Biblical Atrocities explained
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-07-2013, 09:55 PM
RE: Biblical Atrocities explained
(11-07-2013 01:58 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  Comet, are you an Atheist? A Christian? The problem with metaphors is that they are interpretive. That is often why they are used, either conscientiously or unconsciously.

I am a Schultzist. I know nothing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgcxGFmYyPs
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2013, 10:18 PM
RE: Biblical Atrocities explained
(11-07-2013 12:32 AM)Logisch Wrote:  
(10-07-2013 11:47 PM)comet Wrote:  OK, thought provoking image. I suspect that it is supposed to be funny. I also suspect that it is not all that complimentary, hard to read.

You are suggesting that theists have to go through all sorts of contortions to make sense of their beliefs.

The person in red is represents "pulling your head out of your ass".

You think guys who go to seminary are assholes and don't deserve a dignified answer.

You just enjoy fucking with people.

I wouldn't take it seriously. It's kinda funny. At least I thought it was.

Anyway... most of us don't really put any weight on "seminars" or "classes" on the bible. It holds as much weight on that stuff as a seminar or class on the qu'ran or a class and seminar on Illiad and Odyssey, or a class and seminar on dianetics. Difference is at least on the last one, we know who wrote the book.

There was a time when I gave many shits about reading the bible critically (back when I was a christian) and even looking through all the flaws and contradictions (after I became an atheist). Anymore, however, I realized it was just as much bs, myth, crap and a lot of old sheep herders who knew nothing about cosmology and how the universe works just as much as any other sheep herders back then who didn't know anything about cosmology or the universe. Henceforth at that point, I stopped giving any shits.

It's a large reason many of us don't really care much Tongue (about the bible anyway)

Not sure exactly what the main point of the thread is but yeah, the biblical types love explaining away violence and murder. Their sky daddy sure is biased. I mean, how much of an asshole would you have to be to know everything, create beings knowing they were going to fuck up, let them fuck up anyway, punish them for fucking up when you knew they'd fuck up, and then make a chosen people out of a population of the fucked up people, and give a fuck about a specific place on the rock you made for the special people who fucked up who are no different than the other people who fucked up.... who fucked up just because they were born and related to people who fucked up generations before them...

Thankfully, that's pretty irrational and stupid, and even the average human being is more rational than that by the standards of today. So that's a pretty good indicator that the primitive bs is nothing more than that. BS.

Drinking Beverage

So this forum is about engaging theists. I would think that some people would like to understand some of the opposing point of views and explanations. When I listen to the podcasts, a lot of the "deconverts" are Pentecostals and Fundamentalists. But there are some smart theist apologists out there that do not fall into those camps. On one show, I felt that Seth struggled with a presuppositional apologist. He did not have any game because he was not brushed up on that sort of theology which is becoming mainstream with the "Young and Reformed" movement (like Mark Driscoll founder of Mars Hill). Seth does a nice job, don't mean to dog him, but not everyone can be dialed in on every argument. It is a group effort.

The point is that making Illiad/Zeus analogies is fine with a friendly audience, or simply expressing your opinion, but given what that this area of the forum is about engaging theists, I would suggest that those types of analogies would not be all that effective in a serious debate arena.

So I am sure that there a many folks here who don't care about the bible or about theological academia, but I am sure that there are some that do. If it were me, I probably would not comment on a thread that I did not think added any value or that I didn't care about. But that is just me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2013, 10:32 PM
RE: Biblical Atrocities explained
(11-07-2013 10:18 PM)comet Wrote:  
(11-07-2013 12:32 AM)Logisch Wrote:  I wouldn't take it seriously. It's kinda funny. At least I thought it was.

Anyway... most of us don't really put any weight on "seminars" or "classes" on the bible. It holds as much weight on that stuff as a seminar or class on the qu'ran or a class and seminar on Illiad and Odyssey, or a class and seminar on dianetics. Difference is at least on the last one, we know who wrote the book.

