Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What you say is true unless God appears to persons or foretells the future with 100% accuracy and etc.

I mean, the Law of Conservation of matter and energy is a pretty good indication that special creation occurred.

Not to me. What would a god need with a law like that? A god could create or destroy matter and energy at will.

A godless universe running on autopilot needs laws if it is to be orderly and comprehensible.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Tracie's quote ["You either have a God who sends child rapists to rape children or you have a God who simply watches it and says, 'When you're done, I'm going to punish you' .. If I were in a situation where I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That's the difference between me and your God." - Tracie Harris] belies the fact that she had the God-given ability to intercede against the rapist. The Bible is clear that we can do God's work. You can do it, too.

You're missing the point. Why isn't God doing it?

And what makes it God's work if He won't?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Name a single valuable and original moral precept attributable to Jesus.

When someone forces you to give them your cloak, give them your shirt, too.

Why is that valuable?

I have better advice: When somebody forces you to give them your coat, get out of there if you can and either write it off or attempt to seek justice and restitution.

On the other hand, it a man needs a coat, help him acquire one if you can. And if he needs a shirt as well, the same.

Furthermore, the idea of generosity is not original to Jesus or the New Testament:

"The Buddha taught that five blessings accrue to the giver of dana: the affection of many people, noble association, good reputation, self-confidence, and a heavenly rebirth. The Buddha was quite clear that it is harmful for a person to attempt to buy these blessings with money or good conduct. Generosity is regarded as one of the paramitas or perfections that a bodhisattva achieves on the way to enlightenment, along with such virtues as patience, discipline, and wisdom. Dana is also understood as a form of kindness and compassion practice motivated by unconditional caring for another." The Gift of Generosity | Dharma Wisdom

That was your first answer. Was it your best one?

If you know of one, please find some moral truth that Jesus first gave the world.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I know rape is objectively wrong to me and subjectively wrong to you. To be an atheist, your morals must be subjective and there must be few or no absolutes.

Of course God speaks against rape in the OT. It's punished with capital punishment for the man!

[1] Go to war, find a captive woman you like, she becomes your wife - no consent required:

Deuteronomy 21:10-13 - "When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife."

[2] Rape a women, you must marry her - her consent is irrelevant - and all is well. No concern is shown here for the victim, who is punished by having to marry her attacker. Women were viewed as property ("you break it, you bought it").

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

Are these objective morals? Are these your values? They're not mine.

We reject them today and prosecute those that would follow them.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You will be separated from God and all persons in a place of everlasting darkness, sorrow and regret.

No lake of fire any more? Where did it go?

And why would there be sorrow or regret? I spent the first several billion years of this universe's existence in darkness, and there was no sorrow or regret. I hardly noticed it. The time flew.

I expect the same after death. Why shouldn't I?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And there it is: The puny minds justification for not seeing the good in the Holocaust.

What would Satan have done differently?

Huh? What are you saying?

You had said "What you are not able to tell me is the mysterious plans of God, whether Hitler was truly used to form Israel, avert a ten times worse Hitler, fulfill prophecy, etc. because you don't read the team playbook."

You don't understand what I meant? The Christian god perpetrated or stood idly by and allowed a Holocaust to occur. The remainder of the non-Semitic world sees no good in that. You're trying to polish your god's inaction by implying that letting murder may have been a more acceptable choice for that god than we can know. That's the puny minds argument: "How can we with our puny minds judge this god?"

The Holocaust was awful. So are your posts. In both cases, God is likely preventing something worse. And?

You did it again - defending this god by saying that despite the morally repugnant choices it made, we should still try to see this god as a good. That's what happens when you approach scripture with faith based beliefs. You see what you have chosen to see regardless of what the evidence suggests.

So what's awful about my posts? That you don't like their implications? I see these as compelling arguments against the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god. Please forgive me for having the audacity to express myself in the marketplace of ideas even if those ideas challenge your faith.

 

[Curious George]

OK, but I still say as I did to Artie that my suspicion is that we are in agreement about what is the case, but disagreeing about what to call it. You seem to be using "objective" to mean what I would call universal. If everybody agreed on a moral position, then I would call it a universal value, not an objectively real or true one.

I would be happy to say that this is universal. Just as we are not tagging the word subjective onto it. After all that would be like calling a deity directed morality subjective as it is contingent on humans being alive for direction, or that it is subjective based on the subjective whims of the dictator. I think objective is an accepted term when discussing objective vs. Subjective morality, but I certainly do not want to quibble over terms.

