Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

Then do you accept that any of those women that did not consent to be married but were forced into it were raped ? Is that a plausible interpretation ?

I really don't know how many times you want me to restate my position. But, I'll humor you. It's a plausible interpretation. As is the interpretation that the women who did not consent to be married remained unmarried, and were not raped.

That's how arguments from silence work, I'm afraid.

It's as if someone accused Zombrex of really being a paedophile who only posts in this forum in the hope to strike up messages with underage boys via PM.

I can't prove that is not the case, but I think that there is another plausible explanation - that he is really a rather ill-informed atheist who genuinely believes the stuff he posts here and thinks if he posts poor arguments often enough then someone might actually be convinced.

Both are possible interpretations, but it would take a peculiarly malevolent person to presume that the nastier alternative is true by default. Therefore I take the charitable view and state that there is no evidence that Zombrex is a paedophile. In fact, if anyone made such accusations in this forum, they would get a lengthy ban. An argument from silence is insufficient grounds for making a nasty accusation.

The same goes for those who try to insist that the Bible commands rape, when another plausible explanation exists (except we don't give lengthy bans because we give Zombrex much more protection than we give to the Bible - we're nice like that).

Innocent until proven guilty. It's actually not a bad principle. You could try it.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Not at all. I realise you have an exalted idea of your ability to interpret Scripture and of your knowledge of Ancient Near East culture. However, those of us who don't share that opinion of your talents will need something more than a bald assertion that any interpretation other than your own is ridiculous.

Sorry, I was being specific. Maybe you missed that. The interpretation that what the Bible is describing is women freely choosing to marry the soldiers who just destroyed the town or city they live in is ridiculous.

You are free to hold it if you like, what ever helps you sleep at night. But that doesn't make it plausible.

PDN wrote: »

Actually I stated some reasons why I think it is the more likely to be correct (the foremost of which was the total lack of evidence, other than your desire for it to be so, to support your alternative). I am certainly willing to discuss the subject more with any honest poster.

Of course you are PDN, you are happy to discuss it with anyone who already agrees with you

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

Of course you are PDN, you are happy to discuss it with anyone who already agrees with you

I'm happy to discuss it with Morbert, and he certainly doesn't agree with me on a whole host of things. But he has never struck me as a liar. He has never claimed AFAIK that anyone here sees burning people to death as a virtue. Nor has he claimed that the Bible ordered the Israelites to kill the ugly women.

And, as far as I can see, Morbert has never dodged questions when challenged over a statement that cannot be supported. He strikes me as the kind of person who would provide substantiation, or would have the decency to admit that he got it wrong.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I'm happy to discuss it with Morbert, and he certainly doesn't agree with me on a whole host of things. But he has never struck me as a liar. He has never claimed AFAIK that anyone here sees burning people to death as a virtue. Nor has he claimed that the Bible ordered the Israelites to kill the ugly women.

And, as far as I can see, Morbert has never dodged questions when challenged over a statement that cannot be supported. He strikes me as the kind of person who would provide substantiation, or would have the decency to admit that he got it wrong.

Er, when did I dodge your question PDN?

The way these discussions typically work is we discuss something for while, normally with you constantly making snide comments about how I don't understand things as well as you, you eventually get sick of not being able to actually demonstrate I'm wrong, you go away for a while and then resurface stating that based on the last discussion you had with me I was completely bested by superior Christian argument and by repeating the same flawed argument that you destroyed the last time I'm in fact trolling and just being a nausense. :rolleyes:

And you aren't discussing anything with Morbert, you are just constantly telling him he is wrong.

And while we are at it, when was the Book of Hosea written.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

I am certainly willing to discuss the subject more with any honest poster.

Yes, please! I would love to see this. While I enjoy watching the weekly PDN v Wicknight wrestling match as much as the next man, it would be nice to have a more focused discussion on this.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

Er, when did I dodge your question PDN?

I am not the only poster on this board? :rolleyes:

I pointed out twice that no-one here had presented burning people to death as virtue. Then Fanny Cradock asked you who had advanced such a position.

The way these discussions typically work is we discuss something for while, normally with you constantly making snide comments about how I don't understand things as well as you, you eventually get sick of not being able to actually demonstrate I'm wrong, you go away for a while and then resurface stating that based on the last discussion you had with me I was completely bested by superior Christian argument and by repeating the same flawed argument that you destroyed the last time I'm in fact trolling and just being a nausense.

No. I stated that there was another plausible interpretation, and you failed to demonstrate that yours was the only plausible interpretation.

I did not claim to have bested you. I simply stated the truth. That two plausible explanations exist and that you have failed to demonstreate otherwise.

However, I am not surprised at your comments above. They speak volumes about you.

And you aren't discussing anything with Morbert, you are just constantly telling him he is wrong.

