A more important question.

outofnowheres
outofnowheres's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2009-11-08
User is offlineOffline
A more important question.

Instead of "Do you believe in gods?", how about "Do you believe in souls?" because if there is a god or gods but souls don't exist, then its kinda pointless to believe in gods if there is no afterlife to possibly meet them. Right?

Idiots are Fun! No wonder every village wants one.-House


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Maybe its Bible study time

"Maybe its Bible study time ~ an eternal perspective we might see this more fully."

That's all well and good for them, but it doesn't explain why I have never received a command from god to choose for myself. I have no problem accepting responsibility for my own actions. I draw the line at accepting responsibility for the actions of others. Whether 4.5 billion years ago or a mere 5000, I was never given the choice.

"The fact that we are born in sin and a slave to it dictates much of our desires. We enjoy this deception because it allows us the mirage of freedom that we want but don’t really have."

See, this is a demonstration of your ignorance of evolution and biology. No offense intended. The way it works, to keep it simple, is that our freedom is as restricted as your own, it's only the source that changes. I can't choose not to be angered at someone who intentionally hurts me, it's a natural biological response. So the assertion that I ignore god to be free is false.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit and others have

Hambydammit and others have written some good posts on the scientific dilemma of free will, I suggest reading them to better understand our position. Don't take it necessarily as an argument against your belief, but as an instruction of ours. You'll really not go very far against an educated atheist with that argument. You certainly won't convert one.

"Your making progress if you ~ we have truly been set free."

I don't necessarily have a problem with being judged by some omnipotent being. My problem is with being judged for being ignorant. All it would take for me to believe in god, thereby giving me the opportunity to choose whether to follow him or reject him, would be proof of his existence. It wouldn't even necessarily have to be proof I could share with others, just proof. You say I do believe in god, but I really don't. Without that belief, I have no capacity for faith in it.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

@mellestad

The reason that what humans establish as 'moral' has not stayed consistent is not because it doesn't exist objectively. That would be like saying the reason science has not stayed consistent over the centuries is because there are no objective or scientific facts in the world...

The reason that it has not been the same is because with the exception of the Israelites, the rule-makers of society have always been men, and men are sinful...

Rape, murder, torture, abortion etc has always been wrong despite what society claims... IE: Nazi Germany's standard of morality during the Holocaust.

You are confusing my confidence and resolve with arrogance, it has nothing to do with me at all or pride. Think about it from your own perspective. I'm just a foolish man who believes in fairy tales... If you are right then all I am doing is explaining the social implications of a fairy tale. How is that arrogance? It might seem foolish, sure... but not arrogant. Now let's examine your comment: every God believer on Earth has a mental disorder and you are of a superior selection of super-human with a superior ability who rejoices in getting behind a keyboard and making fun of handicapped people who believe in fairy tales... I think it might be you who are arrogant, at least when we define it properly.

@Vastet

“a system of law which the society agrees with”

IE: Hitler’s Nazi Germany… Stalin’s Russia, et al. Legal consensus clearly rebels against morality.

“I'm not in favour of punishment for crimes…”

I have a feeling that you have intuitively wanted to or have taken vengeance before, but I digress. So ignore the serial-rapist, reward the tax payer? Ted Bundy is an interesting case of a fairly normal man on the outside… he played the game quite well, even holding office. But apparently he had a mental disorder because he was capable of killing? Many men get angry and kill someone in the moment, it’s not linked to psychology, it’s linked to sin.

“I fight christians, and other theists (but that's a different topic), because they try to force their beliefs on others, with dispicable tactics.”

Where does the Bible teach us to force people into believing? When have I attempted to force you into believing? What morally reprehensible tactic have I used? (Overlooking the irony of yet another appeal to objective moral standards… )

As for Africa… if not for the love of Jesus shown to us we wouldn’t go to begin with… from your worldview I have no reason to leave my group of successful hunter-gatherers and seek the benefit of poor African children starving who have aids which will harm the species… That is merely the nature selecting the fittest… I have too many movies that I need to watch. Your God-given sense of compassion is evident, yet you deny its power… Sad.

"I can't choose not to be angered at someone who intentionally hurts me, it's a natural biological response."

I can... It's actually not that hard when 'self' is in second place to God.

"All it would take for me to believe in god, thereby giving me the opportunity to choose whether to follow him or reject him, would be proof of his existence."

Creation, morality, logic.

"Hambydammit and others have written some good posts on the scientific dilemma of free will..."

You may need to clarify. The will of man is not a 'free will'

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"IE: Hitler’s Nazi

"IE: Hitler’s Nazi Germany… Stalin’s Russia, et al. Legal consensus clearly rebels against morality."

No no, those were dictatorships. Rules set by one man and his possy. They weren't examples of democratic societies that make law.

"I have a feeling that you have intuitively wanted to or have taken vengeance before,"

Once or twice in my youth. I've outgrown it. Or perhaps my gaming simply allows me to take out my frustrations on pixels instead of real animals. Regardless, I have not felt a real desire for vengeance in quite some time.

"So ignore the serial-rapist, reward the tax payer?"

Protect people from the serial-rapist, simultaneously giving said rapist an opportunity to reform, and reward the taxpayer.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Ted Bundy is an interesting

"Ted Bundy is an interesting case of a fairly normal man on the outside… he played the game quite well, even holding office. But apparently he had a mental disorder because he was capable of killing? Many men get angry and kill someone in the moment, it’s not linked to psychology, it’s linked to sin."

Crimes of passion are very different from premeditated murder. That's why the law differenciates between them.
Anyone is capable of killing. That does not mean everyone will. If everyone who didn't have your jesus were necessarily killers, then I'd be a killer. Many atheists here would be. And don't try to suggest fear of punishment stops me. If I were to decide someone needed to die, I'd be quite capable of covering it up.

"Where does the Bible teach us to force people into believing? When have I attempted to force you into believing? What morally reprehensible tactic have I used? (Overlooking the irony of yet another appeal to objective moral standards… )"

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
That might be a good

That might be a good indication that you aren't the average christian. But lets explore this briefly. When election time comes, do you prefer to vote for someone who wants to throw evolution out of public science classes and replace it with the bible? (assuming the platforms are otherwise identical)
As for the bible, I don't know that it actually tells people to force their religion on others, but that's the inevitable result of spreading something that is believed to be true. Even if it is true. Kids don't learn that Hitler was a nice guy in school, they learn he was a psychopathic idiot who's only redeeming contribution to Earth was helping to restore the infrastructure of Germany after *WWI.

"As for Africa… if not for the love of Jesus shown to us we wouldn’t go to begin with…"

That doesn't mean people should be forced to watch jesus videos for scraps.

*Editted for correction: WWI, not II.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
If instead christians spread

If instead christians spread their faith by allowing people to join of their own volition instead of telling them to join or starve, some actions in Africa wouldn't look so bad. If they said sex is bad, but if you're going to have it then use a condom, then other actions wouldn't look so bad. I might still have a problem with the suggestion sex is bad, but at least christians would be helping them instead of making things worse.

Regarding the rest, what about jews and atheists and moslems and pagans who give to charity and volunteer their time? They don't have your moral imperitve from god.

