Dear Atheists, Questions From A "believer"

Great Debates
321

This is a statement of opinion not fact. In fact, you do not what God tells other people, you only have a belief about it. Belief is not knowledge.
I know what they’ve said they heard from God and since it is contradictory to his teaching and who he is, it did not come from God.

**Other people “know” from reading and from “experiences” with God that he does tell people to kill other people. Take a look at your own Bible:

I Samuel 15:3 - “Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”

Or how about this?

Numbers 31:17 - “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”

Here’s a verse where God not only approves the murder of infants but also endorses rape:

Isaiah 13:15 - “Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished.”

There is plenty more of this kind of thing, and it comes from the same book where you claim to get your “knowledge” of what God really is. Did God really say this stuff? If not, then how can you say that the stuff in the Bible you like is any more valid or “true” than this stuff?
You are quoting accounts of various wars and struggles. War against offenders, oppressors, etc. is not forbidden. Keep in mind though, then and now, people still use God as an excuse. I never denied there was some really contradictory accounts in the Bible.
I didn’t get my knowledge of what God really is only from the Bible. I got it from his presence, from him. I feel love from him and never receive a hint of violence or instructions to kill the infidels. Or again, I’m delusional.

It’s arrogant and fallacious for you to say that your conception of God is more “true” than anyone else’s. God is love? says who? says the same book that says to kill babies and rape innocent women? How do you know the baby killing stuff isn’t the “true” stuff and the lovey-dovey stuff isn’t the false stuff?
It’s arrogant and fallacious for you to form opinions on my truths. When you read the Bible, you should realize that there is a lot of second hand accounts of history, including wars, struggles, etc. You have to weed out contradictions and let your faith in God help guide you. Not going to happen when you’re looking through the Bible for “weapons, barbs” to prove your point that there is no God or he’s an evil SOB. I’m not going to play dueling Bible verses with you to show that there is more “lovey-dovey” than attrocity, that history showed a lot of mob mentality or that a new covenant was made with man, due to way things seemed to be going. Doesn’t matter. If you don’t believe in God, then the Bible is meaningless except for the pages you have marked for your atheist debates.

The personal experiences to which you ascribe your unique exegetical insights are no more objectively valid than the insights of David Koresh or Jim Jones or the Church of Eckenkar. There are lots of other people who have experiences with “God” which are every bit as convincing to them as yours is to you. How do you know they’re not right? To keep insisting that you just “know” is begging the question.
Again, by their actions. Are they intentionally harming others, etc. And how is it you have come to “know” me so well? I have never claimed to know that much, but I can recognize an act of God from an act of violence.

Believe it or not, people who truly believe in God dobomb clinics.
To quote you, “This is a statement of opinion, not fact.” The original point was that they were directed by God to bomb the clinics.

You don’t know that the statement isn’t true, you believe it isn’t true. Belief is not knowledge. You have no empirical support for your declarations about what God does or doesn’t do. That’s why it’s fallacious for you to deny that those people really believe in God. Your beliefs are no more objectively “true” than their beliefs.
Since there are actually two definitions of empirical, I’m assuming that you’re going with the one that fits for your argument rather than the one that fits my circumstances. I have all the support that I personally need. Again this was about whether or not God was telling them to kill, not whether or not they believed in God. The first I know is wrong, the second I have a belief or an opinion on.

This is a bogus comparison. There are in fact countless people who have attributed acts of violence to God’s will. There are people who kill because they believe that their doctrine requires it. There is no history of anyone commiting acts of violence to further some atheist doctrine. Atheists don’t have a doctrine.
I didn’t say I had heard of someone who did this. That wasn’t the point at all. The point was, IMHO there is seems to be a double standard when it comes to the Scotsman.

**BTW, if a bunch of wacky atheists did decide to start offing people in hospitals, other atheists would not deny that they were “true” atheists. Their disbelief in God would be just as valid as anyone else’s disbelief in God. **
If those wacky atheists said they were doing it “for the atheist” cause, you would say Atheists don’t have a cause, that they are lying.

I don’t know if you were paying attention or not, but basically the main point of that post you just quoted was to clear up some questions on how to debate more effectively. I even pointed out I was not trying to debate it’s contents, just get some answers. You weren’t much help. IWLN

322

I apologise for being, very, very late to this debate, but IMO the questions in the OP were humbly and politely phrased, and I wanted to answer them. Apologies if this is a blip in the ongoing debate :slight_smile:
Hey a blip who’s not ticked off about how I worded something is always welcome

The harm comes when that belief is used to condemn others’ actions. I used ‘used’ because most religions, including Christianity, exhort their followers not judge others. Many believers, however, use their religion to judge others, and some of those believers have the power to make those judgments law. I recognise that religion does provide a lot of people with comfort, and so would not try to argue most people out of it; however, if I could argue G W Bush or Tony Blair out of their beliefs, then I would. Their beliefs have influenced them to pass laws (or fail to pass laws) which directly affect me.
I agree there is too much judgement. And you can have George and Tony.

If I had brought up evolution in the previous sentence, then I would not be addressing the question adequately. Evolution has nothing to do with ‘the origin of all.’ The Big Bang is not connected to evolution in any way. That is a mistake that religious believers often make. As to the transitional fossils, I see someone has already directed you to TalkOrigins, an excellent site.
I’m assuming evolution didn’t happen for a long time after?

Not a person till c.24 weeks. But there are enough debates in this forum on this subject already.
It was probably obvious by my question that I’m not pro-choice, but I don’t think this is something that should be legislated anyway. It will always exist. May as well keep it safer.

Hell no (npi). The Christian God sounds horrible, and even if he were a wise, benevolent God, I feel no need for someone to tell me what to do and what to believe. Christ seems like a pretty cool dude though.
God got a bad rap.:slight_smile:

American believers, operating in a society where that is expected of them, tend to be judgmental and annoyingly superior.
Those are just the noisey ones. The others are okay.

Though personally I think God is more based on faith than on reason, and it annoys me when some believers try to argue that their God has a basis in logic. None of them do, in the real world. The uncertainty of faith is part of the whole reason for the power of God - otherwise God would be just like a pop star, or actor, or any other celebrity that people look up to.
Nope, no provable logic.

Ah, the Watchmaker Paradox. No, of course not. In my own life I’ve seen enough complexity emerging from resulting from unplanned events to have good reason to understand that this is the way the universe runs.
Sort of the modified version of WP. I don’t know about folding proteins, but obviously I believe God was involved in our creation. Literally at what level, dirt or sludge or ? Doesn’t matter.

Nah. Temperament doesn’t seem to have an awful lot to do with faith. In fact, believers are more likely to suffer from depression than non-believers, at least in the UK. (I came across this statistic today, and will endeavour to produce a citation for it tomorrow for you).
I wonder if it’s related to going against the majority as far as God belief or ? Anyway, thanks again for your answers. IWLN

323

IMHO it doesn’t. I think most religions are just representations of the same God. We define God with our religions, but he doesn’t literally become different for each one. I don’t think(IMHO) that it’s a big deal to him. We (religion) came up with all of the rules and exclusionary behavior. IWLN

324

After reading the majority of the posts here, I have to say that I absolutely adore most of your responses. Although, the vast majority of answers to question #1 were totally, utterly, and notwithstanding wrong.

