Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Thursday, November 13, 2008

I Feel Ashamed to be an Atheist

I just watched this Fox News Interview with Bill Donahue about the new atheist bus campaign in D.C.

I felt like I was getting talked down to. I didn't know my beliefs would hurt our entire society. I just thought there wasn't any god.

75 comments:

  1. I just watched Bill O'Reilly chastizing a representative of the American Humanist Society. Billy boy thinks that any message that says there is no god is offensive and "dopey". Fox News represents everything wrong with this country.

    ReplyDelete
  2. you represent what's wrong w/ this country

    ReplyDelete
  3. Right, what with all our demand for evidence....and view that morality is based on preventing human suffering, rather than upholding ridiculous, dangerous dogma.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't think clostridophile represents everything wrong with this country by a long shot!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ah, I love me some Bill Donahue, and that fatwa envy.

    I wish it had ended like this:

    Humanist: So, are you asking me, "why do you do things that offend Bill Donahue"?

    Fox News Reporter: Basically, yep.

    Humanist: What in the blue blazes DOESN'T offend Bill Donahue?

    Bill Donahue: Jesus. Well, usually.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks, Kaitlyn. Honestly, how dare anyone claim that we are a problem, that we are offensive, that we need to be silenced. The suicide bombing community is entirely religious, the genital mutilation community is entirely religious....the assholes lying to Africans, telling them that condoms CAUSE AIDS is ENTIRELY religious.

    What if our citizens were desirous of evidence? What if our citizens embraced science and actively sought knowledge? Why do so many think the Bible is the answer? Have you read it? This blood soaked book has every insightment to slavery, genocide, rape, and murder required for a good person to do awful things...and think they are being "good" because they have the purported backing of the supreme authority. I'm sick of this nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @zachary:

    I'm not immature, you're mom is immature!

    Also, you don't exist, I said it, I believe it, that proves it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ray just posted one of the vids...calling his post "Lonely Atheists". Are religious talking heads capable of being truthful? I thought that honesty was important to these people.

    http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2008/11/lonely-atheists.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. [Thanks, Kaitlyn. Honestly, how dare anyone claim that we are a problem, that we are offensive, that we need to be silenced.]
    Well i would say you are a problem but I wouldn't want to silence anyone

    [The suicide bombing community is entirely religious, the genital mutilation community is entirely religious....the assholes lying to Africans, telling them that condoms CAUSE AIDS is ENTIRELY religious.]
    Should I mention all the things humanistic societies have done?

    [What if our citizens were desirous of evidence?]
    I'm sure everyone desires evidence.
    [ What if our citizens embraced science and actively sought knowledge? ]
    I'm sure people do seek knowlege. That's all people do. Just because you disagree with the avenue some people use to seek it....
    [Why do so many think the Bible is the answer?]
    I dunno. Some know it because of personal revelation. Some because of the strong evidence supporting its accuracy.Some think it great in practical application in their lives.
    [ Have you read it?]
    Yes i have.Its a great book I would recommend to anyone.
    [ This blood soaked book has every insightment to slavery, genocide, rape, and murder]
    What!! did you read the same book I did? The book I read explicitly forbids murder in the 10 commandment and forbids sexual sins like rape (along with fornication, adultery,sodomy ..etc)
    And when read in context , I think we can see it does not condone genocide or modern slavery.

    [required for a good person to do awful things...and think they are being "good" because they have the purported backing of the supreme authority. I'm sick of this nonsense.]
    I'm sick of humanists saying their ethics are superior.
    I'm sick of people telling me things are "awful" without giving me an objective standard by which we can judge what is good or evil.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Quote from Mark at Ray's blog
    "I am SO THANKFUL for the American Humanists!

    They just paid to put gospel icebreakers all over D.C.!!!

    This is fantastic! What a GREAT way to transition from the natural to the spiritual!

    Think of it:

    Christian on Bus (CoB): (To stranger) Hey, what do you think of that sign?

    Stranger: Hmm, I don't know. Interesting I guess.

    CoB: Do you believe in a God?

    Stranger: I guess so. I'd like to think so.

    CoB: It says "Just be good for goodness sake." Do you consider yourself to be a good person?

