How do you convince people god exists?

Akesh wrote: »

Maybe try reading you own post again.

Well that's a nice throw away empty comment. If you want to show something I did not understand in my own post by all means do. Dropping this one liner and running away however is pretty weak. As I said, you claimed I asked for proof while responding to a post where I specifically explained I do not ask for proof. How that requires ME to re-read what I wrote is beyond me and, I suspect, beyond you too.

Akesh wrote: »

It doesn't matter whether you believe them or not. What I said was that you cannot prove the experience either way. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you or suggesting otherwise.

And what I said is that I do not care to, nor am I required to. I repeat, I have neither interest nor need to doubt their experience. It is solely and only the claims they make off the back of such experience that is of interest.

Take another case/example in point. There is a user on another forum I used to post on who makes claims at length about experiences he has had while meditating. He claims those experiences are evidence of a god. I do not doubt the experiences he claims to have had.

However there is another user who also used to post there, and who still posts on this forum boards.ie who has had all the same experiences and more. And he does not claim them to be evidence of god.

I have no cause to doubt either of them are being truthful about their experiences. However off the back of essentially the SAME experiences they make ENTIRELY different claims. What is interesting to me is whether either of them can further substantiate those claims.

One can. The other absolutely can not.

Akesh wrote: »

Atheists make the claim there is no God, I've yet to see proof (both sides play this games). My point is that you shouldn't feel so strongly about something which you will never be able to prove.

We always love it around here when people walk in and tell us what WE think. However when we are done pretending you are psychic your pretence is going to run into two firm brick walls.

The first is that many, if not most/all atheists around here do not fit or identify with the definition you have offered here. They identify not as people who claim there is no god. But as people who claim to not believe there is a god or to have seen any reason to think there is one.

The second is that I do not self identify with that term anyway so you are talking past me rather than with me. If someone ELSE wants to call me an atheist I rarely take issue with that. But it is not a term I use to describe myself. I find little utility for the term at all. Mostly in life we tend to identify people by what they ARE not by what they are NOT. "Atheism" is one of those few examples where people, historically I suspect for political and intimidation reasons, insist on identifying people by what they are not.

Akesh wrote: »

I never suggested it was your claim, there is no need to be so defensive.

It's not me being defensive, as I never said you said it was my claim. What I was doing was making it explicit how nonsense your claim is and how much I distance myself from such nonsense. It is absolute nonsense to claim to know the future. It is absolute nonsense to pretend to know what we will, or will not, prove or substantiate in the future.

We can have a two way adult conversation about the evidence and data we have TODAY if you want. If you can. But the moment you go into pretending to know what evidence and data we will, or will not, have in the future you have strayed into fantasy la-la land where I can not follow you.

Akesh wrote: »

Perhaps you should brush up on your own scientific knowledge before making any more leaps of faith.

You started your post like you finished it, with an empty substance free throw away one liner. I you want to address a scientific claim I have made that you think is false.... then do..... if you want to show something you think I believe on faith alone.... then do.... but an empty one liner like the one from you above is just throwing all your spaghetti at the wall in the hope something sticks. And that makes you look bad, not me.

Akesh wrote: »

Believing in The Big Bang Theory is a kin to believing in creationism as it's an irrational leap of faith without any evidence.

That is completely wrong.

Look up Hubble expansion, and three degree background radiation for starters.

Akesh wrote: »

Atheists make the claim there is no God

Wrong again. Atheists don't believe in any gods. That is not at all the same thing.

Mark Hamill

Akesh wrote: »

It doesn't matter whether you believe them or not. What I said was that you cannot prove the experience either way.

Which makes the experience indistinguishable from not having happened at all. In such a case, the reasonable position is to reject the claims about the experience until the "experiencer" provides evidence to support their claim.
That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

Akesh wrote: »

Atheists make the claim there is no God, I've yet to see proof (both sides play this games). My point is that you shouldn't feel so strongly about something which you will never be able to prove.

Atheists reject theistic claims about the existence of god. As above, when someone makes a claim that (with all available evidence) is indistinguishable from the opposite of that claim, the correct position is to reject it.
How strongly an atheist will feel about a claim will depend on how strongly a particular theists believes their beliefs about their god should effect everyone else. Atheists on this board will likely generally feel strongly about Catholicism (given how much Catholicism interferes in Irish life) while feeling almost nothing about Norse theology, despite equally rejecting them.

8kczg9v0swrydm

smacl wrote: »

You might want to check the veracity of the information in that particular book, given that even two of it's main contributors consider the figures exaggerated. More importantly perhaps, the vast majority of those who died were killed indirectly as a result of famine rather than directly by a communist state. This leads to the following observation by Noam Chomsky (source)

I'd suggest if you want to compare figures, e.g. against the genocide in the Albigensian Crusade you really need to compare number of people directly killed as a function of the total population at that point in time.

