Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

antiskeptic

lazygal wrote: »

So if you saw someone preparing to dash a baby against some rocks you'd just think "meh, there's worse ways to go"? You wouldn't be horrified?

What has that to do with the babies perspective?

Safehands

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're not criticizing them. A criticism would explain the basis for your objection. "Hand wringing" is an emotive response, perhaps heartfelt, but without an rational, objective thinking involved.

Isn't it your philosophy which prizes rational, objective ways at arriving at conclusions?
Then get to it. Or desist.

OK how's this?: God or man grabs a young child by the legs, swings it back to ensure enough force to make a strong impact. Child's head hits rock or tree or whatever, maybe or maybe not killing it instantly, perhaps necessitating a second attempt. One way or the other, the child would be terrified and it would hurt, a lot.
Now, what we have here, is a man saying that this is not too bad a way to die, all things considered. There are worse ways, as indeed there may be. But anyone who rationalises infanticide in that way has absolutely Zero credibility, is totally worthy of stern criticism and in my humble opinion, is not much better, in his mindset, than all of the most shockingly violent historical figures.
An apologist for infanticide has no place posting on a Christian website!

That is my conclusion. Do others disagree with me?

antiskeptic

Deleted User wrote: »

Blind defense

From one who, if he were man enough to hop in himself would presumably find himself flailing around failing to answer a pretty simple question too.

antiskeptic

Safehands wrote: »

OK how's this?: God or man grabs a young child by the legs, swings it back to ensure enough force to make a strong impact. Child's head hits rock or tree or whatever, maybe or maybe not killing it instantly, perhaps necessitating a second attempt. One way or the other, the child would be terrified and it would hurt, a lot.

Leaving the homespun forensic analysis aside we might take it that being killed this way is comparatively swift and painless. Comparatively

But anyone who rationalises infanticide in that way has absolutely Zero credibility, is totally worthy of stern criticism and in my humble opinion, is not much better, in his mindset, than all of the most shockingly violent historical figures.
An apologist for infanticide has no place posting on a Christian website!

God can't commit infanticide. Neither can one who is one of God's agents. Murder is the unlawful killing of another - our law deriving from God's law which says thou shalt not kill.

God, however, is not subject to a command he issues us. We are God's property and the only rights we have are those he grants us. The right to life for as long as we see fit isn't one of those rights.

If you differ then show your work.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

From one who, if he were man enough to hop in himself would presumably find himself flailing around failing to answer a pretty simple question too.

apologies, I believed I'd quoted someone, I've fixed the post now.

antiskeptic

Deleted User wrote: »

apologies, I believed I'd quoted someone, I've fixed the post now.

My comment stands however. I would like to know what the objection is to God acting so (were he to act so).

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

My comment stands however. I would like to know what the objection is to God acting so (were he to act so).

As does mine, you've blindly defended your god, using their 'presupposed godliness' to rationalise an utterly despicable act.

It's a pretty stark example of blind defense.

RikuoAmero

Deleted User wrote: »

As does mine, you've blindly defended your god, using their 'presupposed godliness' to rationalise an utterly despicable act.

It's a pretty stark example of blind defense.

Precisely. If we judge an entity by their own self-assumed and self-proclaimed standards, then they pass with flying colours, 100% of the time. If you judge me using standards that I give you, then I will pass 100% of the time. If I judge Hitler by standards Hitler gave me, he will pass 100% of the time.

antiskeptic

Deleted User wrote: »

As does mine, you've blindly defended your god, using their 'presupposed godliness' to rationalise an utterly despicable act.

It's a pretty stark example of blind defense.

There's no argumentation in there. Effectively, since this is a debate, you've said nothing.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

There's no argumentation in there. Effectively, since this is a debate, you've said nothing.

I answered another posters' post about how it could come about that someone who is clearly versed in the literature could find themselves "apologising for crimes" that the literature doesn't actually suggest.

antiskeptic

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Precisely. If we judge an entity by their own self-assumed and self-proclaimed standards, then they pass with flying colours, 100% of the time. If you judge me using standards that I give you, then I will pass 100% of the time. If I judge Hitler by standards Hitler gave me, he will pass 100% of the time.

You've been asked from whence you woudl rightfully obtain any rights at all (such as to suppose those rights being trampled on by God)?

It's a pretty simple question

antiskeptic

Deleted User wrote: »

I answered another posters' post about how it could come about that someone who is clearly versed in the literature could find themselves "apologising for crimes" that the literature doesn't actually suggest.

I looked at it and didn't see any issue with it - there are multitudes of examples of God laying waste to man, women and child and I'm not aware of the details of every single case. Whether or not this particular issue was God-ordained or not doesn't alter the general argument.

It's not a blind defence, it's a general defence.

PopePalpatine

I swear I can't read that bit about "dashing children's heads against rocks" without thinking of the brutal Gregor Clegane.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

I looked at it and didn't see any issue with it - there are multitudes of examples of God laying waste to man, women and child. Whether or not this particular issue was God-ordained or not doesn't alter the general argument.

