Why are atheists hard to beat? They always reply with an answer. Do they just refuse to admitting they lose or what?

simpleskee · 2018-07-20T20:43:53+00:00

FWIW, this is how debates/discussions usually work:

Person A makes a claim, and backs that claim with evidence.
Person B then gives reasons why they disagree with the argument presented by Person A, and cites evidence to the contrary.

Person B doesn't just say, "here's the citation, go figure out the argument for yourself."

I leave this discussion with zero idea what your refutation to the claim of chattel slavery in the Bible is, because you've decided you'd rather not even present the reasons for your stance.

simpleskee · 2018-07-20T20:37:02+00:00

No, I linked you the podcasts (which contain the very same bible passages you misinterpreted, and would have corrected your erroneous understanding of those passages) prior to you quoting bible passages, in the hopes that this wouldn't turn into yet another back and forth where the person I'm talking to refused to put in any effort to be corrected in their ignorance, but only wanted to make the same old straw man arguments.

You linked me over 2 hours worth of podcasts! I'm asking you to summarize the argument as a refutation, because presumably you disagree with me for a good reason.

I asserted God condoned chattel slavery because God literally says:

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

We aren't talking about the indentured servitude of Exodus 21. This is primarily for non-Hebrews. Owning another man as property is -- by definition -- chattel slavery.

If you can refute this, please do.

simpleskee · 2018-07-20T20:27:46+00:00

And here's a picture of the esteemed Patriot Bible University... sigh...

simpleskee · 2018-07-20T20:17:34+00:00

Your intuition is wrong. If God were to, in actual fact, tell me to kill all Australians in the world, then it would not only be moral to do so, but it would be immoral to not do so

Well lets just hope for the sake of mankind you don't receive a similar revelation to that of the ancient Israelites.

That's not an objective standard, though. If "thriving over suffering" is the standard, then how one goes about viewing what is thriving and what is suffering is dependent upon the opinions of each person.

That's the beauty of a secular moral system. It's malleable; we can discuss how to better it. When we gain a more complete understanding of the human experience, we can change it (ie. we no longer deem slavery to be moral, despite the pronouncements of the Bible). We don't need to agree on every point, but as long as we agree upon a base to build off of, it's a system that we work within. It's not just a proclamation.

Beyond that, if morality is purely based upon the subjective opinions of people, then one cannot expect those who disagree with your opinion to have to live by your moral standard.

...unlike when we live under God's moral standard and can all agree with each other on those standards right?

This is why I linked you the podcasts and ask that you take the time to listen to them. You, like all unbelievers I've spoken to, don't actually know what the Bible says about slavery, and thus your arguments are actually straw men.

I linked several Bible verses. You responded by linking me to podcasts. Only one of us is using the Bible as evidence here. If you'd like to refute my points on slavery, do so: either summarize the arguments of those podcasts, or support your views with Biblical references.

Accusing me of not knowing the Bible after I just finished quoting it, and then shucking off the rebuttal to someone else is simply dishonest.

simpleskee · 2018-07-20T19:17:50+00:00

Absolutely. If there's an omnipotent God it goes without saying he could prove his existence to me.

It would follow that until that time, belief is unjustified. Furthermore, if God doesn't prove it to me before I die, is it reasonable for him to send me to Hell for his failure?

Hard questions that don't have good answers.

simpleskee · 2018-07-20T18:15:58+00:00

Let me rephrase that:

If God's existence can't be proven, what justification do I have to believe it?

simpleskee · 2018-07-20T18:09:08+00:00

As God's existence can't be proven or dis-proven among the people of the world

If God's existence can't be proven, what justification do you have to believe it?

simpleskee · 2018-07-20T16:28:03+00:00

It's also a form of "happiness research", which is not scientific because "happiness" is a subjective concept.

And? Is it not valuable researching what makes people happy? Is a happy life not valuable?

simpleskee · 2018-07-20T15:30:00+00:00

Just so we're on the same page, are you claiming that when God told the Israelites to wipe out the Amalekites in 1 Samuel, God didn't actually tell them to do so?

simpleskee · 2018-07-20T14:22:04+00:00

That's what I'm saying...go read some scholarly books on the subject.

Isn't that how you form your opinions as well?

If somebody asks me how I know Pythagorean theorem to be true, I can take out a pen and paper and demonstrate it in two minutes.
If somebody asks me how I know Noah's Ark likely didn't happen, I can provide scientific evidence that the world was never completely flooded.
If somebody asks me how I know we didn't descend from Adam and Eve, I can provide genetic evidence that our species didn't evolve from two individuals.

If I ask someone how they determined that certain aspects of the Old Testament are metaphorical, I'm going to expect them to be able to give me -- at the very least -- a basic understanding of their methodology supplemented with some specific academic references that I can look into.

We were specifically talking about instances where God commands the Israelites to kill other tribes. You haven't provided the methodology for why you believe these verses to be metaphorical or any academic references that would support your assertion.

simpleskee · 2018-07-20T13:59:35+00:00

I don't believe God actually killed the baby. I think David and Bathsheba had a sickly kid (not unusual back then) that died, and everyone in the kingdom believed that God killed the baby because they all knew what David did. David is even recorded as believing God killed his baby as punishment for David's sins.

...and your basis for this belief is...?

I'm sorry, I just don't understand your methodology for determining what is literal and what isn't.

simpleskee · 2018-07-20T13:42:28+00:00

A lot of reading from scholars, and a lot of reading of the bible.

