Jo's dishonest pretence of debate.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
I don't understand what all of this has to do with the purported facts contained in the Bible that I showed you. But a little evasion is good, no?
And for you, I am a French citizen, a good chunk of my ancestors where people living in the defunct colonial empire... So what?
@Facts in the bible? You must be referring to the cities the archaeologists found. The stories are all made up. Most of them did not happen. Which biblical story do you think is a fact? Choose one. How do you know it is a fact?
You misunderstood, I said purported facts. Maybe it wasn't the good term. Of course , i don't believe it happened, much like the so-called Exodus out of Egypt.
Talyyn: Purported or alleged to be true by Theists, I will give you that. *sigh* I may be a bit over reactive. When I see the words "facts" and "bible" in the same sentence the hair on the back of my neck prickles.
Cognostic: No offense, I will be more cautious in the future, about placing these two terms in the same sentence lol.
@Talyyn: Get me all fired up, poo in my hand. All ready to fling...... and then I just stand there like a statue attracting pigeons and flies. Sometimes it sucks to be me.
"I will address them again with you if you can give me the reference to your claim of "instances of genocide, rape and murder contained in the Bible."
English Standard Version
2 And Israel vowed a vow to the Lord and said, “If you will indeed give this people into my hand, then I will devote their cities to destruction.
3 And the Lord heeded the voice of Israel and gave over the Canaanites, and they devoted them and their cities to destruction. So the name of the place was called Hormah.
Here is an example where your god sanctioned mass murder.
@ David Killens
Please see my above response to Tallyyn.
Please see the previous verse in Numbers 21:1.
I have addressed this type of question before at length.
If you did not see it I will try and find it to repost.
I will sadly refer you back to the OP post by Sheldon.
"You can pretend it's.me you have a problem with Jo, but do you really think we can't all see you're dishonestly evading questions you don't like."
You are on your own. I really wished you tried to reform yourself, but my efforts were in vain.
edited to correct typo
@ David Killens
When I address your claim of mass murder in the Bible.
I am in the near impossible position of trying to disprove your claim, to your satisfaction.
It really should be you evidencing your claim, and not me trying to disprove your claim.
But I agreed to answer and so here it is. Sorry it took me so long to respond.
This was a war and not "mass murder".
You have to look at all that is going on, and not just a sentence or two.
The escaping slaves were trying to return to their land.
As described in verse 1, the Canaanites had attacked them and taken prisoners.
So they defended themselves and fought back.
If country A is attacked, they defend themselves and wipe put country B, is that mass murder?
If so, than most wars and many battles are mass murder.
Why did they have to destroy them?
The Canaanites were exceptionally detestable.
Deut18:12 "Because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you”.
Lev18:24-25 “Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants”.
Deut 20:16-18 “Otherwise they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods..”.
The punishment was the same for all ethnicities including the Israelite's, when they became like those around them.
The larger story is one of survival and restoration.
About providing a safe place to live.
It is also about judgment of wickedness.
It was a temporary measure.
Like a life boat situation.
God's ultimate goal is not destruction but salvation.
For all people, for all time.
You can't make one incidence the whole story.
You have to look at the entire story from Gen to Rev.
Still playing your stupid game, I see.
You god decided to have the great flood, and it is estimated that the great flood would have killed over twenty million people. This was not war, this was YOUR GOD murdering innocent women and children just because.
"God's ultimate goal is not destruction but salvation.
For all people, for all time.
You can't make one incidence the whole story.
You have to look at the entire story from Gen to Rev."
What a crock of shit. If I lived a wonderful and compassionate life, never hurting as much as a bug, then went to a mall and gunned down twenty innocent people, do you believe that if your defense was offered MY lawyer would not be laughed out of court? And you really need to lift that veil of cognitive dissonance, you god repeatedly and constantly commits horrific acts. This is a behavior, not a rare occasion.
