Attack a Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-05-2013, 02:20 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
Mojch - how would you assess your views / beliefs from only being here for such a short time ?

Would you say that you have shifted some of your earlier beliefs you had before you encountered this forum ?

Every so often I examine the epistemology of what I hold to be true and attempt to justify as much as I can the reasons for holding the beliefs & knowledge that I have.
Sometimes my views shift and they shift because I either can't justify my reasons or new information comes to light.

What about you ? Have you taken a long hard look at the reasons why you believe the things you believe ?
Are the reasons rational and justifiable or do you believe them for no reasons what so ever ? (ie:faith)

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
25-05-2013, 03:16 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
(25-05-2013 10:23 AM)Mojch Wrote:  ***Revenant: Yes, your explanation does help. Would this be a fair description of your perspective? "The moral action is that action which most reduces the potential for human suffering without directly inflicting harm on another human."

Sincerely,

Mojch

Thats probably about as close as you can put into a summary. My morality is also why I can not follow the teachings of any of the so-called Abrahamic religions. Yahweh is simply too evil and immoral of a being for me to support. Lucky for me he is also just a fictional character. Granted as Bucky has pointed out (not sure which thread) Allah is not Yahweh the canaanite god of War but rather an Arab moon god and thusly Islam is not actually an Abrahamic religion. But that is a whole other conversation.

I will leave you with this and if you feel it would be too deep a conversation to have at the present time I wouldn't be offended. Is the God that you pray to a Moral Being and if so how do you explain the evil things he has done (see most of the OT and the invention of Hell in the NT)? If you do not see your God as a Moral Being why is he worthy of praise?

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
25-05-2013, 07:26 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
(25-05-2013 10:23 AM)Mojch Wrote:  ***Everyone: Wow. I just checked out the "personal support" section of this forum and was very impressed. I sometimes hear the claim that atheisism results in moral decay. That section of the forum is serious evidence that such claims are absurd.

"An atheist who acts morally is, in a sense, more moral than a believer who is trying to avoid punishment."
Paraphrased from – Irreligion by Paulos

(25-05-2013 10:23 AM)Mojch Wrote:  ***Full Circle: We must discuss Trek sometime!

Sure

(25-05-2013 10:23 AM)Mojch Wrote:  Yes, your position makes perfect sense if the parent is a Catholic. Thus, from the Catholic perspective, we agree. But, how would you evaluate Mark's argument if I modified the situation to be...

1. Christ is the only way to heaven. If my child dies without Christ, he goes to Hell.
2. Hell is the absolute worst possible thing that could happen to my child.
3. Therefore, as a loving parent, I do EVERYTHING in my power to prevent my child from going there.
4. My child is NOT saved by baptism and cannot be saved until a conscious choice is made to accept Jesus.
5. Therefore, I must teach him dogma or else I increase the risk that he will not make the conscious choice in time and end up in Hell.

In this situation, is the choice to teach dogma morally wrong from the perspective of the parent?

So at what age does a human being is said to be emotionally, rationally and intellectually developed to the point of understanding abstract concepts like what it means to "accept Jesus"? If adults wrestle with all the abstract concepts of what it means to have faith in the unprovable and the unobservable how can a child be expected to "consciously make a choice"?

But Mojch, the real question is; As a parent what am I doing worshipping a god that would send children to Hell?

"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of wonder.” ~ Ralph W. Sockman
“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's." - Mark Twain in Eruption
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Full Circle's post
25-05-2013, 08:13 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
(23-05-2013 09:31 PM)Mojch Wrote:  ***Starcrash: QUOTE: "So does the alleged correctness of "Qur'anic sexuality as a moral precept" prove that the god of the Qur'an is a real and true god? I contend that you agree that it doesn't. Biblical/Qur'anic sexuality is irrelevant to those who want to debate the existence of a god."

