James Holmes confirmed to be an atheist

[phins_4_ever]

The ****? I have already stated more than once that I accept the notion that one cannot have "Godly" morality without God. However, that does not make all moral viewpoints arbitrary (unless you are so narrow minded as to only view Godly morality as morality, which is an incorrect definition of the term). My question about the smell of **** -- which, ironically, you avoided -- is part of how I explain my own morality.



Nope.

Here's a passage from Numbers (slighted edited for brevity):

"Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals...

Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."

Defend the morality of raping virgins, big guy.

Here's another from Deuteronomy:

"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

So God says, if the people you want to conquer will not agree to be slaves, you must kill the men but can keep women and children as spoils of war. What a guy.

Deuteronomy also has a charming "law" regarding rape:

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

Watching you defend that should be amusing. Along with this:

"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife."

Indeed, a woman who doesn't cry out loudly enough while she's being raped needs to be killed. A Law and Order episode written by God would have a hell of a different flavor, wouldn't it?

In 2 Samuel (I'm not quoting it here since the wording is sort of convoluted), God punishes David first by sending his wives to be raped by David's neighbor, and then by killing David's child.

Here's one of my favorites, this one from Exodus:

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment."

Ok, now explain to me how Christianity is consistent with believing rape is wrong again.

Fantastic post.
But expect the choosing and picking to begin.

"Oh, this is not what I go by"
"Oh this is from some friggin 60th Testament which has been replaced by #237 and #455"

Bottomline is that the 'godly' religion is based on murder, incest, rape and robbery.

[Statler Waldorf]

However, that does not make all moral viewpoints arbitrary

If God is not the determiner of morality, but rather man is left to determine his own morality then that is the very definition of arbitrariness.

My question about the smell of **** -- which, ironically, you avoided -- is part of how I explain my own morality

It doesn’t matter how you explain your “own morality”, the fact that you are asserting morality is self-determined makes it completely arbitrary and therefore however you want to define it or whatever analogy you want to use is completely meaningless since someone else is just as rationally capable of postulating a completely contradictory form of morality to your own. All you have done is prove that you don’t have a defensible definition of morality, which was my original point.

Nope.

Yep.

"Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals...

Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."

Defend the morality of raping virgins, big guy.

I don’t have to; nowhere in that passage does it say anything about raping virgins…big guy. This ought to be fun though, please explain why in a purely natural universe raping anyone is morally wrong. I bet you can’t do it.

"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor.

Sounds pretty civilized to me; nowadays we just blow the whole village up using a drone strike and never have to even see the faces of those we kill.

But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

So God says, if the people you want to conquer will not agree to be slaves, you must kill the men but can keep women and children as spoils of war. What a guy.

I’d much rather have my wife and kids work in forced labor for a nation (especially ancient Israel given their laws of treatment towards forced laborers) that conquered me rather than getting just blown up and possibly maimed like we do nowadays. So now you are really just proving that the Israelites were more civil than modern nations today. Nice job.

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

I am sure glad atheists all seem to use the same three arguments all the time, it makes things much easier for me. I find it interesting you cherry picked your translation here, most English translations do not use the word rape in verse 28, ever wonder why that is? It’s pretty simple; the verse is not talking about rape. The Hebrew word for rape is “chazaq”, we see this word used and accurately translated as rape in verses 26 and 27 where the rapist is put to death (hardly sounds like the Bible is condoning rape in those verses huh?). Now the writer of Deuteronomy could have very easily used the word “chazaq” is verse 28, but he didn’t? Rather he used the word ““shakab”” which in Hebrew simply means sexual intercourse. So if a man seduces a woman into having premarital sex with him he is fined and the two must get married and remain married. I bet ancient Israel didn’t have much of an STD problem that’s for sure.

Watching you defend that should be amusing. Along with this:

I am not sure why it should be amusing it was pretty easy considering I have seen that verse a thousand times before, get some new material.

"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife."

Yup, adultery was punishable by death in ancient Israel; I see no problem with that. I bet they didn’t have much of a problem with it back then.

Indeed, a woman who doesn't cry out loudly enough while she's being raped needs to be killed.

Is reading comprehension not your strong suit? Where in the verse does it say anything about rape or not crying out loudly enough? It’s obvious by the fact that “shakab” is used again in this verse that it is talking about consensual sexual intercourse. The “crying out” part is actually rather clever, it is to keep women from falsely accusing the man of rape in order to escape getting stoned for adultery. All the elders would have to ask is, “you were in a crowded city and yet you didn’t cry for help? Why not?” So both adulterers would be killed in that situation rather than one saving their self by lying about a rape that never happened.

