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

The thing about "historical criticism" of the bible.

#111JonWood007Posted 7/25/2013 7:29:03 PM

I'm not talking about the bible. I'm talking about a hypothetical God and his hypothetical holy book which contains a hypothetical genocide.


The bible. A single unified book that is definitely the word of God? Or a fragmented book with dubious claims and questionable events and justification of such events? I don't believe in the Bible. I don't believe it's a single book, and (this is the point you don't get) I BELIEVE THAT THE PREMISES IT WORKS WITH ARE QUESTIONABLE.

Once again: http://csua.berkeley.edu/~ranga/humor/science_v_faith.html

You're doing a great job with the keep ideas forever and never ever question them, the end. However, don't try to make me assume the same thing. You're coming at this from a believer's point of view. I am not. I'm reading the story for what it is, looking at the themes, and I have reasoned responses to the themes when I disagree with them. I disagree with the premises involved regarding morality. Heck, I find it illogical and arbitrary. I ACTUALLY USE CRITICAL THOUGHT IN APPROACHING THE BIBLE, and in doing so, I reject a lot of what it works with. Deal with it.

I don't recall any of that. Probably because it never happened, or was immediately overturned so that I had no reason to remember such a thing.


I love how you conveniently "forget" your intellectual beatdowns.

There's a lot of things that make up the overall context. Namely EVERYTHING INVOLVED.....


Not "who" as much as "why".

You seem to automatically give God the benefit of the doubt, assign privileges and status to him based on who he is. This is much different than evaluating a situation based on context.

I'll give you another example. A scientist is not correct just because he's a scientist. Scientists are correct when they do good work based on the scientific method and can adequately defend their views from educated criticism by peers/everyone. In the same way, if God is as good as he supposedly is, he can defend his actions, much like a scientist can defend his work. However, you don't get a free pass for being a scientist, or for being God. You encourage people to not question, and assume everyone to be too ignorant to do so. This is where you go wrong.

I didn't ask you to explain why you think genocide is bad, I just called you out on a fallacy.


You asked me to prove genocide is bad. I did so. It goes against the very concept of morality; it completely defeats morality's purpose (to enhance the lives of its adherents).

Remember what conclusion i came to up above?

You. Not we. There is no we here.


You can judge a genocide in a vacuum, sure but trying to transfer that judgement over to other contexts won't work.

You can say "tying someone up, shoving them in a car, and speeding away with them is kidnapping!", but not for a policeman who's arresting a suspect.
The "status of the actor" is part of the context. No if, ands, or buts about it.


Like cops never abuse power *rolls eyes*.

Why is the cop arresting the person? Did they do something wrong? or did they just randomly pull someone over for no reason and arrest them for no reason? Cops are not above the law, and they can act wrongly or illegally.

If anything, God's stature holds him to an even higher standard of scrutiny, since he possesses omni qualities that can affect the options he has to work with. yes, who affects the situation here, but since God is supposedly perfect, his actions are held to an even higher standard of scrutiny. Heck, to use the Bible against you, see James 3:1.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#112JonWood007Posted 7/25/2013 7:29:32 PM
I've yet to be convinced that the card actually exists.


And I've yet to be convinced God exists, that he's perfect, and that he's responsible for genocide.


I don't play games like this. Either you prove your positive claim, or I dismiss it and continue discussing the rest of the points you have left.'


Oh, you expect me to play your games but you won't play mine? Once again, hooray for double standards!

According to certain subjective moral standards.


Prove your standards are ovbjective. Also, don't just automatically define God as perfect in doing so. I explained the problems with it already.

Now you're just assuming that God's action was less than perfect, that it could be improved upon, that there could be something "better" than what God already did.

Not only do you not have any evidence of this assumption, it flies in the face of the definition of the Biblical God, so which God are you talking about? The God who sometimes does less-than-perfect things? That's not the God I worship.


1) Yes, that's exactly what I'm asserting. God is omnipotent, right? And I know from your other topic omnipotence means God can do anything logically possible. Well, ok, so God wants to give his people some land. He picks a piece of land that's already occupied, encourages the israelites to kill the inhabitants, and gives them the land. Well, what other options are logically possible? God could've relocated the people in the land to another location. God could've kept the land desolate and unoccupied until the time was right/ could've not created the people in the land in the first place. He could've had angels keeping people out like in the garden of eden story. He could've given them another piece of land, a better piece of land (the strip of land Israel occupies is a HORRIBLE piece of land strategically, it's subject to attack on all sides, and it being the key piece of land linking 3 entire continents together is heavily vied over via every empire out there). Heck, God could've gone all mormon and sent his followers to the planet kalob, a land of plenty, and without war. God could've done so many things logically that could've produced a better outcome, yet didn't. Heck, to me, this really is evidence that god didn't do anything. People did. If God isn't existant, it makes sense to take a piece of land you'd kill people for it, but not for an omnipotent God.

2) God does do less than perfect things, conceptually. You're just too blind and ignorant to see it. You're in denial. So you assume God mustve had a reason, committing an argument from ignorance in doing so. I've made my case, you have nothing but blind assertions. That's what I'm saying, your point of view is ILLOGICAL. A god who is omnipotent and omnibenevolent who does these things IS NOT PERFECT. The writing's on the wall, your god, as you put him forward, does not, and CAN NOT exist!!! In order to make it work, you need to add more premises. You can't just vaguely allude to them.

Can you prove that this would be a better solution?
No?
There you go.


Canaanites live, God and his people live peacefully on kalob, the end. Seems like a win win to me.

Just give up. My logic is airtight. There is nothing you can do about it.

You're no longer arguing with me. You're no longer matching wits with a mere mortal. You're arguing with logic itself.


The only thing airtight here is your denial of the truth.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#113JonWood007Posted 7/25/2013 7:42:10 PM
Heck, here's a thought experiment for you.

If God does not exist, yet the events in the Bible happened (genocide), then we should be able to conceptually look at what happens, to look at what the most prudent course of action is. So, we can assume, like most people in these days, that they have god(s). We can also assume, that these guys attribute things to their god(s). When there's a storm, their gods cause them. When war happens, a god helps its favored side.

So say you wanna take over a piece of land. What are your options? Well, about all you can do is kill the inhabitants, since it's unlikely they'll just let you in, being jerks themselves. You see, people are warlike jerks in these times, going to war over anything, and both the israelites and the canaanites will go to war with each other over the right to the land. Just like the Israelis and Palestinians do today.

So, a war happens, you win. What do you do in such primitive, warlike times? Well, you kill the people in the land off so you can take over. You might even let the women live so you can rape them and assimilate them into your culture. You might build up an civilization, and make all kinds of wierd rules that make no sense logically, but are based on the circumstances at the time. You attribute the god(s) to your victories, and claim punishment for your defeats.

Or, situation 2. God exists, he brought his people out of the land of egypt, and he wants to give them some land. He finds a nice spot, but notices there are people here. Now, God could just remove them, or set up the land before hand, or even reveal himself to the people in the land telling them to accept the newcomers, but instead, he allows them to take it over, and then kills them so the new occupants can come in, even thought he has many other more diplomatic and less harmful options at his disposal. He could make a code that is the paragon of morality, that makes perfect sense, but instead makes people follow weird arbitrary rules that make no sense. Apologists say he works in mysterious ways, even though much better options are available.

Which scenario is more likely? I'd say #1. God doesn't exist, the Bible was written by primitive people, they attributed actions to their god, and the actions taken are clearly less than ideal.

The other scenario involves a thoeretical perfect being acting against his perfect nature. Clearly more favorable options are out there for God to pursue, but he instead pursues those that sound more attributable to primitive man than a being of his stature.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#114OrangeWizard(Topic Creator)Posted 7/25/2013 8:51:00 PM
The bible. A single unified book that is definitely the word of God? Or a fragmented book with dubious claims and questionable events and justification of such events?


Doesn't matter, since I'm not talking about the bible in the case of a hypothetical God doing a hypothetical genocide.

I BELIEVE THAT THE PREMISES IT WORKS WITH ARE QUESTIONABLE.


So don't assume the premises, then.
This isn't rocket surgery.

However, don't try to make me assume the same thing.

I'm not. You're doing it all on your own.

Not "who" as much as "why".


Okay then, prove that knowledge of "why" is more important than knowledge of "who", when judging an action.
Your claim. You prove it.

A scientist is not correct just because he's a scientist. Scientists are correct when they do good work based on the scientific method and can adequately defend their views from educated criticism by peers/everyone.if God is as good as he supposedly is, he can defend his actions, much like a scientist can defend his work. However, you don't get a free pass for being a scientist, or for being God.


I don't see anything in the definition of a scientist saying "he is always correct", so I don't see how your analogy works when compared to God.

God's definition IS that he is always correct, so...
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#115OrangeWizard(Topic Creator)Posted 7/25/2013 8:51:18 PM
You asked me to prove genocide is bad.

Post 96. Right at the top. I did no such thing.

It goes against the very concept of morality; it completely defeats morality's purpose (to enhance the lives of its adherents).


The concept of morality according to who, you? Hitler?

The purpose of morality according to who, you? Hitler?

Why is the cop arresting the person? Did they do something wrong? or did they just randomly pull someone over for no reason and arrest them for no reason?


He's a suspect. I already stated that. That's part of the "who".

And I've yet to be convinced God exists, that he's perfect, and that he's responsible for genocide.

That's nice. I don't see what that has to do with your reversal of the burden of proof, though.


Oh, you expect me to play your games but you won't play mine?

I don't expect you to play any games.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#116OrangeWizard(Topic Creator)Posted 7/25/2013 8:53:40 PM
Prove your standards are ovbjective.


What does proving that my standards have to do with your standards being subjective or not?
Nothing that's what. You're just trying to distract from the point, as usual.

1) Yes, that's exactly what I'm asserting. God is omnipotent, right? And I know from your other topic omnipotence means God can do anything logically possible. Well, ok, so God wants to give his people some land. He picks a piece of land that's already occupied, encourages the israelites to kill the inhabitants, and gives them the land. Well, what other options are logically possible? God could've relocated the people in the land to another location. God could've kept the land desolate and unoccupied until the time was right/ could've not created the people in the land in the first place. He could've had angels keeping people out like in the garden of eden story. He could've given them another piece of land, a better piece of land (the strip of land Israel occupies is a HORRIBLE piece of land strategically, it's subject to attack on all sides, and it being the key piece of land linking 3 entire continents together is heavily vied over via every empire out there). Heck, God could've gone all mormon and sent his followers to the planet kalob, a land of plenty, and without war. God could've done so many things logically that could've produced a better outcome,


How would any of those outcomes be "better"?

How would you objectively measure which method is "better" than another method?

2) God does do less than perfect things, conceptually.

Prove that.

So you assume God mustve had a reason, committing an argument from ignorance in doing so.


I'm not assuming that God must've had a reason. He doesn't need a reason. All that matters is that he does good things. You don't need a reason to do good things.

Billy is always does good things.
Billy always does everything that he does without a reason.
Billy did something
Was it a good thing?

The only correct answer is yes.

No argument from ignorance there.

Canaanites live, God and his people live peacefully on kalob, the end. Seems like a win win to me.


You've yet to explain how this is "better".
Are you trying to say that "more people alive = better"? Can you prove that?
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#117OrangeWizard(Topic Creator)Posted 7/25/2013 8:53:46 PM
If God does not exist, yet the events in the Bible happened


That's a logical impossibility, because the events in the Bible describe God's interaction with humans.
The biblical event of God interacting with humans cannot be true if God does not exist.

Here's a thought experiment for you. ACTUALLY THINK THINGS THROUGH.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#118Faust_8Posted 7/25/2013 9:25:28 PM
OrangeWizard posted...
You don't know your premises are true when you talk about God.


Here's you assuming that the premise is true.


Prove it.
---
In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.
#119JonWood007Posted 7/25/2013 10:21:48 PM
Doesn't matter, since I'm not talking about the bible in the case of a hypothetical God doing a hypothetical genocide.


Have fun in fantasy land then.

So don't assume the premises, then.
This isn't rocket surgery.


I don't. You keep telling me I have to even though I don't.

Okay then, prove that knowledge of "why" is more important than knowledge of "who", when judging an action.
Your claim. You prove it.


I've provided examples already. I just reject the pre enlightenment notion that you can be inherently better based on your status, not works. Why don't you prove your claims for once?

I don't see anything in the definition of a scientist saying "he is always correct", so I don't see how your analogy works when compared to God.

God's definition IS that he is always correct, so...


I'm defining myself as perfect. You're wrong. Checkmate, OW.

You see the folly of your definitions? You can't just arbitrarily define something as perfect and expect it to fly. That's circular reasoning.



The concept of morality according to who, you? Hitler?

The purpose of morality according to who, you? Hitler?


Once again, you're showing the fallacy of your reasoning. Everything has to be :"who says"? What, are you so infantile in understanding you can't grasp concepts for yourself without having them spoonfed to you? Apparently not.

It's not a matter of who says, it's a matter of why. Why form moralities at all? Why? Why follow rules? What's the point? Well, because if you make and follow rules, you enhance your own life. You live longer, happier, more prosperously, whatever. Genocide conflicts with this goal. It kills an entire race of people. it's harmful. It's dysfunctional. It's less than ideal. If it can be justified at all, it's always due to the fact that it is the best option available. God, being omnipotent, has better options by definition.

He's a suspect. I already stated that. That's part of the "who".

No, it's part of the "why". You're not a suspect by your very nature. You're a suspect because it is believed you did something wrong. And when the cop does his job as he should, he has a REASON for suspecting you of something.

That's nice. I don't see what that has to do with your reversal of the burden of proof, though.

Pot calling the kettle black.


What does proving that my standards have to do with your standards being subjective or not?
Nothing that's what. You're just trying to distract from the point, as usual.


No, you claim your standards are somehow different or better, PROVE IT. You poo poo my standards for being oh so subjective, but you haven't proven yours are any better.


How would any of those outcomes be "better"?

How would you objectively measure which method is "better" than another method?


More mutually beneficial outcome for all parties involved. This isn't hard to understand.


Prove that.


I. DID.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#120JonWood007Posted 7/25/2013 10:24:38 PM(edited)
I'm not assuming that God must've had a reason. He doesn't need a reason. All that matters is that he does good things. You don't need a reason to do good things.


You're using circular reasoning and your conclusions are invalid. I've already explained MANY FREAKING TIMES why arbitrarily defining perfection as what a being does is faulty. I'm perfect. You're wrong. Checkmate, OW.

Perfection can only be established externally, otherwise perfection is meaningless. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN THIS!?

You've yet to explain how this is "better".
Are you trying to say that "more people alive = better"? Can you prove that?


Seeing how morality's goal is to enhance human well being, it's a solution that brings about fewer harmful consequences, and more beneficial ones. Or are you seriously going to argue there's nothing inherently wrong with murder now?


That's a logical impossibility, because the events in the Bible describe God's interaction with humans.
The biblical event of God interacting with humans cannot be true if God does not exist.


Wanna know what else is impossible? An omnibenevolent and omnipotent being committing genocide. It's as nonsensical as a married bachelor.

Anyway, what I mean is the events in the Bible happened with no supernatural elements, which is a possibility. The supernatural elements could've been invented, as was often the case at that time.


Anyway, I cant tell if you're genuinely this brainwashed, or you're trying to troll. I'm guessing a bit of both. Regardless, you are a horrible intellectually dishonest person and you should feel bad.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768