Misanthropic Scott says:

#134 – Gary,

God as the communicator guy. I love it. Yes. It is impossible to be sure of even the most basic tenets of the bible, hence the huge discrepancy in whether god really means that we shouldn’t kill anyone or merely that we shouldn’t kill Us but it’s OK to kill Them. This latter view has been quite common in history, causing extremely unfortunate results.

I am an antitheist because I believe that the idea of god (not god, of course, since there are none) has had a huge deleterious effect on humanity as measured by its huge number of deleted humans.

So, I oppose theism as a bad and failed idea.

Misanthropic Scott says:

#136, #137,

See … god’s message is still not clear.

Alfie, a real god would be capable of making a clear statement about his intent. “You will have a child” is a simple statement. “Your wife will have your child” is equally simple and more accurate to the situation described.

However, even god’s message about adultery is not clear. Today we interpret “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife” to mean that adultery is bad.

In biblical times, it meant essentially that one should not take what belongs to others. Women did not have full rights at the time and are never granted such in either testament, to my limited knowledge. They were mere chattels at the time. To covet thy neighbor’s wife was to want that which was already someone else’s.

It was OK for a man to have sex with many women. However, a woman was only allowed to know one man. Further, the rules were different for Hebrews than others because the bible is also horribly racist, as was common in its time and as further proof that the words in it are the words of man (yes, man NOT woman) and not of god.

So, Abraham committed no more sin in having sex with a servant than Solomon did by having 700 wives and 300 concubines.

That he later, at his bitchy wife’s request, tossed the mother of his first son and his acknowledged son out on their asses, if there is any historic accuracy to the fable at all, is inexcusable and should have been considered sinful by any just god. However, the desert war god fictional character is not at all just. So, the point is moot.

Lastly, if Alfie had an ounce of real thought potential, he should have pointed out that the ten commandments were given to Moses many generations later. The law was not yet in effect. However, since Alfie is incapable of thought, this did not occur to him.

Since I find it all incredibly silly and damaging to humanity, I will not attempt to defend this horrific work of fiction and all of the death, destruction, and slavery it advocates.

Gary, the dangerous infidel says:

#143 M.Scott, I do have a rebuttal for the “adultery wasn’t wrong until the guy in the sky formally forbade it” argument that you seem to imply Alfred1 could use, but I’m not going to waste it on someone like you who already sees how incredibly stupid the “holy scriptures” are. That’ll be powder I keep dry for another battle on another day Cheers.

grog says:

it’s not some secret conspiracy.

young earth creationists are as a matter of fact, seeking governmental sanction of their religious beliefs so that they can proselytize their message of christianity to the youth of america.

once they get sign-off from any governmental agency on creationist ideals, they can then provoke a case that they can take to the supreme court which they hope will strike down the 1st amendment. once they do that, they can then get laws through congress making christianity the official religion of the united states.

they operate just like the gun control lobby, and need to be dealt with in a similar fashion.

it’s as simple as that. any creationist who says otherwise is bearing false witness (and god’s gonna get you for that).

QED

Misanthropic Scott says:

#146 – Mr. Fusion,

I think you are wrong here. The use of the words “theist” and “antitheist” is hinged upon the existence of a god. In arguing against theism you have to argue from the theist starting point. In my opinion, give the theists their word and let them define it and use it to their hollow hearts content. But, don’t expect me to be who they think I am or want me to be.

Hmm… Tough call. I’ll have to think about that one some more. I certainly agree about the term atheist. I don’t like the term because it defines me by a lack of belief. I’m also an a-golfer, a-sailor, a-hunter, etc.

However, antitheist is a bit different because it defines me by my opposition to theism. So, I’m personally OK with that. There are many words that define my various beliefs, environmentalist, misanthrope, liberal, and many others. Antitheist works for me because it describes an aspect of my personality.

I think the correct term for you would be “normal” as you are not delusional nor do you depend upon overly active imaginations to form your opinions.

Thank you. However, I don’t mind having a variety of accurate labels applied to me. As long as they fit and are not derogatory, I don’t mind labels. They are a convenient way of stating a range of attributes. While I may not fit all characteristics of any label, many apply across a wide enough percentage of specific issues that the shorthand doesn’t bother me at all.

BTW, very strong, coherent, and lucid arguments. I like.

Thank you.

AngryLefty says:

#132 Alfred1 – “Irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent in reference to the God who judges us.”

But who judges HIM? Clearly you don’t. You should. Why don’t you?

The God who judges us is either an inept boob incapable of communicating his intent to his “creation” (whom he sees for some reason as subjects he can command about as if he had the right to do such things), or an arrogant twit who purposely promotes discord between people because violence done in his name gets him off. (Read the third paragraph in the Wikipedia page on Eshu – “Bringing strife is my greatest joy.” That is your God.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eshu

Your argument is basically the common logical fallacy known as Argument from Authority. God says he’s fit to judge us, therefore he is. Because he says so. Because he’s an authority figure YOU respect. So what? That’s the stupidest accession to brazen petty authority imaginable. God would have to demonstrate a worthiness to judge us. History shows he has done just the opposite.

It is YOUR argument that is, to use your phrasing, “incompetent”. (Though of course an argument cannot be incompetent — someone who presents a bad argument can be though. QED.) God is not fit to judge us. It is about time we judged him. Imagine God on trial. Even Johnny Cochran couldn’t him off. “If God says IT, you must subMIT” is not a valid legal argument. It is, as you say, “incompetent.”

AngryLefty says:

Don’t you get it Misanthrope Scott: God creates problems so he can get credit for solving them! He made us “fallen” so he could get credit for picking us up! He makes us sick so he can perofrm the “miracle” of curing us! He wants to be our saviour, but what is he saving us from, if not … HIMSELF!

Wouldn’t it be great to have God’s “job?” Cause a hurricane and kill thousands so you can be praised for saving just a few, who will shout from the rafters how glorious and good you are. Give someone a disease and then miraculously cure them (by which I mean, let humans with scientific medical skills do the hard work of ridding the person of the disease.) Or even better: don’t cure them, give his loved ones smatterings of crushed hope, only to kill him anyway. “God tried, but in the end God decided to take her, because she’s needed in heaven. It’s for the best because God says so.”

When God does bad, it’s good, praise God. When God does good (by which I mean, when good things happen despite God, usually because of the vigilance of human beings), that’s good too, priase God.

You don’t really sound like a misanthrope, Scott, you sound like it’s not humans that you hate, but God. You’re a misotheist.

Mr. Fusion says:

#149, Scott,

Points taken.

I’m also an a-golfer, a-sailor, a-hunter, etc.

And if you are against holes, would you be . . .