Searching for GOD...

[Spud]

Spud,

Leaving aside how morally despicable that is, all you’ve just done (rather neatly) is to re-state the problem. You think all that to be true because that’s your faith. Someone else will think something else entirely to be true because that’s his faith. Both of you though rely on the notion that faith is a reliable guide to truth and thus to proper behaviour. 

When people want to act on their faith beliefs, why and how should some be taken seriously and others dismissed?

Coda: Your question "How is God telling the Israelites to put a city to the sword any different from a jihadist thinking God had told him to kill people, for example?" is wrongly stated. It should be, "How is my thinking God telling the Israelites to put a city to the sword any different from a jihadist thinking God had told him to kill people, for example?" That's the point - you can't just assume your belief to be true and someone else's faith belief not to be when both rest on the same thing: faith.

Yes - I meant that the Israelites believed God had told them to destroy whole cities. If the story is true, then 40 years earlier God had miraculously set them free from Egypt and fed them in the desert. Does that help?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Shakes,

Yes, and it then becomes a matter of dumb luck whether the person who thinks that way wants to hand out cucumber sandwiches or blow up people because of it. Both will say things like, “but I’ve seen my prayers answered”, “people have had their lives changed by it” etc but the former – AB in this case – will be entirely unaware that (or worse, indifferent to) his defence is identical to that of the suicide bomber. 

And that in short is why I look askance at those who would have us privilege his faith beliefs over just guessing about stuff.

This post smacks of a free and easy use of the words faith and guessing IMHO. Mr B. Still who am I to comment on a conversation between two antichristian ''Broes''.

[floo]

Getting back to the title of this thread, if a god exists us humans aren't likely to find it as it is beyond our experience and imagination. The Biblical god is a human creation with very unpleasant human characteristics, as well as the ability to screw up BIG TIME. A truly omnipotent god would surely be above all human machinations, we would not need 'saving' because it wouldn't have made such an incompetent job of creating human nature.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Personal responsibility?....for what? since morality is relative.......it would be interesting to see what justice an atheist moral relativist would administer to themselves when they think have personal responsibility although I can't see what they could suggest without a counter claim that it wasn't what we experience in life.

I think most people like to settle for the comforting words of humanism, the sweet lullaby of the ego that at bottom we're good guys really and it's the other chap.

Ooh, looks like the Giiberish-ometer is back from its full re-build. You might though want to have a word – looks like the repairers forgot to fit the comprehensible English module to the outlet valve.

Still, always good to see the old argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy make a zombie-like return, even if it was only in half-assed form.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Yes - I meant that the Israelites believed God had told them to destroy whole cities. If the story is true, then 40 years earlier God had miraculously set them free from Egypt and fed them in the desert. Does that help?

Yes – it helps strengthen the rebuttal of your argument. The 9/11 terrorists thought that their god told them to do it too. IF they were right about that…

That’s the point: you can attach “if it’s true” to any faith beliefs you like to post rationalise them, but faith beliefs they remain nonetheless. So again: when people want to act on their faith beliefs, why and how should some be taken seriously and others dismissed?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

This post smacks of a free and easy use of the words faith and guessing IMHO. Mr B. Still who am I to comment on a conversation between two antichristian ''Broes''.

It’s “bros”, and you seem to have forgotten that neither you nor anyone else has yet managed even to suggest a qualitative difference between religious faith and guessing, so – so far at least – there’s no reason epistemically to treat them differently.

Apart from that though… 

[Sebastian Toe]

One of the most chilling and dangerous phrases I know of - the ultimate excuse, the ultimate cop-out, the ultimate shirking of personal responsibility.

I too would think it chilling and dangerous for someone to obey apparent messages in their head if they were not able to discriminate between the good (God) and evil (Devil) messages.  The simple way to do this is to know that God would never ask anything which went against the teachings of the Christian bible or His church.  We need to be wary of the Devil's temptation to make us think we can allow our human intellect to rise above such teachings.

How exactly is the Devil placing these messages in people's heads?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Seb,

How exactly is the Devil placing these messages in people's heads?

Isn't that equivalent to asking how exactly unicorns pee glitter?

[Nearly Sane]

How exactly is the Devil placing these messages in people's heads?

Beelzebub WiFi, cheap fast and the internet highway to hell

[Walter]

Beelzebub WiFi, cheap fast and the internet highway to hell

didn't AC/DC do a song about that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Ooh, looks like the Giiberish-ometer is back from its full re-build. You might though want to have a word – looks like the repairers forgot to fit the comprehensible English module to the outlet valve.

Still, always good to see the old argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy make a zombie-like return, even if it was only in half-assed form.

What part of....... ''an atheist moral relativist may well bang on about taking personal responsibility but what actual concrete steps do they take beyond that?''....don't you get?

Secular society is now a gaderene rush to be as nasty as possible and i'm afraid the New atheists took a lead in that. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What part of....... ''an atheist moral relativist may well bang on about taking personal responsibility but what actual concrete steps do they take beyond that?''....don't you get?

All of it. What do you even think you mean by "concrete steps" for example, and who in your head is "banging on" anyway?