Your god is a bloodthirsty god. Even the death of jesus was a blood sacrifice.
edit: changed "your" to "MY"
@ David Killens
You said that my delay in answering you was "dishonestly evading questions. I set up a VERY simple question, one I expected you to give a simple answer. That act would have absolved you in my eyes. But instead you, guess what?"
Now that I have answered you, you make no mention of my absolution. Why is that?
Seems like your mind was already made up and that it did not matter what I said.
Your apologetic's are not objective.
It seem ironic to me that you have such righteous indignation over events you do not believe happened, by a God you do not believe exists.
Another lie, your question was yet another dishonest loaded argument from ignorance fallacy, do you seriously fucking think you can slip these past us even now? David spotted it as he's fairly erudite and has dealt with those fallacies from multiple apologists on here, and the question tells us as much about how dishonest you are,, as it does about how well informed David is.
That's rich given you have ignored completely the answers you have received since you first started posting, and are still trying to dishonestly use argumentum ad ingorantiam fallacies to insist not believing something carries a burden of proof. Again your dishonesty is as palpable as it is shameless.
So two new lies in one sentence Jo. Firstly atheism does not need defending as it makes no assertions, your lies in denying this fact notwithstanding. Secondly David, like all the other atheists here set the same unbiased open minded objective standard to justify belief, it's you who sets a single arbitrary standard for your religious belief without any objective evidence for it, whilst demanding it for all other beliefs, as we proved when you couldn't offer a single belief outside of your religious beliefs that you hold without any objective evidence.
It seems more ironic to me that you are happy to defend such appalling barbarity in the same breath you claim this deity is objectively moral. That aside however you have lied yet again, as David's indignation, like the other atheists here is that apologists like you defend the repulsive barbaric acts in the bible as moral, including genocide, ethnic cleansing, infanticide, and sex trafficking virginal female prisoners to name just a few.
Your moral compass is fucked up if you think any of that can ever be defended as moral, let alone from a supposedly perfectly moral being that has limitless choice, power, and knowledge.
Yes, I did set up a simple test. But after asking my question, I patiently waited and watched. When I had determined without any error that you had revisited this forum, yet did not reply to my question, you fell into default. Only then did I express my disappointment.
Only after I had expressed my disappointment did you finally address my original question. There is no excuse for your tardiness and pretense at being the offended one.
I am not indignant. I was probably the sole atheist in here who was willing to befriend you, I set a test, and you defaulted by doing exactly what others have criticized you for, evading.
If I am angry it is at myself for ignoring the signs and attempting to defend you when I should have thrown you to the wolves.
I am not a wolf. How dare you? Now, I am indigned! I am a small, loving, affectionate kitten...Goujat va!
So you're saying that murder, even mass murder and ethnic cleansing, is objectively moral for a deity with limitless power and knowledge? How about the sex trafficking of women and girl prisoners, is that moral as well?
So much for your claim of objective morality. How about drowning every living thing in Noah's flood, was that moral? It certainly was mass murder, and just as certainly wasn't war.
I'm afraid your apologetics is as dishonest as it ever was Jo.
You have defended your god's use of slavery, rapine, pillage and genocide in many threads on these pages. When asked the direct question you answered in the affirmative.
That is by any definition "espousing"
I've been sick for a couple of days but I do have all your relevant responses on file, so don't lie any more Jo.
Don't introduce a straw man Jo, it is just another dishonest ploy you attempt and they are as tiresome as they are old.
I have debated you over many threads and always answered you with facts, where you have answered with apologetics(lies) 'Biblical hermeneutics" (more lies), misquotes and evasions.
No Jo, you are condemned for your lies, evasions and condonement of crimes against humanity. You claimed you came here to these forums to "live in truth".
Look in a mirror, Jo, even your reflection will be warped.
You actually keep records of the conversation here??????
All the convos can be viewed from your profile. Right hand side.
That is why liars do not prosper here. The denials are served up back to them.......admin keep records so if they try to edit those are also recorded. That is why when we (the regulars) change a post you will see at the bottom ( edit for.....)
