Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(January 23, 2016 at 2:58 pm)athrock Wrote: We are all entitled to our own beliefs, mh, but we are not entitled to our own facts.
The unfortunate belief that God is immoral is one that can be overcome by close attention to evidence presented well.
What facts? Biblical facts? What evidence? Biblical evidence? Just because it's in a book does not make it a fact or evidence. It only becomes a fact/evidence in the mind of those that choose believe. I think that you understand that will never be the case for the vast majority, if not all of us.
So I ask again, what is your purpose for being here? Are you a mission from god (Blues Brothers)? Is a conversion the purpose? That we accept the fantasy? Or that we accept you? It's becoming very apparent that you will not accept us.
(January 23, 2016 at 2:53 pm)athrock Wrote: As a side note, does any atheist here ever go into a Christian bookstore and buy a decent book in order to understand what Christians actually believe?
Which book? Which god?
Actually, don't answer that, it doesn't matter. You're asking us to play a game I know in advance it's impossible for us to win, and impossible for you to lose. Like so many other believers- not all, but a startling majority from what I've seen- you've conflated your specific interpretations of your religion for the religion in its entirety. But you're not alone in that, and you're also not the first theist to waltz in here and loftily assert that, because we aren't already a full bottle in what you believe and why you believe it, we're inadequately equipped to deal with christian theism as a whole. We clearly don't understand a thing, because what we're saying about christianity doesn't map totally over whatever apologetics you've sponged up from elsewhere and think presents some towering theological edifice we cannot surmount.
We don't know what you believe, therefore we don't know christianity. But did you think you were the only one doing that?
Maybe it's just really hard to see from the inside. Maybe you're so deep in your own beliefs that you can't even imagine there being an outside of them, let alone different denominations, so let me let you in on a little secret here, let me tell you what it's like to be a non-believer and have to deal with you people: we had a Catholic here a while ago that I had to have this exact same conversation with, because he talked like you do. We hadn't read the books about what he believed, which I'm sure differed from your beliefs in a few respects, and so we obviously didn't know christianity. But we have Protestants here saying the exact same thing, yet again, saying we don't get christianity because we aren't intimately familiar with their beliefs. Both of them assert that the totality of the things they believe represents all that "true christianity" is and ever could be, and they are but two people in a throng of christians who take any disagreement with the religion to be the result of ignorance, where the person making it isn't speaking specifically about the things each individual christian within that crowd believes.
Obviously they can't all be right: the Protestants and Catholics saying these things to us believe in mutually exclusive practices and doctrines. Even within denominations there are beliefs like that, leading to ever more splintered, fractured, specific beliefs being held up, with no thought at all to actually justifying this, as "true christianity." And every last one of you clamors to dismiss what we atheists have to say, because we aren't speaking directly to you and what you believe when we talk.
But how could we? How could we possibly know what license you've given yourself to spin or dismiss the bible in your own special way ahead of time? How can we discuss these issues with you, if there's so many of you willing to demand exclusive rights over christianity, without even seeming to notice the thousands of other denominations attempting to knock down that same door? Especially when none of you seem interested at all in actually showing that, you all just want to assume without evidence that what you believe is what all christians believe, even when it's demonstrably not.
How are we, sitting on the outside, unwilling to just heedlessly privilege the things you believe because you believe them, supposed to handle this? You put the burden on us to make your case for you, shove books into our hands as though you've somehow got the right to give us homework before you'll deign to have a discussion with us, completely unaware of all your peers doing the same: oh, you don't know christianity unless you've read William Lane Craig. Oh, Lee Strobel truly understands the gospel! How can you have made an informed decision egarding Christ without having read Lewis Carrol?!
... And so on. It's not a game an atheist can ever win because it's designed from the ground up to make atheists lose. That's what you want, really. That's what you're all striking out for here: you don't need to argue your case, you're fine with just invalidating ours. In the silence that follows, your beliefs must win by default, right? Don't play this game with us. Don't just presume your beliefs to be the only beliefs contained within christianity, and don't just sit there making vague accusations as to strawmen in place of actually involving yourself in the discussion. Realize how the deck is being stacked against us here, stop ignoring the thousands of other denominations with their own books and an equally high opinion of their beliefs, and stop trying this bullshit game with us!
Oh, dear. A lengthy tirade.
Well, to do it justice requires more energy than I can muster at present.
(January 23, 2016 at 3:12 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: What facts? Biblical facts? What evidence? Biblical evidence? Just because it's in a book does not make it a fact or evidence. It only becomes a fact/evidence in the mind of those that choose believe. I think that you understand that will never be the case for the vast majority, if not all of us.
So I ask again, what is your purpose for being here? Are you a mission from god (Blues Brothers)? Is a conversion the purpose? That we accept the fantasy? Or that we accept you? It's becoming very apparent that you will not accept us.
I'm here to enjoy good discussions.
You?
Now I have concerns on your definition of good, or discussion, or both. Nice dodge.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
January 23, 2016 at 4:26 pm (This post was last modified: January 23, 2016 at 4:26 pm by Angrboda.)
