Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Normal · 07-17-2003, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by QueenofSwords
I'm still not clear on what Keith expects an atheist to do when a religious person tries to convert that atheist.

Change the subject

Normal · 07-17-2003, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Normal
Do you believe all children who swear at their parents should be put to death?

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
No.

You claimed you weren't going against god's will, but this clearly violates god's view of morality in Leviticus 20:9. If you don't believe children who swear at their parents should be put to death, you don't believe in the morality in the bible.

The debate about whether you follow the bible's moral code was over when you answered the above question. Now the only question is where you are getting this objective morality from.

Keith · 07-17-2003, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pain Paien

"I get that you're simply making another baseless assertation. What within the bible would make you think the statement is not universal? The passage clearly uses "every one" (and other such universals, in various versions). If what you believe to be the correct interpretation were accurate, why would it not read "every Isrealite" or something of that nature? Can you supply any evidence that it is not meant to be universal? Or, as I asked before (and you failed to answer), is the default interpetation of any passage in the bible that it does not apply to you?"

If you ignore the entire context and thus the intended audience (the people to whom the command was given), then your interpetation could be reasonable. Because I don't ignore the context, I am able to understand who the command was directed to.

No, the default interpretation isn't that it does not apply to me.

Keith · 07-17-2003, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pain Paien

"Meaning, essentially, that you have nothing meaningful to say that counters my arguments, so you've decided to dodge the issue by attacking me in their place. It was not my intent to either preach or condescend you, but merely to be honest. If you actually care to address the issues of this argument (instead of using issue-dodging and straw-men instead), and thereby become a participant, be my guest, but at this point you're merely a spectator."

You have already been warned that I do not tolerate your condescending and emotional attacks. I'm only interested in serious argumentation. This part of your post is yet another example of what I'm referring to. If you do this again, I will ignore all of your posts. Take it elsewhere.

Keith · 07-17-2003, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan

"Only if you subscribe to the rather impoverished view that morals are just personal opinions. Which neither of us does.

And in any case, while "inhuman" and "evil" are certainly values, "incomplete," is an objectively demonstratable description. God's ethics are hopelessly incomplete -- where in the Bible does it tell us:

the right way to manage river basins
whether to subsidize infant industries
what the proper level of individual and social risk is
how to site incinerators and nuclear plants
what level of radiation is safe
what level of coverage national health insurance should provide
how nuclear waste should stored
what level of carcinogens in the food supply is acceptable
what level and types of environmental protections should be implemented...

..I could go on and on. Whole areas of ethics are missing from the Bible. Clearly."

I didn't understand your point. Are you saying that God ought to micromanage every facit of human existence in order for his moral law to be complete?

Keith · 07-17-2003, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by QueenofSwords

"Keith, if you addressed these comments earlier, I must have failed to see it. Please let me know what your response is."

If you don't want to discuss God or religion with someone, it is your right to change the subject, walk away, or avoid the topic in any way you wish.

Keith · 07-17-2003, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Normal

"You claimed you weren't going against god's will, but this clearly violates god's view of morality in Leviticus 20:9. If you don't believe children who swear at their parents should be put to death, you don't believe in the morality in the bible.

The debate about whether you follow the bible's moral code was over when you answered the above question. Now the only question is where you are getting this objective morality from."

In what way was I going against God's will? I didn't say that THE ISRAELITES should have disobeyed that command did I?

Pain Paien · 07-17-2003, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
If you ignore the entire context and thus the intended audience (the people to whom the command was given), then your interpetation could be reasonable. Because I don't ignore the context, I am able to understand who the command was directed to.

No, the default interpretation isn't that it does not apply to me.

You have still not answered the question. I am aware of the context, I merely do not reach your conclusion. Where in the context does it make it clear to YOU that this particular passage is not universal? In the earlier passages of Leviticus 20, it is made clear when god is talking to the people of Israel. Please answer the question directly.

Quote:

You have already been warned that I do not tolerate your condescending and emotional attacks. I'm only interested in serious argumentation. This part of your post is yet another example of what I'm referring to. If you do this again, I will ignore all of your posts. Take it elsewhere.

I have been neither condescending nor emotional, and I have made clear that it was not my intent to do so. As far as I can tell, only you are guilty of these things. Each of your posts in response to me has been in a very condescending tone. You have not made any attempt to present evidence, you merely informed me that I am "wrong" in each. That is clearly a condescending attitude. As for me, please explain how you extrapolated either condescension or "emotional attacks" from my posts.

That purpose of portion of my post was not made to insult you. I said it because it was truthful. You DID dodge my questions (and continue to do so for others) and I believe this moral outrage of yours may simply be another dodge.

Again, I have never intended to come off as condescending, and I can assure you I was not "emotional" when I made my posts. I was merely attempting to follow the tone that you yourself set.

Now, PROVE you are interested in serious argumentation by actually answering questions asked of you, instead of just saying you want serious argumentation.

If you truly are interested in debate, and still find this post objectionable, please point out where I offend your sensibilities, and I will attempt to meet your standards in order to continue the argument. If you simply ignore this post, I will take it as confirmation that you aren't really interested in rational debate.

Keith · 07-17-2003, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pain Paien

"You have still not answered the question. I am aware of the context, I merely do not reach your conclusion. Where in the context does it make it clear to YOU that this particular passage is not universal? In the earlier passages of Leviticus 20, it is made clear when god is talking to the people of Israel. Please answer the question directly."

Since you are aware of the context, can you explain how my interpretation of its intended audience is faulty? Does the context more plausibly lead to the conclusion that God aimed that command to people other than the Israelites? I still don't follow your point. I'm not dodging anything here. I really am curious as to why you think this particular command, given its context, is meant for people other than the Israelites.

Keith · 07-17-2003, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pain Paien

"You have still not answered the question. I am aware of the context, I merely do not reach your conclusion. Where in the context does it make it clear to YOU that this particular passage is not universal? In the earlier passages of Leviticus 20, it is made clear when god is talking to the people of Israel. Please answer the question directly."

Since you are aware of the context, can you explain how my interpretation of its intended audience is faulty? Does the context more plausibly lead to the conclusion that God aimed that command toward people other than the Israelites? I still don't follow your point. I'm not dodging anything here. I really am curious as to why you think this particular command, given its context, is meant for people other than the Israelites.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.