Do pay attention. I've stated that I'm happy to discuss the issue with Morbert, not that such a discussion has taken place. Obviously that would have to wait until he presents an argument as to why he thinks his view is correct.

Fanny Cradock

Zombrex wrote: »

... just being a nausense.

I'm pretty sure no one has ever thought that about you> Other things but never that :pac:

Good word though!

Zombrex wrote: »

And while we are at it, when was the Book of Hosea written.

I still don't see the significance of this. You didn't really explain it to me last time.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

And while we are at it, when was the Book of Hosea written.

My best guess would be some time in the 8th Century BC. Sorry if you needed the answer for a game of Trivial Pursuit and I was too late with the answer!

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I am not the only poster on this board? :rolleyes:

Oh for crying out loud. So I'm not being dodging you, just other people. I assume these people have made official complaints to you through the Boards.ie channels. No? Shocking :rolleyes:

PDN wrote: »

No. I stated that there was another plausible interpretation, and you failed to demonstrate that yours was the only plausible interpretation.

I didn't claim mine was the only plausible explanation. I said that the interpretation that these women were only married willing is implausible given the context of the passages.

I've explained why about 15 times already. You don't accept this, nor do I think you ever will. But to then state that I've never supported this is ridiculous.

PDN wrote: »

However, I am not surprised at your comments above. They speak volumes about you.

I hope it does. I hope it speaks to the frustration one has discussing any topic with you when you use such tactics.

PDN wrote: »

Do pay attention. I've stated that I'm happy to discuss the issue with Morbert, not that such a discussion has taken place.

Morbert has been discussing the rape of captives on this thread for pages now. Your single contribution to that was to simply state that he was wrong.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

My best guess would be some time in the 8th Century BC. Sorry if you needed the answer for a game of Trivial Pursuit and I was too late with the answer!

And 8th Century BC is before 33AD, correct?

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

And 8th Century BC is before 33AD, correct?

If you have a point then why not make it without the muppetry?

Yes, last time I looked, 8th Century BC was before 33AD.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I still don't see the significance of this. You didn't really explain it to me last time.

The significant depends on when it was written, given that it mentions Jacob fighting an angel. I honestly don't know when it was written, if it was written in the 2nd century AD then it has no significance given that PDN would dismiss it as meaning nothing with regard to Jewish belief at the time of Jesus.

It seems though that it was written long before that, and as such it is quite significant.

Of course by quite significant I mean only significant in yet another one of PDN 'prove the sky is blue' arguments.

The original position put forward was that Jews (in general not every single one of the) reject the notion of Jesus as they believe it is contrary to the Old Testament description of God including warnings against the idea that God would appear as a thing or a human.

Apparently Jacob fighting "God" in Genesis was supposed to disprove this notion (PDN was working under the assumption I suppose that it was just something I made up), and despite myself I pointed out that these passages are interpreted generally to describe Jacob fighting an angel, not actually God.

This apparently was another thing I just was making up, so I had to show that it is in fact a common interpretation (for example it is found throughout art of Jacob).

This was apparently not good enough because I had apparently a claimed that it was the interpretation around the time of Jesus (don't remember doing that but there you go).

The Book of Hosea mentions Jacob fighting an angel, and this appears to be before Jesus' time.

But I'm pretty sure PDN will find something more that I have to prove for him to find that "convincing" or "plausible".

And so the merry little dance goes on...

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Yes, last time I looked, 8th Century BC was before 33AD.

And have you read Chapter 12 of the Book of Hosea? Does it describe Jacob fighting an angel?

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

And have you read Chapter 12 of the Book of Hosea? Does it describe Jacob fighting an angel?

Yes, and it also, in describing the same incident, refers to him struggling with 'God'.

Now would be a really good time to read up on theophanies. I was trying to help you earlier - but you slapped my proffered hand of assistance away with a snide remark about long words.

The phrase, 'the Angel of the Lord' is often understood as referring to God Himself in a theophany.

Our good friend wiki can explain this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_of_the_Lord

This appears to have been an interpretation in early Judaism: http://diglotting.com/2010/11/10/review-the-messenger-of-the-lord-in-early-jewish-interpretations-of-genesis/

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

I really don't know how many times you want me to restate my position. But, I'll humor you. It's a plausible interpretation. As is the interpretation that the women who did not consent to be married remained unmarried, and were not raped.

That's how arguments from silence work, I'm afraid.

It's as if someone accused Zombrex of really being a paedophile who only posts in this forum in the hope to strike up messages with underage boys via PM.

I can't prove that is not the case, but I think that there is another plausible explanation - that he is really a rather ill-informed atheist who genuinely believes the stuff he posts here and thinks if he posts poor arguments often enough then someone might actually be convinced.

Both are possible interpretations, but it would take a peculiarly malevolent person to presume that the nastier alternative is true by default. Therefore I take the charitable view and state that there is no evidence that Zombrex is a paedophile. In fact, if anyone made such accusations in this forum, they would get a lengthy ban. An argument from silence is insufficient grounds for making a nasty accusation.

The same goes for those who try to insist that the Bible commands rape, when another plausible explanation exists (except we don't give lengthy bans because we give Zombrex much more protection than we give to the Bible - we're nice like that).

Innocent until proven guilty. It's actually not a bad principle. You could try it.

Am I the only one that thinks this is a disgraceful post ?

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

Am I the only one that thinks this is a disgraceful post ?

I don't know. That would depend how many people read it properly or not. You can substitute my name for Zombrex's, if you wish, and the logic will remain exactly the same.

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

I don't know. That would depend how many people read it properly or not. You can substitute my name for Zombrex's, if you wish, and the logic will remain exactly the same.

Can I substitute asshole for your name instead or would that warrant a ban ? That post of yours at any time,but in this country at this time is just wrong .

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

Can I substitute asshole for your name instead or would that warrant a ban ? That post of yours at any time,but in this country at this time is just wrong .

Did you actually read the post? I did not call anyone a paedophile, nor did I compare anyone to a paedophile. In fact I stated than anyone who did such a thing would be banned for a long time.

I used an extreme example to demonstrate the vacuous logic that makes an assertion where a perfectly plausible innocent alternative exists.

I could have made it about murder, rather than paedophilia, or used anyone's name. In fact I wish I had done so as then no-one would have an excuse to feign outrage or hysteria and thereby evade the logic of my post.

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

Did you actually read the post? I did not call anyone a paedophile, nor did I compare anyone to a paedophile. In fact I stated than anyone who did such a thing would be banned for a long time.

I used an extreme example to demonstrate the vacuous logic that makes an assertion where a perfectly plausible innocent alternative exists.

I could have made it about murder, rather than paedophilia, or used anyone's name. In fact I wish I had done so as then no-one would have an excuse to feign outrage or hysteria and thereby evade the logic of my post.

That makes it even worse, you could have, but you choose not to.I don't need to feign outrage . And I understand the point full well just as you understand my objection full well . As I said if anyone else said it they would be an asshole and be banned. But of course I am not calling you an asshole I am just picking the most extreme example to demonstrate the vacuus nature of your post.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Yes, and it also, in describing the same incident, refers to him struggling with 'God'.

Yes, it does. He was struggling with God and that struggle took the form of him fighting one of God's angels.

Or at least that is the interpretation common among Jews and Christians that you implied I was making up and demanded I support.

PDN wrote: »

Now would be a really good time to read up on theophanies. I was trying to help you earlier - but you slapped my proffered hand of assistance away with a snide remark about long words.

As I said to you that last time I know what theophany is.

PDN wrote: »

The phrase, 'the Angel of the Lord' is often understood as referring to God Himself in a theophany.

Yes but as you are no doubt well aware the angels that appear are messengers for God, not a physical manifestation of God himself. Angel itself means messenger, the angel of the Lord is the messenger of the Lord.

Through out the Bible when someone meets this angel they describe it as meeting God, but they are not the same thing as actually meeting a physical God. This is why angels exist in the first place, to Jews the idea of a physical God is nonsensical.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/angel-of-the-lord.html
Angel of the Lord
(Heb. mal'ak yehwah). Supernatural being who bears a message on behalf of God. In many passages in the Old Testament, the angel of the Lord is identified with God, while in other instances a distinction is made between the Lord and the angel. In general, however, the terms "the angel of the Lord, " "the Lord, " and "God" are interchangeable.

philologos

Zombrex: Why does it mention that Jacob wrestled with God Himself? - Early enough Christian sources such as Eusebius' - History of the Church written roughly at the time of Constantine agree with this interpretation of Genesis, so it's hardly as if PDN is simply making this up of his own accord.

Zombrex

marienbad wrote: »

Am I the only one that thinks this is a disgraceful post ?

You will find that when PDN runs out of arguments he simply resorts to informing you (and anyone else reading) about how ill-informed and ignorant you are on the subject he has spend so long studying.

I wouldn't take it personally, it is just an attempt to win arguments.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Zombrex: Why does it mention that Jacob wrestled with God Himself?

Because Jacob did wrestle with God. But that fight took the form of Jacob wrestling with an angel of God.

Imagine you and I had a fight, but the fight took the form of me holding a big long stick that I kept poking at you from another building. You can't reach me, you can just fight off the stick.

Now would you say you fought with me or "a stick". Obvious you were still fighting with me, since I control the stick. The stick is not fighting you, I'm fighting you.

But does that mean the stick is some how me? No, of course not.

Angels are tools that God uses to interact with humans. They are not though of as independent beings to God's will, but equally they are not God himself.

