Butters

I just wanted to point out that this is an incorrect definition of the theory of Evolution.

It is the random mutation of genes AND natural selection that drives evolution.

Butters

I just wanted to point out that this is an incorrect definition of the theory of Evolution.

It is the random mutation of genes AND natural selection that drives evolution.

Shadownought

Dear valued customers,

We regret that you are experiencing difficulties with EdBot v0.6, and we thank you for participating in our public beta test. Rest assured that our development team is working around the clock to work the bugs out of EdBot v0.6. Our commercial release, EdBot v1.0, will have vastly improved AI for stronger arguments and even witty off-topic repartee, as well as the ability to participate in more than one thread at a time. Operations will also recieve a considerable speed boost, so that you, the user, need not wait several days between replies. Our research and development team is even working on several all-new, never-before-seen logical fallacies that, once complete, can be downloaded from the EdSoft homepage absolutely FREE!

EdBot v1.0 will be sold for US$49.99 at fine retailers everywhere.

-EdSoft Productions

winstonjen

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

LOL! Nuff said! Although at one point Ed took a month to reply to a post, which basically proves that a response time of several days would be an improvement.

I wonder if Ed is using a 286 or even a 086 processor.

Starboy

He still hasn't replied to my last post.

winstonjen

Refusal to answer is an admission of guilt or defeat. Ed can't think of anything to say, therefore he loses by default until proven otherwise.

NOGO

I think that we should be kind to Ed.
He is in need of help although he may not know it.

Ed can be cured and we owe it him to at least try.

winstonjen

I agree. I'll send Ed a copy of Norton Anitvirus - the Christian Edition!

Ed

No, they were not "definitely raped" they were not allowed to mistreat them as I have repeatedly quoted from the verse.

Quote:

jtb: And the barbaric Hebrew society was NOT superior!

No, the laws of the ancient hebrews were generally more humane and respected human life more than most of the surrounding nations.

Quote:

Ed: Being repugnant to you is irrelevant, you need to reread the facts of the case that I have explained above. jtb: The FACTS are that there is no evil at all that you aren't prepared to tolerate and excuse.

Evidence {}?

Quote:

Ed: Your absurd implication that normal men WANT to be sexually attacked by stronger women was not worth even mentioning. I was actually giving you a chance to come up with something better! jtb: Rapists don't generally WANT to attack their victims. They want to HAVE SEX with their victims. A rapist who has a fixation on a particular woman will typically convince himself that "she said no, but she really meant yes". The rapist will convince himself that only her inhibitions are preventing her from really enjoying it, and that he's actually doing her a favor and giving her a good time if she would just relax a little. The attitude of the rapist is identical to your idiotic belief that women forced to marry the murderers of their families "will eventually be grateful for it".

Actually most rape experts say that rape has very little to do with sex. They say that it is primarily a desire for domination and control of another human being.

Quote:

Ed: You can certainly CLAIM it, but almost all the scientific evidence points to it being an effect, ie it had a beginning and etc., so I would say my answer is a little better if you put any stock in science. jtb: Scientists know NOTHING about any supposed "cause" of the Universe. There are some highly speculative theories, but no scientific evidence whatsoever for a specific causal agent. Therefore your claim is pure fiction, as usual.

Of course most scientists are not going claim any specific cause of the universe because they would be (horror of horrors) branded a fundamentalist and run out of the towers of academia! But nevertheless logic (the law of sufficient cause) points to a specific cause, the Christian God.

Quote:

Ed: Actually this problem goes deeper than I have let on. If there is no God then you do not even have a rational basis for believing in an external reality. It could just be a very realistic dream. jtb: And you are in exactly the same position. Theists have no defense aginst the "brain-in-a-jar" argument. God is irrelevant to this.

No, the theist using logic can demonstrate that there is an objective reality. He knows that he exists and his memory is finite, therefore he must have had a beginning and therefore a cause and the cause probably has a personal aspect to it because he as an effect is a person. Therefore in relation to this personal creator the theist is an object (also subject) therefore a subject-object correlation has logically been established therefore the objects around the theist are objective.

Quote:

Ed: Only theists have a rational basis for believing that there is an objective reality, because a subject-object correlation was established at creation between the creator and the creation. So you do not even know if the evidence for evolution even actually exists. jtb: No, a subject-object correlation is an inevitable product of the evolution of sensory apparatus and intelligence. And the evidence for evolution can be perceived plainly by atheist and theist alike. It is equally real to both. It's just that some theists have a mental dysfunction which cripples their capacity for rational thought.

Again you have not demonstrated that your external reality exists objectively from an atheistic viewpoint.

Quote:

Ed: No, see above about ancient genealogies. A better translation would be "these are all the significant generations". jtb: Please provide the Aramaic word for "significant" that you claim the translators missed. If you cannot provide clear evidence that this word was present in the original Aramaic text and omitted during translation: then you have abandoned the Bible yet again.

No, using grammatico-historical hermeneutic, we need to also study ancient history in order to interpret the scriptures. And most ancient genealogies only list the significant personages in a persons lineage, only in modern times do we care much about the little people in a person's genealogy.

Quote:

Ed: No, I meant his challenge that that was the ONLY reason for their deaths. jtb: It was the only SPECIFIED REASON for their deaths. All other reasons provided by you are fictional.

The Christian understanding of scripture is that you interpret scripture with scripture. There are overarching principles that God operates according to, ie justice, mercy, any sin ultimately deserves death, and etc. Also the scriptures are not exhaustive, they do not give us all of God's reasons for doing things but we know from experience and other incidents in the scriptures what God is like and therefore can make rational assumptions given this knowledge.

Quote:

Ed: Calm down Jack, I have not lied, or been dishonest, my position and the biblical position is that children can be punished for the sins of their fathers by God because he knows all the relevant facts regarding the children, but as stated in Deut. 24:16, the ancient hebrew government was not allowed to do so unless specifically directed to by God. jtb: You are contradicting yourself AGAIN. If your excuse for God punishing the children is "because he knows all the relevant facts regarding the children", then why claim that "children can be punished for the sins of their fathers"? Is it OK to punish children for the sins of their fathers or not? Like the Bible itself, you are utterly unable to give a straightforward answer to this question.

It is ok for God to punish the fathers with the children's deaths but the children's deaths do not necessarily have anything directly to do with what their fathers did, because God sees the "big picture" as I stated above. Just because God timed their deaths at the time of the accounting of the adults does not mean that they were receiving punishment for what their fathers did. The Amalekite situation is based on rational assumptions about the nature and character of God (as shown above) and human nature, such as nationalism and ancestral pride and military glory.

Jack the Bodiless

But the rape of captured women wasn't classed as "mistreatment", and you have repeatedly failed to provide any evidence that it was.

But, even if we set aside the rape of these women by their husbands:

We're talking about women compelled to marry the murderers of their families.

This is MUCH, MUCH MORE HORRIBLE than being RAPED by a total stranger.
Evidence: { }

So far, al you've mentioned is the custom of sacrificing firstborn children.

The Egyptians did not do that. The Babylonians did not do that. The Greeks did not do that.

Oh, and there may have been some "temple prostitution" in the Bacchus cult, but they were volunteers, not conscripts. The same probably applies to Ishtar.
Forcing women to marry the murderers of their families. Genocide. Punishment of innocents for the crimes of others. And so on...
Sure, that's part of it in many cases (not all). But the rapist still doesn't want the victim to fight: he wants her to SUBMIT, and usually convinces himself that she'll learn to appreciate the experience when she does.

This is identical to your evil belief (I can't think of a better term) that women forced to marry the murderers of ther families will eventually be grateful.
Except that it doesn't.

A nonexistent mythical being is insufficient cause.
No.

The theist does NOT know that logic works, or that it has any relationship to any hypothetical "real world" even if it APPEARS to work within his own mind.

The theist does NOT know that "persons" exist, or that a rock is any less "personal" than a human (not knowing that rocks or humans exist).

The theist doesn't know ANYTHING except that there is an "I". He certainly doen't know ANYTHING about any "external reality" that might not even exist.
Nor can YOU demonstrate that an external reality exists.

We both have to ASSUME that an external reality exists. But, given that we agree on this: my worldview follows inevitably from the operation of known physical laws and principles in that reality, whereas yours does not. Therefore mine is superior.
Nonsense. The Jews cared a lot about tribal lineages, which require ACCURATE genealogies. One of those "little people" might have been from a different tribe! A single break in the chain, and a Levite isn't a Levite anymore!

Furthermore, many of the names which appear in Biblical genealogies are NOT "significant". They are only mentioned in Biblical genealogies!
Yes, we DO know what God is like from scriptures. Vicious, evil, tyrannical, genocidal, bloody, warlike, unjust...
You have just said "It is ok for God to punish the fathers with the children's deaths". Therefore you CANNOT claim that "the children's deaths do not necessarily have anything directly to do with what their fathers did". By your own admission, they WERE killed for what their fathers did!
The Bible says otherwise.
There is nothing remotely rational about the assumption that the original Amalekites DID NOT celebrate their victory over the Israelites, and neither did any of their descendants for 400 years, and THEN they suddenly started celebrating, and THIS provoked God into action but the original victory did not!

The RATIONAL assumption is that God does not exist. This explains why he couldn't act at the time, or at any time thereafter, until the Israelites were militarily capable of striking back WITHOUT God's help.