    And then you're on your way!

    Thank you American Humanist Association for putting up large icebreakers all over the city!!! :)

    in Christ and for His glory,

    Mark"

    I guess it was not such a bad thing after all. Hopefully it will lead much more people to repentance this Christmas.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Kaitlyn,
    Why do you feel like you were being talked down to? I saw the interview and besides the "lonely atheists" jab (they were quoting from the paper) .I didn't think anything was offensive.
    And while we're at it why do you "[think] there is no god"?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mr. FreeThinker

    You wrote...
    "Well i would say you are a problem but I wouldn't want to silence anyone.

    I assume this applies to me to? I'm sorry.

    Should I mention all the things humanistic societies have done?

    Once again, I apologize for all the humanistic atrocities that may have been committed.

    I'm sick of humanists saying their ethics are superior.
    I'm sick of people telling me things are "awful" without giving me an objective standard by which we can judge what is good or evil."


    I'm sorry. I don't think I ever told you things were "awful," but I want you to be happy.

    ReplyDelete
  13. MrFreeThinker, click the link in this blog post. You're talking about another video.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I am a humanist, and I am saying that my ethics are superior.

    Some things are awful, and I say that without an objective standard.

    MFT, here's a thought experiment for you: why do you think that bothers you, but it doesn't bother me? Don't go for the easy answer.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @ nohm:

    I realize that you weren't talking to me, but can you clarify what you mean by "that" when you say

    MFT, here's a thought experiment for you: why do you think that bothers you, but it doesn't bother me? Don't go for the easy answer.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Clodistrophile wrote:
    [The suicide bombing community is entirely religious, the genital mutilation community is entirely religious....the assholes lying to Africans, telling them that condoms CAUSE AIDS is ENTIRELY religious.]
    Mr Freethinker replied:
    Should I mention all the things humanistic societies have done?

    Please do, but ensure you only use examples which are a direct result of humanistic beliefs, as Clodistrophile did with religous beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @rob penn:

    To clarify, the word "that" was intended to serve in place of my previous two statements.

    It was in reference to when MFT said:

    "I'm sick of humanists saying their ethics are superior.
    I'm sick of people telling me things are "awful" without giving me an objective standard by which we can judge what is good or evil."

    So, I said those two statements that he mentioned there; not to make MFT sick, but to try to get him to think *why* someone would make those statements. It appears clear to me that he thinks that making such a statement is incorrect, and he's explained why he thinks it's incorrect.

    My entire point is that I'd like him to consider reasons why I don't think that saying either of those is incorrect.

    To further my point: It's not a big issue to me when people don't agree with me, or when I don't agree with them. What is important to me is to understand why people hold the opinions and/or beliefs that they do, and vice versa.

    That leads to communication. Without that, we're all just talking at each other.

    I've seen a lot of what you've written Rob; I respect you.

    Be well.

    ReplyDelete
  18. MFT,

    "I'm sick of people telling me things are "awful" without giving me an objective standard by which we can judge what is good or evil."

    Hey, shit-for-brains. I counted 49comments that have explained this to you. Anyway that doesn't matter because we protect the people in our society with our secular laws. Fuck up- go to jail.
    Our subjective man made laws are working fairly well.

    Even the bible's advice to hit children with a rod is now illegal in most places. The bible is a fucked up piece of shit. Seven of the ten commandments are unconstitutional.

    You can basically stick your bible up you ass.

    You have provided me, however with a new and rather amusing short term hobby. I went out with one of my cronies last evening for a beer and chicken wings. and we know a lot of people in that establishment.

    Everytime someone would strike up a conversation or try to make a point I said, "By what objective standard do you judge the truth of that statement?

    Needless to say, after a few minutes not a person in the place would talk to me. hehehe

    Now, I manage to work through life without this objective standard you are obsessed with, so my question is this:
    I don't have an objective standard because there is no God, at least for me, but are my logic and reasoning any less sound because of that?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Mr. Freethinker,

    Are you suggesting that Stalin, Mao, etc., were humanists??? These people weren't especially rational, and subscribed to dogma either through state worship or considering themselves deities. Atheistic, yes. Humanist, no. Thanks for playing.

