Reasonable Faith Forums

Archived => Is God a Delusion? => Topic started by: Reasonable Faith on October 28, 2011, 06:50:09 pm

Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Reasonable Faith on October 28, 2011, 06:50:09 pm
This forum is open for discussion about William Lane Craig's response to the central arguments in Richard Dawkins’ book “The God Delusion,” at the Sheldonian Theatre in Oxford.

25th October 2011, Sheldonian Theatre, Broad Street, Oxford
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Ian on November 02, 2011, 06:44:47 am
is there an mp3 audio download I can get for this?

thanks,,

Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: FNB - Former non-believer on November 06, 2011, 12:58:47 am
Bansaw wrote: is there an mp3 audio download I can get for this?

thanks,,



It should be available soon (I think later today) on the Unbelievable page on the Premier Christian Radio site.

Update: no dice. I guess not yet. I am pretty sure they said the next episode with have it though.
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Matt on November 08, 2011, 06:50:03 am
http://www.apologetics315.com/2011/11/is-god-delusion-william-lane-craig-in.html
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: pinkey on November 08, 2011, 09:42:45 am

Just watched it. Very entertaining, and Craig dealt with the issue of the slaughter of the canaanites in the last Q&A question very well.

Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: blank on November 11, 2011, 01:52:21 am
Craig justified the genocide by basically saying something along the lines of it being okay since it was commanded by God. He thus, promptly gets gored by the second horn of Euthyphro's dilemma.
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: FNB - Former non-believer on November 11, 2011, 02:22:25 am
blank wrote: Craig justified the genocide by basically saying something along the lines of it being okay since it was commanded by God. He thus, promptly gets gored by the second horn of Euthyphro's dilemma.


Dr. Craig has defended his divine command morality in print, and in depth. I doubt he made such a simple mistake. I believe he has also successfully refuted Euthyphro's dilemma in other places. (using arguments of his own or others I am unsure) Furthermore, if I remember correctly, almost his entire speech about the destruction of the Canaanites had to do with the historical evidence about it, where he argued that what happened was indeed not genocide at all in the first place.

I would encourage everyone to watch it themselves and make up their own mind. It is dealt with towards the end in the question and answer section.
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: blank on November 11, 2011, 03:07:46 pm
emailestthoume wrote:
Quote from: blank
Craig justified the genocide by basically saying something along the lines of it being okay since it was commanded by God. He thus, promptly gets gored by the second horn of Euthyphro's dilemma.


Dr. Craig has defended his divine command morality in print, and in depth. I doubt he made such a simple mistake. I believe he has also successfully refuted Euthyphro's dilemma in other places. (using arguments of his own or others I am unsure) Furthermore, if I remember correctly, almost his entire speech about the destruction of the Canaanites had to do with the historical evidence about it, where he argued that what happened was indeed not genocide at all in the first place.

I would encourage everyone to watch it themselves and make up their own mind. It is dealt with towards the end in the question and answer section.


Though he has defended the genocide in print, it still is a bad idea. No, he hasn't refuted the dilemma and he clearly gored himself with the statements he made at the closing. The methods by which he tried refuting the dilemma were sometimes special pleading (e.g God gave the command but we cannot really say it was immoral) or blunt assertions (e.g God is good though he gave such a command).
I too encourage someone who hasn't heard it to listen to it and if you have heard it, please listen to it again and pay close attention to his response on the Canaanite genocide commanded by his God.
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Matt on November 12, 2011, 07:07:34 am
blank wrote:
Quote from: emailestthoume
Quote from: blank
Craig justified the genocide by basically saying something along the lines of it being okay since it was commanded by God. He thus, promptly gets gored by the second horn of Euthyphro's dilemma.


Dr. Craig has defended his divine command morality in print, and in depth. I doubt he made such a simple mistake. I believe he has also successfully refuted Euthyphro's dilemma in other places. (using arguments of his own or others I am unsure) Furthermore, if I remember correctly, almost his entire speech about the destruction of the Canaanites had to do with the historical evidence about it, where he argued that what happened was indeed not genocide at all in the first place.

I would encourage everyone to watch it themselves and make up their own mind. It is dealt with towards the end in the question and answer section.


Though he has defended the genocide in print, it still is a bad idea. No, he hasn't refuted the dilemma and he clearly gored himself with the statements he made at the closing. The methods by which he tried refuting the dilemma were sometimes special pleading (e.g God gave the command but we cannot really say it was immoral) or blunt assertions (e.g God is good though he gave such a command).
I too encourage someone who hasn't heard it to listen to it and if you have heard it, please listen to it again and pay close attention to his response on the Canaanite genocide commanded by his God.


What is the probability that you will EVER be convinced that the situation with the Canaanites was a moral situation?

To me it seems that you are caught up on the term "genocide" as necessarily bad.  If the whole group is bad... and they are killed for that immoral nature... it can be just punishment AND genocide at the same time.

Definition of Genocide:
"the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group." (www.dictionary.com)

If the whole national, racial, political, or cultural group is deserving of a penalty... it does not become undeserving just because the whole is punished, as they merited such punishment.

Is you fixation on the word genocide? Or is your fixation that what happened with the Canaanites (even if not genocide) cannot ever be considered moral?

Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: blank on November 12, 2011, 01:05:53 pm
expsredemption wrote:
Quote from: blank
Quote from: emailestthoume
Quote from: blank
Craig justified the genocide by basically saying something along the lines of it being okay since it was commanded by God. He thus, promptly gets gored by the second horn of Euthyphro's dilemma.


Dr. Craig has defended his divine command morality in print, and in depth. I doubt he made such a simple mistake. I believe he has also successfully refuted Euthyphro's dilemma in other places. (using arguments of his own or others I am unsure) Furthermore, if I remember correctly, almost his entire speech about the destruction of the Canaanites had to do with the historical evidence about it, where he argued that what happened was indeed not genocide at all in the first place.

I would encourage everyone to watch it themselves and make up their own mind. It is dealt with towards the end in the question and answer section.


Though he has defended the genocide in print, it still is a bad idea. No, he hasn't refuted the dilemma and he clearly gored himself with the statements he made at the closing. The methods by which he tried refuting the dilemma were sometimes special pleading (e.g God gave the command but we cannot really say it was immoral) or blunt assertions (e.g God is good though he gave such a command).
I too encourage someone who hasn't heard it to listen to it and if you have heard it, please listen to it again and pay close attention to his response on the Canaanite genocide commanded by his God.


What is the probability that you will EVER be convinced that the situation with the Canaanites was a moral situation?


The chances of that happening is very low.

expsredemption wrote:
To me it seems that you are caught up on the term "genocide" as necessarily bad.  If the whole group is bad... and they are killed for that immoral nature... it can be just punishment AND genocide at the same time.


How can one conclude that an entire population of people which includes old people, young people, toddlers, pregnant women are all bad and deserve to be murdered for their land?

expsredemption wrote:
Definition of Genocide:
"the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group." (www.dictionary.com)

If the whole national, racial, political, or cultural group is deserving of a penalty... it does not become undeserving just because the whole is punished, as they merited such punishment.


You may want to look up on the idea of collective punishment and the problems associated with it.

expsredemption wrote:
Is you fixation on the word genocide? Or is your fixation that what happened with the Canaanites (even if not genocide) cannot ever be considered moral?


Sorry but I have a problem with genocide. Not just the word but a command that says a group of people should be exterminated and their land taken away from them.
How is it that you people can try to justify such terrible activities? Do you really not expect non-believers to stand by and watch justification of genocide?
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Sandspirit on November 13, 2011, 05:22:31 am
If the whole national, racial, political, or cultural group is deserving of a penalty... it does not become undeserving just because the whole is punished, as they merited such punishment.


This was Hitler's view too.

How many of you, if you really reflect and think, feel comfortable with this statement?




Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Matt on November 13, 2011, 09:54:03 am
Sandspirit wrote:
If the whole national, racial, political, or cultural group is deserving of a penalty... it does not become undeserving just because the whole is punished, as they merited such punishment.


This was Hitler's view too.

How many of you, if you really reflect and think, feel comfortable with this statement?






Hitler is a pejorative terms at the moment.  Sure it was his view, but there are two questions to ask:

1. Was his view correct?
2. Even if his view was correct, was he actually (not what he thought personally) in a position to make and act upon that decision?

Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Matt on November 13, 2011, 10:30:35 am
blank wrote:
Quote from: expsredemption
Quote from: blank
Quote from: emailestthoume
Quote from: blank
Craig justified the genocide by basically saying something along the lines of it being okay since it was commanded by God. He thus, promptly gets gored by the second horn of Euthyphro's dilemma.


Dr. Craig has defended his divine command morality in print, and in depth. I doubt he made such a simple mistake. I believe he has also successfully refuted Euthyphro's dilemma in other places. (using arguments of his own or others I am unsure) Furthermore, if I remember correctly, almost his entire speech about the destruction of the Canaanites had to do with the historical evidence about it, where he argued that what happened was indeed not genocide at all in the first place.

I would encourage everyone to watch it themselves and make up their own mind. It is dealt with towards the end in the question and answer section.


Though he has defended the genocide in print, it still is a bad idea. No, he hasn't refuted the dilemma and he clearly gored himself with the statements he made at the closing. The methods by which he tried refuting the dilemma were sometimes special pleading (e.g God gave the command but we cannot really say it was immoral) or blunt assertions (e.g God is good though he gave such a command).
I too encourage someone who hasn't heard it to listen to it and if you have heard it, please listen to it again and pay close attention to his response on the Canaanite genocide commanded by his God.


What is the probability that you will EVER be convinced that the situation with the Canaanites was a moral situation?


The chances of that happening is very low.

expsredemption wrote:
To me it seems that you are caught up on the term "genocide" as necessarily bad.  If the whole group is bad... and they are killed for that immoral nature... it can be just punishment AND genocide at the same time.


How can one conclude that an entire population of people which includes old people, young people, toddlers, pregnant women are all bad and deserve to be murdered for their land?

expsredemption wrote:
Definition of Genocide:
"the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group." (www.dictionary.com)

If the whole national, racial, political, or cultural group is deserving of a penalty... it does not become undeserving just because the whole is punished, as they merited such punishment.


You may want to look up on the idea of collective punishment and the problems associated with it.

expsredemption wrote:
Is you fixation on the word genocide? Or is your fixation that what happened with the Canaanites (even if not genocide) cannot ever be considered moral?


Sorry but I have a problem with genocide. Not just the word but a command that says a group of people should be exterminated and their land taken away from them.
How is it that you people can try to justify such terrible activities? Do you really not expect non-believers to stand by and watch justification of genocide?


You brought up the idea of collective punishment which is understandable.  From the human perspective collective punishment is a bad idea because we (as finite humans) cannot know whether a population really merits a collective punishment.

I do see that you seem to acknowledge that punishment is, at least, sometimes personally merited.  So punishment in and of itself is not the issue.

You stated that Genocide is a big issue with you.  It is a big issue for me as well.  However, I made my statement about some whole group meriting punishment in order to show that there can be cases where what looks like genocide is, in fact, merited punishment.  

If a whole distinguished group merits the punishment... should the punishment not be enacted simply because it would punish the whole group (even though the punishment was merited)?

There can be instances when a situation is merited punishment and yet we don't see or understand how it is merited... so we call it genocide.   This is not to make a case for a human to be able to make the decision as to whether the punishment of a whole group is merited.   This is to say that in a world where there is two perspectives, God's and man's, man may not always fully understand or see why God took some form of action.

If the situation with the Canaanites were simply a decision made by a human being, I would be more than willing to call it Genocide and view it as a negative.   A human being is not in the position to make the decision of whether something like that is merited or unmerited.

If the situation involved a being such as God, the situation changes dramatically.  God does have a better position to acknowledge whether the punishment of the whole group is merited.  God would also have the ability to act upon that acknowledgment that the punishment is merited.   If the punishment is merited and deserved, it is not necessarily genocide as we commonly mean it.  Sure the whole group was effected fitting the definition but the pejorative nature would not be there as the punishment was merited and deserved.

You brought up the concept of their land being taken away.  If there is a being such as God, is the land really the Canaanites?  Or are they just "tenants" of sorts?

I don't know if you are doing this or not, but often times I see people trying to see things from the perspective of a being like God existing but actually continuing to view things from the human perspective with a being like God not existing.  Viewing out of context.

I would say that if there is a being like God (you know what context in which we are speaking) that a situation like the Canaanite situation can be merited and acted upon and not be immoral.  This of course is so long as God is the one making the decision rather than a man (who is not in the position to make this kind of decision).

I would also state that if the situation is that a being like God exists, what you might call genocide subjectively in this case (in the pejorative negative sense) is not genocide objectively, rather an appropriate punishment for acts that merited such punishment (no matter how many people are being punished, even if they are a whole culture, it is not immoral if they merited such a punishment.)

But lets look at the situation with the Canaanites.  
Is there a being such as God involved in the context? Yes
Does God make the decision or does man make the decision? God
Does God really kill all the people in the land? No
Does it really call for all the people in the land to be killed? Not necessarily (this is something much bigger than what can be handled in the forum setting with here and there responses).
Is the punishment merited? It can be. God seems to think so.  Man may not, but man does not have all the information either.
Was this land objectively the land of the Canaanites in the context that a being such as God exists? No.

Don't get me wrong, this is a tough situation to deal with even with a being such as God existing.  I don't intend to present the case more lightly than it should.  I simply don't know if there will be much movement on the topic in this format as people post here and there, and each small aspect of the posters statements are extensively discussed... the discussion tends to simply get larger rather than more narrowed.

Looking forward to your thoughts.  I am really trying to get a good picture of where you stand and why.  It is much easier to discuss a topic when you know exactly where the other individual stands.  

I stand in a position where a being such as God is possible.  I also understand that if such a being as God existed and acted in the context given in the
    OT I would be held accountable by such a being.  Whether I liked that being the case or not would not matter as that would be the case and the frame of reference in which I would have to function.   Would I be mad if I were to be punished similar to the Canaanites?  Probably.  Does that mean I am justified to be angry... not necessarily.   When I got a speeding ticket, I was furious that I got the ticket.  Was I speeding? Yes.  Did I deserve the ticket? Yes.  Did I know this? Yes.  Did I like it? No.  Why didn't I like it?  I felt there were other people who deserved a ticket as well.  Even if it was true that other people deserved a ticket as well, it does not change the fact that I deserved a ticket myself.  We don't always like the situations we find ourselves in, but that is not an indication that they are unfair, unmerited, or wrong.
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: blank on November 13, 2011, 02:31:22 pm
expsredemption wrote:
Quote from: blank
Quote from: expsredemption
Quote from: blank
Quote from: emailestthoume
Quote from: blank
Craig justified the genocide by basically saying something along the lines of it being okay since it was commanded by God. He thus, promptly gets gored by the second horn of Euthyphro's dilemma.


Dr. Craig has defended his divine command morality in print, and in depth. I doubt he made such a simple mistake. I believe he has also successfully refuted Euthyphro's dilemma in other places. (using arguments of his own or others I am unsure) Furthermore, if I remember correctly, almost his entire speech about the destruction of the Canaanites had to do with the historical evidence about it, where he argued that what happened was indeed not genocide at all in the first place.

I would encourage everyone to watch it themselves and make up their own mind. It is dealt with towards the end in the question and answer section.


Though he has defended the genocide in print, it still is a bad idea. No, he hasn't refuted the dilemma and he clearly gored himself with the statements he made at the closing. The methods by which he tried refuting the dilemma were sometimes special pleading (e.g God gave the command but we cannot really say it was immoral) or blunt assertions (e.g God is good though he gave such a command).
I too encourage someone who hasn't heard it to listen to it and if you have heard it, please listen to it again and pay close attention to his response on the Canaanite genocide commanded by his God.


What is the probability that you will EVER be convinced that the situation with the Canaanites was a moral situation?


The chances of that happening is very low.

expsredemption wrote:
To me it seems that you are caught up on the term "genocide" as necessarily bad.  If the whole group is bad... and they are killed for that immoral nature... it can be just punishment AND genocide at the same time.


How can one conclude that an entire population of people which includes old people, young people, toddlers, pregnant women are all bad and deserve to be murdered for their land?

expsredemption wrote:
Definition of Genocide:
"the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group." (www.dictionary.com)

If the whole national, racial, political, or cultural group is deserving of a penalty... it does not become undeserving just because the whole is punished, as they merited such punishment.


You may want to look up on the idea of collective punishment and the problems associated with it.

expsredemption wrote:
Is you fixation on the word genocide? Or is your fixation that what happened with the Canaanites (even if not genocide) cannot ever be considered moral?


Sorry but I have a problem with genocide. Not just the word but a command that says a group of people should be exterminated and their land taken away from them.
How is it that you people can try to justify such terrible activities? Do you really not expect non-believers to stand by and watch justification of genocide?


You brought up the idea of collective punishment which is understandable.  From the human perspective collective punishment is a bad idea because we (as finite humans) cannot know whether a population really merits a collective punishment.


Hold on, you don't think one can tell that a child shouldn't be punished for the crimes their neighbour has committed?

expsredemption wrote:
I do see that you seem to acknowledge that punishment is, at least, sometimes personally merited.  So punishment in and of itself is not the issue.


No it isn't. Though there is an idea of cruel and unusual punishment which is an issue.

expsredemption wrote:
You stated that Genocide is a big issue with you.  It is a big issue for me as well.  However, I made my statement about some whole group meriting punishment in order to show that there can be cases where what looks like genocide is, in fact, merited punishment.

If a whole distinguished group merits the punishment... should the punishment not be enacted simply because it would punish the whole group (even though the punishment was merited)?


Can you confidently say that all the individuals in that population actually deserved to be killed?

expsredemption wrote:
There can be instances when a situation is merited punishment and yet we don't see or understand how it is merited... so we call it genocide.   This is not to make a case for a human to be able to make the decision as to whether the punishment of a whole group is merited.   This is to say that in a world where there is two perspectives, God's and man's, man may not always fully understand or see why God took some form of action.


I hope you realize that such a statement can be used to justify pretty much any occurrence of genocide in recent history. Since one doesn't actually know what God wanted, maybe the Rwandan genocide was okay.

expsredemption wrote:
If the situation with the Canaanites were simply a decision made by a human being, I would be more than willing to call it Genocide and view it as a negative.   A human being is not in the position to make the decision of whether something like that is merited or unmerited.

If the situation involved a being such as God, the situation changes dramatically.  God does have a better position to acknowledge whether the punishment of the whole group is merited.  God would also have the ability to act upon that acknowledgment that the punishment is merited.   If the punishment is merited and deserved, it is not necessarily genocide as we commonly mean it.  Sure the whole group was effected fitting the definition but the pejorative nature would not be there as the punishment was merited and deserved.