It's not a blind defence, it's a general defence.

One should not generally defend another against 'crimes' that they are evidently not guilty of, and should instead prove innocence instead of rationalising and attempting to re-draw the terms of the offence into something less unpalatable.

It's a pretty clear indication that you would be prepared to defend your god blindly against a number of acts.

Safehands

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's not a blind defence, it's a general defence.

There IS no defence for your position, no matter what waffle you come up with. You have lost ALL credibility!

Nick Park

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I swear I can't read that bit about "dashing children's heads against rocks" without thinking of the brutal Gregor Clegane.

You know nothing, Jon Snow.

antiskeptic

Deleted User wrote: »

One should not generally defend another against 'crimes' that they are evidently not guilty of, and should instead prove innocence instead of rationalising and attempting to re-draw the terms of the offence into something less unpalatable.

Prove innocence? I don't think I'd be taking lessons in the law from you

The same defence applies to all such charges - you need to go beat another drum emmet, the oomph has gone out of this little technicality of yours.

antiskeptic

Safehands wrote: »

There IS no defence for your position, no matter what waffle you come up with. You have lost ALL credibility!

I think it's safe to say at this point that the various protagonists have mislaid the ability to voice their objections in terms of ordered, rigorous, point by point debate.

You can't see past your own rage.

This one's done I think.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

Prove innocence? I don't think I'd be taking lessons in the law from you

The same defence applies to all such charges - you need to go beat another drum emmet, the oomph has gone out of this little technicality of yours.

I'm not sure what this means? Courts don't require you to prove innocence, but that's not to say it's impossible to do so. Consider providing an alibi to prove that you could not have been involved in a crime.

In order to refute RikuoAmero's error/false accusation (delete as you see fit) you could have simply pointed out the error as Nick Park has subsequently done. Instead you accepted that it might be true, and in fashion, began the convoluted effort of rationalising and accepting it.

It's genuinely as clear a case of blind defense as you can get.

RikuoAmero

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not sure what this means? Courts don't require you to prove innocence, but that's not to say it's impossible to do so. Consider providing an alibi to prove that you could not have been involved in a crime.

In order to refute RikuoAmero's error/false accusation (delete as you see fit) you could have simply pointed out the error as Nick Park has subsequently done. Instead you accepted that it might be true, and in fashion, began the convoluted effort of rationalising and accepting it.

It's genuinely as clear a case of blind defense as you can get.

Why do you think I mentioned it? I could tell by the discussion he and I have had that he was likely to go down this route, so I mentioned it as a sort of test.

antiskeptic

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not sure what this means? Courts don't require you to prove innocence, but that's not to say it's impossible to do so.

The normal way is to defend against the case presented.

Consider providing an alibi to prove that you could not have been involved in a crime.

Such as this. An alibi is a defence against an element of the case presented

In order to refute RikuoAmero's error/false accusation (delete as you see fit) you could have simply pointed out the error as Nick Park has subsequently done. Instead you accepted that it might be true, and in fashion, began the convoluted effort of rationalising and accepting it.

a) I wasn't aware RA's accusation was erroneous. I accepted it was true since we are talking of a God with a record of laying utter waste.

b) I defended using the same technical argumentation as I would use for this class of accusation.

c) I was defending erroneously (in that this particular offense didn't occur) but since that's only a technicality in a sea of actual 'offense' to chose from, I'm happy enough to continue.

d) The charge of convolution might stick were it only that someone was able to deal with the argument as it stands. Not one has managed to stick to that task - failing as they have done, to contain their RAGE!!. You've not done a tap in that regard - so stand last in the queue of harder, if misdirected, labourers.

Does any of that refute the point that it was blind defence?

antiskeptic

Deleted User wrote: »

Does any of that refute the point that it was blind defence?

It does. Blind defence implies that irrespective of what class of 'crime' God commits, it will be defended - whether that defence is rational or irrational.

Blind date, love blind, blind as a bat .. and all that

Whereas this act belongs to a general class of act which can be rationally defended.


Hence erroneous (because the act, though of the general class committed by God, wasn't actually committed by God), not blind.

tommy2bad

antiskeptic wrote: »

It does. Blind defence implies that irrespective of what class of 'crime' God commits, it will be defended - whether that defence is rational or irrational.

Blind date, love blind, blind as a bat .. and all that

Whereas this act belongs to a general class of act which can be rationally defended.


Hence erroneous (because the act, though of the general class committed by God, wasn't actually committed by God), not blind.

Rationally defended? Are you serious? Killing babies or enemies on the basis 'becose I can' is a rational defence? It's not, what it is is the reasoning of tyrants and bullies.
God in your world might have the right but it seems to be based on his having the might! Once we accept this stone age world view all rationality is done with, only the law of the sword rules.
I for one spit on this god, I will burn his temples, piss on his idols and run his priests into the waste lands. This is not a God to worship,it's a monster to fear and destroy.