    Also, to claim the Bible is a good source of morals, and leads to abolition is a joke.

    Should I cite verses where we are told that it is ok to beat our slaves severely...just don't injure their eyes or teeth. Oh, and young virgin girls are to be taken for our own needs....and god tells his people to kill women who are not virgins, and their male children. Go back and reread the book, sport.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Quasar said in reference to Mr.F's claim that he could cite "humanist societies" crimes,

    "Please do, but ensure you only use examples which are a direct result of humanistic beliefs, as Clodistrophile did with religous beliefs."

    Perhaps you could show us all the horrible things Sweden does. We are talking about societies that are based on humanist principles...not necessarily those simply devoid of religion (particularly by force). Nice, strawman, though.

    The US is uniquely religious among developed countries, and we are way behind in education, and many other standards of well being. Many dogmatic religious beliefs are directly responsible for this (abstinance only, creationism, etc).

    ReplyDelete
  21. Mr F said

    I'm sure everyone desires evidence.

    At the AIG website it clearly states that-

    No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

    This sentiment is mirrored at ICR.

    You are mistaken. AIG and other creationists do not desire evidence. They only desire evidence that supports their interpretation of the bible.

    You said further-
    Some (think the Bible is the answer) because of the strong evidence supporting its accuracy.

    I have challenged young earth creationists for months to present credible evidence supporting the accuracy of the global flood survived only by 8 humans and a boatload of animals approx 4600 years ago, and absolutely none has been presented.

    Why don't you provide some evidence before you continue to say that there is strong evidence.

    As to morality-

    Hurting other people unnecessarily is bad.

    Anyone who thinks or acts otherwise is evil. I think you would find this to be almost universal amongst humans. Certainly more universal than the the interpretations of your "objective morality" as proscribed by the Christian bible.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Froggie said:

    "Seven of the ten commandments are unconstitutional"

    Wha..?

    Can you tell me which seven of the ten are 'unconstitutional'?

    I ask this to get a feel for where you're coming from, frog-man, that's all.

    And do you mean, 'if they were actual laws in the U.S., they'd be struck down (by someone) as unconstitutional'?

    Thank you for any reply.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Clostridiophile said:

    "the assholes lying to Africans, telling them that condoms CAUSE AIDS is ENTIRELY religious"

    I'd seriously never seen this before. Can you tell me which organization/people did this, with a source?

    ReplyDelete
  24. living....

    "I'd seriously never seen this before. Can you tell me which organization/people did this, with a source?"


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7014335.stm

    http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/081001/081001i.htm

    ReplyDelete
  25. laof,

    "the assholes lying to Africans, telling them that condoms CAUSE AIDS is ENTIRELY religious"

    I couldn't believe it myself, but archbishop Chimoio did say something like that and the
    catholic church says something similiar

    ReplyDelete
  26. Clos and tilia - thanks for those sources and quotes!

    I only read them breifly; I think that this may be a case of an individual's (screwed-up) beliefs being confused with the churches, BUT I WOULD NOT ARGUE IT! There are some screwy spokesmen for ALL organizations and certainly are quite a few in any organized religion.

    In Wisconsin, we've got our own sad story of a church 'leader' who should be... well, you come to your own conclusions:

    http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/34403354.html

    ReplyDelete
  27. "I only read them breifly; I think that this may be a case of an individual's (screwed-up) beliefs being confused with the churches, BUT I WOULD NOT ARGUE IT! There are some screwy spokesmen for ALL organizations and certainly are quite a few in any organized religion"

    living,

    the sad truth is that the Vatican has not made a statement reversing the Bishop's proclamation. In addition, if you read the Vatican's statements from the late 70's to U.S. bishops, you would be appauled. They told them to silence sex abuse and to move priests at least 30 miles away, and to more rural areas where the abuse is less likely to surface. Organized religions are evil.

    ReplyDelete
  28. tilia - yes, that link about the catholic church and its official statement is horrible.

    I doubt they've changed their statement/views since the article was posted in 2003. Even the current Pope seems to have 'extended' quite a few of the doctrines of the Pope JPII.