In that case, God isn't even as good as e.g the current British military which doesn't have his capabilities. I mean, even they at least try to distinguish between civilians and non-civilians, God doesn't care. He simply kills them all. Yet some say that this God is loving. Sorry, I don't think so.

expsredemption wrote:
You brought up the concept of their land being taken away.  If there is a being such as God, is the land really the Canaanites?  Or are they just "tenants" of sorts?


Sure they are tenants of sorts in the same way Native Americans were "tenants of sorts". Why couldn't an omnipotent God give them the Sahara desert converted into a lush savannah?

expsredemption wrote:
I don't know if you are doing this or not, but often times I see people trying to see things from the perspective of a being like God existing but actually continuing to view things from the human perspective with a being like God not existing.  Viewing out of context.

I would say that if there is a being like God (you know what context in which we are speaking) that a situation like the Canaanite situation can be merited and acted upon and not be immoral.  This of course is so long as God is the one making the decision rather than a man (who is not in the position to make this kind of decision).


No, it is immoral if God is supposed to be loving towards human beings, omnipotent and omniscient. Unless of course you wish to change what it means to be moral.

expsredemption wrote:
I would also state that if the situation is that a being like God exists, what you might call genocide subjectively in this case (in the pejorativ
   e negative sense) is not genocide objectively, rather an appropriate punishment for acts that merited such punishment (no matter how many people are being punished, even if they are a whole culture, it is not immoral if they merited such a punishment.)


Actually, in such a situation, no incidence of genocide can be objectively called genocide since God is ultimately in control.

expsredemption wrote:
But lets look at the situation with the Canaanites.  
Is there a being such as God involved in the context? Yes


Okay for the sake of the argument.

expsredemption wrote:
Does God make the decision or does man make the decision? God


Okay.

expsredemption wrote:
Does God really kill all the people in the land? No


I guess God failed again.

expsredemption wrote:
Does it really call for all the people in the land to be killed? Not necessarily (this is something much bigger than what can be handled in the forum setting with here and there responses).


Well, that was what his command sounded like.

expsredemption wrote:
Is the punishment merited? It can be. God seems to think so.  Man may not, but man does not have all the information either.


So we allow genocide when your God says it is okay.

expsredemption wrote:
Was this land objectively the land of the Canaanites in the context that a being such as God exists? No.


Could God make more land?

expsredemption wrote:
Don't get me wrong, this is a tough situation to deal with even with a being such as God existing.  I don't intend to present the case more lightly than it should.  I simply don't know if there will be much movement on the topic in this format as people post here and there, and each small aspect of the posters statements are extensively discussed... the discussion tends to simply get larger rather than more narrowed.


It only appears tough or contradictory when you make certain assumptions. e.g would a beneficent, omnipotent, omniscient God order genocide? Well no because that would not be a beneficent thing to do. If humans who are neither omnipotent, omniscient or always beneficent reject genocide, why didn't God know enough having his powers to better?

expsredemption wrote:
Looking forward to your thoughts.  I am really trying to get a good picture of where you stand and why.  It is much easier to discuss a topic when you know exactly where the other individual stands.


My stance is that it is not a moral thing to command genocide.

expsredemption wrote:
I stand in a position where a being such as God is possible.  I also understand that if such a being as God existed and acted in the context given in the OT I would be held accountable by such a being.  Whether I liked that being the case or not would not matter as that would be the case and the frame of reference in which I would have to function.   Would I be mad if I were to be punished similar to the Canaanites?  Probably.  Does that mean I am justified to be angry... not necessarily.


You would be justified if you didn't know any better, if you personally didn't do anything wrong e.g if you were a child in that population.

expsredemption wrote:
When I got a speeding ticket, I was furious that I got the ticket.  Was I speeding? Yes.  Did I deserve the ticket? Yes.  Did I know this? Yes.  Did I like it? No.  Why didn't I like it?  I felt there were other people who deserved a ticket as well.  Even if it was true that other people deserved a ticket as well, it does not change the fact that I deserved a ticket myself.  We don't always like the situations we find ourselves in, but that is not an indication that they are unfair, unmerited, or wrong.


But the situation would be different if you were simply driving at a reasonable velocity under the speed limit yet you got the ticket because the city wanted to meet a quota in order to fund a new elementary school. I think you would still be offended and you would be right to be offended.
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Sandspirit on November 14, 2011, 05:24:56 am
Hitler is a pejorative terms at the moment. Sure it was his view, but there are two questions to ask:

1. Was his view correct?
2. Even if his view was correct, was he actually (not what he thought personally) in a position to make and act upon that decision?


I don't suppose many of you became christians in order to be associated with this sort of sentiment but in the name of "reasonable faith" you've compromised your critical faculties to the point where you don't know whether genocide is right or wrong. Many christians shun Craig because of his views on genocide. Forget Dawkins and the debate - it doesn't matter. It's not hard to see that eliminating an entire people is wrong. Or maybe I'm mistaken.
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Robert B Bullard on November 15, 2011, 01:51:32 am
Can God even commit murder? If God has control of human souls in this life and the next, could someone please explain to me why God should feel guilty about this command?  

Also as a Christian it is not within my right to condemn anyone to hell because God is the ultimate judge. So please don't tell me that all the Canaanites were sent to hell because we ultimately do not know...
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Matt on November 15, 2011, 09:35:42 am
Sandspirit wrote:
Hitler is a pejorative terms at the moment. Sure it was his view, but there are two questions to ask:

1. Was his view correct?
2. Even if his view was correct, was he actually (not what he thought personally) in a position to make and act upon that decision?


I don't suppose many of you became Christians in order to be associated with this sort of sentiment but in the name of "reasonable faith" you've compromised your critical faculties to the point where you don't know whether genocide is right or wrong. Many Christians shun Craig because of his views on genocide. Forget Dawkins and the debate - it doesn't matter. It's not hard to see that eliminating an entire people is wrong. Or maybe I'm mistaken.


I have to address Blank again, which I am working on, however I am trying not to make it quite so long as most people probably won't read it and will probably get confused as to the core of the argument.

This is a perspective thing.  When we say that some situation is bad or wrong from any perspective... I think it DOES merit consideration of whether the pejorative terms are really can be used in that case, or if it is a case of using a word that is pejorative so that people will ASSUME that the wrong action was taken.

Again a whole group of some group (every individual in that group) can do something wrong, meriting a severe punishment for each individual in the group.  Now each individual of the group is being punished in a way that is merited and thus the whole group is being punished for the same crime with the same merit.  If it was the taking away of land, or the death penalty that was merited by their actions... one might be able to say that it was technically "genocide" but it was not wrong to do.  They merited the punishment.

You seem to be the one that is not up to looking at the situation fully, and rather continue to ASSUME the negative nature of the act simply based on the pejorative usage of genocide.  Unfortunately, words do have meanings and meanings do get mixed up.  It is always important to look at what a word actually means as compared to what someone is trying to make people ASSUME it means.   To hoist "genocide" up without the whole context of the situation is disingenuous.
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Matt on November 15, 2011, 12:13:25 pm
 

Let us set the context.

 

Genocide: the deliberate and systematic extermination (and or destruction) of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. (notice not positive or negative)

 

Terms origin: 1944, apparently coined by Polish-born U.S. jurist Raphael Lemkin in his work "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe" [p.19], in reference to Nazi extermination of Jews, lit. "killing a tribe," from Gk. genos "race, kind" (see genus) + -cide. The proper formation would be *genticide.

 

Usage: genocide [(jen-uh-seyed)]

 

The deliberate destruction of an entire race or nation. The Holocaust conducted by the Nazis in Germany and the Rwandan genocide are examples of attempts at genocide.

 

Who is conducting the genocide according to the word? Human beings

 

The word genocide does not tend to be used in regard to situations with animals exterminating or destroying other animal groups.  If it is, it is not used in a moral sense of being “good or bad”.

 

In the situation with the Canaanites, it is proposed that God is the being who judges the Canaanites and decides that they merit destruction physically and/or culturally (It is not necessitated that they were all to be killed but that may be the case).

 

What quality of the God that is giving the order might allow for that being to judge the merit properly and fairly? Omniscience (all knowing).

 

What quality of the God that is giving the order might prevent that being from making this order when it is not properly merited? Omni benevolent (all [more appropriately, perfectly] loving) We see this in that God waits until the iniquity of the Ammonites is at its maximum point (400 years) before the Canaanites are judged in this way. (Genesis 15:12-16) This also shows that God gives an individual every opportunity to turn before the judgment takes place.  This is possible due to perfect knowledge. (Did the Canaanites know of this situation? Yes you can see that in Joshua 2.[also Joshua 9] They could have repented and been saved.)  This can also be seen with the woman of Tekoa talking to David regarding David’s behavior with shunning his son.  The woman states to David ‘For we will surely die and are like water spilled on the ground which cannot be gathered up again. Yet God does not take away life, but plans ways so that the
   banished one will not be cast out from him.’ (2 Samuel 14:14  This of course does not necessitate that a son will turn back to God.  You can also see this in the conversation between Abraham and God regarding Sodom and Gomorrah (“if there are 50,40,30,10… righteous people I will not destroy them” Genesis 18:22-33)

 

What quality of the God that is giving the order might render that being to give the order when it is properly merited? Perfect Justice

 

Are perfect love and perfect justice contradictory? One who is perfectly just can and must enact justice even on those they love.  One who loves perfectly can and must continue to love those whom they enact justice upon.  Both can be done at the same time. Part of the perfection of the love and justice of God is that they are properly (or perfectly) balanced between each other. We can see this in that God does not take delight in the death of the wicked, rather God desires that they turn from their wickedness and be saved.  Although God desires that they turned and be saved, God must pursue justice if they do not turn from their wickedness.  This does not contradict God’s desire that they do turn from their wickedness and be saved. Does God treat this situation fairly?  Yes (Ezekiel 3:16-21 ; Ezekiel 33: 1-20)

 

So how does God decide if it is merited? What if they don’t have a perfect understanding of God’s commands?

 

You can see in the end of Ezekiel 33:1-20 that the individuals will be judged according to their own standards, let alone God’s, and still be found lacking.  You can also see this in Romans 1:18 – 3:31.  All are held to a reasonable standard based on what they know. Also seen in Acts 17:22-31.

 

The information is available to every individual.  Some choose not to act on it. However people are only judged on the basis of what they know, it is also written that they are placed in time and space in a manner that would be optimal for them to come to knowledge (although not that they necessarily will come to knowledge as they can refuse).

 

I would argue that Genocide cannot really be attributed to God.  Even if it were, the definition does not render it a negative or positive term in and of itself.

 

Now the two examples of genocide usually related to the term (one which originated the term) can be determined to be instances where genocide took place and if it was negative in those cases.

 

I would suggest it was negative for a couple of reasons:

 

1.     1. Humans (on their own) cannot know if the punishment of the whole of the group is merited without going through strenuous court/legal proceedings with evidence, etc.

 

2.      2.These cases were not done under some kind of judicial/merit based situation, but rather a malicious hate based situation.  The merits were not justified in any way. This is something that can be examined in a situation where humans are making the decision so that we can determine if the action of ‘genocide’ is wrong and thus morally abhorrent.

 

If there was a situation where the last remaining group of 300 gypsies were in a country that allowed for the death penalty, and each one of those gypsies in the group were rightly suspected, tried, and convicted of a crime that merited the death penalty, all those gypsies facing the death penalty could technically be “genocide”.  However, all those gypsies would be guilty of a crime and meriting the death penalty.  Now the death penalty may not have to be enacted in this case but that does not mean that it cannot be.  Given that it is… this can be “genocide” in a technical sense but also a proper avenue of handling the situation as their individual actions merited individual deaths which lead to the death of the whole group.  

 

   ast-font-family:"times="" roman";color:#333333"="">I think in the realm of God making a command against the Canaanites and the realm of human beings making a command against another group of human beings, there is a stark difference of context.  Thus it does not seem that genocide is really appropriate (in regard to God's actions with the Canaanites) and even if it is used technically, it is not render a negative connotation, just a description of what has taken place: the extermination or destruction of a group.  In this case it would have been a merited and justified undertaking rather than the unmerited and unjustified undertaking of humans committing this act toward humans without correct and fair court/legal proceedings.

Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: blank on November 17, 2011, 07:06:03 am
expsredemption wrote:

Let us set the context.

Genocide: the deliberate and systematic extermination (and or destruction) of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. (notice not positive or negative)

Terms origin: 1944, apparently coined by Polish-born U.S. jurist Raphael Lemkin in his work "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe" [p.19], in reference to Nazi extermination of Jews, lit. "killing a tribe," from Gk. genos "race, kind" (see genus) + -cide. The proper formation would be *genticide.

Usage: genocide [(jen-uh-seyed)]

The deliberate destruction of an entire race or nation. The Holocaust conducted by the Nazis in Germany and the Rwandan genocide are examples of attempts at genocide.


Are your examples positive or negative?

expsredemption wrote:
Who is conducting the genocide according to the word?  Human beings

The word genocide does not tend to be used in regard to situations with animals exterminating or destroying other animal groups.  If it is, it is not used in a moral sense of being “good or bad”.

In the situation with the Canaanites, it is proposed that God is the being who judges the Canaanites and decides that they merit destruction physically and/or culturally (It is not necessitated that they were all to be killed but that may be the case).


Maybe we do not use it in situations involving animals because animals aren't considered as being moral agents but god and the Israelites are considered as such.

expsredemption wrote:
What quality of the God that is giving the order might allow for that being to judge the merit properly and fairly? Omniscience (all knowing).

What quality of the God that is giving the order might prevent that being from making this order when it is not properly merited? Omni benevolent (all [more appropriately, perfectly] loving) We see this in that God waits until the iniquity of the Ammonites is at its maximum point (400 years) before the Canaanites are judged in this way. (Genesis 15:12-16)  This also shows that God gives an individual every opportunity to turn before the judgment takes place.  This is possible due to perfect knowledge. (Did the Canaanites know of this situation? Yes you can see that in Joshua 2.[also Joshua 9] They could have repented and been saved.)  This can also be seen with the woman of Tekoa talking to David regarding David’s behavior with shunning his son.  The woman states to David ‘For we will surely die and are like water spilled on the ground which cannot be gathered up again. Yet God does not take away life, but plans ways so that the banished one will not be cast out from him.’ (2 Samuel 14:14  This of course does not necessitate that a son will turn back to God.   You can also see this in the conversation between Abraham and God regarding Sodom and Gomorrah (“if there are 50,40,30,10… righteous people I will not destroy them” Genesis 18:22-33)

What quality of the God that is giving the order might render that being to give the order when it is properly merited? Perfect Justice

Are perfect love and perfect justice contradictory? One who is perfectly just can and must enact justice even on those they love.  One who loves perfectly can and must continue to love those whom they enact justice upon.  Both can be done at the same time. Part of the perfection of the love and justice of God is that they are properly (or perfectly)  balanced between each other.  We can see this in that God does not take delight in the death of the wicked, rather God desires that they turn from their wickedness and be saved.  Although God desires that they turned and be saved, God must pursue justice if they do not turn from their wickedness.  This does not contradict God’s desire that they do turn from their wickedness and be saved. Does God treat this situation fairly?  Yes (Ezekiel 3:16-21 ; Ezekiel 33: 1-20)


So how does God decide if it is merited? What if they don’t have a perfect understanding of God’s commands?

expsredemption wrote:
You can see in the end of Ezekiel 33:1-20 that the individuals will be judged according to their own standards, let alone God’s, and still be found lacking.  You can also see this in Romans 1:18 – 3:31.  All are held to a reasonable standard based on what they know. Also seen in Acts 17:22-31.

The information is available to every individual.  Some choose not to act on it. However people are only judged on the basis of what they know, it is also written that they are placed in time and space in a manner that would be optimal for them to come to knowledge (although not that they necessarily will come to knowledge as they can refuse).

I would argue that Genocide cannot really be attributed to God.  Even if it were, the definition does not render it a negative or positive term in and of itself.

Now the two examples of genocide usually related to the term (one which originated the term) can be determined to be instances where genocide took place and if it was negative in those cases.

I would suggest it was negative for a couple of reasons:

1.     1. Humans (on their own) cannot know if the punishment of the whole of the group is merited without going through strenuous court/legal proceedings with evidence, etc.


In that case, it may just be that the act of genocide may end up being a good thing since no one really knows whether or not it is merited.

expsredemption wrote:
2.      2.These cases were not done under some kind of judicial/merit based situation, but rather a malicious hate based situation.  The merits were not justified in any way. This is something that can be examined in a situation where humans are making the decision so that we can determine if the action of ‘genocide’ is wrong and thus morally abhorrent.


God's system wasn't any better because he ordered indiscriminate killing. Is it a merit based situation to kill all people in a society?

expsredemption wrote:
If there was a situation where the last remaining group of 300 gypsies were in a country that allowed for the death penalty, and each one of those gypsies in the group were rightly suspected, tried, and convicted of a crime that merited the death penalty, all those gypsies facing the death penalty could technically be “genocide”.  However, all those gypsies would be guilty of a crime and meriting the death penalty.  Now the death penalty may not have to be enacted in this case but that does not mean that it cannot be.  Given that it is… this can be “genocide” in a technical sense but also a proper avenue of handling the situation as their individual actions merited individual deaths which lead to the death of the whole group.


Would this make it appropriate to kill the gypsy children and gypsies who just happened to be visiting within the vicinity?

expsredemption wrote:
I think in the realm of God making a command against the Canaanites and the realm of human beings making a command against another group of human beings, there is a stark difference of context.  Thus it does not seem that genocide is really appropriate (in regard to God's actions with the Canaanites) and even if it is used technically, it is not render a negative connotation, just a description of what has taken place: the extermination or destruction of a group.  In this case it would have been a merited and justified undertaking rather than the unmerited and unjustified undertaking of humans committing this act toward humans without correct and fair court/legal proceedings.


Of course. I hope you realize that you are simply defending genocide by special pleading. Saying genocide is wrong but when God does it is right, is speci
   al pleading. Claiming that we do not know whether a genocidal actions is right or wrong simply means that actual incidents of genocide cannot be decided as being immoral since we do not know the ultimate effects. After all, it could be that the action lead to avoiding a worse genocidal maniac.
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Matt on November 17, 2011, 11:23:20 am
blank wrote:
Quote from: expsredemption


Let us set the context.

Genocide: the deliberate and systematic extermination (and or destruction) of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. (notice not positive or negative)

Terms origin: 1944, apparently coined by Polish-born U.S. jurist Raphael Lemkin in his work "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe" [p.19], in reference to Nazi extermination of Jews, lit. "killing a tribe," from Gk. genos "race, kind" (see genus) + -cide. The proper formation would be *genticide.