In 2 Samuel (I'm not quoting it here since the wording is sort of convoluted), God punishes David first by sending his wives to be raped by David's neighbor, and then by killing David's child.

You didn’t provide the verse so I don’t have much to comment on, but given your track record with the previous verses let’s just say I don’t have much confidence in your ability to comprehend the passage correctly.

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment."

Whoa! You mean to tell me that ancient Israel had laws concerning the civil treatment of servants and even had circumstances where they would have to be sent free unlike America did? You’re not doing much to support your cause by proving the Israelites were more civil than Americans were 3,000 years later.

Ok, now explain to me how Christianity is consistent with believing rape is wrong again.

Easy, Rape is condemned by both the Old Testament and the New Testament. All humans are God’s creation, so he owns all humans and therefore rape is always evil no matter what time period, society, or location it takes place in. In the Christian world, even rapists who don’t get caught will receive justice for their actions after their death, in your world they get off “Scott free.”

In Deut 22:26-27 the rapist is condemned to death. King David’s daughter Tamir is raped by her half-brother Amnon and then everyone condoned this action? Nope, Absalom had him killed for the rape in accordance with God’s law. So you falsely interpret verses speaking of consensual sex as speaking about rape and then you conveniently ignore the verse that actually do speak about rape and clearly condemn it? Unfortunately this form of intellectual dishonest is far to prevalent amongst modern atheists. I wish we could go back to the days of Hume and Kant where arguments were measured upon their logical merit and not upon their rhetorical or emotional value.

No, I dont. Sorry. As far as I can see it beats the hell out of some the morals in the Bible though.

Logically fallacious arguments by definition can’t “beat the hell” out of anything because they prove nothing.

Boom. Roasted...

So the fact he didn’t even understand the verses he posted (or even worse added elements to them that were not there) and completely ignored the ones that disproved his argument doesn’t stop you from rooting for him? It’s good to see that you hold yourself to such a high standard of moral behavior there.

---------- Post added at 02:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:49 PM ----------

Fantastic post.
But expect the choosing and picking to begin.

"Oh, this is not what I go by"
"Oh this is from some friggin 60th Testament which has been replaced by #237 and #455"

Bottomline is that the 'godly' religion is based on murder, incest, rape and robbery.

Nah, it more just comes down to the fact that "intellectual honesty and reading comprehension matter". That's all.

[irish fin fan]

If God is not the determiner of morality, but rather man is left to determine his own morality then that is the very definition of arbitrariness.


It doesn’t matter how you explain your “own morality”, the fact that you are asserting morality is self-determined makes it completely arbitrary and therefore however you want to define it or whatever analogy you want to use is completely meaningless since someone else is just as rationally capable of postulating a completely contradictory form of morality to your own. All you have done is prove that you don’t have a defensible definition of morality, which was my original point.



Yep.


I don’t have to; nowhere in that passage does it say anything about raping virgins…big guy. This ought to be fun though, please explain why in a purely natural universe raping anyone is morally wrong. I bet you can’t do it.



Sounds pretty civilized to me; nowadays we just blow the whole village up using a drone strike and never have to even see the faces of those we kill.




I’d much rather have my wife and kids work in forced labor for a nation (especially ancient Israel given their laws of treatment towards forced laborers) that conquered me rather than getting just blown up and possibly maimed like we do nowadays. So now you are really just proving that the Israelites were more civil than modern nations today. Nice job.



I am sure glad atheists all seem to use the same three arguments all the time, it makes things much easier for me. I find it interesting you cherry picked your translation here, most English translations do not use the word rape in verse 28, ever wonder why that is? It’s pretty simple; the verse is not talking about rape. The Hebrew word for rape is “chazaq”, we see this word used and accurately translated as rape in verses 26 and 27 where the rapist is put to death (hardly sounds like the Bible is condoning rape in those verses huh?). Now the writer of Deuteronomy could have very easily used the word “chazaq” is verse 28, but he didn’t? Rather he used the word ““shakab”” which in Hebrew simply means sexual intercourse. So if a man seduces a woman into having premarital sex with him he is fined and the two must get married and remain married. I bet ancient Israel didn’t have much of an STD problem that’s for sure.