That aside, bringing up the evils of communism as a counter to the human slaughter carried out in the crusades is a very obvious red herring. One group committing atrocities is hardly excusable on the basis that other groups may have also done so.

Hi smacl

You are 100% correct in that Communist atrocities do not justify any other. What I was trying to show is that the 'look at what the Christians did 800 years ago!' line is a bit 'hmmm' when you look at the horrific fruits of atheistic Communism in modern times, continuing today. Even if we suspend our belief in the figures given in the Black Book of Communism, the other numbers I have found hover around the 100 million mark. Take 94 million from reason.com.

I deliberately say atheistic Communism because a rejection of the belief in God in an essential aspect of Communism. It is a core tenet. To quote Vladimir Lenin, one of the main Communist thinkers and a man who actually carried out a successful Communist revolution:

Lenin: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism".

Lenin: "Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class."

Now, if we can discern a cause between atheistic Communism and its high death toll. I think that the ideas of atheist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche can give us something to think about. In Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche talks about how once you get rid of the belief in God, your morality loses all underpinning. You are essentially free to make up a morality for yourself, because there is no longer any being necessitated upon you from the outside, no longer any natural morality to which you must subscribe to as a member of creation.

Before I get stoned or something, no, I am not saying that atheists are evil, immoral etc. Some are a lot more moral than some self proclaimed Christians. What I am saying is that atheism finds itself free to define a new morality. And this is exactly what the Communists did. The death of millions became, according to a famous Communist, statistics; all acceptable losses in the name of the progress of the Revolution.

A Christian is not free to do this. He sees himself as made in God's image and likeness alongside the rest of humanity. Always and everywhere he must render his brothers and sisters the charity and the respect they deserve. He shalt not kill. He shalt not bear false witness. He shalt not steal. He will love God above all else and his neighbour as himself.

Does this always happen? No. But any Christian who departs from Christ's moral teachings is, in a way, a bad Christian. He is AWOL and he is flying solo. Christ and His message cannot be fixed with the blame of the actions of such individuals.

Marhay70 wrote: »

So, in effect, what you are saying is that an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent deity was unable to control his creation except by mass murder, then after 4000 years he decides to have another go trying a different method and fails miserably again. Not exactly a good reference for the job.
Without referencing numerous passages from the OT, which I really couldn't be bothered doing, I can tell you that, not only did God endorse the many barbaric acts carried out by the Israelites but actually designed a lot of them.
Incidences of slavery, rape, child abuse, cannibalism , human sacrifice etc, were all OK in his book.
Now, as I have said on numerous occasions I have no problem with whatever belief system anybody chooses to follow as long as they keep it out of my life but I find it difficult to accept the whitewashing act that many religious perform on the God of the OT, belief in which was often a matter of life and death for our forebears.

Hi Marhay

Yes, God was not able to control His creation. God would not leave people as deadpan automatons. He would not repent of His gift to humanity - our free wills. We are free and we can do whatever we want. Freedom is a precondition for genuine love therefore it must necessarily be so.

In the OT, God called out, begged, threatened and yes, punished (He is a just God), but the people did their own thing. As I have stated in my earlier post, the OT was a time when God was teaching humanity, weaning it away from ways and customs which were truly horrific. Yes, it took a long time. Yes, some dispensations were given (for example, divorce was allowed under Mosaic law). The fullness and beauty of Christian law would only be revealed by Christ. Christ was not having 'another go', He was completing what was already begun hundreds of years ago - smoothing out the pedagogical Old Law, perfecting it and, interestingly, making it more demanding ( for example, Luke 6:29 "If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone takes your cloak, do not withhold your tunic as well").

Without referencing numerous passages from the OT, which I really couldn't be bothered doing, I can tell you that, not only did God endorse the many barbaric acts carried out by the Israelites but actually designed a lot of them.
Incidences of slavery, rape, child abuse, cannibalism , human sacrifice etc, were all OK in his book.

Sorry, but you will have to provide some evidence for this. I am no biblical scholar, but off the bat I can tell you that the things you mentioned received the harshest sentences under the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy (bar slavery, but that is a separate discussion for a different day, I think).

Akesh

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I hope it is not a lot to ask, but it would be very kind of you to read my posts before you reply to them. You claim here "You're asking for proof" while replying to a post where I SPECIFICALLY and at some length went into the fact I actually do not ask for "proof".

Maybe try reading you own post again.

As for whether I believe people had such experiences or not, that is a different question. It is not that I "believe" them or not. I have no real reason to doubt they had such an experience. They probably did. But that does not mean them thinking they had an experience of a god actually means they did. Just like someone who sees lights in the sky and decides those lights were an alien space craft.... this does not make it evidence that aliens are visiting our planet.

It doesn't matter whether you believe them or not. What I said was that you cannot prove the experience either way.