Usage: genocide [(jen-uh-seyed)]

The deliberate destruction of an entire race or nation. The Holocaust conducted by the Nazis in Germany and the Rwandan genocide are examples of attempts at genocide.


Are your examples positive or negative?

expsredemption wrote:
Who is conducting the genocide according to the word?  Human beings

The word genocide does not tend to be used in regard to situations with animals exterminating or destroying other animal groups.  If it is, it is not used in a moral sense of being “good or bad”.

In the situation with the Canaanites, it is proposed that God is the being who judges the Canaanites and decides that they merit destruction physically and/or culturally (It is not necessitated that they were all to be killed but that may be the case).


Maybe we do not use it in situations involving animals because animals aren't considered as being moral agents but god and the Israelites are considered as such.

expsredemption wrote:
What quality of the God that is giving the order might allow for that being to judge the merit properly and fairly? Omniscience (all knowing).

What quality of the God that is giving the order might prevent that being from making this order when it is not properly merited? Omni benevolent (all [more appropriately, perfectly] loving) We see this in that God waits until the iniquity of the Ammonites is at its maximum point (400 years) before the Canaanites are judged in this way. (Genesis 15:12-16)  This also shows that God gives an individual every opportunity to turn before the judgment takes place.  This is possible due to perfect knowledge. (Did the Canaanites know of this situation? Yes you can see that in Joshua 2.[also Joshua 9] They could have repented and been saved.)  This can also be seen with the woman of Tekoa talking to David regarding David’s behavior with shunning his son.  The woman states to David ‘For we will surely die and are like water spilled on the ground which cannot be gathered up again. Yet God does not take away life, but plans ways so that the banished one will not be cast out from him.’ (2 Samuel 14:14  This of course does not necessitate that a son will turn back to God.   You can also see this in the conversation between Abraham and God regarding Sodom and Gomorrah (“if there are 50,40,30,10… righteous people I will not destroy them” Genesis 18:22-33)

What quality of the God that is giving the order might render that being to give the order when it is properly merited? Perfect Justice

Are perfect love and perfect justice contradictory? One who is perfectly just can and must enact justice even on those they love.  One who loves perfectly can and must continue to love those whom they enact justice upon.  Both can be done at the same time. Part of the perfection of the love and justice of God is that they are properly (or perfectly)  balanced between each other.  We can see this in that God does not take delight in the death of the wicked, rather God desires that they turn from their wickedness and be saved.  Although God desires that they turned and be saved, God must pursue justice if they do not turn from their wickedness.  This does not contradict God’s desire that they do turn from their wickedness and be saved. Does God treat this situation fairly?  Yes (Ezekiel 3:16-21 ; Ezekiel 33: 1-20)


So how does God decide if it is merited? What if they don’t have a perfect understanding of God’s commands?

expsredemption wrote:
You can see in the end of Ezekiel 33:1-20 that the individuals will be judged according to their own standards, let alone God’s, and still be found lacking.  You can also see this in Romans 1:18 – 3:31.  All are held to a reasonable standard based on what they know. Also seen in Acts 17:22-31.

The information is available to every individual.  Some choose not to act on it. However people are only judged on the basis of what they know, it is also written that they are placed in time and space in a manner that would be optimal for them to come to knowledge (although not that they necessarily will come to knowledge as they can refuse).

I would argue that Genocide cannot really be attributed to God.  Even if it were, the definition does not render it a negative or positive term in and of itself.

Now the two examples of genocide usually related to the term (one which originated the term) can be determined to be instances where genocide took place and if it was negative in those cases.

I would suggest it was negative for a couple of reasons:

1.     1. Humans (on their own) cannot know if the punishment of the whole of the group is merited without going through strenuous court/legal proceedings with evidence, etc.


In that case, it may just be that the act of genocide may end up being a good thing since no one really knows whether or not it is merited.

expsredemption wrote:
2.      2.These cases were not done under some kind of judicial/merit based situation, but rather a malicious hate based situation.  The merits were not justified in any way. This is something that can be examined in a situation where humans are making the decision so that we can determine if the action of ‘genocide’ is wrong and thus morally abhorrent.


God's system wasn't any better because he ordered indiscriminate killing. Is it a merit based situation to kill all people in a society?

expsredemption wrote:
If there was a situation where the last remaining group of 300 gypsies were in a country that allowed for the death penalty, and each one of those gypsies in the group were rightly suspected, tried, and convicted of a crime that merited the death penalty, all those gypsies facing the death penalty could technically be “genocide”.  However, all those gypsies would be guilty of a crime and meriting the death penalty.  Now the death penalty may not have to be enacted in this case but that does not mean that it cannot be.  Given that it is… this can be “genocide” in a technical sense but also a proper avenue of handling the situation as their individual actions merited individual deaths which lead to the death of the whole group.


Would this make it appropriate to kill the gypsy children and gypsies who just happened to be visiting within the vicinity?

expsredemption wrote:
I think in the realm of God making a command against the Canaanites and the realm of human beings making a command against another group of human beings, there is a stark difference of context.  Thus it does not seem that genocide is really appropriate (in regard to God's actions with the Canaanites) and even if it is used technically, it is not render a negative connotation, just a description of what has taken place: the extermination or destruction of a group.  In this case it would have been a merited and justified undertaking rather than the unmerited and unjustified undertaking of humans committing this act toward humans without correct and fair court/legal proceedings.


Of course. I hope you realize that you are simply defending genocide by special pleading. Saying genocide is wrong but when God does it is ri
   ght, is special pleading. Claiming that we do not know whether a genocidal actions is right or wrong simply means that actual incidents of genocide cannot be decided as being immoral since we do not know the ultimate effects. After all, it could be that the action lead to avoiding a worse genocidal maniac.


This was not a very substantive interaction with my post.  It also failed to take into account things that I have already made clear. (In terms of how God knows if it is or is not merited.  He is all knowing.  I also showed that God would not do it if he knew it was not merited [do to perfect love and justice].  You are dealing within the Christian frame of reference when you talk about the Christian God.  These are his qualities and how he makes the decisions.  You ask questions that are already answered)

You will also notice that I never said that genocide is wrong when everyone else does it and right when God does it.   I set parameters to show that the two cases of genocide most commonly used today (Holocaust and Rwanda) can be shown to be wrong based on a few facts (they people conducting the genocide could not know if everyone in the group merited the punishment; the people conducting the genocide did not go through a rational, fair, legal/judicial process to determine if every individual in the group merited that punishment.   I did also make clear that genocide conducted by human being is not necessarily bad.  If all in the group merit the punishment and it is justified punishment, the "genocide" would not be bad it would just be.

You seem to be taking statements in a vacuum. You ask questions that are answered already or later in the post and unnecessarily distinguish and separate thoughts.

It seems you are simply playing the skeptic.  If you have anything substantive to DISCUSS (rather than just being skeptical of) I look forward to the discussion. If not, thank you for your input thus far.
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: blank on November 17, 2011, 03:35:43 pm
expsredemption wrote:
Quote from: blank
Quote from: expsredemption


Let us set the context.

Genocide: the deliberate and systematic extermination (and or destruction) of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. (notice not positive or negative)

Terms origin: 1944, apparently coined by Polish-born U.S. jurist Raphael Lemkin in his work "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe" [p.19], in reference to Nazi extermination of Jews, lit. "killing a tribe," from Gk. genos "race, kind" (see genus) + -cide. The proper formation would be *genticide.

Usage: genocide [(jen-uh-seyed)]

The deliberate destruction of an entire race or nation. The Holocaust conducted by the Nazis in Germany and the Rwandan genocide are examples of attempts at genocide.


Are your examples positive or negative?

expsredemption wrote:
Who is conducting the genocide according to the word?  Human beings

The word genocide does not tend to be used in regard to situations with animals exterminating or destroying other animal groups.  If it is, it is not used in a moral sense of being “good or bad”.

In the situation with the Canaanites, it is proposed that God is the being who judges the Canaanites and decides that they merit destruction physically and/or culturally (It is not necessitated that they were all to be killed but that may be the case).


Maybe we do not use it in situations involving animals because animals aren't considered as being moral agents but god and the Israelites are considered as such.

expsredemption wrote:
What quality of the God that is giving the order might allow for that being to judge the merit properly and fairly? Omniscience (all knowing).

What quality of the God that is giving the order might prevent that being from making this order when it is not properly merited? Omni benevolent (all [more appropriately, perfectly] loving) We see this in that God waits until the iniquity of the Ammonites is at its maximum point (400 years) before the Canaanites are judged in this way. (Genesis 15:12-16)  This also shows that God gives an individual every opportunity to turn before the judgment takes place.  This is possible due to perfect knowledge. (Did the Canaanites know of this situation? Yes you can see that in Joshua 2.[also Joshua 9] They could have repented and been saved.)  This can also be seen with the woman of Tekoa talking to David regarding David’s behavior with shunning his son.  The woman states to David ‘For we will surely die and are like water spilled on the ground which cannot be gathered up again. Yet God does not take away life, but plans ways so that the banished one will not be cast out from him.’ (2 Samuel 14:14  This of course does not necessitate that a son will turn back to God.   You can also see this in the conversation between Abraham and God regarding Sodom and Gomorrah (“if there are 50,40,30,10… righteous people I will not destroy them” Genesis 18:22-33)

What quality of the God that is giving the order might render that being to give the order when it is properly merited? Perfect Justice

Are perfect love and perfect justice contradictory? One who is perfectly just can and must enact justice even on those they love.  One who loves perfectly can and must continue to love those whom they enact justice upon.  Both can be done at the same time. Part of the perfection of the love and justice of God is that they are properly (or perfectly)  balanced between each other.  We can see this in that God does not take delight in the death of the wicked, rather God desires that they turn from their wickedness and be saved.  Although God desires that they turned and be saved, God must pursue justice if they do not turn from their wickedness.  This does not contradict God’s desire that they do turn from their wickedness and be saved. Does God treat this situation fairly?  Yes (Ezekiel 3:16-21 ; Ezekiel 33: 1-20)


So how does God decide if it is merited? What if they don’t have a perfect understanding of God’s commands?

expsredemption wrote:
You can see in the end of Ezekiel 33:1-20 that the individuals will be judged according to their own standards, let alone God’s, and still be found lacking.  You can also see this in Romans 1:18 – 3:31.  All are held to a reasonable standard based on what they know. Also seen in Acts 17:22-31.

The information is available to every individual.  Some choose not to act on it. However people are only judged on the basis of what they know, it is also written that they are placed in time and space in a manner that would be optimal for them to come to knowledge (although not that they necessarily will come to knowledge as they can refuse).

I would argue that Genocide cannot really be attributed to God.  Even if it were, the definition does not render it a negative or positive term in and of itself.

Now the two examples of genocide usually related to the term (one which originated the term) can be determined to be instances where genocide took place and if it was negative in those cases.

I would suggest it was negative for a couple of reasons:

1.     1. Humans (on their own) cannot know if the punishment of the whole of the group is merited without going through strenuous court/legal proceedings with evidence, etc.


In that case, it may just be that the act of genocide may end up being a good thing since no one really knows whether or not it is merited.

expsredemption wrote:
2.      2.These cases were not done under some kind of judicial/merit based situation, but rather a malicious hate based situation.  The merits were not justified in any way. This is something that can be examined in a situation where humans are making the decision so that we can determine if the action of ‘genocide’ is wrong and thus morally abhorrent.


God's system wasn't any better because he ordered indiscriminate killing. Is it a merit based situation to kill all people in a society?

expsredemption wrote:
If there was a situation where the last remaining group of 300 gypsies were in a country that allowed for the death penalty, and each one of those gypsies in the group were rightly suspected, tried, and convicted of a crime that merited the death penalty, all those gypsies facing the death penalty could technically be “genocide”.  However, all those gypsies would be guilty of a crime and meriting the death penalty.  Now the death penalty may not have to be enacted in this case but that does not mean that it cannot be.  Given that it is… this can be “genocide” in a technical sense but also a proper avenue of handling the situation as their individual actions merited individual deaths which lead to the death of the whole group.


Would this make it appropriate to kill the gypsy children and gypsies who just happened to be visiting within the vicinity?

expsredemption wrote:
I think in the realm of God making a command against the Canaanites and the realm of human beings making a command against another group of human beings, there is a stark difference of context.  Thus it does not seem that genocide is really appropriate (in regard to God's actions with the Canaanites) and even if it is used technically, it is not render a negative connotation, just a description of what has taken place: the extermination or destruction of a group.  In this case it would have been a merited and justified undertaking rather than the unmerited and unjustified undertaking of humans committing this act toward humans without correct and fair court/legal proceedings.


Of course. I hope you realize that you are simply defending genocide by special pleading. Saying genocide is wrong but
   when God does it is right, is special pleading. Claiming that we do not know whether a genocidal actions is right or wrong simply means that actual incidents of genocide cannot be decided as being immoral since we do not know the ultimate effects. After all, it could be that the action lead to avoiding a worse genocidal maniac.


This was not a very substantive interaction with my post.  It also failed to take into account things that I have already made clear. (In terms of how God knows if it is or is not merited.  He is all knowing.  I also showed that God would not do it if he knew it was not merited [do to perfect love and justice].  You are dealing within the Christian frame of reference when you talk about the Christian God.  These are his qualities and how he makes the decisions.  You ask questions that are already answered)


Sorry you feel that way but you need to realize that on a forum such as this, I really cannot stand a wall of text. What I take from you here is that you're claiming that God has some good reason for commanding genocide because he is all knowing but you need to realize that such a claim will not fly unless you can demonstrate how it is that killing children best serves God's interest.

expsredemption wrote:
You will also notice that I never said that genocide is wrong when everyone else does it and right when God does it.   I set parameters to show that the two cases of genocide most commonly used today (Holocaust and Rwanda) can be shown to be wrong based on a few facts (they people conducting the genocide could not know if everyone in the group merited the punishment; the people conducting the genocide did not go through a rational, fair, legal/judicial process to determine if every individual in the group merited that punishment.   I did also make clear that genocide conducted by human being is not necessarily bad.  If all in the group merit the punishment and it is justified punishment, the "genocide" would not be bad it would just be.


You're saying that the holocaust and the Rwandan genocide are wrong for the reasons you gave but you forget that it was people that God commanded to carry out his own genocide. Unless you're saying a 1 year old child can be considered to be guilty of a crime and deserves punishment, then I don't see the distinction you're trying to draw between the Rwandan genocide and the one spoken about in the Bible. Or between the idea of genocide in general and the holocaust.

expsredemption wrote:
You seem to be taking statements in a vacuum. You ask questions that are answered already or later in the post and unnecessarily distinguish and separate thoughts.


It may appear that way because you're responding with a wall of text rather than addressing my actual statements. I have to distinguish various thoughts of yours in order to respond.

expsredemption wrote:
It seems you are simply playing the skeptic.  If you have anything substantive to DISCUSS (rather than just being skeptical of) I look forward to the discussion. If not, thank you for your input thus far.


No, I'm not playing but like I already said, you simply wish to appeal to special pleading which is unacceptable.
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Matt on November 18, 2011, 11:44:27 am
Blank,

 To make things clearer from this point I have started a new response so that all the information is not copied from previous posts.

If you are truly engaging, I will continue.

It seems you are playing the skeptic to me due to your sitting back rather then giving things that WOULD justify the situation for you.

I need to know what it is that it will take for you to accept a situation before I bother dealing with it.  This way, if that cannot be provided I don't have to waste time.  If it can, I will know what you are looking for and be more able to pin it down.

The large post that I put up breaking down what genocide is, and that it is not necessarily good or bad on itself (without background or supporting information).  It was to make it clear that genocide is not necessarily a negative thing just by being called "genocide".

Please give me some clarification on your end so that I know what exactly you are looking for and what you would find acceptable.

Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: blank on November 18, 2011, 01:54:39 pm
expsredemption wrote: Blank,

 To make things clearer from this point I have started a new response so that all the information is not copied from previous posts.

If you are truly engaging, I will continue.

It seems you are playing the skeptic to me due to your sitting back rather then giving things that WOULD justify the situation for you.

I need to know what it is that it will take for you to accept a situation before I bother dealing with it.  This way, if that cannot be provided I don't have to waste time.  If it can, I will know what you are looking for and be more able to pin it down.

The large post that I put up breaking down what genocide is, and that it is not necessarily good or bad on itself (without background or supporting information).  It was to make it clear that genocide is not necessarily a negative thing just by being called "genocide".

Please give me some clarification on your end so that I know what exactly you are looking for and what you would find acceptable.


That's just it. I don't think genocide can be justified. Saying genocide isn't necessarily a negative thing and that humans aren't omniscient means to me that even the examples of genocide that you gave may in fact be positive occurrences just that humans in their limited capacities don't know this to be so.
That is why I look askance at people trying to justify genocide. They don't seem to realize the far reaching implications of such a justification.
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: James Arlington on November 18, 2011, 02:02:11 pm
blank wrote:
Quote from: expsredemption
Blank,

 To make things clearer from this point I have started a new response so that all the information is not copied from previous posts.

If you are truly engaging, I will continue.

It seems you are playing the skeptic to me due to your sitting back rather then giving things that WOULD justify the situation for you.

I need to know what it is that it will take for you to accept a situation before I bother dealing with it.  This way, if that cannot be provided I don't have to waste time.  If it can, I will know what you are looking for and be more able to pin it down.

The large post that I put up breaking down what genocide is, and that it is not necessarily good or bad on itself (without background or supporting information).  It was to make it clear that genocide is not necessarily a negative thing just by being called "genocide".

Please give me some clarification on your end so that I know what exactly you are looking for and what you would find acceptable.


That's just it. I don't think genocide can be justified. Saying genocide isn't necessarily a negative thing and that humans aren't omniscient means to me that even the examples of genocide that you gave may in fact be positive occurrences just that humans in their limited capacities don't know this to be so.
That is why I look askance at people trying to justify genocide. They don't seem to realize the far reaching implications of such a justification.

What if the subject of the genocide were Nazis? We decide to wipe out all Nazis to prevent them from committing genocide on the Jews. Are we not justified?
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Matt on November 18, 2011, 05:39:28 pm
Jove81 wrote:

What if the subject of the genocide were Nazis? We decide to wipe out all Nazis to prevent them from committing genocide on the Jews. Are we not justified?


If you "just decide", then I would say there is no way that you are justified (even if they were all guilty... you would not have good reason to think that by "just deciding").

I would say it is highly probable that some of the people who would be called "Nazi's" did not agree with the policies but were forced (by their fear) to go along with the Nazi ideals.   Again, based on this, you cannot rightly condemn all of them justly.

In the absence of a reasoned, fair, legal/judicial process, ruling, appeals, sentencing process, you would not be justified.

Blank might try to bring up the women and children, again, out of his ignorance for the common language usage in the OT and the situations described, in regard to the situation of God and the Canaanites compared to the "we can't know" in the human context.  To that I would encourage him to look into some of the work of Paul Copan on this subject.   There is more than good reason to think that the language style that would be used to describe the situations the OT Canaanite situation took place does not necessitate that women and children were actually harmed or even intended to be harmed.

A basic start would be this interview
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Jacob Bukaty on November 18, 2011, 09:08:51 pm
If god killed all Americans, for reasons unbeknownst to us, would that be perfectly kind and loving just because he did it?  If so, do you wish for mass death delivered by the hands of such a god?  Wouldn't such a thing be a perfect embodiment of the perfect will of a perfect being?
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: blank on November 19, 2011, 02:06:26 am
Jove81 wrote:
Quote from: blank
Quote from: expsredemption
Blank,

 To make things clearer from this point I have started a new response so that all the information is not copied from previous posts.

If you are truly engaging, I will continue.

It seems you are playing the skeptic to me due to your sitting back rather then giving things that WOULD justify the situation for you.

I need to know what it is that it will take for you to accept a situation before I bother dealing with it.  This way, if that cannot be provided I don't have to waste time.  If it can, I will know what you are looking for and be more able to pin it down.

The large post that I put up breaking down what genocide is, and that it is not necessarily good or bad on itself (without background or supporting information).  It was to make it clear that genocide is not necessarily a negative thing just by being called "genocide".

Please give me some clarification on your end so that I know what exactly you are looking for and what you would find acceptable.


That's just it. I don't think genocide can be justified. Saying genocide isn't necessarily a negative thing and that humans aren't omniscient means to me that even the examples of genocide that you gave may in fact be positive occurrences just that humans in their limited capacities don't know this to be so.
That is why I look askance at people trying to justify genocide. They don't seem to realize the far reaching implications of such a justification.

What if the subject of the genocide were Nazis? We decide to wipe out all Nazis to prevent them from committing genocide on the Jews. Are we not justified?


Who is a Nazi? Are children Nazis? I don't think you can justify indiscriminately wiping out an entire population even if you're unable to separate the guilty from the non-guilty, you cannot justify it yet an omniscient God who can separate the guilty from the non-guilty chose not to do that.
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: blank on November 19, 2011, 02:14:22 am
expsredemption wrote:
Quote from: Jove81

What if the subject of the genocide were Nazis? We decide to wipe out all Nazis to prevent them from committing genocide on the Jews. Are we not justified?


If you "just decide", then I would say there is no way that you are justified (even if they were all guilty... you would not have good reason to think that by "just deciding").

I would say it is highly probable that some of the people who would be called "Nazi's" did not agree with the policies but were forced (by their fear) to go along with the Nazi ideals.   Again, based on this, you cannot rightly condemn all of them justly.

In the absence of a reasoned, fair, legal/judicial process, ruling, appeals, sentencing process, you would not be justified.


But you think God's decision to do just that when he could have picked out individuals that he felt were evil was justified?

expsredemption wrote:
Blank might try to bring up the women and children, again, out of his ignorance for the common language usage in the OT and the situations described, in regard to the situation of God and the Canaanites compared to the "we can't know" in the human context.  To that I would encourage him to look into some of the work of Paul Copan on this subject.   There is more than good reason to think that the language style that would be used to describe the situations the OT Canaanite situation took place does not necessitate that women and children were actually harmed or even intended to be harmed.


Of course I'll bring up the women and children we're talking about a genocide here aren't we? What am I to get from Paul Copan's work? If you understand his work well enough, why don't you present it satisfactorily?

expsredemption wrote:
A basic start would be this interview


Does this interview contain the best response to the problem in an audio form?
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Matt on November 19, 2011, 09:07:49 pm
blank wrote:
Quote from: Jove81
Quote from: blank
Quote from: expsredemption
Blank,

 To make things clearer from this point I have started a new response so that all the information is not copied from previous posts.

If you are truly engaging, I will continue.

It seems you are playing the skeptic to me due to your sitting back rather then giving things that WOULD justify the situation for you.

I need to know what it is that it will take for you to accept a situation before I bother dealing with it.  This way, if that cannot be provided I don't have to waste time.  If it can, I will know what you are looking for and be more able to pin it down.

The large post that I put up breaking down what genocide is, and that it is not necessarily good or bad on itself (without background or supporting information).  It was to make it clear that genocide is not necessarily a negative thing just by being called "genocide".

Please give me some clarification on your end so that I know what exactly you are looking for and what you would find acceptable.


That's just it. I don't think genocide can be justified. Saying genocide isn't necessarily a negative thing and that humans aren't omniscient means to me that even the examples of genocide that you gave may in fact be positive occurrences just that humans in their limited capacities don't know this to be so.
That is why I look askance at people trying to justify genocide. They don't seem to realize the far reaching implications of such a justification.

What if the subject of the genocide were Nazis? We decide to wipe out all Nazis to prevent them from committing genocide on the Jews. Are we not justified?


Who is a Nazi? Are children Nazis? I don't think you can justify indiscriminately wiping out an entire population even if you're unable to separate the guilty from the non-guilty, you cannot justify it yet an omniscient God who can separate the guilty from the non-guilty chose not to do that.


Well... as Paul Copan might take it... you are taking an ill-informed Sunday School reading of the text when there is a much deeper and informed reading of the text that you are unaware of.  You are looking at the words you see from the standpoint you want to see them from, rather than looking at the language usage of the time in which it was written.

You just showed your ignorance in the past two posts.  If you were more informed you would realize that the command that God leveled does not necessarily mean that women and children were harmed in any way.  Secondly the Canaanites had the ability to turn from what they were doing and be saved (example of Rahab and Gibeonites).  Third, within the area directly dealing with the commands there is information that the Canaanites still persist.  The writers are not foolish enough to keep the Canaanites in existence while writing words that literally mean utter destruction.

I cannot solve a situation of ignorance for you.  You won't believe something you haven't seen or read with your own eyes... (obviously, or we wouldn't be having this discussion in this fashion).  One of the problems is... you stop your search before looking at all the details and understanding all the background information.

Copan's work deals with the common usage of the language (specifically dealing with war and combat language) of the time in that setting.  You would benefit from it because it will clarify some of the things you take to be the case in your current state of ignorance (lack of knowledge of some thing).

You continue to mention women and children out of ignorance of the subject.  This is the third time I am telling you this.   Will you do it again?  You have shown that it is likely.
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Matt on November 19, 2011, 09:11:30 pm
"Of course I'll bring up the women and  children we're talking about a genocide here aren't we? What am I to  get from Paul Copan's work? If you understand his work well enough, why  don't you present it satisfactorily?"

No, we are not necessarily talking about a Genocide here unless all the people were ACTUALLY intended to be dealt AND were dealt with.

There is ample evidence to show that NOT ALL people were intended to be indiscriminately (as you stated in your ignorance) brought to death, and NOT ALL people WERE indiscriminately brought to death.   You understand this, of course, depends on doing some research and taking some effort.  That is your call.  However, it will be hard to call yourself rational and reasoned in your position if you do not.  
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: blank on November 20, 2011, 05:47:40 am
expsredemption wrote:
Quote from: blank
Quote from: Jove81
Quote from: blank
Quote from: expsredemption
Blank,

 To make things clearer from this point I have started a new response so that all the information is not copied from previous posts.

If you are truly engaging, I will continue.

It seems you are playing the skeptic to me due to your sitting back rather then giving things that WOULD justify the situation for you.

I need to know what it is that it will take for you to accept a situation before I bother dealing with it.  This way, if that cannot be provided I don't have to waste time.  If it can, I will know what you are looking for and be more able to pin it down.

The large post that I put up breaking down what genocide is, and that it is not necessarily good or bad on itself (without background or supporting information).  It was to make it clear that genocide is not necessarily a negative thing just by being called "genocide".

Please give me some clarification on your end so that I know what exactly you are looking for and what you would find acceptable.


That's just it. I don't think genocide can be justified. Saying genocide isn't necessarily a negative thing and that humans aren't omniscient means to me that even the examples of genocide that you gave may in fact be positive occurrences just that humans in their limited capacities don't know this to be so.
That is why I look askance at people trying to justify genocide. They don't seem to realize the far reaching implications of such a justification.

What if the subject of the genocide were Nazis? We decide to wipe out all Nazis to prevent them from committing genocide on the Jews. Are we not justified?


Who is a Nazi? Are children Nazis? I don't think you can justify indiscriminately wiping out an entire population even if you're unable to separate the guilty from the non-guilty, you cannot justify it yet an omniscient God who can separate the guilty from the non-guilty chose not to do that.


Well... as Paul Copan might take it... you are taking an ill-informed Sunday School reading of the text when there is a much deeper and informed reading of the text that you are unaware of.  You are looking at the words you see from the standpoint you want to see them from, rather than looking at the language usage of the time in which it was written.


Rubbish. Anything that we now discover to be atrocities or simply wrong, suddenly possess deeper readings.

expsredemption wrote:
You just showed your ignorance in the past two posts.  If you were more informed you would realize that the command that God leveled does not necessarily mean that women and children were harmed in any way.  Secondly the Canaanites had the ability to turn from what they were doing and be saved (example of Rahab and Gibeonites).  Third, within the area directly dealing with the commands there is information that the Canaanites still persist.  The writers are not foolish enough to keep the Canaanites in existence while writing words that literally mean utter destruction.


You are still missing the point I'm making. My point is that someone who issues such a command for genocide is immoral. Did God say women and children weren't to be harmed? Whether or not they could be carried out though important isn't what I'm talking about.
On your second point, when were they to turn away? When the Israelites came for their lands? It was pretty clear that God didn't want them to share. He is omnipotent yet it didn't occur to him to create alternate land for the Jews and then send prophets to the Canaanites or something. You seem to think that people who are being invaded should simply surrender their lands. How naive is that?
Your third point simply means that the Israelites failing to follow God's commands thoroughly had pretty much sinned.

expsredemption wrote:
I cannot solve a situation of ignorance for you.  You won't believe something you haven't seen or read with your own eyes... (obviously, or we wouldn't be having this discussion in this fashion).  One of the problems is... you stop your search before looking at all the details and understanding all the background information.


Maybe you need to take off your God blinders and see the atrocious commands for what they are.

expsredemption wrote:
Copan's work deals with the common usage of the language (specifically dealing with war and combat language) of the time in that setting.  You would benefit from it because it will clarify some of the things you take to be the case in your current state of ignorance (lack of knowledge of some thing).


Of course. Does he deal with the fact that such a command is unacceptable?

expsredemption wrote:
You continue to mention women and children out of ignorance of the subject.  This is the third time I am telling you this.   Will you do it again?  You have shown that it is likely.


Weren't there women and children? Or do you think all the Canaanites were adult men?
What I see is that in your current state of being blinded by your idea of God seems to have deeply flawed your ideas of morality.
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: blank on November 20, 2011, 05:56:09 am
expsredemption wrote: "Of course I'll bring up the women and  children we're talking about a genocide here aren't we? What am I to  get from Paul Copan's work? If you understand his work well enough, why  don't you present it satisfactorily?"

No, we are not necessarily talking about a Genocide here unless all the people were ACTUALLY intended to be dealt AND were dealt with.


How do you know they weren't intended to be dealt with? Maybe you need to actually take a look at your Bible. If they weren't all dealt with, then those Israelites disobeyed God's command and needed to be punished.

expsredemption wrote:
There is ample evidence to show that NOT ALL people were intended to be indiscriminately (as you stated in your ignorance) brought to death, and NOT ALL people WERE indiscriminately brought to death.   You understand this, of course, depends on doing some research and taking some effort.  That is your call.  However, it will be hard to call yourself rational and reasoned in your position if you do not.  


It seems you're simply making things up. Please take a look at your Bible. e.g take a look at the command given to Saul in 1 Samuel 15:3 and tell me what the intention of that command was.
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Matt on November 20, 2011, 12:07:58 pm
All I have seen on your part is more commentary from a state of ignorance.   You are telling me to look at the Bible when you aren't even in a position to understand what the Bible is really communicating with what it is you are reading.  If you are going to read something and make a point from it it is first important to understand what it is ACTUALLY saying rather what you take it be be saying based on your current state of ignorance to its context.

Your objections will continue to be simplistic and misguided so long as you continue in your state of ignorance about the deeper context of the situation and commands at hand.

Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Matt on November 20, 2011, 12:14:24 pm
Also, in light of your suggestion that God send prophets to the Canaanites or allow them to have another land, or give Israel another land... that has been dealt with.

Canaan knew about the situation as shown in the passages I gave you referring to Rahab and the Gibeonites.   So they did already have knowledge and the ability to turn to the God of Israel.   Second, they could have still repented and turned from what they were doing in Canaanite culture and turned to the God of Israel after the land was beginning to be taken over.  Here again it appears you are unaware of what it means to be a Canaanite.  It is not just to be in the land, it is deeper than that.   They could have stayed in their land if they simply turned to the God of Israel.

The Canaanites were also able to flee to other lands if that was the case.  The Canaanites IN THE LAND were to be dealt with.  The Canaanites had a myriad of options to avoid the judgment that God was enacting on them... yet they chose not to.

I appreciate your conversation, but unless you intend to make a good faith effort to understand the concept of which you are, seemingly, completely ignorant of at the time, it seems this conversation has reached the extent that it can go.

You talk about "God blinders" in my case... and yet you are the one with the ignorance of the background information, the context, and common usage of the language being dealt with.  Far from a rational position to take on your part.

Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: blank on November 20, 2011, 12:21:38 pm
expsredemption wrote: All I have seen on your part is more commentary from a state of ignorance.   You are telling me to look at the Bible when you aren't even in a position to understand what the Bible is really communicating with what it is you are reading.  If you are going to read something and make a point from it it is first important to understand what it is ACTUALLY saying rather what you take it be be saying based on your current state of ignorance to its context.

Your objections will continue to be simplistic and misguided so long as you continue in your state of ignorance about the deeper context of the situation and commands at hand.



All I see is you trying to do is justify an unjust command. Maybe you need to actually read what the Bible says and not just the words of some apologist because the apologist aims to justify the unjustifiable.
I simply wonder what context the command to go on a genocidal spree would be acceptable to you.
Your defense will continue to be abhorrent until you actually look critically at what it means to order genocide.
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: blank on November 20, 2011, 12:30:44 pm
expsredemption wrote: Also, in light of your suggestion that God send prophets to the Canaanites or allow them to have another land, or give Israel another land... that has been dealt with.


Of course it has. It probably didn't occur to God to do that.

expsredemption wrote:
Canaan knew about the situation as shown in the passages I gave you referring to Rahab and the Gibeonites.   So they did already have knowledge and the ability to turn to the God of Israel.   Second, they could have still repented and turned from what they were doing in Canaanite culture and turned to the God of Israel after the land was beginning to be taken over.  Here again it appears you are unaware of what it means to be a Canaanite.  It is not just to be in the land, it is deeper than that.   They could have stayed in their land if they simply turned to the God of Israel.


Are you listening to yourself? A bunch of invaders is coming in killing everyone babies, children, old people, women, animals and anything else they can lay their hands on based on the command of their God and you're saying they should join these invaders? Are you serious?

expsredemption wrote:
The Canaanites were also able to flee to other lands if that was the case.  The Canaanites IN THE LAND were to be dealt with.  The Canaanites had a myriad of options to avoid the judgment that God was enacting on them... yet they chose not to.


So they should just run away. I wonder whether you'll do that if you were told by some invader into your house that their God had instructed them to take over the house you own.

expsredemption wrote:
I appreciate your conversation, but unless you intend to make a good faith effort to understand the concept of which you are, seemingly, completely ignorant of at the time, it seems this conversation has reached the extent that it can go.


Sorry but it seems you're the one who is completely ignorant of how atrocious what you're trying to justify is.

expsredemption wrote:
You talk about "God blinders" in my case... and yet you are the one with the ignorance of the background information, the context, and common usage of the language being dealt with.  Far from a rational position to take on your part.



Sorry, those God blinders are in full effect. Until you're able to take them off and see how immoral and atrocious such a command is, you'll still be playing the usual apologist game of obfuscating by claiming language, ignorance and the failure of the invaded to flee as being the problem.
Good luck to you in your apologetics. Just hope you don't run into someone who has actually read the passages in question.
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Matt on November 21, 2011, 10:09:03 am
blank wrote:


Sorry, those God blinders are in full effect. Until you're able to take them off and see how immoral and atrocious such a command is, you'll still be playing the usual apologist game of obfuscating by claiming language, ignorance and the failure of the invaded to flee as being the problem.
Good luck to you in your apologetics. Just hope you don't run into someone who has actually read the passages in question.
[/QUOTE]

Blank,

 I don't believe you are helping your case with comments such as this.  You CANNOT really understand the ACTUAL command if you are ignorant of the language, culture, setting, genre, etc. in which the command was set.  You continue to state things such as "Just hope you don't run into someone who has actually read the passages in question..." in efforts to prove your point, yet, you show your ignorance again.

Just because someone has read something does not necessitate that they understand what is actually being stated, how it is actually being stated, why it is actually being stated, etc.  Sure they have a perception... but most people take the time and effort to look deeper into the situation to make sure they are understanding it correctly.

So far you have acknowledged that you are content with your misguided surface level understanding and unwilling to take the time to understand that which you are talking about.  This has nothing to do with apologetics, this has to do with intellectual acumen (which you are not displaying to any degree).
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: blank on November 23, 2011, 12:23:43 am
expsredemption wrote:
Quote from: blank



Sorry, those God blinders are in full effect. Until you're able to take them off and see how immoral and atrocious such a command is, you'll still be playing the usual apologist game of obfuscating by claiming language, ignorance and the failure of the invaded to flee as being the problem.
Good luck to you in your apologetics. Just hope you don't run into someone who has actually read the passages in question.


Blank,

 I don't believe you are helping your case with comments such as this.  You CANNOT really understand the ACTUAL command if you are ignorant of the language, culture, setting, genre, etc. in which the command was set.  You continue to state things such as "Just hope you don't run into someone who has actually read the passages in question..." in efforts to prove your point, yet, you show your ignorance again.

Just because someone has read something does not necessitate that they understand what is actually being stated, how it is actually being stated, why it is actually being stated, etc.  Sure they have a perception... but most people take the time and effort to look deeper into the situation to make sure they are understanding it correctly.
[/QUOTE]

Which is what apologists do. They read so deeply into a clear statement that it starts meaning something else. Something that it actually doesn't mean.

expsredemption wrote:
So far you have acknowledged that you are content with your misguided surface level understanding and unwilling to take the time to understand that which you are talking about.  This has nothing to do with apologetics, this has to do with intellectual acumen (which you are not displaying to any degree).