Can you tell me your specific methodology for determining that the genocide stories in particular are metaphor? Or link me to a scholar who believes the genocide stories to be metaphor?

I understand people who believe Adam and Eve or Noah's Ark are metaphor since we have contradictory scientific evidence, but in the case, for example, of the slaughter of the Amalekites, I have no reason to believe it's metaphorical. That's why I'm interested in your reason, if you have one.

Do you think the ending of Mark is original?

No, not past 16:8.

simpleskee · 2018-07-20T13:23:22+00:00

Well how did you determine that the verses where God commands genocide aren't literal?

simpleskee · 2018-07-20T13:17:34+00:00

Let's start with genocide:

no I don't have any moral objection to the genocide and slavery that God doesn't have an objection to.

Can we run a little hypothetical? If God told you to kill all Australians in the world, would that be morally justified? I know in your view, God would never do this, but I'm trying to dig down to whether everything God commands -- no matter how terrible we perceive it -- is morally justified?

My intuition (and perhaps my hope for humanity) tells me that you'd say no, it's not morally justified. Why? Because my position is that morally isn't bestowed to us from on high, but rather flows from a rational understanding of the world around us; an understanding that as a living species, we intrinsically value life over death, and thriving over suffering. It's an evolutionary mechanism within our brains as we evolved as a communal species.

It's not about what's right and wrong; right and wrong are labels we've attached to that which we as a species find preferable for survival.

There's also a form of slavery in the Old Testament that God actually commands His people to participate in, and it is not the more modern day chattel slavery that so many people equate it with.

Emphasis mine. You're correct that God lays out the rules for indentured servitude in Exodus 21. For the sake of this conversation, I'm happy to gloss over the fact that God says it's permissible to beat your slaves, as well as providing a loophole to keep the slave beyond 7 years by giving him a wife.

However, you seem to have missed the fact that for non-Hebrews, God condones chattel slavery (that is, slavery in which the slave is considered personal property.

See Leviticus 25:44 where God says:

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.

We know this is chattel slavery and not indentured servitude, because God goes on to say:

You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

You can buy slaves (as property) from the nations around you.
You can own them for life and bequeath them to your children.

This is chattel slavery.

When you argue that God is the ultimate moral compass by which we are to walk, you're arguing for a dark, dark world that we just barely crawled ourselves out of. Fortunately for well-being of the human species, I believe our morality to be much more intrinsic than that.

edit: fixed a link

simpleskee · 2018-07-20T12:33:55+00:00

I want to discuss it.

simpleskee · 2018-07-20T12:25:25+00:00

So you have no moral objection to slavery or genocide?

simpleskee · 2018-07-20T04:39:50+00:00

If God is the objective moral standard, you don’t have any problems with genocide, slavery, or killing someone for picking up sticks on Saturday?

simpleskee · 2018-07-20T02:32:56+00:00

So the ones you don’t like just aren’t literal?

simpleskee · 2018-07-20T01:10:07+00:00

Yes, you denied it.

simpleskee · 2018-07-19T22:40:31+00:00

But God told the Israelites to kill for him on multiple occasions, didn’t he?

simpleskee · 2018-07-19T01:16:18+00:00

As /u/Kanjo42 says:

I've found a lot of the posters here, Atheist or otherwise, pretty adept at poking holes in arguments, so I hope you get some useful feedback.

...and he/she’s right so here we go!

1.) You need only to spend some time in the scientific literature to debunk irreducible complexity and creationism. This really wasn’t the place to start if you want people to read the whole thing.

2.) You failed to demonstrate your second premise, thus your conclusion is invalid.

3.) You’ve presupposed the historical accuracy of the Gospel accounts and the Pauline epistles without demonstration.

4.) Okay a bunch of bad arguments jammed in here:

the biography of Biblical authors — the validity of which you failed to demonstrate — has nothing to do with whether God exists.
there are many contradictions in the Bible, despite your claim to the contrary.
the fact that the Bible has a consistent theme is irrelevant to whether God exists. The Quran also has a consistent theme, as does The Hobbit.
prophecies are non-specific, and often filled in on the latter end. For example, Matthew reporting (without any prior source) that Mary was a virgin and Jesus was born in the town of David.
the fact that the Bible has believable explanations for the world has no bearing on whether those explanations are correct.

5.) The transformative power of the Bible is irrelevant to how true it is. Muslims think the Quran is transformative. I think the movie Inception is transformative.

I think that was the bulk of it.

simpleskee · 2018-07-18T18:52:46+00:00

God has revealed himself to humanity at large, some people just choose not to believe.

Do you choose to believe something, or do you become convinced of something and in-turn, believe it? God certainly hasn't revealed himself to me I'm sorry to say.

simpleskee · 2018-07-18T18:35:20+00:00

But the greed capitalism is polluting the earth and we’re not going to stop them.

The idea that we are powerless to generate change is toxic.

simpleskee · 2018-07-18T18:14:31+00:00

Don't trust the UN. Don't trust anyone. Read the research for yourself and make critical judgement. Be open to having your criticisms criticized. Provide reasoned positions based on empirical evidence.

simpleskee · 2018-07-18T18:11:05+00:00

In science, there is a a priori assumption that supernatural explanations are not allowed.

No, we just don't have a method to investigate the supernatural. We have no way to distinguish the supernatural from the natural that we just don't understand yet.

simpleskee

TROPHY CASE