Does belief in a God hurt anybody? Let us first ask about the God in question – Does belief in Christ hurt anybody? – Has belief in Christ hurt anybody? – Yes! It has. Millions of people.
Firstly, belief in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior denotes that you must also believe, as per biblical passage, that the only way to get to the kingdom of heaven, is through Christ the savior. No matter how many good points you rack up with good deeds, if you don’t believe that God knocked up Jesus’ mom, you’re doomed to eternal hellfire and flames. You could be the nicest guy in the world, but you’re doomed. As one of my contemporaries happened to analogize, Christians look at it as a speeding bus headed for the non-believer. “I must save them, for my Christ!” they fervantly proclaim and rush to the non-believers unwelcome rescue.

Christians also tend to beget more christians with fear rather than love. “Don’t be bad, or Hell!” they claim. Instilling miles and miles of irrational fears into the hearts of their poor unwitting children. Which I believe is at least partially responsible for some of the psychological and emotional disorders so prevalant today.

Believers also, throughout history, have decided to use force to convert their differently-believing brothers’ to believe in their God. Their thinking was that whatever tortures they befell the hapless Jews of the inquisition was only a minor preface to the damned torture they’d endure in hell, they were saving them through torture… funny how beliefs can do twisted things to your mimdset.

Believers, but not all, also seem to lack the comprehension of their own biblical work. We’re speaking of the same book in which God allowed Moses to command his priests to rape little prepubescent girls, (Numbers 31:17) And the same God who sent bears out of the woods to kill innocent little children who happened to call Elijah “Baldy.” (2 Kings 2:4) If these Christians had taken time to read their book instead of singing the praises they learned from their fathers, they would no doubt be enjoining the athiests in this discussion.

I know I only answered one of your quesstions, but most of the others were summed up better than I could possibly explain them above. To my fellow intellectuals, well said indeed!

325

I don’t know why you seem to be having so much trouble understanding why this argument is fallacious. You say it’s contradictory to “his teaching” yet you can produce no evidence that any such teachings exists. You talk about who “he is” yet you define who he is simply by your own personal assertion. That’s not an argument and it’s not a response to the issue at hand. Some people say God wants them to kill. Other people say God wants them to love. Both assertions are equally valid or equally worthless. Neither assertion has any objective truth. Neither belief has any epistimological value.

Let me put it this way. I could say that God wants me to kill infidels. I could say that God has told me this and i could support it with “teachings.” I could say that you don’t really know God because your beliefs run counter to who he is and what he teaches. What makes my assertions any less valid than yours?

“Because I say so” is an empirically worthless statement.

Really? If you’re at war with “offenders” (i.e. people who don’t believe in your God or happen to be living on land that you want for yourself) then it’s ok to kill babies and rape women? Are you actually defending those actions as Godly?

Actually, if that is what you’re saying then you’re contradicting your own assertions that God does not order people to kill. Did God order that or didn’t he? You can’t have it both ways.

BTW, if “wars and struggles” are an excuse to kill civilians then terrorist attacks are perfectly acceptable. Do you know the Arabic word for “struggle?” It’s jihad.

So how can you tell what’s true from what isn’t? Do you have some magic spectacles? Or are you just really special?

So you’re admitting that the Bible is useless as an objective source of information about “God” and are simply retreating behind unsupported assertions again.

Other people feel God’s “presence” and and they “know” he wants them to blow up abortion clinics. Their feelings are just as true as yours are. Prove they aren’t.

I have a degree in Religious Studies so you can save your lectures about Biblical criticism. I guarantee I know more about than you do. My intention was not to use the Bible to prove that God does not exist to but prove that the Bible cannot be trusted as a consistent or reliable source of information about him.

When you mention a “new covenant,” btw, you are implying a specific theological and soteriological view which is specifically and crucially contradicted by a number of other theologies and beliefs held by people whose “knowledge” of God is as heartfelt and sincere as your own. Judaism, for example, does not accept your “new covenant” in the least. Are they wrong? How do you know?

How can you recognize an act of God from an act of violence?

(when did I say I “knew you so well?” I don’t have to know you to recognize an arrogant or fallacious statement)

No. It is a statement of absolute fact that people who believe in God commit violence. I proffered no opinion about whether they were actually divinely directed, I only said that they believed that they were.

Any of these definitions are fine. None of them "support your circumstances. Empirical means that which is observable through the normal five senses. There is no definition which means that which is asserted without support.

The first you believe is wrong. You don’t actually know what God tells others. You just spout opinions about it.

Your opinion is based on a faulty understanding of the Scotsman.

they wouldn’t be lying. They would be doing it for an atheist cause. There just wouldn’t be very many atheists who subscribed to it.

The question isn’t whether they represent atheists, it’s whether they are atheists which they would be.

Christians who blow up abortion clinics may not be representaive but they are Christians. It’s fallacious to argue otherwise.

You made factual assertions in a GD thread, i.e that people who commit violence in the name of God or Christ are not really believers or Christians. When you assert something as fact in this forum you are expected to support your assertion with cites or with logical argument. That’s the way it works here.

If you want to say that you believe that stuff then no one will argue with you. Just don’t say it’s fact if you can’t back it up.

326

I’m not aware of anyone ever doing anything for the “atheist” cause. Even brutal dictators like Stalin committed his atrocities in the name of Communism, the good of the State, and ostensibly to maintain order. It was an atheist state, but it’s nonsensical to say anything was done “in the name of atheism”. It’s tantamount to doing something in the name of “Barney is not a real dinosaur”.

Utterly false. I suspect that you have some misconception about what reason entails. It doesn’t mean I have to wait for a peer-reviewed paper to come out in Scientific American before I can go to the bathroom. When I turned on my computer today, I decided to push the “on” button rather than hit the computer with a sledgehammer. Why? Because based on previous empirical observation, I have concluded that pushing the “on” button causes my computer to turn on. I have also observed that hitting things with sledgehammers makes them smash, and does not turn them on. So I made the reasonable decision to use the “on” button. I imagine that you make a similar decision almost every day. Now, I could have opted for the sledgehammer, based on my so-called “personal” knowledge that sledgehammers cause computers to turn on. After all, nobody has proven that it’s impossible. And from what you have told us about “personal” knowledge, I understand that it is unverifiable by any objective standards, and consists only of what you (or anyone) think is right. So if I allow myself to have “personal” knowledge that is based on no empirical data whatsoever, there is nothing to stop me from believing that the sledghammer will work.

So you see, even the most mundane actions that we carry out every day are based on reason; reason does not “make us doubt our every move”.

I’ve enjoyed this discussion with you, but I confess I am getting a little frustrated with you now. You really seem to be having a hard time following a logical train of thought, and I wonder if maybe you’re doing it just a little on purpose to be obstinate. The big issue here is that believing a thing does not necessarily make it true. It’s a simple, yet profound statement, and is proven thus:

1.) Some people believe in Santa Claus (or the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy, or whatever)

2.) Santa Claus is not real.

3.) Therefore, some people believing in a thing does not necessarily mean it is real.

For the proof to work, you have to concede (1) and (2), and I assume everyone here does. But here’s where I think you’re getting lost: This only demonstrates the ONE IDEA, e.g. belief in and of itself does not equal existence.

I’m NOT saying God is equivalent to Santa Claus. I’m NOT saying God and Santa Claus are equally important to people. I’m NOT saying people who believe in God are stupid, or childish. I’m NOT “changing the subject”. In fact, the background and characteristics of Santa Claus have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the point. You can NOT change the inescapable conclusion of (3) by saying Santa Claus is “different” than God.

You say that, yet you provide no rational justification for the statements you make about God.

Sure - when I pointed out that there are many different religions that worship Gods with different characteristics, you claimed that they all worship the same God, but are mistaken about God’s characteristics. You have no evidence that all of these many, many gods are one and the same; you merely assert it, because it conveniently fits in with your belief system.

