Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Soul Winner

Zombrex wrote: »

Do you believe a husband can rape his wife? If you do do you believe that the Israelites had this concept?

Yes I believe a husband can rape his wife. Do I believe he should rape his wife? Only if his wife consents to it. But then it wouldn't be rape would it? I don't believe anyone should ever be forced to have sex, and therefore rape is always always always going to be wrong in my book for any man or woman to do, even if it was legalized in every country in the world tomorrow. It is objectively wrong, which means it is wrong independent of what our collective moral code eventually evolves or devolves into.

(btw you left out the bit about the woman raped in a town ...)

If I did then it wasn't intentional.

tommy2bad

Aren't you glad that William Wilberforce argued that God said the North Atlantic slave trade was wrong? Aren't you glad that Martin Luther King argued that God said racial segregation was unChristian?

After near 2000 years they coped on !
Of course you'll argue that it was always wrong, no wait actually you argue that it became wrong when god said or inspired or revealed that it was wrong and god gets to decide when and where and if anything is wrong. Just because we don't like it doesn't make it wrong as neither dose us liking it make it right.
Yes ?

Soul Winner

tommy2bad wrote: »

After near 2000 years they coped on !
Of course you'll argue that it was always wrong, no wait actually you argue that it became wrong when god said or inspired or revealed that it was wrong and god gets to decide when and where and if anything is wrong. Just because we don't like it doesn't make it wrong as neither dose us liking it make it right.
Yes ?

If there is no God and therefore no moral law giver then how do we decide that something is evil or wrong or even good? What qualifies our judgement on whether something is evil or not? Don't reply with the same old BS that we don't need a God to tell us what good and evil is. Explain to me the grounds upon which we adjudge something to be objectively wrong i.e. something that is wrong even if human beings did not exist.

Heading out now but will re-replay in a few hours.

PDN

tommy2bad wrote: »

After near 2000 years they coped on !
Of course you'll argue that it was always wrong, no wait actually you argue that it became wrong when god said or inspired or revealed that it was wrong and god gets to decide when and where and if anything is wrong. Just because we don't like it doesn't make it wrong as neither dose us liking it make it right.
Yes ?

No, it didn't take them 2000 years to cop on. There were voices from the very beginning of the Christian Church that spoke out against slavery, on the basis of the revelation of God given by Jesus Christ and expounded by Paul. Sometimes those voices prevailed, and sometimes they were silenced by the wealthy and powerful who benefited most from slavery.

Incidentally, there are still cases where some forms of slavery were, in my opinion, morally acceptable. For example, indentured servitude by which Irish immigrants to America (including some of Martin Luther King's ancestors) sold themselves as temporary slaves for seven years in order to pay their passage to the new world. Based on the economic circumstances of the time, such an arrangement does not seem morally repugnant.

Similarly I can envisage certain wartime circumstances where POWs might be compelled to work for their captors in a way that is morally justifiable.

tommy2bad

Soul Winner wrote: »

If there is no God and therefore no moral law giver then how do we decide that something is evil or wrong or even good? What qualifies our judgement on whether something is evil or not? Don't reply with the same old BS that we don't need a God to tell us what good and evil is. Explain to me the grounds upon which we adjudge something to be objectively wrong i.e. something that is wrong even if human beings did not exist.

Heading out now but will re-replay in a few hours.

Actually I'm not saying theirs no God. Thats a different point altogether.
What I'm trying to do is find out if God is guilty.
But the point about something being wrong if humans didn't exist
I guess, nothing, their is no apple core on the ground then.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes I believe a husband can rape his wife. Do I believe he should rape his wife? Only if his wife consents to it. But then it wouldn't be rape would it? I don't believe anyone should ever be forced to have sex, and therefore rape is always always always going to be wrong in my book for any man or woman to do, even if it was legalized in every country in the world tomorrow. It is objectively wrong, which means it is wrong independent of what our collective moral code eventually evolves or devolves into.

Ok, so in the passages in the Old Testament that describe forced marriage (or appear to describe forced marriage) condoned by God do you believe that these instructions implied that forced sexual intercourse was also permissible between the husband and his new bride?

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

Ok, so in the passages in the Old Testament that describe forced marriage (or appear to Zombrex to describe forced marriage) condoned by God do you believe that these instructions implied that forced sexual intercourse was also permissible between the husband and his new bride?

FYP

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

FYP

Er, we have been over this. You objected to me assuming they were raped, neither of us doubted that these women (or at the very least some of them) were forced into marriage. You seemed to merely want me to consider that after their civilisation had been completely wiped out some of these women might actually wish to come with the Israelites rather than face starvation or slavery at the hands of bandits or any other grizzly fate. And I'm more than happy to accept that some of them might have wanted that, but we both agreed that whether they wanted to go with the Israelites or not was of no concern to the Israelites, their motivation was not to provide a better life for those who wished to leave with them, they were taking them as wives whether they wanted to or not, which is by definition forced marriage.