You see there is a difference of some magnitude between an experience a person (claims to have) had.... and the conclusions they leap to off the back of those experiences. I can entirely and wholly be sceptical of the latter while not at all being required, as I am not interested in, being sceptical of the former.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you or suggesting otherwise.

Nothing irrational about it at all. The irrational thing is THEM making nonsense and unsubstantiated claims. All I have done to such people is say "You have made a claim..... do you have any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to support that claim?".

And the answer has been a consistent and clear "No". They don't have a shred of it.

Atheists make the claim there is no God, I've yet to see proof (both sides play this games). My point is that you shouldn't feel so strongly about something which you will never be able to prove.

As for claiming it is impossible, that is your claim not mine. I do not know what is possible or impossible to substantiate. I remain entirely open minded on that. There was a time we might have thought proving the existence of the atom was an impossibility. But we did just that.

I never suggested it was your claim, there is no need to be so defensive.

You can close your mind to what is possible and impossible if you like. I will remain open minded and simply hold to the simple axiom that if someone makes a claim..... they should be the ones to substantiate it.

Same thing as above. You can close your mind if you want. I have no interest in it. I only can comment on what we know today. I do not, nor will I ever, pretend to know the future like you do. What we MIGHT or MIGHT NOT know tomorrow..... neither of us can say with honesty. Only one of us is pretending to know things we actually don't. Clue: It aint me.

All we can do as a species is keep striving for more data, more evidence.... and work with that.

Perhaps you should brush up on your own scientific knowledge before making any more leaps of faith.

Akesh wrote: »

You're asking for proof yet it is almost impossible to provide proof of such instances. You either believe it happened or you don't but there is no way you can prove an encounter without witnessing it yourself.

I hope it is not a lot to ask, but it would be very kind of you to read my posts before you reply to them. You claim here "You're asking for proof" while replying to a post where I SPECIFICALLY and at some length went into the fact I actually do not ask for "proof".

As for whether I believe people had such experiences or not, that is a different question. It is not that I "believe" them or not. I have no real reason to doubt they had such an experience. They probably did. But that does not mean them thinking they had an experience of a god actually means they did. Just like someone who sees lights in the sky and decides those lights were an alien space craft.... this does not make it evidence that aliens are visiting our planet.

You see there is a difference of some magnitude between an experience a person (claims to have) had.... and the conclusions they leap to off the back of those experiences. I can entirely and wholly be sceptical of the latter while not at all being required, as I am not interested in, being sceptical of the former.

Akesh wrote: »

This is another irrational argument. Man has only seen a minuscule fraction of the Universe. It is impossible to prove scientific theories on the origin of the Universe. Asking someone to prove something that is impossible is being irrational.

Nothing irrational about it at all. The irrational thing is THEM making nonsense and unsubstantiated claims. All I have done to such people is say "You have made a claim..... do you have any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to support that claim?"

And the answer has been a consistent and clear "No". They don't have a shred of it.

As for claiming it is impossible, that is your claim not mine. I do not know what is possible or impossible to substantiate. I remain entirely open minded on that. There was a time we might have thought proving the existence of the atom was an impossibility. But we did just that.

You can close your mind to what is possible and impossible if you like. I will remain open minded and simply hold to the simple axiom that if someone makes a claim..... they should be the ones to substantiate it.

Akesh wrote: »

We will never know the origin of the Universe

Same thing as above. You can close your mind if you want. I have no interest in it. I only can comment on what we know today. I do not, nor will I ever, pretend to know the future like you do. What we MIGHT or MIGHT NOT know tomorrow..... neither of us can say with honesty. Only one of us is pretending to know things we actually don't. Clue: It aint me.

All we can do as a species is keep striving for more data, more evidence.... and work with that.

Akesh

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is a big IF though given you have no example of a single case where we can verify that happened. Only people who claim it to have happened. And if THEY believe in a god that is fine with me. The moment they expect anyone else to believe in a god however they should realise just how uninteresting, useless, and misleading their self revelation is.

You're asking for proof yet it is almost impossible to provide proof of such instances. You either believe it happened or you don't but there is no way you can prove an encounter without witnessing it yourself.

Contrary to the straw man all too many theists I have met want to sell, most atheists in my experience (in fact just about all but a few exceptions I can think of) do not actually care if any given individual believes there is a god or not. Personal faith is just that.... personal. And it should stay that way and not be attacked or derided by the likes of me or anyone else, until such time as perhaps their personal faith does them harm at which point perhaps we can step in and attempt to remove it.

That is one of the reasons I LONG ago stopped demanding "proof" for god. It was a childish request that I grew out of. If someone wants me to think there is a god, or act in some way based on that assumption, I have a VERY specific sentence I employ that makes my demand both more general and more specific at the same time. You have been the recipient of this sentence many times I think, but I am happy to repeat it given you have not answered it yet:

Do you have any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer that lends any credence whatsoever to the claim that the creation and/or ongoing maintenance of our universe or it's contents are the results of the machinations of a non-human intelligent intentional agent?