    ReplyDelete
  29. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  30. clos -

    I agree with your general statements about the catholic church. Our posts just crossed 'in the mail'.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I'd avoided reading or watching Bill Donohue before this, and now I'm glad that I'd done so. He's an obnoxious asshole.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Whateverman -

    I agree (in a milder sense).

    If this were the 'fantasy wrestling match' arena, I'd like to see Bill Donahue vs. Rickie Dawkins.

    And, for the opener - Ray Comfort vs. Jesse Galef!

    ReplyDelete
  33. LivingAsOneFreed said...
    "Froggie said:

    "Seven of the ten commandments are unconstitutional"

    Wha..?
    Can you tell me which seven of the ten are 'unconstitutional'?

    I ask this to get a feel for where you're coming from, frog-man, that's all.

    And do you mean, 'if they were actual laws in the U.S., they'd be struck down (by someone) as unconstitutional'?"

    Yes.
    C'mon! Think! Here you go:

    1 “I am the Lord your God, ... You shall have no other gods before Me."

    Unconstitutional. See the first ammendment. Also see article 16-"no religious test for holdng office."

    2 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above,

    Unconstitutional
    I will carve or cast an image of anything I darn well please- Freedom of speech- first amm.


    3 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain."

    Unconstitutional- That pesky first ammendment again.

    4 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

    Unconstitutional
    If they closed Walmarts and McDonalds on sunday all the rednecks in Alabama would starve to death.

    5 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.

    Unconstitutional
    The law cannot tell us what to think of our parents.
    My grandson was adopted out of a crackhouse in Philly. Just sayin....

    6 “You shall not murder."

    OK, I'll give you this ONE but it is a universal value, not a religious dogma like some of the others.

    7 “You shall not commit adultery."

    There are a couple counties and maybe one state with laws on the books about this one, but it is unenforceable and ultimately unconstitutional. Consensual adult sex is perfectly legal.

    8 “You shall not steal."

    OK Again. Universal ethic, not religious dogma.

    9 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
    Third and OUT! Lying- Social ethic, not religious dogma.
    Most people don't lie in court because of God. It's because they don't want to go to jail.

    10 “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.”

    There are two main things wrong with this one- First of all, we are freaking capitalists here! We covet! It is our national identity!

    Unconstitutional

    Second thing wrong with that one is it decribes the wife as the husband's property.

    There you have it lil buddy.

    So the next time one of your fundy preachers starts claiming that our laws are based on the decalogue, you can tell him to go piss up a rope.

    Respectfully submitted,
    Frog

    ReplyDelete
  34. froggie,
    it would be absolutely hilarious, I mean on a cosmic scale, if they outlawed lying - and then had to keep their silence forever.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Perhaps you could show us all the horrible things Sweden does. We are talking about societies that are based on humanist principles.."
    Sweden is based in humanistic principles?
    What? Christian symbols on national emblems!! Blasphemy
    And a state church? with a 78% membership

    I don't get how the Us has no openly Christian symbol or state church and we're "uniquely religious". But Sweden does have Christian symbols and a state church and Sweden is based on humanistic values?

    ReplyDelete
  36. @Kaitlyn
    I was talking to claus- not you

    ReplyDelete
  37. Mr. F

    "According to Norris and Inglehart (2004), 64% of those in Sweden do not believe in God. According to Bondeson (2003), 74% of Swedes said that they did not believe in “a personal God.” According to Greeley (2003), 46% of Swedes do not believe in God, although only 17% self-identify as “atheist.” According to Froese (2001), 69% of Swedes are either atheist or agnostic. According to Gustafsoon and Pettersson (2000), 82% of Swedes do not believe in a “personal God.” According to Davie (1999), 85% of Swedes do not believe in God."

    Sweden is one of the most atheistic countries...except for the influx of Muslims in recent years.

    ReplyDelete
  38. ["Are you suggesting that Stalin, Mao, etc., were humanists??? These people weren't especially rational, and subscribed to dogma either through state worship or considering themselves deities. Atheistic, yes. Humanist, no. Thanks for playing."]
    Is that the "no true humanist" syndrome?

