Your Help Refuting a Blog

[Miracles4Real]

A friend of mine started a blog called Fatalicy (like fatality and fallacy, cute?) where he tries to show how new atheism is undermining science.
He says he wants some healthy debate, he wants his ideas discussed and viewed by atheists.

So if you want some exercise untangling arguments of word-salad and pointing out their flaws, check it out. I know many of you like that kind of thing.
http://www.fatallacy.com/science-logic-new-atheism/

His first post there is a monster with lots of references.

He doesn't seem to know the difference between Philosophical Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism-insisting new atheists are the former.
He thinks math and logic are "incorporeal" and transcendent.
it's got some Transcendental stuff, some presup, a few Roadrunner Tactics, the evolutionary argument against naturalism makes an appearance and a slew of Appeals to Consequences fallacies.
He believes that we are able to know the absolute objective truth somehow.

He thinks this is a smart sophisticated form of theism but it strikes me as a kind of philosophical bullying. Trying to slip people up on epistemology to slide God in there. As a theist myself I'm not the right person to confront him about it so some atheist helpers would be appreciated.

 

[SpecialFrog]

No sign of a comment policy on the blog. Is he likely to let counter-arguments through?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Why not invite him here?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Prolescum]

Cripes that's quite a bit to go through.

From the top, it seems that he's not really defining New Atheism (I don't really know what it is beyond a nebulous soundbite term to describe some sort of famous writers and critics a few years back) but ascribing it attributes he believes it represents. Not sure what old atheism is by tradition, comparison or nature in his view. I'm pretty certain that atheism is either the lack of belief in deities or a disbelief in deities, the latter of which I consider an unreasonable position to hold. Are we supposed to carry the weight of his assumptions?

In his depiction of GNU Atheism, he conflates atheism (nu or otherwise. Possibly - he says they're really just the same thing, just one has denim trousers and a cigarillo) with not just naturalism, but secularism; although it's likely safe to say that most atheists are secularists and/or naturalists, not all secularists or naturalists are atheists. Reason isn't acquired by the natural sciences either. Perhaps it's just the way he constructs his sentences.


Although I'm pleased we're able to see his position laid out clearly:

The new atheism, just as the old, undermines both reason and science, rendering truth unobtainable and reason subjective.

These are, presumably (I'm responding as I read), the three pillars of his argument.

I'm getting stuck again... We've already established what atheism sans nouvelle ou ancienne is so I'm going to guess at what he means by now that's what I call atheism new atheism. I am going to assume he means those atheists in prominent social positions who are (or were) vociferous proponents of an anti-theist (meaning in this instance that religion should piss off into the history books because they believe it's anachronistic, destructive, and more than a little barbaric) viewpoint, such as Christopher Hitchens, Sam I'm-Not-A-Racist-But-Racial-Profiling-Is-Acceptable-Wherever-You-See-An-Arab Harris, and Victor Meldrew Richard Dawkins.

So, we're assuming that these people (I'm going to call them arseholes because New Atheist is stupid and I cringe whenever I have to type it) and their followers (the testes) are anti-theist atheists of the disbelieving variety.

Do they undermine reason? I would argue, yes. Sort of. For a few. Neither position (anti-theist or dis-atheism), in my view, is reasonable. If one believes, as I do, in human rights and in principle as laid out in article 18 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, then we must respect the right to freedom of concience. Secular government, sure. Absolutely. Thought police are an entirely unreasonable proposition. Does this undermine reason itself or the ability of others to apply it? Perhaps the testes are easily convinced by faulty reasoning but, no. Not in any way that has an indelible impact.

Do they undermine science? I will say no. Quite literally, no. I don't believe science works this way. The point of science, the way the method is applied, and the construction of its governance, is to whittle away subjectivity, so your compadre seems to be arguing a strawman there. Well, if our young chum is arguing that the arseholes and the testes represent every (or even most) atheists, he's arguing against a strawman...

So, given that thingy (I'm going to call him Phil) will argue a point that ostensibly misunderstands a fundamental aspect of his premise, the science, and will struggle to successfully argue the first, there's little point addressing whether or not truth is rendered unobtainable (this is really only hyperbole anyway).

I need sleep.

 

[Inferno]

I will first disagree with the author, then with Prole.

