God

Originally posted by jaywill
Dawkins does not just object to something here and there. Dawkins is out for a total scorched earth policy to exterminate all respect for God in the Old Testament.

You may be impressed. I am not.

And that long discussion between, I believe VoidSpirit and me, is on one of the pages of inactive discussions.

Dawkins and Hitchens had a conversation ...[text shortened]... l the discussions of VoidSpirit and see which one started with that quotation from God Delusion.

Hitchens would have left one theist left standing so that we can all see how stupid their
faith was and to serve as a lesson as for why people shouldn't believe such nonsense.

Dawkins position was kinder.


Your imaginary god does not deserve any respect.

The world would be a vastly better place if people didn't believe anything based on faith.


And nobody is impressed by your nonsense about Dawkins, Hitchens, or any other atheist
coming "before Christ in total unconditional surrender".

There is no such thing as spirit or life force, we have no souls, there is no afterlife, and your
god is imaginary and non-existent.

Claiming otherwise is just so much nonsense and hot air.

And belies your underlying hatred and contempt for people who don't think as you do and shocking
lack of morality when you say you believe that atheists (and other non-Christians) will get sent to
hell for an eternity of torture and will deserve it.

Your beliefs are repugnant and immoral.

Originally posted by jaywill

Aak.

'whiskey-drinking, child molestor-looking, trench coat wearing...but in a cool kind of way'

'I wanted to believe, but my brain was getting in the way.'

Come now. Surely Hitchens has no glass jaw. He dishes stuff out like this in SPADES dude !!



Surely, he can take a little himself.

[quote]
Sorry, I kept wa ...[text shortened]... going to miss some substantial discussion on the count of some start up stuff. Too bad.

It was just weird, that's all. It was like he transitioned from a semi-serious discussion on atheism to a 'roast' of Hitchens. I've seen some 'roasts' and it's basically 'anything goes', as long as it makes people laugh. But I've never heard any of them call child molesters 'cool'. 😛 If they did, there would be nothing but groans from the audience [kinda like when Jimmy Kimmel quipped that Chris Benoit (who murdered his own child in a fit of 'roid rage) was a better father than Flava Flav].

Yeah, I am just going to have to miss out on the rest of the 'discussion' [if you can call it that when no one else gets to talk] because the guy failed to hold my interest. Once I heard that line about 'my brain was getting in the way' I just couldn't take him seriously anymore. It was actually funny, but I was laughing at him and not with him, and yet it was not 'so bad it was good' type funny, like watching Kelly Bundy or Sarah Palin. 😛

Originally posted by RJHinds
You seem to overlook the fact that God has the right to take life since He is the
life giver. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! He gives and He takes away! 😏

I disagree. Even if God is the life-giver, he has moral obligations to the lives he creates.

Originally posted by jaywill

Dawkins does not just object to something here and there. Dawkins is out for a total scortched earth policy to exterminate all respect for God in the Old Testament..

You better believe it. The God of the OT deserves no respect, and certainly gets none from Dawkins. It's about time someone had the passion and verbal armory to completely annihilate any credibility this God had. And why do Christians get their knickers in such a twist whenever anyone attacks them? Reeks a bit if insecurity to me. And just because Jesus had the unique advantage of being the boss's son why should he be idolized in a glass cage?

Originally posted by jaywill
Dawkins does not just object to something here and there. Dawkins is out for a total scortched earth policy to exterminate all respect for God in the Old Testament.

You may be impressed. I am not.

Well I am not impressed by your argument so far.
Here is how it has gone:
Dawkins: God is described in the OT as ...[a terrible entity].....
Jaywill:1. I have defended this before, but can't be bothered to repeat myself.
2. God in the OT isn't really that bad, he was actually quite nice sometimes, but even I admit that I can't defend all his actions.
3. Its all about Dawkins' motives.

Instead of defending the OT and explaining why the accusation is wrong, you are producing one false argument after another. So, I will say it again, this suggests you have no valid defence.