"I can... It's actually not that hard when 'self' is in second place to God."

Perhaps you feel sad then. Different people can experience different emotions under the same experiences. The point is that you don't consciously choose your emotions.

"Creation, morality, logic."

Creation certainly didn't happen the way you believe. Even if I somehow began to believe in a god, I wouldn't believe Earth was 5000 years old.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Not without a hell of a

Not without a hell of a convincing argument from god itself. Morality is a logical step for evolution to take to produce a functioning society. And logic simply is.

"You may need to clarify. The will of man is not a 'free will'"

Agreed. We are bound by biology, bound to chemistry, bound to physics. But there is no god binding us.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Creation by God, especially

Creation by God, especially as described in Genesis, is logically inconsistent with modern knowledge.

Christianity encapsulates the pre-existing morality of a particular set of tribes living a few thousand years ago, and is mostly way inappropriate and inferior to that of the most enlightened modern societies.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

@Vastet

"No no, those were dictatorships. Rules set by one man and his possy. They weren't examples of democratic societies that make law."

Like the early American democracy during which it was legal to own and beat slaves... You have social consensus, not objective morality.

"Protect people from the serial-rapist, simultaneously giving said rapist an opportunity to reform, and reward the taxpayer."

And what if the serial rapist doesn't want reform? You said before "Frankly, I'm not in favour of punishment for crimes." So if he doesn't reform we just let him continue? Of course not.

"That's why the law differenciates between them."

Man's law has incredible shortcomings as mentioned.

"Anyone is capable of killing. That does not mean everyone will. If everyone who didn't have your jesus were necessarily killers, then I'd be a killer. Many atheists here would be."

You are a killer. Killing someone doesn't make a killer. You kill because you are already a killer. Without the grace of God on you this very moment I have no reason to believe that you wouldn't be out on a spleen eating rampage right now. That was the most absurd thing I could muster, but you get the idea. The reason that non-Christians AND Christians aren't all on the path to being the next Hitler is because of the Grace of God. God restrains our evil. For Christians, He gives them a new heart and changes their desires, but for the non-believer they have a depraved nature that hates God, and the only reason they are not acting in total rebellion is because he retrains their evil. You could and I think you would be mush worse if not for God helping you in whatever degree He is right now.

"When election time comes, do you prefer to vote for someone who wants to throw evolution out of public science classes and replace it with the bible?"

I doubt that this would ever be the only difference, but for the sake of argument I would be in favor of the science books conforming to the literal Biblical accounts...

I think we should seek to explain the normative condiitions of the universe but also acknowledge that God is sovereign over His creation and can interject at any point to cause a miracle. I think miracles have significant purposes and that is why they are rare, but we should not teach materialism, naturalism, or teach our kids to be evolutionists because it flies in the face of axiomatic Biblical truth.

"That doesn't mean people should be forced to watch jesus videos for scraps."

When strange people show up to feed your starving displaced family and you know they have nothing to gain from you, I think at that point whatever reason made them come is appealing to you.

"They don't have your moral imperitve from god."

We all appeal to His morality... that's how we know what it right and wrong.

"And logic simply is."

God simply is.

 

@BobSpence

"Creation by God, especially as described in Genesis, is logically inconsistent with modern knowledge."

Apparently modern knowledge is flawed.


Take care.

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO

eXnihilO wrote:

@BobSpence

"Creation by God, especially as described in Genesis, is logically inconsistent with modern knowledge."

Apparently modern knowledge is flawed.


Take care.

Oh My God, I think you are serious....

You really are wedded to that nonsense, aren't you?

The whole f**king observable Universe is inconsistent with Genesis, you ignorant fool!!

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:Like the

eXnihilO wrote:

Like the early American democracy during which it was legal to own and beat slaves... You have social consensus, not objective morality.

Careful here or you will have to defend Paul the deceiver's orders to obey your master. He didn't suggest the slaves escape and gain freedom. You will also have to defend all the OT's advocacy of slave ownership as well.

eXnihilO wrote:

"Anyone is capable of killing. That does not mean everyone will. If everyone who didn't have your jesus were necessarily killers, then I'd be a killer. Many atheists here would be."

You are a killer. Killing someone doesn't make a killer. You kill because you are already a killer. Without the grace of God on you this very moment I have no reason to believe that you wouldn't be out on a spleen eating rampage right now. That was the most absurd thing I could muster, but you get the idea. The reason that non-Christians AND Christians aren't all on the path to being the next Hitler is because of the Grace of God. God restrains our evil. For Christians, He gives them a new heart and changes their desires, but for the non-believer they have a depraved nature that hates God, and the only reason they are not acting in total rebellion is because he retrains their evil. You could and I think you would be mush worse if not for God helping you in whatever degree He is right now.

Straight out of Pauline theology that man is an evil being. Paul had serious psychiatric issues which  he expressed in many of his Epistles. That you see this as something good is frightening. He makes this clear in Romans 7 especially and dwells on how evil he is and man in general.

It's ridiculous to think that all humans are constrained by a god from rampaging homicide. Right, it's a sub-routine built into our hearts or something. Perhaps you also believe in Nemesis as well.  There are logical reasons why humans cooperate that have nothing to do with mythical gods.

eXnihilO wrote:

"When election time comes, do you prefer to vote for someone who wants to throw evolution out of public science classes and replace it with the bible?"

I doubt that this would ever be the only difference, but for the sake of argument I would be in favor of the science books conforming to the literal Biblical accounts...

So we have established you live in Kansas or Texas I'd say.

If science books conformed to the literal accounts of the Bible they would no longer be science books but would be books of myths & fantasy.

eXnihilO wrote:

I think we should seek to explain the normative condiitions of the universe but also acknowledge that God is sovereign over His creation and can interject at any point to cause a miracle. I think miracles have significant purposes and that is why they are rare, but we should not teach materialism, naturalism, or teach our kids to be evolutionists because it flies in the face of axiomatic Biblical truth.

Bible truth? As based in your interpretation of course.

eXnihilO wrote:

"That doesn't mean people should be forced to watch jesus videos for scraps."

When strange people show up to feed your starving displaced family and you know they have nothing to gain from you, I think at that point whatever reason made them come is appealing to you.

Except I don't recall where Jesus told his followers to only give help to others with a sermon. You have a citation for this that indicates you should only help your fellow man if they listen to the Gospel?


eXnihilO wrote:

"Creation by God, especially as described in Genesis, is logically inconsistent with modern knowledge."

Apparently modern knowledge is flawed.

Unbelievable that you consider myths and legends documented by less than knowledgeable people to be more reliable than scientific documentation and repeated observations.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Having the Bible as your

Having the Bible as your sole ultimate authority means you have no actual foundation for any knowledge or morals - you are caught up in the worst form of self-justifying circular logic.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Like the early American

"Like the early American democracy during which it was legal to own and beat slaves... You have social consensus, not objective morality."

Ah, but your own example proves a democratic society ends such practices. There is no slavery in the US today. The slavery was in fact a remnant of the monarchy.

"And what if the serial rapist doesn't want reform? You said before "Frankly, I'm not in favour of punishment for crimes." So if he doesn't reform we just let him continue? Of course not."

Then we lock him up away from society, or exile him.