First, new atheism. There's absolutely nothing new in the approaches Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris/Dennett/et al. take, they're simply more vocal than their older brothers and sisters in lack of faith. "New atheism" was a term by opponents of the aforementioned crowd to ridicule them ("your old arguments didn't hold up, therefore new blabla"), but the arguments are still the exact same ones. Absolutely nothing about DDHH is new in any way.

With only this short paragraph, the whole blog post falls apart.

Although New Atheism seeks to further a “scientific worldview,”[xi] upon critical inspection we find that this new atheism pays lip service to science and reason while is the old atheism in masquerade.

As explained, the only ones who ever claim that "new atheism" is different from "old atheism" are its opponents. Look at basically anything PZ Myers writes, he always complains about the term "new atheism" because there is nothing new and never was. Back when I was at the Atheist Ireland conference in 2011, Dawkins and others (Rebecca Watson, Myriam Namazie, etc.) also complained about this, but it was drowned in their other and much more important complaints.

The second problem is the word "while". Is he claiming that "old atheism" was not based on science and reason? Apparently the author has never read anything from the old days. Russell's teapot, which is still being used by DDHH (well, DHH now), is definitely based on reason. All of agnostic/atheistic philosophy was based on reason. Many arguments (where did God come from, miracles, etc.) were based both on science and reason.

Reason, which is perhaps the most fundamental value upon which New Atheism depends, is only possible if truth exists and is worth knowing.

It is unclear what the author means. Reason can exist even if the universe does not rely on rules, but it would be pointless. If the rules of the universe constantly change, i.e. if miracles happen, then reason won't get you anywhere. If there are rules that govern the universe (law of gravity and so on), then both science and reason can get you places.

Transcendent, universal, objective truths such as mathematics and logic are necessary, initial reference points.

Again, it is unclear what the author means. (S)He is aware that mathematics is a human construct? I'll grant you that it's probably the purest form of science, but what has this got to do with transcendence? And logic is even more problematic: Something that might seem logical at one point may be refuted or enhanced the next day. Logic is important, supremely so, but universal and objective? Hm...

Transcendent values are incorporeal, functional concepts and laws by which human beings are inescapably subject. These immutable laws exist regardless of our observation or comprehension of them. Two plus two equals four, x is not non-x and so on.

This is only so because we defined them as such. There is nothing magical about any of that.

Iconography and language simply recognize immutable properties such as values, either numerical or moral.

A bold statement, claiming that there are "immutable values" in morality. Show me a single moral value which has held true everywhere and at all times. Good luck with that. Simply said, there are no objective moral values.

Therefore, without rationality, which cannot avoid both objective moral and numerical values, we would have no good reason by which to comprehend, share or grasp any aspect of our existence—thus, terminating discourse.

Is he going the old route of "reason, no god = no reason, reason therefore god" route?

C.S. Lewis: If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning.

Highly debatable (what is meant with "meaning") but irrelevant for this post.

Reason transcends human philosophy as any given philosophical proposition or argument can only be, to varying degrees, either reasonable or unreasonable but never autonomous from reason.

Arguments, yes. Science, no. Reason is all fine and dandy, but it depends on what we know beforehand. I can't reason from the observable around me until I arrive at the laws of quantum mechanics, simply because they happen at a scale humans can't experience. (though they can sometimes comprehend them)

Oh man, still so much to go? Fuck that shit.

OK, Prole...

Do they undermine reason? I would argue, yes. Sort of. For a few.

Of course, they're human. The important part is: Is the position entirely unreasonable or undermining reason? I would argue that it isn't.

If one believes, as I do, in human rights and in principle as laid out in article 18 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, then we must respect the right to freedom of concience.

I believe in the very same declaration, but can you point me to where DDHH don't respect this freedom? I'll remind everyone of the different types of extremists first. Even when regarding the moderate crowd, DDHH et al. don't come off as a particularly hard-line crowd. Dawkins ALWAYS supports freedom of/from religion, but it's also his right to tell the other person (s)he's an idiot. Hitchens ALWAYS supported freedom of/from religion, how is that contrary to the 18th article? In fact, I'd argue that the more hard-core anti-theist/atheist crowd are among the staunches supporters of the 18th article.

In any case, we've been over this a few times now. It seems people conflate Hitchens anti-theism (entirely reasonable) with the Estheria Quintessimo type anti-theism (entirely unreasonable).

 

[Prolescum]

You're right Inferno, I was conflating the two.