This is another irrational argument. Man has only seen a minuscule fraction of the Universe. It is impossible to prove scientific theories on the origin of the Universe. Asking someone to prove something that is impossible is being irrational. Believing in The Big Bang Theory is a kin to believing in creationism as it's an irrational leap of faith without any evidence. It's a poor theory, that doesn't even address the origin or 'maintenance' of the Universe. When we get to the creation of the universe our understanding completely breaks down, every theory proposed has been debunked. That is a fact. We will never know the origin of the Universe and if we ever found out we'd be long dead by the time we could transmit that data back to Earth. Strongly having a belief based on no evidence because something is widely accepted is just another form of religious belief.

Quite a number of theists have been the recipient of that question from me so far in my life. Not one of them, just like yourself, has an answer to it that is not either circular reason, or based on one of the known fallacies.

Much easier I guess to take the approach of being anti-scepticism. Just declare the position you want to hold to be somehow default..... or that people already "know it is true" as you did in one thread..... and deride the very position of being sceptical of it. You see, you might not know this, but very often attack (of another's way) is seen as the best form of defence for ones own problematic way.

A better stance to take would be to accept that you don't know and won't ever know so don't hold strong opinions on something you neither understand or could ever comprehend.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If God exists and makes himself known to someone then logically they should believe in God.

That is a big IF though given you have no example of a single case where we can verify that happened. Only people who claim it to have happened. And if THEY believe in a god that is fine with me. The moment they expect anyone else to believe in a god however they should realise just how uninteresting, useless, and misleading their self revelation is.

Contrary to the straw man all too many theists I have met want to sell, most atheists in my experience (in fact just about all but a few exceptions I can think of) do not actually care if any given individual believes there is a god or not. Personal faith is just that.... personal. And it should stay that way and not be attacked or derided by the likes of me or anyone else, until such time as perhaps their personal faith does them harm at which point perhaps we can step in and attempt to remove it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The usual issue revolves around the nature of admissible evidence. If you believe in a philosophy which says that the only evidence on which you ought base conclusions need be empirical, then logically you will wonder about people who base their conclusions on other evidence.

That is one of the reasons I LONG ago stopped demanding "proof" for god. It was a childish request that I grew out of. If someone wants me to think there is a god, or act in some way based on that assumption, I have a VERY specific sentence I employ that makes my demand both more general and more specific at the same time. You have been the recipient of this sentence many times I think, but I am happy to repeat it given you have not answered it yet:

Do you have any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer that lends any credence whatsoever to the claim that the creation and/or ongoing maintenance of our universe or it's contents are the results of the machinations of a non-human intelligent intentional agent?

Quite a number of theists have been the recipient of that question from me so far in my life. Not one of them, just like yourself, has an answer to it that is not either circular reason, or based on one of the known fallacies.

Much easier I guess to take the approach of being anti-scepticism. Just declare the position you want to hold to be somehow default..... or that people already "know it is true" as you did in one thread..... and deride the very position of being sceptical of it. You see, you might not know this, but very often attack (of another's way) is seen as the best form of defence for ones own problematic way.

Ty Straight Villa wrote: »

The single biggest human killing machine in the history of the world has been atheistic Communism/Socialism, all pretty much in the space of a century.

Which just shows me once again that religion is toxic. Be it religion based on a sky daddy that.... despite being asked several times now.... you can not provide a SHRED or argument, evidence, data, or reasoning it even exists in the first place..... or state religion based on pretending the leaders are something more than human, lies, claims of biological miracles, inquisitions, and worse.

The problem is Dogma. So if you have Dogma to sell us, I suggest you might find it a time saver to just jog on. You can call these things "atheistic" all you want but that is not what they were. What they were was anti opposition, including if that opposition was another religion. Which tends to be a core feature of most religions actually. Take Christianity for example and other derivatives of the same monotheism. Jealousy of other religions and other gods is built right into the "Big 10" commandments right there in front of your face. Religions.... including state religions..... are not known for playing well with others.

You know what is also an imperfect but superior approach that has not resulted in the malicious and unjustifiable deaths and starvation of millions of people? Honesty. Free Speech. Democracy. A free press. Art. Enlightenment values. Argument. Debate. Evidence. Data. Reason.

Try them sometime. No human system is perfect. Especially as our society has been growing massively and becoming global rather than local. Our species is in a state of constant flux and turmoil and that has not died down yet nor shall it any time soon I suspect. We need to find a better way, better systems and better solutions.

But one think I do not suspect is that we will find those better solutions in fantasy, nonsense, or world views that are divorced from reality. Whatever the ultimate best approach turns out to be...... I suspect it will be something that tracks with reality and not something people are asked to believe just because it gives you Da Feelz.

