Why Does the Biblical God Not Want People To Make an Informed Decision?

[Debunker]

No. Actually the Ten Commandments is another point where you have to demonstrate how the biblical god allows us to make an informed decision.

For example, the commandment: "Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you."

What evidence is there to support the claim that the world was created in seven days? Or even seven periods? None whatsoever. There is absolutely no other reason to follow this commandments except for the fact that the biblical god dictates it. But again, he doesn't allow us to make an informed decision about this rule. So this is another point you lose.

If you say that you only follow the parts of the bible that were supposedly written by god, and none of the parts that were written by men, then you're just adulterating the message of the bible. There's also no evidence that the 10 commandments were actually written by God, so then there's really nothing left of the bible to follow.



The problem is that you haven't yet provided even one logically valid argument against homosexuality. Your arguments are entirely based on logical fallacies and sophistry.

Since you accept the fact that homosexuality doesn't cause AIDS the fact that some homosexuals are infected with AIDS is utterly meaningless for the purpose of what you have to prove in this debate.

The question is how can we make an informed decision about the biblical claim that homosexuality should be condemned?

If you says: homosexuals are overrepresented among people infected with AIDS, therefore homosexuality should be condemned. Then by analogy you have to also conclude that: Africans are overrepresented among people infected with AIDS, therefore being African should be condemned.

Unless you accept both conclusions, your argument is meaningless.


You say: although pedophilia is still in the SDM, both illnesses are justified as appropriate behavior by use of the dame logic. Both claim to have been born that way

This is yet another logical fallacy.

Homosexuality is not considered an illness. It was removed from the DSM almost 40 years ago. The reason it was removed has nothing to do with whether people are born with it or not. It was based on empirical evidence that showed homosexuality has no effect on a person's psychological maladjustment.

Empirical evidence shows that: "Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality." (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978; Riess, 1980)

This means that your statement: "although pedophilia is still in the SDM, both illnesses are justified as appropriate behavior by use of the dame logic. Both claim to have been born that way" is utterly meaningless, and is another logical fallacy.

You are equating homosexuality and pedophilia solely on the grounds that both are inborn. You can similarly equate heterosexuality to pedophilia because they are both inborn. It's a meaningless analogy.


This is yet another logical fallacy. What is the relation between sadomasochism and homosexuality? None whatsoever. You can similarly ask: "heterosexuals have pleasure in sex also. But do you want your daughter to date a heterosexuals?

Another meaningless argument.


Pleasure is also not the only reason homosexuals have sex. So what's your point?



You are condemning a harmless lifestyle for the only reason that bronze age, Middle Eastern peasants condemned it. As you've demonstrated repeatedly that you cannot even present a logically valid argument (that is not based on logical fallacies, or meaningless analogies) to support your disgusting views.

But instead of either changing your view on the subject, or at least defending your bigotry, all you're doing is projecting unjustified hostility.

Now, while I am heterosexual, I recognize that there's absolutely nothing wrong with the homosexual lifestyle. The homosexual lifestyle is essentially harmless, and I have no problem with it. I respect different lifestyles from my own.

What I don't respect is people who condemn a lifestyle that is different from their own, for the only reason that their religion tells them to do so. This is not normal behavior. This is religiously inspired bigotry. And I think this issue should be discussed and analyzed on this forum. Yet, I understand why a bigot like you would not want to discuss this issue here. It reveals the moral bankruptcy of your religion.




So before you accept reason, I need to accept religious superstition? I can't think of anything more absurd than that.


The only one who's obsessed with sex is your religion. Your religion has the impudence to tell people how to have sex, how not to have sex, and with whom.


Repeating the same empty rhetoric and employing logically fallacies is not the same as proving me wrong. You couldn't disprove the subject of this thread - and that is that the biblical god doesn't want people to make an informed decision about life.

All you've done is demonstrate that you do not have the capacity to present logically valid arguments, or the intellectual honesty necessary to debate this issue.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

Let me refute your tirade as simply a defiance of common sense as well as logic. You defiantly support your foolish position from a defiant oppositional point of view, which is also in the DSM and explains your position very well. You make me understand your point of view. I hope you find rest and comfort in being opposed to all of societal norms since you are better informed that all the other fools in this world. Congratulations on your ability to know what the rest of mankind has overlooked.

