(March 28, 2016 at 4:47 pm)GeneralDog Wrote: So, a little bit ago, I sent one of my friends a text saying "There is a man in the middle east who is giving orders to kill all male children in the town and all the virgin women, isn't that horrible?" and he replied "Heck yes." I said "Numbers 31:37 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man" (he is talking to moses in this verse) At first he seemed shocked, surprised and defeated. All he would say is "Cool" or "God loves you" and wouldn't refute the verse. Then he said he was thinking and he thinks i'm partially right. I gave him some contradictions in the bible. He has now told me he is an atheist, and that I was right.
This begs the question, although my friend was lucky enough to have the blinders taken off to see how imperfect the god of the bible is, why can't other people?
"Oh, you are taking it out of context!" under what context would it be right to kill all the male children and virgins of a town. I do not give it any slack.
"You are misinterpreting it!" If I can misinterpret anything in the bible, then god is a bad communicator, how can an all knowing god, not know how to word his verses to make sure everyone was on the right track. Also, it says there clearly, no amount of claiming I do not know what it says will make it a good thing to say, it is horrible that you are defending him, ironically, you are playing devils advocate.
What do you all think about blatant deniers?
While attempting to categorize people is always imperfect, I think "deniers" come in three general forms from my experience: The first are the poor indoctrinated folks who don’t think too deeply about religion or philosophy, simply finding comfort in their church community, the promises of an afterlife in heaven, and believing Sky Daddy loves them. They are more than happy to be a lamb amidst a greater flock. They allow the church authorities to do their thinking for them in matters regarding acceptable science and morality. Their goal isn’t objective truth, but harmony, easy answers, and warm fuzzies. When confronted with logical contradictions, their form of denial is to generally shy away or, when pressed, retreat to patterned responses: “God loves you.” These people may harbor many internal doubts, but would rather not rock their world exploring hard questions and risk potentially shifting paradigms.
The second form of deniers are those that do think deeply about religion and its doctrines, but twist themselves into knots attempting to weave a logically consistent narrative from frayed threads. They start from the immovable premise that an omnibenevolent god exists, and work backwards from there. Any confrontation is met with a battery of pre-prepared responses, from Kalam to Intelligent Design arguments. They take refuge in these arguments because they are logically possible (however improbable or inconsistent). When confronted with an argument they haven’t heard before or are not well versed in, they often reply with belligerence or dismissive laughter. They quote and revere the science which conforms to their preconceived dogma, deriding everything else. They claim absolute knowledge of the extant divine, and rarely admit defeat or express uncertainty. These are the “blatant deniers,” apologists whom atheists spend the majority of their time debating.
The final form of denier are those individuals who explore their concerns, express their doubts, and truly want to know the way the world really is rather than how they merely wish it to be. They often exhibit traits from the other two categories, and their immediate knee-jerk response might be one of denial, but these individuals are more likely to concede a valid point and be persuaded by evidence and reason. I believe it is these people who, though they may have been indoctrinated early on, are most capable of changing worldviews. Your friend sounds like he was receptive to rationally examining the biblical contradictions you supplied and followed the implications to a logical conclusion. Kudos to him and others who abandoned denial for reason.