Ty Straight Villa wrote: »

It is also worth mentioning that ideas of equality, dignity, care and support for the weak, and a systematic renunciation of self for others are essentially Christian. Our society would be worse for the lack of them.

That a religion commandeers useful values does not mean those values come from that religion.

There are absolutely nonsense diet fads for example that, at their core, contain useful values. Eat less processed food, take on some more water, exercise, vary your diet.

This is how nonsense and lies works. You build them up around a core of useful values. Be it diets or be it religion. Things like equality and dignity and reciprocity are built into those religions because it WORKS to do so. It by no means whatsoever means we require those religions to have, perpetuate, or support those values.

What your religion is therefore, is packaging for a good product. Nothing more. The product stands alone on it's own merits. But you are more interested in the packaging. You used small children as an analogy in your last post. Allow me to do the same. Really small children when they get a gift at Christmas have a tendency to ignore the gift, and play a lot with the box it came in. That appears to me to be pretty much all you are doing too.

But Marx said it well in his oft misquoted and oft misused speech on the subject. People tend to only quote the line about religion being an opiate. That is not what he said. What he said, and I defer to another writer greater than I by far to 'splain it to ya so you can get hip to it was:

Karl Marx was neither a determinist nor a vulgar materialist and never said that religion was "the opium of the people." What he did say, in his Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, was that it was at once the expression of inhuman conditions and the protest against them: "the heart of a heartless world; the sigh of the oppressed creature; the spirit of a spiritless situation." Secular criticism, he said, had endeavored to "pluck the flowers from the chain, not in order that man shall wear the chain without consolation but so that he can break the chain and cull the living flower." It was only in this context and with these metaphors that he described religion as an opiate, and even then not as we would now define a mind-dulling (or mind-expanding) 'controlled substance,' but rather as an analgesic on the Victorian model.

It is a beautiful image. There is a baby in the bath water, but the water has gone fetid and rancid. We can throw out the water, and keep the baby. You can keep the water if you want. I want to watch the baby grow, thrive, and excel anything that water will ever produce.

"Evidence" which is not empirical is not evidence.

But we get it, religion gives you "the feelz" so it must be true :rolleyes:

antiskeptic

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Evolution etc.

Why do people believe in god.

I am not saying whether i do or not. That's not the argument.

Logically one should not.

So why do people?

Logically?

If God exists and makes himself known to someone then logically they should believe in God.

The usual issue revolves around the nature of admissible evidence. If you believe in a philosophy which says that the only evidence on which you ought base conclusions need be empirical, then logically you will wonder about people who base their conclusions on other evidence.

This philosophy (about the exclusivity and primacy of empirical evidence) cannot, of course be evidenced empirically.

Making the belief that follows from it somewhat hollow and circular in its reasoning.

Rather than wonder why people believe in God, you should wonder about why you believe as you do, if you believe empirical evidence supreme and exclusive as a way of drawing conclusions.

Very often attack (of another's way) is seen as the best form of defence for ones own problematic way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti5AkLup1mI

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

In the innocent part of my mind the question would be WHY would you convince people god exists?

Now radials tracked the desired path more closely, and lasted longer, but were more expensive initially = Protestant

Cross-plys tended to wander a bit, wore out more quickly but were cheaper = Catholic! :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c23MFIKiVdE

William of Tyre - was he a cross-ply or a radial?

Ironically they used one of the very best handling cars of the 1960s (BMC ADO16 - Morris/Austin 1100/1300) with front wheel drive as in illustration of what could kill you! They were obviously whacking on the handbrake in that video. The equivalent Ford or Vauxhall could easily send you through a ditch backwards with good tyres and relatively moderate provocation. But anyway...

Amazing that what was an obvious [REDACTED] thread at the start has gone on so long.

In the innocent part of my mind the question would be WHY would you convince people god exists?

The cynical part provides the answer - wealth, power, chicks/kids (delete as appropriate) :eek:

MOD
Have deleted as appropriate in spirit of the charter which states

Posters are not allowed to refer to each other, directly or indirectly, as "liars", "trolls", "bigots", "bullies", "soap-boxers" or any other terms which impute antisocial motives to other posters. In the normal run of discussion, posters should avoid disputed terms without agreeing on what precisely the terms might mean, and should definitions be agreed, these terms should be used sparingly and only to bring the discussion forward. An example of such a disputed term is "murder" in the context of abortion.

Ty Straight Villa wrote: »

Hi spacecoyote and Bannasidhe

The single biggest human killing machine in the history of the world has been atheistic Communism/Socialism, all pretty much in the space of a century. We are talking 100 million people and counting (mostly because of China). Not even Hitler could rival that. Deaths through the Inquisition or during Crusades compared to that - you must be 'avin' a laf m8'.

Now the Crusades, that famous Christian-baiting club. Most serious historians would agree that they were defensive wars. .