 

[Enoughie]

The question has been asked and answered 5 different ways now. It is your inability to understand that is inhibiting your comprehension of what I am saying.
Again
You refuse to see the type in front of you.
Again.
An answer is given to your question. you don't like said answer so you change the question, hoping you will get an answer you will like, knowing full well you will never be satisfied.
One more time.
When you decide to make an informed decision to understand what I have said in this post, I will welcome the intelligent conversation I know you are capable of making.

I understand quite well what you're saying. You have given an answer many times. The problem is that it is not to the question I asked.

For example, you wrote:

Now if you are a Jew, these laws pertain to you. You have the option whether or not to follow them. If you are not a Jew, then these laws do not pertain to you. You have a different set of laws

Now how you determine whether or not these 7 laws pertain to you is that you must make an informed decision. You must decide for yourself. Learn, study, become knowledgeably. No one can do this for you.

I never asked the question: how do I determine which laws the bible tells me to follow? Or should I follow the laws the bible tells me to law?

What I asked is: given what I know the bible tells me to follow, what evidence is there to support what the bible says about these laws?

I try to clarify the question more and more, but it seems that you're either unwilling or unable to understand this question.

For example, what evidence is there that homosexuality is harmful? None.

Therefore, no one has a reason to follow what the bible says about homosexuality.

Either we are to conclude that the bible is wrong about homosexuality, or the bible is right about homosexuality but doesn't let us make an informed decision (a decision that supports what the bible says) about it.

If you disagree with my conclusion, you have to show what evidence there is that homosexuality is harmful. If you cannot do that, then I am correct in my analysis, and either the biblical god is wrong about this rule, or the biblical god doesn't let us make an informed decision about this rule.

So what exactly was your answer to this question? That it is our choice to follow or not what the bible says, and that we must learn and make an informed decision based on that? That is not an answer to the question I asked.

The question I asked is marked in red here, and you haven't provided an answer to it one way or another.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Enoughie]

Let me refute your tirade as simply a defiance of common sense as well as logic. You defiantly support your foolish position from a defiant oppositional point of view, which is also in the DSM and explains your position very well. You make me understand your point of view. I hope you find rest and comfort in being opposed to all of societal norms since you are better informed that all the other fools in this world. Congratulations on your ability to know what the rest of mankind has overlooked.

Again, another display of dishonesty. Your claims are entirely not based on fact. Rather, you continue with your empty rhetoric to justify your religious intolerance and bigotry.

If you look at global attitudes toward homosexuality, you'll see that when asked: "Should homosexuality be accepted by society?" 86% of Swedes said yes. So did 83% in France, 82% in Spain, 83% in the Czech Republic, 81% in Germany, 71% in Argentina, 70% in Canada, 71% in Britain.

At the same time, only 1% of Egyptians agreed that homosexuality should be accepted by society, 6% in Kuwait, 2% in Nigeria.

In America only 49% said yes. But if you look at Americans without religious affiliation 89% said yes.

This means that the main reason for bigotry against homosexuals in this part of the world comes from religion. Your intolerance and bigotry is far from being universally accepted, and I think the world is a better place for that fact.

File:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Rakhel]

Ok we are going to use your argument but change a word or two(which will be in brackets)

Suppose you get a special box of "Red Pills" from the [DOCTOR]. The [DOCTOR] tells you that these pills are really good for you.

Now, you look at the pills, but you're not sure whether they are actually good for you or not. So you decide to run some tests on the pills to see if they are good for you.

In other words, you want to make an informed decision about the pills.

Since these pills came from the [DOCTOR] (who's obviously a being with an immense authority) you understand that your tests should unambiguously demonstrate that these pills are indeed really good for you.

If the results of your tests confirm [THE DOCTOR'S] claim (that the Red Pills are really good for you) then you know that [THE DOCTOR] allows you to make an informed decision about his claim.

However, if the results don't show that the pills are good for you, or if there is no way for you to determine whether the pills are really good for you, then you must conclude that either [THE DOCTOR] doesn't want you to make an informed decision, or that [THE DOCTOR] was lying about the pills being good for you.

In other words "making an informed decision" about the pills doesn't just mean that you have the ability to test the pills. It means that the tests actually confirm what the [DOCTOR] said.If the tests don't confirm what the [DOCTOR] said, that means that either [THE DOCTOR] doesn't want you to make an informed decision, or that [THE DOCTOR] was lying about the pills being good for you.

Now. After testing the pills, you see that in some cases the pills are actually very harmful, in some cases they are mildly harmful, and in some cases they are good for you.

This means that the results contradict what the [DOCTOR] said. Which means [THE DOCTOR] doesn't want you to make an informed decision.

