Silent no More: The Rise of the New Atheists

[Jagella]

I read some very good news in the April 2018 Scientific American. Michael Shermer writes in his Skeptic column "that 23 percent of all Americans have forsaken religion all together." The 23 percent figure is based on a 2013 Harris Poll and corroborated by a 2015 Pew Research Center poll. It is a "dramatic increase" from 2007 when only 16 percent of polled Americans said they were affiliated with no religion.

Why these poll results are so important to me is that the real good news is that America has a chance to lead the world with a new sense of social responsibility. We atheists can succeed where religionists have failed. As religion and superstition decline; science, critical thinking, and true morality can increase. We can level the playing field for all Americans granting everybody a chance to make something out of themselves. Let's leave religion and all its "bad fruit" behind forever!

Our efforts to turn the tables on Christianity appear to be working. Do you agree?

[alexxcJRO]

You further clarify your position of argument by stating that it is coming from the idea of 'the most important creed in Christianity, the idea Jesus is God part of triune God' .

As such, while you obviously cannot directly quote anything that Jesus is alleged to have said as being orders to his followers that they should murder others, you can special plead through the idea that 'Christianity accepts the idea of the trinity' which is not quite accurate anyway, as Christianity does not altogether accept that idea. A branch of Christianity does.

According to biblical reference, Jesus warned that many would be deceived in his name. I personally don't subscribe to the idea that the bible is 'The Irrefutable Word of GOD', so that alone frees me from having to get bogged down with the obvious contradictions, and allows me to pick and choose what I will from biblical referencing, based upon that warning.

In doing so I am dubious as to the stories which present Jesus cursing out of season fig trees or flying off the handle with whip in hand in the temple, as these are contradictory to his message of peace and love.

Your journey alongside your 'logic revealing a major inconsistency, contradiction' leaves things out, which is an act of inconsistency and contradiction in itself, and - of course - you are free to journey as you will - but you are not free to portray me in the same light through your obvious ignorance of who I am and what my position is. That is called projection and it creates a strawman out of 'me' for you to argue against, but ...well....'it ain't me'.

Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any logic and accuracy.

Firstly,

Your statement � 'Christianity accepts the idea of the trinity' which is not quite accurate anyway, as Christianity does not altogether accept that idea. A branch of Christianity does.� is not accurate at all.

You got it backwards I am afraid dear sir.

The majority of Christianity contains in their doctrine the idea of Trinity. Non-trinitarians are in the minority.

“According to churches that consider the decisions of ecumenical councils final, Trinitarianism was definitively declared to be Christian doctrine at the 4th-century ecumenical councils,[1][2][3]that of the First Council of Nicaea (325), which declared the full divinity of the Son,[4] and the First Council of Constantinople (381), which declared the divinity of the Holy Spirit.[5]
In terms of number of adherents, nontrinitarian denominations comprise a small minority of modern Christianity.�
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism

Secondly,

Off course you would cherry pick and ignore the parts that don’t conform with your preconceived idea that Jesus is only about peace and love.
Off course you would commit another logical fallacy.

“Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.[1][2] Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.�
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

Thirdly,

Even if Jesus is not God, but just a prophet who conveys God message we still have a major contradiction between the New Testament and the Old Testament.

Jesus: Love thy enemy, love thy neighbor.

O.T. : Kill thy witches, Kill thy fortunetellers, Kill thy gays, Kill thy non-believers, “Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.�

[Realworldjack]

I would like to point something out here. If you will notice, after God gave the tablets to Moses, God instructed Moses,

Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.

So then, who was this "covenant" made between? Well, it would seem it was between God, and Israel. I am not Jewish myself, and have never been a part of Israel.

However, this is not the only covenant that God has made. God also made a covenant with Abraham. This was a unilateral covenant, meaning that God made all the promises, and called down all the curses upon himself, if the covenant promises failed to be met. This means this covenant depended in no way upon Abraham. Moreover, this covenant was as everlasting covenant.

Now let us compare this covenant, with the one you are referring too, which is the covenant between Israel, and God. This covenant is a temporal covenant, and Israel's status in the land is dependent upon the conditions of the covenant.

So then, as we can see, the covenant made with Israel, is a temporal covenant, and was never intended to be binding upon anyone else. On the other hand, the covenant with Abraham was an everlasting covenant.