Interesting.

Comparing belief in God to a totalitarian political ideology (well, to two - socialists always get lumped in with communists - which is like lumping Christians in with Muslims, they both believe in the same god after all).
I'm not sure your whatabout says what you wanted it to say.

'Serious' historian - I find that generally means 'person who says things about history that conform to my world view'.

Here is what William of Tyre had to say:

It was indeed the righteous judgment of God which ordained that those who had profaned the sanctuary of the Lord by their superstitious rites and had caused it to be an alien place to His faithful people should expiate their sin by death and, by pouring out their own blood, purify the sacred precincts.

It was impossible to look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused horror in all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels perished, in addition to those who lay slain everywhere throughout the city in the streets and squares, the number of whom was estimated as no less.

The rest of the soldiers roved through the city in search of wretched survivors who might be hiding in the narrow portals and byways to escape death. These were dragged out into public view and slain like sheep. Some formed into bands and broke into houses where they laid violent hands on heads of families, on their wives children, and their entire households. These victims were either put to the sword or dashed headlong to the ground from some elevated place so that they perished miserably. Each marauder claimed as his own in perpetuity the particular house which he had entered, together with all it contained. For before the capture of the city the pilgrims had agreed that, after it had been taken by force, whatever each man might win for himself should be his forever by right of possession, without molestation. Consequently the pilgrims searched the city most carefully and boldly killed the citizens. They penetrated into the most retired and out-of-the-way places and broke open the most private apartments of the foe. At the entrance of each house, as it was taken the victor hung up his shield and his arms, as a sign to all who approached not to pause there but to pass by that place as already in possession of another.

http://www.historymuse.net/readings/WilliamofTyreCAPTUREOFJERUSALEM.htm

William might not have been a 'serious' historian - but he was a participant.
20,000 men, women, and children. Slaughtered as 'just punishment' and their killers absolved of all sins before they even set foot in Jerusalem.

The Communists never promised anyone eternal paradise for committing slaughter.

Mark Hamill

Ty Straight Villa wrote: »

Hi spacecoyote and Bannasidhe

The single biggest human killing machine in the history of the world has been [whataboutery]

So god gets a pass for all of his 110% unnecessary killing because some groups of humans may have killed more?
Isn't god supposed to be better than us? Doesn't god preach an objective morality? Doesn't your relativistic reasoning go against that objective morality?
Also, if you want to be accurate, the single biggest human killing machine in the history of the world is malaria (that's in absolute numbers, in percentages it could be argued that it was Cain who when he killed Able killed 25% of the population of the earth :P).

And since you are back, any chance you could respond to my posts here and here?

Odhinn

Ty Straight Villa wrote: »

...............

It is also worth mentioning that ideas of equality, dignity, care and support for the weak, and a systematic renunciation of self for others are essentially Christian. Our society would be worse for the lack of them.

Reformed Judaism, Buddhism, Islam etc don't have some or all of those things you mention?

Ty Straight Villa wrote: »

Hi spacecoyote and Bannasidhe

the Crusades.

It is true that during the Israelite exodus pagan nations were put to the sword. This is something many Christians find puzzling. Why did a good God allow this, right? It is a big deal but just concluding that 'God is boo-boo' without engaging with the Scriptures and historical research is, well, far from perfect.

Most of us know what it is like to teach a child. You have to go step-by-step, slowly, incrementally. You cannot start teaching computer science to a five year old. He or she just would not have the capacity to receive, comprehend and live out the information given. Start small, think big.

What did the world look like at the time of the Exodus? We have widespread slavery, massacres and destruction. Infants were regularly exposed to die if they were female or defective. People were sacrificed to cruel pagan 'gods' who demanded blood in return for a good harvest etc (something akin to what the Aztecs were doing centuries later).

God chose one nation, the tribe of Abraham, to teach them what it means to be human and what it means to live in harmony with Him. He couldn't bring them from 0 to 100, the education would take centuries. The sad thing is that even with the little He demanded from them, the Jews continuously rebelled and disobeyed. Israel is described as a 'harlot' in the OT - they continued to go back to the feral ways of the peoples and nations around them.

The Jews took out the tribes in modern day Palestine (the Canaanites) because:

a) that was the nature of war in these troubled times - they would not have known, and not accepted, any different;
b) if the Canaanites stayed behind, they would have infected the Jews with their customs - as in fact happened, when remnants of the Canaanites were allowed to remain;
c) the Canaanites were known for child sacrifice, and this fact appears in sources besides the Bible. Their land was taken from them as punishment - 'No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is going to drive them out before you.' (Deuteronomy 9:4);
d) God gave the Canaanites 400 years to repent. There is a curious line in Genesis where Abraham wants to posses the Promised Land immediately. He is prevented by God, because ‘the sin of the Amorites (one of the Canaanite tribes) has not yet reached its full measure’ (Genesis 15:16). Now that's patience;
e) Moreover, historians claim that the entry of the Israelites into the Promised Land led to a massive flight of the Canaanite population. If they largely fled, this would mean that only the remnants were killed.