There was a time when I gave many shits about reading the bible critically (back when I was a christian) and even looking through all the flaws and contradictions (after I became an atheist). Anymore, however, I realized it was just as much bs, myth, crap and a lot of old sheep herders who knew nothing about cosmology and how the universe works just as much as any other sheep herders back then who didn't know anything about cosmology or the universe. Henceforth at that point, I stopped giving any shits.

It's a large reason many of us don't really care much Tongue (about the bible anyway)

Not sure exactly what the main point of the thread is but yeah, the biblical types love explaining away violence and murder. Their sky daddy sure is biased. I mean, how much of an asshole would you have to be to know everything, create beings knowing they were going to fuck up, let them fuck up anyway, punish them for fucking up when you knew they'd fuck up, and then make a chosen people out of a population of the fucked up people, and give a fuck about a specific place on the rock you made for the special people who fucked up who are no different than the other people who fucked up.... who fucked up just because they were born and related to people who fucked up generations before them...

Thankfully, that's pretty irrational and stupid, and even the average human being is more rational than that by the standards of today. So that's a pretty good indicator that the primitive bs is nothing more than that. BS.

Drinking Beverage

So this forum is about engaging theists. I would think that some people would like to understand some of the opposing point of views and explanations. When I listen to the podcasts, a lot of the "deconverts" are Pentecostals and Fundamentalists. But there are some smart theist apologists out there that do not fall into those camps. On one show, I felt that Seth struggled with a presuppositional apologist. He did not have any game because he was not brushed up on that sort of theology which is becoming mainstream with the "Young and Reformed" movement (like Mark Driscoll founder of Mars Hill). Seth does a nice job, don't mean to dog him, but not everyone can be dialed in on every argument. It is a group effort.

The point is that making Illiad/Zeus analogies is fine with a friendly audience, or simply expressing your opinion, but given what that this area of the forum is about engaging theists, I would suggest that those types of analogies would not be all that effective in a serious debate arena.

So I am sure that there a many folks here who don't care about the bible or about theological academia, but I am sure that there are some that do. If it were me, I probably would not comment on a thread that I did not think added any value or that I didn't care about. But that is just me.

I don't debate theists on their terms and never to try and change their minds (losing game) I will however debate for an audience and generally the easiest way to win over someone who is having doubts is to get the theist debater into the crazier parts of their religion. Drop some knowledge on them about near eastern history (supported with archeology and artifacts) take em through the Jeebus myth and how it was formed, and then hit em with a few Problem of Evil and Omni problem questions. As far as that Presuppositionalist, Seth did about as well as you can with someone who has just totally made their mind up and is unwilling to even consider new information.

(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
11-07-2013, 10:34 PM
RE: Biblical Atrocities explained
(11-07-2013 10:18 PM)comet Wrote:  
(11-07-2013 12:32 AM)Logisch Wrote:  I wouldn't take it seriously. It's kinda funny. At least I thought it was.

Anyway... most of us don't really put any weight on "seminars" or "classes" on the bible. It holds as much weight on that stuff as a seminar or class on the qu'ran or a class and seminar on Illiad and Odyssey, or a class and seminar on dianetics. Difference is at least on the last one, we know who wrote the book.

There was a time when I gave many shits about reading the bible critically (back when I was a christian) and even looking through all the flaws and contradictions (after I became an atheist). Anymore, however, I realized it was just as much bs, myth, crap and a lot of old sheep herders who knew nothing about cosmology and how the universe works just as much as any other sheep herders back then who didn't know anything about cosmology or the universe. Henceforth at that point, I stopped giving any shits.

It's a large reason many of us don't really care much Tongue (about the bible anyway)

Not sure exactly what the main point of the thread is but yeah, the biblical types love explaining away violence and murder. Their sky daddy sure is biased. I mean, how much of an asshole would you have to be to know everything, create beings knowing they were going to fuck up, let them fuck up anyway, punish them for fucking up when you knew they'd fuck up, and then make a chosen people out of a population of the fucked up people, and give a fuck about a specific place on the rock you made for the special people who fucked up who are no different than the other people who fucked up.... who fucked up just because they were born and related to people who fucked up generations before them...