I find your use of the phrase "I contend that you agree" to be very interesting. Since when is it proper discussion technique to assume an fellow discussion member's position and then attack it? For the record, I would COMPLETELY agree with the statement that "the alleged correctness of "Qur'anic sexuality as a moral precept" [is evidence that] the god of the Qur'an is a real and true god." Logic requires me to do so. Note that I would NOT say PROVES (this is a word that gets thrown around way too much) because it is far too strong. I cannot stress this enough, we aren't going to get anywhere if you change my arguments. I never said that it PROVES God. Nothing PROVES anything since one of the most basic tenants of science is that NOTHING can be known with absolute certainty. I did say it was EVIDENCE (and, to be clear, evidence is something that increases or decreases the likelihood of a particular fact being true) of God. The reasoning is simple and I challenge you to refute it. (1) If the Bible is infallible, then the sexual morality of the Bible must be correct. (2) Therefore, if the sexual morality of the Bible is incorrect then the Bible is not infallible. (3) The Bible is the only "evidence" (I use this term loosely) for the existence of the Christian God. (4) Therefore, if Biblical sexual morality is incorrect then the Bible is not infallible and cannot be trusted to reveal anything about the existence of the Christian God. (5) If Biblical sexual morality IS correct, then this removes one possible way of disproving the Christian God, and, through the basic process of finding true argument by eliminating those arguments which are not true, makes the existence of the Christian God slightly more likely. (IE: If there are only 5 ways to disprove a proposition, and we find out that one of those ways to disprove it doesn't work, then do you assert that this has not made it more likely that the proposition is true? The logic is the same even if their are five billion ways to disprove Christianity.)

It is perfectly fair for me to assume that you don't believe that the God of the Qur'an is "a real and true god", because you've stated outright that you are a Christian. The beliefs of Christianity and Islam are mutually exclusive, therefore you are not Muslim and don't worship Allah. Why are being so pedantic about this?

Logic doesn't require you to assume that I've proven Allah is God -- I was showing you a flaw in your logic by comparing it to similar flawed logic. The premises that you listed are indeed true, but you and I both can see that the conclusion is not "therefore, God exists" but rather "therefore, this one argument that you could raise against God's existence is not sound". It doesn't make sense to raise this as an argument yourself, but only to use it as a rebuttal if someone made the claim that disproving the bible's sexual codes disproved God -- but they wouldn't, because it doesn't. You are arguing for "the perfection of the bible", but that simply isn't necessary; the bible can be flawed and your God can exist. It would be illogical to argue that if one part of the bible is untrue then it's all untrue.

One last note; "proves" doesn't imply absolutely certainty. It means to establish (or help to establish) a fact through evidence or argument, which is all that I meant when I used the word. Arguing over the meaning of this word also strikes me as a pedantic attempt to slow an argument rather than to win it. I personally believe nothing can be proven with absolute certainty, so I'd never use it in the way that you mean. If it makes you feel better then I'll use the wording that you prefer, but you really could have just let this go without comment.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Starcrash's post
25-05-2013, 09:18 PM (This post was last modified: 25-05-2013 09:28 PM by kim.)
RE: Attack a Theist
(25-05-2013 10:23 AM)Mojch Wrote:  In this situation, is the choice to teach dogma morally wrong from the perspective of the parent?
You asked "How would they ever really know that they aren't lying to themselves?" I modify the question slightly and present it for your consideration as modified...

"How does anyone ever really know that they aren't lying to themselves?"

This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.

Though Polonius was pretty much a platitudinous windbag, his words weren't always that far off the mark - at least not with that tidbit of wisdom.

As my future was unwritten, my parents knew enough to make sure that if I was going to be at all secure in the world (without them), I'd need to build my own ideals. Certainly they gave me a solid foundation of right and wrong, explained with reason, logic, and consequences. I was given certain challenges and questioned about decisions I made or might make. If I made a mistake, I never expected them to bail me out, though I'm sure they probably would and suspect they probably did. The point is; they were responsible up to a point but there is a point where I took over responsibility for my self.