    [Also, to claim the Bible is a good source of morals, and leads to abolition is a joke.]
    Did I claim that? *checks earlier post* No I didn't

    [Should I cite verses where we are told that it is ok to beat our slaves severely...just don't injure their eyes or teeth.]
    *sigh* The Torah is didactic. The eye and the tooth are examples.The principles is that a slave gets his freedom if he gets seriously injured.

    [Oh, and young virgin girls are to be taken for our own needs....and god tells his people to kill women who are not virgins, and their male children. Go back and reread the book, sport.]
    Yes as I recall they kept the virgins as servants. And I think some were "dedicated unto the Lord" to work in the temple as well.

    ReplyDelete
  39. MFT,
    What? Christian symbols on national emblems!! Blasphemy

    a true humanistic country has no problems accepting its Christian roots. Both in good and evil. Nothing is bad only because it is religious.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Froggie said:

    "There you have it lil buddy.(1)

    So the next time one of your fundy preachers... (2) "


    1. Ugh. Unless you like being called 'Skipper', I'd prefer you refrain from calling me 'lil buddy'.

    2. My fundy preachers? please.... ascribe no ownership of most 'fundy' preachers to me, thankyouverymuch.

    I can see your reasoning on most of them, I now understand where you're coming from.

    Thanks for the explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Froggie -

    ...although for the 4th, I would have thought you would have reasoned that 'there aren't any thought police yet, so don't tell me what I should and shouldn't remember'.

    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  42. mrfreethinker,
    it would be a 'no true humanist' fallacy if they had identified themselves as a humanist. But they never did.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Mr. F,

    So you think that because a flag, developed in the early 1600's,has Christian symbol, the citizens will therefore be Christian today? So this flag has magical powers over the beliefs of people that live within the imaginary boundaries of a piece of land we call Sweden? Please don't push the Q-tip in so far.

    ReplyDelete
  44. [So you think that because a flag, developed in the early 1600's,has Christian symbol, the citizens will therefore be Christian today?]
    *searches earlier posts* I don't think anyone claimed that clos

    ReplyDelete
  45. Yes as I recall they kept the virgins as servants. And I think some were "dedicated unto the Lord" to work in the temple as well.

    Yes that meant to work in the temple.... Just like the cattle were dedicated to the Lord, to work in the temple....

    Human sacrifices were not uncommon in their day.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Mr. F

    "*searches earlier posts* I don't think anyone claimed that clos"

    Fair enough, I was not speaking to Sweden's origins necessarily when I said "based on". Perhaps I should have been more careful in my wording. What I meant was the fact that today, Swedes are much, much less likely to believe in a personal god, but on average, they are very giving. These are humanist principles. "Just be good for goodness sake". Violent crime is much lower in Sweden, education levels are much higher, abortion rates much lower, than the US. THis is not just correlation/causation....it is easy to see how religion stultifies our progress in the US. Why are abortion rates high? Education is poor...particularly when it comes to sex, since sex talk is offlimits for religious reasons. Many religious leaders tell teens not to use birth control in any form. Science is constantly under attack...why? Faith based bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  47. [Yes that meant to work in the temple.... Just like the cattle were dedicated to the Lord, to work in the temple....]
    Well I don't think livestock can work
    in the temple.

    [Human sacrifices were not uncommon in their day.]
    Could you please provide evidence that the Levtical priests made human sacrifice?
    I will be glad to provide evidence of people working in the temple if you need it

    ReplyDelete
  48. "Yes that meant to work in the temple.... Just like the cattle were dedicated to the Lord, to work in the temple....

    Human sacrifices were not uncommon in their day."

    Beamstalk,

    LOL! The naiveté of these Christians. They always say, "The virgins were well taken care of...and brutal rape had nothing to do with it". Right, like when Lot had the townfolk rape the shit out of his concubine and offered his daughter as well....but don't do so wicked to my guest...who is afterall a MAN (well, an angel, but nonetheless a man angel).

    Notice also that Mr Freethinker neglects the part about the MALE CHILDREN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE "KNOWN A MAN BY LYING WITH HIM" BEING PUT TO DEATH, AS ORDERED BY YAWHEH. Christians always neglect that part and try to salvage this grizzly nonsense by nievely claiming that the now parentless virgin CHILDREN are going to be simple servants. HA!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  49. "Could you please provide evidence that the Levtical priests made human sacrifice?"

    Could you please provide evidence that the Bible provides "an objective standard by which we can judge what is good or evil." This is, afterall, what you implied above. To do so, you need to show that a god really did inspire the Bible to be written. I mean, if you are going to ask for evidence from us, surely you must have copious amounts for your claims.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I hope this doesn't digress into a Sye TenB rant about "how can you know anything through your worldview?".

    ReplyDelete
  51. The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ‘You and Eleazar the priest and the heads of the ancestral houses of the congregation make an inventory of the booty captured, both human and animal. Divide the booty into two parts, between the warriors who went out to battle and all the congregation. From the share of the warriors who went out to battle, set aside as tribute for the Lord one item out of every five hundred, whether persons, oxen, donkeys, sheep, or goats. Take it from their half and give it to Eleazar the priest as an offering to the Lord. But from the Israelites’ half you shall take one out of every fifty, whether persons, oxen, donkeys, sheep, or goats—all the animals—and give them to the Levites who have charge of the tabernacle of the Lord.’

    Then Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the Lord had commanded Moses:

    The booty remaining from the spoil that the troops had taken totalled six hundred and seventy-five thousand sheep, seventy-two thousand oxen, sixty-one thousand donkeys, and thirty-two thousand persons in all, women who had not known a man by sleeping with him.

    The half-share, the portion of those who had gone out to war, was in number three hundred and thirty-seven thousand five hundred sheep and goats, and the Lord’s tribute of sheep and goats was six hundred and seventy-five. The oxen were thirty-six thousand, of which the Lord’s tribute was seventy-two. The donkeys were thirty thousand five hundred, of which the Lord’s tribute was sixty-one. The persons were sixteen thousand, of which the Lord’s tribute was thirty-two persons. Moses gave the tribute, the offering for the Lord, to Eleazar the priest, as the Lord had commanded Moses.

    Numbers 31:25-41

    Read that carefully and slowly.

    I suspect I don't have to mention Jephthah in Judges 11.

    ReplyDelete
  52. MFT,

    Have you been able to consider my "thought experiment" that I mentioned earlier in this comment page?

    ReplyDelete
  53. @ Ben Franklin
    I'm not a YEC or an ID'er and I'm pretty sure most Christians aren't the answers in genesis type. I'm sure most would admit they were wrong if faced with strong contrary evidence. That of course doesn't mean there aren't valid ways of knowing stuff outside of evidence though.

    ReplyDelete
  54. MrFreeThinker said...
    "I'm not a YEC or an ID'er and I'm pretty sure most Christians aren't the answers in genesis type. I'm sure most [creationists] would admit they were wrong if faced with strong contrary evidence."

    *facepalm*

    ReplyDelete
  55. [Read that carefully and slowly.

    I suspect I don't have to mention Jephthah in Judges 11.]
    "From the sons of Israel's half, you shall take one drawn out of every fifty of the persons, of the cattle, of the donkeys and of the sheep, from all the animals, and give them to the Levites who keep charge of the tabernacle of the LORD."


    I did read it carefully. They gave the people to the Levites. they probaly put them to work in the temple to help sacrifice animals.

    And Jephthah made a vow to dedicate his daughter (much like the vow hannah made in 1 Samuel 1-2 ). She was going to be dedicated to God and have to remain a virgin the rest of her life. this does not help your case any. The passage explicitly says she went to weep for her virginity.

    ReplyDelete
  56. @MFT:

    That of course doesn't mean there aren't valid ways of knowing stuff outside of evidence though.

    Would you please give a few examples of these, and ways in which they worked to accomplish something?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Now you show your dishonesty MFT and I am done with you.


    Then the spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah, and he passed through Gilead and Manasseh. He passed on to Mizpah of Gilead, and from Mizpah of Gilead he passed on to the Ammonites. 30And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, ‘If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, 31then whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord’s, to be offered up by me as a burnt-offering.’
    ....
    Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and there was his daughter coming out to meet him with timbrels and with dancing. She was his only child; he had no son or daughter except her. 35When he saw her, he tore his clothes, and said, ‘Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low; you have become the cause of great trouble to me. For I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot take back my vow.’ 36She said to him, ‘My father, if you have opened your mouth to the Lord, do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth, now that the Lord has given you vengeance against your enemies, the Ammonites.’ 37And she said to her father, ‘Let this thing be done for me: Grant me two months, so that I may go and wander* on the mountains, and bewail my virginity, my companions and I.’ 38‘Go,’ he said and sent her away for two months. So she departed, she and her companions, and bewailed her virginity on the mountains. 39At the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to the vow he had made.

    ReplyDelete
  58. @Clos
    What I was claiming is that atheists have no basis for objective morality. I wasn't dragging the bible in.

    ReplyDelete
  59. @MFT:

    What I was claiming is that atheists have no basis for objective morality.

    I can only speak for one atheist, myself, but why would you think I would care about having a basis for objective morality?

    ReplyDelete
  60. @Beamstalk
    Think a bit about of exegesis. If the girl was REALLY going to be a human sacrifice, why was she weeping about having to remain a virgin for the rest of her life. Why did they gather to commemorate her virginity and not her death? Perhaps because she was not actually killed. She was dedicated unto the Lord as an offering just as Hannah dedicated her son in 1 Samuel.
    Your interpretation makes no sense.

    [Would you please give a few examples of these, and ways in which they worked to accomplish something?]
    You mean applications of this outside of Christian belief?

    ReplyDelete
  61. @MFT:

    You mean applications of this outside of Christian belief?

    Inside Christian belief, outside Christian belief, whatever.

    Would you please give a few examples of "ways of knowing stuff outside of evidence", and how these ways worked to accomplish something?

    ReplyDelete
  62. @Mr. F,

    "What I was claiming is that atheists have no basis for objective morality. I wasn't dragging the bible in."

    Please. Anyone who makes a statement such as this....after claiming the bible is a "good book" is claiming the bible is a basis of moral absolutes. So you are telling me that the statement that love is more conducive to happiness than hate is not an objective statement about human nature? You mean that I, as a human that doesn't believe in god, cannot say that raping and murdering a child is objectively wrong?

    Let's say, as a fit of collective amnesia, we had lost all our knowledge and had to start over. At what point would we have to remind ourselves of the ten commandments? If we had never heard of these...how hard would it be for us to come to the conclusion that murder, theft, (rape isn't included...because it is soon to be positively recommended in the Bible), and love of one's kin are positive moral principles? What about silly nonsense like "the sabbath"? What about stupid pronouncements like not to covet? Thoughtcrime? Not to mention that the commandments say nothing about though shalt not abuse children....though shalt not enslave...wouldn't these be part of any sane person's list?

    I'm expecting you to say something about "Hitler's list" or something silly like this. The question then is, how do we come up with laws? Are we supposed to simply roll over to anyone's principles? The answer is no! This is where skepticism and debate come in.

    Remember, if humans inspired and wrote the Bible, which is almost certainly the case, then this is not an objective, absolute source of morals...it is just one of many attempts by us.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Morality is an intersubjective construct with the end goal being an objective means by which to measure and evaluate the value of our works and behavior as it benefits ourselves and society as a whole.

    ReplyDelete
  64. MFT wrote Is that the "no true humanist" syndrome?

    To be fair, none of the people listed exhibited or proposed humanistic values.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Question for theists....

    What moral purpose does the following biblical command serve?

    "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".

    How much torture and cruelty has this little phrase caused? Is this part of the "objective morality" that we are supposed to accept as "good"? Need I quote more horrid nonsense from the Bibble?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Clos don't waste your time, he has shown himself to be a troll. He is dishonest and just here for reactions. I suggest that no one respond to his inanity.

    ReplyDelete
  67. [happiness than hate is not an objective statement about human nature]
    Yes it is an objective statement.But first you need to show me using an objective basis that humans have intrinsic value.

    [cannot say that raping and murdering a child is objectively wrong? ]
    exactly

    [I'm expecting you to say something about "Hitler's list" or something silly like this. The question then is, how do we come up with laws? Are we supposed to simply roll over to anyone's principles? The answer is no! This is where skepticism and debate come in.]
    Morality can't be stipulated or debated clos.What happens when society decides something like slavery is moral? Or when the people support genocide. Why are Marquis de Sade or Jeffrey obligated to follow these rules? There just conventions people arbitrarily came up with.

    ["Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".

    How much torture and cruelty has this little phrase caused?]
    I think at we have to do some reading in context here clos.
    "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is not equivalent to "go on a witch hunt.
    There was a judicial system of law in Israel that would judge these practitioners of witchcraft and convict them if enough evidence of their wrongdoing could be found.This is in no way equivalent to a witch hunt.

    ReplyDelete
  68. [Clos don't waste your time, he has shown himself to be a troll. He is dishonest and just here for reactions. I suggest that no one respond to his inanity.]
    I document your errors in exegesis and you respond by poisoning the well.*shrugs*

    ReplyDelete
  69. Mr. F,

    Thanks for the last part. Putting witches on trial? Like in Monty Python? Do we determine witches by their common weight with ducks? Stop telling me to read in context, I can fucking read. Why don't you just admit that the book is fucking evil? Doesn't this "god" recognize that the term "witch" is up for interpretation? Also, there is no such thing as black magic...it's all bullshit.

    Also, asking me to show that humans have intrinsic value really shows the type of person you are. Even to ask such a question reveals that you have no moral fibre. Any decent person recognizes that they do not want o suffer, and so they recognize that others share the same capacity to suffer and thus their feelings are to be valued. This is why we have laws and prisons...to separate all the people who don't feel this way, or don't care. We recognize that lack of regard for other's capacity to suffer, and actions to this effect, necessitate the action of moral people to separate these people from society. No silly superstitions are required. Common sense. Common decency.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Actually, Mr. F, he didn't "poison the well", he provided the quotes that you continue to duck. "Read it in context!". Right, insightment to genocide, rape, murder, etc. and WE are not reading in context? You, sir, are immoral. You and your god can go to hell if this is what you think is the basis of our morality.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Mr Freethinker wrote:
    "Think a bit about of exegesis. If the girl was REALLY going to be a human sacrifice, why was she weeping about having to remain a virgin for the rest of her life. Why did they gather to commemorate her virginity and not her death?"

    Perhaps because the people of the time considered women good for nothing more than propagating the mens seed.

    You are making a big deal over 'weeping about her virginity', when the relevant verses are pretty darn explicit:

    31. then whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord’s, to be offered up by me as a burnt-offering.’
    ....
    39. At the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to the vow he had made.


    What, Mr Freethinker, is your definition of "burnt-offering"?

    ReplyDelete
  72. [What, Mr Freethinker, is your definition of "burnt-offering"?]
    They can mean offerings in the general sense. Such as when Hannah offered Samuel to god in 1 Samuel.
    And if yu really want to take the burnt-offering literally , I will point out that the Leviticus priests only sacrificed male livestock(Leviticus 22:19) so that girl would have been disqualified on both counts if they waned to sacrifice her.

    Does it really make sense that the girl would mourn her virginity if she WAS GOING TO DIE?
    Does it make sense that other maids would gather to commemorate her virginity BUT NEVER MENTION HER DEATH?
    Do you think the levitical priests would really sacrifice another human ?

    ReplyDelete
  73. [Also, there is no such thing as black magic...it's all bullshit.]
    Saying witches don't exist because you think magic is BS is like me saying that Muslims don't exist because I think Allah doesn't exist.

    [Also, asking me to show that humans have intrinsic value really shows the type of person you are. Even to ask such a question reveals that you have no moral fibre. Any decent person recognizes that they do not want o suffer, and so they recognize that others share the same capacity to suffer and thus their feelings are to be valued. This is why we have laws and prisons...to separate all the people who don't feel this way, or don't care. We recognize that lack of regard for other's capacity to suffer, and actions to this effect, necessitate the action of moral people to separate these people from society. No silly superstitions are required. Common sense. Common decency.]
    I recognise that there is such a thing as human dignity and intrinsic value and that these things are objectively meaningful because I recognise an objective standard. All you have given me is a set of arbitrary stipulations. I hope I at least got you to think about how you live inconsistently with your professed views on ethics.Bye!

    ReplyDelete

Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.