The covenant made with Israel, is a covenant of works, (do this and you will live). The covenant made with Abraham, is a covenant of promise. The question then becomes, should we grab a hold of the covenant of works, that depends upon our ability to keep promises? Or, do we grab a hold of the covenant that depends upon The One, and Only True, Promise Keeper?

This should explain clearly why we as Christians are not bound to the covenant made with Israel. We are not, because we should understand, any covenant that depends upon us, and out ability to keep promises, could never stand.

My argument was not about whether the covenant(the 10 commandments) was made with Israel or the world, if it’s temporary or everlasting.
You are arguing with a straw man.
Aetixintro said the 10 commandments are still valid and good.
I just point them to him to show how ridicule they sound and question their validity.

Therefore you should in fact argue with him.

Next, and off the topic, I would like to point something out in your signature. It says there,

God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not created us to invent him.

The word, "created" here seems out of place. Would this word not insinuate a "creator?" If not, would it not at least necessitate some sort of purpose? Did, or does evolution have a purpose?

Even though the word choice might not be the perfect one I am sure you get the message.
The point was to convey a message.

Aetixintro said the 10 commandments are still valid and good.
I just point them to him to show how ridicule they sound and question their validity.

I don't think so, at least not in the post I was responding to, which was post # 86. There you give a list of commands, but these are not the 10 commandments, and the only one you point out is, "Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk", which is not one of the ten.

However, what I was really responding to was when you say,

Yeah it's preposterous to think that tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of women were killed after being accused of witchcraft because of verses like "Do not allow a sorceress to live."

The point is, if as I have demonstrated, that these laws were only intended for Israel, and part of the conditions for their status in the land, and was never intended for anyone else, then how in the world can the verse be blamed, when the blame lies squarely upon those who took the passage clearly out of it's context?

This would be like me picking up a letter addressed to my wife from her boss which said, "anyone who shows up to work on time in the morning will receive 100 dollars", and when I show up at my place of work, and do not receive the money, and I attempt to blame the letter I read, when the letter was never intended for me.

Again, if it can be demonstrated that these laws were intended for Israel, as a condition for staying in the land, and was never intended for anyone else, then we cannot blame the passage, when the fault clearly belongs to those who extracted it from it's context.

Even though the word choice might not be the perfect one I am sure you get the message.
The point was to convey a message.

Not really. Let's look at the quote again.

God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not created us to invent him.

You see, the quote is giving a reason for the existence of God, and the reason is, "evolution did it." However, if evolution has no purpose, then evolution cannot be the blame for the existence of God, whether he really exists, or not.

The question then would be, "how do we KNOW God exists" since it cannot be evolution that is to blame?" Notice, I am simply using the words of the quote. In other words, I am not saying, "we KNOW God exists." Rather, it is your quote that claims this to be the case.

Maybe it is simply just another bad choice of words, but if we continue, you may well run out of words. The point is, I would be a little more careful, and think more critically through the things I cite.

Allow me to continue here. The quote, (whomever it can be attributed to), seems to be acknowledging that we all have some sort of sense of the existence of God. I mean, "GOOD GRIEF" even as a Christian I would not go that far. At any rate, after acknowledging this, it attempts to place the blame on evolution.

Therefore, since you and I seem to agree that evolution cannot possibly be the blame for there to be such a huge acknowledgement of God, then the question would be, who, or what would be the blame?

The point is, since you seem to acknowledge the huge acknowledgement of the existence of God, and since you have agreed that evolution cannot be blamed, then you must come up with the reason for this huge acknowledgement, and it cannot be evolution, nor can it be that there is really a God.

Moreover, it cannot be that there was any sort of purpose at all concerning our existence, because if our existence can be blamed on evolution, then there is no purpose for our existence.

[William]

[Replying to post 101 by alexxcJRO]

You got it backwards I am afraid dear sir. Smile

The majority of Christianity contains in their doctrine the idea of Trinity. Non-trinitarians are in the minority.

Which is merely argument from popularity, [argumentum ad populum ] a fallacy which in itself does not mean that the majority is right because a majority believe something and propagate that belief.

Even that being the case, it does not show in any way that Jesus ordered his followers to murder others.

One can say that every person calling themselves 'Christian' have that one thing at least in common. They claim to follow Jesus. From that, the first question to ask and have answered is the one I asked you and which you have yet to answer. Show me the evidence that Jesus orders those who claim to follow him, to murder others.

Off course you would cherry pick and ignore the parts that don’t conform with your preconceived idea that Jesus is only about peace and love.
Off course you would commit another logical fallacy.

It is not a logical fallacy given the reason I wrote in my last post about WHY it is necessary to do so.

I see you neglected to include that reason in your reply or even respond to it at all, You just ignored it.

Even if Jesus is not God, but just a prophet who conveys God message we still have a major contradiction between the New Testament and the Old Testament.

Jesus: Love thy enemy, love thy neighbor.

O.T. : Kill thy witches, Kill thy fortunetellers, Kill thy gays, Kill thy non-believers, “Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.�

Exactly! That ties in with my reason given in my last post which you chose to ignore and hand-wave away as "Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any logic and accuracy. "

[alexxcJRO]

I don't think so, at least not in the post I was responding to, which was post # 86. There you give a list of commands, but these are not the 10 commandments, and the only one you point out is, "Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk", which is not one of the ten.

Seriously?!:)))
Dear sir it says right there in the text:

"The New Stone Tablets
The Lord said to Moses, “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.� "…

1. Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

2. Do not make any idols.

3. Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you.

4. The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock.

5. Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest.

6. Celebrate the Festival of Weeks with the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the Festival of Ingathering at the turn of the year.

7. Three times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign Lord, the God of Israel.

8. Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Festival remain until morning.

9. Bring the best of the first fruits of your soil to the house of the Lord your God.

10. Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.

“Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.� 28 Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.�(Exodus 34)

This would be like me picking up a letter addressed to my wife from her boss which said, "anyone who shows up to work on time in the morning will receive 100 dollars", and when I show up at my place of work, and do not receive the money, and I attempt to blame the letter I read, when the letter was never intended for me. 

Again, if it can be demonstrated that these laws were intended for Israel, as a condition for staying in the land, and was never intended for anyone else, then we cannot blame the passage, when the fault clearly belongs to those who extracted it from it's context. 

Stop the straw man dear sir. You are embarrassing yourself.

My point was not to whom was the “letter�(aka the directive “You shall not let a sorcerer live�) addressed.

My point was because of this “letter� �(aka the directive “You shall not let a sorcerer live�)Christians burned at the stake or hanged tens of thousand if not hundreds of thousand of women.

You see, the quote is giving a reason for the existence of God, and the reason is, "evolution did it." However, if evolution has no purpose, then evolution cannot be the blame for the existence of God, whether he really exists, or not.

The question then would be, "how do we KNOW God exists" since it cannot be evolution that is to blame?" Notice, I am simply using the words of the quote. In other words, I am not saying, "we KNOW God exists." Rather, it is your quote that claims this to be the case.

Maybe it is simply just another bad choice of words, but if we continue, you may well run out of words. The point is, I would be a little more careful, and think more critically through the things I cite.

Allow me to continue here. The quote, (whomever it can be attributed to), seems to be acknowledging that we all have some sort of sense of the existence of God. I mean, "GOOD GRIEF" even as a Christian I would not go that far. At any rate, after acknowledging this, it attempts to place the blame on evolution.

Therefore, since you and I seem to agree that evolution cannot possibly be the blame for there to be such a huge acknowledgement of God, then the question would be, who, or what would be the blame?

The point is, since you seem to acknowledge the huge acknowledgement of the existence of God, and since you have agreed that evolution cannot be blamed, then you must come up with the reason for this huge acknowledgement, and it cannot be evolution, nor can it be that there is really a God.

You are reading to much into the text. It is just a bad choice of words.
Even though evolution had no purpuse it did lead to the appearence of animals capable of abtract thought, animals which then created the concept of God.


Here the new version:

Q: How do you like it now?

"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him."

[alexxcJRO]

Which is merely argument from popularity, [argumentum ad populum ] a fallacy which in itself does not mean that the majority is right because a majority believe something and propagate that belief.

Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any logic and accuracy.

I did not such thing. I did not made an add populum argument only corrected you because you got the majority backwards, wrong.

Q: Do you make the distinction? ))

From that, the first question to ask and have answered is the one I asked you and which you have yet to answer.

I already said Jesus words contradict Yahweh words.
Therefore this implies Jesus was not advocating for people to commit murder.
Therefore I indirectly answer the questions.

Show me the evidence that Jesus orders those who claim to follow him, to murder others.

I did not said Jesus ordered to murder others. Therefore there is no need to show any evidence.
Stop the straw-man. You are embarrassing yourself.

It is not a logical fallacy given the reason I wrote in my last post about WHY it is necessary to do so.

You yourself said you cherry pick and ignore stories that show Jesus as not being so peaceful and loving.

You have no logical reasons for rejecting the stories that put Jesus in a bad spot and just accept those that look good.

Exactly! That ties in with my reason given in my last post which you chose to ignore and hand-wave away as "Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any logic and accuracy. "

I did not ignore sir. You just did not understood.

See again:
I already said Jesus was in opposition to what Yahweh said.
Therefore this implies Jesus was not advocating for people to commit murder.
Therefore I indirectly answer the questions.

[Realworldjack]

I don't think so, at least not in the post I was responding to, which was post # 86. There you give a list of commands, but these are not the 10 commandments, and the only one you point out is, "Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk", which is not one of the ten.

Seriously?!:)))
Dear sir it says right there in the text:

"The New Stone Tablets
The Lord said to Moses, “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.� "…

1. Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

2. Do not make any idols.

3. Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you.

4. The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock.

5. Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest.

6. Celebrate the Festival of Weeks with the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the Festival of Ingathering at the turn of the year.

7. Three times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign Lord, the God of Israel.

8. Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Festival remain until morning.

9. Bring the best of the first fruits of your soil to the house of the Lord your God.

10. Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.

“Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.� 28 Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.�(Exodus 34)

This would be like me picking up a letter addressed to my wife from her boss which said, "anyone who shows up to work on time in the morning will receive 100 dollars", and when I show up at my place of work, and do not receive the money, and I attempt to blame the letter I read, when the letter was never intended for me. 

Again, if it can be demonstrated that these laws were intended for Israel, as a condition for staying in the land, and was never intended for anyone else, then we cannot blame the passage, when the fault clearly belongs to those who extracted it from it's context. 

Stop the straw man dear sir. You are embarrassing yourself.

My point was not to whom was the “letter�(aka the directive “You shall not let a sorcerer live�) addressed.

My point was because of this “letter� �(aka the directive “You shall not let a sorcerer live�)Christians burned at the stake or hanged tens of thousand if not hundreds of thousand of women.

You see, the quote is giving a reason for the existence of God, and the reason is, "evolution did it." However, if evolution has no purpose, then evolution cannot be the blame for the existence of God, whether he really exists, or not.

The question then would be, "how do we KNOW God exists" since it cannot be evolution that is to blame?" Notice, I am simply using the words of the quote. In other words, I am not saying, "we KNOW God exists." Rather, it is your quote that claims this to be the case.

Maybe it is simply just another bad choice of words, but if we continue, you may well run out of words. The point is, I would be a little more careful, and think more critically through the things I cite.

Allow me to continue here. The quote, (whomever it can be attributed to), seems to be acknowledging that we all have some sort of sense of the existence of God. I mean, "GOOD GRIEF" even as a Christian I would not go that far. At any rate, after acknowledging this, it attempts to place the blame on evolution.

Therefore, since you and I seem to agree that evolution cannot possibly be the blame for there to be such a huge acknowledgement of God, then the question would be, who, or what would be the blame?

The point is, since you seem to acknowledge the huge acknowledgement of the existence of God, and since you have agreed that evolution cannot be blamed, then you must come up with the reason for this huge acknowledgement, and it cannot be evolution, nor can it be that there is really a God.

You are reading to much into the text. It is just a bad choice of words.
Even though evolution had no purpuse it did lead to the appearence of animals capable of abtract thought, animals which then created the concept of God.


Here the new version:

Q: How do you like it now?

"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him."

Seriously?

My dear sir, the command "do not cook a young goat in it's mother's milk" is not considered to be one of the ten commandments, and never has. Here is the list of the 10 commandments straight form wikipedia, and this command is not on the list,

The Ten Commandments
1. I am the Lord thy God, thou shall not have any gods before me.

2. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything.

3. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.

4. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.

5. Honor your father and your mother.

6. You shall not murder.

7. You shall not commit adultery.

8. You shall not steal.

9. You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

10. You shall not covet your neighbor's house, wife, or property.

Now you can give other online sources a try, or check anywhere else you like, and you will never see the command , "do not cook a young goat in it's mother milk" on the list, because it is not one of the 10 commandments.

"The New Stone Tablets
The Lord said to Moses, “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.�

1. Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

2. Do not make any idols.

3. Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you.

4. The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock.

5. Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest.

6. Celebrate the Festival of Weeks with the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the Festival of Ingathering at the turn of the year.

7. Three times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign Lord, the God of Israel.

8. Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Festival remain until morning.

9. Bring the best of the first fruits of your soil to the house of the Lord your God.

10. Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.

No my dear sir! You need to go back and read it again, because there is a whole lot of information given between God telling Moses to “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke", and the list you give. The list you give, is not considered the 10 commandments. It is 10 commands, but it is not what is considered the 10 commandments, not even by those opposed.

Stop the straw man dear sir. You are embarrassing yourself.

You certainly seem to love to throw out the "straw man" accusation, as if this will rescue you from being in error. It does not, and it certainly will not in this case, because the argument I gave is not a "straw man." Here is what would be considered a "straw man" argument,

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."

So let us see if I used a "straw man." Your argument is that people have used the verse, "Do not allow a sorceress to live" to go out and kill, "tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of women after being accused of witchcraft", as if it is the fault of the command that these folks went out on a hunt to find witches, and in fact you do blame the verse, when you use the word, "because." Here is the quote in it's entirety,

Yeah it's preposterous to think that tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of women were killed after being accused of witchcraft BECAUSE of verses like "Do not allow a sorceress to live.

It is clear you blame the verse here. Now, my argument is, you cannot blame the verse for what others may have done, if it can be clearly demonstrated that the verse was only intended for a certain group of people, and it was not intended for those who used it in order to go out on, witch hunts.

In other words, the verse cannot be blamed, because the blame would lie squarely upon those who used the verse, outside it's intended context. Ergo, my example of the letter addressed to my wife. I could not possibly blame the letter, for my own stupidity. In the same way, this verse cannot be the blame for those who used it completely out of it's intended context.

So, my argument is not a "straw man" as you say, because I have used the exact argument you were making, and have not invented an argument that you have not made. I am not implying that you have made the argument that the verse was intended for all who read it. Rather, your argument is, the verse is to blame for those who were killed, because those murdered were perceived to be witches.

Now, if you are not attempting to blame the verse for those who were murdered, then I see no point at all? In other words, if the verse is not to blame, then why bring it up?

To go on and prove further that this is indeed your argument, here is a direct quote from you,

My point was because of this “letter� �(aka the directive “You shall not let a sorcerer live�)Christians burned at the stake or hanged tens of thousand if not hundreds of thousand of women.

No, I am afraid not. It is not because of the "directive you shall not let a sorcerer live", that "Christians burned at the stake or hanged tens of thousand if not hundreds of thousand of women." Rather, it was because these Christians took a verse completely out of it's original context, and applied it to themselves, when the verse was clearly not intended for them. So then, it is not the verse that is to blame as you say, it is the Christians who are to blame. Not a "straw man" my friend!

You are reading to much into the text.

No, I believe I was reading it exactly the way in which it was written.

It is just a bad choice of words.

Which was exactly my original point.

Even though evolution had no purpuse it did lead to the appearence of animals capable of abtract thought, animals which then created the concept of God.

Whoa! Wait a minute? The original quote seemed to be looking to give a reason for the concept of God, that so many have, and have had, for centuries. In the original, evolution was to blame, but we seemed to have agreed that this would not be possible. So, with this change in wording, what is exactly to blame for this concept of God?

Here the new version:

Q: How do you like it now?

"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him."

Not much better. Again, you need to take the word, "know" out of the equation. If there is no god, then we certainly cannot "know he exists." Next, the blame now seems to be upon, "abstract thought." If this is the case, then maybe we need to put a stop to, "abstract thought." In other words, if "abstract thought" can cause something that is so insignificant, to become so significant, then maybe we need to stop it.

The thing is, you seem to be dodging here. The quote seems to clearly want to give a reason for this concept of god. Since we agree that evolution is not to blame, are you indeed now blaming, "abstract thought?"

[alexxcJRO]

Seriously?
My dear sir, the command "do not cook a young goat in it's mother's milk" is not considered to be one of the ten commandments, and never has. Here is the list of the 10 commandments straight form wikipedia, and this command is not on the list,
Now you can give other online sources a try, or check anywhere else you like, and you will never see the command , "do not cook a young goat in it's mother milk" on the list, because it is not one of the 10 commandments.
No my dear sir! You need to go back and read it again, because there is a whole lot of information given between God telling Moses to “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke", and the list you give. The list you give, is not considered the 10 commandments. It is 10 commands, but it is not what is considered the 10 commandments, not even by those opposed.

This is getting beyond ridiculous.

Here dear sir directly from the Bible:

"The New Stone Tablets
34 The Lord said to Moses, “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke. 2 Be ready in the morning, and then come up on Mount Sinai. Present yourself to me there on top of the mountain. 3 No one is to come with you or be seen anywhere on the mountain; not even the flocks and herds may graze in front of the mountain.�

4 So Moses chiseled out two stone tablets like the first ones and went up Mount Sinai early in the morning, as the Lord had commanded him; and he carried the two stone tablets in his hands. 5 Then the Lord came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the Lord. 6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.�

8 Moses bowed to the ground at once and worshiped. 9 “Lord,� he said, “if I have found favor in your eyes, then let the Lord go with us. Although this is a stiff-necked people, forgive our wickedness and our sin, and take us as your inheritance.�

10 Then the Lord said: “I am making a covenant with you. Before all your people I will do wonders never before done in any nation in all the world. The people you live among will see how awesome is the work that I, the Lord, will do for you. 11 Obey what I command you today. I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 12 Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. 13 Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles.[a] 14 Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

15 “Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. 16 And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.

17 “Do not make any idols.

18 “Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you. Do this at the appointed time in the month of Aviv, for in that month you came out of Egypt.

19 “The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. 20 Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons.

“No one is to appear before me empty-handed.

21 “Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.

22 “Celebrate the Festival of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Festival of Ingathering at the turn of the year. 23 Three times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign Lord, the God of Israel. 24 I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your territory, and no one will covet your land when you go up three times each year to appear before the Lord your God.

25 “Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Festival remain until morning.

26 “Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the Lord your God.

“Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.�

27 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.� 28 Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments."

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

God says to Moses he will write onto the new tablets what he wrote on the first ones.
It says right there "The Ten Commandments". One of the ten commandments is "Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk."

Your argument is that people have used the verse, "Do not allow a sorceress to live" to go out and kill, "tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of women after being accused of witchcraft", as if it is the fault of the command that these folks went out on a hunt to find witches, and in fact you do blame the verse, when you use the word, "because." Here is the quote in it's entirety,
It is clear you blame the verse here. Now, my argument is, you cannot blame the verse for what others may have done, if it can be clearly demonstrated that the verse was only intended for a certain group of people, and it was not intended for those who used it in order to go out on, witch hunts.

In other words, the verse cannot be blamed, because the blame would lie squarely upon those who used the verse, outside it's intended context. Ergo, my example of the letter addressed to my wife. I could not possibly blame the letter, for my own stupidity. In the same way, this verse cannot be the blame for those who used it completely out of it's intended context.
No, I am afraid not. It is not because of the "directive you shall not let a sorcerer live", that "Christians burned at the stake or hanged tens of thousand if not hundreds of thousand of women." Rather, it was because these Christians took a verse completely out of it's original context, and applied it to themselves, when the verse was clearly not intended for them. So then, it is not the verse that is to blame as you say, it is the Christians who are to blame. Not a "straw man" my friend!

Here a question for you:

Q: If not for this verse: "You shall not let a sorcerer live" would tens of thousands of women have died burned at the stake or hanged for being witches?(Yes/No question)

Whoa! Wait a minute? The original quote seemed to be looking to give a reason for the concept of God, that so many have, and have had, for centuries. In the original, evolution was to blame, but we seemed to have agreed that this would not be possible. So, with this change in wording, what is exactly to blame for this concept of God?

Not much better. Again, you need to take the word, "know" out of the equation. If there is no god, then we certainly cannot "know he exists." Next, the blame now seems to be upon, "abstract thought." If this is the case, then maybe we need to put a stop to, "abstract thought." In other words, if "abstract thought" can cause something that is so insignificant, to become so significant, then maybe we need to stop it.

The thing is, you seem to be dodging here. The quote seems to clearly want to give a reason for this concept of god. Since we agree that evolution is not to blame, are you indeed now blaming, "abstract thought?"

Yes, I blame evolution/abstract thought for the existence of the concept of God.

It's like someone says "they blame youth crime on unemployment".
blame = assign the responsibility for a bad or unfortunate situation or phenomenon to (someone or something).

[William]

[Replying to post 105 by alexxcJRO]

I did not such thing. I did not made an add populum argument only corrected you because you got the majority backwards, wrong.

Yep you did and still are doing that.

Your whole argument is based upon claiming that Jesus orders his followers to commit murder which you say holds up because the majority of Christians believe what they do.

When it was pointed out to you that Jesus made the distinction between his follows and those multitudes who would be deceived in his name, you ignored that.

In ignoring that, you are thus able to continue arguing that Jesus condones those who would murder in his name, effectively saying that Jesus orders his followers to murder others.

I already said Jesus words contradict Yahweh words.
Therefore this implies Jesus was not advocating for people to commit murder.
Therefore I indirectly answer the questions.

Well a more direct reply avoids unnecessary confusion. If you are saying that you recant your earlier assertion, better late than never I suppose. I would suggest that in future you directly correct your claims when it is pointed out to you where they are incorrect.

I did not said Jesus ordered to murder others.

Well I for one am not interested in going back over the conversation to show you where you did state imply etc that Christians were people who would murder for Jesus.

[For_The_Kingdom]

One would think the Christian response would be more like "they have temporarily lost their way, we have confidence they will find their way back".

Well, that's not what John said.

I would think you would be more interested in what Jesus said:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

Matthew 9:13 New International Version (NIV)
13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’[a] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.�

I fail to see the relevance.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to post 105 by alexxcJRO]

I did not such thing. I did not made an add populum argument only corrected you because you got the majority backwards, wrong.

Yep you did and still are doing that.

Your whole argument is based upon claiming that Jesus orders his followers to commit murder which you say holds up because the majority of Christians believe what they do.

When it was pointed out to you that Jesus made the distinction between his follows and those multitudes who would be deceived in his name, you ignored that.

In ignoring that, you are thus able to continue arguing that Jesus condones those who would murder in his name, effectively saying that Jesus orders his followers to murder others.

I already said Jesus words contradict Yahweh words.
Therefore this implies Jesus was not advocating for people to commit murder.
Therefore I indirectly answer the questions.

Well a more direct reply avoids unnecessary confusion. If you are saying that you recant your earlier assertion, better late than never I suppose. I would suggest that in future you directly correct your claims when it is pointed out to you where they are incorrect.

I did not said Jesus ordered to murder others.

Well I for one am not interested in going back over the conversation to show you where you did state imply etc that Christians were people who would murder for Jesus.

Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any accuracy.

Dear sir you can’t stop but straw manning me.

Let me explain again:

I did not made an argument add populum.
I did not say Jesus is advocating for murder because many Christians believe in the Trinity.

I made my argument using Trinity because the majority of Christianity have this concept as one of their most important tenets. I usually make my arguments to address the majority of Christians.

So this * argument was addressing mainline Christianity.

*(Jesus is God.
Yahweh is God.
Holy spirit is God.
One will 3 manifestations.
Yahweh’s will’s is Jesus’s will and vice versa.
Yahweh’s directives from Deuteronomy are in fact Jesus’s directives.

C: Therefore they would be following Jesus’s orders).

But at the same time Jesus words from the New Testament say otherwise. He was not advocating for his followers to commit murder.

C1: Therefore we have a major contradiction.



Then you said but there are non-trinitarians which don’t believe Jesus to be God.

Correct, then the logical argument above would not work because the premise “Jesus is God� would vanish.

But still even if Jesus is just a prophet we still have a problem. He would be speaking in the name of Yahweh.

So Yahweh from the New Testament would not advocate for his followers to commit murder.

But the Yahweh from the Old Testament would advocate for his followers commit murder.

C2: Therefore we still have a major contradiction.



Ohh and you forgot about this:

You yourself said you cherry pick and ignore stories that show Jesus as not being so peaceful and loving.

You have no logical reasons for rejecting the stories that put Jesus in a bad spot and just accept those that look good.

Q: Care to explain why you reject the bad and only accept the good?