I am not sure why it should be amusing it was pretty easy considering I have seen that verse a thousand times before, get some new material.



Yup, adultery was punishable by death in ancient Israel; I see no problem with that. I bet they didn’t have much of a problem with it back then.



Is reading comprehension not your strong suit? Where in the verse does it say anything about rape or not crying out loudly enough? It’s obvious by the fact that “shakab” is used again in this verse that it is talking about consensual sexual intercourse. The “crying out” part is actually rather clever, it is to keep women from falsely accusing the man of rape in order to escape getting stoned for adultery. All the elders would have to ask is, “you were in a crowded city and yet you didn’t cry for help? Why not?” So both adulterers would be killed in that situation rather than one saving their self by lying about a rape that never happened.





You didn’t provide the verse so I don’t have much to comment on, but given your track record with the previous verses let’s just say I don’t have much confidence in your ability to comprehend the passage correctly.



Whoa! You mean to tell me that ancient Israel had laws concerning the civil treatment of servants and even had circumstances where they would have to be sent free unlike America did? You’re not doing much to support your cause by proving the Israelites were more civil than Americans were 3,000 years later.



Easy, Rape is condemned by both the Old Testament and the New Testament. All humans are God’s creation, so he owns all humans and therefore rape is always evil no matter what time period, society, or location it takes place in. In the Christian world, even rapists who don’t get caught will receive justice for their actions after their death, in your world they get off “Scott free.”

In Deut 22:26-27 the rapist is condemned to death. King David’s daughter Tamir is raped by her half-brother Amnon and then everyone condoned this action? Nope, Absalom had him killed for the rape in accordance with God’s law. So you falsely interpret verses speaking of consensual sex as speaking about rape and then you conveniently ignore the verse that actually do speak about rape and clearly condemn it? Unfortunately this form of intellectual dishonest is far to prevalent amongst modern atheists. I wish we could go back to the days of Hume and Kant where arguments were measured upon their logical merit and not upon their rhetorical or emotional value.



Logically fallacious arguments by definition can’t “beat the hell” out of anything because they prove nothing.



So the fact he didn’t even understand the verses he posted (or even worse added elements to them that were not there) and completely ignored the ones that disproved his argument doesn’t stop you from rooting for him? It’s good to see that you hold yourself to such a high standard of moral behavior there.

---------- Post added at 02:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:49 PM ----------



Nah, it more just comes down to the fact that "intellectual honesty and reading comprehension matter". That's all.

So we are now jumping back to the old testament to prove a point when it suits us? Ah, the joys of not having to prove anything, pick the parts that support our case and ignore the parts that don't.

Just another religion amongst hundreds of religions and they all all add up to the pretty much the same thing, a way of giving people hope that there is an afterlife. Just another selfish human emotion thinking we somehow deserve better we die when in reality we are nothing in the grand scheme of things.

[irish fin fan]

So now you’re basing your arguments on meaningless speculation?



Good for you, me either. What about someone who does believe in killing witches though? Are they wrong to believe this? If so, why?



Well I don’t really view discussing how we define morality as just “b.s.”, that being said I already told you we are discussing God’s existence in the Dawkins thread, there’s no need to duplicate the discussion in this thread.



How did I misrepresent your argument? You said that if people in Saudi Arabia viewed killing homosexuals as just then in a way it would be justice. Isn’t justice getting what you deserve? If these same people viewed burning witches as just, wouldn’t you have to agree then that was also justice?



Where do you get this notion? There were many civilized societies in the 15^th and 16^th century who burned witches all the time. The Nazis were a civilized society and they massacred Jews. The Soviets were a civilized society and they tried breeding apes with women.



An appeal to common sense is still a logical fallacy today, and I am not seeing that change anytime in the near future. So your only definition of morality is based solely on fallacious logic? You’ve got nothing better to offer?

Basing my argument on meaningless speculation? Oh, the irony.

[Locke]

I don’t have to; nowhere in that passage does it say anything about raping virgins…big guy. This ought to be fun though, please explain why in a purely natural universe raping anyone is morally wrong. I bet you can’t do it.

You should expand on this before I start coming to the conclusion that you're the exact same as all those priests that molest altar boys. I see no rationalization for rape not being wrong, at all, in any shape or form. So please, enlighten us...

[tylerdolphin]

yeah they just took the virgins so they could lead normal happy lives in Israel.