To this very day, I know pretty much what is expected of me from the world at large and I know what I'm capable of. I can say there have been times when I wasn't as kind as I know could have been. I can attest to bouts of sloth here and there and I've not been above a bit of misdirected anger once or twice. I know I have too much stuff and have still wanted something else or even more. I'm sure a dream or two has me pictured living someone else's life. I could rack up all my mistakes and know for a fact that I took and still take, full responsibility for each one.

I know if and when I'm lying to myself. Don't you?

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like kim's post
28-05-2013, 08:29 AM
RE: Attack a Theist
***Everyone: This will by final post in this thread. Interest seems to have waned and I do not want to practice the black art of thread necromancy. However, I look forward to continued encounters in future discussions. If anyone is finding our discussion productive and interesting, please PM me and we can continue it in a more sedated and private place.

***Momsbb: It's great to hear that. I find symbolism beautiful as well. And, you aren't the only one who has fallen asleep when the lights are low. :-) I have always found it interesting the way different people worship and I like to get the perspective of those who do not share the belief under discussion.

***Bucky Ball: Sorry if I attributed the quote to the wrong person. So many people to respond to at once!

Yes, I am a member of the Lutheran Church but that does not mean I agree with everything they say. I believe, based on discussions with another forum member, that kingschosen may have a similar position (though I would never speak for him/her).

QUOTE: "I see that you subscribe to some sort of divine watchmaker argument, where the god left the universe go." This would be relatively accurate. However, I would describe myself as "soft" on this position because it subscribes to a concept of an "external" linear God that I do not hold and I do not think the Bible supports.

QUOTE: "I never said you were insane. Nice try at making me look unreasonable. I can tell you're a lawyer."

Apologies. This was intended as a joke and it was clearly not received that way. I was not attempting to paint you as unreasonable. I was attempting to establish a humorous tone at my own expense. Clearly, I failed and for that I am sorry.

QUOTE: "since theists cannot actually cook up a coherent definition of the word "god", including you"
I will gladly define my God for you at a future date. However, such a complex concept cannot be expressed in a short period. We would have to engage for a lengthy discussion. I do not have time for that now due to RL. However, since you used the word "coherent" I would direct you to my current Boxing Match with Steven. We are actually discussing right now whether my definition is "coherent".

QUOTE: "Or are you yet another amateur, come to "enlighten" us on the "proper way" (of course that's YOUR way), to "read the Bible". Is this your real agenda here?"

No. As I stated previously and have proven several times by revising my beliefs (the occasion you listed by Mark was one such time), I am here to test my own theoretical construct of God, based upon a personal reading of Scripture combined with the thoughts of the past (my Church, other philosophers, etc).

***Rahn127: I break your post into questions in order to answer quickly and accurately.

"How would you assess your views / beliefs from only being here for such a short time? Would you say that you have shifted some of your earlier beliefs you had before you encountered this forum?"

Based on my limited interaction so far, I would say that my core beliefs remain unchanged. Of course, given the extremely limited time I have been here, there has been little discussion of my personal core beliefs. However, I can say that Mark has convinced me that Biblical sexuality must include the potential for multi-party marriage (although this was a position I had considered before) and Dom has convinced me that homosexual adoption is a moral choice (although this was not a position I rejected before but simply one I had not considered). On a smaller scale, Steven helped me to identify the logical flaw in one of my thought experiments.

"Every so often I examine the epistemology of what I hold to be true and attempt to justify as much as I can the reasons for holding the beliefs & knowledge that I have."

I do this on a regular basis. This is the reason that I hold modified basic beliefs compared to my denominational affiliation.

"Sometimes my views shift and they shift because I either can't justify my reasons or new information comes to light."

Exactly! If you see my discussion with Bucky Ball, you will see this in action. I hold a different belief from my denomination on the omnipotence of God due to this very process.

"What about you? Have you taken a long hard look at the reasons why you believe the things you believe?"

Yes. I am here to challenge that framework. Of course, articulating all of it would take far too long for a forum and thus it must be done in chunks.