I tweeted the author the other day to let him know we were having this discussion, and he responded today to let us know there's now a second part:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/fatallacy/status/501424555827552256[/tweet]

I haven't read it yet.

 

[thenexttodie]

A bold statement, claiming that there are "immutable values" in morality. Show me a single moral value which has held true everywhere and at all times. Good luck with that. Simply said, there are no objective moral values.

What about rape?

 

[SpecialFrog]

A bold statement, claiming that there are "immutable values" in morality. Show me a single moral value which has held true everywhere and at all times. Good luck with that. Simply said, there are no objective moral values.

What about rape?

The Old Testament explicitly allows conquerors to take the conquered virgins for themselves. It also allows men to have sex with their slaves. Neither of these rules appear to be unique to that culture.

There are plenty of more modern examples of rape being allowed by "moral systems" in some contexts.

 

[Collecemall]

A bold statement, claiming that there are "immutable values" in morality. Show me a single moral value which has held true everywhere and at all times. Good luck with that. Simply said, there are no objective moral values.

What about rape?

The Old Testament explicitly allows conquerors to take the conquered virgins for themselves. It also allows men to have sex with their slaves. Neither of these rules appear to be unique to that culture.

There are plenty of more modern examples of rape being allowed by "moral systems" in some contexts.

I tend to agree with there being no absolute objective morality in most cases. However, even if a culture agrees something is ok does that really mean it is ok? I tend to think there is no case in which rape is ok. I can't really come up with any other action where that is the case but this one fits the bill IMO. Regardless of what a barbaric desert tribe thought at the time it still wasn't morally correct to rape captives. Whether that matters culturally or not doesn't really change the nature of what is done.

The only other act I can think of that comes close to this same standard is slavery(I can think of a situation where one commits themselves to total servitude but not taking someone against their will). Everything else, violence, murder, theft, lies, etc I can come up with a situation where it is warranted or justified. Even to extremes. But I can't do the same with rape for some reason. I'm all ears for why this view isn't a good one. I often find out I'm wrong about one thing or another.

 

[Inferno]

I tend to agree with there being no absolute objective morality in most cases. However, even if a culture agrees something is ok does that really mean it is ok? I tend to think there is no case in which rape is ok. I can't really come up with any other action where that is the case but this one fits the bill IMO. Regardless of what a barbaric desert tribe thought at the time it still wasn't morally correct to rape captives. Whether that matters culturally or not doesn't really change the nature of what is done.

The only other act I can think of that comes close to this same standard is slavery(I can think of a situation where one commits themselves to total servitude but not taking someone against their will). Everything else, violence, murder, theft, lies, etc I can come up with a situation where it is warranted or justified. Even to extremes. But I can't do the same with rape for some reason. I'm all ears for why this view isn't a good one. I often find out I'm wrong about one thing or another.

I'm certainly not going to claim rape is right, nor can I think of a single situation where it's warranted. That being said, societies all around the world have made some fucked up rationalisations regarding that particular taboo.

The question we must ask is: If a culture agrees on something, does that make it into morality? Not moral, certainly not, it's not an absolute. But where does morality (values) come from? And here, a culture can certainly agree on something.

 

[thenexttodie]

The Old Testament explicitly allows conquerors to take the conquered virgins for themselves.]

My great uncle married a Japanese girl that he met in Japan, shortly after WW2. Is that rape?

It also allows men to have sex with their slaves. Neither of these rules appear to be unique to that culture.

It's really not that hard to make a woman want to have sex with you. Especially if you can offer her safety and a secure future.

 

[SpecialFrog]

My great uncle married a Japanese girl that he met in Japan, shortly after WW2. Is that rape?

If she had a choice in the matter then it isn't. If she was a spoil of war then it is.

For instance, the Korean and Chinese women forced to be "comfort women" for Japenese soldiers did not have a choice.

It also allows men to have sex with their slaves. Neither of these rules appear to be unique to that culture.

It's really not that hard to make a woman want to have sex with you. Especially if you can offer her safety and a secure future.

[/quote]
Are you saying that this applies to slaves?

 

[thenexttodie]

My great uncle married a Japanese girl that he met in Japan, shortly after WW2. Is that rape?

If she had a choice in the matter then it isn't. If she was a spoil of war then it is.

For instance, the Korean and Chinese women forced to be "comfort women" for Japenese soldiers did not have a choice.