And as to my post you quoted, Im not trying to prove anything. I admitted that morality is arbitrary to a degree. Why does it NOT have to be arbitrary?

[JamesBW43]

Yup.

How do you use reason to determine whether something is just or not?

If they are consistent in their view of reality, yes atheists will view humans as merely another animal.

Sure they can, but that is merely an arbitrary view then and has no more logical merit than someone else who views say tadpole life as more valuable than human life, or bacterial life as more valuable than any other life. That’s why arbitrariness is never allowed in proper reasoning, because someone can easily postulate an opposing arbitrary view and neither view trumps the other. Given their view of reality, there is no non-arbitrary reason for atheists to view human life as more valuable than any other form of life.

So? Many animals have completely unique attributes, why does this one magically make humans more valuable than any other animal? Again, you’re being completely arbitrary.

He doesn’t have to (although he probably should if he wants to be consistent in his view of reality), but he is in no place to admonish anyone else who disagrees with him since they have just as much logical right to hold a different view since all of your standards are now arbitrary. Therefore murder would no longer be a crime, or any other act for that matter.

Sure, but he can also view murder as a generally positive thing and completely compatible with society. Once you open the door up to arbitrariness, you toss out all ability to reason. Interesting conversation though, kudos.

It's not arbitrary at all. Human beings are the most advanced species on the planet.

And you can't view murder as something that is compatible with a functioning society because it is contrary to it. It goes against the very nature of a social contract.

[Statler Waldorf]

So we are now jumping back to the old testament to prove a point when it suits us? Ah, the joys of not having to prove anything, pick the parts that support our case and ignore the parts that don't.

Nope, the assertion was that the Bible condones rape, I pointed out that rape was condemned by both the Old and New Testaments, which means that nowhere does the Book condone rape but rather rape was condemned in both testaments of the Book. Not only this, but I was not the one who first brought up the Old Testament. Pay attention.

Just another religion amongst hundreds of religions and they all all add up to the pretty much the same thing, a way of giving people hope that there is an afterlife.

What a silly argument, that’s like saying “There is no answer to 2+2 because 4 is just another number amongst an infinite amount of numbers.” Maybe atheism is just people’s way of hoping that there is no afterlife, that line of conjecture cuts both ways.

Just another selfish human emotion thinking we somehow deserve better we die when in reality we are nothing in the grand scheme of things.

You obviously have never even read the Bible. If you had you’d realize that the Bible teaches that nobody deserves Heaven, and we all deserve Hell. The only reason any one is allowed into Heaven is because of God’s grace and Christ’s work making it possible for us to get what we do not deserve. So actually by asserting that nobody goes to Hell after they die atheism is the position selfishly claiming we deserve better than we actually do. Funny ol’ world ain’t it?

Basing my argument on meaningless speculation? Oh, the irony.

Please point to one example where I have based an argument on speculation, I bet you cannot do so.

You should expand on this before I start coming to the conclusion that you're the exact same as all those priests that molest altar boys. I see no rationalization for rape not being wrong, at all, in any shape or form. So please, enlighten us...

Wait, so you can’t explain why rape is wrong in a purely natural universe? Animals do it, so why is it all of the sudden wrong for people to do it? As a Christian I have reasons as to why I believe rape is wrong, as an atheist you have no un-arbitrary reason as to why rape is morally wrong; hence why you use a fallacious appeal to silence when I asked you to provide me with a reason.

yeah they just took the virgins so they could lead normal happy lives in Israel.

That’s a better explanation for the verse; if they had taken the virgins to rape them every man would have been put to death under God’s law. Arranged marriages were a very common practice at that time, and it’s not uncommon at all for women from a conquered nation to marry men from the conquering nation. You just like reading something into the verse that’s not there, even though other verses that are not ambiguous at all clearly condemn rape.

And as to my post you quoted, Im not trying to prove anything. I admitted that morality is arbitrary to a degree. Why does it NOT have to be arbitrary?

Easy, being arbitrary is not allowed in logical reasoning because it allows contradictions. Once you allow contradictions you then destroy the ability to prove anything and logical reasoning is completely destroyed. This of course supports my premise that atheism destroys our ability to prove anything at all, and I am sure you don’t want to also give support to my proof for God’s existence do you? :-P

It's not arbitrary at all. Human beings are the most advanced species on the planet.

How do you even quantify that? Many species can survive in far more extreme environments than Humans, why are they not the most advanced species then? Even your claims about these matters are completely arbitrary.

And you can't view murder as something that is compatible with a functioning society because it is contrary to it. It goes against the very nature of a social contract.

Again, completely arbitrary. So then under your definition above a person from one society can murder a person from another society? Why is morality defined as what is best for a society? Why not what is best for a single individual? Or how about a family? Or how about a race? Or how about a hair color? Or how about an age group? Or how about a species? Or how about just organic life in general? Your standards are completely arbitrary and therefore completely meaningless!

[irish fin fan]

[QUOTE=Statler Waldorf;1064387994]

Nope, the assertion was that the Bible condones rape, I pointed out that rape was condemned by both the Old and New Testaments, which means that nowhere does the Book condone rape but rather rape was condemned in both testaments of the Book. Not only this, but I was not the one who first brought up the Old Testament. Pay attention.



What a silly argument, that’s like saying “There is no answer to 2+2 because 4 is just another number amongst an infinite amount of numbers.” Maybe atheism is just people’s way of hoping that there is no afterlife, that line of conjecture cuts both ways.



You obviously have never even read the Bible. If you had you’d realize that the Bible teaches that nobody deserves Heaven, and we all deserve Hell. The only reason any one is allowed into Heaven is because of God’s grace and Christ’s work making it possible for us to get what we do not deserve. So actually by asserting that nobody goes to Hell after they die atheism is the position selfishly claiming we deserve better than we actually do. Funny ol’ world ain’t it?



Please point to one example where I have based an argument on speculation, I bet you cannot do so.



Wait, so you can’t explain why rape is wrong in a purely natural universe? Animals do it, so why is it all of the sudden wrong for people to do it? As a Christian I have reasons as to why I believe rape is wrong, as an atheist you have no un-arbitrary reason as to why rape is morally wrong; hence why you use a fallacious appeal to silence when I asked you to provide me with a reason.



That’s a better explanation for the verse; if they had taken the virgins to rape them every man would have been put to death under God’s law. Arranged marriages were a very common practice at that time, and it’s not uncommon at all for women from a conquered nation to marry men from the conquering nation. You just like reading something into the verse that’s not there, even though other verses that are not ambiguous at all clearly condemn rape.



Easy, being arbitrary is not allowed in logical reasoning because it allows contradictions. Once you allow contradictions you then destroy the ability to prove anything and logical reasoning is completely destroyed. This of course supports my premise that atheism destroys our ability to prove anything at all, and I am sure you don’t want to also give support to my proof for God’s existence do you? :-P


How do you even quantify that? Many species can survive in far more extreme environments than Humans, why are they not the most advanced species then? Even your claims about these matters are completely arbitrary.



Again, completely arbitrary. So then under your definition above a person from one society can murder a person from another society? Why is morality defined as what is best for a society? Why not what is best for a single individual? Or how about a family? Or how about a race? Or how about a hair color? Or how about an age group? Or how about a species? Or how about just organic life in general? Your standards are completely arbitrary and therefore completely meaningless! [/QUOTE

In one of your previous posts in another thread you stated that you believed in the new testament or words to that effect. Now you are jumping back and over between testaments to prove your points. In any case, since both are nothing more than books written by men who gives a damn.

No, there is no afterlife as there is no proof. For you that is probably the ultimate hell with your human ego thinking we deserve more. However, if you have proof to the contrary please present it. Otherwise your posts are just more rambling nonsense from one of hundreds of equally based religious nonsense.

[Statler Waldorf]

In one of your previous posts in another thread you stated that you believed in the new testament or words to that effect. Now you are jumping back and over between testaments to prove your points.

No, I believe that the accounts in the OT are completely true and that it is God’s word. However, as a Christian I am not bound by certain laws that were established under the Mosaic Covenant because we are living under the New Covenant established by Christ (Book of Hebrews). The Bible never condones rape though, whether in the Old or New Testament, so when someone says it does of course I am going to refute their claim using the Bible as a whole.

In any case, since both are nothing more than books written by men who gives a damn.

Assertions such as this don’t prove anything.

No, there is no afterlife as there is no proof.

Scripture says there is an afterlife and scripture is the infallible word of God so that actually is irrefutable proof that there is indeed an afterlife.

For you that is probably the ultimate hell with your human ego thinking we deserve more. However, if you have proof to the contrary please present it.

See above.