whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Why Won't God Heal Amputees? => Topic started by: Co.Inkadink on April 10, 2012, 05:14:57 AM

Title: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 10, 2012, 05:14:57 AM
Here is my take. God knew these people were going to be amputated. He knew they were going to lose a limb. If he didn't want them to he wouldn't have allowed them to lose a limb in the first place.

Why should God heal amputees anyway? Is there some reason he should? Jesus never did, he healed a man with a withered hand but he didn't produce a full new hand just restored the old one. He healed leprosy and blindness and deafness so I suppose he produced working parts where none were. With the deaf man he even allowed him to understand language and words that he had never heard before. Even if God did this it wouldn't make people give their lives to Him. The 9 Lepers didn't even thank him, the children of Israel complained about the food that fell out of the sky every day, the 5000 that were fed didn't stand by Jesus and all follow him they just wanted him to keep providing food.
He didn't heal Mephibosheth who was Jonathan's son in the old testament from being lame, he didn't heal Paul's thorn in the flesh and Paul had great faith.
BTW on your introduction page Matthew 18:19 is about church discipline and not about prayer, you really should read the verses before it and after. I know it's cliche but it's true you really shouldn't take things out of context. There are several verses out of context there and all over this site. I'm assuming you really don't know this. I'm assuming none of you know Greek or Hebrew or have access to it. Here's help http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.cfm (http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.cfm) Also Jesus used Metaphors too and you should learn some textual criticism and Apologetics it would help when talking about the bible. I read Atheist authors regularly.
One more thing. from your front page.
Quote
Key Point
No matter how many people pray, no matter how often they pray, no matter how sincere they are, no matter how much they believe, no matter how deserving the amputee, what we know is that prayers do not inspire God to regenerate amputated legs. This happens despite what Jesus promises us in Matthew 21:21, John 14:14, Mark 11:24, etc.
How can you possibly know this? I know you BELIEVE this and it sounds like you BELIEVE it's an absolute fact which I didn't think Atheists held. Anyway I'd like to see your scientific studies that you've done on this with all the faithful Christians you've tested it on.
There are scientific studies right? You didn't just put this statement up there because you BELIEVE IT BY FAITH DID YOU?

I'm not trying to start trouble here. I would just like to have a discussion based on Logic Reason and scientific facts about your conclusions. That is what Atheists are all about right?
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: kaziglu bey on April 10, 2012, 06:26:10 AM
Here is my take. God knew these people were going to be amputated. He knew they were going to lose a limb. If he didn't want them to he wouldn't have allowed them to lose a limb in the first place.
Yet you are going to say that God/Jesus has healed other things, even though in those situations, it is also obvious that God wanted them to be in such a state. If he didn't want them to he wouldn't have allowed them to lose a limb be blind in the first place.

Quote
Why should God heal amputees anyway? Is there some reason he should? Jesus never did, he healed a man with a withered hand but he didn't produce a full new hand just restored the old one.
But why even do that, if God had wanted it to be withered in the first place? The "logic" that you claim as if it were self evident regarding amputees should be equally applicable to any illness, injury, or birth defect. If it is such an obvious explanation for amputees, then it is for all other conditions as well. Why would God intervene in any of them?
Quote
He healed leprosy and blindness and deafness so I suppose he produced working parts where none were. With the deaf man he even allowed him to understand language and words that he had never heard before.
Well if God can ignore your principle in all of these situations, he can be gracious enough to do it for amputees too.
Quote
Even if God did this it wouldn't make people give their lives to Him. The 9 Lepers didn't even thank him, the children of Israel complained about the food that fell out of the sky every day, the 5000 that were fed didn't stand by Jesus and all follow him they just wanted him to keep providing food.
This is only making your case weaker, you realize. Then why not heal an amputee?
Quote
He didn't heal Mephibosheth who was Jonathan's son in the old testament from being lame, he didn't heal Paul's thorn in the flesh and Paul had great faith.
Then why not, when he allegedly does so much healing?
Quote
BTW on your introduction page Matthew 18:19 is about church discipline
Actually it's about how to handle a brother who has sinned against you.
Quote
and not about prayer, you really should read the verses before it and after.
I have done so just now, and find that the idea of the "two brothers" asking for the same thing and receiving it by God's grace to be consistent with the notion of answered prayer.
Quote
I know it's cliche but it's true you really shouldn't take things out of context. There are several verses out of context there and all over this site.
Please explain to us what the proper context is for ripping children from their mother's uterus, smashing babies' head on rocks, raping adolescent girls, and massacring entire tribes.
Quote
I'm assuming you really don't know this. I'm assuming none of you know Greek or Hebrew or have access to it. Here's help http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.cfm (http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.cfm)
Myself? No, but there are those on this site that are, in fact familiar with such things. One has to question the value of a translated book, when the individual reader cannot be certain of the meaning of anything without knowing several other languages and having access to the Biblical texts within those languages, and being skilled enough to accurately interpret them. You might say that is what the Biblical scholars are for, but WHO TRANSLATED THE BIBLE? Biblical scholars. We are relying on their translation. Which version of the Bible is the right one? There are hundreds to choose from.
Quote
Also Jesus used Metaphors too and you should learn some textual criticism
We apply the same textual criticisms to the Bible as we would any other work of fiction, thats why we are atheists
Quote
and Apologetics it would help when talking about the bible.
God shouldn't need apologetics to explain away all of the problems with the Bible. It should be perfect. Christians think that it IS perfect. If so, why the need for apologetics at all??
Quote
I read Atheist authors regularly.
Well at least you read something of value.
Quote
One more thing. from your front page.
Key Point
No matter how many people pray, no matter how often they pray, no matter how sincere they are, no matter how much they believe, no matter how deserving the amputee, what we know is that prayers do not inspire God to regenerate amputated legs. This happens despite what Jesus promises us in Matthew 21:21, John 14:14, Mark 11:24, etc.
How can you possibly know this? I know you BELIEVE this and it sounds like you BELIEVE it's an absolute fact which I didn't think Atheists held. Anyway I'd like to see your scientific studies that you've done on this with all the faithful Christians you've tested it on.
There are scientific studies right? You didn't just put this statement up there because you BELIEVE IT BY FAITH DID YOU?
I don't see why you are protesting this, since you yourself said that God will not heal amputees. YOU would anticipate that no amputees would be healed just as much as we would. Additionally, considering all of the (bogus) stories of faith healing in other medical cases, you would think there would be at least one (even if it was bogus) case of a restored, previously missing limb. If such a thing were to happen it would NOT be overlooked, ESPECIALLY by believers such as yourself.

Quote
I'm not trying to start trouble here. I would just like to have a discussion based on Logic Reason and scientific facts about your conclusions. That is what Atheists are all about right?
Then how about providing us some scientific facts that support the conclusion "The Bible is true and God is real". We've asked the same of every believer who comes here. We have yet to be presented with a single piece of actual evidence to support such a claim.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Historicity on April 10, 2012, 06:32:08 AM
Here is my take. God knew these people were going to be amputated. He knew they were going to lose a limb. If he didn't want them to he wouldn't have allowed them to lose a limb in the first place.
Which means that prayer doesn't do anything because it would require a perfect God to change a perfect decision He has already made.

Quote
Why should God heal amputees anyway? Is there some reason he should?
To perform a miracle that is clearly not spontaneous remission or hysterical blindness or deafness.

Quote
Jesus never did
Nor did he move a mountain.  Nor has any Christian had enough faith to have the telekinetic powers to move a mountain in 2000 years of Christanity.

Quote
BTW on your introduction page Matthew 18:19 is about church discipline and not about prayer, you really should read the verses before it and after. I know it's cliche but it's true you really shouldn't take things out of context.

Here they are:
Quote
18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
That doesn't change anything.

Quote
Also Jesus used Metaphors too and you should learn some textual criticism and Apologetics it would help when talking about the bible.

Most everyone here has.  You are at least disingenuous.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: velkyn on April 10, 2012, 09:04:49 AM
Here is my take. God knew these people were going to be amputated. He knew they were going to lose a limb. If he didn't want them to he wouldn't have allowed them to lose a limb in the first place.
  Cool!  So your god wants people to be in pain, lose their jobs, etc.  Now please explain why.
Quote
Why should God heal amputees anyway? Is there some reason he should? Jesus never did, he healed a man with a withered hand but he didn't produce a full new hand just restored the old one. He healed leprosy and blindness and deafness so I suppose he produced working parts where none were. With the deaf man he even allowed him to understand language and words that he had never heard before. Even if God did this it wouldn't make people give their lives to Him. The 9 Lepers didn't even thank him, the children of Israel complained about the food that fell out of the sky every day, the 5000 that were fed didn't stand by Jesus and all follow him they just wanted him to keep providing food.
Wow, nice excuses there, and reviling what your fellow Christians have claimed.  They claim that this god heals all sorts of things. But it’s pretty convenient that this god heals nothing obvious.  And no your Jesus healed nothing.  There are stories of this but no evidence whatsoever.  One may as well believe that the Hindu gods have healed people or that Allah has.  Same myths, different gods and the same lack of evidence.  I do agree, it’s funny that the Israelites bitched and whined so much but it isn’t so myseriosu when one considered is just a “just-so” story to explain why bad things happen to people.
Quote
He didn't heal Mephibosheth who was Jonathan's son in the old testament from being lame, he didn't heal Paul's thorn in the flesh and Paul had great faith.
Yep, he fails at healing.  He even kills David’s son for David’s sin.  What a good and fair god! &)  Yep, this god fails in healing the farther the stories get from the myths of the old testament.  Isn’t that convenient too!  Since people were questioning more and more, this poor god has to retreat into the gaps and has kept on doing so ever since.
Quote
BTW on your introduction page Matthew 18:19 is about church discipline and not about prayer, you really should read the verses before it and after. I know it's cliche but it's true you really shouldn't take things out of context. There are several verses out of context there and all over this site. I'm assuming you really don't know this. I'm assuming none of you know Greek or Hebrew or have access to it. Here's help http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.cfm (http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.cfm)
ah yes, the common claims that the Christian knows what this god “really” meant and how their interpretation is the only “right” one, aka the magic decoder ring.  Yep, every single theist claims the same thing and has no more evidence than the next that his claims are the only “real” ones.  It’s great fun to watch how this happens and to already be familiar with the bible so I know that the Christian is simply lying in an attempt to excuse his primitive and ignorant god and book.
Quote
Also Jesus used Metaphors too and you should learn some textual criticism and Apologetics it would help when talking about the bible. I read Atheist authors regularly.
oh, that magic decoder ring again.  So is the resurrection a metaphor or not? How do you know?
 
Quote
How can you possibly know this? I know you BELIEVE this and it sounds like you BELIEVE it's an absolute fact which I didn't think Atheists held. Anyway I'd like to see your scientific studies that you've done on this with all the faithful Christians you've tested it on.
How can I believe it (btw, I’m not the author of the site)?  I know that no miracle claimed by a theist of any kind has ever been supported by evidence. Ever.  We have claims of miracles happening but never any actual evidence, no objective observers, no medical records, nothing.  Now if this actually did happen, that the believers in JC did have the magical powers that he promised them, why does no one talk about it?  It’d be a great recruitment tool for new believers.  Now, here’s where many Christians try to excuse the lack of actual miracles done by them by saying that this god only wants faith and if it gave undeniable miracles this would abrogate free will.  However, I’ve read the bible, as a believer and as not, and I know this god had no problem with using miracles for the express purpose to get people to worship it.
Quote
There are scientific studies right? You didn't just put this statement up there because you BELIEVE IT BY FAITH DID YOU?
What “scientific studies” that have supported that prayer will heal amputees?  If you know of any, please give me a link to them or cite the journal they were published in and the authors. 
Quote
I'm not trying to start trouble here. I would just like to have a discussion based on Logic Reason and scientific facts about your conclusions. That is what Atheists are all about right?
  Well, if you actually had some scientific facts that supported your lies, or reason that would be good.  Logic can be useful but one can come to erroneous conclusions by logic if your presuppositions can’t be shown to be true. 
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Hatter23 on April 10, 2012, 09:23:54 AM
Here my take. Ugabuga knew people were going be amputated. He knew were going to lose limb. If he didn't want to he wouldn't allowed them lose a limb in first place.

Why should Ugagabuga heal amputees anyway? Is some reason he should? King Agga never did, he healed man withwithered hand but he didn't produce full new hand just restored old one. He healed leprosy and blindness and deafness so I suppose he produced working part where none were. With deaf man he even allowed him understand language and words he had never heard before. Even if Ugabuga did this it wouldn't make people give live Him. 9 Lepers didn't even thank him, children of Islands complained about  food that fell out of sky every day, the 5000 that fed didn't stand by King Agga and all follow they just wanted him keep providing food.

He didn't heal Mesoth who was Ghan's son in the ancient scrolls from being lame, he didn't heal Kon Ti's thorn in flesh and Kon Ti had great faith.

BTW on your introduction page Ancient Scroll Gigi 18:19 is about Shaman followers discipline and not about prayer, you really should read verses before it and after. I know it cliche but it true you really shouldn't take things out context. Are several verses out context there and all over site. I assuming you really don't know this. I'm assuming none of you know  Tangoan-Santo or Malekula or have access to it. Here help:

www.wikipedia

Also King Agga use Metaphors too and you should learn some scroll criticism and Apologetics it would help when talking about Ancient scrolls. I read Atheist author regularly.


How can I seperate this from your statement?
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Alzael on April 10, 2012, 09:42:14 AM

How can you possibly know this? I know you BELIEVE this and it sounds like you BELIEVE it's an absolute fact which I didn't think Atheists held. Anyway I'd like to see your scientific studies that you've done on this with all the faithful Christians you've tested it on.

There are no scientific studies. That's how we can say that as a fact. There is no evidence at all that this has ever happened. If you have some to produce, feel free to do so for it to be evaluated.

There are scientific studies right? You didn't just put this statement up there because you BELIEVE IT BY FAITH DID YOU?

No, the claim that it happens is disbelieved because there is no evidence to support it.

By the way, if you're trying something as old, tired, and ludicrous as the "You have faith too" card; you clearly have not read very many atheist books like you claim. Otherwise you would know better than to think this would be met with anything other than laughter.

Also Jesus used Metaphors too and you should learn some textual criticism and Apologetics it would help when talking about the bible. I read Atheist authors regularly.

Then how do you tell the metaphors from the things that were meant literally? Unless you have some reliable way to tell the difference then anything you say is just speculation on your part.

For example a person is supposed to be capable of moving mountains through prayer. Since we are talking about an all-powerful being, there's no reason to think this wasn't meant to be serious. Of course we all know that it doesn't work in reality, however that could simply be becayse the god doesn't actually exist in the first place and the claim was made up.

As an interesting sidenote, every Christian I've ever met so far who tries to go the "textual criticism" route has quickly demonstrated they don't even really understand what this means or how to do it. Instead they used textual criticism as a euphemism for "twist the words around until it says what I want it to say". It will be fascinating to see if you disappoint as well.

I would just like to have a discussion based on Logic Reason and scientific facts about your conclusions. That is what Atheists are all about right?

Actually atheists are all about not believing in a god. That's all that atheism means. However in regards to this site, yes we are all about Logic, Reason, and Facts. As soon as you're ready to start using some we'll be more than happy to have a go at engaging with you.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Traveler on April 10, 2012, 09:53:53 AM
Here is my take. God knew these people were going to be amputated. He knew they were going to lose a limb. If he didn't want them to he wouldn't have allowed them to lose a limb in the first place...

Here's all I need to know (bold mine). If your god exists he's a heartless bully.

Of course there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever for his existence, so its a moot point.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Grimm on April 10, 2012, 10:27:09 AM
Here is my take. God knew these people were going to be amputated. He knew they were going to lose a limb. If he didn't want them to he wouldn't have allowed them to lose a limb in the first place.

I admit to being intrigued - this idea of a certain amount of godly perfection is a direction most theists don't go.  The issue with it, of course, is free will - are you, perchance, a Calvinist?

You see, if the above is true, then - by extension - the idea has a fundamental problem.  You can extrapolate it fairly easily to say that what God intends is what exists - I am an atheist, in this construct, because God knew I would be an atheist and, in fact, made certain I would become one.

This gets to be fairly ugly fairly quickly - John Calvin was one of the first to point it out:  if predestination exists and hell exists, then God is essentially responsible for creations that a) are destined not to worship him and b) will be punished eternally for something outside of their control.  Just as killing the firstborn of Egypt wasn't actually a result of the Pharoah being the sort of idiot that willfully ignores miracles, but was, rather, a function of the fact that God insisted until he got his bloodbath... the entire existence of every nonbeliever is mandated by God unto destruction.

This turns God into the sort of deity that is akin to the young child pulling the wings off of flies. 

Does that make sense?  If everything is 'part of god's plan', then so is my eventual eternal torture and damnation.  Thus, God is evil.


Quote
Why should God heal amputees anyway? Is there some reason he should?

Yes, actually.  It hinges (as so much does) on Matthew and Mark:

Matthew 7:7-8:    7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. "

Mark 11:23-25: "23 “Truly[a] I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them. 24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. 25 And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.” "

(NIV)

It's actually quite simple:  God says that he will give you all that you pray for, if you have even the smallest iota of faith - up to and including grand things like mountains moving.  However, when what is asked for is absolutely unambiguous - like an amputee healing, something impossible to happen by simple chance, God never comes through.  Thus the point of the question - since God says unambiguously that prayer is this powerful, how is it that only ambiguous miracles occur?

Quote
... snip - stuff about Jesus and what he did and didn't do:

However, all of these things were absolutely unambiguous.  No such modern miracles take place, despite assurances that followers of this Christ will be able to do so - Mark 16:15-19 (though it is apocryphal):  "15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

Your faith says that if you have even the smallest shred of faith that you can do these things unambiguously.  If you have not, then you do not believe.

Quote
BTW on your introduction page Matthew 18:19 is about church discipline and not about prayer, you really should read the verses before it and after. I know it's cliche but it's true you really shouldn't take things out of context. There are several verses out of context there and all over this site. I'm assuming you really don't know this. I'm assuming none of you know Greek or Hebrew or have access to it. Here's help http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.cfm (http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.cfm)

... yes, we know.   The verses are fun and have their own problems (e.g., Jesus ate with Tax Collectors, yet v.17 tells you to 'treat them as you would a tax collector'.  Entertaining, at the very least. :) ), however, v.19 and 20 are another exhortation for prayer:   " 19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” The point is, of course, that in dealing with the church that whatever you ask God to do to the apostate, he will do.

Given that several church congregations have prayed for my death over the years, I'm rather glad this promise is as false as any other.


Quote
Also Jesus used Metaphors too and you should learn some textual criticism and Apologetics it would help when talking about the bible. I read Atheist authors regularly.

Yes he did (or he was attributed to have done so).  However, you cannot simply look at a passage and declare it 'metaphor'.  Take, for instance, the classic passage "this is my body which is given for you; whenever you eat it, do this in rememberence of me."   You and I would both immediately go "metaphor".  The Catholic church, on the other hand, believes this to be literal truth; in their faith, when a priest blesses the Eucharist, it Transubstantiates into the actual body and blood of Jesus. 

Apparently, he was made out of tasteless crackers and grapes - but the point is still there:  unless you have specific cause to declare something metaphorical (like a parable - those are good) there is a Christian sect out there somewhere that disagrees with your assessment.

Another example?  A few miles from my house are people that pass rattlesnakes around during the church service - see the passage above.  I think they're absolutely crazy, but they view it is as a requirement and proof of their faith.


Quote
One more thing. from your front page.
Quote
Key Point
No matter how many people pray, no matter how often they pray, no matter how sincere they are, no matter how much they believe, no matter how deserving the amputee, what we know is that prayers do not inspire God to regenerate amputated legs. This happens despite what Jesus promises us in Matthew 21:21, John 14:14, Mark 11:24, etc.
How can you possibly know this? I know you BELIEVE this and it sounds like you BELIEVE it's an absolute fact which I didn't think Atheists held. Anyway I'd like to see your scientific studies that you've done on this with all the faithful Christians you've tested it on.
There are scientific studies right? You didn't just put this statement up there because you BELIEVE IT BY FAITH DID YOU?

*sigh*  You have absolutely no concept what 'belief' and 'faith' really are - and this is oddly sad, to me.

When you let go of a rock and it falls, did you 'believe' that it would fall in the same way you 'believe' in God?  It is unlikely - every single time you have ever dropped a rock, it has fallen.  Every single time anyone has ever dropped a rock here on Earth.. it has fallen.  It falls in the same way and at the same accelleration, it has calculatable air resistance.  We can predict what will happen to that rock every time you let it go before you do, to several decimal places of certainty.  In fact, the "only a Theory" of Gravity is, essentially, a fact.

Gravity is.  You don't go around trying to fly as you understand how useless flapping your arms can be.

Is that "belief"?  Sure! Yes.  I believe that, given the preponderance of evidence in the world around me, Gravity exists.  Of course, it doesn't matter if I do or not - things will still fall.

In the entire applicable history of humanity, in every medical case recorded to this point with any sort of reliability, no amputee has ever been healed.  In fact, dramatic miracle healings of all stripes have gotten rarer and rarer as medical science progresses and we learn more about the body, healing, and medicine.  It isn't much of a stretch to say that, a) given that the human body does not have regenerative properties that extend to amputations and b) no recorded case of amputations being healed has ever been verified, despite the larger number of safer amputations these days and better reporting from hospitals, that God doesn't heal amputees.

If God did, at some point in the distant past?  It has no bearing on whether God does now.

Given the promises in your bible, if God existed as written we should see at least the occasional healing, don't you think?  Shouldn't someone, somewhere, praying for someone without a limb, have the faith of a mustard seed that would enable them to perform miracles in the name of God?

Quote
I'm not trying to start trouble here. I would just like to have a discussion based on Logic Reason and scientific facts about your conclusions. That is what Atheists are all about right?

Most of us, yes.  However, you have to begin a little differently - if I may be so bold as to offer a starting point:

- Rather than assuming your bible is true, can you instead offer evidence that validates any of its claims?  My basis for reality doesn't include your holy book.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: velkyn on April 10, 2012, 10:28:22 AM
co is rather like his god.  he's one of those Christians who vanishes when convenient (like here in this thread: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,19369.msg428309.html#msg428309 ) and returns to make the same baseless claims.  I wonder if he thought he prayed enough for his nonsense to be accepted. 
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Aaron123 on April 10, 2012, 11:08:55 AM
Here is my take. God knew these people were going to be amputated. He knew they were going to lose a limb. If he didn't want them to he wouldn't have allowed them to lose a limb in the first place.

What is the difference between this, and a scenario where god does not exists?


Quote
He healed leprosy and blindness and deafness so I suppose he produced working parts where none were.


Did god know or want those people to be blind/deaf/etc?  If so, why give them special treatment, but not the amputee?


Quote
Even if God did this it wouldn't make people give their lives to Him. The 9 Lepers didn't even thank him, the children of Israel complained about the food that fell out of the sky every day, the 5000 that were fed didn't stand by Jesus and all follow him they just wanted him to keep providing food.


God is such a selfish prick.  He won't do anything because they won't bow down to him?  Clearly, god needs to learn that a good deed is its own reward.


Quote
How can you possibly know this? I know you BELIEVE this and it sounds like you BELIEVE it's an absolute fact which I didn't think Atheists held. Anyway I'd like to see your scientific studies that you've done on this with all the faithful Christians you've tested it on.
There are scientific studies right? You didn't just put this statement up there because you BELIEVE IT BY FAITH DID YOU?

Ah, the "reverse/unintended faith" babble.  The definitive proof that prayer doesn't work.

If prayer did work, you wouldn't make this argument.  You would just make a prayer, and have it demostrate itself before us.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 10, 2012, 12:33:53 PM

Why would God intervene in any of them?
Quote
Why indeed? God doesn't have to intervene does he? Even if he never answered one prayer it still wouldn't prove he didn't exist. It doesn't logically follow.

BTW on your introduction page Matthew 18:19 is about church discipline
Actually it's about how to handle a brother who has sinned against you. I have done so just now, and find that the idea of the "two brothers" asking for the same thing and receiving it by God's grace to be consistent with the notion of answered prayer.
 
Quote
It's what's used in church as church discipline,
Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
I'm not going to argue this point any further, it's not about prayer and I suppose you know that.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Dante on April 10, 2012, 12:40:57 PM
Why indeed? God doesn't have to intervene does he? Even if he never answered one prayer it still wouldn't prove he didn't exist. It doesn't logically follow.

You're right, it doesn't prove he doesn't exist. It does however, prove that the Bible is inaccurate, at best. So why do you believe what it says about everything else?
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 10, 2012, 12:42:49 PM
One more thing. from your front page.
Key Point
Quote
No matter how many people pray, no matter how often they pray, no matter how sincere they are, no matter how much they believe, no matter how deserving the amputee, what we know is that prayers do not inspire God to regenerate amputated legs. This happens despite what Jesus promises us in Matthew 21:21, John 14:14, Mark 11:24, etc.
How can you possibly know this? I know you BELIEVE this and it sounds like you BELIEVE it's an absolute fact which I didn't think Atheists held. Anyway I'd like to see your scientific studies that you've done on this with all the faithful Christians you've tested it on.
There are scientific studies right? You didn't just put this statement up there because you BELIEVE IT BY FAITH DID YOU?

I don't see why you are protesting this, since you yourself said that God will not heal amputees. YOU would anticipate that no amputees would be healed just as much as we would. Additionally, considering all of the (bogus) stories of faith healing in other medical cases, you would think there would be at least one (even if it was bogus) case of a restored, previously missing limb. If such a thing were to happen it would NOT be overlooked, ESPECIALLY by believers such as yourself.
Quote
I didn't say God will not heal amputees? I said why should he? You assume the medical cases are bogus as you assume that No matter how many people pray, no matter how often they pray, no matter how sincere they are, no matter how much they believe, God will not answer their prayer and yet you have no real proof of that. All you have is BELIEF.
Atheists claim to be grounded in reason and logic but they mostly are emotional and they have faith in their convictions and don't follow reason. Just because God doesn't heal amputees "as far as you and I know" doesn't mean he can't or won't or hasn't" you don't have ultimate knowledge. If he did heal one you would explain it away as you have the other healings.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Alzael on April 10, 2012, 12:46:23 PM
Co.Inkadink please get your quoting straight at the very least.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Dante on April 10, 2012, 12:49:02 PM
I didn't say God will not heal amputees? I said why should he? You assume the medical cases are bogus as you assume that No matter how many people pray, no matter how often they pray, no matter how sincere they are, no matter how much they believe, God will not answer their prayer and yet you have no real proof of that. All you have is BELIEF.

Au contraire, we have the lack of belief that your god heals via miracles. The reason we lack belief, is because you lack evidence of your claims.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Hatter23 on April 10, 2012, 12:49:48 PM
How can you possibly know this? I know you BELIEVE this and it sounds like you BELIEVE it's an absolute fact which I didn't think Atheists held. Anyway I'd like to see your scientific studies that you've done on this with all the faithful Christians you've tested it on.
There are scientific studies right? You didn't just put this statement up there because you BELIEVE IT BY FAITH DID YOU?

I do think there are absolute facts. I just beleive we must use evidence to even approximate them in our brains.

But on FAITH

Yes it is a kind of faith. It is that same kind of faith that I have that my shoes do not fly around my room when I am asleep and no recording devices are present. I'm sure you share that same faith, the faith of NoFlyingShoeswhlesleeping, how's that faith working out for you? Does it require a deep conviction of resolute solemnity, or do you have that faith because the proposition that your shoes fly around when you are asleep is in contradiction to everything observable about reality?

Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: kaziglu bey on April 10, 2012, 12:50:21 PM
Why indeed? God doesn't have to intervene does he? Even if he never answered one prayer it still wouldn't prove he didn't exist. It doesn't logically follow.
It sure would if he promises to answers prayers. Even if Matthew 18:19 isn't about prayer, there are plenty of other places where it is promised that prayers will be answered. Don't pretend like there's not. And your response does not answer this question of mine:
Quote from: The Lord Kaz Almighty
But why even do that, if God had wanted it to be withered in the first place? The "logic" that you claim as if it were self evident regarding amputees should be equally applicable to any illness, injury, or birth defect. If it is such an obvious explanation for amputees, then it is for all other conditions as well. Why would God intervene in any of them?
Come on, don't just skip the main points and think that I won't notice.

 
Quote
It's what's used in church as church discipline,
Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
I'm not going to argue this point any further, it's not about prayer and I suppose you know that.
No, it's saying that if a disagreement can't be solved between two individuals, or with the addition of a few others witnessing to help in determining the case, then it is to be taken to the church as yet another authority to arbitrate the dispute. Also, you are forgetting: Matthew 18:20 For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.  Don't forget ALL of the context here.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: velkyn on April 10, 2012, 12:52:40 PM
so, coink, we have a god that you know say still exists even though it breaks its promise to answer prayers quickly and positively.  Well, that's par for the course, Christians who make up their own god so they can excuse its failures.   You're more then welcome to claim that this god of yours doesn't have to answer prayers or claim that the bible is wrong in what it says about *your* god. 

I'm waiting for Christians if they can actually do the things that the bible claism they can to volunteer to do so.  There's a local veterans hospital with amputees, lost eyes, lost hearing, cancers from all sorts of things, so where are the healings that any humane and honorable person would want to heal if they could?  Why do Christians fail so badly?  Are they not really followers of Jesus Christ and that's why they have no miracle abilities?  Is it that their god simply doesn't exist?  It seems that you are like a lot of Christians full of excuses and demands but having no evidence that your claism are true. 

One does not need to test every Christian to see if he/she is a real Christian and then to see if they can perform prayers to heal someone of something obvious.  One just needs to look aroudn at the hospitals full of people, including Christians who evidently can't even rely on prayers for healing themselves.  If prayers worked, then no Christians would be in cancer wards, rehablitiation for amputations, etc.   
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 10, 2012, 12:55:03 PM
Why indeed? God doesn't have to intervene does he? Even if he never answered one prayer it still wouldn't prove he didn't exist. It doesn't logically follow.

You're right, it doesn't prove he doesn't exist. It does however, prove that the Bible is inaccurate, at best. So why do you believe what it says about everything else?
Yes it would prove the Bible was innacurate but God has answered prayer. Here's some good info about the Bible Apologetics and Christianity.
http://crossexamined.org/index.asp (http://crossexamined.org/index.asp)
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7975 (http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7975)
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/ (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/)Some of the questions about morality the historicity of the Bible and alot f the other questins raised in this thread are answered there.

I read Atheist authors regularly maybe you can check out these sites and look at it from another perspective.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Hatter23 on April 10, 2012, 12:57:22 PM
Yes it would prove the Bible was innacurate but God has answered prayer. Here's some good info about the Bible Apologetics and Christianity.
http://crossexamined.org/index.asp (http://crossexamined.org/index.asp)
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7975 (http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7975)
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/ (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/)Some of the questions about morality the historicity of the Bible and alot f the other questins raised in this thread are answered there.

I read Atheist authors regularly maybe you can check out these sites and look at it from another perspective.

Apologetics is the exercise of creating elaborite explanations of why it just appears the the Emperor has no clothes.



Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: velkyn on April 10, 2012, 01:02:59 PM
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/ (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/)Some of the questions about morality the historicity of the Bible and alot f the other questins raised in this thread are answered there.

love the assumption we haven't read such nonsense as those links, especially WLC's nonsense, before.  I have and many here have.  Why don't you pull out one of the arguments you find most compelling rather than just spewing links?  I'd be happy to address it for you.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 10, 2012, 01:03:50 PM
Come on, don't just skip the main points and think that I won't notice.
But why even do that, if God had wanted it to be withered in the first place? The "logic" that you claim as if it were self evident regarding amputees should be equally applicable to any illness, injury, or birth defect. If it is such an obvious explanation for amputees, then it is for all other conditions as well. Why would God intervene in any of them?
OK I wasn't trying to trick you. My answer is why indeed? Why didn't God heal Paul or Mephibosheth? I don't know. It doesn't matter, he does heal some and not others. God saves some and not others as well. I don't know why, I don't know why he doesn't save everyone but I've met some Atheists who say they wouldn't become Christians even if they knew Christianity is true.

I've offered evidence on other sites about the Bible it's veracity and other facts about the christian faith and have had them shot down.
I'll try again here in the future. I look forward to some discussions. It doesn't have to be a battle.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Dante on April 10, 2012, 01:05:47 PM
Yes it would prove the Bible was innacurate

Thank you for that concession, but you didn't answer the question; why do you believe in any of it (the Bible)?

Quote
but God has answered prayer.

We hear this alot, but seriously, can you see our point of view? All answered prayer is ambiguous to an outsider. Sure, if god answers your prayer, you can make the connection, but we, from the outside, simply cannot without unambiguous evidence. Surely, you can imagine why this would be the case, can't you?


 
Quote
Here's some good info about the Bible Apologetics and Christianity.
http://crossexamined.org/index.asp (http://crossexamined.org/index.asp)
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7975 (http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7975)
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/ (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/)Some of the questions about morality the historicity of the Bible and alot f the other questins raised in this thread are answered there.

I read Atheist authors regularly maybe you can check out these sites and look at it from another perspective.

Thanks. I'll peruse them this evening.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: sun_king on April 10, 2012, 01:12:12 PM
I've offered evidence on other sites about the Bible it's veracity and other facts about the christian faith and have had them shot down.

What does this mean? You lost those battles?
Veracity of the Bible ??? Now that's what I call an oxymoron!
Quote
I'll try again here in the future.
Good Luck.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 10, 2012, 01:13:34 PM
I'm waiting for Christians if they can actually do the things that the bible claism they can to volunteer to do so.  There's a local veterans hospital with amputees, lost eyes, lost hearing, cancers from all sorts of things, so where are the healings that any humane and honorable person would want to heal if they could?  Why do Christians fail so badly?  Are they not really followers of Jesus Christ and that's why they have no miracle abilities?  Is it that their god simply doesn't exist?  It seems that you are like a lot of Christians full of excuses and demands but having no evidence that your claim are true. 

One does not need to test every Christian to see if he/she is a real Christian and then to see if they can perform prayers to heal someone of something obvious.  One just needs to look around at the hospitals full of people, including Christians who evidently can't even rely on prayers for healing themselves.  If prayers worked, then no Christians would be in cancer wards, rehabilitation for amputations, etc.
I wouldn't say Christians fail, I would say they haven't tried to do those things. Maybe Christians don't have enough faith to believe that God could heal an amputation, maybe they've never thought about it before, I know I've never thought about it before I heard about this site.
The reason I came here is because this is such a unique argument.

I have trouble when Atheists use words like Honorable and Humane though, in a world of blind chance of cause and effect where morals are decided by society and culture, where there is no meaning or point to life or anything it strikes me odd that you use such words to describe things.

These things that you describe they are just things that happen if you are an Atheist there is no sort of moral value to them.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 10, 2012, 01:15:54 PM
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/ (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/)Some of the questions about morality the historicity of the Bible and alot f the other questins raised in this thread are answered there.

love the assumption we haven't read such nonsense as those links, especially WLC's nonsense, before.  I have and many here have.  Why don't you pull out one of the arguments you find most compelling rather than just spewing links?  I'd be happy to address it for you.
Yes William Lane Craig, he's the one that Richard Dawkins will not debate. You ought to watch some of his debates where he debates the points and the Atheist just keeps spewing God is evil Christianity is bad for 2 hours.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Nick on April 10, 2012, 01:19:49 PM
You don't need fear of a sky daddy or a hell to be a moral person.  Why do Christians always think that?  I'm a good person because I want to be.  It's a part of me.  Call it human nature.  Lots of crime/murder is committed by your Christians.  You are right about society and morals.  It is something we brought with us from the caves to help society build and flourish.  I do a lot of volunteer work to help others.  Doing it is its own reward.  Life is just that.  The purpose (if you must have one) is to live it...each day of it...because that is all you have.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 10, 2012, 01:20:14 PM
I've offered evidence on other sites about the Bible it's veracity and other facts about the christian faith and have had them shot down.
What does this mean? You lost those battles?
Well in a world of meaninglessness I didn't lose anything. But Atheists do tend to just gloss over facts when they don't suit them. I could give you links to those debates but I'm sure you'd agree with them. I'll probably cut and paste some of those arguments from those debates in the future since it took years to refine some of them. I'll probably get the same response but the bottom line is I love people and I want them to know the truth. I am a glutton for punishment.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Dante on April 10, 2012, 01:21:59 PM

I have trouble when Atheists use words like Honorable and Humane though, in a world of blind chance of cause and effect where morals are decided by society and culture, where there is no meaning or point to life or anything it strikes me odd that you use such words to describe things.

These things that you describe they are just things that happen if you are an Atheist there is no sort of moral value to them.

That's a very pessimistic viewpoint, hombre.

Think about this: Is the only reason you have morals is because of your fear of god's punishment? Would you, in fact, be a rapist, murderer, or worse if you didn't believe? I contend that you would not. You would be no more immoral whether you believed in hell, or not.

And thanks for working on your quoting! It makes it so much easier to comprehend.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: sun_king on April 10, 2012, 01:23:46 PM
No cut and paste CoInk. Links should be fine, one or two at a time please.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Aaron123 on April 10, 2012, 01:24:10 PM
I wouldn't say Christians fail, I would say they haven't tried to do those things. Maybe Christians don't have enough faith to believe that God could heal an amputation, maybe they've never thought about it before, I know I've never thought about it before I heard about this site.

Again; what is the difference between this, and a god that does not exist?  Or at least a god that does not answer prayers?


Quote
I have trouble when Atheists use words like Honorable and Humane though, in a world of blind chance of cause and effect where morals are decided by society and culture, where there is no meaning or point to life or anything it strikes me odd that you use such words to describe things.

These things that you describe they are just things that happen if you are an Atheist there is no sort of moral value to them.

Humans are the ones that assign meaning and "point" to life.  Both our own and others.  That's the way it always has been.  The only reason why a "god" is assigned responsibility for those things is to give them "weight".
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 10, 2012, 01:24:46 PM
You don't need fear of a sky daddy or a hell to be a moral person.
I don't believe you do. I believe you need God to ground your morality but Atheists are very moral people on average. But if morals are decided by society and culture then they aren't objective, you can't really call anything another society or culture does wrong if they all support it within that system.
If God exists though there are some things that are actually wrong no matter what the public consensus is.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: kaziglu bey on April 10, 2012, 01:26:29 PM
I didn't say God will not heal amputees? I said why should he?
I'll admit it, I was wrong. You ever did say that God WON'T Heal amputees. You've just been making excuses as to why he DOESN'T heal amputees, all while ignoring the "Why should he do it?" question in regards to why God would heal OTHER medical conditions, but not amputees, especially since you seen to think that disfiguring and disabling injuries and illnesses are caused by God (or else why else would He let it happen?). If you are going to attempt to use this as an excuse as to why God won't heal amputees, you also have to explain why it would not be applicable to all other healing miracle situations.  You assume the medical cases are bogus[/quote]Well seeing as even you can not demonstrate WHY God should intervene in ANY medical case,  of course I will think they are bogus. They are also bogus because they are ambiguous. That is why the lack of healed amputees stand out, because a spontaneously regenerated limb would be entirely not ambiguous, and could really only be attributed to a deity. People finding their car keys with help from God is not impressive to me either. If you really want me to believe that someone can be so dumb, and DESIGNED by God so poorly as to be entirely unable to do a mundane thing such as locate their keys without divine intervention, then I really don't know how they are ever able to accomplish anything at all. Do they need divine intervention to wipe their ass too? 
Quote
as you assume that No matter how many people pray, no matter how often they pray, no matter how sincere they are, no matter how much they believe, God will not answer their prayer and yet you have no real proof of that. All you have is BELIEF.
We have a complete absence of evidence suggesting that such a thing is true. Therefore, we rightly say "I have no reason at all to believe that such a thing is true." If there was plenty of evidence to suggest that prayer DOES work that way, and we still said otherwise, THEN we would be going on faith, because we would hold a belief in spite of the actual evidence. However, seeing as the evidence for the efficacy of prayer does not exist, it takes NO faith to hold a position that matches the best available evidence, even if that evidence is none. To assume something based on no evidence takes faith, which is WHAT YOU ARE DOING, NOT US!

Quote
Atheists claim
If what follows these two words is anything other than "There is no God" then it is, by definition, not applicable to atheists.
Quote
to be grounded in reason and logic but they
No, atheists claim there is no God.
Quote
mostly are emotional and they have faith in their convictions and don't follow reason.
You should really look up the definitions of words, as well as their contextual meaning, before attempting to construct a sentence.
Quote
Just because God doesn't heal amputees "as far as you and I know" doesn't mean he can't or won't or hasn't" you don't have ultimate knowledge. If he did heal one you would explain it away as you have the other healings.
Since neither the healed amputee nor any of the other "healings" have ever actually occurred, this is a pretty pointless question. If it had actually occurred, I wouldn't feel the need to explain it away at all. You are the one attempting to explain why God can, and could, but perhaps not should, if he would, heal amputees. This is your word salad, after all.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Aaron123 on April 10, 2012, 01:26:51 PM
If God exists though there are some things that are actually wrong no matter what the public consensus is.

What is an example of something that is "actually wrong no matter what"?
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Nick on April 10, 2012, 01:28:14 PM
And that is the problem.  What right do you have to dictate to another culture.  MIssionaires did that in the New World.  Did not work out so well for the natives.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: kaziglu bey on April 10, 2012, 01:29:50 PM
What is an example of something that is "actually wrong no matter what"?

I'm guessing he will say stuff like murder and rape. You know, the stuff God does all of the time in the Bible, in spite of the fact that if he exists, those things are wrong no matter what. Of Course.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Nick on April 10, 2012, 01:32:31 PM
I'm guessing which end of the egg to open up.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Dante on April 10, 2012, 01:33:55 PM
I don't believe you do. I believe you need God to ground your morality but Atheists are very moral people on average.

Well, thanks for that!

Quote
But if morals are decided by society and culture then they aren't objective, you can't really call anything another society or culture does wrong if they all support it within that system.

They are subjective, and they always will be subjective. So, we can use our own subjectivity to call another society wrong using our morals.

But, I see where you're coming from. Unfortunately, there a certain theocratic societies in the Mid-East that believe that they, too, operate on objective morality, and my guess is that they'd find you quite immoral. Unless, of course, you follow ALL the OT laws.

Quote
If God exists though there are some things that are actually wrong no matter what the public consensus is.

That's a pretty big "IF".
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: velkyn on April 10, 2012, 01:36:34 PM
I wouldn't say Christians fail, I would say they haven't tried to do those things. Maybe Christians don't have enough faith to believe that God could heal an amputation, maybe they've never thought about it before, I know I've never thought about it before I heard about this site.
ROFL.  Sure, Coink, Christians have never tried to pray for a amputation to be healed.  It’s sad that this is the best you have.  Now that you’ve thought of it, why do you fail or why do you refuse to heal someone? 
Quote
The reason I came here is because this is such a unique argument.
I have trouble when Atheists use words like Honorable and Humane though, in a world of blind chance of cause and effect where morals are decided by society and culture, where there is no meaning or point to life or anything it strikes me odd that you use such words to describe things.
  Poor thing, you have trouble when someone who doesn’t’ agree with you has no problem being honorable and humane.  And the reason you have trouble is that you lie and try to imagine that all atheists are nihilists.  Well, lying to yourself does cause problems.  There is plenty of meaning and “point” to life.  I have love, happiness.  I’m sorry you don’t or think those things are worth anything or that you don’t have them. 
Quote
These things that you describe they are just things that happen if you are an Atheist there is no sort of moral value to them.
There’s plenty of moral value to them, just not moral value assigned by some imaginary bogeyman.
Quote
Yes William Lane Craig, he's the one that Richard Dawkins will not debate. You ought to watch some of his debates where he debates the points and the Atheist just keeps spewing God is evil Christianity is bad for 2 hours.
  Yep, and do you know why Dawkins won’t debate him?  It’s not because Dawkins hasn’t already answered his lies, it is because WLC is a deceitful bastard on stage.  If WLC’s arguments were so good, you’d think he’d reply to Dawkins in writing.  But he can’t.  I do like to see you keep lying, coink, wiwthyour claim that “atheists gloss over facts” and of course having no evidence of such a thing.   I’ve seen those debates and I know you are lying.  That’s unfortunate for you and really makes me wonder about a Christian who tells such inept lies at the cost of his supposed soul.     

You claim you “love” people but I dont’ see that at all.  I see a person willing to lie to me in order to try to take away my ability to make an informed decision. You don’t love people at all, you want to be validated and acknowledged as “right”.  Selfish little thing.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Grimm on April 10, 2012, 01:41:38 PM
One more thing. from your front page.
Key Point
Quote
No matter how many people pray, no matter how often they pray, no matter how sincere they are, no matter how much they believe, no matter how deserving the amputee, what we know is that prayers do not inspire God to regenerate amputated legs. This happens despite what Jesus promises us in Matthew 21:21, John 14:14, Mark 11:24, etc.
How can you possibly know this? I know you BELIEVE this and it sounds like you BELIEVE it's an absolute fact which I didn't think Atheists held. Anyway I'd like to see your scientific studies that you've done on this with all the faithful Christians you've tested it on.
There are scientific studies right? You didn't just put this statement up there because you BELIEVE IT BY FAITH DID YOU?

LadyAthiest did a great rundown on all the studies she had to date in This Blog Post (http://ladyatheist.blogspot.com/2011/01/prayer-doesnt-work-really-it-doesnt.html).  I invite you to read all of them - there are six studies listed from pubmed as of January 2011.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 10, 2012, 01:47:10 PM

I have trouble when Atheists use words like Honorable and Humane though, in a world of blind chance of cause and effect where morals are decided by society and culture, where there is no meaning or point to life or anything it strikes me odd that you use such words to describe things.

These things that you describe they are just things that happen if you are an Atheist there is no sort of moral value to them.

That's a very pessimistic viewpoint, hombre.

Think about this: Is the only reason you have morals is because of your fear of god's punishment? Would you, in fact, be a rapist, murderer, or worse if you didn't believe? I contend that you would not. You would be no more immoral whether you believed in hell, or not.

And thanks for working on your quoting! It makes it so much easier to comprehend.
I'm very pessimistic it's true. I try to be encouraging and optimistic most of the time but it's difficult. I don't fear God's punishment, I don't have to. I serve God out of loving obedience, I do fear Him as in reverence.
I wouldn't be a rapist, murderer, or worse if I didn't believe but I could do a lot of things I don't do now if I didn't believe. I was an unbeliever til I was 22 so I did quite a bit.
For one thing I could lie and not worry about it, or if I talked about people behind their backs it wouldn't be wrong. I could feel superior to other people but according to the Bible I am no better than anyone. I follow the teachings of the Bible and they work and ring true. I follow Jesus because I believe Christianity makes sense and is true. I don't hardly think about Hell unless I'm witnessing and even then I never tell anyone straight out YOU'RE GOING TO HELL! That's not the way to witness. Jesus asked questions and let the Holy Spirit do the work of conviction.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Graybeard on April 10, 2012, 01:48:49 PM
Here is my take. God knew these people were going to be amputated. He knew they were going to lose a limb. If he didn't want them to he wouldn't have allowed them to lose a limb in the first place.
You are quite right,
see, the Bible is clear about God - Exodus 4:11 And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?

Quote
Why should God heal amputees anyway? Is there some reason he should?
Well, yes, there is. If all is possible with god, why draw a line?

I really do not see why God/Jesus cured the blind: God hates both the lame and the blind:

2Sa:5:8: And David said on that day, Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind, that are hated of David's soul, he shall be chief and captain.  Wherefore they said, The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.

So why cure the blind and not the lame?

A thing that always bothered me is, "Why didn't God/Jesus ever bother with teeth? Did everyone have a good dentist?"

And why didn't he simply give us glasses? What about the shortsighted? Did he not care for them? And what happened to those with smallpox?

And come to that, why did God make cripples? Why did he make viruses? Why did he give us teeth that go bad?

He's a bit of a useless god if you ask me, have you tried any other gods?
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Nick on April 10, 2012, 01:50:19 PM
Sounds to me like you are using religion as a crutch in order to keep yourself in check. 

I was going to ask but I think you just answered my question.  What do you hope to accomplish here.  I guess you want to "witness" to us poor lost souls.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Dante on April 10, 2012, 02:00:27 PM
For one thing I could lie and not worry about it, or if I talked about people behind their backs it wouldn't be wrong. I could feel superior to other people but according to the Bible I am no better than anyone.

Sure, you could do those things, but would you? I know I don't, or at least not maliciously.

Quote
I follow the teachings of the Bible and they work and ring true. I follow Jesus because I believe Christianity makes sense and is true.

Which parts work? Which parts ring true, and which part is true? Surely, not the part we already discussed and agreed as being incorrect.

Quote
I don't hardly think about Hell unless I'm witnessing and even then I never tell anyone straight out YOU'RE GOING TO HELL! That's not the way to witness.

You think? LOL  ;D

But you do think we're all going to hell. Perhaps I missed it, but what's your version of hell? Forgive my ignorance, but on another thread, just today, I was told by a Christian believer that there is no hell. So color me confused.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 10, 2012, 02:00:59 PM

Quote
The reason I came here is because this is such a unique argument.
I have trouble when Atheists use words like Honorable and Humane though, in a world of blind chance of cause and effect where morals are decided by society and culture, where there is no meaning or point to life or anything it strikes me odd that you use such words to describe things.

  Poor thing, you have trouble when someone who doesn’t’ agree with you has no problem being honorable and humane.  And the reason you have trouble is that you lie and try to imagine that all atheists are nihilists.  Well, lying to yourself does cause problems.  There is plenty of meaning and “point” to life.  I have love, happiness.  I’m sorry you don’t or think those things are worth anything or that you don’t have them. 
How do you know what Imagine Professor X?
No I have problems when Atheists USE WORDS like Honorable and Humane.
I just think from the Atheist point of view things like love and meaning are just social constructs, they don't really exist do they? We are all just animals determined to do what we do by chance. Love is a metaphysical thing that doesn't exist in the physical world.
Most Atheists I've met and excuse me if you are not in this camp believe that the physical world is all there is.

But as I said before Atheists are moral folk on average.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Nick on April 10, 2012, 02:04:53 PM
The physical world is all there is.  That's life.

Since you like to pray and witness why don't you pick one of us and pray real hard that we see the light.  How long do you think it will take?  days, weeks, months?  This might be a sliver of the proof we are asking for and you can champion your God for answering prayer.

Should be easier than healing an amputee.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Graybeard on April 10, 2012, 02:08:34 PM
I just think from the Atheist point of view things like love and meaning are just social constructs, they don't really exist do they?
They exist as concepts. Why should you think they might not?
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Grimm on April 10, 2012, 02:18:08 PM
You don't need fear of a sky daddy or a hell to be a moral person.
I don't believe you do. I believe you need God to ground your morality but Atheists are very moral people on average. But if morals are decided by society and culture then they aren't objective, you can't really call anything another society or culture does wrong if they all support it within that system.
If God exists though there are some things that are actually wrong no matter what the public consensus is.

This is an interesting thought - that there's a certain baseline for human action that comes "through God".  What makes it so interesting is that it has within it a very testable hypothesis, to wit:  "Since morality comes from God, Godly people should be the most moral."  This makes sense, doesn't it?  After all, those most in tune with the Divine would be those who most fully expressed it in their lives.

There are several imperfect censuses (censi?) that place the prison population of the US as highly religious - that would seem to be enough to refute that hypothesis, but the studies are inherently flawed as prisoners will often say whatever will give them a perceived easier time of it in jail.  There's a very valid question that simply asks:  are prisoners who profess faith given preferential treatment?  Sadly, that's often very true; social workers, judges, advocates, and even guards and wardens look upon a person's commitment to faith as a positive step toward rehabilitation, and often 'ease up' on prisoners who are especially devout.  Given that phenomenon, it's not startling that most prisoners would claim to be faithful.

So, we'd have to look at other metrics.  We can start sociologically - in the Western world, in most parts of developing Africa, the Church is the de facto moral authority.  It comes out of the african Shamanic tradition; "wise men" and "witch men" were the ones that directed the tribal mystical requirements.  In the modern day, this reverence for the mystic has moved in response to the evangelical effort to convert the continent. 

While there are many good Christian folk in Africa, Christianity is the root of Koney's Army, its prohibitions against witchcraft are used to slaughter children when bad things happen, and western evangelicals have convinced African governments to make homosexuality a capital offence.  Let me reiterate that:  American evangelicals went over to Africa and convinced several governments there (Uganda foremost) that they should make being gay punishable by death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill - that'll give you a good start, and you can go from there. I'd suggest paying close attention to  this NY Times article about the catalyzing events. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html?_r=1) 

You can also look at the slavery issue in the US, where the bible was brought out to defend slave ownership by good Christian folk who honestly thought they were doing the Lord's will:

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." - Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America

Every hope of the existence of church and state, and of civilization itself, hangs upon our arduous effort to defeat the doctrine of Negro suffrage." - Robert Dabney, a prominent 19th century Southern Presbyterian pastor

"... the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." - Richard Furman, President, South Carolina Baptist Convention

Such moral men are these! ... but they were, at the time.  Morals have changed over the intervening (nearly) two centuries; our culture has grown to embrace the concept that freedom is a universal right, independent of the color of someone's skin. 

You see?  Morals do change - sometimes exceptionally rapidly. 

It is a common bias to assume that the way things are is the way things always have been and always will be.  That's simply confirmation bias at work - you've not experienced what people do or claim is 'moral' by virtue of their faith, and so you assume that the faithful are, in fact, like you.  [Assumedly] good people, people who go to your church, who smile on Sundays, who are seen doing good works somewhere along the way.  If, however, Christianity invariably led to moral behavior (as presupposed), where morals are defined by the western culture that prizes freedom, individual initiative, opportunity, and equality, then that is just... sadly.. not true.  At all.

Atheist morality (for those that truly consider it) begins with the presupposition that this life is the only one existent, that there are no second chances, and that human life has value.  If we take these as a certain baseline assumption, then the rest logically follows:

- People are valuable, therefore we must treat them as though they are valuable.  People matter.
- People only have one life, and since that life matters, it behooves all of us to live the best life we can.
- Living the best life we can means experiencing all that we can, harming no one, and improving the lives of those around us to give them the opportunity to do precisely the same.
- Since there is no divine spark, there is no divine 'punishment' - this means that problems like starvation, poverty, slavery, opression, brutality, violence.. these are human problems with human solutions. We must act to address them, for if we do not, we will not be saved by some outside benevolence.
-  No one "deserves" good or bad fortune; life is messy.

... well, you should try out some Bertrand Russell to see the core of Humanism.  It's a bit too lengthy to go into here, but it certainly does not require a God, and most definitely actively seeks to improve the lot of the world rather than simply 'offering hope'.

Anyroad - the point is that you make an interesting assertion that has no basis in fact.  Additionally, your assertion that morality comes from God exclusively misses the fact that entire worthwhile moral systems can be built without any reference to God at all... and, as those moral systems focus on action over prayer, they actually have a chance to make a positive difference.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Grimm on April 10, 2012, 02:33:04 PM
No I have problems when Atheists USE WORDS like Honorable and Humane.

Why?  Muslims use them.  Amazonian tribesmen have similar concepts.  People who don't believe as you do really are moral.

Mind you, "honor" has undergone some changes over the millennia - even today, some Evangelical Christians respond to the besmirching of family honor in odd ways.  My wife and I are becoming foster parents; one of the girls our social worker is discussing with us is a fourteen-year-old who got pregnant, and was thrown out of her house to live in the street.  Due to confidentiality requirements, I can't go into too much detail - but I can tell you that the dad that did the tossing runs a church, and the mom that stood by him runs it with him.

So - let's talk about morality:  the pastor that throws his daughter in the street is 'honorable' and 'humane', right?

By the by, the most common atheist philosophies are Bhuddism (which emphasizes compassion, humility, and love), and Humanism (which emphasizes action, compassion, and the value of human life).  These schools of thought have no God - but your bible has entire chapters devoted to genocide, slavery, murder, incest, and other rapacious behavior.

Isn't it odd that you would equate 'humane' behavior with a book that contains that kind of content while ignoring philosophies that eschew God and focus on humane behavior entirely?

Quote

I just think from the Atheist point of view things like love and meaning are just social constructs, they don't really exist do they? We are all just animals determined to do what we do by chance. Love is a metaphysical thing that doesn't exist in the physical world.

Don't put words in our mouths, sir.  Love most definitely exists; I love my wife.  I love this world, and am constantly amazed by its beauty.  Love doesn't come from your God - a God that, if is book is to be believed, tortures people for all eternity due to the mistake of an immature man-child millenia ago, and who needs blood sacrifices to be able to tolerate tresspasses against him.

Bluntly, I think Christians have so little concept of 'love' in the wider sense that it almost feels broken to me.  Nothing you've said so far even begins at hinting of any sort of 'love' in any idealistic sense.

If you ask me where love comes from, then?  My response will be within humanity.  We are hardwired to be social, hardwired to care.  We place the welfare of the group ahead of our own (for the most part), and love is its purest expression - just like chimps, apes, dolphins, bonobos, wolves, ravens, and - to some extent - even ants and bees.   Creatures that (according to your beliefs) have no souls express love.  Why do we need a God for that?

Quote
Most Atheists I've met and excuse me if you are not in this camp believe that the physical world is all there is.

Isn't that enough?
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: velkyn on April 10, 2012, 02:33:57 PM
How do you know what Imagine Professor X?
  Oh, now the indignant claims of a Christian because I call them on their assumptions.  Nope, dear, I don’t have to be psychic to know exactly what you think about atheists.  And it would be Phoenix, by the way ;D

You see, words are very useful and I see what you write.  You make baseless claims that atheists shouldn’t be humane or honorable since you assume we must think that life has no meaning.  You lie about what you want the atheist point of view to be.  Like right below in the next part of your post.  I do like when Christians make it this easy.  Why yes, atheists do use words and you have trouble with it.  And why do you have trouble with it?  Well, here we go.

Quote
No I have problems when Atheists USE WORDS like Honorable and Humane.  I just think from the Atheist point of view things like love and meaning are just social constructs, they don't really exist do they? We are all just animals determined to do what we do by chance. Love is a metaphysical thing that doesn't exist in the physical world.  Most Atheists I've met and excuse me if you are not in this camp believe that the physical world is all there is. But as I said before Atheists are moral folk on average.

There you go with the capitalization of “atheist” again showing you ignorantly attempt to claim that all atheists simply must be nihilists.  Thinking that the real world is all there is does not equate to thinking that life has no meaning or “point”.  And no love isn’t a metaphysical thing.  Sorry, fail again.  Love is from the brain, all chemistry.  Love is actions showing concern for someone else and wanting the best for them and wanting to be with them because you enjoy their company.  All brain chemistry.   

And I’m moral without your primitive violent, god. A god that can’t even be superior than its supposed creations who do love and who do have empathy. 

I ask you again, why haven’t you healed anyone yet? 

I’ve also wanted to address this:

I follow the teachings of the Bible and they work and ring true. I follow Jesus because I believe Christianity makes sense and is true. I don't hardly think about Hell unless I'm witnessing and even then I never tell anyone straight out YOU'RE GOING TO HELL! That's not the way to witness. Jesus asked questions and let the Holy Spirit do the work of conviction.
So you don't eat shrimp, don't wear mixed fiber clothing, give away all you have, live in communal situations sharing money, and living spaces, etc?  Let me guess, you don't and you have lots of excuses on why you are sure that your god didn't "really" mean those inconvenient things.  Lots of other types ot theists claim the same thing "oooh I believe because it "rings true"!"   And all have the same evidence you do, none.    So, again why should I be impressed with your version?
   
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 10, 2012, 03:08:49 PM
You don't need fear of a sky daddy or a hell to be a moral person.
I don't believe you do. I believe you need God to ground your morality but Atheists are very moral people on average. But if morals are decided by society and culture then they aren't objective, you can't really call anything another society or culture does wrong if they all support it within that system.
If God exists though there are some things that are actually wrong no matter what the public consensus is.

This is an interesting thought - that there's a certain baseline for human action that comes "through God".  What makes it so interesting is that it has within it a very testable hypothesis, to wit:  "Since morality comes from God, Godly people should be the most moral."  This makes sense, doesn't it?  After all, those most in tune with the Divine would be those who most fully expressed it in their lives.

There are several imperfect censuses (censi?) that place the prison population of the US as highly religious - that would seem to be enough to refute that hypothesis, but the studies are inherently flawed as prisoners will often say whatever will give them a perceived easier time of it in jail.  There's a very valid question that simply asks:  are prisoners who profess faith given preferential treatment?  Sadly, that's often very true; social workers, judges, advocates, and even guards and wardens look upon a person's commitment to faith as a positive step toward rehabilitation, and often 'ease up' on prisoners who are especially devout.  Given that phenomenon, it's not startling that most prisoners would claim to be faithful.

"Since morality comes from God, Godly people should be the most moral." 
Godly people are the most moral but all believers are not Godly. Many believers don't follow the Bible Love your enemies, esteem others better than yourself etc. It doesn't stand to reason that just because a person professes faith in God they automatically become holy and perfect. The Bible talks of sanctification, putting behind sin and bad behaviour and practicing and learning Godly behaviour. The disciples didn't always do everything exactly right even after the Holy Spirit came and Jesus was resurrected.
Do Atheists really believe Christians have to be perfect for God to exist? The children of Israel were disobedient often as well.

Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Nick on April 10, 2012, 03:13:55 PM
Perfect...NO...but they should show 5 or 10% of what they profess to believe.  Most are nothing more then selfish condescending hypocrites.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 10, 2012, 03:21:24 PM
So, we'd have to look at other metrics.  We can start sociologically - in the Western world, in most parts of developing Africa, the Church is the de facto moral authority.  It comes out of the african Shamanic tradition; "wise men" and "witch men" were the ones that directed the tribal mystical requirements.  In the modern day, this reverence for the mystic has moved in response to the evangelical effort to convert the continent. 

While there are many good Christian folk in Africa, Christianity is the root of Koney's Army, its prohibitions against witchcraft are used to slaughter children when bad things happen, and western evangelicals have convinced African governments to make homosexuality a capital offence.  Let me reiterate that:  American evangelicals went over to Africa and convinced several governments there (Uganda foremost) that they should make being gay punishable by death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill - that'll give you a good start, and you can go from there. I'd suggest paying close attention to  this NY Times article about the catalyzing events. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html?_r=1) 

You can also look at the slavery issue in the US, where the bible was brought out to defend slave ownership by good Christian folk who honestly thought they were doing the Lord's will:

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." - Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America

Every hope of the existence of church and state, and of civilization itself, hangs upon our arduous effort to defeat the doctrine of Negro suffrage." - Robert Dabney, a prominent 19th century Southern Presbyterian pastor

"... the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." - Richard Furman, President, South Carolina Baptist Convention

Such moral men are these! ... but they were, at the time.  Morals have changed over the intervening (nearly) two centuries; our culture has grown to embrace the concept that freedom is a universal right, independent of the color of someone's skin.
Quote
[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God
Where is that?
Quote
the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example]
Is it now?

Slavery in America is much different from the slavery f the Bible. Slaves were set free after 7 years, usually it was indentured servitude to pay off a debt, they were treated as members of the family and some would choose to become bondslaves for life at the end of the 7 years. If you struck a slave he went FREE! It was illegal to kidnap in the Jewish law so there was no capture and subjugation.
The slaves of 200 years ago were kidnapped and kept for life and beaten ALL PROHIBITED in scripture.


Quote
Such moral men are these! ... but they were, at the time. 
So why are you complaining if the morality at the time was that slavery was moral you can't call it immoral by those standards. Society and Culture have decided it is wrong NOW Right?


So tell me? Is slavery truly WRONG? Objectively or Absolutely?
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 10, 2012, 03:22:43 PM
Perfect...NO...but they should show 5 or 10% of what they profess to believe.  Most are nothing more then selfish condescending hypocrites.
I would say most are not Bible believing Christians. They don't know what Jesus taught and rarely pick up a Bible.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: velkyn on April 10, 2012, 03:24:50 PM
wow, coink.  Let's see.  OneTrueChristian claim that is baseless.  Ignoranace of your own bible and of history and basing lies off that. 

if you don't think slavery is wrong, then be my slave.  I promise to only beat you mostly to death per your supposed god.  I do love a god that is no better than the men who invented it. 

and again, why haven't you healed anyone, oh OneTrueChristiantm who thinks he can decide who is "godly" and who is not?
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Aaron123 on April 10, 2012, 03:28:14 PM
Co.Inkadink, can you respond to reply #33?

What is an example of something that is "actually wrong no matter what"?
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: jaimehlers on April 10, 2012, 03:36:17 PM
So, we have the belief that Godly people are the most moral.  So, what happens when you have people who are decidedly not Godly (for example, they belong to some other religion or no religion at all) yet are very moral?  In fact, what if they happened to be as moral as, or more moral than, a Godly Christian believer?  It would be a contradiction in terms; if morality is an expression of Godliness, but you have someone who is not Godly at all and yet is very moral, then either the person is in fact Godly despite not worshiping God, or morality is not an expression of Godliness.

If a person can be moral despite being a believer in some other religion, or not believing in a religion, or even rejecting religions entirely, then the whole concept of Godly morality is flawed, because their morality is grounded outside of Christian beliefs.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 10, 2012, 03:43:46 PM
How do you know what Imagine Professor X?
  Oh, now the indignant claims of a Christian because I call them on their assumptions.  Nope, dear, I don’t have to be psychic to know exactly what you think about atheists.  And it would be Phoenix, by the way ;D

You see, words are very useful and I see what you write.  You make baseless claims that atheists shouldn’t be humane or honorable since you assume we must think that life has no meaning.  You lie about what you want the atheist point of view to be. 
Quote
You make baseless claims that atheists shouldn’t be humane or honorable
I didn't say they Shouldn't be.
Quote
You lie about what you want the atheist point of view to be. 
I know many Atheists agree with Richard Dawkins if you are not in that camp I apologize.
Quote

Richard Dawkins has said; “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”
No Purpose, no evil, no good, sounds like an absence of meaning. I can quote other famous Atheists who say pretty much the same thing. I've heard this for over 20 years it's not a new concept.
I don't understand what all the complaints are about if there is No Purpose, no evil, no good, it's all just stuff that happens.
I don't think I'm mischaracterizing the Atheist position here. I've heard many quotes that life is purposeless, meaningless and we live in a universe of blind chance that we are molecules in motion.

Once again I don't think Atheists are immoral I just think you have no Grounding for your morality if it's decided by society and culture and is subject to change. If it's subjective you can't really call anything wrong can you?
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 10, 2012, 03:44:36 PM
Co.Inkadink, can you respond to reply #33?

What is an example of something that is "actually wrong no matter what"?
Torturing babies.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Alzael on April 10, 2012, 03:45:13 PM

Slavery in America is much different from the slavery f the Bible. Slaves were set free after 7 years, usually it was indentured servitude to pay off a debt, they were treated as members of the family and some would choose to become bondslaves for life at the end of the 7 years. If you struck a slave he went FREE! It was illegal to kidnap in the Jewish law so there was no capture and subjugation.

The laws you just mentioned only applied to Jews. If you're going to lie, please keep in mind that we've read that book as well. And even for the ones that haven't, they have google and can read for themselves.

Take note: ""And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee."Deuteronomy 15:12

Compared to: ""Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life" Leviticus 25:44-46

See, it's a lot better when you actually read what's written down. As opposed to just tossing ideas out that still have a few stray taint-hairs left on them from having been pulled entirely from your ass.

As for striking a slave: "   Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property].""

And just to add on the Squick, let's see how the bible feels about raping a slave: "   Leviticus 19:20-22: "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free."

Seriously dude, fuck.....your......god.

While we're on this subject though, what do you think it says about you morally that you're taking this path of discussion.

Let's be nice and assume you actually had just made a valid point. That biblical slavery was slightly different. You are still saying that it was all right to enslave and own another human being as property. Even if it was only a few years. Does that really make you feel righteous and moral that you had to sugar-coat slavery just to defend your god?

Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Dante on April 10, 2012, 03:54:17 PM
If it's subjective you can't really call anything wrong can you?

You gotta be willing to read responses.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22197.msg495852.html#msg495852 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22197.msg495852.html#msg495852)
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 10, 2012, 04:02:06 PM
No I have problems when Atheists USE WORDS like Honorable and Humane.

Why?  Muslims use them.  Amazonian tribesmen have similar concepts.  People who don't believe as you do really are moral.

Mind you, "honor" has undergone some changes over the millennia - even today, some Evangelical Christians respond to the besmirching of family honor in odd ways.  My wife and I are becoming foster parents; one of the girls our social worker is discussing with us is a fourteen-year-old who got pregnant, and was thrown out of her house to live in the street.  Due to confidentiality requirements, I can't go into too much detail - but I can tell you that the dad that did the tossing runs a church, and the mom that stood by him runs it with him.

So - let's talk about morality:  the pastor that throws his daughter in the street is 'honorable' and 'humane', right?
No he's not. Why would you assume I think he would be? That's ridiculous. He has no compassion and is judging himself superior which the Bible forbids so he is going against the teaching of Christianity to do this. Whenever you see people picketing abortion clinics or politicians or such, Know that they are going against the teachings of scripture. I can tell you a girl at my church got pregnant and the church has done nothing but loved her and helped her and that's what Jesus would have done because he was the friend of sinners, and yes I believe getting pregnant out of wedlock is a sin. But I also understand that I am a sinful man and am no better and have done worse. I have to confess and repent daily as do all christians.

Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Alzael on April 10, 2012, 04:02:36 PM
hey were treated as members of the family and some would choose to become bondslaves

By the way, feel free to show where this part of the bible is said at all. Go ahead.

In the meantime let's see what else we have about slavery in the bible.

You mentioned that one of the damning things about slavery two hundred years ago was that people were kidnapped.

Well I'm sure that never happened in biblical times.......

"Exodus 21:16: "And he that stealeth [kidnaps] a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.""

"   Deuteronomy 24:7: "If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you.""

"Exodus 22:3: "...he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.""

Ok I guess it did happen. And the punishment was a fine, or death if you couldn't pay the fine. So I guess you were wrong on that one too.

But I'm sure slavery was good when it came to women right.......right?

Deuteronomy 21:10-14: "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her [i.e. rape her or engage in consensual sex], and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.""

Deuteronomy 20:14" "But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself""

No, I guess women kind of got taken and made into slaves too. And let's not forget the rape, because it just wouldn't be Christianity without the raping and ownership of women.

Genesis 16:1-2: "Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai."

Genesis 30:3-4: "And she said, Behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto her; and she shall bear upon my knees, that I may also have children by her. And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her."

Genesis 30:9-10: "When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, and gave her Jacob to wife. And Zilpah Leah's maid bare Jacob a son."

Maybe the slaves were treated well.

"Genesis 17:13: "He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant."

"Genesis 17:27: "And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him."

Adult circumsion would be extremely painful and in many cases lethal.

But there is one good thing, I guess. At least biblical slaves got weekends off.

Exodus 20:10: "But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:"

Gee, I guess I was wrong Co. Biblical slavery was great. It was so much better than slavery was a few hundred years ago, I can't imagine why I never saw it before. Sure there was mutilation of peoples bodies, imprisonment, denial of freedoms, and the rape (again we can never forget the rape) but these were all for the greater good and done by the command of a god who is totally moral and ethical. Now if you'll excuse I think I'll have to spend the next few days with a pencil jabbed up my nose as I desperately try to fish out the piece of my brain that died when I tried to make it read your tripe.

You guyys handle the rest with this slimeball, I think I need to puke and have a shower.

Fucking Christians.

Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 10, 2012, 04:14:13 PM
Let's be nice and assume you actually had just made a valid point. That biblical slavery was slightly different. You are still saying that it was all right to enslave and own another human being as property. Even if it was only a few years. Does that really make you feel righteous and moral that you had to sugar-coat slavery just to defend your god?
Tell me if slavery is accepted by a society and culture is it wrong?
So is slavery Objectively absolutely wrong? By what standard is it wrong?

Quote
You are still saying that it was all right to enslave and own another human being as property.
According to that culture and society it was. And you would say so too if you are consistent with the Atheist philosophy that morals are decided by society and culture.
Personally I don't like it and I don't agree with it and I'm glad I don't live in that society.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: HAL on April 10, 2012, 04:20:40 PM
Tell me if slavery is accepted by a society and culture is it wrong?

Since the slaves are part of the society, the first persons to ask whether it's right or wrong are the slaves.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Alzael on April 10, 2012, 04:31:38 PM
[Tell me if slavery is accepted by a society and culture is it wrong?
So is slavery Objectively absolutely wrong? By what standard is it wrong?

Irrelevant if slavery was right or wrong then. It is wrong now. You were attempting to defend biblical slavery as being better than the modern idea of slavery by comparing the two. This questioning only serves to try and dodge from having to respond to the fact that you just got called and shown up on your claims, which you know you can't defend.

It further illustrates what a slimy person you truly are. You're trying to cover up what you've said with an irrelevant question now that you're called on it.

According to that culture and society it was.

Irrelevant to the discussion. You claimed that it was better compared to the modern view of slavery. Again, you're just demonstrating what a weasel you are.

And you would say so too if you are consistent with the Atheist philosophy

There is no atheist philosophy. So in addition to being a liar and terrible excuse for a human being, you're an imbecile as well.

Personally I don't like it and I don't agree with it and I'm glad I don't live in that society.

Yet you just stood up and defended it. How moral of you.

Does anyone else feel realy dirty talking to this guy?
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 10, 2012, 04:35:29 PM
[Tell me if slavery is accepted by a society and culture is it wrong?
So is slavery Objectively absolutely wrong? By what standard is it wrong?

Irrelevant if slavery was right or wrong then. It is wrong now.
And why is it wrong? By what standard?
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 10, 2012, 04:38:01 PM
hey were treated as members of the family and some would choose to become bondslaves

By the way, feel free to show where this part of the bible is said at all. Go ahead.

In the meantime let's see what else we have about slavery in the bible.

You mentioned that one of the damning things about slavery two hundred years ago was that people were kidnapped.

Well I'm sure that never happened in biblical times.......

"Exodus 21:16: "And he that stealeth [kidnaps] a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.""

"   Deuteronomy 24:7: "If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you.""

"Exodus 22:3: "...he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.""

Ok I guess it did happen. And the punishment was a fine, or death if you couldn't pay the fine. So I guess you were wrong on that one too.
Kidnappers being put to death, make full restitution. How am I wrong?
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Alzael on April 10, 2012, 04:39:46 PM
Irrelevant if slavery was right or wrong then. It is wrong now.
Quote
And why is it wrong? By what standard?

As I said, irrelevant question. You're just using it as a dodge to avoid having to defend your own claims.

Kidnappers being put to death, make full restitution. How am I wrong?

Your initial implication was clear that you were claiming such things never happened.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 10, 2012, 04:40:52 PM


Deuteronomy 21:10-14: "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.""

Deuteronomy 20:14" "But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself""

No, I guess women kind of got taken and made into slaves too. And let's not forget the rape, because it just wouldn't be Christianity without the raping and ownership of women.

Genesis 16:1-2: "Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai."

Genesis 30:3-4: "And she said, Behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto her; and she shall bear upon my knees, that I may also have children by her. And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her."

Genesis 30:9-10: "When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, and gave her Jacob to wife. And Zilpah Leah's maid bare Jacob a son."
Where is all this rape stuff coming from?
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: jdawg70 on April 10, 2012, 04:41:09 PM
[Tell me if slavery is accepted by a society and culture is it wrong?
So is slavery Objectively absolutely wrong? By what standard is it wrong?

Irrelevant if slavery was right or wrong then. It is wrong now.
And why is it wrong? By what standard?

How about the 'causing suffering to entities capable of suffering' standard?
Does the standard 'because of the arbitrary decree of some other entity' make more sense to you for some reason?
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 10, 2012, 04:42:46 PM
Irrelevant if slavery was right or wrong then. It is wrong now.
Quote
And why is it wrong? By what standard?

As I said, irrelevant question. You're just using it as a dodge to avoid having to defend your own claims.
You said it was wrong. If it's wrong you must have a standard to say it's wrong. But I guess you can just say it's irrelevant and get off the hook.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 10, 2012, 04:46:50 PM
[Tell me if slavery is accepted by a society and culture is it wrong?
So is slavery Objectively absolutely wrong? By what standard is it wrong?

Irrelevant if slavery was right or wrong then. It is wrong now.
And why is it wrong? By what standard?

How about the 'causing suffering to entities capable of suffering' standard?
Does the standard 'because of the arbitrary decree of some other entity' make more sense to you for some reason?
I just don't understand what makes suffering evil or bad and flourishing good, by atheist standards. Is all suffering unnecessary? If it is necessary could it be considered good, but Richard Dawkins says there is no such thing as good so back to square one.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Alzael on April 10, 2012, 04:47:49 PM
Where is all this rape stuff coming from?

What exactly do you call having sex with a woman who can't say no?

Let me guess, it's what you define as a "typical Saturday night".

You said it was wrong. If it's wrong you must have a standard to say it's wrong. But I guess you can just say it's irrelevant and get off the hook.

You're using the question to get off the hook.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 10, 2012, 04:48:46 PM
Kidnappers being put to death, make full restitution. How am I wrong?

Your initial implication was clear that you were claiming such things never happened.
I claimed that kidnapping was forbidden so being put to death seems like a good punishment and prohibition.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 10, 2012, 04:50:18 PM
You're using the question to get off the hook.
I guess were at an impasse.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: HAL on April 10, 2012, 04:56:13 PM
The morals of a society, which the participants agree to, determine what they decide is right and wrong. Slavery is considered wrong because not all the people in the society agree it's OK (the slaves). The oppressed are part of the society and if their opinion isn't taken into account then we have a big problem.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Quesi on April 10, 2012, 04:57:38 PM
Co.Inkadink-

I'm wondering if you took the time to read Grimm's post.  I think he made some excellent points. 



Atheist morality (for those that truly consider it) begins with the presupposition that this life is the only one existent, that there are no second chances, and that human life has value.  If we take these as a certain baseline assumption, then the rest logically follows:

- People are valuable, therefore we must treat them as though they are valuable.  People matter.
- People only have one life, and since that life matters, it behooves all of us to live the best life we can.
- Living the best life we can means experiencing all that we can, harming no one, and improving the lives of those around us to give them the opportunity to do precisely the same.
- Since there is no divine spark, there is no divine 'punishment' - this means that problems like starvation, poverty, slavery, opression, brutality, violence.. these are human problems with human solutions. We must act to address them, for if we do not, we will not be saved by some outside benevolence.
-  No one "deserves" good or bad fortune; life is messy.

snip

Additionally, your assertion that morality comes from God exclusively misses the fact that entire worthwhile moral systems can be built without any reference to God at all... and, as those moral systems focus on action over prayer, they actually have a chance to make a positive difference.


I would not value life with the passion that I do if believed that this was a dress rehearsal for an afterlife.  If I believed in an afterlife, I would hope that those who lived with pain and suffering and hunger and persecution would have a speedy and painless death and move on to their happy afterlife.  But I don't believe this.  I understand that for each human being, this is life.  This is our one chance.  And this understanding shapes the way that I interact with people and all living things.  I don't pray for the suffering.  I work to create systems that reduce suffering, and to provide practical assistance as they re-build their lives.   
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Nick on April 10, 2012, 05:47:09 PM
Co Ink, Do you believe in Dionysius, Krishna, Bah, Quetzalcoatl, Prometheus, Myrtha, or one or more of the 1000s of gods over humans time on this planet?  How about Thor or Oden?  I did not think so.  So you see you are just like us...an atheist only we take it one god further than you do.  Have you ever wondered why all of these gods throughout history has been shy, not wanting to show themselves, providing no proof of their existence?
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Aaron123 on April 10, 2012, 06:24:06 PM
What is an example of something that is "actually wrong no matter what"?
Torturing babies.

I want to be sure we're both on the same page here.

Does this also extend to killing babies?
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: kaziglu bey on April 10, 2012, 06:31:32 PM
Torturing babies.

I want to be sure we're both on the same page here.

Does this also extend to killing babies?

I was wondering that myself. Like, tearing them from their mothers womb, or smashing their heads against the rocks, or drowning them. I wonder if Co.Inkadink thinks such things are always evil no matter what.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Graybeard on April 10, 2012, 06:35:45 PM
"Since morality comes from God, Godly people should be the most moral." 
Godly people are the most moral but all believers are not Godly. Many believers don't follow the Bible Love your enemies, esteem others better than yourself etc. It doesn't stand to reason that just because a person professes faith in God they automatically become holy and perfect.
Ladies and Gentlemen of WWGHA:

Here is the No True Scotsman argument as trotted out by apologist christians the world over and from time immemorial. They know it is a fallacy, but they rely on your not knowing this.

You will note that Co.Inkadink is a person with special powers to tell who is and who is not a True Christian(tm). If you are like Co.Inkadink, then you are a TC, if you are not, then you are not.

If you say you are a Christian and do something bad, you never were a Christian, unless you repent, and then you always were.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Graybeard on April 10, 2012, 06:45:30 PM
Co.Inkadink, can you respond to reply #33?

What is an example of something that is "actually wrong no matter what"?
Torturing babies.
Wrong!

God is good and moral but orders or threatens the following:

Psalms:137:7: Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.
Psalms:137:8: O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
Psalms:137:9: Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

De:28:53: And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:
De:28:54: So that the man that is tender among you, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil toward his brother, and toward the wife of his bosom, and toward the remnant of his children which he shall leave:
De:28:55: So that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat:
because he hath nothing left him in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee in all thy gates.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: HAL on April 10, 2012, 06:52:49 PM
Yet another problem with your claim of biblegod's absolute morality is that you can't consult it for modern moral questions. Say cloning is perfected and I wanted to clone myself and use the clone's heart to replace my own. Is the cloning of myself a moral thing to do for any reason? You can't point to the absolute moral guideline for whether that is right or wrong. That's because the absolute answer doesn't exist.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Graybeard on April 10, 2012, 06:53:41 PM
Oh! I forgot this classic: Num:14:18 The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Seppuku on April 10, 2012, 07:21:04 PM
What if the baby has the devil inside of him/her? Some would consider the practice of exorcism torture, well, a baby certainly would.

Does torturing and killing children count? Because God does that in the bible. You know, those little scallywags calling a prophet baldy and then God having them mauled by bears? Lovely.


Anyway. Co.Inkadink you actually seem to hold a lot of misconceptions about atheists, particularly for somebody who's listened to atheists quotes for years and years. Your first mistake:

The words 'atheism' and 'atheist' are NOT capitalised, unless they're at the beginning of a sentence. Pick up a dictionary, you will realise this. Why am I picking this up? Because it's actually a fairly important. Why is it? Because the capitalisation affects how the term is applied. Atheism is merely the non-belief in any deities, like a theist has belief in one or more deities. You apply the word 'atheism' to a person in order to describe a property, their lack of belief; 'atheist' is a concrete noun.

Capitalisation on the other hand turns it into a proper noun, or as teachers in primary school teach it, "naming words". 'Atheism' isn't the name of something and 'atheists' don't belong to a named entity. Atheism capitalised implies 'atheism' is an organisation, maybe even a selections of ideals. Christianity is a proper noun, it describes a group of people who associate themselves with the teachings of Christianity. What does this misconception usually result in? The assumption that 'Atheism' is a religion or comparable to religion. Please stop using 'atheism' as a proper noun.


Quote
No Purpose, no evil, no good, sounds like an absence of meaning. I can quote other famous Atheists who say pretty much the same thing. I've heard this for over 20 years it's not a new concept.

You must have been selective about your atheists.  What you're describing is closer to Nihilism, whilst some atheists may take this stance, but you must understand 'atheism' is JUST the opposite of 'theism', no collective ideals or anything like that. The numbers of differences between me and a Nihilist is perhaps like the differences between a Christian and Hindu (both are theists, but their religions are significantly different). Though you say you can quote, so why don't you? I'd be interested in seeing which atheists you've been basing generalisations on.

No Purpose: My life was given purpose when I was born into a family who wanted me.
My life was given purpose when I first set myself goals to achieve.
My life was given purpose when I decided how I'd life my life.

The meaning of life is to give life meaning, not because some deity create me. No, God didn't create me, my parents did. Why can His creations have meaning and my parents' creations can't?

No evil. No Good.: Granted 'evil' is a religious term, however, we do have 'immoral'. Why on earth would we have morality if some supreme being isn't dictating them to us.

An explanation is 'instinct', each species of animal on the planet has an instinct for their species to survive. Basic morality can be put down to that. Humans are a species who are socially dependent. They've evolved their greatest strength to be their sociability. So we must be able to co-exist and live happily, probably hence we also have the trait, "empathy". As we've grown creative in thought and came to reason we've reasoned out what we should call 'right' and what we call 'wrong'. Is it subjective? Yes, though it may not be subjective for all - as they may use rules already given to them, perhaps by a parent who raised them or by the law. But then that seems to be working out a LOT better than some of God's moral absolutism. I assume you've read the bible, I also assume you can read my signature. You see, by the standard of morality I've reasoned, what I've quoted from the bible is sick and immoral and society's laws would also agree. Biblical law on the other hand...God's law. God's law is subjective to God...well, it would be if He existed. And often or not God's laws is interpreted by His so-called followers. Funnily enough, the bible actually tells you not to interpret it for yourself (I believe it also commands you to kill those who do). The disturbing thing is that the true defiers of the bible are the ones who are moral, who aren't doing sick and twisted things...well, to be fair, only somebody with a multiple personality disorder could successfully follow the bible because of its numerous contradictions. Imagine trying to be the most extra (and violent and bigoted) conservative in the world AND being the most extra liberal person in the world...at the same time.

If people actually took the bible's commands seriously, I would be dead and so would everybody I care about. I say fuck biblical morality, I'm sticking to a mutual subjective morality based on what is beneficial to us as a society & species and not specific individuals or to an imaginary psychopathic tyrant God.

How is he a psychopathic tyrant?
New Testament:
Numerous teachings from Jesus:
He's not come here to abolish the laws of the prophets but to enforce them. (A big shout out to the Old Testament there)
Do not disregard the word of Moses. (A big shout out to some of the worse teachings in the bible)
Not a single word will be changed from the old laws. (This is pretty important, because if you try and ignore the old laws, you will be denied the Kingdom of Heaven)
It's made pretty clear that the Old Testament is God's law.
Old Testament
Leviticus & Deuteronomy, two books from Moses. They contain some of the following:
Kill witches.
Kill homosexuals
Kill non-believers
Kill people who do not listen to priests
If a priest's daughter fornicates, kill her
Kill false prophets
Kill adulterers
Kill women who are not virgins on their wedding night
If a woman is raped in a town but does not scream, she is to be killed.
If a man is caught in the act of raping a single woman who is not yet ready to be betrothed, the rapist must pay the father and marry his rape victim
Invade the cities of non-believers and kill the inhabitants

And there are Christians still engage in that crap. If you don't believe me, I will post each biblical quote and describe their context for you.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Grimm on April 10, 2012, 07:58:19 PM
CoI -

Woah, brother.  Take a breath.  I mean it - slow down for a moment. 

My hope, in posting all of the words that I have, is not to damage your faith - I do not presume to tell you how or what to believe, and I am certain you take comfort in your beliefs.  When you go to Church, you are surrounded by people who share your values, who support you when you fall and who at least try to care about the lives of those around them.  Most people are good people, with or without God. 

However, your Church is - by the nature of all Churches - insular.  It isolates you from not only the views of those who do not believe in God at all, but those who have different views about God within the large umbrella that is Christianity.  Sometimes those differences are trivial - Episcopalians have a lot of ritual and focus on scholarship, while (I am making a guess) I think your church is more informal, with an emphasis on a personal god and a spiritual seeking via feelings and intuition.  While your faith and the Episcopalian faith are not directly compatible, you have much in common - inclusivity, the general shape of your society, and more besides.

When you look at the larger pattern, though, you discover that Christianity is far from homogenous.  Your Church insulates you from competing theological belief structures by telling you that people like the Westboro Baptist Church (to use an extreme example) have a flawed view of the Bible and a flawed understanding of the Word of God.  Put in more general terms, your circle of believers uses the insulation of "True Christianity" to say that their interpretation is correct.  They will show you every passage in the bible that supports their views, and they will explain away the ones that do not.  It is a neat and tidy package.

Unfortunately, it is also something that every other faith does.  If you go to a Catholic mass and speak to the priest, you'll discover he, too, has a neat and tidy package that explains Catholicism in the same light, and he will be glad to try to explain to you how your faith has it wrong.  He'll be able to show you bible passages that support his view and explain away the ones that don't.  If you were brave enough to visit Westboro, they would welcome you with open arms - they do.  They're quite nice people, when you get past the "God Hates Fags" signs.  They'll be glad to show you their neat and tidy package of passages and explanations as well.

In fact, every denomination is fundamentally incompatible in some way with every other denomination, and each denomination has a Neat and Tidy Package that explains how they're right and how everyone else is wrong.   From the outside, as I am - as we are! - it seems... fractured.  Schitzophrenic.  These 'minor points' aren't so minor that they are free from strife.  Honestly - to me, the entire patchwork of Christian faiths is just an insoluble knot of apologetics.  You can see the mess, in microcosm, in the story of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7676332.stm

Please.  Check out that link - it's amazing.  It's silly.  It's humanity and faith and pride and nonsense - smoke and noise and doctrine - and it is what I see as you leap to the defense of your own sect. 

Where atheists and theists run into problems is in this Neat and Tidy Package.  In fact, I lost my faith as that Package became less and less neat as I learned more and more; the more I read, the more I walked into other churches and asked questions, the more I realized that the fabled "Brotherhood of Christianity" was anything but?  Well, the more my faith dribbled away.  I began to question all sorts of fundamental things - Who wrote the bible?  Where did it come from?  Why do we accept it as authority?  What about the miracles?

Admittedly, for me, one of the hardest passages is in Exodus.  If you're ever curious, ask and I'll be glad to offer the explanation and why it affected me as much as it did.

Anyway, the point of this is to say that when you say the preacher that tossed out his daughter isn't Christian, I have to look at you and say that, from his perspective, he is.  His church backs him, his neighbors back him, his neighborhood backs him.  His society - his circles of friends and family and support that make up his 'tribe' - thinks that his decision was wholly justified within his own faith, and he would look at you askance for even suggesting he could be wrong.  He'd even show you the bible passages that show how right he is - he certainly did to the social worker.

You cling to the idea that there is a True Faith, and that you have exclusivity on it.  Everyone who is in another denomination than your own does precisely the same thing.  Each circle looks at the others and sighs, and tries to preach to them, hoping that one day they'll see the light and come into the fold - but, in the end, the Neat and Tidy Package prevents it.

CoI, everything you are saying here is a function of your own version of the Neat and Tidy Package. I have no desire to damage it, but I hope you can see how those who don't believe as you do have good reason to disagree.  Moreso, I hope that you begin to see that those of us who have looked at a lot of different packages, who have researched our faith, who fought losing it and who tried to understand what happened.. well, I hope you understand that, to those who have studied in detail the philosophical points you present, it's just another set of dogma, another few points that are backed up by precisely the same evidence (used in a different way) as those who would call you wrong while still proclaiming their own Christianity.

Your arguments aren't wrong - but it is almost impossible for them to be right... or, at least, more right than everyone else using your evidence to different purposes.

Do you see?
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on April 10, 2012, 09:00:23 PM
Grimm, thanks a lot for making the rest of us obsolete. I wouldn't mind being redundant, but not obsolete.

Have me ghost write for you for a few days so things can get back to normal.  ;D
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Ice Monkey on April 10, 2012, 10:39:01 PM
Tell me if slavery is accepted by a society and culture is it wrong?

Not to them, no.

Quote
So is slavery Objectively absolutely wrong? By what standard is it wrong?

You would have thought so, but let's notice god's opinion on the matter changed, depending on the age and society he's being worshipped in.  So I guess we'd both have to say that absolute morality doesn't exist, if god himself can't even seem to nail it the first time.

Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: velkyn on April 11, 2012, 08:25:29 AM
I didn't say they Shouldn't be.
Yes, you did.  You tried to claim that atheists must have a nihilistic world view and that they shouldn’t be using the words honorable or humane.  Shall I quote you? 
I have trouble when Atheists use words like Honorable and Humane though, in a world of blind chance of cause and effect where morals are decided by society and culture, where there is no meaning or point to life or anything it strikes me odd that you use such words

Quote
I know many Atheists agree with Richard Dawkins if you are not in that camp I apologize.
ah, still the attempts to try to claim that all atheists think the same by trying to capitalize “atheist”.  And it’s hysterical that you try to claim Dawkins is a nihilist now.  What an “apology”.  You just keep trying to lie and think we are dumb enough to not notice  No, dear, your lies are still failing.  We humans who have no believe in your god or any gods have many many different approaches to life. 

The quote from Dawkins that you so badly misused is saying that the *universe” has no particular purpose.  He never has said that human existence has no purpose. Nice try at quote-mining and trying misrepresent someone there but as always that fails.  All you have done is lie about atheists in order to keep up your own willful ignorance and your desperation to feel special and superior to those who dont’ agree with your baseless claims. It’s so amusing to watch Christians lie for such petty reasons.  You claim that you’ve “heard many quotes that life is purposeless” but you can’t even get one posted.  You have to try your best to make believe it says something it doesn’t.  How sad. Oh and coink, I don’t give a damn what Dawkins says.  It might be right, it might not be. he’s just a man, not some “messiah” that you so desperately want him to be. 

And ooooh, now you capitalize “grounding”. Does that make it more real, coink?  No, it doesn’t, just more posturing by a Christian.  If you want to discuss how changeable morals are well, I just have to look at Christianity and how it always changes after society decides that an actions is wrong or right.  It never leads but only follows, sure that it has some magical truth from some invisible friend.  So much for claims about some eternal “right” that your religion has.  That has never been demonstrated, no god that has some special message that has held true over the millennia.  Each generation of theists have to re-write what they claim their god “really” meant.  At best, you can claim that your god mumbles or that humans just screw up things repeatedly and yoru god is unble to do anything.  Notmuch of a omnipotent, omniscient or omnibenevolent god if it can’t or won’t do that.   

and hmmm, torturing babies is always bad?  So when your god demanded that there be foreskins ripped off them, your god was bad?  Nice to know.

now onto your other claims.
No he's not. Why would you assume I think he would be? That's ridiculous. He has no compassion and is judging himself superior which the Bible forbids so he is going against the teaching of Christianity to do this. Whenever you see people picketing abortion clinics or politicians or such, Know that they are going against the teachings of scripture. I can tell you a girl at my church got pregnant and the church has done nothing but loved her and helped her and that's what Jesus would have done because he was the friend of sinners, and yes I believe getting pregnant out of wedlock is a sin. But I also understand that I am a sinful man and am no better and have done worse. I have to confess and repent daily as do all christians.
  funny how your god said to do exactly that, to abandon your family if they don’t follow this god.  A dear friend of mine was cast out of his house by his pastor father because he was gay.  Your god says that homosexuals deserve death so I guess he got off “easy”.  A sadly funny postscript to this story is that my friend’s father died of AIDS since he was also gay.  Your bible, and thus your god has no compassion.  No, it has obey or die, that’s it.  I do love to see the usual OneTrueChristiantm claims by you, coink, and you without any more evidence that your “interpretations” are any more right than the abortion protestors.  Christians can’t even agree on if they do indeed have to “repent daily” or not.  Always amusing to see the confusion on such supposed “truths”. 

Oh yes, and you’ve failed ot answr some questions, coink.  Not suprising, but you are asked to do so.  You have been asked to prove your claims about slavery in the bible, not to try to change the question.  If you can’t support your claims, you’ve lied either intentionally or out of ignorance of your own bible.  More of my questions not answered: So is the resurrection a metaphor or not? How do you know? Now if this actually did happen, that the believers in JC did have the magical powers that he promised them, why does no one talk about it? Why do Christians fail so badly?  Are they not really followers of Jesus Christ and that's why they have no miracle abilities? So you don't eat shrimp, don't wear mixed fiber clothing, give away all you have, live in communal situations sharing money, and living spaces, etc? 

and as always, why haven’t you healed anyone, coink? 

As for the “rape stuff” that you wonder where it’s coming from, it’s more examples on how your bible is a primitive set of books that has no god given magical “truth” in it whatsoever.  Your god is the invention of the same primitive human beings.  Nothing about it can be demonstrated as real or special.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Hatter23 on April 11, 2012, 08:36:33 AM
Co.Inkadink, can you respond to reply #33?

What is an example of something that is "actually wrong no matter what"?
Torturing babies.

Like when there heads are dashed upon the stones?

How about them being clutched in there mothers arms as the flood waters grow higher in a duluge, listening to the mother's desperated last gasps for breath as they hold the babe above their head, then them in turn, also end up being drowned as a boatload of animals drifts away in the distance?

How about when they happen to live in a town called Sodom as the house they are in is set ablaze and crushed under fire and brimstone?

Sounds like torture to me.



Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Grimm on April 11, 2012, 09:56:54 AM
Grimm, thanks a lot for making the rest of us obsolete. I wouldn't mind being redundant, but not obsolete.

Have me ghost write for you for a few days so things can get back to normal.  ;D

.... *PTHBPHTBT.*

:)
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 12, 2012, 03:07:15 AM
Sorry I haven't answered all these questions. I am at work now. I had a few hours to kill the other day when I started the thread. I'm thinking about starting a few separate threads to deal with the separate issues that have beenaddressed in this one since it's drifted far from the original topic. For the record the problems some of you have with me capitalizing words is something I hadn't foreseen as a problem. I capitalized for emphasis. I have never been good at punctuation and grammar. I wasn't trying to push anything. I guess I'll have to reread all the posts to see also what I'm supposedly lying about. This is a complaint I hear often on these kinds of forums. I may be mistakenabout certain things but I'm not intentionally lying. We're talking philosophy here and i want to be careful. I am studying through some of the arguments posters have made and I'm reading and studying the verses about the children issue and slavery. It may take some time but I want to debate these issues calmly and rationally if possible.
I apologize for any negative comments I have made to any member personally I haven't done it intentionally.
Chris
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: sun_king on April 12, 2012, 04:48:06 AM
Co.Inkadink, your last post seems its been written by someone else! Seriously, the difference is amazing. Please, please, keep them like this.

Since you mentioned reading about children, here is a link for you http://ibnlive.in.com/news/bangalore-baby-afreen-dies-of-cardiac-arrest/247743-3.html

The hospital is just 12 km from my office, for the last five days we were hoping that she would make it alive. She was front page news here every day, the news channels would constantly update about her fight. We watched on helplessly, too late. If you are going to start a new thread, this is a good topic. Tell me why your god let Afreen die? Where was your almighty smiter when the baby was tortured by her father (or mother)?

Sadly, this is not an unique incident, but five days of watching her agony makes me ask it as a singularity. WHY DID HE CHOOSE TO WATCH HER SUFFER AND DIE?[1]
 1. Uppercase used on purpose and for reason
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: velkyn on April 12, 2012, 08:08:24 AM
“Capitalize for emphasis”?  I’m sorry but I don’t believe your excuse for a second.  You were *repeatedly* told that you were wrong for doing that and why and you refused to change. 

If you are corrected about something that you are mistaken about and continue to claim that this is the truth, then you are lying.  You have made claims that all atheists think the same.  You have been shown that is wrong.  So, any further statements that claim that atheists are the same are lies.  Get it? 

I don’t see that we are only talking philosophy here.  You have made claims that only your type of Christianity is the “true” one.  That is something that can hypothetically tested, by a Christian evincing the qualities promised by the supposed savior of your religion.  You have ignored my question on why you can’t do any of this.  You have tried to claim that slavery was “different” in the old days and you have been shown that was totally wrong.  There is no reading and studing verses that will change this fact.  You have claimed that your god somehow gives ‘objective” morality, but have yet to show that this is the case.  You have refused to acknowledge that your magic book and the god purportedly described in it has commanded and approved of many horrible things.  Again, no amount of reading and praying and “interpretation” will change that fact. 

It will not suprise me in the least if we never hear from you again, or if we do, it will be in a few weeks or months, and yuo will have the same poor arguments.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Alzael on April 12, 2012, 10:35:54 AM
We're talking philosophy here and i want to be careful.

No we aren't. Philosophy involves using a reasoned argument. You are talking theology here. There's a big difference.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: screwtape on April 12, 2012, 11:29:18 AM
I’m a little behind everyone here, but there are a couple of points I wanted to address that I thought were not.

First:
Here is my take. God knew these people were going to be amputated. He knew they were going to lose a limb. If he didn't want them to he wouldn't have allowed them to lose a limb in the first place.

You are missing the point of the question.

There is a certian type of xian who attempts to justify his or her god beliefs by claiming that people are miraculously healed of various afflictions by divine intervention.  The afflictions may include cancer, diabetes, coma, heart conditions, tooth decay, halitosis, spastic colon, etc.  We frequently hear anecdotes about how some church group prayed for some guy and the next day he was completely healed. 

But there are several problems with this kind of reasoning.  First, data shows many of these types of afflictions sometimes "clear up" without any kind of prayers.  It seems to be a natural response or a misdiagnosis.  Second, people of all religions make the same claims.  Third, following your logic, why let them get sick in the first place if they were going to be healed by god in the end?  And last, there is a whole class of ailments that are never, ever cured by prayer or naturally. 

People never regrow lost limbs.  Lost eyes never regrow in the empty sockets.  Retarded people never gain normal mental capacity. Alzheimers and Dementia sufferers never recover.  Old people never rejuvenate. 

This has clear implications about a god that supposedly heals people.  It leaves you only a few conclusions about such a god.

Now, if you are not the kind of xian who claims miraculous healings, then this question, why won’t god heal amputees, does not apply to you.


Second point:
I have trouble when Atheists use words like Honorable and Humane though, ..
These things that you describe they are just things that happen if you are an Atheist there is no sort of moral value to them.

I wanted to punch your lights out when I read that.  Seriously. I still kind of want to, even now.  I am sick to death of hearing from xians how I lack morals.  You think you know what it is like to be us.  You think you know how we think.  You think you understand our position on various issues.  But you haven’t got a clue.  And you never bother to ask before shooting off your big, fat mouths.  And even worse – when we try to correct you about what we think, you have the gall to argue with us. 

You have been lied to by your leaders, be they priests, ministers, apologists, writers, bloggers, whomever.  They have made us out to be the opposite of all you hold to be good and true.  And that is a lie.  We are no different than you.  They have created bigotry and you have bought into it.  And that makes me very angry.

You should ask yourself, why do they do that?  Why do your religious leaders portray us as being so horrible?  What do they have to gain by it?  I think the simplest answer is, to make abandoning their influence appear to be completely unattractive.  Right now, they have influence over you, but not me.  If they said “sure, atheists are decent, moral people, but they just believe differently,” that might make non-belief a plausible alternative.  And they certainly don’t want that to be a possibility.   

Here’s a thought.  Take something written by one of your guys about atheists.  Paste it into a Word document.  Then, do a find & replace function, finding “atheist” and replace it with “jew” or “nigger”.  See how it reads.

Once again I don't think Atheists are immoral I just think you have no Grounding for your morality if it's decided by society and culture and is subject to change. If it's subjective you can't really call anything wrong can you?

If we cannot call anything moral, then you are saying we have no morals and you distinction is lost.  You are saying we are completely amoral, which is also a lie.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: screwtape on April 12, 2012, 11:30:42 AM
Last:
Once again I don't think Atheists are immoral I just think you have no Grounding for your morality if it's decided by society and culture and is subject to change. If it's subjective you can't really call anything wrong can you?

It is subject to change and that is a good thing.  If it wasn’t subject to change, we would still be living by biblical moral codes, which is kind of the point of bringing up slavery. Morality has improved over the centuries.  Yet, the bible has not been updated to reflect that.  Why not?  Why leave in the misleading, conflicting, contradictory messages?  If god really doesn’t want us to own each other, why not codify that explicitly and take out the passages that contradict that?

Let me ask you a question I have asked xians before and have not received an answer.  According to you and your bible, yhwh gave Moses a set of rules for people to live by.  It included not killing, not stealing, not fucking your neighbor’s wife – all the basics required for people to function as a group. But it also included some weird things, like not eating meat with milk, not wearing clothes of mixed fibers, and some horrible things, like stoning your children for disobedience and making rape victims marry their rapists. 

The question:  If yhwh saw fit to include those obvious, weird and horrible rules, why is there no commandment explicitly forbidding owning people? 

You cannot say it didn’t occur to them.  Slavery happened back then, just like killing, stealing and adultery.  So it was obviously a topic that needed to be addressed.  But why was there no commandment forbidding it?  And you cannot say it was so obvious it did not need codifying.  I mean, they had to be told to not kill each other for chrissakes.  So why no commandment against slavery?

I think the simplest answer is, those rules were all man made. 

And if you are grounding your morality in god’s say so, then is that not also subject to change?  It is very obvious that your morals are not the same as the Iron Age Hebrews’.  So at some point, they have changed.  Even worse, your moral standards are at the whim of a capricious deity who, as many xians are fond of proclaiming, owes us nothing, not even consistency. 
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Alzael on April 12, 2012, 12:40:23 PM
As an aside, an interesting take on religion and modern morality by Anthony Grayling. This is from the 2007 Intelligence squared debate where he teamed up with Hitchens and Dawkins to address the question of whether we would be better off without religion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fyb-6M9yN4&feature=relmfu (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fyb-6M9yN4&feature=relmfu)
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Ice Monkey on April 12, 2012, 02:58:50 PM

Let me ask you a question I have asked xians before and have not received an answer.  According to you and your bible, yhwh gave Moses a set of rules for people to live by.  It included not killing, not stealing, not fucking your neighbor’s wife – all the basics required for people to function as a group. But it also included some weird things, like not eating meat with milk, not wearing clothes of mixed fibers, and some horrible things, like stoning your children for disobedience and making rape victims marry their rapists. 

The question:  If yhwh saw fit to include those obvious, weird and horrible rules, why is there no commandment explicitly forbidding owning people? 

You cannot say it didn’t occur to them.  Slavery happened back then, just like killing, stealing and adultery.  So it was obviously a topic that needed to be addressed.  But why was there no commandment forbidding it?  And you cannot say it was so obvious it did not need codifying.  I mean, they had to be told to not kill each other for chrissakes.  So why no commandment against slavery?

I think the simplest answer is, those rules were all man made. 

And if you are grounding your morality in god’s say so, then is that not also subject to change?  It is very obvious that your morals are not the same as the Iron Age Hebrews’.  So at some point, they have changed.  Even worse, your moral standards are at the whim of a capricious deity who, as many xians are fond of proclaiming, owes us nothing, not even consistency.

I think it's very telling that our of these vital 10 rules, we only recognize one as always being illegal to break.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Rustybeatz on April 12, 2012, 11:20:54 PM
Let's be nice and assume you actually had just made a valid point. That biblical slavery was slightly different. You are still saying that it was all right to enslave and own another human being as property. Even if it was only a few years. Does that really make you feel righteous and moral that you had to sugar-coat slavery just to defend your god?
Tell me if slavery is accepted by a society and culture is it wrong?
So is slavery Objectively absolutely wrong? By what standard is it wrong?

Quote
You are still saying that it was all right to enslave and own another human being as property.
According to that culture and society it was. And you would say so too if you are consistent with the Atheist philosophy that morals are decided by society and culture.
Personally I don't like it and I don't agree with it and I'm glad I don't live in that society.

One thing that Christians always say is that their god is unchanging and will never change.  If that is true then you should still believe that slavery is ok because he obviously does.  Also, if it's wrong now and the bible's morals are objective, shouldn't it have been wrong back then?  In other words, god should not have been giving out advice about how to treat slaves, he should have been condemning people for having slaves.  lol how can you not see that?
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: screwtape on April 13, 2012, 07:28:03 AM
I think it's very telling that our of these vital 10 rules, we only recognize one as always being illegal to break.

I think what is more telling is the only one yhwh ever punished anyone for breaking in the OT was not worshipping him. The hebrews in the bible did every manner of sin - lie, murder, steal, slut it up.  But the only time they were punished by yhwh was when they worshipped other gods.   Tells you where murder fits into yhwh's priorities.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 13, 2012, 01:34:13 PM
How about providing us some scientific facts that support the conclusion "The Bible is true and God is real". We've asked the same of every believer who comes here. We have yet to be presented with a single piece of actual evidence to support such a claim.
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/scientific-proofs-of-the-bible.html (http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/scientific-proofs-of-the-bible.html)
http://www.creatingfutures.net/evidence.html (http://www.creatingfutures.net/evidence.html)
Here are some pieces for you. I was going to cut and paste some info here but instead I'll just post the links.
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/ (http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/)
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 13, 2012, 01:35:09 PM

Quote
I think what is more telling is the only one yhwh ever punished anyone for breaking in the OT was not worshipping him. The hebrews in the bible did every manner of sin - lie, murder, steal, slut it up.  But the only time they were punished by yhwh was when they worshipped other gods.   Tells you where murder fits into yhwh's priorities.
Joshua 7:1-26 Achan lied and stole and was punished, severely for it.
King David was cursed for lying murder adultery for generations, his whole family suffered for his sin.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Hatter23 on April 13, 2012, 01:45:58 PM

his whole family suffered for his sin.

That's bad morality right there, you are punished for anothers wrongdoing. The concept is primitive and uncivilized.

Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: screwtape on April 13, 2012, 01:49:55 PM
Joshua 7:1-26 Achan lied and stole and was punished, severely for it.
King David was cursed for lying murder adultery for generations, his whole family suffered for his sin.

fair point.  Let me ammend my statement.  Hardly anyone was ever punished by yhwh for any sin other than idolatry.  Whole nations were punished for idolatry.


And here's a question for you.  Since every bad thing that had happened to the jewish nation collectively was explained in the OT has having been from idolatry, do you think the persecution of jews in nazi germany was also a collective punishment arranged by yhwh because of idolatry?  Whichever way you answer, why or why not?

Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Hatter23 on April 13, 2012, 01:53:19 PM

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/scientific-proofs-of-the-bible.html


That's no more than an illustration that a broken clock is occasionally correct. There are thousands of ludicrous inaccurate things posited by the Bible, but seven things, (some only if you squint hard through apologetic lenses) does not prove anything. Plenty of legends have a fact or two correct. Do you accept the Greek Gods interfering in the Trojan war because archaeological evidence shows that the war happened?
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 13, 2012, 01:57:55 PM
Every Christian I've ever met so far who tries to go the "textual criticism" route has quickly demonstrated they don't even really understand what this means or how to do it. Instead they used textual criticism as a euphemism for "twist the words around until it says what I want it to say". It will be fascinating to see if you disappoint as well.


Quote
Bart Ehrman was mentored by Bruce Metzger of Princeton University who was the greatest manuscript scholar of the last century.  In 2005, Ehrman helped Metzger update and revise the classic work on the topic– Metzger’s  The Text of the New Testament.
What do Metzger and Ehrman conclude together in that revised work? 
Ehrman and Metzger state in that book that we can have a high degree of confidence that we can reconstruct the original text of the New Testament, the text that is in the Bibles we use, because of the abundance of textual evidence we have to compare.  The variations are largely minor and don’t obscure our ability to construct an accurate text.  The 4th edition of this work was published in 2005 - the same year Ehrman published Misquoting Jesus, which relies on the same body of information and offers no new or different evidence to state the opposite conclusion.

Here’s what Ehrman says in an interview found in the appendix of Misquoting Jesus (p. 252):

    Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions - he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not - we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement - maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands.  The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.
http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=157 (http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=157)


there would be very few points of disagreement - maybe one or two dozen places out of many 2 dozen that's 24 roughly.
he essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament. Bart Ehrman

We can go over some stuff point by point and I'm sure we will in the future but
Quote
twist the words around until it says what I want it to say.
is not what I'm going to do. The new testament is consistent even Bart Ehrman would agree.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Dante on April 13, 2012, 02:00:30 PM
The new testament is consistent even Bart Ehrman would agree.

Just so we're all on the same page[1], which version?
 1. bad pun intended
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: kaziglu bey on April 13, 2012, 02:09:42 PM
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/scientific-proofs-of-the-bible.html (http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/scientific-proofs-of-the-bible.html)
From this site:

   
Quote
The earth is hung on nothing just as today's space photos so clearly show.
But, the verse from Job cited to support this also says, a few verses later, "The pillars of the heavens quake, aghast at his rebuke. " Curiously, we have yet to get a picture of the "pillars of Heaven".  The Bible also says that the stars are fixed in a firmament and that the earth is a circle. Neither of those claims are true. A quote from Job, taken out of context, that does nothing at ALL to provide evidence of the claims "The Bible is true and God is real". Even if the quote means what this says, it doesn't lend any evidence to the extraordinary claims of the Bible, nor excuse the numerous other errors in the Bible (like, insects have 4 legs).

I could address the other 6 points that this site addresses, but they are all as much or more tenuous, deceptive, and mundane that it would truly be a waste of effort. Especially since they do not provide evidence of the claims "The Bible is true and God is real".

Quote
http://www.creatingfutures.net/evidence.html (http://www.creatingfutures.net/evidence.html)
It is becoming rather clear that your definition of "evidence" is much different than mine. Again, VERY tenuous links based on (what else?) the Bible, which, of course cannot be used as evidence of the Bible's truth. There is no real, credible evidence to support the claims that "The Bible is true and God is real''. Evidence that would prove that claim might come in the form of evidence of a massive, world wide, 29,050 rainfall occurring about 4,500 years ago. No such evidence exists. Hence, there is no reason to believe in Noah's flood, a pivotal story in the Bible.
Quote
Here are some pieces for you. I was going to cut and paste some info here but instead I'll just post the links.
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/ (http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/)
Again, where is the actual evidence here? If this is the best you've got, I feel embarrassed for you.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Alzael on April 13, 2012, 02:21:13 PM

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/scientific-proofs-of-the-bible.html (http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/scientific-proofs-of-the-bible.html)
http://www.creatingfutures.net/evidence.html (http://www.creatingfutures.net/evidence.html)
Here are some pieces for you. I was going to cut and paste some info here but instead I'll just post the links.
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/ (http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/)

He said scientific facts.

Here are the "facts" from the first link.

""He stretches out the north over EMPTY SPACE. He hangs the earth on NOTHING." (Job 26:7, NKJV throughout unless noted)." This is the first proof of the bible that it lists. Other ancient cultures believed that the earth rested on something, but the bible says it was nothing (which they claim is apparently true) and that proves it's right.

Oh boy, here we go.

First off, no the bible is not the only cosmology that claims that the earth doesn't rest on nothing. One example is zoroastrianism. Secondly, the earth is not hung on "nothing". It's kept in place through gravity and centrifugal force. Third, this is not even remotely scientific. It's a claim with no evidence, no legitimate theory stated that could have been thought up by any primitive goatherder.

I like how that site treats it like a major insight. It tries to portray the idea that the earth was just floating in space as a great and revolutionary idea that no one could have possibly thought of.

Ok, let's try "fact" two.

"    "In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the FOUNTAINS OF THE GREAT DEEP WERE BROKEN UP, and the windows of heaven were opened." (Genesis 7:11)

The word translated as "fountains" in the above verse (Hebrew: ????? ????? ????, Strong's Concordance #H4599) can mean springs or wells in addition to fountains. Are there really fountains or springs in the oceans? If your answer is that the Bible was wrong about that, you would have seemed correct for some 3,000 years. Correct until 1977 that is. Despite sixty years of modern submarine activity, ocean springs were unknown and undiscovered until 1977.

In 1977, with only 5% of the ocean floor explored, scientists found springs in the ocean off the coast of Ecuador. (3) They were found at an ocean depth of 1 1/2 miles (2.4 kilometers)! These springs contained super-heated water of about 450 degrees. "

So.....ok. So IF you translate the word a certain way it can mean springs or wells. And there are underground wells in the ocean. Just as there are well and springs underground on dry land and inside of lakes, which should have been entirely known to those people. So this is hardly a stretch. By the way, so far scientists have found sixe of these in the whole ocean, but I digress.

Furthremore we get this bit. "Some Bible skeptics claim the oceans and the atmosphere together do not contain enough water to cover the earth to the depth needed to reach above the mountains, as was the case in the great flood. This criticism does not hold up because the Bible says the springs in the oceans were broken up at the time of the flood, which would increase their flow.

How much extra water could the broken up springs produce?"

Well, in order to flood the earth you need a little over three times the amount of water already present in the oceans and as vapour in the atmosphere already. So there had better be a damn lot down there.

Number three.
Are no NEW cells created?

I'll be honest. I've got nothing for this. It's so utterly non-sensical I can't tell which argument it's trying to make. Something about cells only arising from a pre-existing cell and this proving something about Abrahams loins........ I have no idea. If someone else wants to read it go ahead.

I'll deal with the last four "facts"  once I get home from work.

Every Christian I've ever met so far who tries to go the "textual criticism" route has quickly demonstrated they don't even really understand what this means or how to do it. Instead they used textual criticism as a euphemism for "twist the words around until it says what I want it to say". It will be fascinating to see if you disappoint as well.


Quote
Bart Ehrman was mentored by Bruce Metzger of Princeton University who was the greatest manuscript scholar of the last century.  In 2005, Ehrman helped Metzger update and revise the classic work on the topic– Metzger’s  The Text of the New Testament.
What do Metzger and Ehrman conclude together in that revised work? 
Ehrman and Metzger state in that book that we can have a high degree of confidence that we can reconstruct the original text of the New Testament, the text that is in the Bibles we use, because of the abundance of textual evidence we have to compare.  The variations are largely minor and don’t obscure our ability to construct an accurate text.  The 4th edition of this work was published in 2005 - the same year Ehrman published Misquoting Jesus, which relies on the same body of information and offers no new or different evidence to state the opposite conclusion.

Here’s what Ehrman says in an interview found in the appendix of Misquoting Jesus (p. 252):

    Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions - he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not - we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement - maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands.  The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.
http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=157 (http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=157)


there would be very few points of disagreement - maybe one or two dozen places out of many 2 dozen that's 24 roughly.
he essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament. Bart Ehrman

We can go over some stuff point by point and I'm sure we will in the future but
Quote
twist the words around until it says what I want it to say.
is not what I'm going to do. The new testament is consistent even Bart Ehrman would agree.

And Bart Ehrman is, of course, always right about everything..........

So in other words you're going with an appeal to authority. You're really just here to waste my time aren't you?
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 13, 2012, 02:23:29 PM
Joshua 7:1-26 Achan lied and stole and was punished, severely for it.
King David was cursed for lying murder adultery for generations, his whole family suffered for his sin.

fair point.  Let me ammend my statement.  Hardly anyone was ever punished by yhwh for any sin other than idolatry.  Whole nations were punished for idolatry.