Thankfully, that's pretty irrational and stupid, and even the average human being is more rational than that by the standards of today. So that's a pretty good indicator that the primitive bs is nothing more than that. BS.

Drinking Beverage

So this forum is about engaging theists. I would think that some people would like to understand some of the opposing point of views and explanations. When I listen to the podcasts, a lot of the "deconverts" are Pentecostals and Fundamentalists. But there are some smart theist apologists out there that do not fall into those camps. On one show, I felt that Seth struggled with a presuppositional apologist. He did not have any game because he was not brushed up on that sort of theology which is becoming mainstream with the "Young and Reformed" movement (like Mark Driscoll founder of Mars Hill). Seth does a nice job, don't mean to dog him, but not everyone can be dialed in on every argument. It is a group effort.

The point is that making Illiad/Zeus analogies is fine with a friendly audience, or simply expressing your opinion, but given what that this area of the forum is about engaging theists, I would suggest that those types of analogies would not be all that effective in a serious debate arena.

So I am sure that there a many folks here who don't care about the bible or about theological academia, but I am sure that there are some that do. If it were me, I probably would not comment on a thread that I did not think added any value or that I didn't care about. But that is just me.

Fair enough. I'm still not sure where the thread is going though based off the initial post. Are you asking for feedback in regards to thoughts on your experience? It was unclear to me.

Official ordained minister of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Please pm me with prayer requests to his noodly goodness. Remember, he boiled for your sins and loves you. Carbo Diem! RAmen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2013, 10:39 PM
RE: Biblical Atrocities explained
(11-07-2013 04:05 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(10-07-2013 11:47 PM)comet Wrote:  OK, thought provoking image. I suspect that it is supposed to be funny. I also suspect that it is not all that complimentary, hard to read.

You are suggesting that theists have to go through all sorts of contortions to make sense of their beliefs.

The person in red is represents "pulling your head out of your ass".

You think guys who go to seminary are assholes and don't deserve a dignified answer.

You just enjoy fucking with people.

To explain the image it is about the insane contortions one needs to make to hold to any theistic view once one academically studies the bible and the history of the region. I also enjoy fucking with people but only on a consensual basis so if you take offense to said fucking just ignore the response. Had I wanted a head up their own ass picture the internet has many of those so no.

I did not mean to offend you, or your chosen field of study, we have a few other biblical scholars here and they are some of our best posters. However when you post apologetics that require contortion of the actual text it is going to get a response here. Either way relax it wasn't meant as an insult to you, more to the faulty logic behind the assertion that one must read the bible only this way since thats the only way we can get our result.

I'll consider your instruction to "relax" as well as your warning that making posts on internet forums might invoke a response.

See, I can be a smart ass too. It's fun and keeps it fresh and interesting. Plus, I am fine with both being offensive and taking offense. (as long as it is within the forum guidelines Mr. Monitor)

BTW - my field of study is computer science, but I also attended a fine arts school for classical music and a seminary for theology over the years. I am in my late 50's so I have been around.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes comet's post
11-07-2013, 11:02 PM
RE: Biblical Atrocities explained
Wait, this forum is about engaging theists? I think I did it wrong then. Please disregard the last 1,900 some odd posts. Tongue

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dark Light's post
11-07-2013, 11:26 PM
RE: Biblical Atrocities explained
(11-07-2013 10:32 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(11-07-2013 10:18 PM)comet Wrote:  So this forum is about engaging theists. I would think that some people would like to understand some of the opposing point of views and explanations. When I listen to the podcasts, a lot of the "deconverts" are Pentecostals and Fundamentalists. But there are some smart theist apologists out there that do not fall into those camps. On one show, I felt that Seth struggled with a presuppositional apologist. He did not have any game because he was not brushed up on that sort of theology which is becoming mainstream with the "Young and Reformed" movement (like Mark Driscoll founder of Mars Hill). Seth does a nice job, don't mean to dog him, but not everyone can be dialed in on every argument. It is a group effort.

