Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ed · 02-06-2003, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beyelzu
Ed,

you talk in circles, making the same irrational arguments time and again.

Hello Beyelzu. Just saying so, doesn't make it so. Why don't you show me where I have been irrational?

Jack the Bodiless · 02-07-2003, 02:59 AM

Quote:

jtb: This is why my worldview is superior to yours. I see both good and evil in the world, and I can explain why both exist. You IMAGINE that God is good, but cannot explain WHY. Therefore there is no rational basis for the assumption that God actually IS good: because there's no reason why he should be good.

No, if atheistic evolution is true then there is no such thing as good and evil. There is just that which makes you feel bad=evil.
And that which makes you feel happy=good.

And evolution explains WHY I should "feel bad" about the things we call "evil" and feel happy about the things we call "good".

Therefore it provides a rational basis for morality.

Quote:

jtb: Evolution provides a rational explanation of WHY "sentimentality for your own species" should exist.

Yes, but it doesnt provide a rational explanation for why sentimentality for your own species is good.

I have already explained this several times. Your amnesia appears to be getting worse, Ed.

Quote:

Ed: No, if we follow his word we see that only the ancient hebrew army was commanded to do such a thing and only this one time. No individuals or governments are allowed to do such a thing, see Deut. 24:16.

jtb: We already have, and it says nothing of the sort. So why urge us to read it again? Your wishful thiking won't change what the Bible actually says.

No, it must be understood in context, all scholars agree that these commands were directed to the hebrew society and government.

No, your "context" is a hallucination that exists entirely in your own mind, and "all scholars" certainly do NOT agree that these commands were specifically directed to the Hebrew society and government.

And neither do YOU.

The punishment of innocents for the crimes of others is immoral, AND YOU KNOW IT. That's why you've been trying to pretend that this does NOT happen in the Bible. If you seriously believed that it was wrong ONLY for the Hebrew government, then you would have no difficulty admitting that the Amalekites were punished specifically for what their ancestors did, you would accept the injustice of "original sin" at face value without trying to argue that there must be a "badness" in all of us, you would never have invented "spiritual DNA", and so forth. All your elaborate excuses would be UNNECESSARY if you could simply argue that the punishment of innocents for the crimes of others is generally a good thing.

Quote:

jtb: For average citizens, atheists are apparently LESS likely to end up in prison than Christians. Atheists are under-represented in prison populations.

No, many studies including the one above are strong evidence against your claim. Just because someone claims they are a christian doesnt mean that they are a practicing one.

My claim stands, Ed. It is a FACT that atheists are under-represented in prison populations.

The REASON is probably due to intelligence. On average, atheists are smarter than theists: smart people are more likely to see through the myth. And smart people are also less likely to end up in prison.

Quote:

Ed: No, God does not arbitrarily just declare what is good, he acts according to his moral character which is good.

jtb: But we have already established that you have absolutely no basis whatsoever for making such a claim.

Fraid not, I do have a basis, it's called experience.

Did you "experience" God's manufacture of the Ebola virus, Ed? You were there?

And you've "experienced" all the earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, droughts etc that your God caused?

Quote:

jtb: Apply this to dogs. As Bill Snedden pointed out, "only dogs can produce the dogsonal".

Therefore, by your argument, dogs could never have been bred from wolves,

No, studies have shown that dogs ARE direct descendants of wolves.

YES, I KNOW THAT. And studies have also shown that humans are direct descendants of apes!

But, ACCORDING TO YOUR ARGUMENT, dogs CANNOT be direct descendants of wolves.

This is because your argument is BULLSHIT, Ed!

Quote:

jtb: Ed, if you think that Pasteur's experiment (disproving the spontaneous ganeration of bacteria in a flask over a period of a few weeks under present-day conditions) says anything at all about the formation of self-replicating molecules under early-Earth conditions in entire oceans over millions of years: you are profoundly ignorant of biology.

Although his experiment alone does not disprove abiogenesis, it is strong evidence that life can only come from life, ie the Law of Biogenesis, a foundational law of biology.

It is NOT strong evidence.

I have, as a child, created humanoid figures from clay. NONE of them "came alive" as Adam supposedly did. So will you accept this as "strong evidence" that the Bible is bunk?

You can't argue that the conditions weren't right, because this applies equally to Pasteur's experiment.

And there is no "Law of Biogenesis" in biology. This is a mangling of Pasteur's principle of abiogenesis which is used ONLY by ignorant creationists.

Quote:

jtb: There is no SCIENTIFIC argument against evolution. Therefore your objection is ENTIRELY religious. Therefore you are lying.

Fraid so, read my posts in the Evolution/Creation thread. I notice you threw another ad hominem attack. Is this is sign of desperation setting in?

You have never presented any SCIENTIFIC arguments against evolution in that thread. That's why you were defeated there.

Quote:

jtb: No, Ed. According to you, WE are NOT the ones causing suffering and injustice.

According to you, GOD is the one causing suffering and injustice, because God created "spiritual DNA" for this purpose.

No, WE caused our "spiritual DNA" to become corrupted.

No, according to you, WE did not. ADAM AND EVE did. THEY corrupted the "spiritual DNA" which GOD had created to allow THEIR "sin" to be inherited by US.

This is part of your elaborate excuse to transfer blame TO US. Therefore you're shooting yourself in the foot by saying that WE are responsible for it!

Quote:

But the government itself recognized the Creator God in the DOI. So they incorporated that principle into the government, but of course not into the laws of the land, because they wanted to follow Christ's teaching regarding freedom of conscience.

There are no such teachings.

Quote:

jtb: See above. The Bible talks repeatedly of punishing innocents for the crimes of their ancestors.

Ed: Where?

jtb: Re-read this entire thread. NOW.

You primarily just talk about the Amalekite case. And I have dealt with that.

No, you haven't "dealt with" that. And there's "original sin", the massacre of the Egyptian firstborn, and so forth.

Quote:

No, as I stated before this is just how it appears to humans. From God's perspective he knows what would happen in the future to the children so actually he is rescuing them from committing the same heinous sins that their fathers did. See also my comment about the universal reason for human death.

The Bible says otherwise.

Quote:

jtb: Therefore the "time of accounting" for the Amalekites as a whole will never come. It was NOT due.

Ed: No, apparently God felt that a physical accounting was needed besides a spiritual accounting in hell.

jtb: ...A "physical accounting" for what?

Not for the initial killing.

And not for many subsequent generations "celebrating" it..

For collective guilt.

ANSWER MY POINT, ED.

NO "physical accounting" for the initial killing.

NO "physical accounting" for many subsequent generations "celebrating" it.

NO "collective guilt".

Jeremy Pallant · 02-07-2003, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
No, the desire isn't a sin but the acting on it is.

You've not been reading your Bible, Ed. According to Jesus, thinking about adultery is the same as actually commiting adultery...or does this only apply to adultery? If so, why?

NOGO · 02-07-2003, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Ed:
Nevertheless, my statement still stands, it doesnt matter HOW persons produce persons, the ultimate cause and effect is persons producing persons and the personal.

How? By copying.
But the question is not how but what with?
They do not use some special "perlsonal" material.
They use dead matter to construct "personal" matter.
This is the fundamental issue here.
Life is a chemical construct whose pieces are build from dead matter.

Your statement may stand but is meaningless.

Ed · 02-08-2003, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO
Ed,

Here is another element of the Amalekite debate.

One part of morality which is very much reflected in the Bible is the idea that a punishment should fit the crime. If your neighbour brakes your window, you cannot, as punishment, burn his house down.

The Bible puts it this way... "an eye for an eye". The idea was that if someone poked your eye out then the punishment can be the same or something equivalent.

For the case of the Amalekites here is the crime....

Dt 25:17:19
Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God.

"all who were lagging behind ..."
So we are talking about a small part of the whole community.
If this had been half the community then they would not be "lagging behind" rather the others would be up ahead.

The puniishment on the other hand is totally disproportionate.

No, the Israelites were God's representatives on earth. ie they were representing the King of the Universe. If the vice president was sent to Iraq and Hussein killed him, the reaction by the US would be much more severe than if you went over and got killed.

Quote:

Dt 25:19
... you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!

1 Sam 15
...`I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 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 ...

ng: This is a genocide ... for the stated reason.

No, genocide (gen = gene) is the killing of a group because of WHO they are, God ordered their killing because of what they had done.

Quote:

ng: Even if 400 years did not separate these events the punishment is far too great for the crime commited.
Even if 400 years did not pass one would expect that only the responsible people would be punished.
Even if 400 years had not passed this would still be an immoral act of revenge.

No, see my posts to Jack.

Ed · 02-08-2003, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
[B]
[/i]Ed: But even if they didn't believe in an afterlife, that is irrelevant, because the fact is there is an afterlife. Someones belief about the existence of a thing does not effect the reality of the thing's existence.

jtb: Evidence for this "fact":
{ }[/i]

Ed: The existence of the Christian God and the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

jtb: In other words: NO evidence.

I would hardly call the existence and characteristics of the universe no evidence. And the resurrection of Christ has more evidence in favor of it than most events in the 1st century.

Quote:

jtb: Biblical evidence AGAINST this "fact" is clear from the FACT that God was unable to adequately punish the Amalekites in Hell (because God and Hell do not actually exist).

Ed: Huh?

jtb: Re-read this entire thread. NOW.

No, in your above statement you are assuming what you are trying to prove.

Quote:

jtb: Nope. According to you, I can freely celebrate the massacre of God's chosen people with negligible risk of capital punishment. According to you, the omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, who supposedly has the power to act at will, won't get off his lazy butt to actually kill anybody for this, except maybe once every few centuries.

Ed: That is because he is merciful. He doesnt always give you what you deserve.

jtb: He is nonexistent, Ed. I have no reason to fear a nonexistent being.

You have yet to demonstrate he is nonexistent.

Quote:

jtb: Evidence that this was specifically and exclusively directed at the government of Israel:
{ }

Ed: All scholars both liberal and conservative agree that the laws in Deuteronomy were written to provide guidance to Hebrew society and government.

jtb: You have dodged the question, Ed. What is the basis for your assumption that the rule applied ONLY to the Hebrew government, and was NOT a general moral principle?

Deuteronomy 24:16: "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

You are claiming that it is NOT IMMORAL for anyone (EXCEPT the Hebrew government) to kill children for the crimes of their parents.

No, although it is primarily directed at the hebrew government it also applies governments in general.

Quote:

jtb: According to you, God can do this.

He can from our perspective because we cannot see all the ramifications in play other than the universal basis for human death.

Quote:

jtb: According to you, Osama Bin Laden can do this.

According to you, I can do this.

No, I stated that only God in this special case can do it thru the hebrew army.

Quote:

jtb: Evidence of the "specifically commanded by God to do otherwise" exception clause:
{ }

Let me guess: this clause was present in the original Hebrew but omitted by those incompetent translators, right?

Ed: It is rationally assumed given the Amalekite event.

jtb: It is rationally assumed that God does not exist.

No, given the existence of the universe as an effect, that is an irrational assumption.

Quote:

jtb: The rapist was NOT punished by the law. He was murdered two years later by the victim's brother.

The rape was NOT a crime.

Ed: Fraid so, given that the laws in the OT are not exhaustive, it is covered under Deut. 22:23-24. Of course, unfortunately God's laws were not always enforced.

jtb: You are lying again, Ed.

Do you seriously think that I wouldn't bother to check your fradulent reference?

Here is your latest lie exposed for all to see:

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

Tamar was NOT betrothed to someone else.

This verse proves what we have been telling you all along: that rape is a crime against a MAN, the husband or betrothed. That the rape of adult single women is entirely legal.

Re-read this entire thread. NOW.

No, see my post above about how single adult women were practically non-existent. Also no need for the ad hominem.

This is the end of part I of my response.

winstonjen · 02-08-2003, 09:56 PM

Ed:

Quote:

No, genocide (gen = gene) is the killing of a group because of WHO they are, God ordered their killing because of what they had done.

No, their ancestors were the ones that did the 'crime', their decendants did nothing against the Israelites. So essentially, you are saying that god is punishing them for doing nothing, except being born in the wrong place, time and having the 'wrong' parents, which they have no control over.

Ed, I seriously advise you to answer my other posts. Refusing to answer is an admission of defeat.

NOGO · 02-09-2003, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Ed:
No, the Israelites were God's representatives on earth. ie they were representing the King of the Universe. If the vice president was sent to Iraq and Hussein killed him, the reaction by the US would be much more severe than if you went over and got killed.

"the Israelites were God's representatives on earth"

This remains to be proven. It is part of the house of cards that is your faith.

If the vice president was sent to Iraq and Hussein killed him, the reaction by the US would be much more severe than if you went over and got killed.

The point is that wiping out all Iraquis is strictly speaking an over-reaction. The punishment would simply not fit the crime.

What would fit the crime is to arrest and put on trial all who participated in the crime. But to wipe all Iraquis is a genocide.
YES the word is genocide, because not all participated in the crime which means that those who did not participate are being killed for just being Iraquis.

This is exactly analogous with the Amalekite situation. So in effect you admit that killing all of the Iraquis is an overreaction and therefore immoral.

Ed, you are desperately avoiding the heart of the issue. You want to walk away from this and preserve the shameful position that you have taken intact. But I know that you fully understand what you are hidding from, here, in order to preserve your faith.

A faith that has to take such shameful positions to hide the truth is not worth keeping.

By the way, Ed, you did not respond to issue of David and his child which is another case of the child being killed for the actions of the father. In this case since the child was a babe you cannot accuse him of anything except being born.

Ed · 02-09-2003, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
[B]
jtb: Unmarried women should have been able to survive just as well as married ones.

Ed:Unfortunately see above why not, their husband was like their police force.

jtb: In other words: in Hebrew society, might made right. If you broke the law, it didn't matter, because nobody enforced the laws. Strong men could do anything, including murdering the weak on a whim.

Is this what you believe the "morally superior" Israelite society was like?

No, they had judges and families acted as the detectives. They would report the deeds to the judges and punishments would be meeted out. Moral superiority was relative, ie for the time period they were. Of course, you cannot compare them to a modern western society.

Quote:

jtb: But, yes, modern society is far more civilized that that of these "morally superior" barbarians. And so were most other barbarian societies. The Celts had female warriors: they would not tolerate the rape of unmarried Celtic women.

Ed: Neither would hebrew men and women, see Deut. 22:23-24.

jtb: A repeat of the same lie. I specifically referred to UNMARRIED women, and Deuteronomy 22:23-24 specifically refers to MARRIED (or betrothed) women.

And please don't bother with the excuse that you didn't realize the distinction. There have been MANY posts on this topic.

Re-read this entire thread. NOW.

No, see above about single adult women being almost nonexistent.

Quote:

Ed: Not physically detectable but empirically inferred. Humans have a true will, conscience, and abstract reasoning. These can all be detected by other persons. Chimps do not have these characteristics which are all essential to personhood.

jtb: Another "lie of convenience", Ed.

Another ad hominem.

Quote:

jtb: There is no "Law of Conservation of Personhood". There is no scientific or logical principle which prevents the evolution of "personhood".

Ed: Fraid so, the Law of Sufficient Cause.

jtb: Again, there is no excuse for this level of wilful ignorance.

Re-read this entire thread. NOW.

Huh? How am I being willfully ignorant?

Quote:

Ed: Atheistic evolution is based on impersonal time plus chance, neither of which nor in combination has ever been empirically observed producing persons.

jtb: God has never been empirically observed producing persons either. Therefore this cannot happen, right?

Ed: No, but persons have, so his being able to do so is a rational assumption.

jtb: Persons have been empirically observed producing persons like God did, from clay?

When and where?

No, not from clay. See nogo's post.

End of part II of my response.

winstonjen · 02-09-2003, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed

End of part II of my response.

Wow. Ed's "responses" are getting shorter. Has he given up?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.