Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Starboy · 02-04-2003, 07:01 PM

Ed, let me know if you intend not to respond to my last post displayed on the pervious page.

Ed · 02-04-2003, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy
Ed, I know this is off topic but I am curious as to what you think the reasons are for god to send Hitler or Dahlmer to heaven or hell.

Starboy

I doubt very seriously either one went to heaven. As I stated before, God sent them to hell for justice.

Ed · 02-04-2003, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by winstonjen
Ed: The only way you could know that is if you were omniscient.

wj: Duh. God is supposed to be all-knowing AND all-powerful. Therefore, he would have no shortage of options to stop the bomber..

See my post to Jack about how the biblical understanding of omnipotence is not equivalent to the popular conception of omnipotence.

Starboy · 02-04-2003, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
I doubt very seriously either one went to heaven. As I stated before, God sent them to hell for justice.

Ed, that wasn't the question. What difference would it make? What is the point? The punishment appears to have little or no effect. What good is it?

Starboy

Ed · 02-04-2003, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden
[B]
Originally posted by Ed:
They were killed for that AND what they had done and what they were doing and for things that are not revealed in the bible.

bs: The underlined portion represents, of course, the typical argumentum ad undulatus mani (hand waving) commonly employed by apologists. In effect, Ed is saying, "well, if the reasons given in the Bible are insufficient, then there must be some good reason not given in the Bible."

The problem here is that such a statement assumes without argument that a good reason must exist. Unfortunately, this is exactly what the apologist is attempting to prove and is thus fallacious circular reasoning.

No, the reasons that we do know in the bible are sufficient enough. But we also know God has other reasons not directly described in the scriptures but they are indirectly described in the scriptures teachings about the nature of God and the nature of humans. Also we know the reasons are good because we know God is good thru experience with him.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed:
There is such a thing as collective and national guilt.

bs: I beg to differ; there is not, at least not in the sense in which you mean.

I am not in any way, shape, or form guilty of the past crimes of another regardless of my association with them as part of a socio-political group. To sanction me for the sins of another is evil, pure and simple. There is and can be no justification for such an act.

The only way in which I might be held "collectively" responsible is if I actively condoned the act in question. I am not "guilty" of slavery simply because my ancestors or fellow American citizens own slaves, even if the government has made it legal. I can only be said to bear any part of the guilt if I actively support slavery, either by word or deed. Even then, the "guilt" is certainly less than born by those who actually own or owned slaves.

Of course as Christ taught, there are different levels of punishment in the afterlife. Those who were actively involved will be punished more severely than those who just celebrated it.

Quote:

bs: Even more, such a "collective" guilt is ONLY possible in a democratic society, where membership conveys a certain amount of responsibility for the acts of others (specifically, the government). It cannot be true AT ALL in an autocracy, such as most likely existed for the Amelekites.

No, it is also possible if the judge meting out the punishment is omniscient. Only such a judge truly knows the motivations and attitudes of the heart.

winstonjen · 02-04-2003, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
See my post to Jack about how the biblical understanding of omnipotence is not equivalent to the popular conception of omnipotence.

I disagree. Most preachers I know say that god can do anything and everything. It says so in the book of Psalms. How can you even purport to defend your religion if you don't know much of what's written about it, supposedly 'from the mouth of god'.

Starboy:

Quote:

Ed, that wasn't the question. What difference would it make? What is the point? The punishment appears to have little or no effect. What good is it?

The biblical god is a sadistic, bloodthirsty maniac who delights in suffering, torture and sacrifice. Hope this clears it up for you.

Ed · 02-04-2003, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by winstonjen

Originally posted by Ed
Your character is where your morals come from. There is nothing circular about God's goodness coming from his good moral character.

wj: In that case, god (according to the Bible) has little to no goodness. Take a look at http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart11.html#ref119

I'll post the highlights to save you the trouble.

Now remember, God, the Perfect Being, did all of folowing in what is supposedly His book. He created evil (Lam. 3:38, Jer. 26:3, 36:3, Ezek. 20.:25-26, Judges 9:3, 1 Sam. 16:23, 18:10); He decieved (Jer. 4:10, 15:18, 20:7, 2 Chron. 18:22, Ezek. 14:9, 2 Thess. 2:9-12); He told people to lie(Ex. 3:18, 1 Sam. 16:2); He lied (Gen 2:17, 2 Sam. 7:13); He rewarded liars (Ex. 1:15-20); He ordered men to become drunken (Jer. 25:27); He rewarded the fool and the transgressor (Prov.26:10); He delivered a man, Job, into Satan's hands (Job 2:6); He mingled a perverse spirit (Isa. 19:14); He spread dung on people's faces (Mal. 2:3)); He ordered stealing (Ezek. 39:10, Ex. 3:22); He made false prophecies (Jonah 3:4. Gen. 5:10); He changed his mind (Jonah 3:10); He caused adultery (2 Sam. 12:11-12); He ordered the taking of a harlot (Hosea 1:2, 3:1-2); He killed (Num. 16:35, 21:6, Deut. 32:39, 1 Sam. 2:26, Psalm 135:10); He ordered killing (Lev. 26:7-8, Num. 25:4-5); He had a temper (Deut. 13:17, Judges 3:8); He was often jealous (Deut. 5:9, 6:15); He wasn't omnipresent (Gen4:16, 11:5, 1 Kings 19:11-12); He wasn't omniscient (Deut. 8:2, 13:3, 2 Chron. 32:31); He often repented (Ex. 32:14, 1 Sam. 15:35); He practiced injustice (Ex. 4:22-23, Joshua 22:20, Rom. 5:12); He played favorites (Deut. 7:6, 14:2, 1 Sam. 12:22); He sanctioned slavery (Ex. 21:20-21, Deut. 15:17); He degraded deformed people (Lev. 21:16-23); He punished a bastard for being illegitimate (Deut. 23:2); He punished many for the acts of one (Gen. 3:16, 20:18); He punished children for the sins of their fathers (Ex. 12:29, 20:5, Deut. 5:9); He prevented people from hearing his word (Isa. 6:10, John 12:39-40); He supported human sacrifice (Ex. 22:29-30, Ezek. 20:26); He ordered cannibalism (Lev. 26: 29, Jer. 19:9); He demanded virgins as a part of war plunder (Num. 31:31-36); He ordered gambling (Joshua 14. 2, Num. 26:52, 55-56); He ordered horses to be hamstrung (Joshua 11:6); He sanctioned violation of the enemy's women (Deut. 21:10-14); He excused the beating of slaves to death (Ex. 21:20-21); He required a woman to marry her rapist (Deut. 22:28:29); He taught war (Psalm 144:1); He ordered the burning of human feces to cook food (Ezek. 21:3-5); He intentionally issued bad laws (Ezek. 20:25); He excused the sins of prostitutes and adulterers (Hosea 4:14); He excused a murderer and promised his protection (Gen. 4:8-15); He killed a man who refused to impregnate his widowed sister-in-law (Gen. 38:9-10); and He is indecisive (Gen. 18:17)..

Since I have already dealt with many of these issues in previous posts and since most of them are just the result of very superficial readings of the bible, I have neither the time or the inclination to go thru all of them to refute their interpretations. Why dont you pick out the three you think are the best and then maybe I will respond.

Starboy · 02-04-2003, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by winstonjen
Starboy:
The biblical god is a sadistic, bloodthirsty maniac who delights in suffering, torture and sacrifice. Hope this clears it up for you.

Arg! winstonjen, you let the cat out of the bag too early, not that it would matter. I was hoping to get Ed to realize that inflicting punishment knowing full well that it will not affect behavior is sadistic or irrational. If god is all good and all knowing then it must be irrational. Then so much for the rationality of god unless you define

irrational == rational

Which is certainly possible to conclude from a fact base that allows contradictions.

Starboy

winstonjen · 02-04-2003, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Since I have already dealt with many of these issues in previous posts and since most of them are just the result of very superficial readings of the bible, I have neither the time or the inclination to go thru all of them to refute their interpretations. Why dont you pick out the three you think are the best and then maybe I will respond.

Translation: "I forgot what the bible says, so please remind me and I will do my best to justify it."

Very well. Justify or explain away the following, Ed.

The slaughter of the those who practice 'witchcraft' who are actually healing the sick (this was used to justify the 'Inquisitions').

The drowning of innocent babies, born and unborn (so much for god being a loving father. :boohoo: ) during the flood. If god is so good, why would he need to resort to mass murder to remove 'evil' from the world? Surely simple persuasion would have worked.

Condemnation of people simply for having a different sexual preference, thus suppressing what is a natural desire for them.

Quote:

Arg! winstonjen, you let the cat out of the bag too early, not that it would matter. I was hoping to get Ed to realize that inflicting punishment knowing full well that it will not affect behavior is sadistic or irrational. If god is all good and all knowing then it must be irrational. Then so much for the rationality of god unless you define
irrational == rational
Which is certainly possible to conclude from a fact base that allows contradictions.

Heh.

Should be interesting/funny to read Ed's responses to these. How he thinks drowning a child for being the child of a 'heathen' is love is beyond me.

Ed · 02-04-2003, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shadownought

Originally posted by Ed
There are plenty of people who DO wake up one morning and decide that something that they thought was immoral one day is moral today.

sn: Not by conscious choice they don't. Morality is not a light switch that can be flicked on and off as you please.

I have a hunch that O.J. woke up one morning and decided that killing his ex-wife was now moral and no longer immoral. This happens all the time. Ask someone who has lied or cheated on their taxes.

Quote:

Ed: I am afraid you need to go deeper Gary. Why is desiring human civilization rational?

sn: Humans rely heavily on cooperation and social groups to survive. This is especially true when you take into consideration that human infants are basically helpless for a very long period of time. Typically, in early human social groups, some of the group (mostly men) would go out to find food, then they would bring it back to the home base of their social group. In the mean time, the rest of the group would stay home to take care of the infants, and protect each other and the pregnant (i.e. disabled) women. Humans evolved high intelligence and advanced communication skills, but without cooperation, they wouldn't have much of a chance competing with faster, stronger animals. Besides that, human society today STILL relies VERY heavily on a complex system of cooperation and specialized tasks. It is hardly irrational behavior.

I am referring to the foundational rationale. All these behaviors are just based on feelings for your own species, but there is no real reason to favor humans over other species other than that is what you are.

Quote:

Ed: What is special about humans? If evolution is true then there is nothing special about humans. It is just sentimentality for your own species, not rationality.

shadow: Preservation of your own species is completely rational behavior. You're saying that all the animals in the world are capable of preserving themselves, but the human race somehow needs God to tell them not to destroy themselves? To avoid killing your own species is irrational?

Why is preservation of your own species completely rational? It is only rational from the perspective of specieism, but specieism has no rational foundation if atheistic evolution is true.

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

02-04-2003, 07:01 PM	#451
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Ed, let me know if you intend not to respond to my last post displayed on the pervious page.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.