Comments on: Great first day

By: Leios

Leios — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 08:29:28 +0000

Aaron, your judgment expressed by “appalling barbarism” seems to express personal distaste or disgust of a people who lived some 3000 years ago who do not live up to some current standard that you approve of. From your WV, is this consistent? Perhaps they were less evolved and hadn’t achieved the level of modern civility that you want to read back anachronistically?
On the other hand perhaps you are assuming some objective moral standard that is universally applicable to all cultural and historical era?
So what are the grounds for your judgment?

By: Aaron

Aaron — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 07:45:52 +0000

Yes Bob, that post exposes both the appalling barbarism of the people who wrote the bible, and the appalling barbarism that they attribute to their God.

By: Leios

Leios — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 08:44:35 +0000

Aaron, your list of stuff in post 163 ostensibly is offered as evidence that God as per Judeo-Christian WV is not perfectly good. Now, lets grant that you have good understanding of the text and it’s historical background, etc., and consider the moral judgment you appear to be making.
On what grounds are you stating this as evidence against the view you oppose? Are you simply stating that there is some internal logical inconsistency such that it would be irrational to believe both that those things occurred and that God is good? Or are you making a moral claim from a basis or standard outside of that WV that such a God or belief in such a God is evil?
Perhaps you might rather want to say that such a belief or behaviour is undesirable, that you don’t like it, or that it is not PC, or something?

By: bob

bob — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 22:43:55 +0000

hey aaron. your posting 163 has hit the spot apparently re:numbers 31, cos this site has suddenly gone quiet. mind you, not much to be said in defence of that passage is there? what a shame – we will just have to find something else to talk about. not rugby or soccer though please

By: bob

bob — Sun, 16 May 2010 03:22:35 +0000

leios – dawkins? that takes us back to march 17 and 18 where this chapter started, after our man appeared on close up. br graham-michael didn’t seem too taken with his articulation, but he’s no longer posting so we can’t check

By: Leios

Leios — Fri, 14 May 2010 09:32:37 +0000

You might want to add the preference of animals to humans being saved in the big boat, and … well it goes on to there being hell for most people, etc.

Dawkins articulates it quite well, doesn’t he?

By: Aaron

Aaron — Fri, 14 May 2010 05:56:59 +0000

Errr…I provided biblical passages of God ordering the slaughter of thousands of people, allowing his soldiers to take any surviving women who hadn’t slept with a man, and taking a share of the plunder resulting from the slaughter of said thousands of people. It certainly wasn’t my intention to provide evidence of ‘his incorruptibly perfect goodness’, quite the contrary.

By: Gold

Gold — Thu, 13 May 2010 21:09:53 +0000

Leios,

Close. Regarding #160 I read that as bob saying both are whacked. The idea and the individual.

If he’d worded it as the individual being whacked, therefor the idea must be then that would have been an ad hominem. But that isn’t what bob said.

By: Gold

Gold — Thu, 13 May 2010 08:27:22 +0000

Aaron,

Can you please provide evidence of “his incorruptibly perfect goodness” by providing references that are not a Tautology?

If you can manage that can you then also provide similar evidence for your Gods existence with the same restriction?

By: Leios

Leios — Thu, 13 May 2010 08:21:28 +0000

Gold, you may be right. The “atrophy” remark wasn’t related to the argument. The #160 post seemed close, as I read it that he saw my argument “whacked” because he viewed me as much. Thanks