(June 21, 2013 at 6:22 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: The fact that they believe in god proves how malleable they are.

Religious people are more gullible because they believe in God and they believe in God because they are more gullible. Nice circular argument.

(June 21, 2013 at 6:14 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Philosophy is a weak science, especially in terms of proving anything in relation to god. Your version of the truth is not a truth at all, so much as it is an opinion.

Philosophy is the foundation of all sciences; to say it is a weak science doesn’t make any sense.

(June 22, 2013 at 1:15 am)Esquilax Wrote: So, let me ask you this: if someone commands you to do something, and you refuse on the grounds that it is an immoral action, and then that person steps out of the way and god is behind him, and god tells you to do the exact same action, in the exact same words, do you continue to refuse? Or do you change your response and do as you're told?

Direct revelation is sealed, so that hypothetical could never happen and therefore is irrelevant. Do you have one that could actually happen?

(June 22, 2013 at 1:40 am)FifthElement Wrote:

---

9/11 ???

Religious people are by definition blind followers, that is the main reason why they fly airplanes into buildings ...

I witnessed aftermath of atrocities in Bosnian war beyond your comprehension (entire villages completely wiped from the face of the earth, including old people, kids, infants, even cats and dogs), yep, true story, all done by religious people, muslims, christians and protestants, just because their religious identity was "endangered", because they felt that they are going to be "wiped out" by the others.

You have no slightest idea what religious folks are capable of doing when pressed into corner, when they push reason even further than they normally would ...

Murder is more then justified, it is required to protect the flock, and, of course, there is "positive" side effect too: gives them express ticket to haven, isn't that fuckin' convenient ?

---

I asked for proof that religious people are more easily molded than non-religious people; however, since all you did was point to acts that non-religious people are capable of and have done in the past as well I am just going to assume you do not have any such proof.

(June 22, 2013 at 6:07 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Does it contribute to the betterment of society as a whole? That's the ultimate standard for me. Ethics, justice and codes of law come not from what a lightning bolt wrote on some tablets on Mount Sinai, but from the realisation that we need to live together in peace. Why is that so hard?

How do you determine the betterment of society? How do you know that is the standard? Did you just come up with that on your own?

Quote: Where did Planned Parenthood state that they planned to kill every infant, fetus, and child in a given city?

I guess as long as they’re not killing every child they’re ok, eh?

(June 23, 2013 at 8:00 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote: Bloody hell, this thread should be retitled "Four questions for Christians to avoid answering."

I answered the questions! Now where’s my gold star?

(June 24, 2013 at 1:03 pm)Tonus Wrote:

(June 24, 2013 at 12:14 pm)Ryantology Wrote: There absolutely should be two standards. The problem is, Christians hold humans to the higher standard, rather than God (note the frequency with which Christians compare God's actions to those of imperfect humans in order to justify them).

I think that they run into a problem when they claim that god personifies good. There are actions that would be considered good and actions that would be considered wicked. But where god is concerned it is not the action that determines morality, it is the identity of the person performing the action. Killing an infant would be wicked in the extreme... unless god does it, or orders it, in which case it has to be a good thing.

To present god as being capable of wicked acts is to make him capable of evil. And that makes it difficult (if not impossible) to love him for who he is. And then the offer of heaven and hell becomes a matter of coercion and not love. You wouldn't serve god because he deserves your love, you'd serve him because an eternity in heaven sounds a lot less painful than an eternity in hell. So god has to be good. And that leads to rationalizations and beliefs that I find difficult to reconcile.

You said people serve God out of fear and not love.
However, most of the circles God runs in are about making him be loved and not feared. The Egyptians weren't slaughtered because their specific punishments were bent on showing himself to be just. God died on a cross instead of screaming to the world that he is real so he could show people humility and teach them to llove from example. And, as more people came to believe in him and what he taught, we don't need miracles telling us to fear him, but a more gentle and personal approach telling us to love him.

---

(June 24, 2013 at 3:08 pm)Tonus Wrote:

(June 24, 2013 at 2:31 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: The bible is written about a good god. It's reasoning for him entails goodness.

I don't see where the OT makes such claims. It notes that he is a powerful god, a vengeful god, a jealous god, he is the god of armies.

There is nothing negative in these claims.
Powerful—Omnipotent. This shouldn't be a hard one.
Vengeful—He takes vengeance. That's exactly what they said. If you are a nation undder the leadership of God, any offense to you is attributed to this God also. In many cases of attack, the Israelites are commanded to take vengeance themselves. Something that ancient law prescribed around the world, and not unfamiliar to their enemies. When, however, God does not tell his people to take vengeance, and does the exact same thing to their enemies that the law would have prescribed, the exact same thing that the Israelites would have done, then he is said to be taking 'revenge' for his people. Doing what the people would have done in vengeance. Truly, God cannot take revenge because he cannot be harmed by anything.
Jealous—This is commonly misinterpreted by people who are really trying to look for something to condemn the OT. But if you ask someone OTHER than another atheist, you will know that the words 'jealous' and 'zealous' are closely related in Hebrew. God isn't jealous with his people in a negative way, but instead, loves them enormously and wants to keep them with himself. Which perfectly makes sense since all other gods are said to not exist in the OT, so there is no such thing as 'sharing them'. Their is a righteous jealousy and evil jeaolusy, or envy. Righteous jealousy happens when your wife has an affair with another man. Envy occurs when your wife is simply talking to another man. In the same way, God desires those who come to him to stay with him, and doesn't want them to leave him for immoral paths.
God of armies—The Old Testament occurs in ancient society. God is the ruler of a nation. Nations go to war, and at many times, God is described as leading them. The NT is different because it takes a more personal approach at morality instead of a national one. Instead of ordering the masses to give to the poor, Jesus explains to his followers about why they should give to the poor. Instead of nations coming back to God, Jesus describes a change in heart of the rebellious as they turn back to God.

Quote:The NT puts a happier face on him, perhaps due to changing points of view on the nature of god or gods or because circumstances made a more benevolent god palatable to the masses. That creates a conflict when one decides to try and reconcile the god of the OT with the kinder, gentler one being offered for sale in the NT.

---

(June 24, 2013 at 2:07 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(June 24, 2013 at 9:25 am)Consilius Wrote: fr0d0 is the one who talked about atheists not stepping up to the plate.

Mea culpa, it all bleeds together.

Quote:You previously claimed that God had been unfair to the Egyptians by punishing them for thought-crime.

Whether or not you feel that thought-crime is a solid charge is your own business. I just wanted to make sure you understood that this was your defense.

Quote: However, they had physically drowned babies just a while before and had physically refused to let the thousands of men and women they had physically enslaved go free.

Still as inadequate as the first time you tried it, still the same reason. Help me help you, what is so difficult to understand about this?

Apparently I missed your irrefutable evidence to dismiss my entire claim. What was it again?

That your claim was entirely comprised of a logical fallacy. Sucks, huh?

A logical fallacy you have not identified.

Check again. I identified and explained it so often that I refuse to do so again (which I have also - already- mentioned). When you're done taking a breath, and actually absorbing the responses you've been given, if you still have trouble understanding, articulate it well and I might be tempted.

Hmm…I couldn't find it. I guess that means you win.

Ryan and Rhythm are our resident absurdists. The thread is a car crash waiting to happen.

(June 24, 2013 at 11:46 pm)Consilius Wrote: Hmm…I couldn't find it. I guess that means you win.

Perhaps thats because you will have had to go back 6 fucking pages to see the point at which you went of the rails? You know what I think though? I think you did find it.

nevertheless, try post 27...or 55....or 59.....or 64.....or 67.....or 71
(after that point I lost interest in explaining such a simple concept, you're clearly invested in the argument, and I don't think that you care that its not a valid one.)

Frodo, would you like an explanation of why a logical fallacy is a poor defense for the actions of a god as well - or did you just feel that this was an opportunity for your standard lolpost?

(June 24, 2013 at 6:22 pm)Consilius Wrote: You said people serve God out of fear and not love.

I said that if god is considered capable of wicked acts, then he must be served out of fear and not love. To serve him out of love for him, he must be defined as good and as incapable of wickedness. Thus, any act that would ordinarily be deemed wicked must be rationalized as a good act.

Quote:There is nothing negative in these claims.

I didn't say there was. But none of them explicitly claim that he personifies good or love. As you note, he is a product of the writers of his time, and thus a powerful, angry, vengeful, warlike god is simply par for the course.

(June 25, 2013 at 7:45 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Ryan and Rhythm are our resident absurdists. The thread is a car crash waiting to happen.

Looks like someone's eating sour grapes after getting spanked in another thread. Best sit down and let the adults discuss, fraudo.