Secular society is now a gaderene rush to be as nasty as possible and i'm afraid the New atheists took a lead in that.

Which "secular society" are you thinking of, why do you think it to be increasingly "as nasty as possible" given so much evidence to the contrary, and what on earth do you think "new" atheism has to do with it in any case? 

[Rhiannon]

Yeah, I wonder who is the most scary: the Christian right, jihadists or the BHA?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Rhi - nice to see you back.

Yeah, I wonder who is the most scary: the Christian right, jihadists or the BHA?

I think Vlad would put the BHA somewhere between ISIS and the Nazis...

[Rhiannon]

Hi Rhi - nice to see you back.

I think Vlad would put the BHA somewhere between ISIS and the Nazis...

Afternoon, Blue, and thank you.

I wonder if he realises just how much he gives away in his fear and loathing of secularism and humanism?

[Shaker]

Afternoon, Blue, and thank you.

I wonder if he realises just how much he gives away in his fear and loathing of secularism and humanism?

I'm not sure that he actually cares, tbh.

[Rhiannon]

I'm not sure that he actually cares, tbh.

I dunno. It doesn't make his faith seem like the rock of ages, more like a potential landslip.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

I dunno. It doesn't make his faith seem like the rock of ages, more like a potential landslip.

"Potential"? The guy's the CEO and Chairman for Life of Quicksand Foundations Inc!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hi Rhi - nice to see you back.

I think Vlad would put the BHA somewhere between ISIS and the Nazis...

Not really, More like a cult of celebrity worshippers. I wonder if their monthly magazine is like Hello magazine for people with degrees. Unfortunately some of the celebrities worshipped are New Atheists....Shitstirrers with PhD's.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Not really, More like a cult of celebrity worshippers.

Assertion noted. Who exactly do you think they “worship”, and why?

I wonder if their monthly magazine is like Hello magazine for people with degrees.

Yeah, damn their intelligence. What schmucks eh?
 

Unfortunately some of the celebrities worshipped are New Atheists....

You do intend to demonstrate this supposed “worship” right?

Right?

Shitstirrers with PhD's.

So you think that helping people to lead ethical lives on the basis of reason and humanity is “shit stirring” do you?

What a very odd character you are.

[Spud]

Spud,

Yes – it helps strengthen the rebuttal of your argument. The 9/11 terrorists thought that their god told them to do it too. IF they were right about that…

That’s the point: you can attach “if it’s true” to any faith beliefs you like to post rationalise them, but faith beliefs they remain nonetheless. So again: when people want to act on their faith beliefs, why and how should some be taken seriously and others dismissed?

But if the description of the way the Hebrews escaped from Egypt isn't true then we could assume that the conquest of Canaan isn't either. If the account of the battles is correct, and we assume the miracles in Egypt happened, as well as those in the desert, and the description of God as holy, then we can see that an evil civilization living in the promised land might well have it coming to them.

Hiroshima - a more recent situation where a whole city was destroyed - shows that in extreme circumstances things like that do happen even without miraculous events preceding them (or divine instructions).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,


Yeah, damn their intelligence. What schmucks eh?
 
You do intend to demonstrate this supposed “worship” right?

Right?

So you think that helping people to lead ethical lives on the basis of reason and humanity is “shit stirring” do you?

First of all since when has reading Hello magazine or the celebrity sections of the BHA equated with intelligence? The BHA should stop fawning over celebrities and cut the name dropping.....IMHO.

Secondly I think you are confusing a fair and reasonable if sentimental grouping such as the BHA with those who infiltrated it.

[Shaker]

I think you are confusing a fair and reasonable if sentimental grouping such as the BHA with those who infiltrated it.

Such as?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

But if the description of the way the Hebrews escaped from Egypt isn't true then we could assume that the conquest of Canaan isn't either. If the account of the battles is correct, and we assume the miracles in Egypt happened, as well as those in the desert, and the description of God as holy, then we can see that an evil civilization living in the promised land might well have it coming to them.

Hiroshima - a more recent situation where a whole city was destroyed - shows that in extreme circumstances things like that do happen even without miraculous events preceding them (or divine instructions).

You're really not getting it. If you think that "miracles" happened because that's your faith, then you have no basis to argue against one else's faith beliefs about anything else. Why and how should anyone take your claims more seriously than theirs?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

First of all since when has reading Hello magazine or the celebrity sections of the BHA equated with intelligence?

Perhaps you've forgotten already that you said: “I wonder if their monthly magazine is like Hello magazine for people with degrees.”

Do you not think that “people with degrees” correlates with intelligence?

Why not?

The BHA should stop fawning over celebrities and cut the name dropping.....IMHO.

Surely before you have an opinion about something you need to show that the something is happening at all don’t you? Why on earth would you think that the BHA (of all people) does these things?

Secondly…

“Secondly”? Shouldn’t you at least try to demonstrate a “firstly” before getting ahead of yourself with a “secondly”?

I think you are confusing a fair and reasonable if sentimental grouping such as the BHA with those who infiltrated it.

Ooh infiltrators eh? Where on earth are you getting the bonkers conspiracy theory stuff from Mr Icke?