Are you changing your position?

Sonics2k

PDN wrote: »

FYP

Actually there was no reason to fix his post, he gave a completely accurate view point.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

Er, we have been over this. You objected to me assuming they were raped, neither of us doubted that these women (or at the very least some of them) were forced into marriage.

That is not true, I see no evidence of anyone being forced into marriage.

Are you changing your position?

No, because I never held the position you attributed to me.

I have no doubt that these women were forced to go with the Israelites as slaves. You have shown no evidence to support your opinion that they were forced into marriage.

PDN

Sonics2k wrote: »

Actually there was no reason to fix his post, he gave a completely accurate view point.

He gave a very subjective viewpoint, having failed to demonstrate why his interpretation is better than the alternative (other than because he wants it to be so).

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

That is not true, I see no evidence of anyone being forced into marriage.

Wow, it is like the last two days never happened.

Deuteronomy 21
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.

Do you believe that the women covered by this law were given the option of whether or not to marry the soldier, and if they refused then the soldier may not take the beautiful woman as his wife?

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

Wow, it is like the last two days never happened.

Really? I think it's exactly as if the last two days have happened. You've asserted that you think one interpretation is true rather than another, and I've disagreed, saying I lean towards the other interpretation.

I fail to see why there should be any confusion about that.

Deuteronomy 21
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.

Do you believe that the women covered by this law were given the option of whether or not to marry the soldier, and if they refused then the soldier may not take the beautiful woman as his wife?

Given the evidence we've discussed, I would lean towards the interpretation that they did have the option to refuse marriage.

I'm open to be convinced otherwise, but you haven't offered anything convincing.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Given the evidence we've discussed, I would lean towards the interpretation that they did have the option to refuse marriage.

Sorry what evidence was that? You presented evidence of woman wanting to marry the soldiers, but I don't remember evidence of women refusing to and this being respect. Apologies if I missed that.

PDN wrote: »

I'm open to be convinced otherwise, but you haven't offered anything convincing.

Would the fact that they were captured prisoners of war who had no choice in anything else that was happening to them not be a convincing argument that when a passage authorizing a soldier to take a captured woman as his wife she had no choice in the matter?

Given that at no point in any of what is happening to her is it described that she has a choice in the matter, do you have any reason to suppose she had a choice in this?

Now again if there is evidence of this happening that I've missed I'm happy to accept that choice was involved.

twinQuins

Soul Winner wrote: »

If there is no God and therefore no moral law giver then how do we decide that something is evil or wrong or even good?

Based on whether or not it is conducive to the functioning of a civil society.

Humans are social creatures and our laws and moral codes reflect this. They're based around preventing or punishing actions which harm the group.

What qualifies our judgement on whether something is evil or not?

Does something have to qualify our judgement (at least in the way you seem to mean)? But if you must have something then it is, as I've said, predicated upon whether an action is conducive or not to the continued functioning of society.

There really is no "good" or "evil", they're just descriptors we give to actions which are beneficial or harmful to the group. They're from a time when our understanding of ourselves was less complete than it is now.

Don't reply with the same old BS that we don't need a God to tell us what good and evil is. Explain to me the grounds upon which we adjudge something to be objectively wrong i.e. something that is wrong even if human beings did not exist.

Nothing is objectively wrong. You will never be able to understand this position unless you accept that very basic fact: all moral codes are man made and hence subjective.
If humans didn't exist then we wouldn't exist to invent these moral codes in the first place. Your point is moot.

This is where the problem occurs. Simply put, our views are antithetical.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

Sorry what evidence was that? You presented evidence of woman wanting to marry the soldiers, but I don't remember evidence of women refusing to and this being respect. Apologies if I missed that. .

The evidence that these women were not being treated as rape victimns normally would be, and the examples from elsewhere in Scripture where women made such a choice.

You said you didn't find this convincing - but I think it is more convincing than your evidence for the alternative which was, er, silence.

Would the fact that they were captured prisoners of war who had no choice in anything else that was happening to them not be a convincing argument that when a passage authorizing a soldier to take a captured woman as his wife she had no choice in the matter?

No, I don't think it would. The laws governing foreigners and aliens in Israel don't give us any reason, as far as I can see, for assuming that rape must be part of the deal.

Given that at no point in any of what is happening to her is it described that she has a choice in the matter, do you have any reason to suppose she had a choice in this?

Let's just rephrase that question, using exactly the same line of logic:

Given that at no point in any of what is happening to her is it described that she was forced to marry anyone, do you have any reason to suppose she was forced to marry anyone?

Logic's a bitch, isn't it?

Now again if there is evidence of this happening that I've missed I'm happy to accept that choice was involved.

Oh no, you don't get away with that. I'm saying that there are two possible interpretations here - and that I don't see convincing evidence to rule either of them out. in other words, it is possible that either interpretation may be valid.

You, however, are arguing for one particular interpretation, attempting to rule the other out, thus claiming that only your interpretation is valid.

In such a scenario it is blindingly obvious that the burden of proof lies on you - not on the person who's keeping an open mind on the subject. So don't try demanding evidence from me.

Zombrex

Interesting article about the Deuteronomy 21 passages here, by a Jewish scholar

http://www.utoronto.ca/wjudaism/journal/vol1n1/v1n1elma.htm

While it gives no definitive answers to these questions of whether the woman was raped or not, it is interesting that even future Jewish laws interpreted these passages differently and gave different emphasis to different parts.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The evidence that these women were not being treated as rape victimns normally would be, and the examples from elsewhere in Scripture where women made such a choice.

Again I must have missed these examples. The only examples I can find was of Rahab, who was spared from death because she sheltered spies before the siege, and Abigal who sought out David to escape execution when her city fell.

PDN wrote: »

You said you didn't find this convincing - but I think it is more convincing than your evidence for the alternative which was, er, silence.

It is not that I didn't find them convincing, they don't have anything to do with what we are talking about. If it is the Rahab and Abigal examples you are talking about. If there are others I missed I'll happily go over them.

PDN wrote: »

No, I don't think it would. The laws governing foreigners and aliens in Israel don't give us any reason, as far as I can see, for assuming that rape must be part of the deal.

Well lets stick to forced marriage, then we can deal with rape. Do you think the woman had a choice in the matter over the marriage?

PDN wrote: »

Let's just rephrase that question, using exactly the same line of logic:

Given that at no point in any of what is happening to her is it described that she was forced to marry anyone, do you have any reason to suppose she was forced to marry anyone?

Logic's a bitch, isn't it?

Ah now PDN, you know that isn't like for like.

If it was a long series of agreements between the woman and the soldier then yes it would silly to suppose that this final arrangement was forced upon her.

PDN wrote: »

Oh no, you don't get away with that. I'm saying that there are two possible interpretations here - and that I don't see convincing evidence to rule either of them out.

No actually that isn't what you said. You said don't think my interpretation is correct and are leaning to the alternative.

That does require reasoning and evidence, which you say you have already presented but whcih I must have missed.

recedite

You guys don't seem to realise that the spoils of war are an integral part of the Lord's bountiful gifts to his loyal followers.

Soul Winner

Zombrex wrote: »

Ok, so in the passages in the Old Testament that describe forced marriage (or appear to describe forced marriage) condoned by God do you believe that these instructions implied that forced sexual intercourse was also permissible between the husband and his new bride?

The command for the husband is to love his wife. Forcing her to have sex when she doesn't want to is not loving his wife, so no I don't believe that.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

Well lets stick to forced marriage, then we can deal with rape. Do you think the woman had a choice in the matter over the marriage?

I've already said that I don't know - but that given the lack of evidence otherwise I lean towards the opinion that they did have a choice.

You appear to be making an accusation against the Israelites, failing to offer any evidence for the accusation, and then demanding that I somehow prove that your argument from silence isn't true.

Ah now PDN, you know that isn't like for like.

It is like for like. Both are arguments from silence.

No actually that isn't what you said. You said don't think my interpretation is correct and are leaning to the alternative.

That does require reasoning and evidence, which you say you have already presented but whcih I must have missed.

No, you are wrong.

I've said that either interpretation is possible, but that I lean towards one rather than another. Unless I'm using that to make some kind of point or argument, then I am under no obligation to prove anything to you. In order to hold an opinion I simply need to find the evidence for one option rather than the other to be stronger in my opinion.

Now, I'm quite happy if you also admit that either interpretation is valid and that you lean towards one rather than the other based on your opinion.

But that isn't enough for you, is it? Because you want to make points and arguments that assert that God (or at least Moses) condoned rape. Therefore, in order to do that, you have to go beyond simply saying that you prefer one valid interpretation instead of another valid interpretation. You have to demonstrate that your interpretation is demonstrably more likely than the other.

So the onus is clearly upon you to provide evidence. Lacking such evidence, the existence of a valid alternative interpretation emasculates any argument or point that asserts that God condoned rape. So, go ahead and knock yourself out.

tommy2bad

Except that the trend historical has been rape rather than the choice to marry or die.
So the Israelites would be an exception, why claim that based on an interpretation ?

Soul Winner

tommy2bad wrote: »

What I'm trying to do is find out if God is guilty.

If God decides to kill somebody for sin then He is acting in accordance with His Own Word where it says for sin comes death. If He exists then He is the Law giver to man as man's creator. When a man rapes a woman a punishment was to be implemented against that man, which said punishment was dependent on whether the woman was pledged to be married or not. If she was then the punishment was death, if not then the punishment was for the man to marry her which resulted in her being entitled to whatever wealth he had. God does not condone rape no matter what way you try or how much you want Him to fit that picture.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I've already said that I don't know - but that given the lack of evidence otherwise I lean towards the opinion that they did have a choice.

No, that isn't what you said. You said given the evidence for your position you are leaning to it, the implication being that this evidence contradicts my position.

I don't give a hoot PDN if you simply pick the interpretation that you prefer. I started to ask you to back that up when you started on about how the evidence suggests one over the other.

If you are saying you have no evidence either way and you are just picking the one you like best then I've no issue with that but equally no concerns that there is something I've missed some where.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

The command for the husband is to love his wife. Forcing her to have sex when she doesn't want to is not loving his wife, so no I don't believe that.

What about forcing her to drink poison because he is jealous and concerned she is having an affair?

Does that fall under loving your wife?

tommy2bad

Soul Winner wrote: »

If God decides to kill somebody for sin then He is acting in accordance with His Own Word where it says for sin comes death. If He exists then He is the Law giver to man as man's creator. When a man rapes a woman a punishment was to be implemented against that man, which said punishment was dependent on whether the woman was pledged to be married or not. If she was then the punishment was death, if not then the punishment was for the man to marry her which resulted in her being entitled to whatever wealth he had. God does not condone rape no matter what way you try or how much might like Him to fit that picture.

So God recognizes the property rights of the man and not the innate rights of the woman.
To hell with him!

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

No, that isn't what you said. You said given the evidence for your position you are leaning to it, the implication being that this evidence contradicts my position.

No, not at all. What I've said is that there are two possible interpretations, and in my opinion the evidence favours one rather than the other. Since I am not attempting to contradict your interpretation, but am content to allow it as a possible alternative, there is no onus on me to proof anything to you.

I don't give a hoot PDN if you simply pick the interpretation that you prefer. I started to ask you to back that up when you started on about how the evidence suggests one over the other.

That's fine if you don't give a hoot. I don't give a hoot that you choose to pick a different interpretation. So long as neither of us is trying to build some kind of an argument or a point that assumes that your interpretation is correct and that the other interpretation is somehow invalid.

If you are saying you have no evidence either way and you are just picking the one you like best then I've no issue with that but equally no concerns that there is something I've missed some where.

That's not not what I'm saying. I'm saying that we disagree as to how we weigh up the evidence. You say you don't give a toss that I see things differently to you - and I certainly won't lose any sleep because some atheist on the internet prefers his exegesis of Scripture to mine. So we're both happy - yes?

recedite

There are numerous accounts in the old testament of the Israelites slaughtering their enemies, burning towns, killing children, livestock etc, and then annexing the land and women, and all these victories because they had God on their side. That's how things were back then. Whether the captive women consented to their fate or not is a moot point under the circumstances.

Soul Winner

twinQuins wrote: »

Based on whether or not it is conducive to the functioning of a civil society.

Humans are social creatures and our laws and moral codes reflect this. They're based around preventing or punishing actions which harm the group.



Does something have to qualify our judgement (at least in the way you seem to mean)? But if you must have something then it is, as I've said, predicated upon whether an action is conducive or not to the continued functioning of society.

There really is no "good" or "evil", they're just descriptors we give to actions which are beneficial or harmful to the group. They're from a time when our understanding of ourselves was less complete than it is now.



Nothing is objectively wrong. You will never be able to understand this position unless you accept that very basic fact: all moral codes are man made and hence subjective.
If humans didn't exist then we wouldn't exist to invent these moral codes in the first place. Your point is moot.

This is where the problem occurs. Simply put, our views are antithetical.

You've answered me perfectly. In a world without God there is no objective right or wrong, only what works for the survival of the group. But that is contrary to our experience in everyday life so it must be false because there ARE objective rights and wrongs in the world. For instance we know that raping women could actually improve the chances of survival for the race because the chances are that they will produce offspring from such unions if conception takes place. Actions of this kind would be acceptable behavior in the world you describe because it would further the chances of the race multiplying and surviving because you have made that the most important goal for the race. If it benefits survival its good and if it inhibits it its bad.

But everyone agrees that raping women is wrong no matter what way you want to justify it in the world we actually live in, which means that there are things that are objectively wrong, which entails that there must be a God, because if there was no God then there are only subjective rights and wrongs as you quite rightly described.

Soul Winner

Zombrex wrote: »

What about forcing her to drink poison because he is jealous and concerned she is having an affair?

Does that fall under loving your wife?

No obviously not. If she is actually having an affair then being jealous is understandable but killing her over it is wrong.