of God's judgement are exactly what you would expect from an absolute just and loving God. We at times farce him to reluctantly judge us. This is not Islam's issue. Their verses give a blanket and open ended license for violence.

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

If you wish to debate God's judgement that is fine but it is a long and complex issue and would have to be seperate from all this other stuff. I can easily see you do not have the knowledge level concerning this issue to allow for a quick debate.

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

See above there are very good reasons for this that you do not seem to have any knowledge of.

If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)
I too can go on for days.

Why make incomplete claims devoid of context and the over all Biblical narrative? As I said I can show that you do not understand what is going on here but it takes a long time.

Conservapedia is a terrible source, as the guy who runs believes the Bible today ascribes too much of a Liberal-bias on Jesus. Personally I doubt Jesus would have aligned himself with any political ideologies, but he did preach social justice and equality and he spoke of peace rather than war, which today in America are usually associated with Liberals.

I do not care about the site it may be run by Satan for all I know. The quote which Dawkins did say is the issue. We are not debating web sites.

 

[1robin]

He was a genocidal lunatic that advocating the butchering, torture, mad scientist-like medical experiments, and he created a wide awake nightmare for millions. I don't see how anyone could even fancy the idea that he wasn't wrong. As for Dawkins, there are plenty of people out there that sorely wishes he would stick to biology as he often makes an *** of himself when he talks about religon.

I agree they should lock Dawkins in the lab. However his statement is accurate. There is no way without God to prove the things he did were actually wrong. You are free to try but I can tell you that even the professional debaters can't do it. I will make it easy, tell me without an appeal to the transcendant how you prove that the actions of a man who killed every other human on earth are actually wrong.

The justification for some people is the want good Karma, some people want to be a good person, and some people just want to live their lives in peace. I fall into the later, and while some things about my life some people would find immoral, at the end of the day I can say that I have not lashed out at anyone who didn't deserve, and often times not even at those who did because by doing so is to make something that may have started off as a small and insignificant incident into something quite ugly.

That suffeciently explains motivation or preference in some cases but did nothing to show that wrong is actually wrong.

And when you look at the broad picture, most religions and people that are considered great teachers (such as the Buddha or Gandhi) teach "love thy neighbor" in some way or another.

Tell me why not loving my neibor is actually wrong. Tell me how self sacrifice is justified outside God.

Often times people do not like to be wrong, and will go through what can be incredible lengths to demonstrate they are right.

That first requires a method by which right and wrong are justified concepts.

It has nothing to do with if the person is actually right or wrong, but a basic psychological principle is that people tend to find anything they can to justify their actions or thoughts to feel good about them and their selves.

I am not discussing what some people think. I am discussing what the governing dynamics concerning morality are. You are rightly describing the moral chaos the absence of God reults in.

I

wish I could find a link for this letter that was wrote by a higher ranking Nazi official, who was writting of how difficult it was to kill Jews as they were being sorted, and how it became easier as he kept telling himself he was doing it to serve his country and protect his family from what he had been lead to believe was a major threat. He wrote of how his hand was very shaky at first, but after he told himself it was for the greater good enough times, he wrote that his aim became steady. It's actually very enlightening when you see it from that angle.

IMO opinion this man knew what he was doing was absolute evil as it offended his God given concience. He however rationalised it because he knew he would be shot for refusing. An action a Christian who believes he is saved is much more equipped to resist by the way. Without God why did he ever feel it wrong in the first place?

When I see just how much suffering their is in the world, that scores of people die every day from starvation, that children are panning through mercury to find slivers of gold to help feed their families, that people are horribly repressed and treated with great indignity and inhumanly, that Western civilization has brought great suffering and dire poverty to many people, I do not see any indications that there is a god that intervenes with worldly affairs.

So God creates a perfect world in which man has free will, and Adam used that free will to screw it up (that may be allegorical for what we each do). God plans a way out of the mess and says that evil will result from our rebellion and dissbelief. It comes to pass and you say that dissproves the one who said it would happen and gave the most comprehensive explenation of the dicotomy in human history. If we all lived in rose gardens and never had problems then why would we ever believe God when he said to repent. Creation is broken and sin is destructive. Exactly what the bible teaches is exactly what we see. There are two components to the argument that evil disproves God. One is philisophical and the other emotional. Theologians and philosophers can easily show that evil is not inconsistent with God's existance. However they can't make you like the answer. Being driven by emotion we ingore the reasoning and the emotions drive our thoughts. Evil is theologically necessary and suffeciently explained. An example is that after every tragedy there is always a renual of faith. It has a purpose besides being unavoidable given free will. We are stuck with the situation regardless but at least a Christian has the promise of God that in the end all be restored. Without God everything ends in heat death, there is no ultimate meaning, purpose, or restoration only anihilation.