No they’s not, girl. It’s an analogy. Deal with it.:stuck_out_tongue:

But you haven’t really said anything here. You’re just using an affectation of speech. When you say “know him”, it has no coherent meaning. You may as well say the goal is to “flurn” God, or “squizzle” God. I may not believe in God, but I am familiar enough with the tenets of Christianity to be aware that faith is of paramount importance, and is NOT considered merely a stepping stone. Christianity encourages its adherents to have faith in God; please don’t insult my intelligence by trying to tell me that’s not the case.

So far, you’re not even 1% impartial.:smiley:

So you determine if the Bible is valid by consulting the Bible? I don’t think I need to tell you what’s wrong with that picture.

Actually, their frame of reference was that they were highly superstitious people who believed that supernatural events were commonplace. And based on the large volume of apocryphal writings that even Christians admit is false, they obviously were people who had no qualms about making up stories of their faith. If you take that into account, you pretty much have to throw out the whole Bible.

It doesn’t help you objectively determine whether a document is valid.

It could mean that, but in this case it doesn’t. There happens to be much, much more evidence that George Washington existed than just that one story.

But if we take an example like Count Dracula, then yes, the various conflicting accounts of his life and the supernatural aspects tend to cast doubt on whether he was a real person.

How come you understand the function of analogies when you make them, but you miss the boat when other people make them? [Hint: it wasn’t about Santa Claus]

I don’t understand how you can apply logical scrutiny to other people’s beliefs, but not to your own. To me, your position is just as illogical as hers. In fact, more so, since she at least bases her belief on the evidence of the Bible, however flawed it may be.

But please, I hope you don’t take offense at that. I know I said it before, but I just want to repeat that I’m just trying to tell you how I think, because you seemed to be interested. I really do try to respect everyone’s beliefs. Both you and my other friend seem to be happy with your beliefs, and they are meaningful to you, so more power to you.

327

I don’t know why you seem to be having so much trouble understanding why this argument is fallacious. You say it’s contradictory to “his teaching” yet you can produce no evidence that any such teachings exists. You talk about who “he is” yet you define who he is simply by your own personal assertion. That’s not an argument and it’s not a response to the issue at hand. Some people say God wants them to kill. Other people say God wants them to love. Both assertions are equally valid or equally worthless. Neither assertion has any objective truth. Neither belief has any epistimological value.
You and I both know that you can out-word me at every turn, except I know how to spell epistemological. I don’t have a problem with that. Although IMHO it seems that the debate is more important than the truth. His teachings are in the Bible and my “personal assertions” come from knowing him, believing in him. I again remind you that it is impossible to debate God. I have answered every question posed to me with as much accuracy and honesty as possible, even in light of how I know this type of thing goes over here. It was never my original intent to be in this position, because I know nothing useful comes of it. You are entitled to “believe” that you “know” what I can and can’t know.

Let me put it this way. I could say that God wants me to kill infidels. I could say that God has told me this and i could support it with “teachings.” I could say that you don’t really know God because your beliefs run counter to who he is and what he teaches. What makes my assertions any less valid than yours?
You would be entitled to believe what you like. My assertions are valid because I have opened my mind and heart to God and believe what he has given to me. It makes me certain and I never had any expectation of it convincing any one else. When a false statement is said, obviously I’m going to refute it, whether I can prove it to you or not. I know that makes me a bad little debater, but that wasn’t what I was looking for, I just wasn’t prepared.

"Because I say so" is an empirically worthless statement.
“In philosophical language, the term empirical means simply what belongs to or is the product of experience or observation.” --Sir W. Hamilton.
Works for me.

Really? If you’re at war with “offenders” (i.e. people who don’t believe in your God or happen to be living on land that you want for yourself) then it’s ok to kill babies and rape women? Are you actually defending those actions as Godly?
No. Man does that, not God.

Actually, if that is what you’re saying then you’re contradicting your own assertions that God does not order people to kill. Did God order that or didn’t he? You can’t have it both ways.
My original assertion was that God did not order the bombing of abortion clinics and why.

BTW, if “wars and struggles” are an excuse to kill civilians then terrorist attacks are perfectly acceptable. Do you know the Arabic word for “struggle?” It’s jihad.
IMHO that would totally depend on what the wars are for. So you’re ignoring that a lot of the wars in the Bible had to do with slavery and oppression? Or am I mistaken? I have not spent as much time in the old testament in part because from everything I understand, if something is contradictory; you go to the later accounts. I have not read all the books that were removed from the Bible yet, so yes I’m still learning things. I know what jihad is and sympathize with some of the reasoning, but hate the actions.

So how can you tell what’s true from what isn’t? Do you have some magic spectacles? Or are you just really special?
Why yes thanks, I am special. And so are a lot of other people who feel God’s presence and guidance. Am I infallible, naw.

So you’re admitting that the Bible is useless as an objective source of information about “God” and are simply retreating behind unsupported assertions again.
Absolutely not. The bible is a wonderful source of information. You just have to know how to read it. Maybe you could take a class again.

Other people feel God’s “presence” and and they “know” he wants them to blow up abortion clinics. Their feelings are just as true as yours are. Prove they aren’t.
Well, it’s a little contradictory to love your neighbor, thou shalt not kill, etc. The act of violence itself is contradictory, since they are killing unborn babies, because they want to stop people from killing unborn babies. I guess that doesn’t have a wacko ring to you, like it does to me. Well I can provide scriptural proof, but the rest is only from my knowledge of God. So no, can’t prove it to you.

I have a degree in Religious Studies so you can save your lectures about Biblical criticism. I guarantee I know more about than you do. My intention was not to use the Bible to prove that God does not exist to but prove that the Bible cannot be trusted as a consistent or reliable source of information about him.
IMHO a non-believer who delves that deeply into Religious Studies is searching for something missing in their lives. Did you find it? If you read and study the Bible with your intellect only, you have failed from the start to find out what it’s really about. If you can’t consider it all, instead of dissecting it piece by piece; you get nowhere. You focus on the battles and wars and miss the most important part. I’m sure since you’ve studied it so thoroughly, you realize that kill is mentioned 117 times and not even always in the context of doing so, many times in the context of “thou shalt not kill”. Love is mentioned 310 times and pretty much always in the context of “that we should love each other”. So is it your opinion that if something is wrong in a book, it invalidates the entire book?

When you mention a “new covenant,” btw, you are implying a specific theological and soteriological view which is specifically and crucially contradicted by a number of other theologies and beliefs held by people whose “knowledge” of God is as heartfelt and sincere as your own. Judaism, for example, does not accept your “new covenant” in the least. Are they wrong? How do you know?
Yes, I am. No, it isn’t time for them to accept yet. There are multiple references in the Bible to this. If you’d like me to cite some of them, I can. You should know where they are though with your expertise. The new covenant came about because the old one wasn’t good enough and yes the tone changed, but not the basic law.

How can you recognize an act of God from an act of violence?
Information from the Bible about not killing, about forgiveness, loving, about following the rules of your governing authorities, etc, and from God and from common sense.

(when did I say I “knew you so well?” I don’t have to know you to recognize an arrogant or fallacious statement)
Are you forming an opinion without proof?

No. It is a statement of absolute fact that people who believe in God commit violence. I proffered no opinion about whether they were actually divinely directed, I only said that they believed that they were.
Last time I noticed, this was about God directing people to kill. Now it’s people who believe in God can commit violence. Of course they can. They do. But if they say God directed them, I still maintain they are delusional, lying or mistaken in some way.