To progress the story, the pedagogical law of the OT was replaced by Christ in the NT. Even then the people were hardly ready to accept what He had to say. We still wince at giving our cloak to a man who has none, at loving a neighbour as much as ourselves, at turning the other cheek and at keeping all lustful thoughts out of our heart.

It is also worth mentioning that ideas of equality, dignity, care and support for the weak, and a systematic renunciation of self for others are essentially Christian. Our society would be worse for the lack of them.

So, in effect, what you are saying is that an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent deity was unable to control his creation except by mass murder, then after 4000 years he decides to have another go trying a different method and fails miserably again. Not exactly a good reference for the job.
Without referencing numerous passages from the OT, which I really couldn't be bothered doing, I can tell you that, not only did God endorse the many barbaric acts carried out by the Israelites but actually designed a lot of them.
Incidences of slavery, rape, child abuse, cannibalism , human sacrifice etc, were all OK in his book.
Now, as I have said on numerous occasions I have no problem with whatever belief system anybody chooses to follow as long as they keep it out of my life but I find it difficult to accept the whitewashing act that many religious perform on the God of the OT, belief in which was often a matter of life and death for our forebears.

smacl

Ty Straight Villa wrote: »

The single biggest human killing machine in the history of the world has been atheistic Communism/Socialism, all pretty much in the space of a century. We are talking 100 million people and counting (mostly because of China). Not even Hitler could rival that. Deaths through the Inquisition or during Crusades compared to that - you must be 'avin' a laf m8'.

Source: The Black Book of Communism

You might want to check the veracity of the information in that particular book, given that even two of it's main contributors consider the figures exaggerated. More importantly perhaps, the vast majority of those who died were killed indirectly as a result of famine rather than directly by a communist state. This leads to the following observation by Noam Chomsky (source)

Social critic Noam Chomsky has criticized the book and its reception as one-sided by outlining economist Amartya Sen's research on hunger. While India's democratic institutions prevented famines, its excess of mortality over China—potentially attributable to the latter's more equal distribution of medical and other resources—was nonetheless close to 4 million per year for non-famine years. Chomsky argued that "supposing we now apply the methodology of the Black Book" to India, "the democratic capitalist 'experiment' has caused more deaths than in the entire history of [...] Communism everywhere since 1917: over 100 million deaths by 1979, and tens of millions more since, in India alone".

I'd suggest if you want to compare figures, e.g. against the genocide in the Albigensian Crusade you really need to compare number of people directly killed as a function of the total population at that point in time.

That aside, bringing up the evils of communism as a counter to the human slaughter carried out in the crusades is a very obvious red herring. One group committing atrocities is hardly excusable on the basis that other groups may have also done so.

8kczg9v0swrydm

spacecoyote wrote: »

As opposed to atheists, who define their morals & sense of right or wrong, on the basis of society and how they believe you should treat your fellow man.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's a terrifying line of thinking imo.
Plus it allows for horrific act to be carried out 'because it's God's will', and therefore doing them will be rewarded in the hereafter.

Hi spacecoyote and Bannasidhe

The single biggest human killing machine in the history of the world has been atheistic Communism/Socialism, all pretty much in the space of a century. We are talking 100 million people and counting (mostly because of China). Not even Hitler could rival that. Deaths through the Inquisition or during Crusades compared to that - you must be 'avin' a laf m8'.

Source: The Black Book of Communism

Now the Crusades, that famous Christian-baiting club. Most serious historians would agree that they were defensive wars. The Byzantine Emperor begged for Christian knights to save his realm from Muslim aggression. At the time, most of the population of Palestine were Christian, as they have been for hundreds of years before. Any massacres should, of course, be condemned, but as for the war itself, there is more to it than the oft-touted line of 'Christian imperialism'.

Here is an interesting take on the Crusades.

Marhay70 wrote: »

If you are to believe the Old Testament, not only did God forgive the Israelite heroes like Joshua, David etc for committing horrific acts of depravity, He actually encouraged it.

It is true that during the Israelite exodus pagan nations were put to the sword. This is something many Christians find puzzling. Why did a good God allow this, right? It is a big deal but just concluding that 'God is boo-boo' without engaging with the Scriptures and historical research is, well, far from perfect.

Most of us know what it is like to teach a child. You have to go step-by-step, slowly, incrementally. You cannot start teaching computer science to a five year old. He or she just would not have the capacity to receive, comprehend and live out the information given. Start small, think big.

What did the world look like at the time of the Exodus? We have widespread slavery, massacres and destruction. Infants were regularly exposed to die if they were female or defective. People were sacrificed to cruel pagan 'gods' who demanded blood in return for a good harvest etc (something akin to what the Aztecs were doing centuries later).