The point is that making Illiad/Zeus analogies is fine with a friendly audience, or simply expressing your opinion, but given what that this area of the forum is about engaging theists, I would suggest that those types of analogies would not be all that effective in a serious debate arena.

So I am sure that there a many folks here who don't care about the bible or about theological academia, but I am sure that there are some that do. If it were me, I probably would not comment on a thread that I did not think added any value or that I didn't care about. But that is just me.

I don't debate theists on their terms and never to try and change their minds (losing game) I will however debate for an audience and generally the easiest way to win over someone who is having doubts is to get the theist debater into the crazier parts of their religion. Drop some knowledge on them about near eastern history (supported with archeology and artifacts) take em through the Jeebus myth and how it was formed, and then hit em with a few Problem of Evil and Omni problem questions. As far as that Presuppositionalist, Seth did about as well as you can with someone who has just totally made their mind up and is unwilling to even consider new information.

Your policy is similar to the presuppositionalist. They never move off of their terms. I like to think that debates are not for the person you are debating as much as for observers that might be influenced. So the pressuppositionalist has a closed, circular system. So then the debate becomes a battle to move the other person off of their terms.

With that in mind (the observers being the target, not the close-minded person), I would want to get the presuppositionalist to commit on the problem of evil. They have about three potential arguments that usually involve allowing evil for the greater good, or that we don't understand how "holy" god is and his "justice", and so on.

So if you press them into admitting that men cannot comprehend the mind of god, then we ask them how do they know that they are going to heaven?

You could hypothetically concede them everything, that there is a god, that the bible is inspired by god, and that god meant mankind to understand the christian gospel as the way to salvation.

But Mr. Theist, if man is so puny and cannot even begin to comprehend the midn of god, what assurance do you have that god will bind himself to the bible promises?
Can you, puny man, who cannot begin to grasp the mind of god, have the audacity to assert that god cannot, if he wanted to, contradict himself?
O puny man, do you have the audacity to claim that you prove that god is not outside of logic?
Can you prove that god, if he wanted to, could send everyone to hell if he wanted to, even those who accepted Christ as his savior?
Could not god send everyone to hell if it were his pleasure for whatever reason?
The best you can do puny man, is hope god is not sending you to hell for some greater good regardless of whether you are a believer or not.

That is sort of my thesis, that theologically, you cannot disprove that Christian God is predisposed to send everyone to hell.

I am just wondering if there is some fruit here. I am just wondering if it might be a good circular reference breaker for the presuppositionalist?

Thoughts? Full of crap? Already in use?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2013, 04:00 AM
RE: Biblical Atrocities explained
(11-07-2013 11:26 PM)comet Wrote:  
(11-07-2013 10:32 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I don't debate theists on their terms and never to try and change their minds (losing game) I will however debate for an audience and generally the easiest way to win over someone who is having doubts is to get the theist debater into the crazier parts of their religion. Drop some knowledge on them about near eastern history (supported with archeology and artifacts) take em through the Jeebus myth and how it was formed, and then hit em with a few Problem of Evil and Omni problem questions. As far as that Presuppositionalist, Seth did about as well as you can with someone who has just totally made their mind up and is unwilling to even consider new information.

Your policy is similar to the presuppositionalist. They never move off of their terms. I like to think that debates are not for the person you are debating as much as for observers that might be influenced. So the pressuppositionalist has a closed, circular system. So then the debate becomes a battle to move the other person off of their terms.

With that in mind (the observers being the target, not the close-minded person), I would want to get the presuppositionalist to commit on the problem of evil. They have about three potential arguments that usually involve allowing evil for the greater good, or that we don't understand how "holy" god is and his "justice", and so on.