Safehands

tommy2bad wrote: »

Rationally defended? Are you serious? Killing babies or enemies on the basis 'becose I can' is a rational defence? It's not, what it is is the reasoning of tyrants and bullies.
God in your world might have the right but it seems to be based on his having the might! Once we accept this stone age world view all rationality is done with, only the law of the sword rules.
I for one spit on this god, I will burn his temples, piss on his idols and run his priests into the waste lands. This is not a God to worship,it's a monster to fear and destroy.

No Tommy, I think that is the absolute wrong response. It is making you as bad as the religious zealots who believe in this distorted idea of God and religion.

The God that these people refer to does not exist. It is the over-ripe fruit of a fanatic's fantasy.
By all means discuss and enjoy the rights and wrongs of the New Testament. Leave the OT and all the characters therein where it belongs, on a shelf gathering dust.

antiskeptic

tommy2bad wrote: »

Rationally defended? Are you serious? Killing babies or enemies on the basis 'becose I can'

Killing because this life isn't meant forever. It's finite for all.

Killing as punishment because punishment follows wrongdoing.

I'm not sure what's wrong with either of those. Your finding the scale disproportionate, the punishment exceeding the crime ... revolves around your idea of proportionality. You could grant God would have a different scale than you. He could be a bit more laissez faire than you, less so, or lie at the extremes.

As ever I invite you to tell me from whence any sense you have rights to anything other than those God would grant you. From whence your sense of entitlement (in so far as that varies from what God entitles you to (and that is quite a lot) to suppose right is where you decide it is and not where he decides?

God in your world might have the right but it seems to be based on his having the might! Once we accept this stone age world view all rationality is done with, only the law of the sword rules.

You haven't been rational in this post of yours. You've simply ranted - like so many others today when faced with the insurmountable idea of God as Sovereign.

Try argumentation and you'll see the difficulty you face. I mean, deal with the straightforward idea that as your creator, he sets (and is entitled to set) purpose, requirements, limits, the duration of your life

ABC101

WRT the quote from Numbers chapter 31, section 7 to 18.

The chapter refers to the Holy War, it is important to remember that all of this was written when Israel no longer had the means of attacking any other people. See the commentary on Joshua 6 to that effect.

The killing of women is not described in this fictitious episode. The author of the story only wanted to insist on how dangerous it was for the Israelites to marry or go near women of pagan nations.

marienbad

antiskeptic wrote: »

Killing because this life isn't meant forever. It's finite for all.

Killing as punishment because punishment follows wrongdoing.

I'm not sure what's wrong with either of those. Your finding the scale disproportionate, the punishment exceeding the crime ... revolves around your idea of proportionality. You could grant God would have a different scale than you. He could be a bit more laissez faire than you, less so, or lie at the extremes.

As ever I invite you to tell me from whence any sense you have rights to anything other than those God would grant you. From whence your sense of entitlement (in so far as that varies from what God entitles you to (and that is quite a lot) to suppose right is where you decide it is and not where he decides?





You haven't been rational in this post of yours. You've simply ranted - like so many others today when faced with the insurmountable idea of God as Sovereign.

Try argumentation and you'll see the difficulty you face. I mean, deal with the straightforward idea that as your creator, he sets (and is entitled to set) purpose, requirements, limits, the duration of your life

prove the existence of your creator first . otherwise it is just a house of cards and if it is as you describe it can only be inhabited by fanatics .

RikuoAmero

ABC101 wrote: »

WRT the quote from Numbers chapter 31, section 7 to 18.

The chapter refers to the Holy War, it is important to remember that all of this was written when Israel no longer had the means of attacking any other people. See the commentary on Joshua 6 to that effect.

The killing of women is not described in this fictitious episode. The author of the story only wanted to insist on how dangerous it was for the Israelites to marry or go near women of pagan nations.

So your defence of this section is to say "No, this wasn't about genocide, the guy writing it was advocating racism!"

ABC101

RikuoAmero wrote: »

So your defence of this section is to say "No, this wasn't about genocide, the guy writing it was advocating racism!"

Riki, I told you before you are taking quotes from the Bible way out of context.

Other posters on here are also telling you the same thing, you are taking quotations way out of context.

Previously you stated that you have spent over 10 years studying the Bible, yet you had no understanding of the symbology used to represent the state of Israel.

I would advise you to desist from studying the Bible, because you are only tieing yourself up in knots, adding confusion upon confusion.

You are akin to a person driving a truck, with no understanding of how to drive or the rules of the road. The more you persist the longer the trail of destruction in your rear view mirror.

While you a able to produce various quotations, you have zero understanding of them. It is akin to somebody speaking German, but they don't know what the words actually mean. When they do come across a word like unterseeboot, they express outrage at how ridiculous that a ship should be underwater, sure everybody knows ships are supposed to float.

There is an old saying...."A little knowledge is dangerous", and that certainly applies to yourself WRT understanding the Bible.