"Are the reasons rational and justifiable or do you believe them for no reasons what so ever? (ie:faith)"

This is an interesting question. I have certain fundamental assumption that I hold to with very little external evidence (but I would not say "for no reason whatsoever") that directly supports them. However, there is sufficient "circumstantial" evidence for them that I feel intellectually satisfied in holding them.

***Revenant: QUOTE: "Is the God that you pray to a Moral Being and if so how do you explain the evil things he has done (see most of the OT and the invention of Hell in the NT)? If you do not see your God as a Moral Being why is he worthy of praise?"

This is a great question and one that I have answered to my satisfaction. My God is a Moral Being. However, as you indicated might be the case, I think answering your question would require much more explanation than would be wise in this thread. The short answer, which will seem to make little sense since I am not elaborating at this time, is below. When articulated in full and with an eye towards explaining the possible contradictions, which would require several pages of text at a minimum, I believe it is logically coherent and reflects a proper understanding of the Bible. If you are truly interested, I would welcome an open-minded person attempting to tear it apart. However, now is not the time for me due to RL.

My "short" answer:

The "cruelty" of the OT God was an inevitable deterministic product of the original fall of Man. The actions, which would have been highly immoral in the ideal world planned by God, became moral because they limited the future suffering of mankind. Hell is not an immoral creation because Hell is this reality in which we live, with God's removed and those humans who reject him allowed to continue living within it for all eternity. Hell is what those who reject God make it. However, the inevitable laws of physics will ultimately lead to the maximization of entropy and an eternal, unchanging state of existence wherein all those who remain in this reality exist, conscious, but unable to interact or change anything for all eternity. The suffering of Hell is that of a mind trapped, alone and unable to interact with anything, for all eternity. See the following link for the science behind this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_..._universe. Then, just imagine that instead of your consciousness ceasing upon death, it continues. Note that part of my worldview is that God does NOT have the choice to destroy your consciousness once it is created. Thus, all He can do is give you a choice: do you want to continue living in this universe which ends as described and results in eternal unchanging suffering, or do you want to sacrifice your free will and join him in another universe which does not end in this manner? (And, yes, this implies that we do not have free will in "heaven".)

***Full Circle: "So at what age does a human being is said to be emotionally, rationally and intellectually developed to the point of understanding abstract concepts like what it means to "accept Jesus"? If adults wrestle with all the abstract concepts of what it means to have faith in the unprovable and the unobservable how can a child be expected to "consciously make a choice"?"

Exactly! This is the age of accountability problem and I have never heard of a satisfactory solution.

QUOTE: "As a parent what am I doing worshipping a god that would send children to Hell?"

Good question and one that I can answer if we are willing to have an in-depth discussion. For now, let it suffice to say that this question only makes sense if you assume God doesn't exist. If He does, even if he isn't worthy of worship, then the wise choice is to worship him to avoid Hell since you have no other option. Thus, the reasoning is circular because you assume God does not exist to attack those who believe he does and act upon that belief.

***Starcrash:

QUOTE: "It is perfectly fair for me to assume that you don't believe that the God of the Qur'an is "a real and true god", because you've stated outright that you are a Christian." AND " Why are being so pedantic about this?"

Because, to be blunt, you keep misstating my position and then arguing against what you THINK I said instead of what I actually said. I have to be pedantic because my words keep getting changed (probably unintentionally) and this is preventing serious discussion. For example:

I ACTUALLY said "For the record, I would COMPLETELY agree with the statement that "the alleged correctness of "Qur'anic sexuality as a moral precept" [is evidence that] the god of the Qur'an is a real and true god."

Notice the phrase "is evidence that".

Now, YOU argument begins with the premise that: "It is perfectly fair for me to assume that you don't believe that the God of the Qur'an is "a real and true god", because you've stated outright that you are a Christian."

If you read my quote closely, you will see that I never said the God of the Qur'an is "a real a true god". I said my argument would be EVIDENCE that He is for the same reason it would be evidence that the Christian god would be. I was admitting that my argument could be evidence both for Christianity and other religions. This is an intellectually honest position. Instead of responding to my argument as presented, you misstate it. I have to be pedantic to keep people from arguing against what they HOPE I said. See my discussion with Steven in the Boxing Arena for a perfect example from a few days ago.