Hint: although Dawkins' motives and views on theism might be interesting and worthy of discussion, they are totally irrelevant to the question of whether his description of the OT God is accurate.

Originally posted by jaywill
About five to possibly eight months ago I believe I gave extensive responses on pretty much each of Mr. Dawkins' charges. I think that exchange was between me and VoidSpirit. I don't think I will take the time to re-write all those posts.

However, I am thankful to God that the Bible reveals a well rounded and "holistic" portrait of this God. If God in ...[text shortened]... t as God is working on me to conform me more to the image of Christ, I should expect that.

i don't recall quoting that bit of dawkins or going through it with you point by point, though we have discussed the psychotic/narcissistic nature of your god in the past. it really is a terrible monstrosity deserving of no respect; at best, your god belongs in a mental institution, locked away so that it may not harm itself or others.

i had come to this conclusion long before i had even heard of dawkins and only became interested in what dawkins had written when someone suggested that my ideas were similar to those expressed by dawkins.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
i don't recall quoting that bit of dawkins or going through it with you point by point, though we have discussed the psychotic/narcissistic nature of your god in the past. it really is a terrible monstrosity deserving of no respect; at best, your god belongs in a mental institution, locked away so that it may not harm itself or others.

i had come to t ...[text shortened]... ns had written when someone suggested that my ideas were similar to those expressed by dawkins.

from someone that cannot tell the difference between the Biblical concept of
jealousy/zeal and that of mere envy I dont think you should be offering advice on the
nature of the Biblical God.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well I am not impressed by your argument so far.
Here is how it has gone:
Dawkins: God is described in the OT as ...[a terrible entity].....
Jaywill:1. I have defended this before, but can't be bothered to repeat myself.
2. God in the OT isn't really that bad, he was actually quite nice sometimes, but even I admit that I can't defend all his actions. ...[text shortened]... re totally irrelevant to the question of whether his description of the OT God is accurate.

Well I am not impressed by your argument so far.

NO ??? !!! That's a switch.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
from someone that cannot tell the difference between the Biblical concept of
jealousy/zeal and that of mere envy I dont think you should be offering advice on the
nature of the Biblical God.

it has been conclusively demonstrated that dawkins is talking about jealousy in the sense that everyone except you understands the word.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
it has been conclusively demonstrated that dawkins is talking about jealousy in the sense that everyone except you understands the word.

then perhaps he should have taken the time to study its Biblical usage prior to uttering
his diatribe and he might have saved himself from projecting his ignorance.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
then perhaps he should have taken the time to study its Biblical usage prior to uttering
his diatribe and he might have saved himself from projecting his ignorance.

Dawkins was attributing to the god of the OT the tributes of jealousy (and all the other terms)
as the word is defined and understood by the majority of the population and as recorded in dictionaries.

The fact that the bible (or anything or anyone else) has different definitions of those words is irrelevant.


It's like when I talk about faith.
There are many meanings of the word faith and you like the one the bible has.

However when I talk about it (as I have made very clear numerous times) I have a specific definition and
meaning in mind "belief without evidence or despite all evidence to the contrary".

If I make an argument that believing based on faith is bad, my argument is based on the meaning of the
word faith that I am using.

It is not any sort of counter argument to say that my argument doesn't apply to a different meaning of the
word.


Dawkins is accusing your god of having the attributes we generally shorthand with the words he used.

Arguing that he is wrong because you have a different meaning of those words which doesn't apply is
moronic and wrong.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Dawkins was attributing to the god of the OT the tributes of jealousy (and all the other terms)
as the word is defined and understood by the majority of the population and as recorded in dictionaries.

The fact that the bible (or anything or anyone else) has different definitions of those words is irrelevant.