So if you press them into admitting that men cannot comprehend the mind of god, then we ask them how do they know that they are going to heaven?

You could hypothetically concede them everything, that there is a god, that the bible is inspired by god, and that god meant mankind to understand the christian gospel as the way to salvation.

But Mr. Theist, if man is so puny and cannot even begin to comprehend the midn of god, what assurance do you have that god will bind himself to the bible promises?
Can you, puny man, who cannot begin to grasp the mind of god, have the audacity to assert that god cannot, if he wanted to, contradict himself?
O puny man, do you have the audacity to claim that you prove that god is not outside of logic?
Can you prove that god, if he wanted to, could send everyone to hell if he wanted to, even those who accepted Christ as his savior?
Could not god send everyone to hell if it were his pleasure for whatever reason?
The best you can do puny man, is hope god is not sending you to hell for some greater good regardless of whether you are a believer or not.

That is sort of my thesis, that theologically, you cannot disprove that Christian God is predisposed to send everyone to hell.

I am just wondering if there is some fruit here. I am just wondering if it might be a good circular reference breaker for the presuppositionalist?

Thoughts? Full of crap? Already in use?

It might trip a presup up but to be honest your argument (if that is what your op was) is not really a rational one and as prone to the same circular reasoning. You've just inversed their argument effectively. I would not rely on it as a major pillar in any debate but if you were faced with a prepositionalist who is just refusing to even entertain a thought it might move them for a minute.

Yahweh is inherently evil (if despite all evidence he proved to be real) he sanctions genocide, rape. murder, is insanely jealous for a supposedly Omnipowerful being. He claims to be master over the universe and it's creator yet is strangely bound by it's rules at certain times. He imparted no knowledge to his supposed chosen people and managed to promise them the one part of the near east with no oil. Had he mentioned the fact that, say moldy bread could cure most of the common diseases of the time and could prevent infection the Israelite Army would have had an incredible advantage over it's foes. However for an All Powerful being that constantly was producing Miracles he had a hard time even getting his supposedly chosen people to not go off and worship other gods who were doing a better job for their people.

That's a sample of my argument of evil I can go on in that manner for a rather long time showing both the weakness of Yahweh and his idiotic childish temper tantrums, his lack of foresight and his ultimate failures. This is of course without even getting into the figure of Jesus of Nazareth, who manages to be even worse than the Old Testament god.

(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
12-07-2013, 11:01 AM
RE: Biblical Atrocities explained
I think I'm seeing his point, Revenant. At first I thought he was just blabbin' - but he has some interesting points. Now, before I go off on that, I'm not saying it's right or anything because at the end of the day, burden of proof lies on the believer. However, in a way, it's almost saying, "So what?" to the evil god of the testament. I think in debates a lot of people like to point out the god of the old testament as being a childish and evil deity. However, it no more disproves it than it proves it. In other words, it would in many ways support a calvanist view that "we're all doomed really" because "maybe that god is a jealous, angry, spiteful, upset, childish god."

So he is correct, you can't prove their christian god doesn't actually want to just send us all to hell. In fact, if we were to go along with one of these silly presuppositional arguments to that degree, it'd probably end up being that way. One could EVEN say.... the westboro baptist church "has it right" if that would be the case.

Is it irrational to conceive something more immature than the average chimpanzee in the way it reacts to something? Yeah... but at the same time, you can't disprove it, as much as they can prove it. I think it's safe to say that most rational and kind people if put in the place of a deity such as yahweh, would probably do a better job than the proposed god of the bible, and probably not slaughter millions over silly things, or send bears to kill children.

However, I digress. I think his point is that many of these arguments come down to how you want to handle them. Presuppositionalists are quite annoying IMO. I would much prefer to stay away from them myself. In all fairness as well, a presuppositional argument on either side leaves no room for an actual debate to discuss and understand either side. As he said, it comes down to attempting to persuade the audience who is watching, bags of tricks, if you will. If you've ever watched Hitchens debate people, he went up against some presuppositional arguments many times, and of course, he was fantastic at derailing them and pointing out how atrocious things were and bringing it back around to pointing out how moral humans were in comparison.