You made factual assertions in a GD thread, i.e that people who commit violence in the name of God or Christ are not really believers or Christians. When you assert something as fact in this forum you are expected to support your assertion with cites or with logical argument. That’s the way it works here.
I believe I made a distinction, but I’m not going to get in to a fallacy problem here. Let’s drop the violence part and I will just make a statement. Christians don’t necessarily know God. People who call themselves believers don’t necessarily know God. These are titles that should indicate a connection with God, but don’t necessarily. It’s still a matter of what we do, not what we say.

**If you want to say that you believe that stuff then no one will argue with you. Just don’t say it’s fact if you can’t back it up. **
Well that’s not particularly true. People here dispute the “I believe”, just as much as with “I know”, they just get more irritated by the second. For me, the definition of believe is too impersonal and abstract for what I know to be true. It was not my intent to irritate(mostly), not follow the “debating rules”, etc. I don’t always appreciate the tone, but I do, the insight. IWLN

328

After reading the majority of the posts here, I have to say that I absolutely adore most of your responses. Although, the vast majority of answers to question #1 were totally, utterly, and notwithstanding wrong.
I don’t generally disagree with you and frankly expected there to be more answers like this one. My answers are strictly IMHO.

Does belief in a God hurt anybody? Let us first ask about the God in question – Does belief in Christ hurt anybody? – Has belief in Christ hurt anybody? – Yes! It has. Millions of people.
Firstly, belief in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior denotes that you must also believe, as per biblical passage, that the only way to get to the kingdom of heaven, is through Christ the savior. No matter how many good points you rack up with good deeds, if you don’t believe that God knocked up Jesus’ mom, you’re doomed to eternal hellfire and flames. You could be the nicest guy in the world, but you’re doomed. As one of my contemporaries happened to analogize, Christians look at it as a speeding bus headed for the non-believer. “I must save them, for my Christ!” they fervantly proclaim and rush to the non-believers unwelcome rescue.
Even though I believe basically in the literal stories of Jesus, I think a lot of people missed the whole point. Remember again, this is my opinion, gets me in trouble with fellow theists too. I think the point of Jesus was to show the ultimate unconditional love and sacrifice of God for man.(I know your eyeballs are rolling back in your head now, sorry) We were supposed to get the concept of being loved, loving and sacrificing for each other. Many missed the point and made it about a virgin birth and you better believe it or else. Not the point. Using religious beliefs as a threat or weapon is wrong. I agree that attitude hurts people.

Christians also tend to beget more christians with fear rather than love. “Don’t be bad, or Hell!” they claim. Instilling miles and miles of irrational fears into the hearts of their poor unwitting children. Which I believe is at least partially responsible for some of the psychological and emotional disorders so prevalant today.
I’m not personally familiar with using fear as a motivator, but agree it’s wrong. Don’t know that I agree about the psychological and emotional disorders. Guess I would have to see comparisons of emotional health of non-theist cultures vs. theist.

Believers also, throughout history, have decided to use force to convert their differently-believing brothers’ to believe in their God. Their thinking was that whatever tortures they befell the hapless Jews of the inquisition was only a minor preface to the damned torture they’d endure in hell, they were saving them through torture… funny how beliefs can do twisted things to your mimdset.
I believe this had to do with man’s power trip, not God. Not sure their minds weren’t already twisted, before religion set in.

Believers, but not all, also seem to lack the comprehension of their own biblical work. We’re speaking of the same book in which God allowed Moses to command his priests to rape little prepubescent girls, (Numbers 31:17) And the same God who sent bears out of the woods to kill innocent little children who happened to call Elijah “Baldy.” (2 Kings 2:4) If these Christians had taken time to read their book instead of singing the praises they learned from their fathers, they would no doubt be enjoining the athiests in this discussion.
I’ve read the book, just believe again man was putting words in God’s mouth. Justifying their brutality with noble causes. The “baldy” incident was in 2 Kings 2:24. Keep in mind too that there are always false rumors and fables about people, it is human nature.

**I know I only answered one of your quesstions, but most of the others were summed up better than I could possibly explain them above. To my fellow intellectuals, well said indeed! **

Thanks for your honest opinion. IWLN

329

After reading the majority of the posts here, I have to say that I absolutely adore most of your responses. Although, the vast majority of answers to question #1 were totally, utterly, and notwithstanding wrong.
I don’t generally disagree with you and frankly expected there to be more answers like this one. My answers are strictly IMHO.

Does belief in a God hurt anybody? Let us first ask about the God in question – Does belief in Christ hurt anybody? – Has belief in Christ hurt anybody? – Yes! It has. Millions of people.
Firstly, belief in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior denotes that you must also believe, as per biblical passage, that the only way to get to the kingdom of heaven, is through Christ the savior. No matter how many good points you rack up with good deeds, if you don’t believe that God knocked up Jesus’ mom, you’re doomed to eternal hellfire and flames. You could be the nicest guy in the world, but you’re doomed. As one of my contemporaries happened to analogize, Christians look at it as a speeding bus headed for the non-believer. “I must save them, for my Christ!” they fervantly proclaim and rush to the non-believers unwelcome rescue.
Even though I believe basically in the literal stories of Jesus, I think a lot of people missed the whole point. Remember again, this is my opinion, gets me in trouble with fellow theists too. I think the point of Jesus was to show the ultimate unconditional love and sacrifice of God for man.(I know your eyeballs are rolling back in your head now, sorry) We were supposed to get the concept of being loved, loving and sacrificing for each other. Many missed the point and made it about a virgin birth and you better believe it or else. Not the point. Using religious beliefs as a threat or weapon is wrong. I agree that attitude hurts people.

Christians also tend to beget more christians with fear rather than love. “Don’t be bad, or Hell!” they claim. Instilling miles and miles of irrational fears into the hearts of their poor unwitting children. Which I believe is at least partially responsible for some of the psychological and emotional disorders so prevalant today.
I’m not personally familiar with using fear as a motivator, but agree it’s wrong. Don’t know that I agree about the psychological and emotional disorders. Guess I would have to see comparisons of emotional health of non-theist cultures vs. theist.

Believers also, throughout history, have decided to use force to convert their differently-believing brothers’ to believe in their God. Their thinking was that whatever tortures they befell the hapless Jews of the inquisition was only a minor preface to the damned torture they’d endure in hell, they were saving them through torture… funny how beliefs can do twisted things to your mimdset.
I believe this had to do with man’s power trip, not God. Not sure their minds weren’t already twisted, before religion set in.

Believers, but not all, also seem to lack the comprehension of their own biblical work. We’re speaking of the same book in which God allowed Moses to command his priests to rape little prepubescent girls, (Numbers 31:17) And the same God who sent bears out of the woods to kill innocent little children who happened to call Elijah “Baldy.” (2 Kings 2:4) If these Christians had taken time to read their book instead of singing the praises they learned from their fathers, they would no doubt be enjoining the athiests in this discussion.
I’ve read the book, just believe again man was putting words in God’s mouth. Justifying their brutality with noble causes. The “baldy” incident was in 2 Kings 2:24. Keep in mind too that there are always false rumors and fables about people, it is human nature.

**I know I only answered one of your quesstions, but most of the others were summed up better than I could possibly explain them above. To my fellow intellectuals, well said indeed! **

Thanks for your honest opinion. IWLN

330

I’m not aware of anyone ever doing anything for the “atheist” cause. Even brutal dictators like Stalin committed his atrocities in the name of Communism, the good of the State, and ostensibly to maintain order. It was an atheist state, but it’s nonsensical to say anything was done “in the name of atheism”. It’s tantamount to doing something in the name of “Barney is not a real dinosaur”.
After repeated failure to explain this one, I will of course try one more time. I know atheist don’t have a “cause”. I was to parallel that that statement is as false as the believer doing something for their cause. Neither has anything to do with their doctrine, whether they had one or not. I should have used GS’s Snozz. Anyway, let’s drop this one. You win. I don’t concede the point, I just give up.