It's like when I talk about faith.
use you have a different meaning of those words which doesn't apply is
moronic and wrong.

no its not irrelevant, its a projection of ignorance, why? because he is subjecting the
Biblical God to his own predefined criteria of what constitutes jealousy whether the
Biblical God actually fits this predefined generic definition or not and drawing inferences
from his own predefined criteria, which makes his statement an assumption and
prejudiced. Whether its understood by the population or not is also not a valid argument
that the Biblical God actually is jealous in the generic sense, its merely an
appeal to popular opinion. So you, Dawkins and everyone else who supports the idea
are simply utilizing a fallacy through association, that being that the God of the Bible
just happens to fit the generic description that is assigned to it, not whether its
actually true or not.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no its not irrelevant, its a projection of ignorance, why? because he is subjecting the
Biblical God to his own predefined criteria of what constitutes jealousy whether the
Biblical God actually fits this predefined generic definition or not and drawing inferences
from his own predefined criteria, which makes his statement an assumption and
p ...[text shortened]... to fits the generic description that is assigned to it, not whether its
actually true or not.

And you continue to fail to comprehend what I am saying.



Words convey meanings and concepts.
Some words have many possible meanings or concepts that they can convey.

If I were to call you obtuse, I wouldn't mean that you are an angle greater than
90 degrees but less than 180 degrees.
I would mean something like this http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obtuse

Now both meanings are valid meanings of the word obtuse however if I were to
call you obtuse it would be idiotic of you to complain that you are not an angle of
any kind. Because that is not the meaning I was using and trying to convey.


Now in this case Dawkins is saying that the god of the bible (OT in particular) has
certain properties and attributes based on the descriptions of the god of the bible IN
the bible.

We have certain words that include in their meaning those attributes that Dawkins was
ascribing to your god.


Arguing that those meanings or attributes don't apply to your god is one thing, but
arguing that Dawkins is wrong because those are not the meanings that those words
have is asinine.

Whether you like it or not those are the meanings that Dawkins was using and your augments
should and can only be directed against those meanings and not trying to argue that he was
wrong because that is not what the words mean.


Failing to comprehend this does in fact btw make you obtuse.

Originally posted by googlefudge
And you continue to fail to comprehend what I am saying.



Words convey meanings and concepts.
Some words have many possible meanings or concepts that they can convey.

If I were to call you obtuse, I wouldn't mean that you are an angle greater than
90 degrees but less than 180 degrees.
I would mean something like this http://dictionary.refere ...[text shortened]... is not what the words mean.


Failing to comprehend this does in fact btw make you obtuse.

no its not, he is utilizing a fallacy based upon an assumption. To term someone jealous
when they do not actually fit the definition we have assigned to them is what? Its
fallacious. You cannot escape this, whether Dawkins wishes to term the God of the
Bible as jealous based upon his own understanding of the term, based upon the
understanding of the term in a generic sense , based upon the understanding of the
term as its perceived in popular culture does not even address whether the God of the
Bible actually is jealous in the sense that Dawkins wishes us to believe or not, does it?
Not only that, it can be proven that his definition cannot be the correct term, for its
Biblical usage, from which the Biblical God is defined has been utterly ignored, hasn't
it. Thus his statement is simply fallacious and a projection of ignorance.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no its not, he is utilizing a fallacy based upon an assumption. To term someone jealous
when they do not actually fit the definition we have assigned to them is what? Its
fallacious. You cannot escape this, whether Dawkins wishes to term the God of the
Bible as jealous based upon his own understanding of the term, based upon the
understandi ...[text shortened]... y ignored, hasn't
it. Thus his statement is simply fallacious and a projection of ignorance.

You are now just spouting nonsense.

The meanings in the bible are irrelevant, the only meanings that are relevant are the ones Dawkins was using.

The only meanings that are relevant are the ones being conveyed in the argument.


As the meanings Dawkins was using are the standard ones that we generally use means that his words make
sense and convey meaning to the majority reading his argument.


Using non-standard biblical meanings would be confusing to everyone who isn't familiar with those meanings.


However whatever meanings he was using, those are the meanings you must demonstrate don't apply.

you don't get to say he was wrong because you think the words mean something different because that is irrelevant.

I have explained why perfectly clearly and irrefutably.

If you still can't understand it then you are clearly not up to this debate intellectually and should just give up.

My arguments here are emphatically not fallacious.