(January 23, 2016 at 3:38 pm)athrock Wrote:
(January 23, 2016 at 2:28 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: What's your evidence of this? This seems little more than a bare assertion that you'd like to believe is true.
In my experience, reasoning isn't the deciding factor in which direction it moves you, but rather pre-existing biases and goals do. This seems obviously the case with you and your conclusion here.
Jormungandr-
Have you ever read many books or articles written by former "cradle atheists" who were raised in atheist homes? I recently read an online article by Dr. Francis Collins - the head of a big human genome research group in the US. Obviously, the man is no slouch.
The common theme in these accounts is that the atheist went through a slow, sometimes painful, process of discovery guided by reason to overcome the "pre-existing biases and goals" that had undergirded their atheism. The "Paul knocked off his horse on the road to Emmaus" kind of conversion is pretty rare. When men of science apply their skills to an examination of the claims of Christianity and come to the conclusion that it's true, it's worth noting.
That reason sometimes leads to faith is not evidence that reason "usually" leads to faith. Your argument is a red herring and you are guilty of ignoratio elenchi.
(January 23, 2016 at 3:38 pm)athrock Wrote: Now, would you say that you have "pre-existing biases and goals" that contribute to your present state of unbelief?
(January 22, 2016 at 6:49 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: I wasn't trying to make an argument. I'm just pointing out that I and plenty of other atheists do not care about the supposed immorality of God. We understand that He is a character in a book of fables and as such he can be menacing, good or evil in turns, whatever. There simply isn't any problem for me since I don't believe and I don't care. That isn't an argument, it's simply a fact.
Well, I suppose that's fair, but is it reasonable and accurate?
How do you KNOW with absolute certainty that Jesus is just a character in a book of fables?
And, FWIW, the question of God's immorality in the OT is a huge deal to a lot of folks. Cecelia, for example, is beside herself with hatred of God for his alleged sexism. I don't know what may have happened to her in the past to make that her hot button, but there it is. Others here are gay and that's their obstacle. I suspect one person may have even been molested by a priest - though this is just a guess on my part. My point is that people have different reasons for their atheism, and thoughtful discussion of these things might actually remove some barriers. I'm not sure that everyone is emotionally ready to have that kind of conversation, though.
For example, do you suppose that if it could be demonstrated to her satisfaction that God is actually NOT sexist, then a huge obstacle standing in the way of faith would be removed? IOW, if Cecelia looked into the matter carefully and came to the conclusion that God is NOT sexist (but actually the opposite), then might some of her animosity or defensiveness be diminished?
One other thing I've observed: most of the people in this forum are westerners and they come largely from a Judeo-Christian background. I'm not seeing too many people identifying as former Hindus or Muslims or Buddhists. I'm sure there may be a few here, but not the majority who are clearly coming from Catholic and Evangelical Protestant backgrounds for the most part. This means that they didn't say, "Well, I'm not happy with the Catholic Church's teaching on X, Y or Z, so, God must not exist." People with hot button issue like that usually become Protestant. No, the former believers here seem to have emotional or experiential reasons for their animosity toward God and believers.
Quote: Reasoning usually moves the individual in the direction of faith.
That's one of the most hilarious sentences I have ever seen in a theist post.
"The family that prays together...is brainwashing their children."- Albert Einstein
(January 23, 2016 at 3:56 pm)athrock Wrote: Hold on...I'm not being disrespectful in any way.
If I say, "Well, of course this person cheers for the Patriots...what do you expect from a native Bostonian?", am I being offensive? No, I'm offering an explanation as to why someone might cheer for the team.
Similarly, if I suggest that someone might have an issue with God because he was raped by a priest or because she was threatened with hell by her baptist parents, am I being offensive? Or simply offering an explanation for an observed enmity?
Sorry, but when you distract focus away from the arguments you're being presented with, when you ignore them completely (as you did earlier on the page you posted this on, for one) in favor of speculating on what defects of intellect and character a person might have that leads them to disagree with you, that is being disrespectful. Aside from the obvious, frustrating implication in that, that a person cannot rationally disagree with your position, the fact is that you're trying to impugn someone's character at best, and at worst taking events in their pasts that would clearly be painful and traumatic to use as leverage to score rhetorical points on the internet. If you can't see how that's different from ribbing someone about their preference in sports teams, I don't know what to say to you.
Quote:This thread is all about tacking the arguments...well, one of them, anyway. The idea that God must be a moral monster because he ordered the destruction of the Canaanites. I have offered explanations for that order...though they are not sitting well with most.
If this thread is about tackling arguments, your failure to do so in favor of imputing biased motivations for daring to disagree with your (apparently presupposed to be infallible) position is only thrown into greater relief.
Quote:But the fact is, the destruction of the Canaanite cites has not been shown to be incompatible with the concept of a loving, personal God. And this is significant, because many in this forum falsely assume that God of the OT is a "prick" as one poster put it, and this misunderstanding supports their atheism.
Ah yes, and now we're at the favored logical fallacy of the theists: "Prove me wrong, or else I'm right!"
My earliest response to your claims, on about page three or four, meanwhile, remains completely ignored while you desperately scrabble to show that we're all meanie-pants who are against you, instead of approaching the arguments you've been given on their own terms.
Quote:And if someone slowly, carefully shows you otherwise? What then?
Then you would have an inoffensive, yet still empirically unevidenced, proposition on your hands.
That said, what we have now is an offensive position being defended by an apologist who thinks far too highly of his own arguments and seems incapable of even considering that they may be wrong.
Quote:Did you read what Dr. Francis Collins wrote here?
Are you always in the habit of making wild claims and then expecting us to do your homework for you in backing them up?
I respect Francis Collins as a professional, but I don't respect his justifications for his faith, nor will I let his scientific pedigree blind me to the fact that intelligent people can and will be wrong about things. In this case, a person swayed by the rhetoric of Lewis Carrol, in any sense, is most likely wrong in the belief it prompted them to come to: Carrol's defenses of christianity are sad and anemic, and the assertion that rational people could totally come to god by rational means similarly thinly supported, though I suppose it must come as great comfort to those who do believe. You, like them, will say that over and over, but when you were asked to justify or support it, all you did was accuse the questioner of bias, earlier today.
When it comes to actually accounting for these comforting assertions, all you were able to do was dodge the question. That hasn't escaped anyone's notice.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
(January 23, 2016 at 1:25 am)drfuzzy Wrote: Seriously, what the hell?
We know that Yahweh was a war god that was worshiped by many tribes in the Middle East. Archaeologists have shown that the Hebrews were a Canaanite faction that split from the whole. The Exodus never happened. Sure, there was warfare, and Canaanite cities were destroyed, probably by the "new" tribe, the Hebrews. But they certainly didn't accomplish a complete genocide - - they just celebrated theft and murder and rape. And the victor writes the account of how GAWD told them to destroy the EVIL people who don't worship the right imaginary friend. And since the Egyptians ruled the area, off 'n' on, the fairy tale about how the Hebrews were saved by their god from the evil overlords makes a whole lot of sense.
And now we're fighting over the stupid fairy tales. Whether it's OK for a "deity" to tell people to take another tribe's land, murder it's males and rape it's females. Well, sure, that was humanity 3000 years ago. And now a Wholly Babble worshiper is trying to tell us that this behavior is OK??
How does one answer such ignorance?
I can see that you are ignorant of all the recent archaeological finds in the Middle East. This is a normal position for someone who is terrified that the BOOK that they worship will be found inaccurate.
"The family that prays together...is brainwashing their children."- Albert Einstein
(January 22, 2016 at 3:46 pm)robvalue Wrote: The bible suggests, repeatedly, that killing people based on a voice in your head (or even someone else telling you about a voice in their head) is a good way to act.
If you accept crap like this, then you have no grounds to condemn anyone who ever does something, claiming "God told them to". ISIS, for example. Or any random nutcase gunman.
It's not hard for the side that won to write "God made me do it" in the report.
Quote: Imagine that you were one of the Israelites travelling with Joshua. You've been wandering in the desert for 40 years following a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. Every morning you eat manna with has formed like frost on the ground. When you need water, Moses strikes a rock with his staff, and bam....water for milions of people and livestock appears out of nowhere.
Imagine that you were one of the people on the boat with Odysseus, going on the quest given to him by the gods. You had seen the god Hermes give him magic herbs. You had avoided sea monsters and helped blind the cyclops. With all you had seen, wouldn't you obey any order a god gave you?
Your parents and grandparents, all dead now since they were not permitted to enter the promised land because of their disobedience, told you of all that God did in Egypt: the plagues, the passover, the parting of the Red Sea. In your tent, you still have the jewelry, coins and other precious items that the Egyptians gave to your grandparents and parents as they left Egypt.
In the past few weeks, you entered the Promised Land - passing through the Jordan River which God also parted so that the people could walk through on dry land. You saw all this with your own eyes. And for the past six days, you've marched around the city of Jericho every day. Today, you've just marched around the city seven times, you've blown your trumpet, and you've seen the mighty walls of the city fall.
You tell me, rob...in view of all that God has done in the course of your parents' lives, in light of all that you have witnessed in your own life, and given what has transpired in just the past couple of hours, are you gonna believe and obey God's command to enter the city and destroy its wicked inhabitants or not?
This story was from a holy book too. A whole nation believed it was absolutely true for many hundreds of years. It sounds just about as believable to me as your little tale.
"The family that prays together...is brainwashing their children."- Albert Einstein
January 23, 2016 at 5:10 pm (This post was last modified: January 23, 2016 at 5:13 pm by ReptilianPeon.)
This may have already been mentioned, but, this, from the first post in this topic:
"God used the Israelites to punish the Canaanites for their sins"
Yeah, because the creator of the universe has to use humans to do its dirty work for it. Hello, this is god we're talking about. Why does god have to put the Iraelites in danger?
Why not just treat then same as the Egyptians (with all the plagues, etc)? Or create another 'local' flood? People who say the flood was local (both Bible and Quran) really annoy me for some reason.
EDIT: And another thing, if humans have free will, why does god care what the Canaanites are doing anyway?
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
