Originally posted by Znack
What is your assertion then? Can you or can you not be held responsible for what you ask others to do?
What is the difference between commands in writing and commands in speech?
The difference is not in the method but in the nature. A general gives commands and his subordinates are obligated to follow them; there is no such obligation with regard to the reader of a book. There is no master servant arrangement between a author and reader.
I'm going to drop this discussion now as I'm now entirely satisfied that you have been soundly defeated and you're down to grasping at straws that aren't even there. Maybe Eddy will keep going with you since he has more of an appitite for such arguments, I; however, don't wish to watch you flounder any further.
Znack
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
The difference is not in the method but in the nature. A general gives commands and his subordinates are obligated to follow them; there is no such obligation with regard to the reader of a book. There is no master servant arrangement between a author and reader.
I'm going to drop this discussion now as I'm now entirely satisfied that you have been soundly defeated and you're down to grasping at straws that aren't even there. Maybe Eddy will keep going with you since he has more of an appitite for such arguments, I; however, don't wish to watch you flounder any further.
But its incorrect. A soldier is free to refuse to obey orders, but he will in most cases, be punished for it. Like many Christians are "free" to disobey the Bible, but they think they will be punished for it. In every practical sense, they are forced to do so. That's what they believe themselves.
But alright, despite all your arguments have been refuted and all your claims have been proven wrong, I have been "defeated". Just your choice of words says everything I need to know.
Have a nice day.
EddieZilker
quote:
Originally posted by Znack
Here we are talking again about the difference between normative and descriptive. It is actually quite simple: It is the same as the difference between giving an order and saying "this could be done."
When a general tells his soldiers' It is possible to kill people ", he is not responsible if they kill someone. If the same general says "Go out and kill people", he is responsible.
An author of a book (or song) about a murder is not responsible of the fact that some people are copying it - or even misinterpret it as an order, but an author of a book that tells readers what to do and where the author is aware that people will take it at face value, he is indeed responsible.
The Bible is not a historical narrative., At least not only. It is a collection of commands to the readers and the authors knew very well that it would be understood in this way, it was their intention.
A comparison of military doctrine (i.e. a superior officer giving otherwise unjust or unlawful orders) to the Bible just doesn't hold water, particularly when you consider recent Judge Advocate General rulings which have ostensibly held subordinates to account for "following orders" (See: Abu Ghraib).
While I am no religious scholar, let alone any kind of anthropologist, I think it would be impossible for one of the Bible's authors to peer into the future and have any idea how his words, no doubt tortured through serial translation, would be construed, let alone the implications they would hold, today. Therefore, your second point fails.
Finally, while I really do respect the atheist point of view, at least where its true skeptical intellectual integrity is concerned, I haven't read any recent "God/anti-God" threads in the COR where atheists haven't continually painted religious people as dead-behind-the-eyes imbeciles whose faith is only symptomatic of their delusional magical thinking if not an absurdly sycophantic adherence to the arcane doctrines associated with it. Here you are attempting to find fault with the Bible by tenuously attaching the motivations for all manner of crime and pogrom as though what is necessary for man to commit evil is belief that he is justified through God's own will.
It's unfortunate that, while many atrocities have been committed with justification dispensed from those who filter scripture to suit their purpose, there are more pressing motivations for such perversions to take form in the first place. Without the Bible ever having existed, it's still likely that Fox News would still be suckering the gullible malcontents and their ossified confirmation bias with the verses of Ayn Rand. And your own course of action presents its quasi-biblical justification, as well.
What else is it, other than a pious lie (one must assume you mean well), that you would tell yourself to allow you to reduce your opponent down to a fundamentalist idiot in a gambit that practically screams with an ironic entitlement. Atheists, after-all, don't believe in imaginary beings nor do they adhere to cursed verses of scripture. Anyone who does should expect to find themselves measured only by the most mediocre yardstick you can imagine so that all of what they say may be similarly lampooned.
For those who place such faith in logic, one would assume that logic would suffice to justify your faith. Instead, when logic either fails on its own or (and more often based on what I've read in these parts) completely eludes your command, you resort to a series of logical fallacies including a veiled ad hominem in which the wisdom of using a Bible is questioned with a sharp-shooter's logical fallacy that counts only the misses.
Znack
quote:
Originally posted by EddieZilker
A comparison of military doctrine (i.e. a superior officer giving otherwise unjust or unlawful orders) to the Bible just doesn't hold water.
Unsubstantiated claim. Explain.
quote:
I think it would be impossible for one of the Bible's authors to peer into the future and have any idea how his words, no doubt tortured through serial translation, would be construed, let alone the implications they would hold, today.
I have never claimed that.
quote:
Here you are attempting to find fault with the Bible by tenuously attaching the motivations for all manner of crime and pogrom .
No i am not.
quote:
Without the Bible ever having existed, it's still likely that Fox News would still be suckering the gullible malcontents and their ossified confirmation bias with the verses of Ayn Rand.
Relevance?
quote:
What else is it, other than a pious lie (one must assume you mean well), that you would tell yourself to allow you to reduce your opponent down to a fundamentalist idiot.
I do not understand what you're trying to say here. Even if your claims about my opinions about the Bible were true, which they'r not, how would it in any way "reduce my opponent"?
quote:
Atheists, after-all, don't believe in imaginary beings nor do they adhere to cursed verses of scripture. Anyone who does should expect to find themselves measured only by the most mediocre yardstick.
Again, i do not understand at all what you are saying. Are you saying that I "adhere to" verses in the Bible? Or are you talking here about Christians?
quote:
For those who place such faith in logic, one would assume that logic would suffice to justify your faith.
Since I only have used logical arguments, and none of you have been able to argue logically against them, then your assumption has to be assumed to be correct.
quote:
you resort to a series of logical fallacies
Mention them.
quote:
including a veiled ad hominem.
Wrong again.
_Ocean_Drive_
quote:
Originally posted by EddieZilker
Fantastic post. Seriously. Especially this:
quote:
Originally posted by EddieZilker
I haven't read any recent "God/anti-God" threads in the COR where atheists haven't continually painted religious people as dead-behind-the-eyes imbeciles whose faith is only symptomatic of their delusional magical thinking if not an absurdly sycophantic adherence to the arcane doctrines associated with it. Here you are attempting to find fault with the Bible by tenuously attaching the motivations for all manner of crime and pogrom as though what is necessary for man to commit evil is belief that he is justified through God's own will.
Moral Hazard
quote:
Originally posted by EddieZilker
A comparison of military doctrine (i.e. a superior officer giving otherwise unjust or unlawful orders) to the Bible just doesn't hold water, particularly when you consider recent Judge Advocate General rulings which have ostensibly held subordinates to account for "following orders" (See: Abu Ghraib).
While I am no religious scholar, let alone any kind of anthropologist, I think it would be impossible for one of the Bible's authors to peer into the future and have any idea how his words, no doubt tortured through serial translation, would be construed, let alone the implications they would hold, today. Therefore, your second point fails.
Finally, while I really do respect the atheist point of view, at least where its true skeptical intellectual integrity is concerned, I haven't read any recent "God/anti-God" threads in the COR where atheists haven't continually painted religious people as dead-behind-the-eyes imbeciles whose faith is only symptomatic of their delusional magical thinking if not an absurdly sycophantic adherence to the arcane doctrines associated with it. Here you are attempting to find fault with the Bible by tenuously attaching the motivations for all manner of crime and pogrom as though what is necessary for man to commit evil is belief that he is justified through God's own will.
It's unfortunate that, while many atrocities have been committed with justification dispensed from those who filter scripture to suit their purpose, there are more pressing motivations for such perversions to take form in the first place. Without the Bible ever having existed, it's still likely that Fox News would still be suckering the gullible malcontents and their ossified confirmation bias with the verses of Ayn Rand. And your own course of action presents its quasi-biblical justification, as well.
What else is it, other than a pious lie (one must assume you mean well), that you would tell yourself to allow you to reduce your opponent down to a fundamentalist idiot in a gambit that practically screams with an ironic entitlement. Atheists, after-all, don't believe in imaginary beings nor do they adhere to cursed verses of scripture. Anyone who does should expect to find themselves measured only by the most mediocre yardstick you can imagine so that all of what they say may be similarly lampooned.
For those who place such faith in logic, one would assume that logic would suffice to justify your faith. Instead, when logic either fails on its own or (and more often based on what I've read in these parts) completely eludes your command, you resort to a series of logical fallacies including a veiled ad hominem in which the wisdom of using a Bible is questioned with a sharp-shooter's logical fallacy that counts only the misses.
Mattinsanity
quote:
Originally posted by Lews
what a condescending douchebag
he gave one of, if not the realist description of evil in people.
let's say he took all the thoughts that a person has ever thought of and presented them on an overhead or some type of screen in front of a group of people. while the scenes are being shown, the group would be so horrified while the person would run out of that room and never show his face again. why? because he has thought things so wicked and so perverse that if his own friend saw the overhead, his friend would never be that person's friend again.
his point is, God is good, and men are evil. that's why I believe in God and the Lord Jesus Christ. there's just no remedy for my sins other than him.
EddieZilker
quote:
Originally posted by Znack
Cherry-pick, parse & dither.
I shouldn't have to explain the features of your own metaphor and your lack of understanding about how my points apply to your arguments does more to contradict your own arguments than it does to counter mine.
jester
psymon.d
EDIT:
holy , if that still frame isn't the most annoying one of recent history, I'm not sure what is. gets more annoying in motion though.
_Ocean_Drive_
quote:
Originally posted by psymon.d
EDIT:
holy , if that still frame isn't the most annoying one of recent history, I'm not sure what is. gets more annoying in motion though.
:rolleyes:
These videos are just ridiculous. Dawkins wouldn't be able to hold his own against serious scholars and intelligent christians, not people like this way-out airhead woman.