 

[Nakosis]

How open-minded of you. Do you understand the deep devotion I have for the Christ (Mashiach) as a Jew? After all, Messiah comes from the Jews, to the Jews, for the Jews first, the Gentiles second.

I don't care what your beliefs are. I suspect most religious histories are 90% fictional anyway. Your god can be whatever you make them out to be. Just saying from my own studies and conversations with other Jews the connection between the OT and NT are contrived at best.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

nothing ever goes from being subjective to objective.

Then how does a particular moral value become an objective moral value? How can there be such a thing?

Once upon a time, rape, as commanded in the Old Testament, was acceptable under certain circumstances. If it was commanded by God, it had to be righteous. (Divine Command Theory of ethics)

At some point, the idea that rape is never right began to ascend. That minority position surely would have been deemed a subjective moral principle at that time. Somehow, today, it is being called an objective moral principle. That sounds like going from subjective to objective to me.

Rather we only have subjectively objective. However, that is as close as an approximation as we will have.

Subjectively objective? Is that the same as objective? That's the language we've been discussing. What are we claiming is true when we call a moral principle objectively right? Does an objective moral principle exist outside of minds like the rest of objective reality?

I don't know what subjectively objective means, but if you call it the closest approximation we have to objective, then I think you saying that there are no objective moral principles, that they are subjective, but as they become more universally agreed upon, they approach universality, which is being called objective reality.

Do any moral principles have a reality outside of minds? Are they disembodied universal principles like gravity that awaited the evolution of minds capable of discerning them, a kind of ethical platonism? That's the claim in some theologies. Christians claim to hold what they variously call objective and absolute moral imperatives, and they mean rules of conduct that existed before and outside of our universe.

Does that sound correct? Do we understand one another?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not to me. What would a god need with a law like that? A god could create or destroy matter and energy at will.

A godless universe running on autopilot needs laws if it is to be orderly and comprehensible.

If you agree that the Law was suspended at the Big Bang/creation, than you agree that all inductively observed laws may be open to intervention. You are agreeing to the possibility of a creator.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You're missing the point. Why isn't God doing it?

And what makes it God's work if He won't?

What are the qualifications for God to respond to human sin besides dying and rising for it and offering redemption and healing to all?

 

[BilliardsBall]

[1] Go to war, find a captive woman you like, she becomes your wife - no consent required:

Deuteronomy 21:10-13 - "When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife."

[2] Rape a women, you must marry her - her consent is irrelevant - and all is well. No concern is shown here for the victim, who is punished by having to marry her attacker. Women were viewed as property ("you break it, you bought it").

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

Are these objective morals? Are these your values? They're not mine.

We reject them today and prosecute those that would follow them.

Which Bible "version" had the word "rape" in Deut 22, the Skeptics' Annotated? That is ridiculous.

You are also looking through your presentist lens--even Muslim apologists say multiple marriages were to defend and protect widows and not rape them.

IF you shaved off the woman's hair so she could mourn AND you were still loving her after 30 days then you MIGHT marry her and give her all rights and properties as a proper Jewish wife BUT your children wouldn't be full Israelites. It was a loaded provision.

And again, the Deut 22 can't be rape, since if a woman cried out during an assault the man was killed. Deut 22 here is a provision for consensual sex between two adults. The "he has violated her" means "he took her virginity [which she gave to take]." It's not "you break, you buy," it's "no milk without the cow being married".

The problem is we need to use common sense when looking at these passages, not presentism.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No lake of fire any more? Where did it go?

And why would there be sorrow or regret? I spent the first several billion years of this universe's existence in darkness, and there was no sorrow or regret. I hardly noticed it. The time flew.

I expect the same after death. Why shouldn't I?

Luke 16 shows someone in Hell carrying on a conversation, not screaming.

There is a lake of fire, yes. Now try reading more than three words [lake of fire] and read Luke 16 to see a far more complete picture of perdition.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You had said "What you are not able to tell me is the mysterious plans of God, whether Hitler was truly used to form Israel, avert a ten times worse Hitler, fulfill prophecy, etc. because you don't read the team playbook."

