Author Topic: Skeptic, please address...  (Read 2751 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11187
  • Darwins +1865/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Skeptic, please address...
« Reply #58 on: August 25, 2014, 04:12:15 PM »
You really do have to shut down the critical thinking. Because, if you can, with a bit of thought, come up with a better solution to a social problem than killing everyone (and most anyone can) you have to start wondering why god did not think of that.

Instead of killing everyone god could have......done anything. Because he is god.

I recently heard a motivational speech by a black woman who was an alcoholic, drug addict, lost her home, etc and is now a highly successful professional. She attributed her survival of all that hardship to her unshakeable faith in god. Why did god give her all that hardship in the first place? Why, to test her unshakeable faith, of course. My eyes almost rolled up to my hairline.

God already knows, before he imposes these horrendous "tests" on people, who of his faithful will overcome the hardships and become motivational speakers, and who will die alone in the gutter from drugs and AIDS.

Yet, he still needs to "test" them..... the way a mean kid "tests" ants on the sidewalk with a magnifying glass. &)
When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Offline Timo

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1801
  • Darwins +155/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Ya tu sabes
Re: Skeptic, please address...
« Reply #59 on: August 26, 2014, 12:49:17 AM »
So it's wrong to murder, unless god orders you to wipe out a neighboring tribe, because he must have good reasons.

That is an example of cherry picking.  For the sake of argument you accept that God ordered war because that's what the Bible says.  But on the other hand you don't accept God's reasons for doing so, yet you have no evidence to the contrary.  That's cherry picking.  However, there is much archeological and historical support for the terrible practices, such as child sacrifice, that were carried out by these people in Bible times.  We do know for a fact they did some terrible things.

That's not cherry picking.  If the narrator of a story tells us that a character tells us that something say, murder, is terrible but then tells us that the same character thought he or she had good reasons for ordering people to do that terrible thing, we don't need to accept that those reasons were good reasons.  We wouldn't apply this sort of reasoning to any other narrative, whether it's a novel or a detailed account of actual historical events.  It's actually an absurd way of thinking about it.

On a side note, as far as I've been able to tell, there just isn't much of any archaeological evidence that would support the Biblical accounts of the conquest of Canaan.  So if we're thinking really hard about how those terrible practices may have justified the annihilation of those terrible people, we ought to consider the fact that if there is evidence that these things took place in the areas that the Israelites were said to have conquered then these were most likely things that the ancient Israelites themselves were doing.
Nah son...

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15326
  • Darwins +1178/-40
  • Gender: Male
  • We stand on the shoulders of giants
Re: Skeptic, please address...
« Reply #60 on: September 05, 2014, 11:06:22 AM »
I made a promise to the mods that I won't discuss evolution anymore.

I think a little explanation on this is needed, for skeptic as much as for everyone else. 

This was the result of me insisting skeptic do some research on his own to answer some questions he had about evolution.  He had been demanding answers from amateurs (us) without having attempted to find the answers for himself from experts (science books). 

He actually did do the reseach and did find the answers.  I find that to be highly respectable and he should be commended for that.

He did promise to not talk about evolution, but it should be pointed out that this is a promise he made of his own initiative, unsolicited.  That is, neither I nor anyone on the staff (that I know) of made any kind of request or demand that he make this promise.

Additionally, it is not a promise that I have any intention of holding him to.  I consider his promise to be one he made to himself and as such, I cannot hold him to it.  As far as I am concerned, he is as free to discuss evolution as anyone else here.  If he were to break that promise, he would be free of any penalty from me or anyone else on the staff.  He is likewise free to keep this promise.  It is entirely his choice.

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.