Will it be

a: You're just reading those verses out of context
b: God can't commit crimes because everything God does is good
c: A comparison between John V, God, and ants he killed because they messed with his patio
d: God knows everything and can do anything but could not come up with a method of problem-solving that doesn't involve mass murder (but that's totally not because he's evil guys)

I say it will drag out into a combination of all 4. Plus something crazy that you didn't think of.

(June 17, 2013 at 1:19 pm)ideologue08 Wrote: Say what? You're a deist would you mind telling me why you believe in God? I always thought you atheist je suis très intéressé

Well, there's little practical difference between the two. For me, deism is a truce between my skeptical brain and lofty sentiments about the wonders of this universe, a grand machine as I see it. As Hitchens once said, "the natural universe is wonderful enough". It also fits with my hope for the future, that humanity has a noble destiny in spite of all our current struggles in our technological adolescence. We are evolving not just biologically but morally, and I hope our descendants look back on us like we look upon the Dark Ages.

(June 17, 2013 at 3:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Yet again with the ad Homs.

(June 18, 2013 at 6:22 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: For now: You worship a monster.

Yet you present no evidence to support that statement. Nothing to suggest that you know that these actions were unjust.

So we can confidently dismiss your case here.

I guess you're basing all of this on 'a feeling' just like your belief in a deity.

Under what conditions are the mass murder of innocent people just?

(June 19, 2013 at 2:42 am)fr0d0 Wrote: So we can confidently dismiss your case here.

So you're comfortable worshiping a being that orders rape, genocide and slavery?

Got it. I don't even want to know you.

(June 18, 2013 at 5:20 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: My point is not a bare assertion. It's based on my reading of the Bible and my example of the 10Cs. Your "counter-example" isn't. Amish culture is very strict about conformity of their followers and they strictly outlaw the "evils" of blasphemy, idolatry and apostasy. It also promotes false "virtures", in their case eschewing modern culture. Hence, the Amish example actually proves my point.

You said two things are in the nature of religion – gaining more followers, and gaining increased obedience among existing followers. I clearly gave the Amish as a counterexample to the first, not the second. You’re applying them to the second, for which I gave a different counterexample. Are you being purposely misleading, or are you just too lazy to look back and follow the arguments?

(June 19, 2013 at 10:39 am)John V Wrote: You said two things are in the nature of religion – gaining more followers, and gaining increased obedience among existing followers. I clearly gave the Amish as a counterexample to the first, not the second. You’re applying them to the second, for which I gave a different counterexample. Are you being purposely misleading, or are you just too lazy to look back and follow the arguments?

Hmmm, let's go to the tape, shall we? And please read the whole thing this time.

Quote:1. (Perhaps most important) Theistic morality confuses the issues of what morality is and what is moral.

By its nature, religion will be concerned with gaining more followers and gaining increased obedience with its established followers. This is why when you read through the Bible or Koran, often what is described as "evil" are such victimless crimes as idolatry, blasphemy and apostasy. Other moral issues and labeled "abominations" have to do with failure to adhere to rituals and traditions, like not working on the Sabbath or not eating certain kinds of food.

Read the 10 commandments if you don't have time to read the whole Bible. You'll notice that the first four, the one's that Yahweh thought of first and foremost, have to do with religious adherence and not real moral issues. A few deal with how we treat others (don't murder, don't steal, etc) but the majority prohibit victimless crimes. This muddying of the waters is not helpful to our understand of what is moral or what morality is.

By contrast, secular morality focuses on the issue with laser-like precision. Morality is a function of how we treat our fellow sentient beings.

This obsession you have with finding small insular religions that are suspicious of outsiders (the exception and not the norm, based on total population of religions people and each religion's share of it) has caused you to focus on a part of my post which really isn't the point I was making. The point, if you read my entire post quoted above, is that religion focuses on the "evils" of victimless crimes like idolatry, blasphemy and apostasy or exalting useless "virtues" like prayer, rituals or church attendance and that these distractions are not only not helpful but confusing to the topic of morality, as outlined in the bolded section title.

Hence, the Amish example proves my point, since their "morality" is concerned with such things.

Tell you what, if we just delete that first sentence, will that help you zero in on the point and not get side-tracked by issues beside the point?