Particularly, one of my favorite debates was Hitchens vs John Lennox. (since this is a thread of discussion, I'll just post the link to it, instead of mucking up the thread with giant pixels full of videos)

Debates that get into convincing an audience rarely end up lying within the "burden of proof" argument, and more often come down to more emotional forms of argument to try and get people to relate to something. It is after all... about convincing.

Official ordained minister of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Please pm me with prayer requests to his noodly goodness. Remember, he boiled for your sins and loves you. Carbo Diem! RAmen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2013, 11:53 AM
RE: Biblical Atrocities explained
(12-07-2013 11:01 AM)Logisch Wrote:  I think I'm seeing his point, Revenant. At first I thought he was just blabbin' - but he has some interesting points. Now, before I go off on that, I'm not saying it's right or anything because at the end of the day, burden of proof lies on the believer. However, in a way, it's almost saying, "So what?" to the evil god of the testament. I think in debates a lot of people like to point out the god of the old testament as being a childish and evil deity. However, it no more disproves it than it proves it. In other words, it would in many ways support a calvanist view that "we're all doomed really" because "maybe that god is a jealous, angry, spiteful, upset, childish god."

So he is correct, you can't prove their christian god doesn't actually want to just send us all to hell. In fact, if we were to go along with one of these silly presuppositional arguments to that degree, it'd probably end up being that way. One could EVEN say.... the westboro baptist church "has it right" if that would be the case.

Is it irrational to conceive something more immature than the average chimpanzee in the way it reacts to something? Yeah... but at the same time, you can't disprove it, as much as they can prove it. I think it's safe to say that most rational and kind people if put in the place of a deity such as yahweh, would probably do a better job than the proposed god of the bible, and probably not slaughter millions over silly things, or send bears to kill children.

However, I digress. I think his point is that many of these arguments come down to how you want to handle them. Presuppositionalists are quite annoying IMO. I would much prefer to stay away from them myself. In all fairness as well, a presuppositional argument on either side leaves no room for an actual debate to discuss and understand either side. As he said, it comes down to attempting to persuade the audience who is watching, bags of tricks, if you will. If you've ever watched Hitchens debate people, he went up against some presuppositional arguments many times, and of course, he was fantastic at derailing them and pointing out how atrocious things were and bringing it back around to pointing out how moral humans were in comparison.

Particularly, one of my favorite debates was Hitchens vs John Lennox. (since this is a thread of discussion, I'll just post the link to it, instead of mucking up the thread with giant pixels full of videos)

Debates that get into convincing an audience rarely end up lying within the "burden of proof" argument, and more often come down to more emotional forms of argument to try and get people to relate to something. It is after all... about convincing.

Yeah I can see that, and I'm just trying to give him some feedback. As to burden of proof it's always good to mention it and then acquiesce, it makes you look like the bigger person. A good debate against Christianity should cover all 3 bases Inherent Truth in the Bible (this is where you get to use science and archaeology) Morality and where it comes from (good without god/good in spite of god, this is where the character of Yahweh and Yeshuia come into play, oh and always call god Yahweh and Jeebus Yeshuia Ben Josef it trips them up and makes you sound more scholarly) and Negative results of religion (catholic scandals, abortion debacles, gay rights, the condom travesty in Africa, any social issues you care to bring up)

The Presup's really have no defense against all of that other than to just keep repeating their mantra and they end up looking like an idiot (not that that's hard) There is no 1 perfect argument against the bible but when you add up all the arguments it is rather overwhelming. Also there is personal style in debates, Hitchens was a master raconteur and so his debate style reflected that, Dawkins is more bookish and tends to present as a Professor lecturing his students (no surprise really) so really the trick is find what works for you.

(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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: