Babysitting question

[atheist buddy]

Imagine you HAD TO leave your child with a babysitter. You HAD TO.

You only had two options.

Either you leave your child with Person A or with Person B

Person A is a member of the American Skeptic's Society and only carries out actions that he believes are rational and just on the basis of rational thought. That's all you know about the person.

Person B is a fundamentalist Christian who follows the edicts of the Bible to the letter and believes that God's law trumps man's law. That's all you know about the person.


Question for debate: Who do you leave your child with?


My answer: With the skeptic. This way there at least is a chance that he will not kill my child for misbehaving.

[atheist buddy]

nity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=716441#716441]dianaiad[/url]"]
Well, the fact is, God never commanded anybody to 'kill your neighbors.'[/quote]Right. As long as the nieghbors weren't gay, or witches, or unruly children, or rebellious slaves, or fortune tellers, or people who worked on the sabbath, or people who believed in a different God.

Except for specifically ordering to kill your neighbors if they fell into these specific categories, God never commanded anybody to "kill your neighbors".


It's kinda similar ot how Hitler never commanded the killing of any jews, with only a few million exceptions.

[Genevieve]

You're totally right!

So I guess that your literalist neighbors wouldn't just take the law into their hands and kill your child there and then.

No. They would take your child to the elders of their church, they would bear witness that they saw the child hit or curse his parents, and the elders would order that your child be stoned to death.

No. The quoted passage explicitly says "his father and mother" shall bring him to the elders, not the babysitter. It also doesn't say anything about "at the first sign of disobedience," that's something you made up. You did say the literalist follows the law to the letter, right? Not saying this makes the law any better, just that the child doesn't appear to be in any danger from the babysitter according to this.

You're right. At worse your child might witness the murder of another child who did curse his parents, or the murder of gey men, or witches, or of aguy who worked on the sabbath.

I don't think this would be traumatic for the child, right? I would totally want to put my child in that kind of environment. You would too, right?

I see. So we are now introducing the possibility that, in addition to babysitting my child, this literalist is also hunting down gay men, witches and sabbath-breakers, and/or locating witnesses to testify against someone who cursed their parents, and has located a Sanhedrin Ketana to try the case(s), and is attending the execution of the convicted persons, presumably with my child in tow. Yes, that would be traumatic, not something I would want my child to be part of.

But I still don't know anything about the motivations or thought processes of the skeptic. So who's to say the skeptic wouldn't bring my child to a race protest, where he might witness police using force to beat back the protestors, or even people being shot? That would also be traumatic, and not something I would want my child to be part of.

It's just a bad situation all around. I guess it really boils down to, which of these possibilities is more likely?

Personally, I don't think either one is very likely. It's probably a coin toss at this point.

[dianaiad]

Well, the fact is, God never commanded anybody to 'kill your neighbors.'

He did allow/command (or at least, the winners of the battles claimed this) the Israelites to kill their enemies.

So, he commands people to kill only their ENEMY neighbors. not the friendly neighbors they like. What a wise kind of god.

Only kill the guys you DON'T like.. riiiiiight.

Thanks god.

Well, I don't see atheistic belief systems doing any better towards loving their enemies. Indeed, I don't see that 'atheism' stops any sort of killing at all.

I don't see where you have any gripes coming. If God exists, then I think you can see that He's doing the best He can with a bunch of obstreperous offspring who, frankly, don't listen very well.

If he does not exist, then blaming Him for any of this is useless...not to mention more than a little bit idiotic.

But hey, what do I know about any of this?

Tell you what, though; if you want to criticize God, go ahead; but if you want to argue with ME about it, then you need to figure out Who I think God is, and address that, because right now you're not only erecting strawman targets, you are building them two counties over.

[Zzyzx]

.

Well, I don't see atheistic belief systems doing any better towards loving their enemies.

Diana, how does "I don't believe god tales" relate to loving enemies?

Does belief in gods cause people to love or not love enemies (not just mouth the words)?

Does disbelief in gods cause people to love or not love enemies?

Indeed, I don't see that 'atheism' stops any sort of killing at all.

How, exactly, can "I don't believe god tales" be expected to stop killings?

I don't see where you have any gripes coming. If God exists, then I think you can see that He's doing the best He can with a bunch of obstreperous offspring who, frankly, don't listen very well.

According to Christian lore God is capable of doing anything AND God created "a bunch of obstreperous offspring" with characteristics intact. So, "doing the best he can" with difficult to control offspring doesn't make much sense, does it?

If he does not exist, then blaming Him for any of this is useless...not to mention more than a little bit idiotic.

From my point of view, it is NOT idiotic to point out inconsistencies in God tales ("God can do anything but cannot effectively teach self-control to offspring" " or defeat iron chariots).

[dianaiad]

.

Well, I don't see atheistic belief systems doing any better towards loving their enemies.

Diana, how does "I don't believe god tales" relate to loving enemies? [/qipte]

That doesn't. Writing "Thanks, God,' after criticizing Him (whether 'for real' of as a fictional character) does. Therefore, pointing out the the alternative to the existence of a deity doesn't improve things any.

Therefore, getting mad at God because the god one doesn't believe in doesn't 'do it your way' seems silly to me.

Does belief in gods cause people to love or not love enemies (not just mouth the words)?

Does disbelief in gods cause people to love or not love enemies?

Does blaming a god one doesn't believe in for all the evils of the world do this?

Indeed, I don't see that 'atheism' stops any sort of killing at all.

How, exactly, can "I don't believe god tales" be expected to stop killings?

It isn't.

Which is rather the point.

One might consider this when ranting about how nasty the God one doesn't believe in is. Not believing in one doesn't improve things.

Shoot; consider this; if there is no god, how would the world change?

.........and yes, that just might BE a trick question.

I don't see where you have any gripes coming. If God exists, then I think you can see that He's doing the best He can with a bunch of obstreperous offspring who, frankly, don't listen very well.

According to Christian lore God is capable of doing anything AND God created "a bunch of obstreperous offspring" with characteristics intact. So, "doing the best he can" with difficult to control offspring doesn't make much sense, does it?

If he does not exist, then blaming Him for any of this is useless...not to mention more than a little bit idiotic.

From my point of view, it is NOT idiotic to point out inconsistencies in God tales ("God can do anything but cannot effectively teach self-control to offspring" " or defeat iron chariots).

Well, when one is addressing the sort of Christian who holds the beliefs you are criticizing, you might have a point. Since, however, BC was replying to me, specifically, it might behoove him to realize that my beliefs aren't the ones either he, or you, are describing here.

I am, you understand, a tad bit tired of being challenged to defend beliefs I don't hole, and being criticized for opinions I haven't expressed.

[Zzyzx]

.

Therefore, pointing out the the alternative to the existence of a deity doesn't improve things any.

Therefore, getting mad at God because the god one doesn't believe in doesn't 'do it your way' seems silly to me.

Does this assume that those who decline to accept god tales are "mad at God?" Who, exactly, is "mad at God?" If I am included in that blanket statement, I am "offended" -- just kidding of course.

How, exactly, can "I don't believe god tales" be expected to stop killings?

It isn't.

Which is rather the point.

Perhaps we agree that believing in gods (any of them?) or disbelieving does not stop killing. If agreed, there is no demonstrated advantage to either position in that regard. Correct?

One might consider this when ranting about how nasty the God one doesn't believe in is. Not believing in one doesn't improve things.

Many "rant" against the TALES told about various gods " and claims made by god-believers that they possess some special knowledge of supernatural entities and events.

Shoot; consider this; if there is no god, how would the world change?

If the proposal is than NONE of the proposed gods exist, religions and worship are based on imagination. I do not see that as a change. However, if believers recognized that their religions were based on fantasy SOME would likely "abandon the faith" while others would probably continue the rituals (at least until older generations died out).

Since H. sapiens tend to be herd animals it would be reasonable to expect some other group activity to emerge or expand filling the place once occupied by traditional / popular / organized religions. Some other form of supernaturalism is a possibility.

We have a test case to examine with the decline in religiosity in western nations. However, I am unaware of studies regarding what is being taken up (or focused on?) as religion declines.

.........and yes, that just might BE a trick question.

As a university student I enjoyed "trick" questions " because they allowed a student with good command of the subject to recognize the question for what it was and to answer appropriately (while it may have fooled others). Rote memorization and unthinking acceptance do not lend themselves well to such situations. Reasoning and information base are preferable.

I am, you understand, a tad bit tired of being challenged to defend beliefs I don't hole, and being criticized for opinions I haven't expressed.

I understand and apologize for any such implications on my part.

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 4 by atheist buddy]

Well, if they follow the Bible's edicts to the letter they CANNOT be rational and caring.

I disagree with your statement. In all the Christians around the world who have children, how many kill them? I also wonder why you apply Old Testament laws to the time when the New Covenant is clearly in effect?

Jesus says, Let the little children come to me. He also says that if we cause the children to stumble, it would be better for us to have a millstone hung around our necks. Clearly He loves children. If Jesus came from God (which Christians believe), then it makes little sense that we would be directed to hurt them.

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 16 by Blastcat]

We know better now. However, there are people who are so behind the times, so superstitious or so EVIL as to want to re-live the terrible kind of morality the Bible depicts.

Progress is bad, according to some.

Hold on just a second here....please find some sort of documentation that says that Christian parents are killing their children, or creating harm to them?

I have been a foster parent for a very long time, and have had well over 200 kids in my home. I personally can say with 100% certainty that none of the children that ever came through the threshold of my door, went to church with their parents. What does this say to your theory?

[dianaiad]

.

Therefore, pointing out the the alternative to the existence of a deity doesn't improve things any.

Therefore, getting mad at God because the god one doesn't believe in doesn't 'do it your way' seems silly to me.

Does this assume that those who decline to accept god tales are "mad at God?" Who, exactly, is "mad at God?" If I am included in that blanket statement, I am "offended" -- just kidding of course.

Why, no, Z, I don't see a whole lot of evidence that you are 'mad at God.' You may be a bit irritated at some of the claims for Him, but you seem to be pretty solidly based in a "WHAT God?" sort of position.

I am referring, here, to those who rant on and on about how evil God is, after, of course, defining Him in such a way as to declare that no other interpretation of Him than theirs is possible, while at the same time declaring that there is no such God.

Well, the problem is that I agree. When I run into such descriptions of deity as are sometimes presented in here, I have to say that I don't believe that the deity described exists, either. This should be a good, comfortable meeting of the minds, yes?

But it doesn't seem to be. What happens is a sort of adamantly confused declaration on the part of the atheist in question: "THIS is the god you REALLY believe in, because THIS is what the bible REALLY says, and THIS deity is evil personified, and if you don't live precisely according to my interpretation of the bible, then you are being a hypocrite and this in and of itself proves that the god of the bible (or at least, the god I think the bible describes) is evil/doesn't exist."

I really ought to simply just step aside and let said non-believer wail away at the strawgod erected, but, well.....

[Blastcat]

Well, the fact is, God never commanded anybody to 'kill your neighbors.'

He did allow/command (or at least, the winners of the battles claimed this) the Israelites to kill their enemies.

So, he commands people to kill only their ENEMY neighbors. not the friendly neighbors they like. What a wise kind of god.

Only kill the guys you DON'T like.. riiiiiight.

Thanks god.

Well, I don't see atheistic belief systems doing any better towards loving their enemies. Indeed, I don't see that 'atheism' stops any sort of killing at all.

So, instead of defending your god beliefs, you go on the attack. Atheists aren't much nicer than theists.. yep, probably true in a lot of cases. SO WHAT?

We are TALKING about your god beliefs. Not about atheists being nicer than theists. Try to stay on track.

I don't see where you have any gripes coming. If God exists, then I think you can see that He's doing the best He can with a bunch of obstreperous offspring who, frankly, don't listen very well.

THE BEST HE CAN?.. How ridiculous. Sorry.

Poor, poor, all-knowing, all-powerful god..he's doing the very best he can. He might LIKE to do better.. but he can't. He just can't DEAL with these silly little creatures of his?

That's silly. An all powerful god can do ANYTHING. ...

So, the problem of evil remains. Don't tell me that an all powerful, all knowing being cant DEAL with a bunch of recalcitrant dimwits.

OH COME ON.

If he does not exist, then blaming Him for any of this is useless...not to mention more than a little bit idiotic.

Atheists don't believe in any god. PERIOD. So, YEAH.. if any one of us blamed what we think doesn't EXIST for anything.. it would be WAY more than just a little idiotic, for sure.

BUT, we DON'T actually blame any god.. .. duh.. If we BLAME anyone .. we blame the people who take old superstitious fantasies as LITERALLY TRUE. IN my personal view, it's really WEIRD that grown-ups would take ancient fairy tales as true.

But it's even MORE weird that someone would think that I believe in something that I don't believe in. I don't believe in gods. ATHEISTS are DEFINED as non god believers.. so of course, unless you find a CRAZY kind of atheist.. not one of us is going to blame or have EMOTIONS about that mythical, fictional character.

Fictional characters aren't real. So we can tell the difference between what is real, and what is fictional.

Can you?

No, there is no Santa.. no boogeyman under the bed.. The Grimm fairy tales aren't REAL.. and your god .. is just another mythical being amongst THOUSANDS of mythical beings. People who will BUILD a MORAL system out of fantasies, and can't tell reality from fantasy are NOT going to be as reliable in that regard as people who just take reality and reason as their ground for a moral system.

We don't WANT irrationality to "guide" our moral system, thank you very much.

But.. NO .. no atheists "blames" god.. what a weird statement on your part.
We BLAME people... OK... we don't blame fictional characters for anything at all. They are FICTIONAL characters.. they don't EXIST.

So, take a big breath.

But hey, what do I know about any of this?

That's up to you to decide. BUT if you want to try out your reasoning, be my guest. I will try my best to help you with it.

Tell you what, though; if you want to criticize God, go ahead; but if you want to argue with ME about it, then you need to figure out Who I think God is, and address that, because right now you're not only erecting strawman targets, you are building them two counties over.

We can't "figure out" what you believe your god is. Only YOU can do that. You seem to believe in some personal version of what can be found in the Bible. Well, we have the book. We can read it, too. We can also have personal interpretations.

There are potentially BILLIONS of valid personal interpretations of the Bible or of any other book. But valid doesn't mean it's real or true.

We can ask for YOUR interpretations.. and you can try to tell us. You can try to make sense out of your beliefs, and if we can't FOLLOW your reasoning.. then there are two possibilities here.

1. You are expressing yourself well and we aren't receiving what you mean well.
2. You are NOT expressing yourself well, and we aren't receiving what you mean well.

In case one, you have to help us.
In case two, we have to help you.

In either case, we have to help each other understand each others point.

So, please at the very least, TRY to express yourself as well as you can.
It's not up to us to guess, if you aren't expressing yourself well.

If I don't understand what you mean about something, if I don't think something you said makes sense, then we should help each other clear that misunderstanding up.

Tell us what you believe, as well as you can.. help us understand you.
Otherwise.. it's all very useless. You're perfectly right about straw man arguments. they are a waste of time, and actually conter-productive.

Let's try as much as we can to NOT make things up about each other's points. Don't straw man atheists .. don't say we "blame god"... TRY to understand our actual position, and we will TRY to understand yours.

But in this forum YOUR position is actually the position that is debated, you see. Not ours.. we atheists stand in OPPOSITION to your position ( whatever that might be ) but the actual debate IS about YOUR position, so let's try to stay on track.

We aren't really debating atheism in here.. we are debating THEISM here.. so it's really UP to the theists to make the best case they possibly can, and not the other way around.

Theists make a case in here. I try to understand the logic of the case presented.
Most times, I have an ENORMOUS amount of trouble following the logic of the cases presented.

So, I make comments, ask questions..and if I disagree with some statement of a theist, I try my best to give my REASONS why I disagree.

I'm not out to just "win" a debate by using bogus methods like building straw men arguments only to knock them down.. how silly that would be. And I don't WANT to be silly at all. I want to be as rigorously LOGICAL as possible.. and keep learning how to accomplish that goal by putting my reasoning to the TEST.

We are here to talk about THEISM ... so let's try to stay on track as much as possible and not derail the conversations by falling for the shifting the burden of proof fallacy.