Genocide in the Old Testament

[Captain Colostomy]

@max:
Any claims made in the Bible regarding god being perfect are necessarily based on a Biblical understanding of perfection. Atheists, however, substitute their own definition of perfection. This is equivocation and/or a straw man.

I'm not laughing with you, obviously.

[Mister Agenda]

That doesn't seem to follow. If I build a robot and it does exactly what I program it to do, the things that happen to it as a result are still happening to it. If it loses an arm, it loses an arm. If I program it to feel pain and it feels it, it is what is feeling pain.

I disagree. In this scenario "Ouch that hurts" only goes through its mind because you determined before it was even created that "Ouch that hurts" would go through its mind at that point in time. It didn't happen "as a result" of anything beside your programming.

So, as an omnipotent programmer who determines the outcome of anything I am unable to cause something to feel pain without giving it free will first? That could only be beause it is paradoxical. And the only support you've given for it being paradoxical is you saying it's obviously nonsensical.

Like I said, if you can prove suffering necessitates free will, you'll have proven free will. There's probably a Nobel Prize for that. Surely you can support your contention with more than 'hey, it's obvious!'?

I've got nothing against free will myself, I'd love it to be salvaged. But not enough to make a bad argument for it.

P1: Suffering exists.
P2: Suffering necessitates free will.
C: Free will exists.

Establish P2 and you WILL be famous.

[max-greece]

@max:
Any claims made in the Bible regarding god being perfect are necessarily based on a Biblical understanding of perfection. Atheists, however, substitute their own definition of perfection. This is equivocation and/or a straw man.

---

Even a lizard can suffer. I'm not sure about ants. To deny the existence of suffering is to deny your own experience.

Exactly...if all thoughts and actions are preprogrammed by god, there is no such thing as my "own experience."

Perfection isn't perfection....what?

Are you saying that God met the standard of perfection back in the day but it is not fair to expect him to meet the standards of perfection we have now?

So, God, measured by today's standards, is not perfect?

Genuinely I was asking you for an explanation - I don't get it.

Obviously I don't want to put you in an embarrassing position here - if you can't explain it I will understand (and feel better about myself as it is totally beyond me).

[Tonus]

The word 'perfect' is context-dependent. We use it all the time to describe things that aren't really perfect, or that we couldn't logically show to be perfect. I think the Bible uses perfection in the sense of having full control of our actions, under the assumption that being imperfect takes away some of this control, and the result is sin.

[Ryantology]

No, but what's your point? The existence of vegans shows that it is not necessary for people to kill and eat in order to survive. You're dodging, as you always do on this topic.

Food animals are not killed as a result of a person really enjoying the act of ending an animal's life. Whether or not a person could eat something else (and, for many people, it's really not an option), it also isn't a deliberate act of malice on the part of the person who either kills or eats it. So, not murder.

You are the one who is dodging, because the key to this entire discussion is why God kills when it is obvious he cannot face a situation where it is necessary. God doesn't need to eat, or compete for resources. He has an infinity of options available to him if he needs to make something happen. You justify God's murderous rages by citing his ultimate intelligence. If relatively greater intelligence justifies killing, then should it not be a crime for a person to kill another person who is less intelligent? What about babies or small children, whose brains have not developed enough to put them on your level? How much of a gap must there be to justify killing the lesser creature, and on what basis do you make that determination?

We can't eat without killing something, be it plant or animal or fungus. That's unfortunate. But, then again, isn't that how your God designed it?

1. Humans kill other species unnecessarily.
2. Such killing is not called murder.
3. The justification given for 2 is that humans have greater mental capacity than the other animals they kill.
4. God has greater mental capacity than humans.
5. Therefore, it is not murder when God kills humans.

Your question is an implication that 1 is false, i.e. that humans only kill out of necessity. I've already refuted that in at least two ways: the existence of vegans, and the killing of ants.

That's how it works if you are happy that a lot of people died in misery and terror and you wish to justify enjoying it. If not, it goes like this:

1. Humans kill other species unnecessarily.
2. Such killing is not called murder.
3. The justification given for 2 is that while humans possess superior intelligence and capabilities compared to other life forms, it is by no means perfect or close to it. Sometimes we can't help fucking up, and sometimes we just don't act the way we should.
4. It is almost universally considered progress when we find new ways solve our problems and accomplish our goals which reduce or eliminate death and destruction to other living beings. Conversely, people who kill when there is no reason or any better options available, is regarded as a murderer.
5. God has perfect knowledge and total control over everything,
6. God cannot kill by accident, and his omniscience removes the possibility that he can't resolve an issue in a less-destructive manner.
7. Whenever God kills, it is because he has chosen not to solve a problem in a less-violent way. It ultimately indicates nothing more than God's desire to watch something die.
8. Therefore, it is always murder when God kills anything.

I grant that the logic behind the list above only makes sense to a person who has a respect for human life, so I wouldn't make the claim that it has objective value. It takes a special kind of contempt for mankind to think that people deserve something above them destroying them with malice and caprice. I wonder, if they were able to form such thoughts, would some crazy ant individuals would try to convince others of its species that they deserve it when a child fries them with a magnifying glass or pours boiling water on their colony, because of their evil and wicked nature.

[John V]

So, as an omnipotent programmer who determines the outcome of anything I am unable to cause something to feel pain without giving it free will first?

You're unable to give anything autonomous existence. "I think, therefore I am." Except in this case, I don't think, and neither do you. Therefore we are not.

---

Perfection isn't perfection....what?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perfect?s=t
Perfect means "conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type." Atheists and the Bible do not agree on what constitutes an ideal type.

Are you saying that God met the standard of perfection back in the day but it is not fair to expect him to meet the standards of perfection we have now?

I'm saying there is no such thing as "the" standard of perfection either then or now, i.e. there's no one standard that everyone agrees on.

Obviously I don't want to put you in an embarrassing position here - if you can't explain it I will understand (and feel better about myself as it is totally beyond me).

I don't know how to dumb it down further for you.

---

Food animals are not killed as a result of a person really enjoying the act of ending an animal's life. Whether or not a person could eat something else (and, for many people, it's really not an option), it also isn't a deliberate act of malice on the part of the person who either kills or eats it. So, not murder.

OK, now you're altering point 3 below, as the original leads to complete hypocrisy on your part.

You don't seem to know any hunters. Plenty of them enjoy taking another animal's life. They're generally not called murderers for this. So, even if you can show that god enjoys killing (despite his express statement that he doesn't), you have the same problem.

You are the one who is dodging, because the key to this entire discussion is why God kills when it is obvious he cannot face a situation where it is necessary. God doesn't need to eat, or compete for resources. He has an infinity of options available to him if he needs to make something happen. You justify God's murderous rages by citing his ultimate intelligence.

No, I personally believe that god as creator has right to do as he pleases with his creation. You guys justify god based on intelligence when you justify our actions based on our intelligence.

If relatively greater intelligence justifies killing, then should it not be a crime for a person to kill another person who is less intelligent?

Uh, no, logic would say just the opposite.

What about babies or small children, whose brains have not developed enough to put them on your level? How much of a gap must there be to justify killing the lesser creature, and on what basis do you make that determination?

Those are questions I considered asking you guys. Ants are OK, cattle are OK, dogs aren't - it's somewhat arbitrary and self-serving. Dogs kiss our ass, so they're exempt, unless they turn on us - then they're toast.

We can't eat without killing something, be it plant or animal or fungus. That's unfortunate. But, then again, isn't that how your God designed it?

Yes. That's why it's generally OK to kill animals but not people.

[Anomalocaris]

"I think, therefore I am." Except in this case, I don't think ...

Truer words you have never spoken.

.....and neither do you. Therefore we are not.

So you think? You are breaking your rule against thinking? Tisk tisk. Besides, you thought wrong.

[max-greece]

So, as an omnipotent programmer who determines the outcome of anything I am unable to cause something to feel pain without giving it free will first?

You're unable to give anything autonomous existence. "I think, therefore I am." Except in this case, I don't think, and neither do you. Therefore we are not.

---

Perfection isn't perfection....what?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perfect?s=t
Perfect means "conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type." Atheists and the Bible do not agree on what constitutes an ideal type.

Are you saying that God met the standard of perfection back in the day but it is not fair to expect him to meet the standards of perfection we have now?

I'm saying there is no such thing as "the" standard of perfection either then or now, i.e. there's no one standard that everyone agrees on.

---

Obviously I don't want to put you in an embarrassing position here - if you can't explain it I will understand (and feel better about myself as it is totally beyond me).

I don't know how to dumb it down further for you.

---

Food animals are not killed as a result of a person really enjoying the act of ending an animal's life. Whether or not a person could eat something else (and, for many people, it's really not an option), it also isn't a deliberate act of malice on the part of the person who either kills or eats it. So, not murder.

OK, now you're altering point 3 below, as the original leads to complete hypocrisy on your part.

You don't seem to know any hunters. Plenty of them enjoy taking another animal's life. They're generally not called murderers for this. So, even if you can show that god enjoys killing (despite his express statement that he doesn't), you have the same problem.

You are the one who is dodging, because the key to this entire discussion is why God kills when it is obvious he cannot face a situation where it is necessary. God doesn't need to eat, or compete for resources. He has an infinity of options available to him if he needs to make something happen. You justify God's murderous rages by citing his ultimate intelligence.

No, I personally believe that god as creator has right to do as he pleases with his creation. You guys justify god based on intelligence when you justify our actions based on our intelligence.

If relatively greater intelligence justifies killing, then should it not be a crime for a person to kill another person who is less intelligent?

Uh, no, logic would say just the opposite.

What about babies or small children, whose brains have not developed enough to put them on your level? How much of a gap must there be to justify killing the lesser creature, and on what basis do you make that determination?

Those are questions I considered asking you guys. Ants are OK, cattle are OK, dogs aren't - it's somewhat arbitrary and self-serving. Dogs kiss our ass, so they're exempt, unless they turn on us - then they're toast.

We can't eat without killing something, be it plant or animal or fungus. That's unfortunate. But, then again, isn't that how your God designed it?

Yes. That's why it's generally OK to kill animals but not people.

---

[John V]

Perhaps it might be easier then to see if we can find agreement on things that indicate imperfection.

Would you agree with me that vengeful, proud, wrathful, vain, impulsive and malicious are characteristics that would qualify as imperfections and therefore could not belong to a perfect being, by definition?

Malicious is the only one I would agree with, and even then we'd need to agree on its definition.

[Faith No More]

Malicious is the only one I would agree with, and even then we'd need to agree on its definition.

I'm curious to hear your explanation as to how perfection and the other traits mentioned can coexist.