Or at least that is how Jews (and a heck of a lot of Christians) interpret angels in the Bible. I obviously think all this is nonsense.

philologos wrote: »

Early enough Christian sources such as Eusebius' - History of the Church written roughly at the time of Constantine agree with this interpretation of Genesis, so it's hardly as if PDN is simply making this up of his own accord.

I don't care what PDN's interpretation of this story is. I'm pretty sure PDN's interpretation will be what ever is the opposite of what I stated, no matter what it was I stated.

The point was that this is how Jews interpret this story (and have interpreted the story for a long time).

In fact that wasn't even the point, the original point was that Jews do not believe Jesus is the son of God for a number of reasons one of which is that the Old Testament says that God is formless and will not appear to humans as anything, not a thing or a person, and because of this Jews should be wary of anyone claiming God himself has appeared as a physical thing or person. Thus they are wary of Jesus, or more accurately, claims that Jesus was a physical manifestation of God.

philologos

If you think it is nonsense I would wonder why you're attempting to argue about it.

I'm just saying that PDN's view on the matter has been expressed by Christians throughout history. As for Jews rejecting Jesus, that's an entirely different argument and it would require looking at Messianic prophesy a little more closely.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

If you think it is nonsense I would wonder why you're attempting to argue about it.

Because PDN was rude and insulting and claimed I was making the whole thing up.

You would be surprised how that riles the blood when a moderator of a forum does this, particularly when he seems to have no issue using these apparent falsehoods on my part to bad mouth me to other posters.

philologos wrote: »

I'm just saying that PDN's view on the matter has been expressed by Christians throughout history.

Which is irrelevant to the original point, why Jews do not accept Jesus. Obviously, by definition, Christians have already accepted Jesus.

philologos wrote: »

As for Jews rejecting Jesus, that's an entirely different argument and it would require looking at Messianic prophesy a little more closely.

No it is the argument. It was a discussion between me an another poster that PDN interrupted to inform me that I was talking nonsense and making stuff up.

PDN wrote: »

Actually it isn't. The warning, as anyone who bothers to read it can clearly see, is against creating an idol, or image, in the form of a man:

But, when you're desperate, I guess you can try to twist it to try to apply it to someone born as a man rather than an idol or an image.

Still, as far as atheist arguments against the existence of God go, this one (that the Jews are right and the Christians are wrong) probably takes the biscuit. We're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

As to why he did that, you will have to take it up with him. I didn't ask PDN what his interpretation of that passage was, and while I've no issue with another poster putting forward their interpretation or view point most posters manage to do so in a far less snide and insulting fashion. But then PDN seems to waging a personal war of insults against the non-Christians on this forum.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

As I said to you that last time I know what theophany is.



Yes but as you are no doubt well aware the angels that appear are messengers for God, not a physical manifestation of God himself. Angel itself means messenger, the angel of the Lord is the messenger of the Lord.

OK, if that's what you insist a theophany is then there's little point in continuing discussing it.

philologos

Zombrex: Leaving your views about PDN aside.

If you want to find out what objections Jews have to belief in Christ, you should ask them surely? I find it quite interesting to look at what responses Jewish Christians provide to these questions however.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Zombrex: Leaving your views about PDN aside.

If you want to find out what objections Jews have to belief in Christ, you should ask them surely?

I did. That is why I commented on the thread in the first place. Despite what some people like to claim I don't generally just talk out my ass about something.

philologos wrote: »

I find it quite interesting to look at what responses Jewish Christians provide to these questions however.

While I think Jews for Jesus are interesting, they are also regarded as a Christian missionary group, so probably not the best place to go to find out what Jews believe, any more than the Mormons will tell you what true Christian values are .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_for_Jesus#cite_note-4

philologos

The views of Jewish Christians aren't welcome on the subject? Their mission is to tell fellow Jews about Jesus, their Messiah, their website engages with many Jewish arguments against the Christian conception of Jesus as a result.

If you want to find out about Jewish arguments against the Messiah, they are a google away. If you aren't going to actually present arguments against Christianity but rather employ the arguments of other religions you should know what they are first.

If you want to engage the Christian position without arguments-by-proxy I'm quite happy to give it a go. Otherwise I don't know how productive a use of anyone's time it is.

lmaopml

philologos wrote: »

If you want to find out about Jewish arguments against the Messiah, they are a google away. If you aren't going to actually present arguments against Christianity but rather employ the arguments of other religions you should know what they are first

Too true.

Using a Jewish arguement against the Messiah, but an atheist viewpoint that God commands rape seems a little all over the place to be honest Zombrex, but with one target in mind. It's not exactly news that some Jews and indeed Muslims or Atheists etc. don't believe that Christ was the Messiah..... .....but it shouldn't be news that Christians do!

So, I really don't know what your plan or point is pages and pages later...