Christians celebrate rape, torture, slavery and genocide.

[John V]

"godopinesit"=/= the written word.

The OP specified a Christian viewpoint and made "The Bible, and everything in it, are indefatigable truth and must be accepted without doubt or question as factual" a mandatory given.

Hell, you won't even be able to establish that the words written about gods opinions actually have anything to do with a gods opinions...will you?

No. Neither will those who oppose those alleged opinions.

I remember the first atheist board I posted at - the now defunct Cygnus' Study. Back then, the atheists understood the idea of "If the Bible is true, then..." arguments, and didn't say "But you can't prove the Bible is true" when they were losing. Sigh...the good old days.

Now clearly, we have a difference of opinion on a couple of subjects here...and just to keep driving this spike into the rails...I bet that both you and I can elaborate upon our opinions (and why we presumably feel that the other persons opinion is ill-informed, incorrect, or just plain batshit crazy) while god remains incapable of doing so.

And to keep driving back, people can get meaningful information on someone's opinions from reading a book, even if they never meet the author.

---

You keep talking about the written word as though it were one and the same as what god opines. It's getting aggravating.

As noted in last response, that's a given in the OP.

Are the reasons that you find compelling for this or that required to be anything other than an opinion John?

Yes.

If your own subjective things (opinions) cannot be used as compelling reasons for this or that (at the very least..to yourself) I think you'd spend the majority o your time in a state of self imposed paralysis...staring at the wall.

I asked for clarification...things and this or that didn't help. Maybe you could provide an example since you're having trouble articulating?

---

John V is the same guy who said that I was making the "tautological fallacy" when I said that existence is always necessarily existent. He might as well say that married people aren't always necessarily married, squares aren't always squares, circles aren't always circles etc. 2+2 isn't always 4 apparently.

It's unbecoming to lie about my position. I made it quite clear, more than once, that the tautological fallacy is actually true, but is considered fallacious in that it doesn't add anything to the discussion. I see you're stung that an observation which you thought profound was exposed as meaningless, but if you want yet more punishment, please take it back to the original thread.

[Undeceived]

Either he was a liar (contradicting his own teachings) or he was a madman (who was very calm and convincing)

False dicotomy. Someone can be convinced of something wrong and be wrong even if he isn't a liar or mentally impaired.

You'd like to think that's possible, but have you ever met a man who thought he was someone famous (or God) and wasn't mentally impaired?
I mean believed it, not just said it for power. Jesus had nothing to gain by calling himself God (they tried to kill him), so what other conclusion can we draw?

There is no evidence of later embellishment, and little time to develop a legend

And there is evidence of embellishment, both in the books that were rejected by the church because they presented more contradictions and in the canonic gospels.

The church rejected the books it did because they lacked evidence of apostolic authorship, not because they contradicted the four gospels. The only contradictions I think you could be referring to were written by gnostics who, though contrary, agreed to all the aspects of Jesus life including his miracles. Their interpretations were different, which is why many of Paul's letters (and John's Gospel) were written--to the correct them. Read Colossians 1:15.

Science would never come close to the concept of anger the emotion because emotions are only knowable by the inside information we have as humans. In order to find Joe's reason for hitting Dave, we must employ a rationalist perspective.

A punch in the face isn't an extraordinary claim, resurrection is. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

According to... your naturalistic perspective. A supernatural event is only extraordinary to an empiricist who had already decided such events were impossible. Stay on the middle road here. Try to look at God from both epistemological views.

God is not a material being. He is all person. Science cannot touch Him. Just as reason alone could understand Joe’s personal intent in punching Dave, reason alone can understand the all-personal God.

Even reason alone won't help your case.

That's your right to say, and that's the difference between believers and nonbelievers. Believers view God through the eyes of the Holy Spirit. Nonbelievers view God through human eyes, pretending God's motivations are like some giant human's. We can only understand God when we accept the Holy Spirit, and he only enters in response to a step of faith. Either you're willing or you're not.

Even theologians don't prove god, they just presume that he exists.

If by 'prove' you mean 'argue for with logic and evidence', apologists do that all the time. If by prove you mean test for and receive results, you have left the rationalists camp. There is no such thing as 'proving' to the rationalists because every person is isolated in their own mind--we can't share thoughts or create a collective thought experiment.

But you lack the right to impose a naturalistic view on the question of God (at least God in the traditionally accepted sense).

Your presumed god acts in the natural world, therefore any specific claim of an act with natural consequencies (i.e. a resurrection) falls within the scope of a naturalistic analysis.

That's why we have eyewitness accounts of the event, as you'd expect. We cannot, however, test history using the scientific method. Like any historical event, we are reliant on the witnesses' testimony and our own reason.

Jesus is the only man to claim he was God and be believed by thousands

Not true: read here.

Did any of these humans calling themselves gods cause a change in their followers? People served them as subjects because they had to, they didn't respond out of selfless love. And in every case, these were rulers were stood to gain power or possessions. Jesus stood to gain nothing--he refused when the people tried to make him king (John 6:15).

[Edwardo Piet]

It's unbecoming to lie about my position. I made it quite clear, more than once, that the tautological fallacy is actually true, but is considered fallacious in that it doesn't add anything to the discussion.

I'm not lying. I'm giving my honest viewpoint on how you reacted to me. To paraphrase what happened from my perspective at least: The tautological fallacy would be if I said "Existence is always existence because existent is always existent". I was trying to explain that by "Existence is always existent because that's a tautology" I meant that the statement can't be false because tautologies can't be false. That makes sense. I was just trying to demonstrate to you that what I was stating to you was true by definition so you were denying something that cannot be false.

You then responded with "Enough said" which seemed to me that you agreed but missed my point.

So, I then said "Well if you agree then perhaps you can answer my concluding question: Since existence has always existed why do we need God for the universe?"

But then you responded by saying that you didn't agree in the first place. So then I was confused.

I may have made the fallacy once or twice by using the word "because" when I should have used the word "means" because I was trying to simply demonstrate that I was stating something that is true by definition, and you were denying it. But I also correctly explained how what I was saying was a tautology, in a non-fallacious way and that should have been enough for you to agree that what I was saying was true. If I genuinely made the fallacy, you paid attention to that but you didn't respond to the fact that I had also made the same statement several times in a non-fallacious way, and it was a tautology, so you were denying something that must be true.

[The Grand Nudger]

The OP specified a Christian viewpoint and made "The Bible, and everything in it, are indefatigable truth and must be accepted without doubt or question as factual" a mandatory given.

I am not the OP. Mandatory given...lol.

No. Neither will those who oppose those alleged opinions.

Far less troubling for those who oppose the opinions I'd say. Not that this need be established, mind you, so long as as you're willing to own the opinions in the interim we can have a discussion, but the very moment "godopinesit" comes up that's a full stop.

I remember the first atheist board I posted at - the now defunct Cygnus' Study. Back then, the atheists understood the idea of "If the Bible is true, then..." arguments, and didn't say "But you can't prove the Bible is true" when they were losing. Sigh...the good old days.

Whether or not the bible is true has little to do with my opinions of what is or is not celebrated by it's adherents. If the bible is true, and if the bible is not true don't have the power to change my opinion on some issues...and on some of those issues I disagree with the majority of theists I've spoken to. I find it much more useful to poke at what any given person might -wish- to be true..regardless of whether or not it is. Reminding you, for example, that you cannot demonstrate that this or that portion of the bible (in this case the opinions of a god) is true only serves to highlight the ethereal nature of what is going to follow from that point.

And to keep driving back, people can get meaningful information on someone's opinions from reading a book, even if they never meet the author.

See, we're elaborating. The obvious caveat here is that you cannot demonstrate that the author of the book in question is a god. Who's opinions are we supposed to be talking about? You're assuming what I would have you demonstrate in an effort to justify the assumption itself.

As noted in last response, that's a given in the OP.

As noted in my own post..I am not the OP.

Yes.

I asked for clarification...things and this or that didn't help. Maybe you could provide an example since you're having trouble articulating?

So you think your own taste in food is refutable? You don't have a compelling reason to like chocolate? You require your reasons for having specific tastes in food to be something more than subjective?

[Darkstar]

Can you provide another method that is better, and a rational reasoning as to why?

Of course not, as it's subjective. Note that you haven't rationally shown utilitarianism to be better than other systems. you can try, but your justifications will at some point include subjective components.

Yeah, at some point. Some objectivity and some subjectivity is more reliable than pure subjectivity, no?

---

You bring up an interesting point. Morals evolved to help groups survive, but in the distant past, groups were relatively small and didn't inclue outsiders. This much is still true to an extent today, but is beginning to become less so. At what point can we simply accept other people as human beings and get past our 'outsider' prejudice?

When there are no differences among us I suppose, i.e. probably never.

---

Unfortunately you are probably right; to an extent. There will always be differences, but at least we should try to focus on what can be agreed upon, and perhaps reason more points to agree upon, though this would take a very long time and, as you said, may never be realized (at least not in the forseeable future).

But to take this little gem semi-seriously, it isn't the proclamation that one's opinion is correct that is troubling, but the failure to follow through with a compelling reason that it is correct.

If you have a compelling reason that a position is correct, then it's not an opinion. Challenging someone to prove that their opinion is correct is just a display of your own ignorance.

I don't think that moral judgements like "rape (by today's standards) is wrong" are simply an opinions. Sure, someone can disagree, but someone can disagree with facts as well. Unless, or course, you can demonstrate that the pleasure derived by the rapist is adequete justification for the suffering of the victim. (you can't)

Maybe, but would it be right?

It would be subjective, like your current position.

Suffering unnecesarily is generally bad; can we agree on this first point?

No, it's too vague. Be more specific, and consider that I'll ask about your own life to see if your position is ad hoc.

I meant it to be vague so that it would be more encompassing, but I'll give you a specific example. If someone is ill and suffering tremendous pain, which can be relieved by a [safe] painkiller, would you not be obligated to allow them to have the painkiller, or could it be viewed as moral to refuse it to them even though they could afford it and begged for it?

[Aractus]

I'm not referring to myself, I'm referring to those to whom this law was given. Was it sinful for them to apply it?

It was still wrong for them to apply it individually, yes, you had to go to the correct priest.

[KichigaiNeko]

So you agree that xtians celebrate pain suffering and torture for their religion Daniel?

[Aractus]

No Christian celebrates rape, pain, suffering or torture. It is true that sanctification can come through suffering, poverty, pain, etc, but that said, no Christian celebrates rape, pain, suffering or torture.

[KichigaiNeko]

But you do it all the time Daniel. Your crucifix and delight in your "saviours suffering" is central to you belief is it not?

[Aractus]

Delight in his suffering? No!