This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

"You can't criticize God" Continued

#21OrangeWizardPosted 1/18/2013 12:30:45 PM
From: Lord_Ichmael | #018
. I'm just speaking in the context of evaluating what it says within itself.


And you can't even do that until you find an actual contradiction
"I think X is immoral" is not an actual contradiction, because you could be wrong.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#22Lord_IchmaelPosted 1/18/2013 12:31:47 PM
JonWood007 posted...
Defending the god of the Bible as perfect is like a battered woman defending her abuser. She loves him, he loves her (or so they say), and it isn't really his fault for him hitting her according to her. It's her's. Maybe if she didn't get him mad, maybe if she cooked better then he wouldn't beat her for making crappy food. maybe he's stressed out at work. People in such abusive relationships often have trouble leaving them because they believe that their spouse is a good person, that it isn't their fault that they hit them, but it's their fault. Same with God, because people automatically presume perfect, they assume that if bad things happen to them, it's their fault, not the deity's. Well, I'm just a lowly sinner, well, those people were evil, they had it coming, well, we're all hopelessly corrupt and we're all gonna burn for eternity for making a couple mistake (one of which is simply being born, if you count original sin) and it's all our fault. It can't be God's because he's perfect, I'm just a lowly sinner, what do I know?

Can't you guys see how evil and abusive this is? Quite frankly, many Christian excuses for God's behavior are no better than a battered spouse defending their abuser.


Wow, that is genius. It really is like that.

FYI Christians, I don't consider this proof that God is evil so much as that the Bible's account simply isn't true.

Thuggernautz posted...
Lord_Ichmael posted...

Indeed, which is partly why I think the Bible isn't a valid source of information at all- it contradicts itself too much. I'm just speaking in the context of evaluating what it says within itself.


Precisely. Not only that, but the Bible's veracity is further diminished by the amount of false historical claims made within its pages. Add the unsolvable (due to non-demonstrability) contradictions which invalidate claims on either side on top of many claims of historical falsehood and you should come away with the pretty obvious notion that the source is not trustworthy.


Yep, that's the other reason why I don't think it's true.
#23Lord_IchmaelPosted 1/18/2013 12:41:58 PM(edited)
OrangeWizard posted...
From: Lord_Ichmael | #018
. I'm just speaking in the context of evaluating what it says within itself.


And you can't even do that until you find an actual contradiction
"I think X is immoral" is not an actual contradiction, because you could be wrong.


God is perfect, therefore he can do no wrong; nothing he does is wrong because he's perfect. That's circular. The Bible fails to prove WHY that is true. See, I don't see this as criticizing a real perfect God so much as a fictitious self-contradictory dictator which to me is clearly no better or different morally speaking than the people of that time period. The people of that time period thought God was morally in the right for the most part (conveniently, what he wanted was what they wanted anyway). It's only relatively recently that anyone questions it, and even some Christians are confused by many Old Testament passages. We've moved beyond the primitive in-group morality of the Bible. I see no reason to place this supposed God above myself. I think I agree with Jon that this comes down to an abusive relationship with a fictional entity...

Edit: Look at all these contradictions!

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Why does God contradict himself so much? Simple, because the writers were humans with no divine inspiration.
#24JonWood007Posted 1/18/2013 12:49:19 PM(edited)
OrangeWizard posted...
From: Lord_Ichmael | #018
. I'm just speaking in the context of evaluating what it says within itself.


And you can't even do that until you find an actual contradiction
"I think X is immoral" is not an actual contradiction, because you could be wrong.


WE could be wrong? I've presented a strong case for why your viewpoint is wrong, and you keep holding onto that possibility that I COULD be wrong? How about you pony up some evidence to demonstrate this god's perfection that isn't some blind, baseless assumption. If I'm wrong, and evidence tells me I'm wrong, then maybe I am, but I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. Until then, I ask that you actually evaluate your own viewpoint and consider the possibility that YOU'RE wrong. You come in here, shoving blind, fallacious assumptions down our throats with no evidence (just the assertion), and then you tell us we COULD be wrong? of course we COULD be wrong, but you haven't provided any evidence to suggest that. Burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your assertions.

In other words, you have to do better than Pascal's Wager like arguments.

It goes like this. If a book says 2+2=5, but then throughout the book, 2+2=4, then you have a contradiction. Sure, you can say there is some hidden reason why 2+2=4 and 5 at the same time, but that's not convincing.

The same goes with your argument. Your god claims moral perfection, but then does extreme harm to human beings without a convincing argument as to why. If your god's standard of moral perfection involves grotesque acts of torture and death without logical justification, I don't want to be right.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#25OrangeWizardPosted 1/18/2013 12:45:42 PM
From: JonWood007 | #019
I'm beginning not holding any position really, but assuming imperfection for the main reason of perfection is a major claim


What?

Now, If God does bad things, and there's no reasonable explanation to account for them, then the god you speak of CLEARLY is not perfect.


Define "bad things".
You should really replace that with "things I think are bad", and then the sentence loses all it's validity.

It can't be God's because he's perfect, I'm just a lowly sinner, what do I know?


Exactly.

Can't you guys see how evil and abusive this is?


No.

Ok, I will respond to this because this is newish and I really think this logic is bad.

Spiderman takes place in New York.

New York is a real place.

Therefore, Spiderman is real.

If you accept one part of it you must accept all of it m i rite?


Sure, if I accepted any of your claims on the sole basis that they came from you. But I don't, because I already know what Spiderman's jurisdiction is, and I already know that New York is a real place. I'm not assuming that the source speaks the truth, because I don't need to. I can verify these things independently of the source.

However, you can't do that with God. You can't verify that God is the absolute moral standard, or that he's perfect. You have to assume these things from the source.

See? You don't get it. You've never gotten it.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#26OrangeWizardPosted 1/18/2013 12:45:47 PM
From: Thuggernautz | #020
Right next to where a textbook says "Nothing travels faster than the speed of light" it says "Pink unicorns travel at 4X the speed of light", something that you take issue with.

So if that line about nothing travels faster than light isn't true, then how can you say a pink unicorn did? Aren't you throwing the entire source of your criticism into suspicion?


Except that I can verify the first quote independently from the source. Therefore, I'm not relying on the source to be truthful.

Here's the thing with what you wrote. One of those claims is potentially verifiable (the slaughter of the Canaanite's men, women, children and animals), the other is not.


Potentially? I should think not.

But hey, if you think you can do it, go verify that God killed the Canaanites. If you do, you'll have proof that God exists. Whether or not you think he's perfect takes a back seat to proof that God exists, as it would be the most amazing discovery ever.

Add the unsolvable (due to non-demonstrability) contradictions


Hahahahahahaha
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#27Lord_IchmaelPosted 1/18/2013 12:48:00 PM
However, you can't do that with God. You can't verify that God is the absolute moral standard, or that he's perfect. You have to assume these things from the source.

See? You don't get it. You've never gotten it.


So you admit that you have to accept it on blind faith. Well, I'm done here. Enjoy your abusive relationship.
#28JonWood007Posted 1/18/2013 12:51:51 PM
Define "bad things".
You should really replace that with "things I think are bad", and then the sentence loses all it's validity.


I expanded on this, but to quote myself again,
If your god's standard of moral perfection involves grotesque acts of torture and death without logical justification, I don't want to be right.


However, you can't do that with God. You can't verify that God is the absolute moral standard, or that he's perfect. You have to assume these things from the source


I think you just admitted to begging the question. Enjoy your abusive relationship with your deity.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#29Lord_IchmaelPosted 1/18/2013 12:53:52 PM
Oh yeah, that's begging the question too.
#30ThuggernautzPosted 1/18/2013 12:55:43 PM
OrangeWizard posted...

Except that I can verify the first quote independently from the source. Therefore, I'm not relying on the source to be truthful.


Well, not really. There's a near infinite amount of 'somethings' that could be found.

Potentially? I should think not.

But hey, if you think you can do it, go verify that God killed the Canaanites. If you do, you'll have proof that God exists. Whether or not you think he's perfect takes a back seat to proof that God exists, as it would be the most amazing discovery ever.


Well, we can verify that the battles which are stated to have taken place have any supporting physical evidence, or supportive contemporary accounts. We can't verify if God order the killings.

As such, both cases are unverifiable and it remains a contradiction, but the whole thing is invalid and unprovable. Which is pretty much the view I have of the majority of the Bible.

Hahahahahahaha

I'm glad you find the truth amusing, though I hope you don't dismiss it as a joke.