Seeing as how the doctor is of obvious superior intelligence and knows what pills do what, you have a choice to make. do you trust the doctor or do you just assume that because he has a medical degree he must be right and has your health in his best interest.

Now, unless you have a lab in your basement(if you do I don't wanna know), you are left with doing what every other human on the face of this planet has to do. Test the pills but taking one.

If the don't have an adverse reaction to your system, you continue taking the pills and learn to trust the doctor. If they do have an adverse reaction to your system you stop taking the drug and report to the doctor.

Here you have another choice to make. Do you trust the doctor to understand that you are allergic to this drug and not give you something similar or do you call him a complete quack and find another doctor.

Your choice.
Whether you choose to trust the doctor or not is based on an informed decision you have made based personal experiences. Sometimes that doctor is great, sometime he is not. Sometime he messes up with one patient and not with the next.

But whether YOU trust this doctor is up to you. You can trust that his medical degrees and positive feedback is a great resource in making your decision or you can decide that maybe those positive feedback are too good to be true.

 

[Enoughie]

Ok we are going to use your argument but change a word or two(which will be in brackets)
Seeing as how the doctor is of obvious superior intelligence and knows what pills do what, you have a choice to make. do you trust the doctor or do you just assume that because he has a medical degree he must be right and has your health in his best interest.

Now, unless you have a lab in your basement(if you do I don't wanna know), you are left with doing what every other human on the face of this planet has to do. Test the pills but taking one.

If the don't have an adverse reaction to your system, you continue taking the pills and learn to trust the doctor. If they do have an adverse reaction to your system you stop taking the drug and report to the doctor.

Here you have another choice to make. Do you trust the doctor to understand that you are allergic to this drug and not give you something similar or do you call him a complete quack and find another doctor.

Your choice.
Whether you choose to trust the doctor or not is based on an informed decision you have made based personal experiences. Sometimes that doctor is great, sometime he is not. Sometime he messes up with one patient and not with the next.

But whether YOU trust this doctor is up to you. You can trust that his medical degrees and positive feedback is a great resource in making your decision or you can decide that maybe those positive feedback are too good to be true.

I think you've picked the worst example to try and disprove my point.

I don't know if you realize it, but this is precisely the example I gave in the OP - http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2309619-post1.html

When you go to a doctor and she gives you some medication, you have plenty of evidence to make an informed decision. First, the medication has to be approved by the FDA. Which means it was tested for many years and was shown to be effective. Second, the medication was tested by the company that makes it. So you can look at their data as well.
You can look at all that data and make an informed decision based on that.

If you're still not satisfied with what the data on the medication shows, you can go to another doctor for a second opinion. All these are factors which contribute to your ability to make an informed decision.

Now, in case you look at this data and it turns out that the medication is not effective, then you would tell the doctor that he was wrong in his advice.

If, on the other hand, a doctor gives you a medication that was never approved by the FDA, and was not tested, then why should you take it? This should immediately raise a red flag in your head! You should at least think to yourself: How can I trust a doctor that gives me medication that was never tested? I should at least get a second opinion first!

Are you suggesting that you should just trust such a doctor? That is insanity!

But that is precisely the kind of "doctor's advice" that the biblical god gives you! With no evidence to go by. Which means, he doesn't allow you to make an informed decision.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Rakhel]

No what I am saying is that you can choose whether or not to trust the doctor. Or the Government or the cops or the firefighters or any other person in authority. You don't have to trust any of them.
If you have had bad experiences with a doctor or a cop or a hospital, you have a choice to never trust them again.
Life is all about choices. Making decisions. You can choose which doctor you see and whether or not to trust that they will give you the right pills.


Boy you are really making this harder than it really is.

 

[Enoughie]

No what I am saying is that you can choose whether or not to trust the doctor. Or the Government or the cops or the firefighters or any other person in authority. You don't have to trust any of them.
If you have had bad experiences with a doctor or a cop or a hospital, you have a choice to never trust them again.
Life is all about choices. Making decisions. You can choose which doctor you see and whether or not to trust that they will give you the right pills.


Boy you are really making this harder than it really is.

Yes, if you think that they have your best interest in mind, then you can trust them. But it is precisely because some people are in a position of authority (or want to be in a position of authority) that you have to sometimes verify if what they're doing is honest.

Just like Ronald Reagan said: "Trust, but verify."

Would you rather have more, or less government transparency? I think most people would rather have more. So they know (can verify) that the government has their best interest in mind.

Now, the biblical god is also vying for a position of authority. He says that he's the god that created this world, and therefore he claims he should rule over it.

Why should I trust such a god without verifying his claims first? Why should I think that such a god has my best interests in mind? I see no evidence for that, only promises and threats. I also see no evidence for his claims.

Just like I would like to see more government transparency, I would also like to see more transparency from the biblical god. But the biblical god refuses to show evidence for his claims. Which means we can't make informed decisions based on his rules.

Just like I wouldn't want to be ruled by a regime that shows no transparency, I wouldn't want to be ruled by a god that show no evidence for his claims. And I don't see why anyone else would.

A government that shows no transparency is not a benevolent government. Similarly, a god that shows no evidence for his claims is not a benevolent god.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[waitasec]

Your assertions have as much merit as my assertion about the Western World as your question about the Eastern civilization. In this you are correct to question but I ask you what country representing the East would you rather live in over the USA?

well it isn't a question of what country i would rather live in...it's what the god of the bible thinks. and i am still trying to understand how to decipher which religion is the true religion since all three abrahamic religions claim to be the right one, so how can one make an informed decision? do we disreguard the tanakh? and why.

I am b=not saying, love it or leave it but there is a reason that people all over the world want to come to the West and especially the USA People certainly are not taring down the Wall of China to enter that Eastern country. At some point in this argument one must turn to common sense for answers. Philosophy can give us basic knowledge but the use of that knowledge must be wisdom.

common sense...?
i don't see how this is an argument for god. did jesus say;

luke 18:25
Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.

ultimately we are to subject ourselves to a celestial dictator and it ain't so easy...if you believe god is real.

 

[Rakhel]

No one said life was a cake walk. Choose to play the game by the rules or make the rules up as you go. Many do this today.
What is stopping you?
So the bible doesn't say why they forbid promiscuous sex among their community. Based on the information we can gather on the society they are believed to have left, we can make an judgment call on why those laws were made.
Look at how The United States started. A group of people who were intent on creating a society totally different from the one they left. Did they make mistakes? Yes. Did they make laws to prevent mistakes from being made again? Yes. Have they broken their own laws? Yes.
Why is there a difference between then(several thousand years ago) and now(a few hundred years ago)?

 

[Enoughie]

No one said life was a cake walk. Choose to play the game by the rules or make the rules up as you go. Many do this today.
What is stopping you?

I never said anything is stopping me. I understand that the bible is simply wrong on many issues, and I live my life in accord with a set of values that is better than what religion offers.

I'm merely pointing out the fact that the biblical god doesn't allow people to make informed decisions about life. Which makes me conclude that the biblical god is not a benevolent god, and therefore isn't the god that people claim he is (the god of this world).

From our discussion so far, you've not shown that my statement is incorrect. So my argument stands.

So the bible doesn't say why they forbid promiscuous sex among their community. Based on the information we can gather on the society they are believed to have left, we can make an judgment call on why those laws were made.

The question wasn't why these laws might have made sense 3500 years ago. The question was why should these laws apply today?

I asked that question in this post: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2312192-post61.html

There is no sensible justification to follow these laws today. All the data points to the fact that homosexuality is not harmful in any way. So the bible doesn't let us make an informed decision on why we should follow these laws today.

Look at how The United States started. A group of people who were intent on creating a society totally different from the one they left. Did they make mistakes? Yes. Did they make laws to prevent mistakes from being made again? Yes. Have they broken their own laws? Yes.
Why is there a difference between then(several thousand years ago) and now(a few hundred years ago)?

The difference is that the laws the founding fathers created made sense for the most part. And if some law did not make sense anymore there is a straightforward procedure to repeal that law. The laws of the biblical god are totalitarian. You cannot repeal them if they don't make sense anymore.

Sure, you don't have to follow them (not anymore.. in some parts of the world at least). But that is irrelevant to the fact that the biblical god doesn't allow you to make an informed decision on why you should follow these laws.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Ben Masada]

Why the Biblical God does not want people to make an informed decision? For two reasons. First, because He is not an anthropomorphic god to express His emotions like a human being. And second, because He does not interfere with the attribute of freewill man was granted with. It is up to man to decide the best way for him to live.

 

[Enoughie]

Why the Biblical God does not want people to make an informed decision? For two reasons. First, because He is not an anthropomorphic god to express His emotions like a human being. And second, because He does not interfere with the attribute of freewill man was granted with. It is up to man to decide the best way for him to live.

"Not interfering with free will" is not a reason - it's an excuse. And I pointed this out in the OP.

