The Bible

It is you that does not understand. Killing in the name of God can include many things other than "going to war because you believe that is what God wants you to do".

Torturing and killing people because they are deemed heritics is killing in the name of God for example. Any use of God or religion as justification for killing people is killing in the name of God.

 

My entire argument here was against the post that said religion has been the cause of the most deaths in human history.

That is it.

To look at the major causes of death, outside of disease, you need to look at wars.

Of which, very few were based on religion.

The entire French Revolution was about replacing the government, not about religion.

Though that might hav e

Yes but you will never achieve the greatest number of deaths just by killing heretics, you need massive wars to reach those numbers.

That was my point.

The claim was made that religion has killed more people than anything and I proved how that is a false claim.

Unless you think there have been 10's of billions of heretics killed in the name of God.

lol

 

You haven't proved that at all. You've just used figures from modern times. Not the 14 millenia that have passed.

By the way. Were Joseph and Jesus in Egypt and Nazareth at the same time. .

 

I have never stated that the greatest number of deaths were caused by religion. I merely corrected comment on killing in the name of God.

This whole "greatest #" debate is dumb and dumber anyway as comparing just numbers ... lumping the 1900's in with 5000 BC when there were probably less than 10 million on the entire planet ... is a stupid comparison to begin with.

If you look at things from a statistically credible standpoint - religion may well have killed the highest percentage of people - I have never seen the calculation done so I can not say.

 

Happily, there is no need.

Then what harm would it do?

Why would that matter? Hell, why would anything matter?

It's only sad to those who are hostile to the idea of God's existence.

 

Duh.. really?

It reveals MANY people's claimed encounters, and experiences with God.

For those who seek God with an open mind, not hostile and biased against Him, the bible CAN be a useful tool of discovery.. learning from those who have gone before.

But for those filled with irrational hate toward the bible and Christianity, the bible only reminds them of their own anger and hostility. There is little value in perusing its pages, if you are just looking for 'gotcha!' propaganda points.

 

I will remind my conditions for debate on this thread:
1. Post reference and passage of any disputed passage.
2. Post the 'error' you believe is there.
3. I can then examine and reply to the points made.

Vague claims of 'error!', without specific references can only be dismissed. You make your own case, and I'll examine it. But repeated, unbased accusations are tactics of propagandists, not scholars. Make a specific claim, or concede that the bible is accurate, historical, and valid, as the foundation for Christianity.

 

You haven't asked any.. just flooded the thread with anti-christian propaganda..

Quote the passage you believe is in error, and the reasons or evidence for your belief, and I'll examine it. But assertions without evidence can only be dismissed without evidence.

 

1. Absolute morality from an imaginary principle?
Why should anyone give a shat about your belief in some made up 'principle!'? That is as subjective and relative as you can get.
You can kill or not, and your principle just sits there with no will, power, or purpose. Why delude yourself thinking it has some kind of universal significance? Its just made up platitudes, for people who need to believe in something.
2. How can anyone be wrong? Or right? By whose standards? Yours?
3. I answered the silly question, & stated my basis for morality.. what is yours? Imaginary platitudes?

 

You derive absolute morality from an imaginary god, so how are you any different?

You have not answered my question. What does your absolute morality say about slaughtering women and children and about taking young girls as sex slaves?

I think you are dancing around the question because you know exactly where I’m going with it. You’ll say that your morality condemns those actions as evil, then I will bring up the Biblical God commanding the slaughter of the Amelekite women and children, and then you’ll be forced to say “Well it’s not evil when God commands it”, showing your beliefs to involve just as much moral relavatism as any other.

 

You can play your 'gotcha!' game all you want. I answered your loaded question here:

..and how can anyone have a personal absolute morality? That is an oxymoron.

You are doing the evading.. claiming absolute morality from some arbitrary principle. You have no basis for your moral beliefs about slavery or exploitation. They are subjective opinions, no better or worse than anyone else's.

Your love of straw men and putting words in your opponent's mouth makes it frustrating.. and tiring.. but the 'gotcha!' is a shallow tactic, with no substance.

 

You’re claiming absolute morality based on arbitrary religious beliefs. You are really no different.

Your worldview doesn’t say anything about slavery? What about slaughter unarmed innocent women and children? What does it say about that?

Do you think your belief in enlightenment principles (which reject the Bible, as the Bible condones slavery, the rulership of kings, and opposes protected inherent rights) is in any way different from my belief in the non-aggression principle?

At least I don’t claim my principle comes from a God that commanded the slaughter of women and children.

 

I am following the reasoning.

IF... there is a God, there might be purpose, morality, and destiny.

IF.. there is no God, there can be no purpose, morality, or destiny. There is only subjective opinion.

This is a rational, philosophical exercise, not a pissing contest, or a self righteous comparison of our virtuosity.

MY.. beliefs are irrelevant. It is the IMPLICATIONS of belief that is being examined.

Ad hom deflections detract from this examination.