And here's a question for you.  Since every bad thing that had happened to the jewish nation collectively was explained in the OT has having been from idolatry, do you think the persecution of jews in nazi germany was also a collective punishment arranged by yhwh because of idolatry?  Whichever way you answer, why or why not?
Thank you for ammending your statement. The fact that Hardly anyone was ever punished by yhwh for any sin other than idolatry doesn't mean they weren't punished for those things. The Bible doesn't record everything that happened but I see your point. I will be honest, I don't like everything that happened in the Bible. I am trying to understand it all better.
I've told people before that if I could be talked out of my Christianity I would be. I think it would take some doing though if not impossible. I have studied comparative religions and the history and archeology of the Bible for 20 years along with apologetics and I've studied debates. On top of that my personal relationship with Christ is very real, I have experienced answered prayer and known his presence in ways I can't explain. But if I felt the Bible was untrue and Christianity was false I would walk away and never look back.

Anyway about your question.
Quote
Do you think the persecution of jews in nazi germany was also a collective punishment arranged by yhwh because of idolatry?
I'm in the process of going through this entire thread and answering questions I missed from the beginning and trying to answer them.
I want to think about your question, look up some information about it and get back to you.  Sometimes on other forums and on this one I'll answer a question too quickly and I don't want to do that. I have to work tonight and when I have down time I will study and think about some of these questions.

I do think God punishes people collectively though, it's done over and over in scripture, I'm just not sure that's what was happing in WWII.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Alzael on April 13, 2012, 02:24:03 PM
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/scientific-proofs-of-the-bible.html (http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/scientific-proofs-of-the-bible.html)
From this site:

   
Quote
The earth is hung on nothing just as today's space photos so clearly show.
But, the verse from Job cited to support this also says, a few verses later, "The pillars of the heavens quake, aghast at his rebuke. " Curiously, we have yet to get a picture of the "pillars of Heaven".  The Bible also says that the stars are fixed in a firmament and that the earth is a circle. Neither of those claims are true. A quote from Job, taken out of context, that does nothing at ALL to provide evidence of the claims "The Bible is true and God is real". Even if the quote means what this says, it doesn't lend any evidence to the extraordinary claims of the Bible, nor excuse the numerous other errors in the Bible (like, insects have 4 legs).

I could address the other 6 points that this site addresses, but they are all as much or more tenuous, deceptive, and mundane that it would truly be a waste of effort. Especially since they do not provide evidence of the claims "The Bible is true and God is real".

Quote
http://www.creatingfutures.net/evidence.html (http://www.creatingfutures.net/evidence.html)
It is becoming rather clear that your definition of "evidence" is much different than mine. Again, VERY tenuous links based on (what else?) the Bible, which, of course cannot be used as evidence of the Bible's truth. There is no real, credible evidence to support the claims that "The Bible is true and God is real''. Evidence that would prove that claim might come in the form of evidence of a massive, world wide, 29,050 rainfall occurring about 4,500 years ago. No such evidence exists. Hence, there is no reason to believe in Noah's flood, a pivotal story in the Bible.
Quote
Here are some pieces for you. I was going to cut and paste some info here but instead I'll just post the links.
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/ (http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/)
Again, where is the actual evidence here? If this is the best you've got, I feel embarrassed for you.

OK, Co. I scanned those sights also, and I will address them when I get the chance. But let me just agree Kaz for a minute. If you want to do this, and not look like a total idiot. You need to at least learn what evidence is.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: velkyn on April 13, 2012, 02:24:10 PM
wow, what hilarious links.  Let’s look at that first link.  It claims to have seven whole discoveries that prove the bible.  Hmmm, the first one claims that the discover of gravity proved the bible. Hilarious since the bible says nothing about gravity at all.  It claims that the earth is hanging in space and that there are pillars supporting it.  More lies from Christians who want to claim that their magic decoder ring is the only “right” interpretation source.  There is nothing about gravity and orbits that indicating anything is hanging on “nothing”. 

Oh number 2 is even better. The poor things claim that since there are black smokers in the oceans, this means that the bible’s claim “ 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.’ must. be true.  What’s great about his is that we have no idea what “great deep” means, though one indeed could assume the oceans.  Pity that there is no evidence at all for any rain happening for 40 days and 40 nights or any global flood or any massive break up of any “fountains” under the oceans, or any voids that this water could have come from.  I love how this whole article uses citations from other creationist claims which have no evidence to support them at all, for instance the claim “"There is probably as much water circulating under the sea floor as there is in the oceans above.” well, the citation is “Creation Corner article "Evolution and Humans are just Animals". Wow,how could I ever doubt basless nonsense!

This next one needs to be quoted directly “Biblical Scientific Fact #3 Are no NEW cells created?”  More attempts to claim that since we haven’t been able to create cells, poof!  that means that only the Christian god can.   The god of the gaps argument and the ignorant attempt to claim that their god is the only one.  Funny how Christians also claimed that only god could heal people but now humans can. 

#4 is an oldie but goodie.  The poor Christians try to claim that since we’ve found some of the cities mentioned in the bible, why that means that their god exists!  Golly, since we know that Athens exists, that must mean that Athena and Posiedon exist too since the myths of that religion also mentioned real cities and people.  Pity that they can’t find actual evidence of the important events of the bible e.g. the “exodus”, the supposedly great cities and temples of David and Solomon, etc. 

#5 is the claim that the bible’s authors knew about wind currents.  Why yes they did and so did the Sumerians, the Chinese, Polynesians, etc, and all without any information from a Judeo Chrisitan god at all.  It’s not hard to figure out that the wind moves in predictable patterns.  Or do Christians think that people can’t figure such things out?  The other problem with this claim is that it’s in with some other ridiculous things that the Christians ignore.  For instance the verse right abouve the one they claim is some divine information says “5 The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.”  A lovely bit of evidence that the authors of the bible thought the sun circled the earth.  It doesn’t at all.  Or how about this one “Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever.” a big fail on that one too.  Physics indicates that it likely will be gone in about 5 billion years when the sun expands and destroys it.  This is always a good one: “For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief.”  Pity that Christians give their beliefs lip service but when push comes to shove they use all of that bad ol’ wisdom and knowledge to make their lives easier. 

#6 claims that the bible knew what matter was made out of.  Their versical proof? Isaiah 40:12 Behold, the nations are as a drop in a bucket, and are counted as the small dust on the scales. Look, He (God) lifts up the isles as a very little thing." - KJV  The NIV has it this way: Surely the nations are like a drop in a bucket; they are regarded as dust on the scales; he weighs the islands as though they were fine dust.” 
 
oh darn, they can’t even get their verses right.  You see, it’s actually Isaiah 40:15, not 12.  Silly people.  So we have a verse that says that nations are little to god, and are dust, and this god can lift up islands as little things.  From this, these Christians get that they can’t possibly take this as literal and “there’s a lot of empty space in matter”.  ROFL. that right there has to be one of the most utterly dishonest and hilarious Christian claims ever.  this is just more figurative language, yep we can see the word “like” and “as” there, and this is just more sycophantic sucking up to God by declaring well, the context will tell you that: 15Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.  16And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt offering.  17All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity. 18To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?”

And we finish up with #7, the shape of the earth.  I always love this one since it takes so much dishonesty and ignorance of the bible.  It’s the same moronic claim that the bible’s claim that the earth is a circle must mean it’s a sphere.  No, it doesn’t.  The word for circule is not the word for sphere.  The authors of the bible knew what spheres were.  It’s a shame that Christians are so desperate to claim that they did not and evidently too ignorant to use their own words correctly.  The bible goes on to support the idea that the authors were only familiar with a flat earth by claiming that the earth was formed like clay under a seal e.g. flattened out; that one could see all of the earth from a mountain, impossible on a sphere; that one could grasp the edges of the earth and shake it like a sheet; that to measure the earth one only has to measure “across” it rather than “around” it; and that it rests on pillars.  I know, coink, you’ll try to claim metaphor, etc, but that is a problem for you when it coems to other ridiculous claims that you are sure are literal.   
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 13, 2012, 02:25:34 PM

his whole family suffered for his sin.

That's bad morality right there, you are punished for anothers wrongdoing. The concept is primitive and uncivilized.
God punishes people collectively. Maybe it is primitive and uncivilized but that's the way it was done.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: velkyn on April 13, 2012, 02:29:06 PM
The new testament is consistent even Bart Ehrman would agree.

Coink, what did the "thieves" say and do?  What did the apostles do after the cruxifiction? what did JC do just before the cruxifiction? 

why do paul and jesus disagree if what you say is true?
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Dante on April 13, 2012, 02:30:06 PM
God punishes people collectively. Maybe it is primitive and uncivilized but that's the way it was done.

Why, did your god change is omniscient mind?
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: One Above All on April 13, 2012, 02:30:29 PM
BM
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Hatter23 on April 13, 2012, 02:32:20 PM

God punishes people collectively. Maybe it is primitive and uncivilized but that's the way it was done.

That's my point exactly, this Yahweh character operates just like the morality of the time, not above it, not better than it; and wouldn't you expect a Omni-being to have more advanced morals than the primitve Nomads that worshipped him. Why would this fantastic being, capable of creating a universe be less advanced than a 21rst century humanist?

Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: kaziglu bey on April 13, 2012, 02:32:59 PM
God punishes people collectively. Maybe it is primitive and uncivilized but that's the way it was done.
So has God become more sophisticated and civilized? Always at the same rate as human society? How convenient. The unchanging God of absolute morals, who shifts his views to fit the SPAG of his followers.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Hatter23 on April 13, 2012, 02:33:12 PM
The new testament is consistent even Bart Ehrman would agree.

Coink, what did the "thieves" say and do?  What did the apostles do after the cruxifiction? what did JC do just before the cruxifiction? 

why do paul and jesus disagree if what you say is true?

How did Judas die?
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 13, 2012, 02:42:32 PM
The new testament is consistent even Bart Ehrman would agree.

Just so we're all on the same page[1], which version?
 1. bad pun intended
Bart Ehrman does textual criticism from the ancient Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. There are 5,366 plus N.T. Greek autographs in existence today and more being found all the time. The New Testament has more copies than any other ancient book in existence. The copies that have been found so far and Ehrman agrees that there are only about 24 points of disagreement in the New testament and the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.

So the version he's using is the 5,366 Greek manuscripts.  This is the "version" that anyone who wants to seriously study the Bible would use.
 
We have their findings that textual scholars and critics have been using for hundreds of years online. We have something called a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance (http://www.biblestudytools.com/concordances/strongs-exhaustive-concordance/) that has every word in the original language for study.

Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: naemhni on April 13, 2012, 02:44:05 PM
God punishes people collectively. Maybe it is primitive and uncivilized but that's the way it was done.

No, not necessarily.  Have you ever heard of the Code of Hammurabi, for example?  It dates back to the 18th century BCE or so (more than a millennium earlier than even the book of Genesis, and created by a man who worshipped Marduk, not Yahweh).  Hammurabi had ideas about justice that would be considered progressive even today by some society's standards -- presumption of innocence, for example, and it doesn't appear that "mass punishment" was something that was ever even considered; penalties were prescribed only for a person found guilty of a crime.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 13, 2012, 02:45:21 PM
The new testament is consistent even Bart Ehrman would agree.

Coink, what did the "thieves" say and do?  What did the apostles do after the cruxifiction? what did JC do just before the cruxifiction? 

why do paul and jesus disagree if what you say is true?

How did Judas die?
   
Matthew 27:5 Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.
Acts 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.


Judas’ dead body hung in the hot sun of Jerusalem, and the bacteria inside his body would have been actively breaking down tissues and cells. A byproduct of bacterial metabolism is often gas. The pressure created by the gas forces fluid out of the cells and tissues and into the body cavities. The body becomes bloated as a result. In addition, tissue decomposition occurs compromising the integrity of the skin. Judas’ body was similar to an overinflated balloon, and as he hit the ground (due to the branch he hung on or the rope itself breaking) the skin easily broke and he burst open with his internal organs spilling out.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 13, 2012, 02:47:40 PM
God punishes people collectively. Maybe it is primitive and uncivilized but that's the way it was done.

No, not necessarily.  Have you ever heard of the Code of Hammurabi, for example?  It dates back to the 18th century BCE or so (more than a millennium earlier than even the book of Genesis, and created by a man who worshipped Marduk, not Yahweh).  Hammurabi had ideas about justice that would be considered progressive even today by some society's standards -- presumption of innocence, for example, and it doesn't appear that "mass punishment" was something that was ever even considered; penalties were prescribed only for a person found guilty of a crime.
Ammendment.
That's the way it was done in the Bible.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: One Above All on April 13, 2012, 02:48:25 PM
Ammendment.
That's the way it was done in the Bible.

You got the verb tense wrong.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: velkyn on April 13, 2012, 02:48:30 PM
it's grand fun to watch coink run to Ehrman when convenient.  So, coink do you believe everything else Ehrman says about your religion? 

and I love the attempts to make belive that one can hang himself, die, and then burst his guts out and die again.  one doesn't fall "headlong" if one drops off like rotten fruit from a tree.  Nice cribbing from AiG, but it still fails.   
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: naemhni on April 13, 2012, 02:53:43 PM
God punishes people collectively. Maybe it is primitive and uncivilized but that's the way it was done.

No, not necessarily.  Have you ever heard of the Code of Hammurabi, for example?  It dates back to the 18th century BCE or so (more than a millennium earlier than even the book of Genesis, and created by a man who worshipped Marduk, not Yahweh).  Hammurabi had ideas about justice that would be considered progressive even today by some society's standards -- presumption of innocence, for example, and it doesn't appear that "mass punishment" was something that was ever even considered; penalties were prescribed only for a person found guilty of a crime.
Ammendment.
That's the way it was done in the Bible.

The point still stands: how could Hammurabi have come up with a more just legal system than Yahweh?

As you've been told, most of the atheists here are former believers, and for many of them, this was one of the things that caused them to question their faith: when they read about things like this in the Bible, it made them realize that they had a higher ethical standard than the deity that they were worshipping, which should, of course, not be possible.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Aaron123 on April 13, 2012, 02:57:56 PM
Co.Inkadink, you said in post #58 that torturing babies is an example of something that is "actually wrong no matter what".  In post #79, I asked if this extended to killing babies as well.

I'm still waiting for an answer on that.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Hatter23 on April 13, 2012, 03:18:30 PM

   
Matthew 27:5 Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.
Acts 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.


Judas’ dead body hung in the hot sun of Jerusalem, and the bacteria inside his body would have been actively breaking down tissues and cells. A byproduct of bacterial metabolism is often gas. The pressure created by the gas forces fluid out of the cells and tissues and into the body cavities. The body becomes bloated as a result. In addition, tissue decomposition occurs compromising the integrity of the skin. Judas’ body was similar to an overinflated balloon, and as he hit the ground (due to the branch he hung on or the rope itself breaking) the skin easily broke and he burst open with his internal organs spilling out.

That quite a strech there, and one I've heard before. It requires that the author in Acts to have completely ignored the hanging to describe what might have happen days or weeks later. It is like someone talking about the death of Lincoln ignoring the whole shooting in Ford's theater and just talking about the body being moved in the Illinois graveyard. Secondly, if the body rotted, it does not fall headlong, if the rope broke, it does not fall headlong, if the treebranch broke, the body does not fall headlong. Did Yahweh mess with the laws of physics again?
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 13, 2012, 03:26:18 PM
God punishes people collectively. Maybe it is primitive and uncivilized but that's the way it was done.
So has God become more sophisticated and civilized? Always at the same rate as human society? How convenient. The unchanging God of absolute morals, who shifts his views to fit the SPAG of his followers.
I guess he has if you look at as being more sophisticated and civilized. God set apart Israel for a reason, he had them obey dietary laws and the way they dressed and their government was a theocracy. Some of the laws became null and void once they stopped wandering in the desert and established a nation they were only to set themselves apart from the heathen nations and not to intermingle. Then when they became a nation and demanded a King they became a democracy, the temple cleanliness laws were still to be obeyed such as diet and such because of temple purity. The priests sacrificed animals on the altar for the sins of the people, something that started with Abraham a Chaldean Jew. This was a picture or a promise of the messiah that would come and present a final sacrifice for the people. Every sacrifice for sin in the old testament was foreshadowing what was to come. The people had to stay pure and sacrifice once a year. The OT prophecies Isa 53 Psalm 22 and many others portrayed a suffering servant who would die for the sins of the people.
Jesus in the NT was sinless and perfect and became that sacrifice. Once he did that he fulfilled the OT law regarding sin sacrifice and the OT Jewish laws for temple purity diet clothing etc were unnecessary because there would be no more animals sacrificed since He was the sacrificial Lamb. The Jews haven't had animal sacrifice in 2000 years because when Jesus died he said it is finished "promise fulfilled" and the curtain of the Holy of Holies was ripped in two making it impossible to perform sacrifices there. People in the new covenant or promise that God promised in the OT when the old covenant was broken are now judged as individuals. I can't bring sin offerings for my sons and daughter they have to come to God themselves and make that commitment.
God hasn't changed his morals He has changed the methods and practices of how he deals with people. The Jews had a moral law in the OT but added all kinds of other laws and traditions that made it impossible for outsiders to become part of God's family. Jesus came to set things straight and establish the new covenant Jeremiah 31:31-34 as promised. Today Christianity has done the same thing. God clearly wanted the Jews to become a great nation Genesis 18:18 and all the world to come to know him through them. They made Judaism and exclusive club. Today many Christian denominations have added rules traditions and laws that need to be followed in order to be in God's family but that is not how God intended it.
Genesis15:6 And he [Abraham] believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Abraham was saved by faith in God alone the sacrifice for sin that messiah would bring.
Christians are saved by faith in God alone through Christ and the sacrifice he made.
The Jews looked forward in the sacrifices, Christians look back to the once and for all sacrifice.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: naemhni on April 13, 2012, 03:26:46 PM

   
Matthew 27:5 Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.
Acts 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.


Judas’ dead body hung in the hot sun of Jerusalem, and the bacteria inside his body would have been actively breaking down tissues and cells. A byproduct of bacterial metabolism is often gas. The pressure created by the gas forces fluid out of the cells and tissues and into the body cavities. The body becomes bloated as a result. In addition, tissue decomposition occurs compromising the integrity of the skin. Judas’ body was similar to an overinflated balloon, and as he hit the ground (due to the branch he hung on or the rope itself breaking) the skin easily broke and he burst open with his internal organs spilling out.

That quite a strech there, and one I've heard before. It requires that the author in Acts to have completely ignored the hanging to describe what might have happen days or weeks later. It is like someone talking about the death of Lincoln ignoring the whole shooting in Ford's theater and just talking about the body being moved in the Illinois graveyard. Secondly, if the body rotted, it does not fall headlong, if the rope broke, it does not fall headlong, if the treebranch brok, the body does not fall headlong. Did Yahweh mess with the laws of physics again?

Not to mention which, it also strongly suggests that the author of Acts was not familiar with at least this portion of Matthew.  Note that Luke says that Judas bought a field with the thirty pieces of silver, but Matthew says that Judas threw the money away.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 13, 2012, 03:37:38 PM

   
Matthew 27:5 Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.
Acts 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.


Judas’ dead body hung in the hot sun of Jerusalem, and the bacteria inside his body would have been actively breaking down tissues and cells. A byproduct of bacterial metabolism is often gas. The pressure created by the gas forces fluid out of the cells and tissues and into the body cavities. The body becomes bloated as a result. In addition, tissue decomposition occurs compromising the integrity of the skin. Judas’ body was similar to an overinflated balloon, and as he hit the ground (due to the branch he hung on or the rope itself breaking) the skin easily broke and he burst open with his internal organs spilling out.

That quite a stretch there, and one I've heard before. It requires that the author in Acts to have completely ignored the hanging to describe what might have happen days or weeks later. It is like someone talking about the death of Lincoln ignoring the whole shooting in Ford's theater and just talking about the body being moved in the Illinois graveyard. Secondly, if the body rotted, it does not fall headlong, if the rope broke, it does not fall headlong, if the tree branch broke, the body does not fall headlong. Did Yahweh mess with the laws of physics again?
It may be a stretch but it is possible and plausible. The branch could pull the body down head first or if the legs were at an angle the feet could hit something and flip the body head first.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: One Above All on April 13, 2012, 03:39:33 PM
It may be a stretch but it is possible and plausible. The branch could pull the body down head first or if the legs were at an angle the feet could hit something and flip the body head first.

Sure, if the body had been hung[1] from a 30 meter-tall tree. My guess is it wasn't, assuming the story to be true.
 1. Not sure if this is the proper verb tense.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Hatter23 on April 13, 2012, 03:40:27 PM
It may be a stretch but it is possible and plausible. The branch could pull the body down head first or if the legs were at an angle the feet could hit something and flip the body head first.

Are you forgetting basic phsics, that a heavy branch isn't going to fall to earth any faster than a light branch?
The feet being at an angle would be possible, except that if the body was at the state of decomposition that it would burst from a fall, it is beyond the stage of atp hydrolysis, so the makes it exceedingly unlikely that even if the feet struck something that it would fall headlong.

And that still ignores the Lincoln analogy.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 13, 2012, 03:43:28 PM

   
Matthew 27:5 Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.
Acts 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.


Judas’ dead body hung in the hot sun of Jerusalem, and the bacteria inside his body would have been actively breaking down tissues and cells. A byproduct of bacterial metabolism is often gas. The pressure created by the gas forces fluid out of the cells and tissues and into the body cavities. The body becomes bloated as a result. In addition, tissue decomposition occurs compromising the integrity of the skin. Judas’ body was similar to an overinflated balloon, and as he hit the ground (due to the branch he hung on or the rope itself breaking) the skin easily broke and he burst open with his internal organs spilling out.

That quite a strech there, and one I've heard before. It requires that the author in Acts to have completely ignored the hanging to describe what might have happen days or weeks later. It is like someone talking about the death of Lincoln ignoring the whole shooting in Ford's theater and just talking about the body being moved in the Illinois graveyard. Secondly, if the body rotted, it does not fall headlong, if the rope broke, it does not fall headlong, if the treebranch brok, the body does not fall headlong. Did Yahweh mess with the laws of physics again?

Not to mention which, it also strongly suggests that the author of Acts was not familiar with at least this portion of Matthew.  Note that Luke says that Judas bought a field with the thirty pieces of silver, but Matthew says that Judas threw the money away.
I found a pretty good explanation online. Notice when you look this stuff up all the same Greek and Hebrew words are used? It's almost like there's a standard version of the Bible that people study.
   
The chief priests did not want to put the money paid for the betrayal of Jesus back into the temple treasury as it was "blood money." So they bought an "agros:" a field to bury strangers in. Because blood money was used to purchase the field it was called "the field [agros] of blood." This is different than the property [chorion] that Judas purchased himself referred to in Acts Chapter 1.

The problem here is that both Acts and Matthew connect the purchase specifically with Judas' act of treachery. Thus I cannot accept this solution. However, it does lead into our own answer. There are a few factors here -- one linguistic, the others sociological.

The word used by Matthew for "bought" is agorazo -- a general term meaning, "to go to market." It means to purchase, but also to redeem. It is a verb that refers to the transaction of business. Note how Luke uses it in opposition to another word:

    Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell (poleo) his garment, and buy (agorazo) one.

Poleo can mean "sell" but it's primary meaning has to do with trading and bartering. Therefore the translation of "buy" (and "sell") is made according to context.

How does this mean anything with regard to Judas?

First, note the word Luke uses. It is ktaomai, which means to "get, acquire, obtain, possess, provide, purchase." This word has the connotations of ownership that agorazo does not. Matthew says that the priests transacted business for the obtaining of the field, but they did not thereby have possession of the field. The money they used was Judas' and the field was bought in his name; the field was technically and legally his.

And that leads to another question no one has yet raised, but which I will:

It seems too much of a coincidence, that the priests managed to buy the exact same field that Judas died in.

Not at all. Once Judas died in the field, the land became defiled by his corpse. Hence it would become perfectly suited to become a full-time cemetery. In this ancient collectivist society, the gossip would readily get around as to where and how Judas died and it would not be a burden for the decision to be made to purchase the field in Judas' name (see below) to turn into a cemetery.

If Judas threw the money away, it wasn't his anymore, it belonged to the priests.

This is where our social factor comes into play. Note that the money cannot be put in the treasury -- it cannot be made to belong to the temple again -- because it is blood money. Keener observes in his Matthean commentary [657-8]:

    Ancient Eastern peoples regarded very seriously the guilt of innocent blood, sometimes viewed in terms of corporate responsibility. Like Pilate the priestly officials wanted nothing further to do with the situation, and likewise understand that the blood was innocent...

The money was profaned and tainted by the way it was used. By ancient thinking, it was ritually unclean -- though even today a charity may refuse money if it is gained by ill-gotten means.

Now it follows that when they transacted the business of the field for the temple, to avoid association with ritual uncleanness, the priests would have to have bought it in the name of Judas Iscariot, the one whose blood money it was. The property and transaction records available to the public and probably consulted by Luke would reflect that Judas bought the field -- or else Luke is indeed aware of what transpired and is using just the right verb to make the point.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 13, 2012, 03:44:52 PM
It may be a stretch but it is possible and plausible. The branch could pull the body down head first or if the legs were at an angle the feet could hit something and flip the body head first.

Sure, if the body had been hung[1] from a 30 meter-tall tree. My guess is it wasn't, assuming the story to be true.
 1. Not sure if this is the proper verb tense.
I've seen people trip over a rock and land head first on the ground.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 13, 2012, 03:48:01 PM
God punishes people collectively. Maybe it is primitive and uncivilized but that's the way it was done.

Why, did your god change is omniscient mind?
Quote
omniscient
having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.
So having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, understanding; and perceiving all things means you can't change your mind?
How does that follow?
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: One Above All on April 13, 2012, 03:50:24 PM
I've seen people trip over a rock and land head first on the ground.

Emphasis on "trip". Their feet were touching the ground. This body's were not.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Dante on April 13, 2012, 03:55:35 PM
Why, did your god change is omniscient mind?
Quote
omniscient
having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.
So having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, understanding; and perceiving all things means you can't change your mind?
How does that follow?

Cmon, Johnny, use that coconut.

Why did a perfect being change his mind? Was he wrong the first time? He allegedly already knows everything, forever and ever. Yet, he changed his mind on punishments. THAT does not follow.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Alzael on April 13, 2012, 04:06:44 PM
Co.Inkadink, you said in post #58 that torturing babies is an example of something that is "actually wrong no matter what".  In post #79, I asked if this extended to killing babies as well.

I'm still waiting for an answer on that.

I'm still waiting for the slavery thing. Funny how he just went ahead on a new track rather than dealing with the implications of what he had previously said.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 13, 2012, 04:17:56 PM
Well this has been fun but I have to get ready for work. I work the night shift but my real dream is to be a Comic book artist.
http://imageshack.us/f/88/shockcops1x.gif/ (http://imageshack.us/f/88/shockcops1x.gif/)
I'm going to try to go back and answer some of the questions from earlier pages next time I get on. I tried to do that this time but then more questions were asked.  It's hard to keep up. Every answer spawns another question it seems.
 
Someone pages back asked why I'm doing this. I'll tell you, I was an unbeliever for 22 years and then I was saved. I began to research the tenets and reasons of the Christian faith and it strengthened my faith. I am annoyed at Christians who don't understand why they believe what they believe. I question everything and look for answers, I have some problems with the Bible as well but the problems I have are small comparatively. I want to be able to communicate better my convictions and beliefs.
My best friend for 18 years I met him 2 weeks after I was saved was an atheist, I loved him like a brother, he was best man at my wedding and I at his. 4 years ago the 28th he wrote me off forever. He was a very moral person and we debated a lot on these topics.
As time wore on he became increasingly anger and bitter at the world he did many immoral things that he didn't consider wrong according to his worldview but I called him on, I often bit my tongue and didn't say anything but some things were too wrong not to mention. Then his wife cheated on him and all his morality went out the window.
The last time I talked to him he was bitter and angry and full of hate at just about everybody, the people he was hanging around with acted the same. I could see a direct way his worldview affected him for the worse. He believed life had no ultimate meaning or purpose and that humans are just animals. I've met many atheists just like him.
I've been studying apologetics and debate for years now in the hope of trying to bring understanding to people. I think Christianity is true logical and beneficial. I don't think anyone can be talked into being a christian though.

I will continue to try and talk with you good people as long as you will listen. I don't really respond much to the sarcasm and cussing it's really unnecessary but I do respond a little to those who do it because I understand many Christians have been poor witnesses or ambassadors of the faith they supposedly hold.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 13, 2012, 04:28:32 PM
Co.Inkadink, you said in post #58 that torturing babies is an example of something that is "actually wrong no matter what".  In post #79, I asked if this extended to killing babies as well.

I'm still waiting for an answer on that.

I'm still waiting for the slavery thing. Funny how he just went ahead on a new track rather than dealing with the implications of what he had previously said.
Is it funny? Really? Truly?

I'm going to start separate threads on slavery and the suffering issues later as I've already said. Feel free to bring it up over and over again until I do.
Hey Co.ink? Howcum you haven't answered MY IMPORTANT QUESTION ON PAGE 4 POST 7?
Maybe because I'm busy answering the 10 other questions I received while answering the question from page 1.

Sorry I'm one guy here, I have some good stuff on the slavery issue and I'll post it later so you'll just have to wait "if you even care". You could just Google Bible Slavery apologetics and find out some of this stuff for yourself but I'll start a thread about it later.

I have to eat supper and go to work.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: nogodsforme on April 13, 2012, 04:37:09 PM
Co.Inkadink, you said in post #58 that torturing babies is an example of something that is "actually wrong no matter what".  In post #79, I asked if this extended to killing babies as well.

I'm still waiting for an answer on that.

I'm still waiting for the slavery thing. Funny how he just went ahead on a new track rather than dealing with the implications of what he had previously said.

Slavery remains a major sticking point for me as well. I don't care whether it was for life, for 7 years or 7 months or 7 days. For a time period, not determined by the slave, one human being, again, not determined by the slave, owns another human being. During this time, the slave must do whatever the master demands, cannot leave or quit, and is not paid. That is what it means to be a slave.

As velkyn said, does any modern Christian want to be a slave, under any circumstances? Does any modern Christian want their children to be enslaved? It's only for 7 years, and we promise to follow all biblical laws regarding their care and treatment. How much money would you take for your pre-teen daughter or son, bible believer? :?

If the master treats the slaves badly or well, it is up to the master. And the slaves can't change the way the master treats them. It is still slavery, ie ownership of one human by another. And if it is not life-threatening, anything goes.[1]

Christians, Muslims, Jews and all other ancient religions were fine with slavery. None of these religions banned it outright or said it was evil or wrong. Various cultures tinkered around with the rules, said it would be nice to treat slaves well or that masters should set certain slaves free (like your own kids by your slave mistress).

But none got rid of enslavement altogether during the 10,000 years of human existence that we can document. Until the development of our terrible, sinful, atheistic, humanistic, modern, secular democracies during the past 200 years, the concept of universal human rights did not even exist. So much for an all-knowing, benevolent transcendent god.  &)
 1. Suppose I think slaves should have to perform all work in the nude, weather permitting. It's not like I would be beating them or anything, just constant ogling and suggestive comments. For only 7 years...how about it, Christians?
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Aaron123 on April 13, 2012, 04:38:46 PM
Is it funny? Really? Truly?

I'm going to start separate threads on slavery and the suffering issues later as I've already said. Feel free to bring it up over and over again until I do.
Hey Co.ink? Howcum you haven't answered MY IMPORTANT QUESTION ON PAGE 4 POST 7?
Maybe because I'm busy answering the 10 other questions I received while answering the question from page 1.

I just want an answer on the killing babies thing.

Is killing babies "actually wrong no matter what"?  Yes or no.  How hard can it be to answer that?
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Alzael on April 13, 2012, 04:42:47 PM
Is it funny? Really? Truly?

Truly. Just in a very sad way.


Hey Co.ink? Howcum you haven't answered MY IMPORTANT QUESTION ON PAGE 4 POST 7?
Maybe because I'm busy answering the 10 other questions I received while answering the question from page 1.

Didn't stop you before. It only got hard to answer after I called you on it. Also didn't stop you from skipping ahead to questions asked after that point in time, either.

I have some good stuff on the slavery issue and I'll post it later so you'll just have to wait "if you even care".

You said that yesterday. Still waiting.

You could just Google Bible Slavery apologetics and find out some of this stuff for yourself but I'll start a thread about it later.

I have, it's all bs. Your arguments so far are nothing new. It's the same old garbage said a hundred times regurgitated from creationists and apologists who were no more right the first time they said it than you are when you repeat it. It's a shame you never actually read any of those atheist books that you lied about reading initially.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Ice Monkey on April 13, 2012, 05:11:08 PM
it's grand fun to watch coink run to Ehrman when convenient.  So, coink do you believe everything else Ehrman says about your religion? 

and I love the attempts to make belive that one can hang himself, die, and then burst his guts out and die again.  one doesn't fall "headlong" if one drops off like rotten fruit from a tree.  Nice cribbing from AiG, but it still fails.
Ehrman has a heck of a lot more to say about Judas that the two accounts already mentioned.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: kaziglu bey on April 13, 2012, 06:21:27 PM
God punishes people collectively. Maybe it is primitive and uncivilized but that's the way it was done.
So has God become more sophisticated and civilized? Always at the same rate as human society? How convenient. The unchanging God of absolute morals, who shifts his views to fit the SPAG of his followers.
I guess he has if you look at as being more sophisticated and civilized.
Well, to me anyways, "sophisticated" and "civilized" are opposite of "primitive" and "uncivilized", which, according to you, are adjectives that could be used to describe God's punishment shown in the Bible, and, also according to you, "that's the way it was done."  Your emphasis on "was" implies that it is no longer this way, and that it is different now.
Quote
God set apart Israel for a reason, he had them obey dietary laws and the way they dressed and their government was a theocracy. Some of the laws became null and void once they stopped wandering in the desert
Show me the verses where it says these laws are null and void, and which ones they are.
Quote
and established a nation they were only to set themselves apart from the heathen nations and not to intermingle. Then when they became a nation and demanded a King they became a democracy, the temple cleanliness laws were still to be obeyed such as diet and such because of temple purity.
Where does it say this in the Bible?
Quote
The priests sacrificed animals on the altar for the sins of the people, something that started with Abraham a Chaldean Jew. This was a picture or a promise of the messiah that would come and present a final sacrifice for the people. Every sacrifice for sin in the old testament was foreshadowing what was to come. The people had to stay pure and sacrifice once a year. The OT prophecies Isa 53 Psalm 22 and many others portrayed a suffering servant who would die for the sins of the people.
How does "destroying living things for no purpose other than to appease a bloodthirsty God" translate into "pure"?
Quote
Jesus in the NT was sinless and perfect and became that sacrifice.
How do you KNOW this? How can you know that Jesus never once sinned? Reminder: the Bible is not evidence of the truth of the claims of the Bible.
Quote
Once he did that he fulfilled the OT law regarding sin sacrifice and the OT Jewish laws for temple purity diet clothing etc were unnecessary because there would be no more animals sacrificed since He was the sacrificial Lamb.
And there would be no need to save money, or take thought for the next day, or raise your children, because Jesus said the end was near. I notice you don't mention that.
Quote
  The Jews haven't had animal sacrifice in 2000 years because when Jesus died he said it is finished "promise fulfilled"
LOL, except that the Jews think that Jesus was not the Messiah.
Quote
and the curtain of the Holy of Holies was ripped in two making it impossible to perform sacrifices there.
Or because the Romans destroyedthe temple in 70AD and that was the only place where they were permitted to have animal sacrifices. It has nothing to do with Jesus.
Quote
People in the new covenant or promise that God promised in the OT when the old covenant was broken are now judged as individuals. I can't bring sin offerings for my sons and daughter they have to come to God themselves and make that commitment.
And what happens to your children if they don't? FIRE!!!!!!!

Quote
God hasn't changed his morals He has changed the methods and practices of how he deals with people.
Wow trying to be slick there. If the morals have not changed, why change the methods of dealing with people? WHATS THE POINT!?? Why is slavery OK in the BIBLICAL HOLY LAND but not in the USA?
Quote
The Jews had a moral law in the OT but added all kinds of other laws and traditions that made it impossible for outsiders to become part of God's family.
Oh, so at least SOME of the stuff in the OT was just made up by power hungry and racially exclusive humans, but the rest is the infallible word of God, and YOU know which is which? Weren't the Jews in the OT doing what God told them to do? He ordered them to kill all outsiders, and rape their girls, and gave the thumbs up to slavery.
Quote
Jesus came to set things straight and establish the new covenant Jeremiah 31:31-34 as promised. Today Christianity has done the same thing. God clearly wanted the Jews to become a great nation
Which is of course why he sent Adolf Hitler to help them on their path to becoming a great nation.
Quote
Genesis 18:18 and all the world to come to know him through them.
Yet there are quite a few people living today that have never heard of Christianity. Think of all of the remote islands in the pacific, and isolated tribes in the Congo. They haven't "come to know" Jesus at all. Quite frankly, they are probably better off if they don't.
Quote
They made Judaism and exclusive club.
No, God always had it that way! You either worship me or die! What could be more exclusive than that?
Quote
Today many Christian denominations have added rules traditions and laws that need to be followed in order to be in God's family but that is not how God intended it.
but of course you know exactly how God intended it, because you musy be a TrueChristiantm. After all, what the hell would Church Officials know about religious doctrine.  &)
Quote
Genesis15:6 And he [Abraham] believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
And many an atheist thinks that Abraham, the father figure of three violent faiths, is a sick bastard for being willing to kill his son, just "Cuz God said so". I would further submit that his single act of willingness to do horrible violence without question demonstrates perfectly what is so barbaric and ridiculous about faith. If one of the hero figures of your religion is a guy who is willing to brutally murder his own child, then I submit that your religion is fucked up. Limitless ways that God could choose to test Abraham's faith, but no, God has to go for as much emotional and physical suffering as possible in every situation. According to the story, God himself ends up sacrificing his own son[1]Only by violence and murder and death can your God be made happy.
Quote
Abraham was saved by faith in God alone the sacrifice for sin that messiah would bring.
Saved from what? From following God's orders to kill his son? Look, if somebody kidnapped you and your child, and said "Kill your kid or else!" and you said "ok" and, just as you were about to do it, the kidnapper said "sike! Just wanted to see if you would do it or not, I love my ego trips", you would NOT that that person was the most awesome and kind and gracious person EVER, and you surely wouldn't have considered them your savior.
Quote
Christians are saved by faith in God alone through Christ and the sacrifice he made.
What the Bible Says about methods of Salvation.
 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/salvation.html)
Quote
The Jews looked forward in the sacrifices, Christians look back to the once and for all sacrifice.
Which is of course why they celebrate human sacrifice and participate in ritual cannibalism on a weekly basis.

All in all, you have avery interesting and unique play on the Bible.
 1. Although considering that JC was in on the plan, and was aware that he would be resurrected and share rule of the Cosmos forever, while possessed of infinite power, one might consider whether this is really a "sacrifice". I think a sacrifice implies that the person sacrificing themselves is somehow worse off.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Odin on April 13, 2012, 07:08:32 PM
It doesn't matter, he does heal some and not others. God saves some and not others as well. I don't know why, I don't know why he doesn't save everyone but I've met some Atheists who say they wouldn't become Christians even if they knew Christianity is true.

No.  The point of the WWGHA arguments is that god doesn't heal anyone.  If amputees are not healed, then cancer victims are not healed.

See, it works like this.  If the answer to a prayer is unambiguous, such that any reasonable man can see the results, then the answer to the prayer is always "no."  It's only when the answer is ambiguous that the answer is sometimes "yes," and sometimes "no."

As for your arguments about the Bible, at least come into the late 20th Century.  There is no evidence to support the "big" events of the Bible.  For example, there is no archaeological evidence for the Exodus.  No Exodus, no Moses.  No Moses, no chosen people.  No chosen people, no savior.  No Jesus, no salvation, no resurrection, no god.

Follow the dots.  It's bright here in the Age of Enlightenment.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Alzael on April 14, 2012, 12:03:31 AM
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/scientific-proofs-of-the-bible.html (http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/scientific-proofs-of-the-bible.html)
http://www.creatingfutures.net/evidence.html (http://www.creatingfutures.net/evidence.html)
Here are some pieces for you. I was going to cut and paste some info here but instead I'll just post the links.
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/ (http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/)

Ok, let's lok at the rest of this. I guess Velkyn already did the first one (thanks Velks) so that leaves me with looking at the rest.

The first site is "In His Steps Ministries"........this is going to hurt.

The site lists several Christian claims which it claims it will try to prove.

Proof of Jesus

Here's another quote from their intro "There is historical, archaeological, and  the study of logical reasoning that disproves that the Bible just a book of myths of legends. "

It is never a good sign when a site promising evidence says something like that. But that doesn't matter because we're finally going to get a look at all of that proof that we've all been waiting for so long. I'm getting special shivers in my "god-place" just thinking about it. So I start to read this revolutionary information and.............

They just quote Josephus and Tacitus......literally that's it. They spend six fucking paragraphs talking about how they have this great evidence and fluffing it up only to quote evidence that you can find to be bullshit from a 10-second web search. Now I'm starting to understand why they put this on their homepage: "Here is the key?are you searching for truth or loopholes. You can always find the loopholes. "

In other words, if you find anything with this information, you weren't actually looking for truth. Ugh, let's move on. I don't think I need to mention why Josehpus and Tacitus suck. Even if they didn't, they have only a small handful of people that might have mentioned Jesus in passing in some of their writings, and that is really the only thing that they offer as evidence for his birth.

Proof of the Crucifixion

Uh-huh "Of course, the Bible more than verifies the truth of Jesus' claims, but an atheist, agnostic, or new spiritual seeker may not believe the Bible is true.", another promising start.

The first section is a medical evaluation of what Jesus went through when he was crucified and I have to admit it puzzles me. It goes through a detailed description of the process of Crucifixion and all of the things that Jesus would have suffered through, but it goes on for about fifteen paragraphs and I really can't imagine what it's actually trying to prove. The best I can figure is that they're trying to go "See how Jesus suffered! How can you not believe in him after all he did for you!". Which admittedly is probably much closer to a rational argument than Dink has made so far.

I love the ending however.

"This is an edited description given by Dr. C. Truman Davis is an Ophthalmologist. Some will argue that he is just an eye doctor. Ophthalmologists (not Opticians) are required to go through the same medical training as a physician."

They know it's so ridiculous that they're actually pre-emptively trying to cover their asses.

Then there's another medical report of what the Crucifixion was like for Jesus (yeah I know, two of them WTF?) but for this one I think I get what it's trying to do. This is basically making the claim that Jesus' death can be proven because he was sacrificing himself and it shows his greatness that he did it willingly.......

Yeah, I know guys. I read that too. What can I say except, they're Christians?

There are some historical sources that they list, so let's see what those are.

Fucking Tacitus and Josephus again? They're like the only two historical figures Christians know that isn't in the bible.

Lucian of Samosta, who lived in the second century. Thus making his account useless.

The Jewish Talmud. Written in 200 AD (or thereabouts).

Let's see Justin Martyr, an early christian apologist who once talked about a letter written to Pius in 150 AD. Yes, you actually read that right. They cite a second century apologist who once wrote a letter addressed to the Roman Emperor a hundred years or so after Jesus died which mentioned the crucifixion as evidence that it actually happened.

Apparently Justin also went on to talk about many other things Jesus had done. And I think the next part really needs to be quoted so that you can appreciate it as I do.

"Justin must have assumed that this record still existed in the official Roman archives and that Antoninus Pius could verify the facts easily. Justin’s whole purpose in writing his letter was to obtain mercy from the highest official in the known world, thus sparing the Christian community a persecution which was becoming so commonplace. It is unlikely that Justin would ask a Roman Emperor to check a document if he did not feel extremely confident that the document existed. Otherwise, he would be foolishly putting his own life and reputation at risk.

There is currently not one original copy of the Acts of Pilate. It also appears the Acts of Pilate had some mean things to say about Christians, so later in time copies started being circulated that were edited. Even though there is no manuscript, again there had to have been something that said what Justin was quoting or he would have no defense."

This is what I've been dealing with, people.

The last piece of evidence (ugh, calling it that nearly caused blood to shoot out my nose) is about a man named Tertullian who also wrote a letter to some Roman officials that talked about Jesus. HA!BULLETPROOF!TAKE THAT ATHEISTS!

I'd also like to quote the end of this as well.

"It should be noted that Christianity is a religion based upon relationship, not knowledge. It is a religion of faith not logic. The information provided is to help answer questions, but ultimately you must believe in the gospel accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ because you believe in the claims of Jesus that we are sinners and we  need a savior."

No comment needed.

How much more of this crap do I need to sift through. I keep hoping that there's at least one intelligent thought in here somewhere.

Proof of the Resurection (AKA I can't believe they actually think this happened, Ha, ha Losers!!)

First though a clarification. This part here actually explains those idiotic medical reports from the last section that I couldn't understand the point of. Apparently (get this) they were supposed to be evidence that the Crucifixion would have killed Jesus, and evidene that he would have suffered in the process. Yeah, they spent about thirty paragraphs in total from two different doctors just to prove that being crucified is both lethal AND painful.

There are no words.

So let's look at their evidence.

Fucking Josephus again? Ugh, I'll pass on that part.

They try to address the lack of historical evidence. Which after four paragraphs of bullshit basically amounts to blaming a Jewish conspiracy (I'm not kidding) to prevent people from turning to Jesus as their saviour. Why am I not surprised that there just HAD to be a jewish conspiracy in there somewhere.

The next point they bring up is the standard one of if it wasn't true, why didn't anyone at the time disprove it, followed by the "why would people die for their faith if it wasn't true" schtick. It's dull and boring and with no evidence or original thought so let's move on.

The next section isn't really relevant. It basically addresses the other Christian views of the resurection (that it was metaphor/myth and other variations) basically they try to justify that the literal interpetation is true. So basically a OneTrueChristian claim made to other Christians.

That's actually the rest of that section. It just goes through all of the alternate Christian theories about the resurection and tries to debunk them. It actually doesn't provide any evidence. Just spends a LOT of pages debunking everyone else.

Fuck, I've still got three more to go and my brain is already threatening to revolt. I'll get back to this in a bit. You guys owe me for this.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Alzael on April 14, 2012, 12:41:55 AM
Archaeological and Scientific Evidence AKA I'm going to need some alcohol

Actually this is thankfully short. Mostly because there's not much in the way of content. Most of it is links to other sites.

However there is this disclaimed at the bottom that I find interesting.

Disclaimer-In His Steps Ministries does not endorse or agree with some of the doctrinal beliefs or teachings of sites that are recommended throughout our website. These sites are only given as additional resources that have some items that we find of value. We acknowledge that as in every other religion or belief system, there are individuals or organizations in Christianity that are 'flakey', 'off base', claim facts that are fiction, etc. Use wisdom and the intelligence that God has given you, even those of you who do not believe there is a God.

In other words they put this stuff up as evidence but don't actually promise that it proves anything. Well at least this was short.

Validity of the Bible

Ok, I'm calling bullshit right off the bat.

"Many spiritual seekers wonder why there is not more historical evidence to verify the birth, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. Here is something to consider. There is no need for more evidence because the Holy Bible itself is historical evidence. he Old Testament has over 60 prophecies about Jesus that were fulfilled. The Bible has the Four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) that document Jesus' life. The balance of the New Testament has references to Jesus. There are 66 books of the Bible. Almost every single book of the Bible has either a prophecy about Jesus or verses that point to the Gospel message. There are over 24,600 manuscripts of the New Testament and over 24,000 original manuscripts of portions of the New Testament.

Why would there need to be more historical evidence?"

I can see that at no point does this section actually address the fact that the bible cannot be used to prove itself because it is the book that is making the claim to be proven. Which pretty much instantly invalidates the rest of this section. But let's see what it hits me with.

The first bit asks "can the bible be trusted?" It argues that some peopel would say that the bible is biased because it was written by Christians and thus can't be trusted. It argues that many history books and autobiographies are written by people with biases but we still trust them.

I would just like to interject something as an aside here. You see what I wrote up there. Those three sentences. This fucking site took four cock-guzzling paragraphs just to say that. The content on this site is so damn padded just so that it can look like it's saying more than it fucking is.

Ok, rant over.

Essentially it completely overlooks the fact that the reason we don't trust the bible is because it's wrong about even the most basic information and not because it's written by people with a bias (though that doesn't help).

Here's how this part ends.

"There is something that is unique about the Bible compared to any autobiography, biography, or history book - the Bible is the inspired, infallible Word of God. This means it was God breathed. The authors of the Bible wrote what God had them to write. Yes, they wrote with their style of writing, but the accuracy of what they wrote was based upon being inspired by God. We know, as a spiritual seeker you may not believe this. That is ok. We are going to provide more evidence for the Validity of the Bible."

So the bible is valid because it was written by god. And we know this because the bible says that it is.........sigh.

The next part tries to make take the argument that the bible manuscripts we have aren't accurate. It says that to determine the accuracy we must compare it to other books at the time. It compares the bible with other manuscripts based on how many original copies there are and the time span that they were created in relation to their being placed in a book. And it's total bullshit.

I was going to quote Historicity's post from before ( a very excellent post,might I add) where Badger made the same claim about there being over 24,000 copies of the bible, but there's no point. The numbers in this chart don't even add up now that I look at it. Going by this chart the new testament was made into a book only twenty five years after it was authored which is ridiculous. There's nothing more that needs to be said here.

It then goes on to list how science is proving the bible to be accurate more and more each day. Naturally with no examples. It then states how the prophecies of the bible are being fulfilled. Again with no examples.

It ends by pointing out that Jesus has a large section devoted to him in the Encyclopedia Brittannica and that The Readers Digest Book of Facts lists Jesus' existence as a fact.

Seriously this is the argument it ends on. I keep trying to scream but for some reason the sounds won't come out.

I won't bother with the last section of the site now that I look at it. It's just asking the C.S Lewis question of whether Jesus was a liar or a lunatic. There's nothing in there worth analyzing.

Which means that this was it people. This was Dinks big evidence. Nothing, literally nothing. There was nothing here for me to work with. Not one single thing said on this site would even cause the person reading it to register a blip on a cat scan.

I would do the last site but I wouldn't even know where to start. It's basically like a Christian news site that focuses on all sorts of bible stuff. There's really no focused theme for me to look at. It doesn't make any claims it's just reporting things. So I guess I'm done. It's late, I'm tired and my brain is currently curled up in one corner of my skull weaping uncontrollably from the abuse that it's taken tonight.

Fuck owing people. I'm coming for your young.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Alzael on April 14, 2012, 12:55:33 AM
Seriously, those sites of Dinks are bad even by Christian standards. They're so vacant and padded. They say almost nothing of any substance. They have no arguments of any kind, really. They just.....talk and talk. Answers in Genesis is a FAR better site if you want to hear Christian arguments. Dink if this is the best you can manage then I can understand why you don't respond to me or Aaron. You clearly have nothing to work with in regards to your extremely limited knowledge of Christianity, logic, reason, or the bible. Take my advice, stop while trying to make arguments here. Go back home, read some real books, spend some time educating yourself and actually thinking about what you believe and why. Then come back and have a go at it. We'll still be here waiting and then maybe you'll be able to hold your own.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: nogodsforme on April 14, 2012, 01:11:26 AM
I heard one of my fairly intelligent students tell another one that, "There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for Alexander the Great." I wanted to brain myself with a large rock.  :'(
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: screwtape on April 14, 2012, 06:43:34 AM
I've told people before that if I could be talked out of my Christianity I would be.

Sort of paraphrasing Dr. House?  "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people."

On top of that my personal relationship with Christ is very real,

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.  Even when I was religious I was thoroughly confused and disappointed what people said things like this.  Jesus H never talked to me.  Sometimes I thought I perceived omens and messages and signs, but deep down, I knew it was wishful thinking.  God was distant and aloof.  I didn't feel any presence.

I have experienced answered prayer and known his presence in ways I can't explain. But if I felt the Bible was untrue and Christianity was false I would walk away and never look back.

That's what happened to me.  I read the Old Testament.  It was pretty obvious to me it was a collection of myths, no different than the greeks and altogether unbelievable.  In it yhwh is a horrible, capricious and very human character.  I found it impossible to believe this was the loving, merciful god I was told about.  Without the OT, the NT has no basis.  The rug was pulled out from under my faith.  And I am glad for it.

I do think God punishes people collectively though, it's done over and over in scripture, I'm just not sure that's what was happing in WWII.

If that is so, then do you think that is just?  I don't.  It brings up the [wiki]Euthyphro dilemma[/wiki].
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: kaziglu bey on April 14, 2012, 07:08:59 AM
Seriously, those sites of Dinks are bad even by Christian standards.
Indeed. I commend you for your effort in going through that. It was too painful for me to endure to write a significant rebuttal. You know, when things like that happen, I almost feel betrayed. Here I am, perfectly willing to give any evidence its due consideration, and hoping to be challenged, and be presented with something new, intriguing, and revolutionary. Then we are offered garbage like that.

It's kind of like someone inviting you over for dinner, wanting to show off their culinary skills, only when the dish is put on the table, it's rotting coleslaw. Or having a car dealer tell you about this wonderful car they have and can offer you cheap, then he presents you with a rusted out Dodge Omni. What really scares me, though, is the volume of people who apparently read such terrible arguments and say "You know what? They're RIGHT! OF COURSE! Hallelujah, praise the Lord!". THAT is scary.

While such arguments might be really effective for intellectual giants like Sarah Palin, they really are not appropriate for a serious discussion.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Alzael on April 14, 2012, 07:54:51 AM
Seriously, those sites of Dinks are bad even by Christian standards.
Indeed. I commend you for your effort in going through that. It was too painful for me to endure to write a significant rebuttal. You know, when things like that happen, I almost feel betrayed. Here I am, perfectly willing to give any evidence its due consideration, and hoping to be challenged, and be presented with something new, intriguing, and revolutionary. Then we are offered garbage like that.

It's kind of like someone inviting you over for dinner, wanting to show off their culinary skills, only when the dish is put on the table, it's rotting coleslaw. Or having a car dealer tell you about this wonderful car they have and can offer you cheap, then he presents you with a rusted out Dodge Omni. What really scares me, though, is the volume of people who apparently read such terrible arguments and say "You know what? They're RIGHT! OF COURSE! Hallelujah, praise the Lord!". THAT is scary.

While such arguments might be really effective for intellectual giants like Sarah Palin, they really are not appropriate for a serious discussion.

I agree, fortunately now that my brains stopped crying and is no longer threatening to secede from the rest of my body it actually felt kind of good to go through it and analyze it like that in thread. I used to do that a lot more once upon a time. I think I stopped because I just no longer had the time to go at it that in-depth.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 14, 2012, 06:05:37 PM
Hey everybody I just googled History and the Bible and read a few links. But hey I hear Answers in Genesis has some good arguments. I was going to use that one but someone already mentioned it and I thought they would just shoot it down.
My favorites are Greg Koukl, Frank Turek, Norm Geisler, and William Lane Craig but rather than just link to their individual sited and articles I'd rather just put stuff in my own words unless I think they can say it briefly and succinctly.
I haven't argued these points and I'm not going to regroup and read books and come back. I haven't even started arguing any points really. I know what I want to say, I have read some Hitchens, Dawkins and Erhman, I've listened to debates with all of them and Sam Harris and others and have read up on Stephen Hawking. I love Hitchens, and Erhman and strongly dislike Dawkins. but I guess I'll abandon this thread and move on to one of the other subjects. I want to keep it all under one roof. It's difficult enough to keep up on this thread. I'm probably not going to answer every question I'm asked either. If the thread is about slavery I'm going to talk about slavery and if people bring up other topics I'll just keep pushing on with the subject at hand.  Alzael said he'd heard it all before anyway so it's kind of a waste of time. If he's already dismissed my arguments before I make them it's pretty certain he's not going to concede anything. I will say there are a few atheists here who seem reasonable and logical and I'd love to continue talking to you.
I'm sorry it's taken so long for me to start the other threads. I work a full time job mon-fri 730pm to 330am I have 3 kids 11, 9, and 8 and I am an artist on the side so it's difficult to devote a lot of time to this. I've done this for years just not here. I don't see what the big hurry is seeing this site isn't going anywhere. I'm off on the weekends so I'll start some stuff tonight after the kids go to bed.
If anyone wants me to answer specific questions that I didn't get to on this thread I apologize I was going to go through page by page and answer some of them but 2 subjects keeping popping up and I suppose I need to discuss them. PM me if you want to drift and maybe we can work it in or I can join another thread on the topic.

I like talking about this stuff, I want to learn how to communicate better and that is my goal to do it in a kind way if possible.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Alzael on April 14, 2012, 06:24:36 PM
I'm probably not going to answer every question I'm asked either. If the thread is about slavery I'm going to talk about slavery and if people bring up other topics I'll just keep pushing on with the subject at hand.

In other words you're trying to excuse yourself from having to answer to the claims you've made so far. And are trying to do so for the claims you'll make in the future as well. Typical.

Alzael said he'd heard it all before anyway so it's kind of a waste of time. If he's already dismissed my arguments before I make them it's pretty certain he's not going to concede anything.

That's because I've heard all of your arguments before. Everyone here has. It's not a matter of dismissing the arguments before you make them. It's a matter of you presenting arguments that were proven wrong and dismissed long ago.

Those sites that you listed had arguments that were pathetic. And it's not even a theist thing. I've seen theists make better arguments a lot better than that. They were listing Tacitus and Josephus for crying out loud. Those two have been well-known fakes for at least a decade or two. You could have checked wikipedia and found that out. It's all over the place. I'm three days short of thirty and you're using arguments that were proven wrong when I was a child. Don't blame me for dismissing your arguments, they came pre-packaged for dismissal.

As a final note I would like to point something out. Your statement is a lie, and one I take offense at. I spent over two hours last night going over that unfilterd shit you threw out over the forum. And I pointed out it's failings piece by piece, which is far more than you have bothered to do with ANY piece of evidence presented by anyone else about anything to date. Those links that you jokingly touted as "scientific" evidence was not dismissed in anyway. It was rebutted. What you are attempting to do now is a dismissal.  A dismissal of all the work I've put into this back and forth so far. Whether it's the time I spent on the link, or the time I spent pointing out the flaws in your views on slavery, you've simply dismissed all of that out of hand. Where exactly have I outright dismissed your arguments?

Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 14, 2012, 06:32:31 PM
Where exactly have I outright dismissed your arguments?

Irrelevant if slavery was right or wrong then. It is wrong now.
Quote
And why is it wrong? By what standard?

As I said, irrelevant question.
To me calling my question irrelevant is dismissing it.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Alzael on April 14, 2012, 07:32:58 PM
To me calling my question irrelevant is dismissing it.

Ah, I see. "To you" it was a dismissal.

That still doesn't justify your statement and the implications made in it. You implied that I had outright dismissed all of your arguments. Instead the only example you show is a part where I said that a question you made that was entirely irrelevant to the issue being talked about was irrelevant. Interesting viewpoint.

But ok, I'll give you this one and concede that such a statement could have potentially been considered a dismissal. Do you then agree that your implication that I had dismissed everything you said was made in error?

And while we're on that subject should we talk about your dismissals of other peoples points/questions? Or the ones that you outright refused to respond to (made by several members so far)? Because I'm pretty sure that your list is WAY longer. And don't bother trying to play the "no time" card. You've already admitted that you're doing it at least partly on purpose, so that ship has sailed.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Co.Inkadink on April 14, 2012, 07:55:52 PM
To me calling my question irrelevant is dismissing it.

Ah, I see. "To you" it was a dismissal.

That still doesn't justify your statement and the implications made in it. You implied that I had outright dismissed all of your arguments. Instead the only example you show is a part where I said that a question you made that was entirely irrelevant to the issue being talked about was irrelevant. Interesting viewpoint.

But ok, I'll give you this one and concede that such a statement could have potentially been considered a dismissal. Do you then agree that your implication that I had dismissed everything you said was made in error?
I said.
If he's already dismissed my arguments before I make them it's pretty certain he's not going to concede anything.
That's IF. I guess well see.

And while we're on that subject should we talk about your dismissals of other peoples points/questions? Or the ones that you outright refused to respond to (made by several members so far)? Because I'm pretty sure that your list is WAY longer. And don't bother trying to play the "no time" card. You've already admitted that you're doing it at least partly on purpose, so that ship has sailed.
Listen I haven't refused anything. If anyone wants to bring up points again I'll answer them, I'm even going to use some of these posts in the other threads and I asked people to PM me if it was off topic and I'd join another debate thread and talk about it there.

I have a few questions "rhetorical" What's the big hurry here? I'll probably discuss every topic mentioned in this thread and then some in the future. Is this forum going to disappear tomorrow or something? Is it possible that I would like to think things through rather than coming up with a knee jerk response to hush people? I'm developing the Slavery thread on my word processor, I want to make it bulletproof if possible. I posted 3 links to the historical Bible stuff to pacify you and you had a victory parade like you had won a great war when they turned up lame.

I'm not going to just be emotional and post I'm trying to think it through.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: rickymooston on April 14, 2012, 07:58:05 PM
I have read some Hitchens, Dawkins and Erhman, I've listened to debates with all of them and Sam Harris and others and have read up on Stephen Hawking.I love Hitchens, and Erhman and strongly dislike Dawkins.

Wow. That's interesting. I always thoughts Hitchen's would be less objectionable.

If the thread is about slavery I'm going to talk about slavery and if people bring up other topics I'll just keep pushing on with the subject at hand.


This is normal in every forum. You can simply say, off topic and if the side topic is interesting enough, somebody can spawn another thread.

Oh and yes, its o.k. if you dont reply to 20 walls of text.  :o


Alzael said he'd heard it all before anyway so it's kind of a waste of time.

Lol. You can say this with any argument about religion. Most of the theological arguments have been around for a long time.  :o I would not worry about his claim. If he's "heard it all before" and he feels like it, he will provide time honoured responses.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Alzael on April 14, 2012, 08:45:28 PM

If he's already dismissed my arguments before I make them it's pretty certain he's not going to concede anything.

That's IF. I guess well see.

Considering your previous history. That you really just meant "if" is highly unlikely.

Listen I haven't refused anything. If anyone wants to bring up points again I'll answer them, I'm even going to use some of these posts in the other threads and I asked people to PM me if it was off topic and I'd join another debate thread and talk about it there.

Funny, because I remember what you said the last time that you were here. Let's refresh our memories with one of the last posts from your previous stay here, before your rather long leave of abscence.

So you don't understand that you were being intellectually dishonest?

Or you do understand that, and don't understand how it would make someone angry?

I would appreciate it if you didn't ignore the pertinent points I made in my post.
No I wasn't being intellectually dishonest.

I haven't ignored anything. I have to process some of the things you and others have said, I may think about it awhile and get back to you later.

And

I'm going to take my time though. I'm about to log off for a while because I have a life.

I hope to continue this discussion and others later.

That time too, you left a long list of unanswered or unresponded to questions or points. That time too you said that you had to take the time to process them. That was a little under a year ago that you took off like that. Did it really take you that long to process all of those.

You're even behaving in the exact same way. You started with an unsubstantiated statement of opinion. In fact I note that you asked a lot of the same questions then that you're asking now. Questions that were answerd by the people here, by the way. I also note that you dodged and avoided a lot of the same issues when they came up. Such as the question that Aaron has been asking about the babies. That came up in the previous thread. You then moved onto blanket claims about atheists. Then after you got shot down you started ignoring issues and making claims about not having time and how you wanted to take some time to think.

Like I said nothing new. You're even using the same arguments as last time. Or trying to at least.

I have a few questions "rhetorical" What's the big hurry here?

I'd like an answer before your next upcoming disappearance act. Which should be soon if your history is any indication.

I'll probably discuss every topic mentioned in this thread and then some in the future.

Both your current behaviour and your history say otherwise.

Is it possible that I would like to think things through rather than coming up with a knee jerk response to hush people?

Possible. But if you really did spend the better part of a year doing that, and you could only come up with the same stuff you used last time.......

I'm not going to just be emotional and post I'm trying to think it through.

Of course you are.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: rickymooston on April 15, 2012, 12:02:05 AM

Alzael, perhaps I'm missing something but when a typical theist comes here, they are confronted with several posts per thread.

The posts in the thread are walls of text.

I think, its unrealistic to expect any human with a life to reply to all those texts. Certainly, if I were in his place and right now I don't have a life, I'd only respond to a few of them.

I was just trying to respond to one of these posts, Velkyn's. A careful response would take far too much time.

Now to be far, perhaps walls of text begat walls of text; i.e., the OPs may not have been short either.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Alzael on April 15, 2012, 04:27:01 AM
Alzael, perhaps I'm missing something but when a typical theist comes here, they are confronted with several posts per thread.


You are missing something, several somethings actually.

The first being that this is a clear pattern of behaviour of him. As I pointed out, he did this last time as well. Used that exact same excuse to avoid having to answer anything before he took off after making all of his spurious claims. The same questions that were asked then are being asked now, and he's still claiming that he needs time to think up an answer to them.

The second thing being that aside from the slavery thing he's not actually being asked to respond to much. Aarons question, for example, which has been repeated about three times so far; was just a simple yes or no question. There's no real excuse for not getting to it when asked repeatedly over several pages unless he just didn't want to answer for his claims. Which he clearly doesn't.

The third thing is that issues like the slavery thing were brought up back on the second page of this thread. He's been outright dodging it for the last four pages. It's not like this is something that just came up. He's been failing to respond to his own claims on this and other issues for days. He's gone on to make further claims in the meantime, however. So apparently he does have time to make new claims, but not enough time to answer for his old ones. Hell look at his last five posts. His last five posts were all spent making excuses for why he hasn't responded to the issues he himself has raised. Instead of, you know, responding to the issues that were raised.

The fourth is that he's outright stated that he's purposefully not answering certain things. Those "things" seem to be the exact things that are holding him to account for his own words. Like the slavery issue, which he keeps saying that he's going to start another thread on. Which is pointless since the issue is relevant to what he's said in this thread. He was the one who was defending slavery in the first place as being more or less ok. It's only once he got called on the claim that it became irrelevant to the conversation and needed it's own thread. Which was about three of four days ago.

So no, in his case I don't buy "no time" as an excuse.

Edit: One important thing that I forgot to mention. One of the main reasons that I generally don't buy it when a theist like Dink tries to claim a lack of time is because they were never trying to engage in an honest discussion from the beginning. If I actually thought for a second that Dink actually intended to have a reasonable discussion here I would have no problem with letting him take his time to formulate a well-thought out response. But he started out making unsupported claims, disengenuous and rather condescending comments, lies, and ignoring points that showed him wrong.

He's just messing around and wasting everyones time.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: EV on April 15, 2012, 05:14:30 AM
I noted mention of the OT prophecies in this threa, I'd like to point out briefly a very amusing flaw with the prophecies in the old testament. Isaiah 7:14 is a very famous and widely quoted prediction of Christ's coming.

Nobody really cares to read the rest of the prophecy, which happily states that if Jesus was born, then the entire world would become covered in thorns, Jesus would shave the head of the King of Assyria with a hired razor, that everyone from then on would only ever eat curds and honey, and that everyone would eat the flesh of their right hand.

None of that happened. Why would God need to hire a razor? Surely He'd just create one...

From this prophecy being unfulfilled, we can deduce that since the Bible's prophecies have not all been fulfilled, Jesus was NOT the son of God, and that his teachings were irrelevant. So this in effect cancels your entire argument Co.inkadink.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Hatter23 on April 15, 2012, 04:45:54 PM
You CoInk states he is open to evidence. Evidence seems to suggest he is absolutely completely and utterly not. His loop de loop magic arguments about Judas's death, only knowing standard apologist nonsense, and avoiding of tough questions all show this.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: Graybeard on April 15, 2012, 04:49:35 PM
God punishes people collectively. Maybe it is primitive and uncivilized but that's the way it was done.
Primitive and confusing:

Exodus 20:5-6, I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

(Ezekiel 18:20) - "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."

I can't help thinking of North Korea...
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: nogodsforme on April 15, 2012, 07:06:28 PM

Alzael, perhaps I'm missing something but when a typical theist comes here, they are confronted with several posts per thread.

The posts in the thread are walls of text.

I think, its unrealistic to expect any human with a life to reply to all those texts. Certainly, if I were in his place and right now I don't have a life, I'd only respond to a few of them.

I was just trying to respond to one of these posts, Velkyn's. A careful response would take far too much time.

Now to be far, perhaps walls of text begat walls of text; i.e., the OPs may not have been short either.
I think there is a real difference between 1) well thought out, carefully crafted, original, on-point "walls of text" that are just long responses, and 2) cut 'n paste walls 'o text from some apologist website, or even worse, 3) the unedited, rambling, grammatically incorrect, free-floating stream-of-unconsciousness walls of text that we get from some people. Like wordybird of a few days ago.

We just like to see people put some thought and time into their responses. Even if a reply is short, it should show evidence of a thought process. I try not to insult anyone by cutting and pasting from a website, or throwing up something long, rambling and barely related when they had written me something careful and original. (Obvious snark excepted.)

The problem is, we often get theists who really don't understand what they believe. (If they understood it, they might not believe it...) And they cannot admit that they just don't have a good answer to our questions. So they get short and snippy, or cut 'n paste from something they think sounds smart, or they go nuts on us with the rambling.

So, theists, if you can't think of a response, just say so. If you don't know something, just say so. It's okay not to know something. But if you b.s. us, or just disappear when you think you are losing the argument, we get pissed off.
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: velkyn on April 16, 2012, 09:11:02 AM
so, Coink, why haven' t you healed anyone yet?   I've asked this question repeatedly and you've avoided answering it.  Now we get more lies about AiG having "good" arguments, and excuses on why you can't actually be bothered to answer questions.  Well, coink, if it's now suddenly so hard to answer everyone's quetions, ask for a one-on-one discussion.  If you wont' take that, then it is more than obvious that you have no intention of listening to anyone about how your claims fail, but only want ot use the forum to post links to already refuted Christians lies. 
Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: rickymooston on May 12, 2012, 08:28:34 AM
I read Atheist authors regularly maybe you can check out these sites and look at it from another perspective.

Your posts are a bit long but you seem intellectually honest to me.

Title: Re: My Opinion on WWGHA?
Post by: rickymooston on May 12, 2012, 08:42:21 AM
I think there is a real difference between 1) well thought out, carefully crafted, original, on-point "walls of text" that are just long responses

I agree that all walls of text are not made equally but my original point was, you can't answer 20 walls of text. Typically most of those walls say the same basic things.

Personally, with few exceptions, I often lose patience with long posts. Exceptions exist and the occasional "wall of text" is forgiveable. I sometimes make huge posts myself. Warning, this one will be long.

and 2) cut 'n paste walls 'o text from some apologist website

Yes, I agree that cutting and pasting requires no thought. Summarizing an argument is better or highlighting some key points the source makes. I'm in total agreement with you here.

, 3) the unedited, rambling, grammatically incorrect, free-floating stream-of-unconsciousness walls of text that we get from some people. Like wordybird of a few days ago.

I don't subscribe to the heuristic that gramatical correctness shows clearer thought1. William Lane Craig uses perfect grammar and I believe so does Eric Hovind. People exist who suck and the mundane and focus on the complex.

Grammar correctness is a mechanical skill that probably uses a very different part of the brain that logical thought. It is memorized.

I do agree that coherence is important. This is related to how ones thoughts are organized.

Quote
We just like to see people put some thought and time into their responses.

Sure. Theism inherently involves heuristics which are not particularly logical.

Quote
Even if a reply is short, it should show evidence of a thought process.

I agree.

Quote
The problem is, we often get theists who really don't understand what they believe.

I'm not sure whether this is true or not. Many of them may suck at explaining what they believe. I can only guess at what goes on in their heads.  ;)

Quote
And they cannot admit that they just don't have a good answer to our questions.

Sometimes. Other times, you end up with an argument of axioms.