Actually, you have displayed that you're unable to actually see something evil for what it is. What you think is intellectual acumen is actually your willingness to be mislead by apologists.
I listened to that Paul Copan interview and wasn't surprised when he made erroneous statements and omitted important information. Like I said, maybe what you really need to do is to actually read the text without your godblinders on.
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: blank on November 23, 2011, 12:26:16 am
expsredemption wrote:
Quote from: blank


Sorry, those God blinders are in full effect. Until you're able to take them off and see how immoral and atrocious such a command is, you'll still be playing the usual apologist game of obfuscating by claiming language, ignorance and the failure of the invaded to flee as being the problem.
Good luck to you in your apologetics. Just hope you don't run into someone who has actually read the passages in question.


Blank,

 I don't believe you are helping your case with comments such as this.  You CANNOT really understand the ACTUAL command if you are ignorant of the language, culture, setting, genre, etc. in which the command was set.  You continue to state things such as "Just hope you don't run into someone who has actually read the passages in question..." in efforts to prove your point, yet, you show your ignorance again.

Just because someone has read something does not necessitate that they understand what is actually being stated, how it is actually being stated, why it is actually being stated, etc.  Sure they have a perception... but most people take the time and effort to look deeper into the situation to make sure they are understanding it correctly.


Which is what apologists do. They read so deeply into a clear statement that it starts meaning something else. Something that it actually doesn't mean.

expsredemption wrote:
So far you have acknowledged that you are content with your misguided surface level understanding and unwilling to take the time to understand that which you are talking about.  This has nothing to do with apologetics, this has to do with intellectual acumen (which you are not displaying to any degree).


Actually, you have displayed that you're unable to actually see something evil for what it is. What you think is intellectual acumen is actually your willingness to be mislead by apologists.
I listened to that Paul Copan interview and wasn't surprised when he made erroneous statements and omitted important information. Like I said, maybe what you really need to do is to actually read the text without your godblinders on.
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Matt on November 23, 2011, 10:58:41 am
Blank,

 Your last paragraph is telling.  You listened to an interview to make your decision on a field of scholarship and understanding.  Can you not see the laziness in that?  You can base your decisions on ignorance if you choose, just to convince yourself that your decisions are correct or reasonable.  

Either way, have a wonderful Thursday (whatever it might mean to you).

If you ever get the effort instilled to inform yourself on the topic, I look forward to further discussion.  Until then.

Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: blank on November 23, 2011, 12:54:33 pm
expsredemption wrote: Blank,

 Your last paragraph is telling.  You listened to an interview to make your decision on a field of scholarship and understanding.  Can you not see the laziness in that?  You can base your decisions on ignorance if you choose, just to convince yourself that your decisions are correct or reasonable.  


Huh? Laziness? You recommended a resource to me, I checked it out and found it wanting. This was after I had conversed with you on the very same issue yet you think my approach was lazy? Maybe you feel that way because I didn't become an apologist after listening to the unimpressive interview.

expsredemption wrote:
Either way, have a wonderful Thursday (whatever it might mean to you).

If you ever get the effort instilled to inform yourself on the topic, I look forward to further discussion.  Until then.


I've tried to point out to you the problems with your God yet you persist in your apologist dance.
Good luck to you.
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Daniel Pech on December 08, 2011, 12:19:12 pm

This is in reply to what I think are two wrong, mutually opposing extremes: One extreme is the stance that 'if the boss said so then it's right'. The other extreme is the stance that 'whatever can most simply be construed as wrong must be wrong'.

I have at least two very interdependent points of thought on the topic at hand. I'll try to communicate the first point by way of analogy:

Imagine the following five conditions:

1. every planet in the Solar system is inhabited, and...

2. every one of those planets is entirely occupied by the worst possible (in the view of any given reader) imaginable ethical and biological corruptions of every sort, and...

3. there exists a space colony all members of which are far less wicked and biologically corrupt than is anyone on any of nine those planets, and...

4. that colony needs to return to a planet to survive much longer, and...

5. all the people of those planets refuse to give any place for the people of that space colony (the reader's own space colony) to live un-harassed and biologically safe.

Now, within those four conditions, would anyone here assert that it would be unjustified for the inhabitants of at least one locality on one of those nine planets to be annihilated so that that space colony could continue to exist? In other words: a) should that space colony not forcibly remove the people of that locality, and, b) even if that colony did forcibly remove the people of that locality, should that colony have to take on the burden of caring for any of the children of that locality whose parents are killed in the conflict?


My second point I'll try to make by asking three basic questions:

1. Does anyone here assert that humans are so sacred above that of lower life forms that there cannot possibly ever be any conditions under which it would be necessary for other humans to exterminate even one human life?

2. Does anyone here assert that it is biologically impossible for the microbiological dysfunctions and diseases which a population can accrue through biologically unnatural lifestyles to become so bad that even its small children are too afflicted with these dysfunctions to be able to grow up into remotely decent people?

3. Am I correct in assuming that Dawkins (and his supporters) allows for the abortion of a viable fetus in cases of rape, incest, and extreme-danger-to-the-mother-in-giving-birth?
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Daniel Pech on December 08, 2011, 12:38:02 pm

expsredemption wrote: http://www.apologetics315.com/2011/11/is-god-delusion-william-lane-craig-in.html

The genocide question is posed at time 1:46:00 - 1:46:06

In his answer, Graig mentions that the point was not to kill a particular set of people as those people were to be defined by their persons. Rather, the point was to kill a particular set of people as those people were to be defined by their determination to keep possession of the particular geographic locality which God's nation/colony required for its own maintenance.

Had the Amalekites vacated that locality rather than fought to remain in it, none of the Amalekites that ‘fled before the sword’ would have been pursued and killed. Who is not going to run around in more-or-less of a circle who is at once trying to keep possession of their location and to keep out of range of the conquering army---even if this means trying to run so far out of your way so that that army gives up pursuing you, and so then you can go right back in and try to pick off that army one-by-one?

Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: above on December 18, 2011, 05:33:21 pm
Craig needs to stop paying attention to intellectual midgets like dawkins. His book, although held as the "gospel" of the pathetic religion of new atheism is not even worth the paper it's printed on. It's not science, it's not philosophy and it's not logic. It's just anger-drenched sophistry. In fact, sheer stupidity if you consider how irrational and desperate the so-called arguments (if you can call them that) actually are.

But I suppose, someone needs to educate the anti-intellectual atheist drones and someone needs to defend the minds and lifestyles of the people that have been unknowingly indoctinated by the utter garbage presented in this collection of ink and paper.
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: lapwing on January 21, 2012, 09:23:02 am

This is not strictly on topic but I've just experienced suppression of freedom of expression on the Richard Dawkins website and I wanted to advertise this. I've been interacting on that website for about six months - mostly trying to correct the distortions of Christian belief that are often presented. Although they have emailed me before this time there has been no email but I now cannot post on the website. This has happened in the middle of a recent discussion: "How do atheists find meaning in life". An earlier post on the thread was pulled for "preaching" although it was little different from others I have posted  - I edited and resubmitted it. The opening post of the thread distorted the meaning of Psalm 14 in relation to a paper on behavioural statistics of atheists and theists.

The terms and conditions of the RD website includes the statement:

"Please note that we will never remove comments simply because they challenge ideas, whether that’s atheism or evolution or anything else that most people on this site are in agreement about."

and

"where robust disagreement, provided it is intelligently argued, is welcome"

my username on that site is keith54.

Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Michael Helm on January 25, 2012, 03:05:48 am
emailestthoume wrote: Dr. Craig has defended his divine command morality in print, and in depth. I doubt he made such a simple mistake. I believe he has also successfully refuted Euthyphro's dilemma in other places. (using arguments of his own or others I am unsure) Furthermore, if I remember correctly, almost his entire speech about the destruction of the Canaanites had to do with the historical evidence about it, where he argued that what happened was indeed not genocide at all in the first place.

I would encourage everyone to watch it themselves and make up their own mind. It is dealt with towards the end in the question and answer section.

He may believe he has successfully refuted the Euthyphro dilemma, often Christians fall into the trap in which they do not understand or listen to the arguments presented by their opponent(s) and thus believe they have won the argument. Certainly, if you look at the situation through God Glasses, the dilemma isn't even a question. Circular logic would say that the killing is morally just because God said it shall be done because it is morally just because God said it shall be done because it is morally just because God said it shall be done because it is morally just because God said it shall be done because...

Morals are innate within us, but they differ somewhat from one person to the next and are heavily influenced by things that happen within our lifetimes, especially when we are young. The Bible claims to have The Authority on morality, yet it can't even get its own rules straight. It also tries to approach morality as if there is a simple right and wrong in any simple description of a situation, without regard to outside circumstances. For example: God commands that it is wrong to kill. Clearly, there are situations in which killing is justified, such as in self defense. Even God believes there are times it is justified, as He is always commanding His people to kill, ravage, and plunder. But what I don't get is the reasoning behind the killing. It is often absurd, arbitrary, even whimsical. And every time it benefits the Israelites, whether or not they deserved it. And most of the time they killed people who didn't do them any harm. But when we point these things out, we get the same answers over and over again, that the Lord works in mysterious ways, or that we're taking it out of context, or perhaps an evasion of the question entirely. Many Christian debaters will skirt around the issue, coming up with minor points that are only partially on-topic about how maybe it was justified if you look at it or interpret it a certain way. And a lot of them just say God doesn't need to justify His actions, since He created us. Well sure, He can do whatever He wants. But that pretty much means morality is arbitrary and entirely dependent on what God decided for it to be, now doesn't it? And that's not even taking into account of all the times He contradicts His own morality.
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: SceptiKarl on January 27, 2012, 03:51:39 pm

As someone who comes fresh to this forum, I must confess to a non-belief in any God, or gods. Having read through the whole thread, I notice that expsredemption has resorted to accusations of ignorance & laziness on the part of blank. Subsequent posters have attacked Richard Dawkins. Is this to be the level of the argument? Insults against people who abhor genocide, in whatever form it manifests itself?

ISTM that faced with defending the undefendable, the believers then have to restort to insulting the integrity of those opposing their view. They have no arguments left, apart from, as blank put it, "a wall of text"!

Which side was the Christian God on when the Russians and the Germans
fought on the eastern front during WW2, where at least 25 million were killed? The Canaanites? Small fry compared with the eastern front. And what was God doing? Nothing all as usual, although the Christians on both sides no doubt felt that God was on their side. As did no doubt the  mostly Christian British RAF crews when they firebombed Hamburg and Dresden, and the Christian crew of the Enola Gay as they dropped their a-bomb on Hiroshima, instantly killing houndreds of thousands. No burning bushes then, or messages from angels, - just God twiddling His thumbs and watching His creation destroy parts of itself. "Shall I intervene? Not bloody likely!"

And yet Christians still somehow still manage to find love and respect for such a lover of mass murder! A Being so loving that He even had His own son murdered! (But not really!)

"On the third day he rose.."

Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: SceptiKarl on January 27, 2012, 04:14:47 pm
lapwing says:



This is not strictly on topic but I've just experienced suppression of freedom of expression on the Richard Dawkins website and I wanted to advertise this. I've been interacting on that website for about six months - mostly trying to correct the distortions of Christian belief that are often presented. Although they have emailed me before this time there has been no email but I now cannot post on the website. This has happened in the middle of a recent discussion: "How do atheists find meaning in life". An earlier post on the thread was pulled for "preaching" although it was little different from others I have posted  - I edited and resubmitted it. The opening post of the thread distorted the meaning of Psalm 14 in relation to a paper on behavioural statistics of atheists and theists.
 
The terms and conditions of the RD website includes the statement:
"Please note that we will never remove comments simply because they challenge ideas, whether that’s atheism or evolution or anything else that most people on this site are in agreement about."
and
"where robust disagreement, provided it is intelligently argued, is welcome"

my username on that site is keith54.


Perhaps if lapwing would like to publish his "offending" comments here, then I would have a chance of deciding whether they were off topic or not. My own experience with Dawkins' website is that there is an unusually diverse expression of views, including Christian, Muslim and Jewish contributors. I hope that lapwing is not implying that the Dawkins site does not allow opposing views, far from it, - they are welcome. But please be prepared to have your views examined and stick up for them!
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Daniel Pech on January 31, 2012, 10:47:00 am

SceptiKarl wrote:
Which side was the Christian God on when the Russians and the Germans
fought on the eastern front during WW2, where at least 25 million were killed? The Canaanites? Small fry compared with the eastern front. And what was God doing? Nothing all as usual, although the Christians on both sides no doubt felt that God was on their side. As did no doubt the mostly Christian British RAF crews when they firebombed Hamburg and Dresden, and the Christian crew of the Enola Gay as they dropped their a-bomb on Hiroshima, instantly killing houndreds of thousands. No burning bushes then, or messages from angels, - just God twiddling His thumbs and watching His creation destroy parts of itself. "Shall I intervene? Not bloody likely!"

Do you think any self-respecting highly morally evolved extraterrestrial civilization is going to bother trying to continually teaching humanity what humanity has proved that it tends to reject learning? Every fool tyrant-in-waiting will strive for his own peace to the detriment of his fellows, which means he is not as good as he thinks he is during his days of being the underdog. The last time I checked, neither you nor I is essentially, irrevocably evolved beyond that of the worst known tyrants in history. Lack of opportunity to succeed in our own selfish interests only means we tend to focus on how we may best survive by being good. Your words here seem to be highly motivated by a rather high esteem of yourself as essentially, context-transcending-ly moral.


And yet Christians somehow still manage to find love and respect for such a lover of mass murder! A Being so loving that He even had His own son murdered! (But not really!)

"On the third day he rose.."

According the Bible, and to those Christians, God was perfectly willing to become a man so as represent the extent to which he would go to show what divine love is. You, on the other hand, seem to insist that, if God is real, then He would be such a butt-kicker throughout history that everyone would be too afraid to even think or do anything lest they offend your own personal preferences as to what you think God-would-prefer-if-he-was- such-a-great-guy.

Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: SceptiKarl on January 31, 2012, 02:27:11 pm
Daniel quoting me:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SceptiKarl

Which side was the Christian God on when the Russians and the Germans
fought on the eastern front during WW2, where at least 25 million were killed? The Canaanites? Small fry compared with the eastern front. And what was God doing? Nothing all as usual, although the Christians on both sides no doubt felt that God was on their side. As did no doubt the mostly Christian British RAF crews when they firebombed Hamburg and Dresden, and the Christian crew of the Enola Gay as they dropped their a-bomb on Hiroshima, instantly killing houndreds of thousands. No burning bushes then, or messages from angels, - just God twiddling His thumbs and watching His creation destroy parts of itself. "Shall I intervene? Not bloody likely!"

Do you think any self-respecting highly morally evolved extraterrestrial civilization is going to bother trying to continually teaching humanity what humanity has proved that it tends to reject learning? Every fool tyrant-in-waiting will strive for his own peace to the detriment of his fellows, which means he is not as good as he thinks he is during his days of being the underdog. The last time I checked, neither you nor I is essentially, irrevocably evolved beyond that of the worst known tyrants in history. Lack of opportunity to succeed in our own selfish interests only means we tend to focus on how we may best survive by being good. Your words here seem to be highly motivated by a rather high esteem of yourself as essentially, context-transcending-ly moral.

I take your response to mean that the all loving Jesus was nowhere to be seen whilst some 25 million of His creation murdered each other in the most diabolical circumstances. Just as I thought. Either He ain't there, He don't care, or He's too weak to do anything! BTW, please feel free to insult me as much as you want.

You, on the other hand, seem to insist that, if God is real, then He would be such a butt-kicker throughout history that everyone would be too afraid to even think or do anything lest they offend your own personal preferences as to what you think God-would-prefer-if-he-was- such-a-great-guy.

Well Dan, it's all written in the good book! Watch out for your immortal soul if you think He ain't such a great guy, - you might be joining me in the boiling lake!

Cheers SK

Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: FNB - Former non-believer on February 01, 2012, 11:15:22 pm
I don't know why it didn't send me an email that people were commenting on this thread… arg.  

thereaverofdarkness wrote: He may believe he has successfully refuted the Euthyphro dilemma, often Christians fall into the trap in which they do not understand or listen to the arguments presented by their opponent(s) and thus believe they have won the argument.

His response to the Euthyphro dilemma seemed sound to me. If you have an objection to it I would be interested in hearing it.

thereaverofdarkness wrote:  Certainly, if you look at the situation through God Glasses, the dilemma isn't even a question. Circular logic would say that the killing is morally just because God said it shall be done because it is morally just because God said it shall be done because it is morally just because God said it shall be done because it is morally just because God said it shall be done because...

Provided God has a morally sufficient reason for His actions it seems to me that His actions would be just. If we cannot say that God did not have a morally sufficient reason for X because of our nature as limited finite beings that cannot know the mysterious ways God works in, that is no reason to think He did not have a morally sufficient reason for X.

thereaverofdarkness wrote: Morals are innate within us, but they differ somewhat from one person to the next and are heavily influenced by things that happen within our lifetimes, especially when we are young. The Bible claims to have The Authority on morality, yet it can't even get its own rules straight. It also tries to approach morality as if there is a simple right and wrong in any simple description of a situation, without regard to outside circumstances. For example: God commands that it is wrong to kill. Clearly, there are situations in which killing is justified, such as in self defense. Even God believes there are times it is justified, as He is always commanding His people to kill, ravage, and plunder. But what I don't get is the reasoning behind the killing.

If your Dad or a Judge commanded you not to kill, that doesn't mean those people really meant "don't kill if it would save 100 children," or "don't kill if it is a self-defense situation." The person in that situation commanding you expects you to realize he doesn't mean that. Likewise I think are God's commands in the bible. Jesus broke some of those commands with this in mind and stated that the whole Law is summed up in "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself."

thereaverofdarkness wrote: It is often absurd, arbitrary, even whimsical. And every time it benefits the Israelites, whether or not they deserved it. And most of the time they killed people who didn't do them any harm. But when we point these things out, we get the same answers over and over again, that the Lord works in mysterious ways, or that we're taking it out of context, or perhaps an evasion of the question entirely.

I think people in the third world are no so offended by what seems so difficult for us wealthy people. I think this is because they have seen the great suffering that results when people sin and so understand God's anger at sin. And there is no case in the bible where God just arbitrarily punishes someone.

thereaverofdarkness wrote: Many Christian debaters will skirt around the issue, coming up with minor points that are only partially on-topic about how maybe it was justified if you look at it or interpret it a certain way. And a lot of them just say God doesn't need to justify His actions, since He created us. Well sure, He can do whatever He wants. But that pretty much means morality is arbitrary and entirely dependent on what God decided for it to be, now doesn't it? And that's not even taking into account of all the times He contradicts His own morality.

I don't think God arbitrarily choses morality, I think morality flows in a sort of necessary way from God's nature. My response to you would not necessarily be "God can do whatever he wants, and what God wants is right, therefore what God did in the bible is right." It's more like "God had a morally sufficient reason to do what he did, and we are in no position to make a rational judgment that he did not."


Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Daniel Pech on February 02, 2012, 06:50:51 am
Sandspirit wrote:
Hitler is a pejorative terms at the moment. Sure it was his view, but there are two questions to ask:

1. Was his view correct?
2. Even if his view was correct, was he actually (not what he thought personally) in a position to make and act upon that decision?


I don't suppose many of you became christians in order to be associated with this sort of sentiment but in the name of "reasonable faith" you've compromised your critical faculties to the point where you don't know whether genocide is right or wrong. Many christians shun Craig because of his views on genocide. Forget Dawkins and the debate - it doesn't matter. It's not hard to see that eliminating an entire people is wrong. Or maybe I'm mistaken.


Do you think there is no such thing as a biologically abominable lifestyle, such that, over generations, that lifestyle can mess up the entire population, including infants, to the point that not even the infants could grow to be anything but moral monsters whose microbiological dimensions alone could easily fatally microbiologically compromise a healthy individual?

Imagine the following five conditions:

1. every planet in the Solar system is inhabited, and...

2. every one of those planets is entirely occupied by the worst possible (in the view of any given reader) imaginable ethical and biological corruptions of every sort, and...

3. there exists a space colony all members of which are far less wicked and biologically corrupt than is anyone on any of nine those planets, and...

4. that colony needs to return to a planet to survive much longer, and...

5. all the people of those planets refuse to give any place for the people of that space colony (the reader's own space colony) to live un-harassed and biologically safe.

Now, within those five conditions, would you assert that it would be unjustified for the inhabitants of at least one locality on one of those nine planets to be annihilated so that that space colony could continue to exist? In other words: a) should that space colony not forcibly remove the people of that locality, and, b) even if that colony did forcibly remove the people of that locality, should that colony have to take on the burden of even trying to care for any of the children of that locality whose parents are killed in the conflict?

Am I correct in assuming that you allow for the abortion of a viable fetus in cases of rape, incest, and extreme-danger-to-the-mother-in-giving-birth?


Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Daniel Pech on February 02, 2012, 07:08:45 am
SceptiKarl wrote: Daniel quoting me:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SceptiKarl

Which side was the Christian God on when the Russians and the Germans
fought on the eastern front during WW2, where at least 25 million were killed? The Canaanites? Small fry compared with the eastern front. And what was God doing? Nothing all as usual, although the Christians on both sides no doubt felt that God was on their side. As did no doubt the mostly Christian British RAF crews when they firebombed Hamburg and Dresden, and the Christian crew of the Enola Gay as they dropped their a-bomb on Hiroshima, instantly killing houndreds of thousands. No burning bushes then, or messages from angels, - just God twiddling His thumbs and watching His creation destroy parts of itself. "Shall I intervene? Not bloody likely!"

Do you think any self-respecting highly morally evolved extraterrestrial civilization is going to bother trying to continually teaching humanity what humanity has proved that it tends to reject learning? Lack of opportunity to succeed in our own selfish interests only means we tend to focus on how we may best survive by being good. Your words here seem to be highly motivated by a rather high esteem of yourself as essentially, context-transcending-ly moral.

I take your response to mean that the all loving Jesus was nowhere to be seen whilst some 25 million of His creation murdered each other in the most diabolical circumstances. Just as I thought. Either He ain't there, He don't care, or He's too weak to do anything!

I think I’ve been short in emphasizing only one side of my own view. I’ve not, I repeat, not, been saying that human beings, as such, are bad. In fact, I would almost be ready to bet my life that you think that the only reason that historically real humans (including you, me, and all long-dead humans) ever mistreat each other or the non-human environment is because they lack an ecologically and socially Edenic upbringing.

But, then, such a lack might seem to prove that the natural, true, right, default, or original human home was Edenic.

But, if an Edenic home is not the default human home, then I think that what both you and I agree is unjust is merely a perfectly natural, even justified, completion in an evolutionary landscape. So, I think that evolutionism lacks a basis for calling ‘wicked’ anything adverse which humans do to each other, to non-human animals, or to the non-animal ecology, whether purposely, or as a consequence of other acts. And, I think that atheistic evolutionism is a compound lack of such a basis.

(The reason I'm posting this reply here as well as in the other thread in which I've posted it is because I doubt that many skeptics actually bother to read through most threads here so as to happen upon a particular substance of response to the basic cause of their skepticism. In interest of ensuring that this particular substance is not missed by any skeptic even who reads just one pro-Christian post on these forums and then, still perfectly skeptical, never returns, I would post it in every thread. But, I'll leave it up to the forum admins to decide about that.)

Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Daniel Pech on February 02, 2012, 09:21:46 am

SceptiKarl wrote:
You, on the other hand, seem to insist that, if God is real, then He would be such a butt-kicker throughout history that everyone would be too afraid to even think or do anything lest they offend your own personal preferences as to what you think God-would-prefer-if-he-was- such-a-great-guy.

Well Dan, it's all written in the good book! Watch out for your immortal soul if you think He ain't such a great guy, - you might be joining me in the boiling lake!

Tragically, many Christians today arrogantly love to emphasize the doctrine of afterlife-punishment, as if they want to replace 'the whole of the law and the prophets' with such a doctrine. Their arrogance is what may be called the 'afterlife-punishment' fallacy, which is not something I subscribe to. I find no doctrine of hell in the first several books of the Bible, nor in the mosaic Law, and I would say that not even the Christian Biblical view (contrary to what some Christians arrogantly love to think) is predicated on that doctrine. Obviously, mistreating others is the prior fact to any warning of punishment in an afterlife, and there is no story in Genesis 1-and-2 of God threatening anyone with any version of such punishment.

Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: SceptiKarl on February 02, 2012, 03:27:52 pm
OK Daniel,
Maybe you're one of the more "progressive " Christians who doesn't think God is a "butt kicker". However, as a non-believer, I see meek and mild Jesus is the one who threatens people such as myself with the fiery lake for eternity! And all this for the heinous sin of not believing in Him!

Who do I believe, a) the "progressive" Christians, the b) "you will burn in hell" Christians, or c) none of the above? [I go with c]

Cheers SK
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: FNB - Former non-believer on February 02, 2012, 05:02:53 pm
SceptiKarl wrote: OK Daniel,
Maybe you're one of the more "progressive " Christians who doesn't think God is a "butt kicker". However, as a non-believer, I see meek and mild Jesus is the one who threatens people such as myself with the fiery lake for eternity! And all this for the heinous sin of not believing in Him!

Who do I believe, a) the "progressive" Christians, the b) "you will burn in hell" Christians, or c) none of the above? [I go with c]

Cheers SK

I think you are painting a very black and white picture not representative of the biblical teaching about God or Jesus. If you look at the bible, you will see Jesus actually threatening people to go to hell in the sermon on the mount where "turn the other cheek" is said. There are also actually good arguments against the belief that people are in hell forever. A view called annihilationism says this was more the result of greek philosophy being integrated into Christian belief, than what the bible actually says.
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: SceptiKarl on February 03, 2012, 04:54:14 pm
emailestthoume says:


I think you are painting a very black and white picture not representative of the biblical teaching about God or Jesus. If you look at the bible, you will see Jesus actually threatening people to go to hell in the sermon on the mount where "turn the other cheek" is said. There are also actually good arguments against the belief that people are in hell forever. A view called annihilationism says this was more the result of greek philosophy being integrated into Christian belief, than what the bible actually says.


Well emailestthoume, that may be so, but from my POV, it seems that the Christians God is pretty determined that those who don't believe in Him, will surely end up in the fiery lake for eternity. Luckily for me, I don't believe a word of these ridiculous threats to force belief upon credulous people.

Cheers SK
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: FNB - Former non-believer on February 03, 2012, 06:10:21 pm
SceptiKarl wrote: emailestthoume says:


I think you are painting a very black and white picture not representative of the biblical teaching about God or Jesus. If you look at the bible, you will see Jesus actually threatening people to go to hell in the sermon on the mount where "turn the other cheek" is said. There are also actually good arguments against the belief that people are in hell forever. A view called annihilationism says this was more the result of greek philosophy being integrated into Christian belief, than what the bible actually says.


Well emailestthoume, that may be so, but from my POV, it seems that the Christians God is pretty determined that those who don't believe in Him, will surely end up in the fiery lake for eternity. Luckily for me, I don't believe a word of these ridiculous threats to force belief upon credulous people.

Cheers SK

Since, on Christianity, knowing God is the greatest good for humans it would be selfish if he didn't care if people believed in Him which would be an important condition for knowing Him. And as I said about hell already which you did not respond to, there are defensible Christian views which do not entail people's suffering forever in hell. There are many verses about destruction of the lost in the bible which is what supports this view.
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: blank on February 04, 2012, 02:44:01 am
lapwing wrote:

This is not strictly on topic but I've just experienced suppression of freedom of expression on the Richard Dawkins website and I wanted to advertise this. I've been interacting on that website for about six months - mostly trying to correct the distortions of Christian belief that are often presented. Although they have emailed me before this time there has been no email but I now cannot post on the website. This has happened in the middle of a recent discussion: "How do atheists find meaning in life". An earlier post on the thread was pulled for "preaching" although it was little different from others I have posted  - I edited and resubmitted it. The opening post of the thread distorted the meaning of Psalm 14 in relation to a paper on behavioural statistics of atheists and theists.

The terms and conditions of the RD website includes the statement:

"Please note that we will never remove comments simply because they challenge ideas, whether that’s atheism or evolution or anything else that most people on this site are in agreement about."

and

"where robust disagreement, provided it is intelligently argued, is welcome"

my username on that site is keith54.



I wonder if you've been following certain activities on this forum. An entire thread was deleted which was on the issue of legal and illegal DMCA take downs issued on behalf of Craig. I made several posts there and now the entire thread is gone. I wonder why. I didn't get an email about this nor was I given an option of saving my own comments but what can one do about this?
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: FNB - Former non-believer on February 04, 2012, 11:28:10 am
Focus on the issues of God's existence, rather than accusing other members of this forum (drcraigvideos) of illegal activity? If I started accusing you of illegal activity I would expect to be reprimanded.
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: SceptiKarl on February 04, 2012, 03:00:04 pm
emailstthoume:


Since, on Christianity, knowing God is the greatest good for humans it would be selfish if he didn't care if people believed in Him which would be an important condition for knowing Him.



Well looking around the world, it would seem that at least 2/3  of the population DO NOT believe in the Christian God. It seems He has a bit of competition, what with Allah, Krishna etc. As to "knowing" the unknowable, well good luck to you. I'll stick to the scientific method myself.


And as I said about hell already which you did not respond to, there are defensible Christian views which do not entail people's suffering forever in hell. There are many verses about destruction of the lost in the bible which is what supports this view.


Nor do I have to respond to everything. Jesus is quite clear that non-believers such as myself are bound for the fiery lake. "The wages of sin is death" is all very well, but then according to the Bible, I have to suffer two deaths!  It reminds me of some evil Chinese villain (Fu Man Chu?); "For this you will suffer 1000 deaths!"

All nonsense of course, and all threats issued by fictional characters!

Cheers SK


Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: blank on February 04, 2012, 06:00:04 pm
emailestthoume wrote: Focus on the issues of God's existence, rather than accusing other members of this forum (drcraigvideos) of illegal activity? If I started accusing you of illegal activity I would expect to be reprimanded.


You're welcome to make such an accusation as long as you have some evidence backing you up. My point was that the sort of censoring I've experienced on this very forum is something that needs to be spoken about rather than acting as though it doesn't happen here.
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: FNB - Former non-believer on February 06, 2012, 11:57:40 am
blank wrote:
Quote from: emailestthoume
Focus on the issues of God's existence, rather than accusing other members of this forum (drcraigvideos) of illegal activity? If I started accusing you of illegal activity I would expect to be reprimanded.


You're welcome to make such an accusation as long as you have some evidence backing you up. My point was that the sort of censoring I've experienced on this very forum is something that needs to be spoken about rather than acting as though it doesn't happen here.

I have seen no one censored for using reason or talking about the issues irenically. All you have to do is not personally attack people and there will be no getting suspended (…not even banned).
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: FNB - Former non-believer on February 06, 2012, 12:03:54 pm
SceptiKarl wrote:

Well looking around the world, it would seem that at least 2/3  of the population DO NOT believe in the Christian God. It seems He has a bit of competition, what with Allah, Krishna etc. As to "knowing" the unknowable, well good luck to you. I'll stick to the scientific method myself.

The former only confirms the Scriptures, "

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it." (Matt. 7:13)

And as for the scientific method it presupposes that there is no God, and so it is rather silly if you think that it gives evidence that there is no God without a circular argument.


Quote

And as I said about hell already which you did not respond to, there are defensible Christian views which do not entail people's suffering forever in hell. There are many verses about destruction of the lost in the bible which is what supports this view.


Nor do I have to respond to everything. Jesus is quite clear that non-believers such as myself are bound for the fiery lake. "The wages of sin is death" is all very well, but then according to the Bible, I have to suffer two deaths!  It reminds me of some evil Chinese villain (Fu Man Chu?); "For this you will suffer 1000 deaths!"

All nonsense of course, and all threats issued by fictional characters!

Cheers SK
[/QUOTE]

The only substance, (much of this was an appeal to ridicule) I see in this post is that Jesus was "quite clear that nonbelievers are bound for the fierily lake." My question would be, does fire ever consume the things in the fire?


Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: SceptiKarl on February 07, 2012, 02:21:27 pm
emailestthoume quotes the Bible:


Enter" through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it." (Matt. 7:13)






Well, if true, it doesn't say much good about your God does it? Only the exclusive club of Christians can enter through the pearly gates, and the rest of His creation can be dammed! Very loving indeed! I wouldn't dream of treating my nearest and dearest that way!

And as for the scientific method it presupposes that there is no God, and so it is rather silly if you think that it gives evidence that there is no God without a circular argument.


Well no! The scientific method relies upon naturalism. Observations of the world, ideas of how things work, testing of those ideas, and changing them if necessary, making predictions about new phenomena, and either confirming or ruling out previous ideas. By itself the scientific method doesn't say anything about the supernatural because it only deals in the natural, i.e. what we can detect with our instruments and senses. The beauty of the scientific method is that it works! I wouldn't be able to type this message if it weren't for the discoveries in electricity, quantum mechanics etc.

Of course if Christians want to claim that God can and does intervene in this, the natural world, then the nature of the intervention becomes a matter of scientific enquiry. Unfortunately for religion dualism has long been ruled out by science.

Does fire ever consume the things in the fire? Err yes. Does that mean I'll be burned till dead instead of being boiled forever?

Such lovely threats you Christians have!

Cheers SK
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: blank on February 07, 2012, 03:04:25 pm
emailestthoume wrote:
Quote from: blank
Quote from: emailestthoume
Focus on the issues of God's existence, rather than accusing other members of this forum (drcraigvideos) of illegal activity? If I started accusing you of illegal activity I would expect to be reprimanded.


You're welcome to make such an accusation as long as you have some evidence backing you up. My point was that the sort of censoring I've experienced on this very forum is something that needs to be spoken about rather than acting as though it doesn't happen here.

I have seen no one censored for using reason or talking about the issues irenically. All you have to do is not personally attack people and there will be no getting suspended (…not even banned).


A thread on which I posted some irenic comments was summarily deleted without warning or explanation. Oh and I didn't personally attack anyone at least on that thread. Why was the whole thread deleted and not maybe the offending posts deleted or the posters warned?
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: FNB - Former non-believer on February 07, 2012, 10:36:20 pm
blank wrote:
Quote from: emailestthoume
Quote from: blank
Quote from: emailestthoume
Focus on the issues of God's existence, rather than accusing other members of this forum (drcraigvideos) of illegal activity? If I started accusing you of illegal activity I would expect to be reprimanded.


You're welcome to make such an accusation as long as you have some evidence backing you up. My point was that the sort of censoring I've experienced on this very forum is something that needs to be spoken about rather than acting as though it doesn't happen here.

I have seen no one censored for using reason or talking about the issues irenically. All you have to do is not personally attack people and there will be no getting suspended (…not even banned).


A thread on which I posted some irenic comments was summarily deleted without warning or explanation. Oh and I didn't personally attack anyone at least on that thread. Why was the whole thread deleted and not maybe the offending posts deleted or the posters warned?

Are you sure it wasn't deleted by the author of the thread? I can't vouch for every action of the admins here, but from what I have seen they are pretty fair.
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: FNB - Former non-believer on February 07, 2012, 10:49:48 pm
SceptiKarl wrote:
Well, if true, it doesn't say much good about your God does it? Only the exclusive club of Christians can enter through the pearly gates, and the rest of His creation can be dammed! Very loving indeed! I wouldn't dream of treating my nearest and dearest that way!

I don't intended to spend much more of my time in having a contentious conversation with you as I have found such conversations usually get nowhere--regardless of the topic. To respond to your comments above, I don't think it is God's fault that people don't go to heaven, I consider it the responsibility of people to use their freewill to choose what is right. Looking at it purely from a logical standpoint, God is under no moral obligation to save anyone as all have sinned. On the traditional Christian view, we all deserve hell and it is only God's undeserved mercy that gets people to heaven. One should thank God that some actualy get to heaven and ask God to help them get there rather than complain that not enough get there.

Well no! The scientific method relies upon naturalism. Observations of the world, ideas of how things work, testing of those ideas, and changing them if necessary, making predictions about new phenomena, and either confirming or ruling out previous ideas. By itself the scientific method doesn't say anything about the supernatural because it only deals in the natural, i.e. what we can detect with our instruments and senses. The beauty of the scientific method is that it works!

That was my point, the scientific method assumes naturalism and so is no evidence that atheism is true as naturalism assumes atheism.

I wouldn't be able to type this message if it weren't for the discoveries in electricity, quantum mechanics etc.

You would be quite able to type this if there were no quantum mechanics. Also, if we were more moral we wouldn't worry so much about the quantum level or being able to type on forums. We would be feeding the hungry.

Of course if Christians want to claim that God can and does intervene in this, the natural world, then the nature of the intervention becomes a matter of scientific enquiry.

Science only speaks about causally closed systems and when God acts the system is no longer closed. I would also assume science doesn't engage in the psychology of supernatural omnipotent beings, but this what would be necessary to comment about the reasons why an omnipotent omniscient being wouldn't give us more scientific evidence for his existence.

Unfortunately for religion dualism has long been ruled out by science.

No it hasn't. Though I don't think the issue of dualism is a religion/vs. atheism one as there are religious non-dualists and atheistic dualists.

Does fire ever consume the things in the fire? Err yes. Does that mean I'll be burned till dead instead of being boiled forever?

Such lovely threats you Christians have!

Cheers SK

As you are well aware, I was asserting that Christianity was not committed to the idea that people are alive in hell forever. Would you accuse me of threatening people if I said that there was such a thing as jail and people go there for crimes? Imagine what life would be like without consequences!
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: blank on February 08, 2012, 11:20:52 am
emailestthoume wrote:
Quote from: blank
Quote from: emailestthoume
Quote from: blank
Quote from: emailestthoume
Focus on the issues of God's existence, rather than accusing other members of this forum (drcraigvideos) of illegal activity? If I started accusing you of illegal activity I would expect to be reprimanded.


You're welcome to make such an accusation as long as you have some evidence backing you up. My point was that the sort of censoring I've experienced on this very forum is something that needs to be spoken about rather than acting as though it doesn't happen here.

I have seen no one censored for using reason or talking about the issues irenically. All you have to do is not personally attack people and there will be no getting suspended (…not even banned).


A thread on which I posted some irenic comments was summarily deleted without warning or explanation. Oh and I didn't personally attack anyone at least on that thread. Why was the whole thread deleted and not maybe the offending posts deleted or the posters warned?

Are you sure it wasn't deleted by the author of the thread? I can't vouch for every action of the admins here, but from what I have seen they are pretty fair.


Nah I don't think it was the author since the author had some things to say on that issue.
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: SceptiKarl on February 08, 2012, 03:47:32 pm
emailestthoume doesn't want to have a contentious exchange with me. Nor do I. I'm not on a Christian site to score points, but to exchange ideas. If emailes.. feels that opposing views to his/hers are somehow unworthy of reply then that is a decision that emailes... has made. Having said that, s/he doesn't want contention, emailes.. then goes on to say:

On the traditional Christian view, we all deserve hell and it is only God's undeserved mercy that gets people to heaven. One should thank God that some actualy get to heaven and ask God to help them get there rather than complain that not enough get there.



Yes that is the traditional Christian view and what a load of nonsense it is! As Hitchens put it, you are born ill and commanded to get better, which is beyond your power! So for example the Boxing Day tsunami, a natural disaster which killed over 500,000 people, (mostly non-Christian), somehow a baby survived on a beach somewhere. A miracle declared the believers, whilst ignoring the carnage of the half million odd dead! God always gets the credit for the good stuff, whilst anything bad is down to we sinners! Sheer nonsense! We are not sinners, we are human beings who have evolved over billions of years from our earliest common ancestor, which was also the common ancestor of the rest  of life on Earth. We are apes, and our closest common ancestor with the apes is about 6 million years ago. A book like the Bible or Koran that demands that Adam and Eve were the first humans and made by God, is completely out of touch with science. It's fantasy!

That was my point, the scientific method assumes naturalism and so is no evidence that atheism is true as naturalism assumes atheism.
Excuse me! Science has absolutely nothing to say about the supernatural, because it is outside of what humans can observe. But as plenty of religions, including Christianity, claim that their particular God can and does intervene in this, the known natural world, then that can become a matter of scientific investigation. For example, the Turin Shroud is claimed by many, (but not officially by the RCC), to the be burial cloth of Jesus containing blood! Well modern forensic science should in that case be able to take a sample and determine whether or not Jesus was a human being, or whether his DNA existed at all! Of course the Vatican has refused all further tests on the Shroud since the last carbon 14 dating ones estimated its age at about 700 years. The RCC obviously prefers the "mystery" to continue. That's faith for you!
You would be quite able to type this if there were no quantum mechanics. Also, if we were more moral we wouldn't worry so much about the quantum level or being able to type on forums.
Ah so God is behind quantum mechanics! Do you have any evidence for this assertion? A Nobel Prize awaits! Don't you see that plonking "God" as the solution, only pushes the problem back a further stage. So where did God come from?
We would be feeding the hungry.
Why does God, all loving, allow the hungry? (Oh, I forgot, it's we sinners' fault! Doh).
Science only speaks about causally closed systems and when God acts the system is no longer closed.
Oh how convenient that God can just pop in and out of reality as and when it suits Him! A ludicrous assertion with no basis in reality. Your mobile phone wouldn't work on such an ad hoc basis.
Quote:
Unfortunately for religion dualism has long been ruled out by science.

No it hasn't. Though I don't think the issue of dualism is a religion/vs. atheism one as there are religious non-dualists and atheistic dualists.

So how can a mind exist without a body? Again a Nobel Prize awaits!
As you are well aware, I was asserting that Christianity was not committed to the idea that people are alive in hell forever. Would you accuse me of threatening people if I said that there was such a thing as jail and people go there for crimes? Imagine what life would be like without consequences!

I notice the level of threat has dropped from eternal boiling, burnt till dead, to a term in jail! Could  I agree with such a progressive Christian as yourself that hell could be an eternally long warm bath? (Maybe God would take mercy and send down the odd single malt whisky?)
Cheers SK

Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: FNB - Former non-believer on February 14, 2012, 01:05:09 am
SceptiKarl wrote: If emailes.. feels that opposing views to his/hers are somehow unworthy of reply then that is a decision that emailes... has made.

This is one reason why I probably wont spend much time debating with you. You are totally ignoring what I said. I made it clear that my reasons for not thinking about not continuing this are not that I consider "opposing views are unworthy of reply," in fact, I am involved in long and detailed conversations on this site with people who disagree with me. And it ends up taking hours a day to reply to them.

This, on the contrary, is what I said,

I don't intended to spend much more of my time in having a contentious conversation with you as I have found such conversations usually get nowhere--regardless of the topic.

I wouldn't be surprised if you again trolled out on your next post though.

Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: FNB - Former non-believer on February 14, 2012, 01:34:46 am
blank wrote:
Quote from: emailestthoume
Quote from: blank
Quote from: emailestthoume
Quote from: blank
Quote from: emailestthoume
Focus on the issues of God's existence, rather than accusing other members of this forum (drcraigvideos) of illegal activity? If I started accusing you of illegal activity I would expect to be reprimanded.


You're welcome to make such an accusation as long as you have some evidence backing you up. My point was that the sort of censoring I've experienced on this very forum is something that needs to be spoken about rather than acting as though it doesn't happen here.

I have seen no one censored for using reason or talking about the issues irenically. All you have to do is not personally attack people and there will be no getting suspended (…not even banned).


A thread on which I posted some irenic comments was summarily deleted without warning or explanation. Oh and I didn't personally attack anyone at least on that thread. Why was the whole thread deleted and not maybe the offending posts deleted or the posters warned?

Are you sure it wasn't deleted by the author of the thread? I can't vouch for every action of the admins here, but from what I have seen they are pretty fair.


Nah I don't think it was the author since the author had some things to say on that issue.

It is not that unusual for someone to delete a thread they have created and commented on at length.
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: blank on February 16, 2012, 11:09:17 am
emailestthoume wrote:
Quote from: blank
Quote from: emailestthoume
Quote from: blank
Quote from: emailestthoume
Quote from: blank
Quote from: emailestthoume
Focus on the issues of God's existence, rather than accusing other members of this forum (drcraigvideos) of illegal activity? If I started accusing you of illegal activity I would expect to be reprimanded.


You're welcome to make such an accusation as long as you have some evidence backing you up. My point was that the sort of censoring I've experienced on this very forum is something that needs to be spoken about rather than acting as though it doesn't happen here.

I have seen no one censored for using reason or talking about the issues irenically. All you have to do is not personally attack people and there will be no getting suspended (…not even banned).


A thread on which I posted some irenic comments was summarily deleted without warning or explanation. Oh and I didn't personally attack anyone at least on that thread. Why was the whole thread deleted and not maybe the offending posts deleted or the posters warned?

Are you sure it wasn't deleted by the author of the thread? I can't vouch for every action of the admins here, but from what I have seen they are pretty fair.


Nah I don't think it was the author since the author had some things to say on that issue.

It is not that unusual for someone to delete a thread they have created and commented on at length.


Okay. Though I didn't think thread authors had the permission to delete entire threads.
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: FNB - Former non-believer on February 16, 2012, 11:16:31 am
blank wrote:
Quote from: emailestthoume
Quote from: blank
Quote from: emailestthoume
Quote from: blank
Quote from: emailestthoume
Quote from: blank
Quote from: emailestthoume
Focus on the issues of God's existence, rather than accusing other members of this forum (drcraigvideos) of illegal activity? If I started accusing you of illegal activity I would expect to be reprimanded.


You're welcome to make such an accusation as long as you have some evidence backing you up. My point was that the sort of censoring I've experienced on this very forum is something that needs to be spoken about rather than acting as though it doesn't happen here.

I have seen no one censored for using reason or talking about the issues irenically. All you have to do is not personally attack people and there will be no getting suspended (…not even banned).


A thread on which I posted some irenic comments was summarily deleted without warning or explanation. Oh and I didn't personally attack anyone at least on that thread. Why was the whole thread deleted and not maybe the offending posts deleted or the posters warned?

Are you sure it wasn't deleted by the author of the thread? I can't vouch for every action of the admins here, but from what I have seen they are pretty fair.


Nah I don't think it was the author since the author had some things to say on that issue.

It is not that unusual for someone to delete a thread they have created and commented on at length.


Okay. Though I didn't think thread authors had the permission to delete entire threads.

You can delete any thread you make.
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Christopher Gilbertson on July 15, 2012, 08:41:15 am
I find it very ironic that whilst Dawkins complains about genocide he actively encourages the (cultural) genocide of the Christian faith.

Yet more evidence that Dawkins doesn't critically engage his own ideas or motivations
Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: spanoftime85 on July 15, 2012, 04:42:08 pm
If an island existed full of child rapists and murderers, both men and women, whom periodically kidnapped kids to torture when they ran out of their own to kill, Im pretty sure everyone wouldnt object to killing or removing such people off the face of the earth.... especially not the victims parents...

Here in forums i notice that people only object to God making such judgments and yet i dont see an outrage of people objecting to war and the killing of "terrorist" here.

Those that God commanded killed were most likely worse then the current "terrorist"...

I will even go a step further and mention satanic cults, in which i have heard that there are women who simply give birth in order to torture and sacrifice the child.

 If justice is to be served, i dont think anyone would object to God ending those people either... Like craig said those people were absolutely bad that it required swift judgment so it wouldnt spread like a plague to other communities.

 If you disagree that these people needed to pay for what they did, then you too agree with the atrocities they commit and you are only trying to excuse the behavior..


Perhaps i live in an upside-down world and now all that is evil is actually good.

Title: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Anthony on August 28, 2012, 12:42:02 am
What really breaks my heart is that atheists like Dawkins who have no professional training in philosophy end up writing these books that they self-proclaim as knock-down arguments against God, and then they get so much media coverage. I hardly ever watch Television any more, however, I have seen Richard Dawkins on FOX News as well as American Atheists president David Silverman. They get so much media attention, yet their arguments against God are so bad, that even many other professional atheist philosophers have criticized them. This would have been such a great opportunity for Dawkins to debate the greatest possible opposition, yet he declined. I have really lost a lot of respect for Richard Dawkins because of this. He's a brilliant biologist, but a bad philosopher. With very few exceptions, I have never seen William Lane Craig get any media attention. How absurd!
Title: Re: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: sharky on October 11, 2012, 09:00:48 pm
This was Hitler's view too.

How many of you, if you really reflect and think, feel comfortable with this statement?

Hi sandspirit, I was quietly reading this Thread when I came upon your missive. I have not yet heard WLCs' commentary, but this is a well examined Biblical event that many apologists have examined.

A very competent Apologist is Glenn Miller, and he tends to delve into relavent historical data.

Personally, I think you have offered an apples and tangerines argument. Hitler was a psychopathic megalomaniac and I know many Atheists think the same of YHWH,...................but YHWH is not; but for background read the book cited above.

Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?
 
The New Atheists and Old Testament Ethics


hosted here:

http://www.epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=45 (http://www.epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=45)

http://www.epsociety.org/printer_template.asp?pid=45 (http://www.epsociety.org/printer_template.asp?pid=45)



Glenn Miller, worth examining, will provide intelligent insights into many of the atheists misapprehensions a literal and superficial reading fosters.:

http://christianthinktank.com/ (http://christianthinktank.com/)

Enpointe:

How could a God of Love order the massacre/annihilation of the Canaanites?

http://christianthinktank.com/qamorite.html (http://christianthinktank.com/qamorite.html)

The 'plaint

Quote
The Old Testament paints a picture of a God who is extremely bellicose, giving repeated instructions to "his people" to exterminate other nations, (because he is giving them their "promised land"), and giving them practical assistance on the battlefield.

It is easy to believe that such writings could be the attempted self-justification of a territorially minded people, who excuse their aggression and genocide against other nations as "divine instructions". It is almost impossible to believe that such writings are an accurate description of a God who has infinite love for people of all races............................."Is the God of the OT merely sanctioning genocide (nay commanding it)?... isn't this "god" merely an invention for the Jews' own political land-gaining ends?   


The Command

When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations -- the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you -- 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. (Deut 7.1-5)
However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them -- the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites -- as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God. (Deut 20.16ff)

These are the kings of the land that Joshua and the Israelites conquered on the west side of the Jordan, from Baal Gad in the Valley of Lebanon to Mount Halak, which rises toward Seir (their lands Joshua gave as an inheritance to the tribes of Israel according to their tribal divisions -- 8 the hill country, the western foothills, the Arabah, the mountain slopes, the desert and the Negev -- the lands of the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites):

9 the king of Jericho one the king of Ai (near Bethel) one
10 the king of Jerusalem one the king of Hebron one
11 the king of Jarmuth one the king of Lachish one
12 the king of Eglon one the king of Gezer one
13 the king of Debir one the king of Geder one
14 the king of Hormah one the king of Arad one
15 the king of Libnah one the king of Adullam one
16 the king of Makkedah one the king of Bethel one
17 the king of Tappuah one the king of Hepher one
18 the king of Aphek one the king of Lasharon one
19 the king of Madon one the king of Hazor one
20 the king of Shimron Meron one the king of Acshaph one
21 the king of Taanach one the king of Megiddo one
22 the king of Kedesh one the king of Jokneam in Carmel one
23 the king of Dor (in Naphoth Dor) one the king of Goyim in Gilgal one
24 the king of Tirzah one thirty-one kings in all. (Joshua 12.7-24)

At first blush, it looks like YHWH is taking the initiative in the matter, and ordering Israel to wipe out 7-10 nations--without pity and without compromise--and that He intends to give these nations' lands to Israel for their possession. At the end of Joshua's military campaigns, a list of 31 conquered kings is given. (The Israelites fail to obey the directive, however, and God faults them for this--and, as He predicted, the Canaanites DO 'entice' Israel into practicing their religion.).........Obviously, there are a couple of GOOD questions hiding in here:

Did God actually command Israel to do this, or did they just invent this divine sanction to justify territorial greed or genocidal tendencies?
Why would God use a nation as questionable as the post-Exodus Israelites to deliver His "judgment" on the Canaanites? (Why not just use natural disasters, such as earthquakes [Num 16], volcanic-type phenomena [Gen 19], or plague [2 Kgs 19.35]?)
What about all the innocent people killed in this "holy war"--families, "good" Canaanites, etc.? Even if it is 'okay' for God to execute judgment on nations within history, why didn't He only kill the evil-doers?
Doesn't wholesale slaughter of nations seem a little incompatible with a God of Love and Mercy?
 
 The Linked Document provides all the Details, this is an abridgment

These are NOT simple or light questions (if your heart is in right!), and so we must be VERY thorough in our analysis of the situation. We will need to approach this issue from a number of different sides, to make sure we have seen it clearly and from a large-enough perspective.
We will use the following question-set in analyzing the issue:

Do we have any precedents, paradigm cases, or similar incidents of such orders/actions to annihilate?
Who exactly WERE these people that God wanted Israel to 'exterminate'?
Were there any limits placed upon Israel in this venture, and what was the EXACT content of the orders?
What general principles of God's governance might shed some light on the situation?
 
Then, I will try to focus any insights we get onto the opening questions/b] There are a few situations in the OT in which something like this either (1) occurs or (2) is ordered: Sodom/Gomorrah, the Flood, and the Amalekites. And we will look at one "anti-Example" that might function as 'control data'--Ninevah 


 Now, an obvious question comes up here. Do we have ANY EVIDENCE that the annihilation of the Canaanites falls into the above pattern? Do we have any reason to believe it was an exceptional case, a judgment for exceptional violence and evil?
Very definitely.

The biblical text gives us several indications that this campaign is such a judgment:

Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. 14 But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. 15 You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age. 16 In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure." (Gen 15.13f)
 
Notice that Abraham cannot have the land until the 'sin of the Amorites' reaches some 'maximum threshold'. This certainly LOOKS LIKE a judgment by God on the peoples of the Land. Also, notice that the evil treatment by Egypt of the Israelites (enslavement and mistreatment) are NOT 'evil enough' to warrant annihilation--only "punishment". We might therefore expect the 'sin of the Amorites' to be more extreme than that of Egypt
.


.............There is an obvious pattern here:
The annihilations are judgments.
These judgments are for publicly-recognized (indeed, international and cross-cultural in scope!) cruelty and violence of an EXTREME and WIDESPREAD nature.
These judgments are preceded by LONG PERIODS of warning/exposure to truth (and therefore, opportunity to "change outcomes").
Innocent adults are given a 'way out'
Household members share in the fortunes of the parents (for good or ill).

Somebody ALWAYS escapes (Lot, Noah, Kenites)
These are exceptional cases--there are VERY, VERY few of these.......


......................................When we restate the pattern of our 'control data'--judgments that seem to be 'true annihilations'--and correlate that pattern with the Conquest data, we see similarities AND differences:
The annihilations are judgments [But the conquest judgment was a deportation, not an annihilation.]

These judgments are for publicly-recognized (indeed, international and cross-cultural in scope!) cruelty and violence of an EXTREME and WIDESPREAD nature. [This applies to the Canaanites, plus the additional 'load' of long-term "being a curse" to Israel.]


These judgments are preceded by LONG PERIODS of warning/exposure to truth (and therefore, opportunity to "change outcomes").[This applies to the Canaanites extensively.]


Innocent adults are given a 'way out' [This is very true here--in additional to the extensive warnings, plenty of time&space is given to allow migration before Israel arrived.

We even have one example of a non-migration exception--Rahab--which suggests there might be others that were not recorded.]

Household members share in the fortunes of the parents (for good or ill). [This is true here as well--everyone in Rahab's house was spared--whether they were good or evil!]

Somebody ALWAYS escapes (Lot, Noah, Kenites). [In our case, the mass of people that migrated north to Phoenicia, Rahab+household, plus Gibeonites (although through deception).]

These are exceptional cases--there are VERY, VERY few of these. [We have two other cases structured after this deportation--that of Israel and Judah--after the same standards and structures.] ..................................

 in the ancient world the situation was much more clear than the situation you describe at the doorstep!. Each nation/state/city had their main god that was supposed to protect that specific spot of land. The bigger the country, the bigger and more powerful the god had to be. If a foreign people came to you and said "our god wants to take over your land" the only real way to know whose god was bigger (and therefore which claim was 'legitimate') was to fight. If your god won, then obviously their statement about 'change of ownership' was bogus or irrelevant. If they won, of course, the opposite was true--and off you go (assuming they didn't kill you in the process).

But in some cases there was a short-cut to know whether their god would beat your god--by checking the "stats" and applying the "transitive law". If you knew, for example, that  your god A (deity of a local Canaanite city-village), could be easily beaten by god B (the god of Egypt, the mightest nation on the planet), but that god B (Egypt) was recently beaten by a more powerful god C (God of the Hebrews), then you could easily make the A<B<C connection, and know that a head start on moving north to Phonecia might be a good idea. The fact that this had been forecast for centuries earlier, and told around all the nearby city campfires didn't hurt its credibility either...nor did the stories of the Hebrew ancestor Abraham, whose exploits against the 5 Kings were still stories of wide circulation and awe...

In other words, the Israelite claims were not simple "one-off" prophetic declarations of "mine!"--but had a long history of circulation, and were substantiated (in their minds) by the awesome victory over the mightiest nation and pantheon on earth--that of Egypt. Under circumstances like this--given the way the ancients understood deity--it would be extremely realistic to expect them to uproot and move their home. There actually would be no better way to communicate the certainty of that future than by such an extraordinary event as the Exodus, if well-publicized (which it was). If God was trying to give them a 40-year 'early warning', this was the most effective way possible to help them see the reality of that future, and give them almost a generation to prepare and build a new life/home somewhere else (south or most likely, north).



Conclusion: Judgment is called God's "strange work" in the OT prophets. What for us humans is the problem of "why does God not do anything about evil and cruel people" is simply the other side of His patience with us. He hopes that we will accept a love of the truth and a commitment to value. In love, He deliberately "believes the best" (I Cor 13).

What started out as the "Unfair genocide of the Canaanites" ended up as the "Less-than-they-deserved punitive deportation from the land"--filled with patience and mercy and 'second chances'. It was nonetheless a judgment, and nonetheless involved death--as it later would be repeated to His people.


Far from being the "genocide of an innocent people for land-hungry Israelites", it was instead the "firm, yet just--and even a little merciful to the masses--removal of a people from a tract of land, mostly through migration."

glenn miller, 2/8/97, Oct 2000  


My reply may be lengthy, but the 'charge' was genocide by a hitleresque Being.


For further understanding of YHWHs mercy:

http://www.vbm-torah.org/ (http://www.vbm-torah.org/)

The Thirteen Divine Attributes of Mercy, by Rav Ezra Bick

http://www.vbm-torah.org/13.html (http://www.vbm-torah.org/13.html)

http://www.eliyah.com/thescriptures/

Exodus 34:10

5And YHWH came down in the cloud and stood with him there, and proclaimed the Name, YHWH. 6And    YHWH passed before him  and proclaimed, “YHWH, YHWH, an El(Mighty ONE) compassionate and  showing  favourpatient,  and  great  in kindness and truth, 7watching over kindness for thousands, forgiving crookedness and transgression and sin,  but by no means leaving unpunished, visiting the crookedness of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation.”

It's worth noting that though YHWH remembers our faults for three four generations, elsewheres it informs us He remembers our good for a 1,000 generations.

These are known as the 13 Divine attributes of YHWHs Mercy.

The above link goes into explicit detail of each attribute. A literal reading misses the sophisticated nuances of this Divine communication.

So.........Genocide, no.  Caananites deserving Judgement...........YES..............YHWH=Hitler..........NO.



Shalom

Title: Re: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: maranatha33 on November 19, 2012, 10:08:08 pm
"What really breaks my heart is that atheists like Dawkins who have no professional training in philosophy end up writing these books that they self-proclaim as knock-down arguments against God, and then they get so much media coverage."

I realize this is in regards to "The God Delusion", but if you want some grins, read Dawkins "The Blind Watchmaker".  He is absolutely wrong in his "science".  To quote Dr. David Menton, "That man (Dawkins) knows more things that aren't true than anyone else alive."  It's a kick.  m33
Title: Re: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Clay on January 04, 2013, 04:29:35 pm
I don't really know how to start a new thread so I'm posting a reply.  I just listened to this discussion (minus Dawkins that is what it became). 

Steven Priest's comment toward the end in response to a question from the audience was kind of interesting. He seemed to pose the scenario where if all people actually lived spiritual lives in the presence of God, there would of course be no need for philosophical arguments for or against the being of God.  No doubt, that is quite apparent but it seems his perspective is one close to that of an agnostic.  He seems to want God to make his presence more clear to us. He gave a kind of "God in the shadows" type of description.  I think Steven might agree with this question to the Theist.....

Why is your "personal" God so choosy in his communication that people may be left in the dark or at best CONFUSED about their spiritual experience on earth and whether or not they were being genuinely communicated to from the Great God of Israel?

[Special note: I'm a Christian Theist.  I'm just trying to think this through from the other side]

Title: Hope for reply within a month
Post by: Clay on January 07, 2013, 09:11:01 am
I'm hoping for a reply within a month of me posting the above reply/question.  It is something that has been puzzling me some.
Title: Re: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: col_lok on January 25, 2013, 04:39:06 pm

...

Steven Priest seemed to pose the scenario that if all people actually lived spiritual lives in the presence of God there would of course be no need for philosophical arguments for or against the being of God. No doubt, that is quite apparent but it seems his perspective is one close to that of an agnostic.  He seems to want God to make his presence more clear to us. He gave a kind of "God in the shadows" type of description. 

I think Steven might agree with this question to the Theist:

'Why is your "personal" God so choosy in his communication that people may be left in the dark or at best confused about their spiritual experience on Earth and whether or not they were being genuinely communicated to from the Great God of Israel?'.

...

(modified quote)


Directly quoting Steven Priest:

"If we lived in the presence of God, if we knew beyond a shadow of a doubt through direct acquaintance that God is all around us, pervades us, and in a fundamental way there is nothing but God and creation we wouldn't need to engage in philosophical arguments for and against the existence of a Being."

Now turning to your question 'Why does God leave us in the dark?' (simply stated).

He hasn't. Possible answers by category:

(a) Bible/Theological - this probably won't be acceptable to atheists.

"He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him." John 1:10-11 (ESV)

"And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil." John 3:19 (ESV)

Answer: Humans are totally depraved, this depravity leaves us with the inability to see God or choose Him because we, of our own accord, only see darkness and we only love darkness.

Objection: Why doesn't God himself break us free from this darkness?

Response: A select few are free! (see 1 Peter 2:9).

Objection: Why aren't all free?

Response: God has broken the chains of death, and God has opened the door of the prison. But God is a shepherd and leading sheep (Psalm 23:2) from the front to the places where they should go. He doesn't go pushing them from the back to the places they do not wish to go, nor does he force Himself onto them. Because of this God's grace in trying to make known to us the paths of life can be resisted.

Objection: If God is all-powerful how can you say his grace can be resisted?

Response: Omnipotence needs to be logically consistent and forcing someone to voluntarily do something is logically inconsistent - either you have forced them to do something, or they have voluntarily done something, they are mutually exclusive in all cases. I can think of no further objections here.

b) Historical - many atheists believe that Jesus was a mythological figure, this will not be acceptable to them. But on the evidence the atheists are found not to be correct. They are fooling themselves.

- Quality of the documentary evidence from history that we have about him.

Oldest document we have on Plato's (347 B.C.) works - 895 A.D. , 1200+ year difference.
Gospels (Jesus = ~35 A.D.) found in the Bible - at most still just 200 A.D. , 165+ year difference.

Later copies of the Gospels can be compared with earlier copies and we find no significant differences, they have not been changed over time in the copying process. There is little confusion to be had here. Compared to other ancient manuscripts we have astounding documentary evidence here.

(see William Lane Craig's work)

- Non-Christian sources!

Many non-Christian sources affirm Jesus Christ in some way or another and they paint a picture of him very much like the gospels, they just can never give us the divinity of Jesus of course - after all they are non-Christian...

(see William Lane Craig's work)

- Gospels fit criterions from historical sudy.

Embarrassment
Multiple Attestation
etc...

(see William Lane Craig's work)

- Verifiable facts about the resurrection.

Crucixion of Jesus, under Pontius Pilate.
Burial of Jesus, done by Joseph of Arimathea.
Empty Tomb of Jesus, discovered by women followers.
Jesus appearing to disciples, skeptics, and even enemies.

(see William Lane Craig's work).

If someone is still confused after all of that, they are resisting God's grace. If there was any more evidence God would be forcing people to believe in Him.
Title: Re: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: agnostic123 on February 04, 2013, 01:15:21 am


I don't suppose many of you became christians in order to be associated with this sort of sentiment but in the name of "reasonable faith" you've compromised your critical faculties to the point where you don't know whether genocide is right or wrong.

Well said indeed. You've captured in this one sentence something that I have been trying hard to formulate in a similar discussion about the morality of Homosexuality.

agnostic123
Title: Re: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: just one on March 03, 2013, 03:27:06 am
so your god is all powerful and knows all. he makes a man with free will. and he knows this man will reject him, so he sends this soul to hell. how do you worship this kind of monster? even if this being with these powers exists,i find him lacking as a creator.
Title: Re: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: bennyparker on April 08, 2013, 03:53:37 am
This is my first comment so I'll be brief.  The cosmological argument is not a bad one, but how you get beyond a deistic god to the interventionist god written about in the bible is an absolute mystery to me.
Title: Re: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Curt J. O'Brian on April 08, 2013, 04:02:44 am
This is my first comment so I'll be brief.  The cosmological argument is not a bad one, but how you get beyond a deistic god to the interventionist god written about in the bible is an absolute mystery to me.

You don't. You just get a personal designer, not a specific God.
Title: Re: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Timmy1988 on April 22, 2013, 04:53:15 pm
Personally, richard dawkins is an idiot and I would love to see mr craig debate him.
Title: Re: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: kaywisely on May 07, 2013, 12:01:08 am

If God do not exist, why is He constantly in our psyche?

If He do not exist, most of us would say gimme me a break, and ignore all these talk about God.

 
Title: Re: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Texas Sailor on June 06, 2013, 06:24:12 pm

If God do not exist, why is He constantly in our psyche?
That's a question you will need to answer for yourself. My contention is that He is a figment of your psyche.
If He do not exist, most of us would say gimme me a break, and ignore all these talk about God.
Many of us say exaclty that, and while we do not ingore the talk because the influence is so polarizing. However, the "gimme a break" part is spot on.  ;)

Title: Re: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Jonathan Tonna on June 07, 2013, 02:12:52 am
There's a new book out for kindle called 'ILLOGICAL ATHEISM: A Comprehensive response to the Contemporary Freethinker'.  I just got through half of it and it is probably one of the most satisfying responses to Dawkins and Harris I have ever read, along with Berlinski.  The writer is really gung ho.  Worth checking out.
Title: Re: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: humbledpiety on June 09, 2013, 08:10:17 pm
Questioning God' divine judgment is not something Christians would rationally consider. It is the non theists that take the initiative to make a moral judgment on God and his perfect judgment. Remember that non theist disagree with the creator of everything. However the forget or have completely overlooked the fact that   God and his perfect judgment weren't a knee jerk reaction. God not only earned the evil doers but gave them more than a sufficient amount of time to repent and turn from their wickedness.

I love how we can relate the old testament to people and their lives today. Even though we are not under the law anymore, we can choose to ignore, or heed the warning that God had made clear to us through the Bible. If we choose to ignore it today because we do not believe the God of the Israelites is who he says he is, we can consider ourselves in the same boat as the Cannonites.
Title: Re: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Dan110 on August 11, 2013, 02:44:05 pm
Let me share with you the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist, Blaise Pascal argument for God's existence know as Pascal's Wager. Basically, every human is involved in the game know as Life with only two possible bets to make and live by. The first is to bet on that God does exists so you live out your life accordingly and if you are wrong, you only loose small finite things such as pleasures, luxuries, etc. But if you are right and God does exist, There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain.
Same for those who choose to believe God does not exist. If you are right, then you don't loose anything and have enjoyed a life full of pleasures and self indulgences. But if you are wrong, you face an eternity of suffering.
It is up to everyone to decide how they want to bet their life's in this game of Life.

Visit gatewaytotruth.com
Title: Re: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Nightvid Cole on July 27, 2014, 11:50:54 am
Craig needs to stop paying attention to intellectual midgets like dawkins. His book, although held as the "gospel" of the pathetic religion of new atheism is not even worth the paper it's printed on. It's not science, it's not philosophy and it's not logic. It's just anger-drenched sophistry. In fact, sheer stupidity if you consider how irrational and desperate the so-called arguments (if you can call them that) actually are.

But I suppose, someone needs to educate the anti-intellectual atheist drones and someone needs to defend the minds and lifestyles of the people that have been unknowingly indoctinated by the utter garbage presented in this collection of ink and paper.

Pure ad hominem attack on Dawkins without an argument.
Title: Re: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: Architecto on February 09, 2016, 10:17:20 am
I believe he has also successfully refuted Euthyphro's dilemma in other places. (using arguments of his own or others I am unsure)

I have not seen a successful refutation of Euthyphro's dilemma.  Can you link one?
Title: Re: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: muonis on April 18, 2016, 02:17:18 pm
Any questions or doubts regarding God's command for the genocide of the Canaanites ultimately boils down to another, much more common question:

Is the presence of evil and suffering in the world consistent with the just and loving natures of God?

We know that God is sovereign - that is, He answers to no authority and no principle except His own nature, nor can He be compelled to do anything that is against His nature. Asking if God can sin (or for that matter, if He can make a rock so heavy He can't lift it) is akin to asking if the forces of gravity can lift a rock upward from the surface of the Earth - yes, but the seemingly impossible feat would have been the result of an even stronger gravitational field that is not seen by us. Similarly, God may do something that appears to be contradictory to His nature, but ultimately, due to our understanding of the sovereignty of God (that is, no motivation other than His nature can exist for God), there necessarily exists indirect reasons that are rooted in His nature.

Having established the sovereignty of an omniscient, omnipotent God, we can see that there is no qualitative difference between God commanding genocides and God permitting genocides such as the one attempted by Hitler. Thus, this question reduces to the age-old Problem of Evil, and enough has already been written on this topic.

From a Christian perspective (and I know many in this forum are not), God is the ultimate authority because of His omnipotence, and His status as the creator of all that exists. It is conceivable, therefore, that God would have created the world according to the values and moralities that He holds - since there exists no other standard to which He would have any reason to adhere to. We can thus see that if our own ethical systems differ from the one held by God and described in His Inerrant Word, it is us who are wrong, and not God. Any actions by God, therefore, is factually morally correct and ought to be perceived as morally correct, because God is acting using the same morality to conduct all His actions as the morality He had built into the very fabric of the universe and within our own human natures. Any perceived discrepancy can be attributed to the latter being distorted, directly or indirectly, by the Fall of Man.

It must also be clarified that God is not a "fair" God, despite being a just God. The Calvinist principle of Unconditional Election makes this very clear - God does not choose His Elect based on any system comprehensible to us humans. Romans 23:3-4 reads:

Quote
[F]or all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Saving grace is from God and God alone, and no one is any more worthy of salvation, or a long and fulfilling life for that matter, than anyone else.

Furthermore, it is written in Isaiah 45:9:

Quote
“Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker, those who are nothing but potsherds among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you making?’ Does your work say, ‘The potter has no hands’?

It ought to be noted that these are scriptural quotations, and are non-negotiable fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. The Isaiah verse clearly precludes any argument by the dead Canaanites who come before God to be judged - what right does the clay have to complain to the potter? They do not deserve long, fulfilling lives any more than a kind and loving non-Christian deserves to enter heaven. God hands out the blessings of eternal life and justification through Christ solely at His discretion, and His application of the blessing of a long, pleasant life does not appear any less random to human eyes. This attests to the sovereignty of the Lord more than anything else.

Nor can any creation claim injustice in that it never chose to be created - a state of non-existence is not equivalent to a neutral emotional state, and and anything that may happen to any of us while on this Earth, or even being placed eternally in hell (a fate deserved by all humans, Christian or not), represents neither an improvement nor a deterioration from non-existence. Eternal salvation, on the other hand, represents a definite improvement over the aforementioned, otherwise unavoidable and fully justified fate, and that is the foundation of the Christian faith, and the proof of God's love.
Title: Re: "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion at the Sheldonian Theater
Post by: jayceeii on December 15, 2019, 02:11:59 pm
Questioning God' divine judgment is not something Christians would rationally consider. It is the non theists that take the initiative to make a moral judgment on God and his perfect judgment. Remember that non theist disagree with the creator of everything. However the forget or have completely overlooked the fact that   God and his perfect judgment weren't a knee jerk reaction. God not only earned the evil doers but gave them more than a sufficient amount of time to repent and turn from their wickedness.

I love how we can relate the old testament to people and their lives today. Even though we are not under the law anymore, we can choose to ignore, or heed the warning that God had made clear to us through the Bible. If we choose to ignore it today because we do not believe the God of the Israelites is who he says he is, we can consider ourselves in the same boat as the Cannonites.
The Bible merely says, “Do not be evil.” It does not define this clearly. Instead the decision of what will be called evil was left in human hands, according to the Garden of Eden fable, which emphasized humans would demand to make themselves the measure of good and evil, ignoring God’s guidance. Were Christianity to take any further steps from the darkness in which the prophets left it, the first might to be add some reality to their statements they accept God to be the Creator. Though honoring God with their lips this way, their minds deny that God made anything in the real terms science finds.

In particular astronomy has known for a long time that it takes billions of years to form a planet and to lift a biosphere upon this planet, but the Christians persist in the absurd belief God intends to give them a new planet after they dispose of this one. Christmas is coming up, where the resources take their greatest hit of the year, that God is expected to accept as honoring His birth while His planet is ruined. The Bible did not warn men about their greatest and worst sins, which means it did not open up a route to salvation. Men don’t even rise to disobedience; God did not believe in them enough to tell the truth.