If you don't find the above example sufficient to prove that you keep misstating my position, here's another time from the very next paragraph of the very same post...

QUOTE: "Logic doesn't require you to assume that I've proven Allah is God..."

Notice that you used the "proven". I CLEARLY said "is evidence for". This is NOT a minor distinction if you are seriously seeking truth. Evidence FOR a position can exist and yet that position can still be FALSE. Your entire response is based on a misreading of my position.
I apologize if this doesn't make sense. I have tried to cite as many clear examples as I can. Moving on...

QUOTE: "You are arguing for "the perfection of the bible", but that simply isn't necessary; the bible can be flawed and your God can exist."
You are correct. It is not necessary for my position that the Bible be infallible.

QUOTE: "Arguing over the meaning of this word also strikes me as a pedantic attempt to slow an argument rather than to win it. I personally believe nothing can be proven with absolute certainty, so I'd never use it in the way that you mean. If it makes you feel better then I'll use the wording that you prefer, but you really could have just let this go without comment."
We agree that nothing can be proven with absolute certainty. I attacked your use of the word only because I perceived that your argument was founded on a fallacious use of the term. Apologies if I was incorrect (although I do not believe I was).

And, when discussing issues of massive importance, precise language is critical. This is why the US Supreme Court can spend literally dozens of pages interpreting the proper way to use a single word. An entire argument (and the real world rights that go with it) can hang on competing interpretations. If discussion is meant to be serious and not just superficial, significant time must be spend defining the language of the discourse.

I enjoy discussing with you greatly and find your arguments both respectful and challenging. Thank you for taking the time.

***Kim:

QUOTE: "I know if and when I'm lying to myself. Don't you?"
In general, yes. However, I have found that there are some positions that I held in the past in which I had such a huge emotional investment (both religious and non-religious) that I could not honestly evaluate them. Therefore, it took great effort to look within myself, identify possible sources of unintentional bias and emotional pollution, and remove those sources. I know now that I was lying to myself then. I did not know then that I was lying to myself.

***All: As I said above, this will be my last post in this, my inaugural thread. Thank you for making me feel welcome, for challenging my beliefs and pushing my intellect, and for being nice to me. I look forward to seeing you in other threads.

Sincerely,

Mojch
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2013, 08:50 AM
RE: Attack a Theist
Who made you feel welcome? I will smack the snot outta 'em. Evil_monster

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2013, 09:38 AM
RE: Attack a Theist
Thank you for your reply. If you wish to go further into the subject and see my explanations for why I believe that Yahweh is immoral we can start a new thread or do the boxing ring. Oh and don't mind Johnny Cantor he OD'd on Gynnies over the weekend and is coming down so he may be a bit snappy. Wink

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2013, 10:48 AM
RE: Attack a Theist
(28-05-2013 08:29 AM)Mojch Wrote:  ***Full Circle: "So at what age does a human being is said to be emotionally, rationally and intellectually developed to the point of understanding abstract concepts like what it means to "accept Jesus"? If adults wrestle with all the abstract concepts of what it means to have faith in the unprovable and the unobservable how can a child be expected to "consciously make a choice"?"

Exactly! This is the age of accountability problem and I have never heard of a satisfactory solution.

QUOTE: "As a parent what am I doing worshipping a god that would send children to Hell?"

Good question and one that I can answer if we are willing to have an in-depth discussion. For now, let it suffice to say that this question only makes sense if you assume God doesn't exist. If He does, even if he isn't worthy of worship, then the wise choice is to worship him to avoid Hell since you have no other option. Thus, the reasoning is circular because you assume God does not exist to attack those who believe he does and act upon that belief.

Mojch, sorry you won't continue here, I'm not up for the Boxing Ring at the moment but would have liked to continue this conversation.

I will respond to your comments however though I don't expect a reply.