Even Mother Theresa doubted after she had been exposed to the very grim reality that is the existence of many people.

Every Christian who ever lived has moments of doubt.

But why should the default approach to dealing with others be that of a cold heart just because you do not believe in god? Why is it there cannot be any justification for being a good person because you do not believe in god? I do not believe in god, yet I do not look down upon others. I see all humans as equals, and when one person has good fortune it can potentially benefit the entire community.

I did not follow this. The unGodly can especially with Christian influence have a moral code to live by. That is fine in many situations but is drastically unfit for the more profound issues. When Thomas Jefferson had to justify our inalienable rights he said God even though he was no Christian. When leaders call on men to fight and die for a cause they appeal to God as the only justification for doing so. When societieshave lived independant of God, we get babies left to die in Greece if they are sickly, we get decimation of thousands in Roman armies, we get rampant slavery as in Persia, we get mass genocide with atheistics Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc..., we even get eugenics, forced population control, and abortion in modern times. There is no reason without God to declare them actually wrong.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Some political commentaries, including Walter Bagehot's Physics and Politics (1872), attempted to extend the idea of natural selection to competition between nations and between human races. Such ideas were incorporated into what was already an ongoing effort by some working in anthropology to provide scientific evidence for the superiority of Caucasians over non white races and justify European imperialism.

That was over 100 years ago, and many anthropologist today see the past of their profession as very unfortunate. Anthropology today generally promotes the idea that there is only one race of humans.
But with anything, people will twist words to fit their own agenda. Music, philosophy, religion, or even just casual conversation can be twisted from something good into something foul. Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, loathed Nazi ideology but that did not stop the Nazis from twisting his words and being choosy about picking out what he said to portray his ideas into something they boasted as promoting Nazi ideology.

For one thing strictly within Humanism the sanctity of life, the equality of man, and our inherent rights have no foundation beyond preference.

The same can be said of your ways, all ways, that they are nothing more than preference. But if someone prefers equality of all humans, life, and unalienable rights then why stand against a group of people who live out such a philosophy and would not stand against you, or your right to choose what to believe or follow?

2. Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.
Einstein
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/

I'm very familiar with Einstein, and more than just his quotes. I am also very aware at how absurd it is that athiest and religious people state he was on their side, when he clearly was not on either one of their sides.
Albert Einstein: Religion and Science

From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being.

-Einstein

If you can show that you even have 1% of the total knowledge necessary to evaluate what God did in history then I will entertain these claims. He did exactly what we do in our court systems every day. He is just perfect about it. The Bible's specific and temporary instances of God's judgement are exactly what you would expect from an absolute just and loving God. We at times farce him to reluctantly judge us. This is not Islam's issue. Their verses give a blanket and open ended license for violence.

I find much of what our courts do to be absolutely appalling. I find the death penalty, cruel and unusual punishments, and many other penalties, administered by courts or by god, to be abhorrent. What I would expect from a loving and merciful god is to not turn someone into a pillar of salt, because humans tend to be very curious creatures. I also would not expect a benevolent being to say "go ahead and torture that guy who follows me just so I can prove to you he won't turn his back on me." Such a position I would expect to come from someone who is insecure and arrogant.

If you wish to debate God's judgement that is fine but it is a long and complex issue and would have to be seperate from all this other stuff. I can easily see you do not have the knowledge level concerning this issue to allow for a quick debate.

Actually I use to be a Baptist myself, and I am very knowledgeable of Bible content. Stating my disagrements with what I was told was divine and perfect judgements does not make me, or anyone else who states their discontent, ignorant of the subject. It just means we question something that we do not see as just.

See above there are very good reasons for this that you do not seem to have any knowledge of.

Why is it there ever a good reason to kill someone and their livestock just for following a different god? Why is there ever a good reason to own slaves? Or sell your wife and daughters into slavery? Why is there ever a good reason to annihilate a village, down to the last woman, child, and suckling, because their ancestors wronged you?

Why make incomplete claims devoid of context and the over all Biblical narrative? As I said I can show that you do not understand what is going on here but it takes a long time.

Why make incomplete claims devoid of context and the over all Quran narrative?
As for time, I have the time. But as I stated earlier, I find such reasons to be nothing more than excuses. A being that is supposed to be perfect, benevolent, loving, and merciful I do not see as a being that would condone or command such atrocities. Saying our ways are not gods ways simply does not satisfy my questioning of such actions. It reminds me of abusive relationships, in which the one doing the abuse will often say "I love you" to the one that is being abused. Or excusing the abuse as something that is done out of love.

I do not care about the site it may be run by Satan for all I know. The quote which Dawkins did say is the issue. We are not debating web sites.

And as I mentioned, some of us think Dawkins can be a loon at times.

 

[1robin]

That was over 100 years ago, and many anthropologist today see the past of their profession as very unfortunate. Anthropology today generally promotes the idea that there is only one race of humans.
But with anything, people will twist words to fit their own agenda. Music, philosophy, religion, or even just casual conversation can be twisted from something good into something foul. Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, loathed Nazi ideology but that did not stop the Nazis from twisting his words and being choosy about picking out what he said to portray his ideas into something they boasted as promoting Nazi ideology.

Then why 100 years later was Dawkin's still not able to answer the question.

The same can be said of your ways, all ways, that they are nothing more than preference. But if someone prefers equality of all humans, life, and unalienable rights then why stand against a group of people who live out such a philosophy and would not stand against you, or your right to choose what to believe or follow?

You telling me that if God exists and has established moral laws then they are based on a Human preference. My views are, if God is true absolute. The issue is his existance not the obvious implications.

I'm very familiar with Einstein, and more than just his quotes. I am also very aware at how absurd it is that athiest and religious people state he was on their side, when he clearly was not on either one of their sides.
Albert Einstein: Religion and Science

-Einstein

I did not say he was on my side. I said your claim that he was on yours was not as clear as you claimed.

I find much of what our courts do to be absolutely appalling. I find the death penalty, cruel and unusual punishments, and many other penalties, administered by courts or by god, to be abhorrent. What I would expect from a loving and merciful god is to not turn someone into a pillar of salt, because humans tend to be very curious creatures. I also would not expect a benevolent being to say "go ahead and torture that guy who follows me just so I can prove to you he won't turn his back on me." Such a position I would expect to come from someone who is insecure and arrogant.

You have mentioned what you prefer but said nothing about what is or is not right or wrong. As I said you do not appear to have a Biblical knowledge that enables you to properly understand these claims you make. For one many people believe the book of Job was allegorical. I assume that is what you were reffering to. These would have to be evaluated one at a time to make their mention meaningfull. Pick your worst if you desire and I will address it.

Actually I use to be a Baptist myself, and I am very knowledgeable of Bible content. Stating my disagrements with what I was told was divine and perfect judgements does not make me, or anyone else who states their discontent, ignorant of the subject. It just means we question something that we do not see as just.

Your comments on them leave out so much context and relevant theology that it appears you do not have an indepth understanding of those issues. If I am wrong then if you pick one then that can be determined. Being a Baptist is no gurantee of understanding OT theology. In fact if you are not a born again Christian the bible says you can't possibly understand the Bibla as a whole. I do not pressume to make that determination.

Why is it there ever a good reason to kill someone and their livestock just for following a different god? Why is there ever a good reason to own slaves? Or sell your wife and daughters into slavery? Why is there ever a good reason to annihilate a village, down to the last woman, child, and suckling, because their ancestors wronged you?

I will explain that if this is the issue you wish to pick for an indepth discussion. These issues take time to examine.

Why make incomplete claims devoid of context and the over all Quran narrative?
As for time, I have the time. But as I stated earlier, I find such reasons to be nothing more than excuses. A being that is supposed to be perfect, benevolent, loving, and merciful I do not see as a being that would condone or command such atrocities. Saying our ways are not gods ways simply does not satisfy my questioning of such actions. It reminds me of abusive relationships, in which the one doing the abuse will often say "I love you" to the one that is being abused. Or excusing the abuse as something that is done out of love.

I will give you an example of what it is that you do not seem to know. The cannanites were destroyed by God, atheists have said God was evil for doing so. What they do not know is that the Cannanites walled up children in new foundations for good luck. They also forced children to walk through fire for a false God. Etc.... There in no injustice in destroying them. All that plus more can be found in secular history books like the one on OT warfare I just finished. Every single time the Jews did not destroy who they were told to, it led to dissaster. One time if God had not stopped it would have resulted in every single Jew in Persia being killed. There is a lot more that must be understood before we attempt to judge God. God most of the time actually condemned most of Israel's battles (the ones he did not order which was most of them) and punished them for them. Slavery in the Bible is also not anything like what people think it was. For instance it was almost universally voluntary and more like servitude than slavery.