Mmmmmmh. Okey. More ammunition for me then. Thanks.
@ Old man shouts
I am sorry that you were sick.
Regrettably, what routinely happens is a devolving into "even my reflection is warped."
Jo has also repeatedly claimed that all the evidence (he's presented none) and logic show his deity exists.
Yet not once has he (Jo) ever even acknowledged his relentless use of common logical fallacies. If he doesn't see how dishonest that is then I'd be very surprised.
He has repeatedly used argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, mainly in a futile attempt to reverse the burden of proof onto those who disbelieve the claim a deity exists.
He grossly misrepresented what atheists had claimed on here in my thread asking theists to list ten beliefs they held without any objective evidence, but that formed NO PART OF their religious beliefs. His reply to that contained 6 beliefs, most of which were clearly part of his religious beliefs, the others could be objectively evidenced, then after that sham pretence tried to hijack the thread for yet another of his dishonest attempts to assign a burden of proof to atheism.
And on and on and on he goes....he may be slightly more subtle than poster like Leper, but he's every it as relentlessly dishonest. Yet started to sulk when I started pointing this out, and the dishonestly tried to misrepresent my points as ad hominem.
"Claiming that life has only occurred once in the universe. A claim that if taken seriously might imply omnipotence on the part of the claimant." Didn't I correct that?
How is "Claiming that their opinion is objective...seems to hint at the divinity of the claimant."?
Maybe it doesn't suggest that to you, but it screams it to me.
Is everyone who claims their opinions are objective hinting at their divinity?
Are saying that all opinions are subjective?
"Is everyone who claims their opinions are objective hinting at their divinity?
Are saying that all opinions are subjective?"
Let's see, let us discount laws enacted to protect society. But even then, lawmakers argue vociferously in agreeing on which laws to enact.
When it comes to politics, everyone has their own opinion, thus subjective.
In finance, everyone has their own opinion, thus subjective.
Ham or steak for dinner? Wait until half-time to go to the washroom? Quarter pounder or Cheeseburger?
My point is that in almost every area of a person's life, their opinions and decisions are subjective. With the glaring exception of religion.
Unless a person is bound by the hard laws of physics (should I step in front of this bus and expect to survive?) can you identify any part of your life (notwithstanding religion) not determined by subjective opinion?
@ David Killens
Now I understand. Thanks for your help.
When I used the word objective I was not trying to claim divinity or perfection.
I was trying to express that it was not just an emotional response.
That I had thought it through and tried to be logical.
That I had tried to consider all the evidence and arguments.
@ David Killens
If I may impose another question on you. I sincerely thank you in advance.
Now that the mob has shown up at my door with pitchforks and torches, to burn me at the stake
With no evidence presented, to sins I did not commit.
Only accusations and condemnations.
May I at least know what was the purpose of this witch trial?
What were the motives behind it?
Did I expose some flaw in a sacred belief?
Did I not run away quick enough, with my tail between my legs?
Is it because I did not recant?
I did not come on AR to play gotcha.
To have a pooh throwing contest.
To feel intellectually or morally superior.
To attack or condemn.
But it seems I am in the minority.
It seems that most (including theists) are not really interested in a healthy debate or discussion.
What am I missing or misunderstanding?
Where am I wrong?
How can I fix it, or make amends?
Just read the OP by Sheldon, take a day to digest it very slowly and carefully, and attempt to understand what he is saying.
And if you grok, then do not apologize (that doesn't seem to carry much weight here), but just carry on with the lessons from the past and apply them. This can be a major stumbling block, because many in here have seen a theist apologize for their actions, but do not change their behavior.
Hint: when you run across a post that makes your eyes water, just take a deep breath, and try to comprehend what the real message is before you reply. One of the major impedimants to understanding the other is communication. Really take your time to try to figure out what the real message is, not just words on a monitor.
IMO the goal between our two differing viewpoints is not to "win", but have a healthy exchange of opinions so we each have a better understanding of each other, why we have differing viewpoints, and everyone wins.