The biblical god has no problem expressing his emotions - when he says he's a jealous god, or that some group has to experience his wrath.

But no one asked the biblical god to express his emotions. Just for evidence to support his claims.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Ben Masada]

"Not interfering with free will" is not a reason - it's an excuse. And I pointed this out in the OP.

The biblical god has no problem expressing his emotions - when he says he's a jealous god, or that some group has to experience his wrath.

But no one asked the biblical god to express his emotions. Just for evidence to support his claims.

I am sure you must know the meaning of a hyperbole. Am I right? If you don't, you may look it up in the dictionary. How about metaphor? In case you don't have a dictionary at hand, hyperbole is an exaggerted statement, which is not supposed to be taken literally. Just like metaphorical language. The Biblical God has no emotions to express. The Bible was written in the language of man; therefore, it must be interpreted not as man wrote it but metaphorically trimming the exaggerations of human speech. Whenever you read about expression of emotions in the Bible, that's man's doing attributed to God only as a coat to borrow Divine authority. Atheists know what I am talking about but they prefer an anthropomorphic god in order to make the fight easier to win. But they are mistaken. According to Jesus himself in John 4:24 God is a Spirit; and incorporeal at that. There is no emotions in incorporeality.

 

[Enoughie]

I am sure you must know the meaning of a hyperbole. Am I right? If you don't, you may look it up in the dictionary. How about metaphor? In case you don't have a dictionary at hand, hyperbole is an exaggerted statement, which is not supposed to be taken literally. Just like metaphorical language. The Biblical God has no emotions to express. The Bible was written in the language of man; therefore, it must be interpreted not as man wrote it but metaphorically trimming the exaggerations of human speech. Whenever you read about expression of emotions in the Bible, that's man's doing attributed to God only as a coat to borrow Divine authority. Atheists know what I am talking about but they prefer an anthropomorphic god in order to make the fight easier to win. But they are mistaken. According to Jesus himself in John 4:24 God is a Spirit; and incorporeal at that. There is no emotions in incorporeality.

Whether the biblical god is emotional or not is utterly irrelevant to the fact that he doesn't allow us to make an informed decision about life.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Nerthus]

Whether the biblical god is emotional or not is utterly irrelevant to the fact that he doesn't allow us to make an informed decision about life.

I feel that when someone believes so much in there being a Hell where people are thrown in to burn for eternity, and the only way to avoid this is through God - He can say whatever he wants and people will still do it.

I believe it is out of fear. If I frighten someone enough if threats of torture, they will do whatever I say, and eventually not even question it.

If people were free to make decisions, they would see that God is evil and is using threats.

 

[Enoughie]

I feel that when someone believes so much in there being a Hell where people are thrown in to burn for eternity, and the only way to avoid this is through God - He can say whatever he wants and people will still do it.

I believe it is out of fear. If I frighten someone enough if threats of torture, they will do whatever I say, and eventually not even question it.

If people were free to make decisions, they would see that God is evil and is using threats.

Exactly. And since a god that does evil cannot be benevolent - and one of the characteristics of god is benevolence - this demonstrates that the biblical god does not exist.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Rakhel]

Exactly. And since a god that does evil cannot be benevolent - and one of the characteristics of god is benevolence - this demonstrates that the biblical god does not exist.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

Who on Earth said G-d was all loving?

 

[Enoughie]

Who on Earth said G-d was all loving?

I don't know. I certainly didn't.

Benevolent doesn't mean loving. It means good. Are you suggesting God is not all good?
_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Rakhel]

I don't know. I certainly didn't.

Benevolent doesn't mean loving. It means good. Are you suggesting God is not all good?

Usually when people say G-d is benevolent, they are saying he is all loving. I disagree with this wholeheartedly.
I believe that G-d is a sadist. Can a sadist love? Yes. Can a sadist be merciful? Yes. Can a sadist be good? Yes. A sadist can be all that and more, but only when they want to be.
Hell, with all the s*** he has put the Jews through, he has to be a sadist. Especially when you consider Jews were told they were his "chosen" people.
I know you are going to ask why I would chose to follow or believe in a G-d that can be cruel. I will answer, because I am a masochist. It is the only answer to give.

 

[Ben Masada]

Whether the biblical god is emotional or not is utterly irrelevant to the fact that he doesn't allow us to make an informed decision about life.

Again, the Biblical God has nothing to do about the decisions we make on how to live our lives. You are being too literalist. We have freewill and the power to use it as we please, as long as we are aware of the law of cause and effect.