I think it's curious that as an atheist you would be so quick to refer to the bible. All I did was type 3 words. And in reality, you probably only know as much about the bible as I do about river dancing.

But maybe I'm wrong.

Do you really have a good reason for believing that the bible condones rape? Or were you just talking bullshit?

It also allows men to have sex with their slaves. Neither of these rules appear to be unique to that culture.

It's really not that hard to make a woman want to have sex with you. Especially if you can offer her safety and a secure future.

[/quote]
Are you saying that this applies to slaves?

Yeah I guess..sure why not?

My understanding of slavery leads me to believe that I might have been better off being the slave of a Roman magistrate, were he a kind and generous man, instead of working a shit job in america with a boss who knows he can force me to do whatever he wants because I'm living paycheck to paycheck.

But if said magistrate was abusive, then there still might be psychological reasons why a woman might love him. I forget what they call it. Reynolds Syndrome or something like that. I guess that would be wrong.

 

[Inferno]

I think it's curious that as an atheist you would be so quick to refer to the bible. All I did was type 3 words. And in reality, you probably only know as much about the bible as I do about river dancing.

The very few studies conducted on the subject all showed that atheists tend to be more knowledgeable about the Bible than Christians.

Do you really have a good reason for believing that the bible condones rape? Or were you just talking bullshit?

Judges 19 comes to mind:

19:22 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.

19:23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.

19:24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.

19:25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.

19:26 Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light.

19:27 And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold.

19:28 And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place.

19:29 And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.

But I guess you could argue that's not condoning rape. Very well. How about Judges 21:10-24?

21:10 And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children.

21:11 And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man.

21:12 And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.

21:13 And the whole congregation sent some to speak to the children of Benjamin that were in the rock Rimmon, and to call peaceably unto them.

21:14 And Benjamin came again at that time; and they gave them wives which they had saved alive of the women of Jabeshgilead: and yet so they sufficed them not.

21:15 And the people repented them for Benjamin, because that the LORD had made a breach in the tribes of Israel.

21:16 Then the elders of the congregation said, How shall we do for wives for them that remain, seeing the women are destroyed out of Benjamin?

21:17 And they said, There must be an inheritance for them that be escaped of Benjamin, that a tribe be not destroyed out of Israel.

21:18 Howbeit we may not give them wives of our daughters: for the children of Israel have sworn, saying, Cursed be he that giveth a wife to Benjamin.

21:19 Then they said, Behold, there is a feast of the LORD in Shiloh yearly in a place which is on the north side of Bethel, on the east side of the highway that goeth up from Bethel to Shechem, and on the south of Lebonah.

21:20 Therefore they commanded the children of Benjamin, saying, Go and lie in wait in the vineyards;

21:21 And see, and, behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch you every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin.

21:22 And it shall be, when their fathers or their brethren come unto us to complain, that we will say unto them, Be favourable unto them for our sakes: because we reserved not to each man his wife in the war: for ye did not give unto them at this time, that ye should be guilty.

21:23 And the children of Benjamin did so, and took them wives, according to their number, of them that danced, whom they caught: and they went and returned unto their inheritance, and repaired the cities, and dwelt in them.

21:24 And the children of Israel departed thence at that time, every man to his tribe and to his family, and they went out from thence every man to his inheritance.

21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

There are quite a few more examples and then of course there's a host of other immoralities.

But if said magistrate was abusive, then there still might be psychological reasons why a woman might love him. I forget what they call it. Reynolds Syndrome or something like that. I guess that would be wrong.

Reynolds syndrome is a disease.
Did you mean Stockholm Syndrome?

Are you actually seriously saying that it's not a problem if women succumb to Stockholm Syndrome and fall in love with the person who enslaves them? Think carefully about what you're going to say.

 

[SpecialFrog]

I think it's curious that as an atheist you would be so quick to refer to the bible. All I did was type 3 words. And in reality, you probably only know as much about the bible as I do about river dancing.

But maybe I'm wrong.

Do you really have a good reason for believing that the bible condones rape? Or were you just talking bullshit?

I have no idea what you know about river dancing and therefore wouldn't make any assumptions about it.

Anyway, I demonstrated that the Bible does condone rape in some circumstances. It also condemns it in other circumstances (though also requires victims to marry their attackers in some cases). Inferno has posted others.

You are trying to pretend that this wouldn't constitute rape because women are likely to want to have sex with the people who have just come and killed all their family.

My understanding of slavery leads me to believe that I might have been better off being the slave of a Roman magistrate, were he a kind and generous man, instead of working a shit job in america with a boss who knows he can force me to do whatever he wants because I'm living paycheck to paycheck.

I hope you don't actually believe this.

I'm not singling out the Bible. Many cultures have concluded that women's consent was not necessary in some cases. Some people still argue that women are not allowed to refuse sex from their husbands.

This clearly demonstrates that a prohibition against rape is far from a universal, immutable moral view.

 

[thenexttodie]

The very few studies conducted on the subject all showed that atheists tend to be more knowledgeable about the Bible than Christians.

To me it seems people tend to lie when asked something like.."Are you a christian?" Even the pope pretends to be one.
For some reason it's even important for people who proudly engage in behavior which the bible obviously condemns, to be accepted by the christian church.

I have often wondered why these people don't just make up their own religion.

Do you really have a good reason for believing that the bible condones rape? Or were you just talking bullshit?

Judges 19 comes to mind:

19:22 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.

19:23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.

19:24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.

19:25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.

19:26 Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light.

19:27 And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold.

19:28 And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place.

19:29 And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.

But I guess you could argue that's not condoning rape. Very well. How about Judges 21:10-24?

21:10 And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children.

21:11 And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man.

21:12 And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.

21:13 And the whole congregation sent some to speak to the children of Benjamin that were in the rock Rimmon, and to call peaceably unto them.

21:14 And Benjamin came again at that time; and they gave them wives which they had saved alive of the women of Jabeshgilead: and yet so they sufficed them not.

21:15 And the people repented them for Benjamin, because that the LORD had made a breach in the tribes of Israel.

21:16 Then the elders of the congregation said, How shall we do for wives for them that remain, seeing the women are destroyed out of Benjamin?

21:17 And they said, There must be an inheritance for them that be escaped of Benjamin, that a tribe be not destroyed out of Israel.

21:18 Howbeit we may not give them wives of our daughters: for the children of Israel have sworn, saying, Cursed be he that giveth a wife to Benjamin.

21:19 Then they said, Behold, there is a feast of the LORD in Shiloh yearly in a place which is on the north side of Bethel, on the east side of the highway that goeth up from Bethel to Shechem, and on the south of Lebonah.

21:20 Therefore they commanded the children of Benjamin, saying, Go and lie in wait in the vineyards;

21:21 And see, and, behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch you every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin.

21:22 And it shall be, when their fathers or their brethren come unto us to complain, that we will say unto them, Be favourable unto them for our sakes: because we reserved not to each man his wife in the war: for ye did not give unto them at this time, that ye should be guilty.

21:23 And the children of Benjamin did so, and took them wives, according to their number, of them that danced, whom they caught: and they went and returned unto their inheritance, and repaired the cities, and dwelt in them.

21:24 And the children of Israel departed thence at that time, every man to his tribe and to his family, and they went out from thence every man to his inheritance.

21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

There are quite a few more examples and then of course there's a host of other immoralities.

Much of the old testement is a record of how the Isrealites did evil and rebelled against God, every chance they could. It's purpose is not to say that these were good people, so do everything that they did.

I can't believe you didn't know that.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

To me it seems people tend to lie when asked something like.."Are you a christian?" Even the pope pretends to be one.
For some reason it's even important for people who proudly engage in behavior which the bible obviously condemns, to be accepted by the christian church.

I have often wondered why these people don't just make up their own religion.

This is an excellent example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[Inferno]

To me it seems people tend to lie when asked something like.."Are you a christian?" Even the pope pretends to be one.
For some reason it's even important for people who proudly engage in behavior which the bible obviously condemns, to be accepted by the christian church.

I have often wondered why these people don't just make up their own religion.

This is an excellent example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

I was about to say...

Seriously "thenexttodie", how come YOU call yourself a Christian? Every single denomination has a different opinion of what a "real Christian TM" is.

The following joke comes to mind:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump. I ran over and said: "Stop. Don't do it."

"Why shouldn't I?" he asked.

"Well, there's so much to live for!"

"Like what?"

"Are you religious?"

He said, "Yes."

I said, "Me too. Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

"Christian."

"Me too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

"Protestant."

"Me too. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

"Baptist."

"Wow. Me too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

"Baptist Church of God."

"Me too. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"

"Reformed Baptist Church of God."

"Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"

He said: "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915."

I said: "Die, heretic scum," and pushed him off.

Much of the old testement is a record of how the Isrealites did evil and rebelled against God, every chance they could. It's purpose is not to say that these were good people, so do everything that they did.

I can't believe you didn't know that.

I didn't know it because it's complete and utter rubbish.

For example, check out Numbers 31.
Take note of the following part I underlined:

7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.

13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

19 “Anyone who has killed someone or touched someone who was killed must stay outside the camp seven days. On the third and seventh days you must purify yourselves and your captives. 20 Purify every garment as well as everything made of leather, goat hair or wood.”

21 Then Eleazar the priest said to the soldiers who had gone into battle, “This is what is required by the law that the Lord gave Moses: 22 Gold, silver, bronze, iron, tin, lead 23 and anything else that can withstand fire must be put through the fire, and then it will be clean. But it must also be purified with the water of cleansing. And whatever cannot withstand fire must be put through that water. 24 On the seventh day wash your clothes and you will be clean. Then you may come into the camp.”

Note the last bit I underlined: How to clean the loot you made, but nothing on "DO NOT HAVE SEX SLAVES".
If the Ten Commandments weren't such a fucking disgrace, I'd actually laugh at them.

 

[thenexttodie]

Anyway, I demonstrated that the Bible does condone rape in some circumstances.

I don't see where you or anyone else has demonstrated this at all.

You are trying to pretend that this wouldn't constitute rape because women are likely to want to have sex with the people who have just come and killed all their family.

I can understand why, when the bible says God allowed the Israelites to marry the virgin women of their defeated enemies, you would try to make it look like God said that they should rape them.

Even today, it would not surprise you to know of people who have met, even while their countries were still at war with each other, who dated and later married each other.

Nevermind pointing out the guidelines God gave for treating women in these circumstances involve something like giving her a separate house to live in to grieve for a period of time and then giving her money and letting her go if you know longer want to marry her(doesn't sound like rape to me) and finally that the punishment God gave for rape in the bible is death. Forget about all that.

I'm not singling out the Bible.

You say that as if you have already made a valid point. Which you have not.

Many cultures have concluded that women's consent was not necessary in some cases. Some people still argue that women are not allowed to refuse sex from their husbands.
This clearly demonstrates that a prohibition against rape is far from a universal, immutable moral view.

People will be more inclined to commit a crime when they know that they will not be punished for it. Even if they know what they are doing is wrong. The tendency to want to do evil is not what defines morality. Even in a sick society, if you rape a women, she will know that you did something wrong to her.

 

[thenexttodie]

I was about to say...

Seriously "thenexttodie", how come YOU call yourself a Christian? Every single denomination has a different opinion of what a "real Christian TM" is.

Process of elimination.
Well how about we start with the all the christian denominations that teach rape is ok. Which ones are those? Must be a pretty big list.

Much of the old testement is a record of how the Isrealites did evil and rebelled against God, every chance they could. It's purpose is not to say that these were good people, so do everything that they did.

I can't believe you didn't know that.

I didn't know it because it's complete and utter rubbish.

No it isn't.

You are just randomly picking verses from the bible, pretending like you know everything when you don't.

7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.

13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

19 “Anyone who has killed someone or touched someone who was killed must stay outside the camp seven days. On the third and seventh days you must purify yourselves and your captives. 20 Purify every garment as well as everything made of leather, goat hair or wood.”

21 Then Eleazar the priest said to the soldiers who had gone into battle, “This is what is required by the law that the Lord gave Moses: 22 Gold, silver, bronze, iron, tin, lead 23 and anything else that can withstand fire must be put through the fire, and then it will be clean. But it must also be purified with the water of cleansing. And whatever cannot withstand fire must be put through that water. 24 On the seventh day wash your clothes and you will be clean. Then you may come into the camp.”

Note the last bit I underlined: How to clean the loot you made, but nothing on "DO NOT HAVE SEX SLAVES".

So we've gone from "The bible condones rape" to well, whatever your point is now. I guess you are saying that because the bible doesn't mention sex slaves than it must condone sex slavery. I could probably give a similair misguided arguement about Christopher Hutchin's beliefs. sigh.