Og3 wrote: ↑
Sat May 11, 2019 8:43 pm
I think that where Moonwood has most profoundly summed up is this, SEG:
You mean that he obfuscated and deflected from the main arguments.
It really honestly does feel as if you are merely in this to win an argument at any cost.
It probably feels like that because your favourite book is being dismantled. I understand and feel your pain.
Any time an argument is presented, you will raise the same litany of arguments:
It seems like that because your declarations of objectivity don't work.
1. "It presupposes God." You've raised this one even when we've stated the existence of God as an Ad Argumentum.
You deny that he doesn't, but in reality he does and you know it.
2. "How do you know it's your god?" You raise this one when an argument purports to prove the existence of God, even though that wasn't the question.
That because all the arguments he uses for the existence of the Christian version of a god creating moral laws collapse when he can easily be substituted by any god that's ever existed in the minds of men. He is essentially no different.
3. "What about ..." [Euthyphyro, Is/Ought, Epicurus, Mythical Jesus, This Week's Atheist Mantra] -- you raise one of these to escape answering an argument on point.
That's because they are relevant to your improbable god existing at all and undermine your arguments.
4. "There's no evidence for..." [existence of Nazareth, pre-columbian art, the square root of pi] -- you use this as a shield to protect you from ever having to personally consider an argument.
The existence or not of Nazareth is certainly relevant if you are claiming that a Jesus of Nazareth existed. Not any old Jesus mind you, but the so called "Jesus of Nazareth" that we all know and ....well, we all know.
If caught out on a minor point, you'll go through the litany of justification:
1. I did not!
2. You don't understand, it was appropriate to do it.
3. So what? You do it too! ("Et tu quoque").
Feel my pain when I get,
1. "well you have to look at the context"
2. There are no contradictions in the Bible
3. When it comes down to it, all we have left is faith.
And even now, having just admitted to dishonesty and saying that you won't do it again,
Here's another one backachya.."We are all sinners in the eyes of God"
you cite Judges 14 above as proof that it's okay to be selfish. If you had read the story of Samson from beginning to end you would know several things about Samson, the first being that very little of what Samson ever did was "Okay" by anyone's standards. You would ALSO know that all marriages of that day were arranged marriages, and you would know why his parents were such pushovers when it came to letting him marry a Philistine girl.
...and you completely ignored the elephant in the room..
Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to—whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first.
Men HAVE NOT always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first, and the evidence is in your own Bible in numerous accounts. It was a stupid comment to make by Lewis and yet you let it ride.
The fact that you THINK that Judges 14 shows that it's OK to be selfish
Judges 14 is evidence that men HAVE NOT always agreed. If they DID always agree that it is not a good idea to suit yourself, why do men go ahead and do it? Why did God give instructions to disregard the feelings of the women being lustfully captured? In Deuteronomy is says
Deuteronomy 21:11-13 New International Version (NIV)
11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.( don't worry about her fretting about how you just slaughtered her family in front of her after raping her mother - if she's a good sort, just go for it) 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails (can this be any more degrading?) 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured (yep just strip her naked!) . After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, (that's more than enough time to get rid of those ridiculous tears) then you may go to her and be her husband ( IOW rape her to your heart's content) and she shall be your wife (how lucky is she for the rest of her miserable life?).
So that pretty much tells me that your sole purpose here -- as Moonwood correctly called it -- is to win arguments.
No, my purpose here is to expose your irrational beliefs to scrutiny, and I think I have you backpedalling pretty fast ATM.
If that's your goal, like that Lich fellow who was in here not long ago, I for my part am more than willing to roll my eyes and pat you on the head. Okay, SEG, if that's the best you can do, sure, you "Won" the argument. Now you can brag to all your friends about "Winning" an argument.
Don't put me in THAT category, that would be like me placing you in the category of Claire or Chappy.
Of course, that boast will taste like ashes in your mouth, because you really didn't win anything, did you?
I'm not after wins, I'm here to point out your misconceptions.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.