God chose one nation, the tribe of Abraham, to teach them what it means to be human and what it means to live in harmony with Him. He couldn't bring them from 0 to 100, the education would take centuries. The sad thing is that even with the little He demanded from them, the Jews continuously rebelled and disobeyed. Israel is described as a 'harlot' in the OT - they continued to go back to the feral ways of the peoples and nations around them.

The Jews took out the tribes in modern day Palestine (the Canaanites) because:

a) that was the nature of war in these troubled times - they would not have known, and not accepted, any different;
b) if the Canaanites stayed behind, they would have infected the Jews with their customs - as in fact happened, when remnants of the Canaanites were allowed to remain;
c) the Canaanites were known for child sacrifice, and this fact appears in sources besides the Bible. Their land was taken from them as punishment - 'No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is going to drive them out before you.' (Deuteronomy 9:4);
d) God gave the Canaanites 400 years to repent. There is a curious line in Genesis where Abraham wants to posses the Promised Land immediately. He is prevented by God, because ‘the sin of the Amorites (one of the Canaanite tribes) has not yet reached its full measure’ (Genesis 15:16). Now that's patience;
e) Moreover, historians claim that the entry of the Israelites into the Promised Land led to a massive flight of the Canaanite population. If they largely fled, this would mean that only the remnants were killed.

To progress the story, the pedagogical law of the OT was replaced by Christ in the NT. Even then the people were hardly ready to accept what He had to say. We still wince at giving our cloak to a man who has none, at loving a neighbour as much as ourselves, at turning the other cheek and at keeping all lustful thoughts out of our heart.

It is also worth mentioning that ideas of equality, dignity, care and support for the weak, and a systematic renunciation of self for others are essentially Christian. Our society would be worse for the lack of them.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Oh I have read that particular book many times.
I am of the opinion that in it the big guy gets the credit for an awful lot of things that happened - X city falls - God did that because 'punishment', blood thirsty victory - God won that, and what occurred during/after is also 'God'.
It's like saying Lindisfarne was raided because Odin was angry.
Ireland was conquered because we lost faith in the Dagda.
India got independence because Kali was on their side.

Not forgetting God's own Pauline conversion between Genesis and Matthew.
Is this an admission by God that He was wrong? This hardly fits the picture of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity but having shoved the veracity of the OT down the throats of its members for two thousand years the recent efforts of the major Christian sects to distance themselves from it are at best, disingenuous if not laughable.

Marhay70 wrote: »

That was by mere mortals though, the Biblical events were first hand. Wasn't any fun to be a Hittite or a Caananite or an Amorite among many, when the big guy got pissed off.
Deuteronomy is a lively read, murder, rape, enslavement, child abuse, cannibalism, you name it, the loving God was happy to give it his enthusiastic approval.

Oh I have read that particular book many times.
I am of the opinion that in it the big guy gets the credit for an awful lot of things that happened - X city falls - God did that because 'punishment', blood thirsty victory - God won that, and what occurred during/after is also 'God'.
It's like saying Lindisfarne was raided because Odin was angry.
Ireland was conquered because we lost faith in the Dagda.
India got independence because Kali was on their side.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The Crusaders were absolved in advance for anything...bloody...or rapey...or whatever... they might happened to do while rescuing 'The Holy Land' from the people who lived there.

That was by mere mortals though, the Biblical events were first hand. Wasn't any fun to be a Hittite or a Caananite or an Amorite among many, when the big guy got pissed off.
Deuteronomy is a lively read, murder, rape, enslavement, child abuse, cannibalism, you name it, the loving God was happy to give it his enthusiastic approval.

smacl wrote: »

Not just the rescuing the Holy Land but also smiting heretics in Europe too as the Cathars and Bogomils found out.

Absolutely. Sure you have to be covered while on your journey to and from (the Lord's) work. Stands to reason that.

smacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The Crusaders were absolved in advance for anything...bloody...or rapey...or whatever... they might happened to do while rescuing 'The Holy Land' from the people who lived there.

Not just the rescuing the Holy Land but also smiting heretics in Europe too as the Cathars and Bogomils found out.

Marhay70 wrote: »

If you are to believe the Old Testament, not only did God forgive the Israelite heroes like Joshua, David etc for committing horrific acts of depravity, He actually encouraged it.

The Crusaders were absolved in advance for anything...bloody...or rapey...or whatever... they might happened to do while rescuing 'The Holy Land' from the people who lived there.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's a terrifying line of thinking imo.
Plus it allows for horrific act to be carried out 'because it's God's will', and therefore doing them will be rewarded in the hereafter.

If you are to believe the Old Testament, not only did God forgive the Israelite heroes like Joshua, David etc for committing horrific acts of depravity, He actually encouraged it.

Doing things because a voice in your head told you to is really not a good strategy.