Utterly false. I suspect that you have some misconception about what reason entails. It doesn’t mean I have to wait for a peer-reviewed paper to come out in Scientific American before I can go to the bathroom. When I turned on my computer today, I decided to push the “on” button rather than hit the computer with a sledgehammer. Why? Because based on previous empirical observation, I have concluded that pushing the “on” button causes my computer to turn on. I have also observed that hitting things with sledgehammers makes them smash, and does not turn them on. So I made the reasonable decision to use the “on” button. I imagine that you make a similar decision almost every day. Now, I could have opted for the sledgehammer, based on my so-called “personal” knowledge that sledgehammers cause computers to turn on. After all, nobody has proven that it’s impossible. And from what you have told us about “personal” knowledge, I understand that it is unverifiable by any objective standards, and consists only of what you (or anyone) think is right. So if I allow myself to have “personal” knowledge that is based on no empirical data whatsoever, there is nothing to stop me from believing that the sledghammer will work. So you see, even the most mundane actions that we carry out every day are based on reason; reason does not “make us doubt our every move”.
Okay, I agree with that. I should have left the second sentence off of that. My comment to the first part of my statement is: Okay I was the only wittness to my “personal knowledge”. Does it have to be repeatable, (if so how many times) and believable by others to be real? Shouldn’t I be able to go by what I saw and felt, still feel? I realize that the event and myself had to be rationally analized. Was I nuts, did I have a seizure and didn’t know or did someone tamper with my tylenol. I determined as reasonably as I could that these things were not the case. This was too physical to discount. But by all logic, I should deny it?

**I’ve enjoyed this discussion with you, but I confess I am getting a little frustrated with you now. You really seem to be having a hard time following a logical train of thought, and I wonder if maybe you’re doing it just a little on purpose to be obstinate. The big issue here is that believing a thing does not necessarily make it true. It’s a simple, yet profound statement, and is proven thus:

1.) Some people believe in Santa Claus (or the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy, or whatever)

2.) Santa Claus is not real.

3.) Therefore, some people believing in a thing does not necessarily mean it is real.

For the proof to work, you have to concede (1) and (2), and I assume everyone here does. But here’s where I think you’re getting lost: This only demonstrates the ONE IDEA, e.g. belief in and of itself does not equal existence.**
I agree with believing in a thing does not necessarily mean it’s real. But what if you actually saw Santa Claus, God or the Easter Bunny? Would you be certain that your mind or body was playing tricks on you and continued to do so?

You say that, yet you provide no rational justification for the statements you make about God.
So what you’re saying is something not provable to you, can’t be allowed to influence me?

Sure - when I pointed out that there are many different religions that worship Gods with different characteristics, you claimed that they all worship the same God, but are mistaken about God’s characteristics. You have no evidence that all of these many, many gods are one and the same; you merely assert it, because it conveniently fits in with your belief system.
I believe, (you can be the one to go back through posts if you want) that I either said IMHO or I think or something to that effect. I don’t know this to be true, but yes I admit, it makes sense to me. And I believe all religions are somewhat mistaken about God’s characteristics, including mine, whatever that is. If I stated any of that as fact, then I was in error, but didn’t think I did. I am guilty of being inclusive rather than exclusive with my religious opinions.

No they’s not, girl. It’s an analogy. Deal with it.:stuck_out_tongue:
:cool:

But you haven’t really said anything here. You’re just using an affectation of speech. When you say “know him”, it has no coherent meaning. You may as well say the goal is to “flurn” God, or “squizzle” God. I may not believe in God, but I am familiar enough with the tenets of Christianity to be aware that faith is of paramount importance, and is NOT considered merely a stepping stone. Christianity encourages its adherents to have faith in God; please don’t insult my intelligence by trying to tell me that’s not the case.
I agree faith is vital to belief in God. I didn’t say it wasn’t important(or merely a stepping stone). Without faith, it would be impossible to feel his presence.

So far, you’re not even 1% impartial.:smiley:
I should get at least 10% for not believing everything my church tells me. You’re stingy.:frowning:

So you determine if the Bible is valid by consulting the Bible? I don’t think I need to tell you what’s wrong with that picture.
I’m okay with it. I have faith, I consult God and figure that whatever I’m wrong about will be made clear to me eventually.

Actually, their frame of reference was that they were highly superstitious people who believed that supernatural events were commonplace. And based on the large volume of apocryphal writings that even Christians admit is false, they obviously were people who had no qualms about making up stories of their faith. If you take that into account, you pretty much have to throw out the whole Bible.
I don’t agree that because some is incorrect that the book has no value.

It doesn’t help you objectively determine whether a document is valid.
It helps spiritually. I know not a good answer for you, but remember I’m running on 1%. :slight_smile:

It could mean that, but in this case it doesn’t. There happens to be much, much more evidence that George Washington existed than just that one story.
Darn, I knew I should have went further back in time. Okay, my great-grandfather X 30 generations on my dad’s side would be impossible to prove.

How come you understand the function of analogies when you make them, but you miss the boat when other people make them? [Hint: it wasn’t about Santa Claus]
Because mine make sense(Hint: this wasn’t about you).**

I don’t understand how you can apply logical scrutiny to other people’s beliefs, but not to your own. To me, your position is just as illogical as hers. In fact, more so, since she at least bases her belief on the evidence of the Bible, however flawed it may be.
I base my belief on the Bible too, just not all of it. She has more faith in it than I do. If Noah’s Ark isn’t symbolic, I’ll eat my rosary beads.

**But please, I hope you don’t take offense at that. I know I said it before, but I just want to repeat that I’m just trying to tell you how I think, because you seemed to be interested. I really do try to respect everyone’s beliefs. Both you and my other friend seem to be happy with your beliefs, and they are meaningful to you, so more power to you. **
Nope, I checked I’m still not offended. You have a very nice way of not believing a word I say. Thank you. You may not realize, but a lot of believers are very down to earth, normally rational people. There is so little about God that doesn’t reek of a good science fiction movie. I realize that. I poke fun at myself over it too. Yet I believe without a doubt. How silly is that? No, don’t answer. :eek: IWLN

331

I’m not trying to “outword” you, it’s just how I talk. I see no need to talk down to you. You seem to have been perfectly capable of understanding me to this point (and thanks for the spelling correction :wink: )

You say that God’s teachings are in the Bible yet it’s the same Bible in which God orders the Israelites to slaughter innocent people, rape women, take slaves and kill babies. Is that part of God’s teachings or is that part false?

Your personal assertions about “knowing” him are objectively indistinguishable from the assertions of those who “know” that God wants them to kill unbelievers or blow up buildings or drink the Kool-Aid. They are just as sure as you are. They can match you assertion for assertion, experience for experience. That’s why it’s fallacious to claim special knowledge. Your certitude means nothing to anyone but you. Your declarations that the belief of these others is false is hypocritical as long as you insist that your own beliefs are “knowledge.” You can’t demand that your own unsubstantiated beliefs must be evaluated any differently than you evaluate the unsubstantiated beliefs of others.

I believe in Cthuhlu and the Elder Gods. My assertions are valid because I have opened up my heart and mind to them and to what they have given me. It makes me certain. When you make false statements that God is love then of course I’m going to refute them.

You misunderstand the quote and the definition. “Empiricism” refers only to that which is observable to the senses, and is observable to anyone. Theophanies, visions, etc. do not count as empirical.

According to the book that hold to be God’s teachings, God not only orders humans to commit attrocities against other humans, he does it himself…frequently.

You didn’t answer my question. Did God order the Israelites to slaughter other people or didn’t he? The Bible says he did? Is the Bible right or wrong?

You are mistaken. The Israelites were ordered to conquer the Canaanites purely for territorial reasons (i.e. to steal their land) it was futher justified because the Canaanites worshipped “idols.” Those were the only two reasons. Slavery and oppression had nothing to do with it. As a matter of fact, the Israelites were specifically ordered by God to take slaves from conquered cities.

Even so, if a war is fought to end slavery and oppression does that make it ok to kill babies, rape women and take slaves?

By what logical method did anyone ever decide that this was the correct approach to Biblical criticism?

But you’re not as special as those who feel the power of Cthuhlu. :wink:

So how should I read it? Upside down? Should I ignore all the established methods of literary, linguistic and historical criticism? What should I replace it with?

You seemed to imply above that sometimes it’s ok to commit violence , even to kill babies and rape women, if it’s a just cause. Isn’t saving “unborn” babies a more just cause than stealing land from idol worshippers?

Let me find my rolleyes. Here they are. :rolleyes:

Sorry, no. There was, and is, nothing “missing” in my life. I simply had an academic fascination with certain sociological, psychological and historical aspects of religion. I cannot remember ever in my life having even the faintest belief or suspicion that Gods actually exist. I quite enjoy Zen meditation, though.

I mentioned the OT slaughter stuff simply to make a rhetorical point. I have read the entire Bible numerous times and I’ve read the NT in it’s original language (albeit with a lexicon and a Greek grammar handy and it was still slow going. I’m not exactly fluent).
I’ve applied different methods of criticism including purely literary, purely historical, and purely theological. I can’t turn off my brain at this point. I know too much about it. I know the historical context and agendas of the authors. I know too much about what is demonstrably ahistorical and I know too much about the influence other mythologies. Also, I don’t believe in God, so faith and prayer are out for me. Not that I would have any faith in faith.

Counting “loves” and “kills” doesn’t really mean much to me. The question is whether the Bible represents God’s teachings. If those teachings are contradictory it may not invalidate the entire book but there is also no empirical method for determining what is or isn’t valid. That means the Bible is at least unreliable as a recptacle for God’s teachings since there is no way to tell what is true and what isn’t other than resorting to arbitrary personal 'knowledge," and if you can receive special knowledge then you don’t need the Bible anyway.

Any and all such Biblical implications are found in the New Testament only, not in Hebrew Scripture. Essentially you’re saying that Christianity is more true than Judaism and you’re pointing to a Christian document to prove it. You’ve now added circular logic to your catalogue of fallacies but really that’s beside the point.

My question was is “received” knowledge which runs directly contradictory to Christian doctrine true or false, and how do you know? How do you explain those other experiences?

There is also information in the Bible about killing people for working on the sabbath. Why is that information less valid than the other information?

Well “arrogant” was a judgement call, “fallacious” was not.

Incidentally. It looks like you haven’t discovered how to code quotes yet (and don’t worry, it took me forever to figure it out).

You do it like this. Just cut and paste the material you want to quote into the reply window then bracket it as such:

(quote)blah blah blah(/quote)

Only use brackets instead of quotes and the above will get you this:

If you want to quote an entire post you can just click on “quote” under the post and it will code everything for you.

332

But please don’t! In threads like this one, with long posts, it makes the reply hard to read and annoys the hamsters something fierce.

333

Woo, hoo! [dances and shoots revolvers into air]

Just kidding. I’ll drop it too, then.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: if there were a God, and He communicated with me in an unambiguous way, I would think about it. As others have said, I might wonder if I had had a hallucination, since such things have been known to happen. But I am not steadfastly against God to the point that I would continue to deny His existence in the face of clear communication. However, God has never communicated with me, so it’s a moot point.

What’s more, in all my years knocking around this planet, I have never heard a theist convey their story of personal revelation that was at all convincing. Ever. But you, IWLN, would have me believe that you are the first Christian, out of all the Christians that Blowero has ever conversed with, whose personal revelation is convincing. In other words, you claim to have the “smoking gun” of personal knowledge that finally proves God. But wait, there’s a catch: YOU’RE NOT GOING TO SHARE IT WITH US. Why? If I understand you correctly, it’s because you don’t want people to make fun of you. The last thing I want to do is begrudge you your faith, but you have to admit that the whole thing sounds awfully fishy. I mean, put yourself in my shoes: would you believe you?

I have no doubt that what you’re telling us is exactly what you believe, but I am not convinced. I suspect that your experience has a perfectly natural explanation, and you only interpreted it as supernatural because of your already existing belief in God.

No, not necessarily. I would evaluate the evidence, just like I do with everything else. If it turned out to be a real phenomemon, I would incorporate it into my knowledge. For example, I had heard the name “Flying Fish”, but until recently, I thought it was just a name; I didn’t know there were fish that actually flew. A couple years ago, I went on an ocean cruise, and saw flying fish. (Well they don’t really fly, but they jump a great distance and it looks like they’re flying). So rather than assume I was hallucinating (especially since other people saw the same thing), I simply said to myself, “There’s something new I have learned.”

Huh? When did I say that? You are quite obviously influenced; we disagree on the source of the influence.

Please don’t get defensive; I’m not accusing you of wrongdoing. I am merely stating my opinion that you are making assertions without any evidence. Obviously it’s your opinion; I just think it’s an unfounded opinion. I could say it’s my opinion that monkeys can tap dance because it “makes sense to me”, and you would still be justified in disagreeing, wouldn’t you?

O.K., I grant you 10%.:wink:

That’s not what I said.

Perhaps, and if you told me your great-grandfather yadda yadda died and was resurrected, I wouldn’t necessarily believe you.

To you, my friend is irrational for believing the Ark story that is obviously symbolic. To me you are both irrational for believing the resurrection story that is obviously symbolic.

Of course I realize that. I must have misrepresented myself if you think I don’t. You have to remember that non-believers are still a relatively small minority, so most of my friends are theists. This forum is fun for me because we can argue about stuff that just doesn’t come up in day-to-day conversation with my friends. I absolutely don’t go around telling my friends they’re being irrational. The only reason I’m doing so with you is because you said you wanted to know this stuff. And like I said before, you’re a pretty good sport about it.:slight_smile:

334

The entire population of the earth except for eight survivors(Genesis 7:23).
Every inhabitant of Sodom and Gomorrah except for one family (Genesis 19:24).
Every first born of Egypt (Exodus 12:29).
All the hosts of the Pharaoh, including the captains of 600 chariots (Exodus 14:27,28).
Amalek and his people (Exodus 17:11,16).
3,000 Israelites (Exodus 32:27).
250 Levite princes who had challenged the leadership of Moses (Numbers 16:1-40).
14,700 Jews in a plague who had rebelled against Moses following the killing of the princes (Numbers 16:41-49).
All the subjects of Og (Numbers 21:34, 35).
24,000 Israelites who lived with Moabite women (Numbers 25:4, 9).
All the males, kings, and non-virgin females of the Midianites. (Numbers 31:7, 8).
The Ammonites (Deuteronomy 2:19-21).
The Horims (Deuteronomy 2:22).
All the citizens of Jericho, except for a prostitute and her family (Joshua 6).
12,000 citizens of Ai. Joshua hung the king on a tree. (Joshua 8:1-30).
All the people of Makkedah (Joshua 10:28).
All the people of Libnah (Joshua 10:29, 30).
All the people of Gezer (Joshua 10:33).
All the people of Lachish (Joshua 10:32).
All the people of Eglon (Joshua 10:34, 35).
All the people of Hebron (Joshua 10:36, 37).
All the inhabitants of the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs and all their kings (Joshua 10:40).
All 31 kings and inhabitants of their countries, and the south country, and the land of Goshen, and the valley, and the plain, and the mountain of Israel, and the valley of the same from Mt. Halak to Mt. Hermon (Joshua 11:12, 16, 17, 12:24).
10,000 Moabites (Judges 3:29).
10,000 Perizzites and Canaanites (Judges 1:4).
600 Phillistines (Judges 3:31).
All of Sisera (Judges 4:16).
120,000 Midianites (Judges 8:10).
25,100 Benjaminites (Judges 20:35).
50,070 people of Bethshemesh (I Samuel 6:19).All the Amalekites (I Samuel 15:3, 7).
The armies and five kings of the Amorites (Amos 3:2).
The Moabites and 22,000 Syrians (II Samuel 8:2, 5, 6, 14).
40,000 Syrian horsemen (II Samuel 10:18).
100,000 Syrian footmen, followed by 27,000 who were crushed by a wall (I Kings 20:28, 29, 30).
42 children eaten by bears (II Kings 2:23, 24).
185,000 Assyrians killed by an angel (II Kings 19:35).
10,000 Edomites, followed by 10,000 more whose killers brought them to the top of the rock, and cast them down from the top of the rock, that they were broken in pieces. (II Chronicles 28).
120,000 Judeans (II Chronicles 28).
75,000 Persians (Esther 9:16).
All of the above are attributed directly to God in the Bible. The only concieveable reason an omnisicent, omnipotent entity would resort to this mass-genocide is malevolence(and perhaps incompetence).

335

Wow, that guy’s been busy.:eek:

336

Woo, hoo! [dances and shoots revolvers into air]
Just kidding. I’ll drop it too, then.
Boy, I’d hate to see you if you won the lottery!!

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: if there were a God, and He communicated with me in an unambiguous way, I would think about it. As others have said, I might wonder if I had had a hallucination, since such things have been known to happen. But I am not steadfastly against God to the point that I would continue to deny His existence in the face of clear communication. However, God has never communicated with me, so it’s a moot point.
That’s fair. I wondered if I was dreaming or hallucinating. Since I’ve never fallen asleep standing up, I cleared myself on that one immediately though.

What’s more, in all my years knocking around this planet, I have never heard a theist convey their story of personal revelation that was at all convincing. Ever. But you, IWLN, would have me believe that you are the first Christian, out of all the Christians that Blowero has ever conversed with, whose personal revelation is convincing. In other words, you claim to have the “smoking gun” of personal knowledge that finally proves God. But wait, there’s a catch: YOU’RE NOT GOING TO SHARE IT WITH US. Why? If I understand you correctly, it’s because you don’t want people to make fun of you. The last thing I want to do is begrudge you your faith, but you have to admit that the whole thing sounds awfully fishy. I mean, put yourself in my shoes: would you believe you?
My personal revelation would not be convincing to you. That is the only reason why I have never described it to any one except a couple of people who have to love me, whether they think I’m nuts or not. I would be a lot more likely to at least consider believing you now than I would have before. A street guy came into our church a while back and flung himself on the altar and screamed that he was Jesus. I didn’t immediately assume “personal revelation” then. I was never desperate for a one on one.

I have no doubt that what you’re telling us is exactly what you believe, but I am not convinced. I suspect that your experience has a perfectly natural explanation, and you only interpreted it as supernatural because of your already existing belief in God.
That’s fair. Felt natural to me though.:slight_smile:

No, not necessarily. I would evaluate the evidence, just like I do with everything else. If it turned out to be a real phenomemon, I would incorporate it into my knowledge. For example, I had heard the name “Flying Fish”, but until recently, I thought it was just a name; I didn’t know there were fish that actually flew. A couple years ago, I went on an ocean cruise, and saw flying fish. (Well they don’t really fly, but they jump a great distance and it looks like they’re flying). So rather than assume I was hallucinating (especially since other people saw the same thing), I simply said to myself, "There’s something new I have learned."
If I would have seen flying fish in my house, I would have figured hallucination.

Huh? When did I say that? You are quite obviously influenced; we disagree on the source of the influence.
Okay. But who gave you permission to mentally use OR on my "hallucination.:smiley:

Please don’t get defensive; I’m not accusing you of wrongdoing. I am merely stating my opinion that you are making assertions without any evidence. Obviously it’s your opinion; I just think it’s an unfounded opinion. I could say it’s my opinion that monkeys can tap dance because it “makes sense to me”, and you would still be justified in disagreeing, wouldn’t you?
Doggone it , I’m not defensive. Definition of opinion - [n] a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty. That says for me. BTW - At the San Diego Zoo they used to have chimps, dressed in tuxes doing little tap dances. I can’t prove it with documentation, but have other witnesses.

O.K., I grant you 10%.:wink:
You’re so kind.:slight_smile:

That’s not what I said.
Your words were “you’d pretty much have to throw out the whole Bible”.

Perhaps, and if you told me your great-grandfather yadda yadda died and was resurrected, I wouldn’t necessarily believe you.
No, still dead.

To you, my friend is irrational for believing the Ark story that is obviously symbolic. To me you are both irrational for believing the resurrection story that is obviously symbolic.
Your friend is not irrational, but the belief is and so is the ressurrection story. Not saying it didn’t happen, just personal belief that a lot of the famous stories weren’t meant to be taken literally.

**Of course I realize that. I must have misrepresented myself if you think I don’t. You have to remember that non-believers are still a relatively small minority, so most of my friends are theists. This forum is fun for me because we can argue about stuff that just doesn’t come up in day-to-day conversation with my friends. I absolutely don’t go around telling my friends they’re being irrational. The only reason I’m doing so with you is because you said you wanted to know this stuff. And like I said before, you’re a pretty good sport about it.:slight_smile: **
Okay, if I only have to admit to being irrational when it comes to God, I can take it. I do want to know or I wouldn’t be here. I do continue to appreciate your honesty. IWLN

337

GodlesSkeptic,

I think you may have left one or two out, but I do get the point. I don’t believe these events were “directed” by God anymore than I believe AIDS is a punishment. It is a valid point that even if he didn’t direct it, he allowed it to happen. Since any feelings I have about that come from my own completely unprovable “personal knowledge” of him(which I know means “squat” as evidence), I’m going to have to go with, I don’t know why bad things happen. I wish I could say more, but I am learning when not to.:slight_smile: IWLN

338

I’m not trying to “outword” you, it’s just how I talk. I see no need to talk down to you. You seem to have been perfectly capable of understanding me to this point (and thanks for the spelling correction :wink: )
My online dictionary and I understand you very well. Seriously, I have learned some new words from you and that’s always good. Sorry about the spelling correction. Given the definition of the word, it just tickled my funny bone.:slight_smile:

You say that God’s teachings are in the Bible yet it’s the same Bible in which God orders the Israelites to slaughter innocent people, rape women, take slaves and kill babies. Is that part of God’s teachings or is that part false?
I believe that it’s man trying to make their causes “the work of God” instead of an attrocity. Throughout history and today, it seems to be very important to man in general that God is behind, with or the cause of everything. I don’t share that belief, but that is just my opinion.

Your personal assertions about “knowing” him are objectively indistinguishable from the assertions of those who “know” that God wants them to kill unbelievers or blow up buildings or drink the Kool-Aid. They are just as sure as you are. They can match you assertion for assertion, experience for experience. That’s why it’s fallacious to claim special knowledge. Your certitude means nothing to anyone but you. Your declarations that the belief of these others is false is hypocritical as long as you insist that your own beliefs are “knowledge.” You can’t demand that your own unsubstantiated beliefs must be evaluated any differently than you evaluate the unsubstantiated beliefs of others.
I agree that my “personal experiences” mean nothing to anyone but me. It would be impossible for me not to use it in evaluating what is true for me. When I answer a question, I answer what I know or believe to be true. It is fallacious to claim special knowledge as a part of a debate or argument that I am expecting someone to “get” my point on. I mean fallacious as in an unsound argument, not as in incorrect information. Hey, I had to step back for that one. I am not a liar, but it is an unsound argument for debate purposes. Doesn’t change anything as far as my beliefs, but I finally get your point on that. Don’t die of shock or anything because I agreed with you.(1 point DC)

You misunderstand the quote and the definition. “Empiricism” refers only to that which is observable to the senses, and is observable to anyone. Theophanies, visions, etc. do not count as empirical.
Okay, didn’t understand it had to be observable to anyone. That was a new word for me in that context. (2 points)

According to the book that hold to be God’s teachings, God not only orders humans to commit attrocities against other humans, he does it himself…frequently.
You didn’t answer my question. Did God order the Israelites to slaughter other people or didn’t he? The Bible says he did? Is the Bible right or wrong?
I believe the Bible is wrong, but can’t prove it to you. Just as you can’t verify the actual circumstances of the events.(not giving you a point here)

You are mistaken. The Israelites were ordered to conquer the Canaanites purely for territorial reasons (i.e. to steal their land) it was futher justified because the Canaanites worshipped “idols.” Those were the only two reasons. Slavery and oppression had nothing to do with it. As a matter of fact, the Israelites were specifically ordered by God to take slaves from conquered cities.
I’ll take your word on that. There is no way of judging God’s level of involment and since character references are out. Well, here we are. I’m not real thrilled about the war we’re involved in now and I’m thinking God didn’t discuss that one with George either.(you get 1 point for Bible story knowledge)

Even so, if a war is fought to end slavery and oppression does that make it ok to kill babies, rape women and take slaves?
No. Not in my belief system. I am unable to be objective though.

By what logical method did anyone ever decide that this was the correct approach to Biblical criticism?
You didn’t really think God had anything to do with logic now, did you? But even though I accept the Bible to provide inspiration and information, I haven’t ever forgotten that man had a hand in it. It’s open to individual evaluation. That’s why you and I see it so differently. Do I see what I would like to see sometimes, beyond doubt. IMHO So do you.

But you’re not as special as those who feel the power of Cthuhlu. :wink:
I should smite that SOB.:slight_smile: (1 point)
So how should I read it? Upside down? Should I ignore all the established methods of literary, linguistic and historical criticism? What should I replace it with?
Upside down would be good, but you can’t just turn the book over. You have to actually be upside down. Send pictures.:slight_smile: I do see your point again (I hate saying that).(1 point)

You seemed to imply above that sometimes it’s ok to commit violence , even to kill babies and rape women, if it’s a just cause. Isn’t saving “unborn” babies a more just cause than stealing land from idol worshippers?
You know I could wrap my mind around the “saving the unborn”, if it weren’t for the fact that the bombers are killing the unborn and only causing a change of venue to the other women. It’s not okay to me. Violence almost never is. Self-defense only.(and gently):slight_smile:

Let me find my rolleyes. Here they are. :rolleyes:
I’m sorry and I deserve the rolleyes. It was a cheap shot and I am ashamed of it. (again yours)

I mentioned the OT slaughter stuff simply to make a rhetorical point. I have read the entire Bible numerous times and I’ve read the NT in it’s original language (albeit with a lexicon and a Greek grammar handy and it was still slow going. I’m not exactly fluent).
I’ve applied different methods of criticism including purely literary, purely historical, and purely theological. I can’t turn off my brain at this point. I know too much about it. I know the historical context and agendas of the authors. I know too much about what is demonstrably ahistorical and I know too much about the influence other mythologies. Also, I don’t believe in God, so faith and prayer are out for me. Not that I would have any faith in faith.
Well since I’ve pretty much always read the Bible with subjective faith, as opposed to objective reason, I’ve got nothin’ for you there.
Counting “loves” and “kills” doesn’t really mean much to me. The question is whether the Bible represents God’s teachings. If those teachings are contradictory it may not invalidate the entire book but there is also no empirical method for determining what is or isn’t valid. That means the Bible is at least unreliable as a recptacle for God’s teachings since there is no way to tell what is true and what isn’t other than resorting to arbitrary personal 'knowledge," and if you can receive special knowledge then you don’t need the Bible anyway.
The only reason I brought up the loves and kills is that it seemed like the book typically received negative perusal, rather than objective evaluation. I guess I think of the Bible as challenging, rather than unreliable.

Any and all such Biblical implications are found in the New Testament only, not in Hebrew Scripture. Essentially you’re saying that Christianity is more true than Judaism and you’re pointing to a Christian document to prove it. You’ve now added circular logic to your catalogue of fallacies but really that’s beside the point.
My question was is “received” knowledge which runs directly contradictory to Christian doctrine true or false, and how do you know? How do you explain those other experiences?
IMHO “Christian” doctrine doesn’t always reflect God. I’ve said before, religions do the best they can(mostly), but no one, yes including me can get everything right. I referred to a Christian document because referring to what “I know” of God is even more circular.

There is also information in the Bible about killing people for working on the sabbath. Why is that information less valid than the other information?
There’s also information that was taken out of the Bible about the correct way to observe the sabbath. It was required that one observed the sabbath at home. Of course, this didn’t suit the church’s purpose, so they altered the contents of the original Bible. I am not blind to any of the negativity and descrepancies in religion. Really.

Well “arrogant” was a judgement call, “fallacious” was not.
Okay I already copped to a fallacious(as in lousy argument, not lies) statement or two, or ten.:slight_smile: You’ll never get me on arrogant though. I am guilty of wanting everything to be dandy for every one, maybe being naive, hey the list is long, but I think no person or religion or non-religion is superior to the next. I don’t do that well in “dueling religious beliefs” because I believe God is enormously bigger than that and yet the reality of God is much more simple than we’ve made it. I have opinions on what the whole picture basically is, but they make me laugh, they sound way too new agy, so I’ll spare myself further humiliation and shut up.

Incidentally. It looks like you haven’t discovered how to code quotes yet (and don’t worry, it took me forever to figure it out).
So when I’m answering each response and I chose the quote with reply, I’m still not quite getting it. When I type in my response and preview it, it does not look like it’s supposed to.:frowning:

Okay, as much as it pains me to say it, you’ve made a lot of good points, helped me figure out at least what you were talking about. My belief in God is fully intact, but I do appreciate the insight. Thank you. IWLN

339

Who? God or GodlessSkeptic? :smiley:

340

Yes, but your words were “I don’t agree that because some is incorrect that the book has no value.” I did not say the Bible has “no value” BECAUSE “some is incorrect.” I made no such argument; you disagree with a strawman.

For future reference, the word “if” means:

a : in the event that
b : allowing that
c : on the assumption that
d : on condition that

So if you see a dependent clause beginning with the word “if”, you do not need to answer as to the factuality of that clause. If I wanted an answer, I would have asked “Was your great-grandfather yadda yadda resurrected?”:wink:

Impressive - I’m upgrading you to 20%.

I meant God, but since you mention it, Godless’ knowledge of the Bible is quite impressive. I may nominate him for president at the next Atheist meeting. Oh crap! I wasn’t supposed to tell you about the meetings.:wink: