Pain Paien

I think you may have misread it. What it I believe actually says is that god punishes the unpious with homosexuality. The part about killing them for that homosexuality is in a different part. I'm just sure that the assertation that all atheists are homosexuals has abundant evidentiary support, as we all know the bible is the source of objective truth.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by Keith
No, and no.

So if I can discuss Hinduism with a Hindu without becoming a theist by doing so, why is it that I cannot discuss Christianity with a Christian without involuntarily relinquishing my atheism?

Well, I don't think "believes" is the best word to use,

Then what is the word you would use?

but in some sense, on some level,

In another dimension, long long ago in a parallel universe far far away...

everyone knows the God of the bible,

Did everyone know this god before the bible was put together? If you built a time machine and picked a profoundly mentally retarded person out of the depths of Papua New Guinea in 1100, would he/she somehow know your god, and how could you discern this?

Unless you have global telepathy, your statement that everyone knows your particular god is unverifiable.

and they know of God through the creation,

The creation of what? Pathogenic bacteria? Nuclear bombs? Cancer?

and from the law that is "written on their hearts."

Firstly, if your statement was true, everyone would have something different "written on their hearts", considering the number of religions in the world.

Secondly, there is nothing "written on my heart". The very phrase sounds like something out of a Madonna song.

Finally, if emotions are the evidence for your god's existence, every god and belief out there can claim the same thing.

Biff the unclean

That will teach me to try to read the bible after a trip to Trader Vic's.
So, in effect, Keith is calling us names while pretending that his imaginary god is the one speaking. God as Mr Hat (from South Park), a nice touch.

I wonder why Carrie, in the OP, didn't want to associate with people like this?

Pain Paien

More appropriately, that should teach you to read the bible at all.

Yup, you've hit the nail on its head. The bible has more than enough hateful vitriol to go around, so Christians often enough use it to passive-aggressively snipe insults at those who don't agree with them. Just goes to show how amazingly petty the bible is.

To be fair, not all Christians are like keith, just as not all atheists are the same. Though their beliefs may make Christians as a group much more inclined to be condescending and bigoted toward those who don't agree with them, there are certainly those that are tolerant and rational (about most things, anyhow). The ones who do think they're better than everyone else because of their religious beliefs, on the other hand, are to be avoided like the plague when it comes to personal relationships (in my opinion, of course). I can certainly see how particular individuals can paint a very negative picture of the whole lot of them, however.

Keith

You assume that there is an objective standard that can determine who's thinking is/isn't rational. I agree, and I call that standard GOD. Who, or what, is your objective standard for determining what is/isn't rational to believe?

And even if I were unable to tell you specifically why the Israelites were given a certain command that differs from other groups of people, it doesn't follow that God is arbitrary.

Keith

Just because you and I agree that it was not pragmatic for Hitler to gas millions of Jews doesn't mean that I don't understand the meaning of the word "pragmatic."

Keith

This is obviously false. God's nature is the origin of objective morality. The beauty of this is that God's nature isn't just"good" it is perfectly and unchangingly good. So, if God doesn't exist, please tell me...how do humans even know what is "good" and what isn't?

Pain Paien

I'm becoming more and more convinced you like arguing with strawmen better than people. Only you require objective standards for your world view. I, on the other hand, am perfectly comfortable relying on human language and thought to express concepts. If you wish to discuss the illusory nature of language, I suggest you form a thread in the philosophy forum.

It most certainly does follow, if one uses logic. If the god of the bible chooses to be inconsistent, he ought to have justification. That would be the case, anyhow, if Christianity were really a moral system, and not submission to arbitrary edicts.

Pain Paien

You implied it could be viewed as pragmatic. That was false, and showed misunderstanding on your part.

Pain Paien

That's it, you've put the final nail in your own coffin. You have either willfully ignored the posts of this thread, or are completely immune to both logic and communication. All of this, every last bit of it, has been discussed again and again since the debate began. You have failed to address it or even acknowledge it each time. Either read the thread and attempt to actually participate in the argument (by gaining an understanding of it), or hold court with your strawmen elsewhere.