How can you get theistic style purpose, morality, soul, or destiny in an atheistic belief system? You cannot. It is logically impossible. Why is this obvious part of the atheistic belief system denied? It should be embraced. Why try to compete with theistic belief systems with the absurd 'me too!' assertions, 'we have absolute morality too! And meaning, and eternal life!'? Does that not seem convoluted and absurd?

 

Obviously, your moral standards are higher than God's ..

 

Even if there is a god, your belief in that god is still arbitrary. You still have a relativistic arbitrary moral system.

Atheists don’t have a “belief system”. Atheism has a single data point: lack of belief in a deity. Beyond that, atheism says nothing about what one should believe or not.

My belief in the non-aggression principle is independent of my atheism.

 

Higher than the biblical God’s, most definitely. That monster is evil by any reasonable standard.

 

1. Individual beliefs are still irrelevant. Does the belief INCLUDE or IMPLY, purpose, morality, or destiny? Atheism has no such implication. How could it?
2. Of course atheists (and everyone) have a belief system, worldview, philosophy, religion, or whatever you want to call it. It is expressed ALL THE TIME, here on the forums.
3. Your belief in some principle is still subjective.. no better or worse than anyone else's. You could change it every day, and it would not matter.

 

What standard is that? Some arbitrary, made up platitude with no rational basis?

..seems hypocritical to criticize someone for their standard, when they are all atbitrary and meaningless, anyway..

 

1. Individual beliefs are absolutely relevant because those are the only kind of beliefs that exist.

2. Atheists have worldviews that have nothing to do with atheism. Atheism only defines one single data point of their world view: lack of belief in a deity. Every other aspect of an atheist’s worldview is defined by things outside of and independent from atheism.

3. How is your belief in enlightenment principles any less subjective?

 

Who said they are meaningless? You absolutely can criticize someone on their moral standard when their moral standard leads to things the murder of unarmed women and children, but to Christians those murders suddenly become perfectly good when God tells them to do them.

 

Matthews Nativity story sends the family to Egypt to avoid Herod. Luke send the family to Nazareth about 40 days after the birth. That includes time for Jesus circumcision (8 days after birth), his redemption in the Temple and Mary's period of cleansing. There he tells us that they remain until Jesus is grown up. Given the story of the wise men going to Jerusalem and being interviewed by Herod, then making their way to Bethlehem that leaves Matthew with a problem. The journey to Egypt would take around a week with a newly born baby and Mary still in the 'afterbirth' state. The road went round the coast to avoid the desert which would have been almost impossible to for Mary. Given that Herod didn't die for at least a few months after Jesus birth - how could Jesus be in Egypt and Nazareth at the same time.
The idea where Luke gets Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem. is against Roman Law (that people should stay where they were for the census) and the ridiculous 'house and lineage' of David story. He may have been of David's house but David was 1000 years on the past and Bethlehem had be almost emptied of its people by the Babylonians. Did any go back? History tells us that many Hebrews remained in Babylon, where much later Jewish scribes wrote the Talmud Bavli (Babylonian Talmud), while many had already gone to Greece, Egypt and North Africa to escape the Babylonian and the Assyrian invasions.

David had 20 sons that we know of. Daughters not known. With the need for, and prevalence of, large families, if all the hundreds of thousands of descendants of David descended on village of Bethlehem the whole area from Jerusalem south, east and west of Bethlehem would have been inundated. No room at the Inn? No room within miles.

The birth of a Jesus makes more sense in Bethlehem in Zebulon - a short distance from Nazareth.

Hosea 11 cannot be the 'prophecy' proclaiming Jesus birth - unless his name was really Israel. But then he didn't fulfil the rest of the 'prophecy'. Ir did God say to Hosea 'I'll let you into a secret, Hosea, this also applies to a man I will send in about 700 years time whose name will be Jesus.

You berated me earlier in another thread for not going to the source - meaning the Bible. The source of the Bible is found in its background. If you read the post about Ugarit I posted earlier you will see this. The background to some of the Psalms and Proverbs is found in Ugarit.

 

Why I no longer believe in a god.

13 billion years ago a supposed god, for some reason, started the creation of a universe which today is so vast and expanding we know little about it. About 4 billion years ago he started a small, insignificant world in a small, insignicant galaxy that was to turn out to be a disaster for the creature he was to create. That planet was unstable, and still is. He still created this 'man' and placed him in a world that would kill many of his creation by earthquake, fire (volcanoes) and water. He made creatures that were hostile to man. He made viruses and bacteria that would ravage his creation. He gave man the knowledge to combat these, and then gave the bacteria the ability to evolve even further to overcome the cure. He then gave various people different ideas of who he was and what he wanted. Thus causing confusion and mayhem. None of which gives me any confidence in such a creator.

 

This is without even brining up the fact that “travel to the place of your father’s birth to be counted” violates literally everything we know about how Roman censuses were conducted.

 

Yes I know. In some museum somewhere there is a letter from a Roman controlled Egyptian census taker telling people to stay at home. This was obviously not sent to homes but promulgated in villages, towns etc. However, the poster I was replying to would not have accepted that without seeing the Roman Law on paper. Unfortunately I lent my Roman Law book to my solicitor friend for his use. Silly me.