You don't understand what I meant? The Christian god perpetrated or stood idly by and allowed a Holocaust to occur. The remainder of the non-Semitic world sees no good in that. You're trying to polish your god's inaction by implying that letting murder may have been a more acceptable choice for that god than we can know. That's the puny minds argument: "How can we with our puny minds judge this god?"



You did it again - defending this god by saying that despite the morally repugnant choices it made, we should still try to see this god as a good. That's what happens when you approach scripture with faith based beliefs. You see what you have chosen to see regardless of what the evidence suggests.

So what's awful about my posts? That you don't like their implications? I see these as compelling arguments against the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god. Please forgive me for having the audacity to express myself in the marketplace of ideas even if those ideas challenge your faith.

What I see here is that you feel God should disallow all suffering, yet He allowed the Christ to suffer to pay for your sin and redeem you. If God disallowed all suffering, you would indeed live forever--as a fallen sinner in an imperfect world, subject to . . . suffering.

The atheist utopia has no suffering, no Christ, and no benefits to suffering.

 

[Thumper]

Which Bible "version" had the word "rape" in Deut 22, the Skeptics' Annotated? That is ridiculous.
...

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't care what your beliefs are. I suspect most religious histories are 90% fictional anyway. Your god can be whatever you make them out to be. Just saying from my own studies and conversations with other Jews the connection between the OT and NT are contrived at best.

If 90% of religious histories are fictitious, why accept the testimony of other Jews (most of non-Messianic Jews have read not one verse of the NT) as opposed to my testimony (I've STUDIED both testaments at length, with care).

You're not going to make an ad populum argument, I hope.

 

[BilliardsBall]

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

What is the Hebrew phrase used for lay hold on her, and how are you interpreting it?

Why do atheists only cite this passage--ever--and skip including the passages regarding punishment for a man who actually assaults a woman (she cries out when he takes her)?

 

[ArtieE]

At some point, the idea that rape is never right began to ascend. That minority position surely would have been deemed a subjective moral principle at that time. Somehow, today, it is being called an objective moral principle. That sounds like going from subjective to objective to me.

From an objective point of view, rape is detrimental to the well being and survival of a society and its citizens. It was always objectively wrong.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you agree that the Law was suspended at the Big Bang/creation, than you agree that all inductively observed laws may be open to intervention.

I don't agree that any law was suspended at the Big bang and don't know where you got that from. What I wrote in response to your comment, "the Law of Conservation of matter and energy is a pretty good indication that special creation occurred" was, "Not to me. What would a god need with a law like that? A god could create or destroy matter and energy at will. A godless universe running on autopilot needs laws if it is to be orderly and comprehensible."

I don't know what a law being open to intervention means. Did you mean interpretation?

And you might consider answering the question asked of you. What would an amnipotent god need with an energy-matter conservation law? There would be the amount of matter and energy wherever it wanted it whenever it wanted it, and the total could be more or less than yesterday - noconservation.

Why isn't the idea of a law of conservation of matter and energy an equally good if not better indication that the universe is godless and is unfolding unconsciously, unplanned and undesigned, under the influence of a handful of laws and constants that arose at random during the symmetry breaking events that characterized the initial instants of the Big Bang?

You are agreeing to the possibility of a creator.

I have always agreed to that possibility. Most atheists do, although only in the same sense that they are agreeing to the possibility of anything that cannot be shown to be impossible.

In fact, I did so yesterday on this thread at Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

"But regarding generic gods in general, there is no evidence against them, There is no test, measurement, argument, observation, or algorithm that can rule out gods in general."

Would you try to make an effort to learn what an atheist is and what he believes? You'd be a much more effective representative for your faith. Making mistakes, especially the same ones repeatedly, undermines your ethos.

In the study of argumentation, ethos refers to how the writer or speaker is perceived by his audience. It's a combination of perceptions such as, Is he knowledgeable about that which speaks? Is he fair? Is he polite? Can he be trusted? Does he have any unstated purpose? - in short, his character and credibility.

This is all separate from the argument or message itself (logos). If you're not perceived favorably, your message will probably not be well received. You start off at a disadvantage.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Just saying from my own studies and conversations with other Jews the connection between the OT and NT are contrived at best.

That's because they're based on a necessity to lend legitimacy to the faith... Without the arguments of Paul, there would have been nothing linking the cult of Jesus to its Jewish predecessor, which has been an elephant in the room for Christianity since the very beginning. The faithful find the arguments compelling; everyone else - not so much.