"Man's law has incredible shortcomings as mentioned."

Far fewer than the bible.

"You are a killer."

No I'm not.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Killing someone doesn't

"Killing someone doesn't make a killer."

Oh yes it does:
Killer:
-someone who causes the death of a person or animal cause of death:
-the causal agent resulting in death; "heart disease is the biggest killer in the United States"

The rest of that segment makes no sense to me.

"I doubt that this would ever be the only difference, but for the sake of argument I would be in favor of the science books conforming to the literal Biblical accounts..."

Then you'd be forcing your religion on everyone who attended school, myself included at one point.

"I think we should seek to explain the normative condiitions of the universe but also acknowledge that God is sovereign over His creation and can interject at any point to cause a miracle. I think miracles have significant purposes and that is why they are rare, but we should not teach materialism, naturalism, or teach our kids to be evolutionists because it flies in the face of axiomatic Biblical truth."

The bible flies in the face of axiomatic universal law.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"When strange people show up

"When strange people show up to feed your starving displaced family and you know they have nothing to gain from you, I think at that point whatever reason made them come is appealing to you."

The church has a lot of reason to do it. In the end they'll have donating members of the church. Almost all religions come down to power and money.

"We all appeal to His morality... that's how we know what it right and wrong."

You have failed to explain or demonstrate this for our understanding.

"God simply is."

No, it isn't.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

 

“Careful here or you will have to defend Paul the deceiver's orders to obey your master. He didn't suggest the slaves escape and gain freedom. You will also have to defend all the OT's advocacy of slave ownership as well.”

-- O rly?

“Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.)” – 1 Cor 7:21

And regarding the OT advocacy of slavery… it was more of a social service to people who couldn’t feed themselves. They were made to be productive in return for the food that helped them live. They also had the Jubilee in place to enforce regulation so that no one could be taken advantage of… Defended? You will probably understand better if you are in America and they begin to socialize health care. You will wish that we forced people to work oppose to the lavish economically devastating handouts we give…

For some reason your comment brought to memory a kid jumping headlong into a running ceiling fan… only kidding.

“There are logical reasons why humans cooperate that have nothing to do with mythical gods.”

Amen. It’s due to the one true God, the triune God of the Christian scriptures.

“Except I don't recall where Jesus told his followers to only give help to others with a sermon. You have a citation for this that indicates you should only help your fellow man if they listen to the Gospel?”

You set up a straw man, took of his head, placed the remains back on the stake and went at him with a bat. I didn’t say or claim any of that.

My church feeds people on Sunday afternoons every week. We only do it because we have the opportunity to share the message of the Cross every week. You would be surprised at how thankful people are that we told them about Jesus before they eat. If we feed them without telling them why we care to do it, we waste our time.

“Unbelievable that you consider myths and legends documented by less than knowledgeable people to be more reliable than scientific documentation and repeated observations.”

And it’s unbelievable that you keep asserting this falsity without a single iota of evidence to back it up, I wonder why? Get me some verifiable sources that pre-date Christianity… Go for it.

 

@BobSpence1

 

“Having the Bible as your sole ultimate authority means you have no actual foundation for any knowledge or morals - you are caught up in the worst form of self-justifying circular logic.”

Not true. I have an inherently consistent and explanatory worldview, you don’t. You can argue that my foundation is this or that, but you can’t say that I don’t have one or that I’m not justified in my beliefs. Intellectually honest atheists typically grant that to Christians by the way. You can argue against our premise, but you can’t prevent us from having it, and it follows that from our premise the entire world-view is cogent.

 

@Vastet

 

“There is no slavery in the US today.”

Just hope that Canada never establishes a holiday called ‘Kill Vastet Day’

Sure, in a couple of hundred years it will be all good, but in the mean time you’re in trouble… but it’s all relative, who cares? Regardless of law, slavery was damn wrong. The men and women who were shackled, beaten, and abused mentally physically, and sexually were wronged regardless of what the law of the land stated.

“Then we lock him up away from society, or exile him.”

Double-standard McGee. So punishment is OK after all?

You are a killer even if you just foot the bill of some hitman, just a secondary cause. The point is that if you were not already a killer, you would not entertain such notions. When people take action to kill, they evidence that they were killers, not the other way around.

“Then you'd be forcing your religion on everyone who attended school, myself included at one point.”

Whatever is taught in school is forced on kids, one way or the other. If it’s evolution, it’s forced, if it’s creation, it’s forced. We have to respect our democracy at that point. We live (here at least) in a free democracy with a majority rule. If they outlaw Bibles, we gain influence or leave, and if you don’t like creation in schools, you can attempt to gain influence or leave… I wouldn’t go so far as to force children to learn something they didn’t want to learn, if it were my decision I would give them freedom to opt out of religious courses just as they can opt out of dissecting a cat.

“The bible flies in the face of axiomatic universal law.”

Which one(s) ? And why? And where did they come from? And are they material? And how are they universally applied to a creature who may have just evolved into a higher level of thinking right before you commented?

“The church has a lot of reason to do it. In the end they'll have donating members of the church. Almost all religions come down to power and money.”

We probably spent more per capita to get there then they will ever make in their lives, we sure are some money hungry villains… What do starving people have to give? People are supposed to give according to what they have, and if that is nothing, that is nothing

To all: Stop being a rebel and turn to Christ in genuine faith and repentance. He says that if you keep His commandments that He will reveal Himself to you... It's a sure fire way to falsify the Bible, go for it! Jesus said that if you do not believe that He is who He said you will die in your sin and face the eternal wrath of Almighty God.

You must repent, or you will surely perish.

Look for God, He is there.

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:@BobSpence1

eXnihilO wrote:

@BobSpence1

“Having the Bible as your sole ultimate authority means you have no actual foundation for any knowledge or morals - you are caught up in the worst form of self-justifying circular logic.”

Not true. I have an inherently consistent and explanatory worldview, you don’t. You can argue that my foundation is this or that, but you can’t say that I don’t have one or that I’m not justified in my beliefs. Intellectually honest atheists typically grant that to Christians by the way. You can argue against our premise, but you can’t prevent us from having it, and it follows that from our premise the entire world-view is cogent.

That is your view, from within your biblical world, isolated as it is from reality.

It is consistent in the sense that any simplistic set of assumptions can be, so long as it doesn't have to be tested against reality.

You have a 'foundation', but the 'foundation' itself is free-floating, it has nothing to hold it up.

Your world-view appears cogent, only because it excludes or refuses to acknowledge anything which contradicts it.

It is based on the presupposition that your position needs no more justification than the assumption that it is true.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
outofnowheres wrote:Instead

outofnowheres wrote:

Instead of "Do you believe in gods?", how about "Do you believe in souls?" because if there is a god or gods but souls don't exist, then its kinda pointless to believe in gods if there is no afterlife to possibly meet them. Right?

Interestingly enough, some Christian theologies don't believe in souls.
Instead, they believe that God will resurrect them physically - i.e. the after life is their dead bodies being re-created.
Except the re-created bodies will now be perfect without the influence of sin.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO

eXnihilO wrote:

 

“Careful here or you will have to defend Paul the deceiver's orders to obey your master. He didn't suggest the slaves escape and gain freedom. You will also have to defend all the OT's advocacy of slave ownership as well.”

-- O rly?

“Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.)” – 1 Cor 7:21

And regarding the OT advocacy of slavery… it was more of a social service to people who couldn’t feed themselves. They were made to be productive in return for the food that helped them live. They also had the Jubilee in place to enforce regulation so that no one could be taken advantage of…

Social service?

Including selling your daughter to be a sex slave - Exodus 21:7-11 JPS  - 7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do.  8 If she please not her master, who hath espoused her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed; to sell her unto a foreign people he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. 9 And if he espouse her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.  10 If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her conjugal rights, shall he not diminish.  11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out for nothing, without money.

So if he in effect fails to treat her fairly for her services of conjugal visits and such (SEX) then she can leave with no cash.

Social Service?

Exodus 21:20-21 JPS - 20 And if a man smite his bondman, or his bondwoman, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall surely be punished.  21 Notwithstanding if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his money.

In other words, if you beat up your slave make sure he dies in a day or 2 lest you be punished. Death isn't mentioned here for the killer master.

Social service?

Deuteronomy 20:13-14 - JPS - 13 And when the LORD thy God delivereth it into thy hand, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword;  14 but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take for a prey unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

This seems to indicate they are taken against their will. Freedom isn't mentioned.

As to the NT, consider Paul was trying to get as many as possible to believe his deceptions, so he of course promised the slaves and lower classes they would all be one in Christ as in Galatians 3:28. It obviously worked as very many of his converts were slaves.

And as to your Bible quote consider all of the relevant verses Douay-Rheims - 1 Cor 7:24 - 21 Wast thou called, being a bondman? care not for it; but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. 22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a bondman, is the freeman of the Lord. Likewise he that is called, being free, is the bondman of Christ. 23 You are bought with a price; be not made the bondslaves of men. 24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he was called, therein abide with God. 25 Now concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord; but I give counsel, as having obtained mercy of the Lord, to be faithful.

So, if you are a slave, don't worry about it. We are all free in Christ, however that seems to do little to advocate another way, but rather console them so they remain loyal to the way, as in the end all will be free. It's holding out a lollipop that you get only after you die. Sort of useless.

 

eXnihilO wrote:

Defended? You will probably understand better if you are in America and they begin to socialize health care. You will wish that we forced people to work oppose to the lavish economically devastating handouts we give…


Yes I live in the US and have been a slave to the insurance companies as I'm self employed. Whatever you pay for health-care, it doesn't come near to the rates I have been charged.

eXnihilO wrote:

For some reason your comment brought to memory a kid jumping headlong into a running ceiling fan… only kidding.


Your comments remind me of the kid from a movie talking about Santa, I know he's real, I know he's real..... just kidding.

eXnihilO wrote:

“There are logical reasons why humans cooperate that have nothing to do with mythical gods.”

Amen. It’s due to the one true God, the triune God of the Christian scriptures.


 

Talk about unabashed assertions.

 

eXnihilO wrote:

“Except I don't recall where Jesus told his followers to only give help to others with a sermon. You have a citation for this that indicates you should only help your fellow man if they listen to the Gospel?”

You set up a straw man, took of his head, placed the remains back on the stake and went at him with a bat. I didn’t say or claim any of that.

My church feeds people on Sunday afternoons every week. We only do it because we have the opportunity to share the message of the Cross every week. You would be surprised at how thankful people are that we told them about Jesus before they eat. If we feed them without telling them why we care to do it, we waste our time.


You speak double-speak. You went right ahead and proved my point. "If we feed them without telling them why we care to do it, we waste our time."

eXnihilO wrote:

“Unbelievable that you consider myths and legends documented by less than knowledgeable people to be more reliable than scientific documentation and repeated observations.”

And it’s unbelievable that you keep asserting this falsity without a single iota of evidence to back it up, I wonder why? Get me some verifiable sources that pre-date Christianity… Go for it.

Let's see, you begin by asserting God is and provide nothing to substantiate. You should go first with your proof of the assertion God is.

In the meantime, you can visit these links to learn a little about the Ba'al Cycle and Canaanite myths.

You can start here to see where some of the Bible you hold so dear has origins in Canaanite (Ugaritic) mythology:

http://www.bibleandscience.com/languages/ugaritic.htm

and here: http://www.piney.com/BaalEpic.html

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

 

@pauljohntheskeptic

Well you certainly want to justify your unbelief, it is sad. You chose a bad translation and you read into this what you wanted it to say, you did not seek to understand the true meaning of the text. Your method of interpretation may best be understood as a ‘Bible fail.’ Let’s go through it:

“7And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do.”

Ok, so if a man sells his daughter into slavery, she is not to go free after six years as the previous context was talking about. (You failed to quote the actual context by the way.) This is actually a good thing, because many (not all) slave women were taken as wives or concubines and if they were able to be let free after six years, this would actually open up the door for the mistreatment of women. If the woman was no longer a virgin and has bore children, then she was unfit for marriage in the eyes of most men. This is done to protect her.

“8 If she please not her master, who hath espoused her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed; to sell her unto a foreign people he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.”

If she didn’t please her master, can’t have children, etc… (I think you have to read in a post-modern view of female oriented magazine articles to think this means that she didn’t know the ’20 ways to please your man.’ ) So to protect her, the law prohibited her being sold to a foreign land who may not have so many laws in place to keep her safe. Redeemed is regarding her father, He would get back his daughter. (We don’t know that he even really wanted to sell her, perhaps he could not take care of her and it was a good thing that her master took her, lest she starve.)

“9 And if he espouse her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.”

If given in marriage to his son, she becomes his legal daughter, which is not so bad as her master is now obligated by law to care for her on even stricter terms.

“10 If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her conjugal rights, shall he not diminish.”

If they have sex and the master takes another women, she cannot be short-changed on food, clothing, or sex if she still wants to have sex with her husband and bear children, a very noble concept in that day. (Another wife here implies that the master has chosen to marry her in this case, hence ‘another.’ )

“11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out for nothing, without money.”

If he does not hold his end of the bargain, she is freed, simple enough. If I were a woman at that time, I probably wouldn’t want to go free, I would want to be taken care of in a heavily poverty stricken culture. We have a very high view of ‘self’ today. Perhaps we are coming close to the end of days… When you have the peace of knowing God, your circumstances seem to matter far less then if you only have 70 years of life and you hope to go out with a bang… All of this was done to protect the women…

“In other words, if you beat up your slave make sure he dies in a day or 2 lest you be punished. Death isn't mentioned here for the killer master.”

There is a line between having slaves for help and treating them well and treating them only as property… The point of this law as I understand it was like our death penalty today. It was in place to discourage the beating of slaves. You can’t ‘over do it’ if you don’t do it at all… I would probably err on the side of caution as a slave owner if there was a law like this on the books. Again this was for the good of the slaves.

“Deuteronomy 20:13-14 - JPS - 13 And when the LORD thy God delivereth it into thy hand, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword;  14 but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take for a prey unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

This seems to indicate they are taken against their will. Freedom isn't mentioned.”

They were taken against their will yes, but it was a direct command of God… God can use any method of judgment He wants, and despite our lack of understanding why He commanded this, it was not wrong. None of the people were innocent, and if God chooses to punish them for what they have done here and now and/or in eternal Hell, that is His prerogative.   

“You can start here to see where some of the Bible you hold so dear has origins in Canaanite (Ugaritic) mythology:”

Nothing new… This would only prove that the Baal cycle copied from the Jews if anything. The Bible clearly demonstrates that the God of the Israelites is the one true God; there is no possible way for it to have been borrowed.

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Groan

eXnihilO wrote:

...it was a direct command of God… God can use any method of judgment He wants, and despite our lack of understanding why He commanded this, it was not wrong. None of the people were innocent, and if God chooses to punish them for what they have done here and now and/or in eternal Hell, that is His prerogative.   

The Bible clearly demonstrates that the God of the Israelites is the one true God; there is no possible way for it to have been borrowed.

 

This is a position that is simply not worth assailing. The bible is the word of god, the bible says this, that or the other and that's the way it is, sorry.

I don't think eXni has "destroyed arguments and every lofty opinion raised" so much as driven over the top of them from his padded seat on a wagon

of dogma pulled by a horse wearing concrete blinkers.

I'll keep an eye out for you at Armageddon, eXni.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO

eXnihilO wrote:

 

@pauljohntheskeptic

Well you certainly want to justify your unbelief, it is sad. You chose a bad translation and you read into this what you wanted it to say, you did not seek to understand the true meaning of the text. Your method of interpretation may best be understood as a ‘Bible fail.’

Did I choose a translation that doesn't support your way of interpretation EX, sorry about that. However if you discuss this with the Jewish Theist FurryCatherder you'll see I didn't. It's the best one can do in English, have her explain what the Hebrew says.

 

eXnihilO wrote:

Let’s go through it:

“7And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do.”

Ok, so if a man sells his daughter into slavery, she is not to go free after six years as the previous context was talking about. (You failed to quote the actual context by the way.) This is actually a good thing, because many (not all) slave women were taken as wives or concubines and if they were able to be let free after six years, this would actually open up the door for the mistreatment of women. If the woman was no longer a virgin and has bore children, then she was unfit for marriage in the eyes of most men. This is done to protect her.

 

Please support your statement that many slave women were taken as wives.

Please support your assumption that if they were set free this would open the door to mistreatment of women. It would seem that mistreatment was already evident from the fact they were either seized as war booty, or sold by their family to a man to be his sex toy. Explain how that is not mistreatment and your conjecture regarding possible mistreatment if they were free has any merit.

 

eXnihilO wrote:

 

“8 If she please not her master, who hath espoused her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed; to sell her unto a foreign people he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.”

If she didn’t please her master, can’t have children, etc… (I think you have to read in a post-modern view of female oriented magazine articles to think this means that she didn’t know the ’20 ways to please your man.’ ) So to protect her, the law prohibited her being sold to a foreign land who may not have so many laws in place to keep her safe. Redeemed is regarding her father, He would get back his daughter. (We don’t know that he even really wanted to sell her, perhaps he could not take care of her and it was a good thing that her master took her, lest she starve.)

 

Please note that you are defending the ownership of one human by another and there is nothing you can say that makes it sound any better. If your God so cared for his chosen people he would have at least put some decency and values of freedom in their hearts along with the other tripe you claim he has inserted. Since his people did in fact sell even their own children it indicates that your God has an epic fail when it comes to even basic values and morals. If freedom and respect  of individuals is not considered to be one of the most important morals and or values then your God is evil incarnate. The owning of one human by another can not be defended.

eXnihilO wrote:

 

“11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out for nothing, without money.”

If he does not hold his end of the bargain, she is freed, simple enough. If I were a woman at that time, I probably wouldn’t want to go free, I would want to be taken care of in a heavily poverty stricken culture. We have a very high view of ‘self’ today. Perhaps we are coming close to the end of days… When you have the peace of knowing God, your circumstances seem to matter far less then if you only have 70 years of life and you hope to go out with a bang… All of this was done to protect the women…

At least hookers get paid, women who have been sex slaves and get the short end in this situation don't.

I really don't think the average life span at the time was more than 30 to 35 years.

Protect the women, yeah right. I suggest you read a little of Celtic and Sumerian history how women were treated in those cultures. They didn't have your God to inspire them with morality yet they were further advanced in equality.

eXnihilO wrote:

“In other words, if you beat up your slave make sure he dies in a day or 2 lest you be punished. Death isn't mentioned here for the killer master.”

There is a line between having slaves for help and treating them well and treating them only as property… The point of this law as I understand it was like our death penalty today. It was in place to discourage the beating of slaves. You can’t ‘over do it’ if you don’t do it at all… I would probably err on the side of caution as a slave owner if there was a law like this on the books. Again this was for the good of the slaves.

See above, you can't defend anything regarding the owning of another as advocated in your Holy Book. It is evil incarnate and shows how your God did not put ethics and morality into anyone's heart.

eXnihilO wrote:

“Deuteronomy 20:13-14 - JPS - 13 And when the LORD thy God delivereth it into thy hand, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword;  14 but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take for a prey unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

This seems to indicate they are taken against their will. Freedom isn't mentioned.”

They were taken against their will yes, but it was a direct command of God… God can use any method of judgment He wants, and despite our lack of understanding why He commanded this, it was not wrong. None of the people were innocent, and if God chooses to punish them for what they have done here and now and/or in eternal Hell, that is His prerogative.  

Excuse noted. God can do whatever he chooses even if it indicates he is just as petty as the Greek gods, as we can't understand his ways. Slavery was wrong then and it's wrong now. You advocate evil in your acceptance of these events. Your god does not show anything resembling morality or ethics by advocating seizing people for slavery. Your dismissal of this indicates you'd accept anything supposedly from the god as justified regardless of the inhumanity.

eXnihilO wrote:

“You can start here to see where some of the Bible you hold so dear has origins in Canaanite (Ugaritic) mythology:”

Nothing new… This would only prove that the Baal cycle copied from the Jews if anything. The Bible clearly demonstrates that the God of the Israelites is the one true God; there is no possible way for it to have been borrowed.

Yes it is possible that your 'one true god' is nothing but a recopied legend or myth drawn from ancient ignorance.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:@mellestadThe

eXnihilO wrote:

@mellestad

The reason that what humans establish as 'moral' has not stayed consistent is not because it doesn't exist objectively. That would be like saying the reason science has not stayed consistent over the centuries is because there are no objective or scientific facts in the world...

The reason that it has not been the same is because with the exception of the Israelites, the rule-makers of society have always been men, and men are sinful...

Rape, murder, torture, abortion etc has always been wrong despite what society claims... IE: Nazi Germany's standard of morality during the Holocaust.

You are confusing my confidence and resolve with arrogance, it has nothing to do with me at all or pride. Think about it from your own perspective. I'm just a foolish man who believes in fairy tales... If you are right then all I am doing is explaining the social implications of a fairy tale. How is that arrogance? It might seem foolish, sure... but not arrogant. Now let's examine your comment: every God believer on Earth has a mental disorder and you are of a superior selection of super-human with a superior ability who rejoices in getting behind a keyboard and making fun of handicapped people who believe in fairy tales... I think it might be you who are arrogant, at least when we define it properly.

 

Exactly!  The morality of the Jews came straight from God.  The idea that God would later change his mind about morality is ridiculous, and so you are left defending heinous moral 'laws' that most modern societies have moved past.  My point stands.  I would much rather live in a modern society than be pals with Jesus and the disciples, and in reality I imagine you would as well.

I am willing to change my views on issues if someone presents facts that show me I am wrong.  You are unwilling to change your views on anything because you think you have a magical spirit whispering in your ear. I wish you could step outside of your head and actually hear yourself.  You are not simply explaining the social implications of a fairy tale, you are spouting Armageddon and religious law to anyone who will listen.  To me, you don't sound any different than any other religious fundamentalist.  Your arguments are the same, your 'proof' is the same, and your beliefs would be just as barbaric if our civilization had not forced you to abandon some of your churches teachings.

Also, I don't think religion is a mental disorder and I clearly did not state that.  Try being honest when you debate, I think that is in the Bible.  "And woe unto the zealot who types dishonest posts on atheist forums!!!"

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Just hope that Canada never

"Just hope that Canada never establishes a holiday called ‘Kill Vastet Day’"

Why would I need to hope that? Do you know how many laws would have to be changed for such to even be possible? I'd have to do something unprecedentedly horrific to even worry about anything more than jail time. Like drop nukes on the 5 biggest cities in Canada, killing 5-8 million people (I'm not going to bother looking it up). Even then I'd be taken into custody and jailed unless I resisted arrest. I'd even be protected from the general population. Things have come a long way since christians were in charge. Look at islam and see where your religion would be today if it had not been leashed by secular government for a few hundred years.

"Double-standard McGee. So punishment is OK after all?"

Strawman McGoo. Locking someone away from society doesn't have to be punishment. It can simply be locking them away from society.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"You are a killer even if

"You are a killer even if you just foot the bill of some hitman, just a secondary cause."

I must still be complicit to murder, by definition, in order to be a killer. I am not, therefore, a killer, by definition.

"Whatever is taught in school is forced on kids, one way or the other."

Exactly.

"We have to respect our democracy at that point."

It isn't about democracy OR your religion, it's about education. As in, that which they will need to know in order to get a job when they grow up. Evolution fits this description, as entire scientific fields depend upon its reality. Almost all advanced medicine depends on evolution. In order to get jobs in these fields, you have to know what evolution is, and how it works.
If you want to be a priest, you don't need to know much science. But most kids don't want to be priests, fortunately, so public schools need to teach them how to work for a living.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Which one(s)? ~ you

"Which one(s)? ~ you commented?"

Almost all of them. There was no adam and eve, no garden of eden. The moon reflects light, it is not a source. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, not a few thousand. Snakes "lost" their legs the same way we "lost" our tails. We are not even the centre of our own solar system, let alone our galaxy or the universe. There was never a global flood. People don't rise from the dead.
The bible was compiled from stories written in ignorance. It is a work of fiction.

"We probably spent more per capita to get there then they will ever make in their lives, we sure are some money hungry villains…"

Not even remotely true.

"To all: Stop being a rebel and turn to Christ in genuine faith and repentance. "

Noone here is going to be impressed with your preaching. Many of us have tested your god thus, and he did not appear. It doesn't exist. Stop deluding yourself, and come into the light of reason.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Regarding the

Vastet wrote:
Regarding the rest, what about jews and atheists and moslems and pagans who give to charity and volunteer their time? They don't have your moral imperitve from god.

Obviously this isn't true for Atheists and Pagans, but Judaism and Islam are both SOCIALIST religions, just as Christianity was before Paul turned it into something else.  Teshuvah, Tefillah, Tzedakah -- Repentance, Prayer, Charity (there's no English word that corresponds because "Charity" sounds voluntary, while tzedakah / sadakah (Arabic) are OBLIGATORY).  Those three items are pretty big in both Judaism and Islam.

Christianity turned it into a voluntary thing, then said there's no divine punishment for being selfish.  The result is that Christians use food, clothing and shelter to extort the less fortunate into becoming Christians.  The Torah, on the other hand, says that mistreating the less fortunate is straight up evil.  Which is another reason Christianity is evil.  Or "So much for Christian morality!"

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:To all: Stop

eXnihilO wrote:

To all: Stop being a rebel and turn to Christ in genuine faith and repentance. He says that if you keep His commandments that He will reveal Himself to you... It's a sure fire way to falsify the Bible, go for it! Jesus said that if you do not believe that He is who He said you will die in your sin and face the eternal wrath of Almighty God.

Could you please find the quote from Jesus, while he was still alive and walking around in a human body, in which he said

a). He is a god.

b). Failure to believe he is a god results in punishment.

c). That punishment involves some kind of "Hell" concept.

Red letter bible notice -- only use the red letters in your red letter bible.  And I'll be checking your work, so pick y

eXnihilO wrote:
Look for God, He is there.

And the great thing about Christianity -- you guys have THREE of them!

So, when Avraham Aveinu, (Abraham, our father) was a young man, his Uncle ran an idol making shop.  One day, Abraham, because he's such a strict monotheist, goes into the idol making shop and smashes up all the idols, except for the biggest one.  His Uncle comes home and asks what happened.  Abraham points to the biggest idol and say "He did it."

That's what's so fun about polytheism.  Getting to pick and choose who does what to whom out of the bunch.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Social service?

Including selling your daughter to be a sex slave - Exodus 21:7-11 JPS  - 7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do.  8 If she please not her master, who hath espoused her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed; to sell her unto a foreign people he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. 9 And if he espouse her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.  10 If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her conjugal rights, shall he not diminish.  11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out for nothing, without money.

So if he in effect fails to treat her fairly for her services of conjugal visits and such (SEX) then she can leave with no cash.

You have two or three misinterpretations / misunderstandings going on here.

1). Women's "conjugal rights" are the control of the marital bed.  In other words, not a sex slave.

2). See 1), "conjugal rights" aren't a "service".  A Jewish wife can say "No" indefinitely.  However, if she requests a "conjugal visit" from her husband, he cannot say "No".  Judaism is really cool that way.

3). I believe the proper context for "without money" is that the husband does not get to charge for her to be redeemed.  He's the one who doesn't get money.  If she had property, she would leave with her property since women's property in Judaism remains the property of the woman, while the man's property is liable for supporting the woman and any children she has.  You might want to review Proverbs 31 for an image of the ideal Jewish wife.

You also glossed over the implications of Exodus 21:9 -- you keep regarding this as some kind of sexual slavery where the "master" gets to abuse the "slave" and force her to have sex at will, but 21:9 is explicit -- she is to be treated as FAMILY.  And that's the one giant gaping hole in your entire argument.  We're not Christians.  You can't just pick one verse and claim it's the entire meaning.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Social service?

Including selling your daughter to be a sex slave - Exodus 21:7-11 JPS  - 7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do.  8 If she please not her master, who hath espoused her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed; to sell her unto a foreign people he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. 9 And if he espouse her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.  10 If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her conjugal rights, shall he not diminish.  11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out for nothing, without money.

So if he in effect fails to treat her fairly for her services of conjugal visits and such (SEX) then she can leave with no cash.

You have two or three misinterpretations / misunderstandings going on here.

1). Women's "conjugal rights" are the control of the marital bed.  In other words, not a sex slave.

I understand that is so for a wife, what about a woman who was sold to be a slave if the master does not espouse himself to her, marry in plain English. I see nothing here that covers that. So if she refuses to do her duties whatever they may be,  he can do whatever,  beat her, sell her to other Jewish people or whatever. Since she would not be married and is in effect property, it seemed clear to me that even killing a slave was not specifically a death penalty issue, only some sort of punishment. When death is the punishment it is very clearly specified in the laws in the Bible. Here it is not.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

2). See 1), "conjugal rights" aren't a "service".  A Jewish wife can say "No" indefinitely.  However, if she requests a "conjugal visit" from her husband, he cannot say "No".  Judaism is really cool that way.

Indefinitely is probably pushing it as if no offspring are produced the man can demand and get a divorce can he not?

Again, I was not speaking of a slave that has been married to the master but rather one that has been sold not of her choice and for whatever reason won't marry the master, which may be really a concubine or a mistress in effect.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

3). I believe the proper context for "without money" is that the husband does not get to charge for her to be redeemed.  He's the one who doesn't get money.  If she had property, she would leave with her property since women's property in Judaism remains the property of the woman, while the man's property is liable for supporting the woman and any children she has.  You might want to review Proverbs 31 for an image of the ideal Jewish wife.

I understand that to be the case if she had assets, but if one was sold to be a slave it was likely done because her family had no money therefore neither would she. If she had no children by the master and never married him she would leave with nada not mucho dinero as you suggest.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

You also glossed over the implications of Exodus 21:9 -- you keep regarding this as some kind of sexual slavery where the "master" gets to abuse the "slave" and force her to have sex at will, but 21:9 is explicit -- she is to be treated as FAMILY.  And that's the one giant gaping hole in your entire argument.  We're not Christians.  You can't just pick one verse and claim it's the entire meaning.

It seems to me that 21:9 is in regards to her to be treated as family in effect a daughter if she is married to one of the master's sons, is that not what it says? If she is not married to anyone but is a purchased slave please explain how the rules apply regarding her uses and duties. If she was property and not a wife of anyone what then? Is she much different in that case then the man's ox?

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

@pauljohntheskeptic

“It's the best one can do in English…”

Unless you are fluent in Hebrew, I’ll forgive your assumption.

“Please support your statement that many slave women were taken as wives.”

The law was written for the Hebrew culture, millions of people. This being a part of a law for so many people would imply that this is not uncommon, but fairly common situations.

“Please support your assumption that if they were set free this would open the door to mistreatment of women…”

A non-virgin may not have been fit for marriage and depending on the context could have been left with few options, one of which being prostitution.

“Please note that you are defending the ownership of one human by another and there is nothing you can say that makes it sound any better.”

Can a 6 year-old simple choose to leave whenever he pleases? Not at all. His parents have custody and the situation was similar albeit a different context back then. People in need of care can sell themselves, be sold, or opt for people having custody of them for a limited amount of time. Just as we have laws in place to enforce proper care for those with custody of dependant people of our society, so they did back then.

“…It is evil incarnate…”

The material universe doesn’t care what the status of homosapien liberty is, you have yet again appealed to God to make a point as no one has the authority to say what is evil or good unless we have the objective standard of God’s morality.

“Slavery was wrong then and it's wrong now.”

Hebrew slavery, Roman slavery, American slavery, or Egyptian slavery? They are not all the same.

No one is as free as you think. I can’t just sprout wings and fly, and if I could fly, I couldn’t cross many borders without being shot down… Corporate America is more like human ownership than Hebrew slavery…

@mellestad

“I would much rather live in a modern society than be pals with Jesus and the disciples, and in reality I imagine you would as well.”

The fact that your statement is true is why Jesus will deny you on judgment day… I hope that changes before you leave this place. Humanity has been evil since the beginning, and modern times are no different. Mass abortion, rampant STD’s, millions of children in Africa starving and dying of HIV, death and gore being applauded by mainstream media, we couldn’t ask for better times could we?

“…your beliefs would be just as barbaric if our civilization had not forced you to abandon some of your churches teachings”

Exactly which barbaric teachings of ‘my’ church have I been forced to abandon?

@Vaset

“Locking someone away from society doesn't have to be punishment. It can simply be locking them away from society.”

Oh, of course, why didn’t I see that?

“It isn't about democracy OR your religion, it's about education.”

In America the public school system is regulated by the government. If we wanted well-educated children we would teach them about both sides.

“Almost all of them. There was no adam and eve, no garden of eden. The moon reflects light, it is not a source. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, not a few thousand. Snakes "lost" their legs the same way we "lost" our tails. We are not even the centre of our own solar system, let alone our galaxy or the universe. There was never a global flood. People don't rise from the dead.”

You misunderstood my question. You claimed that some of my beliefs violate axiomatic universal laws, I want to know which axiomatic universal law a talking snake violates, and why.

@FurryCat

“Could you please find the quote from Jesus, while he was still alive and walking around in a human body, in which he said…

a). He is a god."

He didn’t say ‘a god’ he is  the I AM of Exodus 3…

-- “Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am” – John 8:58

-- “When Jesus said to them, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground.” – John 18:6

"b). Failure to believe he is a god results in punishment."

Again, not ‘a god.’ If you do not believe that he is Yahweh you can’t have faith that He can save and you can’t be saved.

--“I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.” – John 8:24

--“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” – John 3:17-18

"c). That punishment involves some kind of "Hell" concept."

--“…anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.” – Matthew 5:22

--“If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.” – Mark 9:43

“Red letter bible notice -- only use the red letters in your red letter bible.  And I'll be checking your work, so pick y”

K.

“And the great thing about Christianity -- you guys have THREE of them!”

You are clearly ignorant of the Trinity doctrine.

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:You are

eXnihilO wrote:

You are clearly ignorant of the Trinity doctrine.

 

The one that says 3=1 and 1=3?  Doesn't that violate an axiomatic universal law?


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
no

v4ultingbassist wrote:

The one that says 3=1 and 1=3?  Doesn't that violate an axiomatic universal law?

The Trinity doesn't violate logic.

One God

Three Persons

The Father is not the Son or the Spirit

The Son is the Father or the Spirit

The Spirit is not the Father or the Son

 

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO

eXnihilO wrote:

v4ultingbassist wrote:

The one that says 3=1 and 1=3?  Doesn't that violate an axiomatic universal law?

The Trinity doesn't violate logic.

One God

Three Persons

The Father is not the Son or the Spirit

The Son is the Father or the Spirit

The Spirit is not the Father or the Son

 

 

How, specifically, are the three related to the one then, if not equivalent?


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3?

 Three persons sounds like three gods to me.

 

Even power rangers are 5 people. When they make a mega-zord it is 5 zords put together. 

 

Or are you saying that the three are mini-gods that when combined make up one god?

 

Are they like the babies from Invader Zim's "Plague of Babies" episode? Do they merge into giganto-baby?

 

 

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO

eXnihilO wrote:

v4ultingbassist wrote:

The one that says 3=1 and 1=3?  Doesn't that violate an axiomatic universal law?

The Trinity doesn't violate logic.

One God

Three Persons

The Father is not the Son or the Spirit

The Son is the Father or the Spirit

The Spirit is not the Father or the Son

Logically, from "The Son is the Father or the Spirit", there are only two persons. Unless that is a typo, and you meant it to match the others, IOW,

 "The Son is not the Father or the Spirit".

Which simply describes three persons.

You have not provided a logic statement tying 'God' into the other statements, so your account has described four entities: one God and three Persons.

Do you mean that God is a group of three 'persons'? Some sort of 'group mind'?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
D:

BobSpence1 wrote:

eXnihilO wrote:

v4ultingbassist wrote:

The one that says 3=1 and 1=3?  Doesn't that violate an axiomatic universal law?

The Trinity doesn't violate logic.

One God

Three Persons

The Father is not the Son or the Spirit

The Son is the Father or the Spirit

The Spirit is not the Father or the Son

Logically, from "The Son is the Father or the Spirit", there are only two persons. Unless that is a typo, and you meant it to match the others, IOW,

 "The Son is not the Father or the Spirit".

Which simply describes three persons.

You have not provided a logic statement tying 'God' into the other statements, so your account has described four entities: one God and three Persons.

Do you mean that God is a group of three 'persons'? Some sort of 'group mind'?

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This justification is hilarious

eXnihilO wrote:

v4ultingbassist wrote:

The one that says 3=1 and 1=3?  Doesn't that violate an axiomatic universal law?

The Trinity doesn't violate logic.

One God

Three Persons

The Father is not the Son or the Spirit

The Son is the Father or the Spirit

The Spirit is not the Father or the Son

 

 

It's right up there with your best work so far, eX.

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

eXnihilO wrote:

v4ultingbassist wrote:

The one that says 3=1 and 1=3?  Doesn't that violate an axiomatic universal law?

The Trinity doesn't violate logic.

One God

Three Persons

The Father is not the Son or the Spirit

The Son is the Father or the Spirit

The Spirit is not the Father or the Son

 

 

It's right up there with your best work so far, eX.

 

 

 

 

 

I still want to see the one god, three persons equivalency explained.  That's where it'll get good.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Furry wrote:Obviously this

Furry wrote:
Obviously this isn't true ~ in both Judaism and Islam.

I'm not about to let you take my words out of context here. Ex is arguing that you follow a lie as much as I do. I am therefore utilising positions counter to his own to demonstrate he is wrong. Any position which is not his is equally valid in this context, because he says so. It is recommended that observers to a discussion I have with a hardline christian merely observe, or begin a new conversation if they must. I'm a tactician when it comes to debate with people like Ex. I may use strategies and claims that others have a problem with, but you can't necessarily use reason alone to combat this depth of brainwashing. I therefore don't limit myself to logic and reality alone. I can't, because my opponent is neither logical nor accepting of reality. I must argue from his or her point of view, to show how it is inconsistent with itself from within.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Oh, of course, why didn’t

"Oh, of course, why didn’t I see that?"

A good question.

"In America the public school system is regulated by the government. If we wanted well-educated children we would teach them about both sides."

There's multiple problems with that. You want kids to learn about wicca and islam in school? Because it is hardly science vs christians alone.
Keep religion in religious classrooms, and keep science in science classrooms.

"You misunderstood my question. You claimed that some of my beliefs violate axiomatic universal laws, I want to know which axiomatic universal law a talking snake violates, and why."

The laws of physics. One cannot talk if one has no vocal chords. Snakes don't have vocal chords. And even if they did, they don't have the brain to use them. Snakes never spoke.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

@v4ultingbassist

"How, specifically, are the three related to the one then, if not equivalent?"

They share in the essence of being God, but are distinct in personality and role.

A useful analogy might be to think of three soldiers of equal rank. Three separate persons, with equal rank. No analogy is perfect though.

@BobSpence1

"Unless that is a typo, and you meant it to match the others..."

God is not 'a person,' rather God is described as being triune in nature, being comprised of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That was an awful typo!
 

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO

eXnihilO wrote:

@v4ultingbassist

"How, specifically, are the three related to the one then, if not equivalent?"

They share in the essence of being God, but are distinct in personality and role.

A useful analogy might be to think of three soldiers of equal rank. Three separate persons, with equal rank. No analogy is perfect though.


 

So, none of the three are actually fully God, right?  If they were, then it'd be a polytheistic religion.  It was my understanding that Jesus is FULLY God (read equals)


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

"So, none of the three are actually fully God, right?  If they were, then it'd be a polytheistic religion.  It was my understanding that Jesus is FULLY God (read equals)"

They are all fully God, and equally God, but God is their nature, not their 'personality.'

There is nothing I can use to properly illustrate the point because God is not entirely comprehensible to a human mind. We can easily apprehend the idea of a triune God, but because the way man was created we are unable to identify with God's tri-unity.

All the best.

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:"So, none of

eXnihilO wrote:

"So, none of the three are actually fully God, right?  If they were, then it'd be a polytheistic religion.  It was my understanding that Jesus is FULLY God (read equals)"

They are all fully God, and equally God, but God is their nature, not their 'personality.'

There is nothing I can use to properly illustrate the point because God is not entirely comprehensible to a human mind.

 

I mean no offense, but this right here is a justification for the impossible logic of the Trinity.  If it is not fully comprehensible, then there is no way to assert its truth.


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

v4ultingbassist wrote:

I mean no offense, but this right here is a justification for the impossible logic of the Trinity.  If it is not fully comprehensible, then there is no way to assert its truth.

Does your ability to understand the mechanical functions of a TV or automobile change the truth that they do in fact work out logically? Of course not. Your ability to understand any given truth statement has absolutely no effect on its veracity.

 

 

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO

eXnihilO wrote:

v4ultingbassist wrote:

I mean no offense, but this right here is a justification for the impossible logic of the Trinity.  If it is not fully comprehensible, then there is no way to assert its truth.

Does your ability to understand the mechanical functions of a TV or automobile change the truth that they do in fact work out logically? Of course not. Your ability to understand any given truth statement has absolutely no effect on its veracity.

 

 

 

Except your original premise holds that NO human can understand it, not just you or me. 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO

eXnihilO wrote:

@BobSpence1

"Unless that is a typo, and you meant it to match the others..."

God is not 'a person,' rather God is described as being triune in nature, being comprised of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That was an awful typo!
 

Sorry, you seem to have misread what I was asking. You wrote

"The Father is not the Son or the Spirit

The Son is the Father or the Spirit

The Spirit is not the Father or the Son".

I was asking why the second line does not match the others - it doesn't quite make sense to me, unless you meant to include the word "not" in there as in the other two statements, to make it read:

"The Son is not the Father or the Spirit",

Then it is all symmetrical.

Just asking for clarification on that - if the original post was what you meant to type, just curious why the "Son" is described so differently, seeming to imply that he has no separate existence, ie he is either the Father or the Spirit. I don't see how it fits into the idea of three, whereas the version with "not" in it makes sense as describing three separate persons which are nevertheless part of one God.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

It was a typo, and a really bad one.