I simply don't follow your logic here, the question of worshipping a god that would send children to Hell ONLY makes sense if you assume god DOES exist. I don't so I don't worry about this.

The choice to believe so you can CYA I would think would be very transparent to an omniscient being don't you think? I can't make myself believe. Putting on a show is a waste of time.

"It’s a tactical belief, a belief that exists because the upside to disbelief is too small…"
Michael Lewis quoting an Irishman about fairies from the book Boomerang

Probably written with Pascal’s Wager in mind as written below:

The philosophy uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):

"God is, or He is not"
A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
You must wager. (It's not optional.)
Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

As far as "attacking" those that do believe in god let's review one of your earlier questions to me regarding parent's wanting the best for their children where you responded to my question of:

FC - "Why not teach it when children are experienced enough to reason for themselves?"

Mojch - "The simple answer is because doing so INCREASES the risk that the kid will go to Hell from the PARENTS perspective. Your belief that Hell doesn't exist doesn't change the fact that a parent is morally obligated to do what he or she believes is in the best interest of the child."

I cannot idly stand by knowing a child is being psychologically abused anymore than physically abused. My concern for that child, as a member of society, requires I speak out. You say attack, I say voice my concern.

See you around,

FC

"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of wonder.” ~ Ralph W. Sockman
“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's." - Mark Twain in Eruption
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
28-05-2013, 12:53 PM (This post was last modified: 28-05-2013 01:40 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Attack a Theist
Well, he may be done, but this had turned into a commentary on his debates, so it will continue.

All that BS about "logic". The universe has been proven to NOT operate by what appears to humans to be "logical", ((Relativity, Uncertainty, the math of matrices, (Dirac)), so it's irrelevant. The Reality of the universe, at it's basic level, is non-intuitive. "Logic" is of no use. The ONLY thing left is evidence. Whether a god is "logical" or not, is irrelevant.

Really hilarious. "A Christian god rescues you from hell". LOL. The damn god MADE their hell in the first place, and then *deigns* to rescue them. What a joke. "Hell" did not exist in Hebrew culture, and "hell" was cooked up much later. Dr. Elaine Pagels, (Princeton) has documented the convoluted history of the development of that ridiculous concept in her "The Origins of Satan". How any educated person can buy into the nonsense of "hell" when it didn't even exist in the culture which claims it now, is beyond the pale. So god creates a hell, then is a good boy to rescue someone from his fabrication ? How pathetic.

If it was "*necessary* to save man", that means the god is SUBJECT to the nature of REALITY .. and NOT it's creator. THAT is no "god". A god who is "necessarily" subject to a system, is no god. A god who is "embedded in the structure of Reality" (of necessity), is no creator OF THAT STRUCTURE. This dude needs a Philosophy course (or two). Of course the Bible is full of examples of "limits" to the god's power. It's anthropomorphic nonsense. He has in no way, or not once, even attempted to show why the Bible NEEDS to be afforded an "authoritative" status. He assumes it, and thinks everyone should. A set of man made texts, non-unanimously VOTED into a collection, perfectly historically traceable, and culturally relative, by motive and location, and we're supposed to accept THAT as ultimately "authoritative". The dude needs a Bible class, or three, (from professionals), NOT "Bible study".

There is no such thing as "free will". Modern Neuro-science has PROVEN, decisions are 100 % limited by memory, and are made before we are conscious of them. Didn't he watch the video ? There are a lot more where that one came from.

He "claims" (ancient) Israelite society was "more moral" than it's contemporaries, yet offers not a shred of evidence. And in fact the man has no expertise to even begin to make the claim. It also makes the classic error .. The Genetic Fallacy. The Bible was NOT the origins of the culture. The culture was the origins of the Bible. He's doing a turned around justification, and he's got it backwards. The religion TOOK it's rules from the general culture, and sanctioned them "as religious", and sanctioned them by "claiming" divine origins. That is NOT how it happened, and any scholar knows that. He's taking credit for what is NOT due.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating Yogi, CAAT-LY.
Assistant Manager, Vice Detection, Whoville : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: