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?

[bluethread]

But if an atheist cannot study God's relation to the world, universe then he is not doing theology because theology means studying God's relation to the world, universe. If it’s not doing theology, then he cannot have a theological position because theological mean relating to theology.

Q: How is this so hard to comprehend? 😊))

Just as a note of grammar, one does not do theology. It is a field of study, one does not do a field of study, one engages in a field of study. One does not have to do the things that the field of study studies to engage in that field of study. One is the subject and the other is the examiner. An atheist can engage in the study of theology and many do. In doing so they hold various positions regarding the things that they are studying. Those are theological positions. One doesn't have to believe in something to study it. I don't believe in Greek mythology, but I have studied it. I have various positions on Greek mythology.

theology is that which is related to the existence of a deity or deities.

Distortion. Not accurate. It’s about the study of God and of God's relation to the world, universe like biology it’s about the study of life and living organisms.

Theology:
“The study of God and of God's relation to the world� Webster Dictionary
“The field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe.� Dictionary.com
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theology
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/theology

Hold it. That was the definition you presented. Now, you want to use another definition. Fine, as I stated above, before I noticed that you were going to go with a different set of definitions, one can engage in a field of study and hold positions in that regard without personally believing in the subject of that study. It appears that the "New Atheists" that the OP speaks of do engage in the study of theology and hold theological positions.

Yes, those are some theological positions. However, those who opposes any or all of those positions are taking at least one theological position. It is a position in opposition to them

If I am in opposition to a theological position how can I have a theological position? 😊)))))
Correctly would be that I have an anti-theological position, anti-theist. Ring a bell?!
It’s like saying an anti-theist is a theist.
It’s moronic, illogical.

No it is not at all like saying that. It is like saying that there are atheists who study theology and hold positions with regard to specific things in that field of study, specifically positions in opposition to those things. They are not anti-theological, they are anti-theistic. They are not opposed to the field of study, they are opposed to the subject of the study.

Are you arguing that there is non-theistic religion? I was working on the presumption that when the OP was talking about religion, that was talking about theism. If that presumption was correct, that statement is actually saying that as theism declines; science, critical thinking and true morality can increase. That is not just the failure to accept theism, it is a specific position with regard to theology.

No.
I just corrected you by saying that Jagella did not say that deities are in opposition science, critical thinking, and true morality can increase but “As religion and superstition decline; science, critical thinking, and true morality can increase�.
There is a distinction there. I hope you notice.

So, are you saying that "As religion and superstition decline" the OP is not referring to theism?

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to post 129 by alexxcJRO]

You ignored my reason for doing so, even that it was mentioned at least twice - if not 3 times. If you are going to ignore what i say re my reasons, then you are trying to fit me into your ideas of what is unacceptable to you in order that you can pass judgement on that. I don't consider such behavior good, so am likely to withdraw from interaction with you if you choose to continue in this fashion. At present you don't appear to be anything like my 'favorite kind of guy'.

Explain to me succinctly, what is the 'honest truth.'
My agenda - and furthering that agenda - involves looking for and supporting goodness in all things. If the universe were absolutely evil, then perhaps your point would be relevant, and thus honest.
Right now though, your argument appears to be nothing more than psychological projection.

Cherry picking is cherry picking nor matter the reason. It is still fallacious to do it. Mostly in debate.

“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

I think you are cherry picking yourself alexxcJRO ...but lets see if that is actually the case.

Member DI also chooses what he thinks aligns with his own beliefs on the matter of Jesus and what the bible says about him...

...DI has this to say on the subject;

Well, here's my view of a possible "historical Jesus".

To begin with he has absolutely nothing to do with any God named Yahweh. He was just a mortal man like the rest of us. Secondly, from the Gospel rumors it appears to me that Jesus was missing from this society for close something like 15-20 years. He started arguing with religious authorities when he was as young as 12 years old. Then disappeared and wasn't mentioned again until he was around 30.

Also based on the larger historical picture of what was going on in the world at that time it appears to me that Jesus most likely left his home society and went out, probably toward the east, and encountered Mahayana Buddhists. The reason this makes sense historically is because Mahayana Buddhism was at its peak at that particular time in history. And far more importantly, everything that Jesus taught was far more in line with Mahayana Buddhism than it was with the Hebrew Torah of Yahweh.

So for me, Jesus was a Mahayana Buddhist. He taught the principle of Mahayana Buddhism, and NOT the principles of the Torah. In fact, even the Gospels have Jesus referring to the teachings in the Torah as "Your Law" when speaking with the Jewish Chief Priests. He doesn't refer to it as "God's Law".

And that's just part of it. You can view the whole post here.

Let us know what your thoughts are re this.

Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any logic and accuracy.

Firstly,

You and Di admint you are cherry picking.

DI: "And just like the vast majority of Christians, I decide what I consider to be the words of Jesus.
For one thing I toss the writings of Paul out entirely. I have no reason to think that Paul speaks for Jesus. And I don't even need to accept everything that Mark, Matthew, Luke or John wrote either. I can "cheery pick" from those too just like the Christians do. "

You: "Well my cherry picking re Jesus and goodness isn't about anything other than getting goodness from where it resides. I am equally fond of goodness coming from other famous icons. I am equally fond of goodness coming from ordinary folk. Goodness attracts me. "

I did no such thing.

Secondly,

You and Di did not bring outside evidence to support your opinions.
I did brought outside evidence.
We well know there are things that were added in support of Jesus not the other way around.
http://conversationalatheist.com/christ ... the-bible/

We all know that throughout history the Talmud was banned, burned and censored by the Church and Christians.
http://thejewishreview.org/articles/?id=147

Thirdly,
I am not suppressing any outside evidence for you and Di never brought any. You and him just stated your opinions.
On the other hand you are suppressing the outside evidence i brought.

I hope things are clear now.




"Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim. "

viewtopic.php?t=6

[alexxcJRO]

Just as a note of grammar, one does not do theology. It is a field of study, one does not do a field of study, one engages in a field of study. One does not have to do the things that the field of study studies to engage in that field of study. One is the subject and the other is the examiner. An atheist can engage in the study of theology and many do. In doing so they hold various positions regarding the things that they are studying. Those are theological positions. One doesn't have to believe in something to study it. I don't believe in Greek mythology, but I have studied it. I have various positions on Greek mythology.

Nonsense.

I can do theology aka study the God's relation to the world, universe. But for this i need to believe God exists. I cannot study as an atheist, the effects of a non-existing God has on the universe. That's absurd.

I can do biology aka study life and living organisms, including their physical structure, chemical composition, function, development and evolution.

Dear sir a I cannot do biology if I do not believe life and living organism exist, because they need to exist in order for me to study their physical structure, chemical composition, function, development and evolution.

Please don't ignore my points.

You might have been right if theology meant just study of religion. But it is not i am afraid.

Hold it. That was the definition you presented. Now, you want to use another definition. Fine, as I stated above, before I noticed that you were going to go with a different set of definitions, one can engage in a field of study and hold positions in that regard without personally believing in the subject of that study. It appears that the "New Atheists" that the OP speaks of do engage in the study of theology and hold theological positions.

Straw man.
The definition from dictionary.com was my definition from the start.


theology
[thee-ol-uh-jee]
Spell Syllables
Examples
Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun, plural theologies.
1.
the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God'sattributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.
2.
a particular form, system, branch, or course of this study.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/theology
viewtopic.php?t=34008&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40

I never presented this :"theology is that which is related to the existence of a deity or deities."

No it is not at all like saying that. It is like saying that there are atheists who study theology and hold positions with regard to specific things in that field of study, specifically positions in opposition to those things. They are not anti-theological, they are anti-theistic. They are not opposed to the field of study, they are opposed to the subject of the study.

Q: If atheism is the belief there are no God's available to study how can an atheist study God's relation to the world, universe?:-s

[kayky]

While I appreciate your enthusiasm, communism is a government system that includes an atheistic worldview; and that didn't work out so well. Not saying it was BECAUSE OF the inherent atheism, but just pointing out that atheists don't automatically make for a better society.

[bluethread]

Nonsense.

I can do theology aka study the God's relation to the world, universe. But for this i need to believe God exists. I cannot study as an atheist, the effects of a non-existing God has on the universe. That's absurd.

I can do biology aka study life and living organisms, including their physical structure, chemical composition, function, development and evolution.

Dear sir a I cannot do biology if I do not believe life and living organism exist, because they need to exist in order for me to study their physical structure, chemical composition, function, development and evolution.

Please don't ignore my points.

You might have been right if theology meant just study of religion. But it is not i am afraid.

It is true that one can not do experimentation without acknowledging the existence of the subject of the examination. However, individuals can and do discuss the premises and conclusions of fields of study that claim to examine thing in which they do not believe. Those views regarding those premises and conclusions of theology are theological positions, just as those regarding the premises and conclusions of biology are biological positions.

Hold it. That was the definition you presented. Now, you want to use another definition. Fine, as I stated above, before I noticed that you were going to go with a different set of definitions, one can engage in a field of study and hold positions in that regard without personally believing in the subject of that study. It appears that the "New Atheists" that the OP speaks of do engage in the study of theology and hold theological positions.

Straw man.
The definition from dictionary.com was my definition from the start.


theology
[thee-ol-uh-jee]
Spell Syllables
Examples
Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun, plural theologies.
1.
the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God'sattributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.
2.
a particular form, system, branch, or course of this study.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/theology
viewtopic.php?t=34008&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40

I never presented this :"theology is that which is related to the existence of a deity or deities."

That does not stop one from studying and addressing proposed attributes and relations to the universe. Those proposed attributes and relations to the universe are theology. Therefore, studying and addressing them is engaging in theology, even if one does not believe in it.

No it is not at all like saying that. It is like saying that there are atheists who study theology and hold positions with regard to specific things in that field of study, specifically positions in opposition to those things. They are not anti-theological, they are anti-theistic. They are not opposed to the field of study, they are opposed to the subject of the study.

Q: If atheism is the belief there are no God's available to study how can an atheist study God's relation to the world, universe?:-s

By entertaining things that they do not believe in, for the sake of argument. One simply accepts, for the sake of arguement, the existance of a deity or deities. Those that simply shun any discussion a deity or deities do not have theological positions. However, those who do engage in discussions of a deity or deities can and do hold various positions in those discussions. Those various postions are theological positions.

[alexxcJRO]

It is true that one can not do experimentation without acknowledging the existence of the subject of the examination. However, individuals can and do discuss the premises and conclusions of fields of study that claim to examine thing in which they do not believe. Those views regarding those premises and conclusions of theology are theological positions, just as those regarding the premises and conclusions of biology are biological positions.

Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any logic and accuracy.

There is no such thing as biological position or a biologist who study biology and does not believe life and living organisms exist. That just illogical and not accurate.
You are just making things up.

Your opinions are not congruent with reality.

Please present evidence of a biological position(like i did with the theological position), of a biologist who does not believe life and living organisms exist.

The rules are clear:
"Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim. "

viewtopic.php?t=6

That does not stop one from studying and addressing proposed attributes and relations to the universe. Those proposed attributes and relations to the universe are theology. Therefore, studying and addressing them is engaging in theology, even if one does not believe in it.
By entertaining things that they do not believe in, for the sake of argument. One simply accepts, for the sake of arguement, the existance of a deity or deities. Those that simply shun any discussion a deity or deities do not have theological positions. However, those who do engage in discussions of a deity or deities can and do hold various positions in those discussions. Those various postions are theological positions.

Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any logic and accuracy.

Dear sir you are confusing philosophy and/or philosophy of religion with theology.

There is a distinction between apologetics, phylosophy, phylosophy of religion and theology:

"Theology begins with the assumption that the divine exists in some form, such as in physical, supernatural, mental, or social realities, and that evidence for and about it may be found via personal spiritual experiences and/or historical records of such experiences as documented by others. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology

"Theology is in a literal etymological sense the study of God. In practice it is the intellectual study of the assumed divine, the nature of man within the context of religious doctrine, and religious "truths" from the position of a believer within a particular religion. Theologians seek to improve their subjective understanding of divine revelation to better understand the divine. Theology differs from, but is closely related to, other disciplines such as religious studies which attempt to analyse religions and beliefs objectively.

Theology is not the same as apologetics or philosophy of religion, though in practice the three get mixed up quite a bit. "
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Theology


What Christians believe about theology :

"The study of theology, then, is nothing more than digging into God’s Word to discover what He has revealed about Himself. When we do this, we come to know Him as Creator of all things, Sustainer of all things, and Judge of all things. He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and end of all things. When Moses asked who was sending him to Pharaoh, God replied “I AM WHO I AM� "
https://www.gotquestions.org/what-is-theology.html

"The study of theology is an effort to make definitive statements about God and his implications in an accurate, coherent, relevant way, based on God’s self-revelations. Doctrine equips people to fulfill their primary purpose, which is to glorify and delight in God through a deep personal knowledge of him. Meaningful relationship with God is dependent on correct knowledge of him."
https://www.crossway.org/articles/what-is-theology/

Every outside evidence i provided (definition, examples of theological position, Christians perspective of what theology means, wikipedia and so one) shows that theology assums God exist.
Yes an atheist can engage in philosophy but he is no doing theology for he/she does not believe God exists and theology assumes God exists.

So far all you have presented are illogical, non-accurate statements, mere opinions.

You have not supply any evidence to back up your claims.

The rules are clear:
"Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim. "

viewtopic.php?t=6

[alexxcJRO]

While I appreciate your enthusiasm, communism is a government system that includes an atheistic worldview; and that didn't work out so well. Not saying it was BECAUSE OF the inherent atheism, but just pointing out that atheists don't automatically make for a better society.

I don't really understand were that post is coming from.

My only points were:

1. "thinking atheism is the cause for the atrocities committed by the communists is fallacious."

2. Atheism is not a theological position.

You are not basically disagreeing with those two points but yet somehow you disagree with me.

Q: What's up with that?:)


Observation: I assumed that you were addressing this post to me. I highly doubt it's not addressed to me. But if it's not ignore my post.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 128 by alexxcJRO]



I really am eager to get back to the ten commandment issue, and I will because the video was a joke. However, I would rather focus upon one issue at the time, in order to keep the conversation from becoming bogged down.

Please do not talk about my character, motive, or other attribute of me.

Oh really? So then, it is fine for you to accuse me of all sorts of tactics, which is to say, "I have character flaws?" Next, it is fine for you to point out that others have an agenda, and are simply attempting to protect that agenda, but I guess you have no agenda, and to point this out about you, would be off limits, right? I'm afraid not.

Stop with add hominem

“Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]�

You are exactly right. This type of argument has not one but two parts. First it attacks the character, and motive of the person making the argument. However, the other part would be, to avoid the topic at hand. This type of argument is an attempt to get the opponent off topic, by attempting to get them to defend their character, which would be another topic.

Well, I have not avoided the topic in the least. Rather, the topic has been my main focus, while pointing out what very well may be the motive, of those opposed, which is exactly what you have done. Here is an example, from one of your posts.

This is what i was talking about. You cherry pick in order to fit something to your preconceived ides. You cherry pick to fit Jesus with your favorite kind of guy.

Then you are not interested in honest truth.

You will distort and ignore things because you have an agenda.

Nice confession.

This is a common theistic apologetic tactic..

They are not interested in the Truth but in furthering their agendas

So this sort of thing is fine for you, but it is off limits for the rest of us to consider that you very well may have some sort of agenda, and that it could be you who is the one who "cherry picks", distorts, and ignores things, and are not really all that interested in the truth?

But the main point here is, you have accused me of a "straw man" and we demonstrated that this was unfounded on your part, and since I have pointed it out, you have ignored it. Now you have accused me of avoiding the topic, and we can see this accusation is unfounded as well.

So you are saying that the context is that the passage was intended only to Israelites.

This would be correct, and I believe you have said that you were not arguing "who the covenant was made with, nor whether if it would be everlasting, or temporary." Rather, as you have demonstrated, your argument is, the passage is to blame for those women who were murdered for being perceived as witches.

So what are you saying is that if the Israelites instead would have burned at the stake or hanged tens of thousands of women after being accused of witchcraft that would have been k.

Now, this is a fine example of a "straw man." I have never made such an argument, and never would. You now need to demonstrate where I have made such an argument. I cannot demonstrate that there is indeed a god, which means I cannot demonstrate that this passage is even valid. My only argument concerning this issue is, whether the passage is actually true or not, the passage was clearly intended for only the Israelites, and we cannot blame the passage, for those who have clearly taken the passage out of it's context.

As I said, "the above is a fine example of a "straw man", so we can clearly see the one who is guilty, and the whole while the guilty party is throwing out this accusation against others.

You don’t see how bad that sounds?

Whether it sounds bad or not, I have never made the argument. Rather, it is you attempting to make the argument in my stead. You know, "straw man."

It’s like this: an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good God set out this directive: “You shall not let a sorcerer live�.
But man people have died killed by other humans because the latter, they thought their omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good God ordered them to do this.

Again, another tactic. Here you are attempting to get me to defend God, when the topic is whether the passage was intended for those who used it to kill the thousands of women you have spoke of. Please stay focused!

You don’t have a problem with God ordering the Israelites to kill other humans, to commit mass murder, genocide?

Whether I have a problem with the above, is another issue. The issue in front of us is whether we can blame the passage? Or, should those who took the passage out of context be blamed?

How is that compatible with an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, perfectly wise God?

Again, this would be another issue, for another time. You see, I have not mentioned as to whether I would be in agreement with "God ordering the Israelites to kill other humans, to commit mass murder, or genocide", and you may be surprised to hear my answer to this, but again, this is not the topic. I have not mentioned as to whether I agree that God would be, "omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, or perfectly wise." These are views you assume I must hold, but this is not the topic at this time.

Also an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good God who can’t transmit a clear massage to humans it’s an illogical concept.

Here, you are attempting to argue that the message was not clear. It seems clear to me. God made a covenant with the Israelites. How clear does it have to be? If it clearly states that, "the covenant was between God, and the Israelites", then what in the world would give you the idea that anyone else was involved? And please do not tell me what other Christians have to say, because we are not talking about what they have to say. Rather, we are talking about what the passage clearly says.

Dear sir you yourself are doing the thing you are complaining about. You believe the 10 directives (thou shall not steal, kill, commit adultery, and so one) were not address to Israelites but to Christians also.

This would be an assumption on your part as well, and not a very good one at that. The ten commandments were clearly not addressed to me, because I was not even thought of at the time, when the ten commandments were addressed to the Israelites. So, this would be another "straw man" on your part.

Apparently you are allowed to take thinks out of context.

Where have I done such a thing? The Mosaic law, which would include the ten commandments were given to the Israelite tribe. It was a covenant, (contract) between God, and the Israelites, (do this and you will live). So no! Since, these laws were given to the Israelites, in order govern that particular people, and since there were no Christians at the time, these laws would have nothing to do with governing me. In other words, there was no other nation, or group of people, that would have been included in this covenant.

In fact, when we arrive to the NT, even the Jews were told, "for you have been set free from the law." So now, you need the demonstrate where I have taken something out of context.

So, as we can clearly see, we have one who makes all these accusations against others, and all the while being guilty of the same things he is accusing others of. When you accuse others of these sort of tactics, you are attacking their character, and yet you object when your character may be called into question.

You have accused me of a "straw man" and yet you have failed to demonstrate where I would be guilty of such a thing, while I have pointed out several "straw man" arguments on your part, in a single post.

So to be clear here, we are attempting to discover if the passage is to blame for the. "thousands, or even tens of thousands of women who were killed?" Or, is it clear that the passage was only intended for the Israelite tribe, and with this being the case, the blame is on those who took the passage completely out of it's intended context?

Please let's not get side tracked on what you think that I must, and have to believe about certain things. We can certainly get to these things at a later time. The issue here is, "can we rightly blame the passage?"

[alexxcJRO]

I really am eager to get back to the ten commandment issue, and I will because the video was a joke. However, I would rather focus upon one issue at the time, in order to keep the conversation from becoming bogged down.

Just saying something is a joke, then avoiding all together looks bad I am afraid.
Dodging never looks good.
Hit and run.

Oh really? So then, it is fine for you to accuse me of all sorts of tactics, which is to say, "I have character flaws?" Next, it is fine for you to point out that others have an agenda, and are simply attempting to protect that agenda, but I guess you have no agenda, and to point this out about you, would be off limits, right? I'm afraid not.

I did not talk about your character, motive, or other attribute of you.
And please dont'y straw man the ad hominem fallacy.

which is exactly what you have done. Here is an example, from one of your posts.

Quote:
This is what i was talking about. You cherry pick in order to fit something to your preconceived ides. You cherry pick to fit Jesus with your favorite kind of guy.

Then you are not interested in honest truth.

You will distort and ignore things because you have an agenda.

Nice confession.

This is a common theistic apologetic tactic..

They are not interested in the Truth but in furthering their agendas


So this sort of thing is fine for you, but it is off limits for the rest of us to consider that you very well may have some sort of agenda, and that it could be you who is the one who "cherry picks", distorts, and ignores things, and are not really all that interested in the truth?

The problem is that William admitted he had an agenda.
William said: “My agenda - and furthering that agenda - involves looking for and supporting goodness in all things.�

So I did not accused him for no reason.
I did not ignore his points. He was in fact ignoring, suppressing my evidence; cherry picking.
He in fact admitted also that he avoids intentionally and cherry picks.

This would be correct, and I believe you have said that you were not arguing "who the covenant was made with, nor whether if it would be everlasting, or temporary." Rather, as you have demonstrated, your argument is, the passage is to blame for those women who were murdered for being perceived as witches.

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)

Now, this is a fine example of a "straw man." I have never made such an argument, and never would. You now need to demonstrate where I have made such an argument. I cannot demonstrate that there is indeed a god, which means I cannot demonstrate that this passage is even valid. My only argument concerning this issue is, whether the passage is actually true or not, the passage was clearly intended for only the Israelites, and we cannot blame the passage, for those who have clearly taken the passage out of it's context.

Q: If the Israelites would have instead killed tens of thousands o women after being accused of witchcraft would then the passage be culpable for this?(Yes/No question)

Again, another tactic. Here you are attempting to get me to defend God, when the topic is whether the passage was intended for those who used it to kill the thousands of women you have spoke of. Please stay focused!

Clear example of add hominem.
Avoidance plus talking about my motives.

“Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

Whether I have a problem with the above, is another issue. The issue in front of us is whether we can blame the passage? Or, should those who took the passage out of context be blamed?
Again, this would be another issue, for another time. You see, I have not mentioned as to whether I would be in agreement with "God ordering the Israelites to kill other humans, to commit mass murder, or genocide", and you may be surprised to hear my answer to this, but again, this is not the topic. I have not mentioned as to whether I agree that God would be, "omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, or perfectly wise." These are views you assume I must hold, but this is not the topic at this time.

Please don’t avoid again:
Q: You don’t have a problem with God ordering the Israelites to kill other humans, to commit mass murder, genocide?
Q: How is that compatible with an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, perfectly wise God?

Here, you are attempting to argue that the message was not clear. It seems clear to me. God made a covenant with the Israelites. How clear does it have to be? If it clearly states that, "the covenant was between God, and the Israelites", then what in the world would give you the idea that anyone else was involved? And please do not tell me what other Christians have to say, because we are not talking about what they have to say. Rather, we are talking about what the passage clearly says.

Q: If the passage of the omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good God is clear why did the Christians from middle ages misunderstood it, huh?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 139 by alexxcJRO]

We will get to the issue of the ten commandments, along with the video, but lets get to one thing at the time. In fact, lets get to where the rubber meets the road here in this post.

You don’t have a problem with God ordering the Israelites to kill other humans, to commit mass murder, genocide?

My position on this question, would be completely, and utterly irrelevant to whether the passage can be held accountable for the thousands of women who were killed, that you spoke of.

In other words, if I were to answer, "yes I do have a problem with God giving this command", it would still not affect the outcome of whether the passage could rightly be blamed, for those who took the passage out of it's clear context?

So then, if I did have a problem with the fact that God gave the command, I would then have to go on to say, "but this command was only for the Israelites, and cannot be the blame for those who were killed much later, when those who used the command were not Israelites, and the covenant was not intended for anyone other than the Israelites." So again, my position on this would not matter, nor change the fact as to whether the passage can be rightly blamed.

How is that compatible with an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, perfectly wise God?

I have not in any way argued that, "God would be omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, or a perfectly wise God." So where are you getting this from? I have readily admitted that I cannot even demonstrate that there is a god. If I have admitted this, then I certainly could not attempt to argue that this god would be, any of these other things?

So let's not get into a debate concerning things that neither of us can demonstrate. However, I am convinced that it can be clearly demonstrated that the passage we are referring to, was only intended for the Israelites. If this is the case, then the question is, "can the passage possibly be the blame for something it never commanded anyone other than the Israelites to do?"