From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Bible As A Rorschach
Date: 31 Dec 92 16:36:27 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <1992Dec31.020043.25959@arden.linet.org> joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter) writes (The 2nd-level quotes are from Ivan Derzhanski):


>> Obviously not.  The men who broke into my flat a year ago also had a
>> sense of what was acceptable and what was not which differed strongly
>> from mine.  I don't call them good, though.  I call them thieves, and
>> in the same way I call the god of the Bible a sadist and a murderer.

> Well multiply that sense of insight into the evil of man by about infinity
> times two.  God looks into the raw 'heart' of man not only the actions.
> But why are we talking about something you don't even think is there?

As in all your other comments, you utterly fail to get the point that Ivan
is making. Ivan is not claiming an "insight into the evil of man". He is
implicitly taking the diametrically opposite position that he is compelled
to judge actions, be they those of burglars or purportedly of your God, by
his own non-absolute standards in the absence of a logical alternative.

As to why you're "talking about something [Ivan doesn't] think is there",
there is an implied conditional in Ivan's words "the god of the Bible",
meaning that as *depicted* in the Bible, said God is a sadist and a murderer
by Ivan's standards. This is irrespective of whether or not It exists in
some objective sense.


>> This is exactly how Hitler and Stalin got their power and kept it for

> etc...

>> Big Brother never punishes innocent people.  Big Brother is always right.

> Yea well they were men now weren't they.

Whoooosh. Right over your head again. This kind of special pleading on behalf
of your God, in an attempt to exempt [the Biblical] It from being pronounced
immoral by sane humans, is precisely the main point of this discussion.

You offer no argument as to *why* different standards are to be applied to
your God other than the entirely vacuous plea that this is God we're talking
about here, not men. BFD. *Why* does this have any bearing on the matter? In
the absence of any non-circular reason for allowing such an exemption ("coz
He's God, that's why" for example), does this imply (the answer is *YES*, by
the way) that "Hang on, I'm Simon, so I can do what the hell I like" is a
sound defence should I find myself in the dock?

Before you say "But you're not God", I know, and that isn't the point. The
point is why "But you're not God" is a valid explanation and not circular.


>> This is an extremely dangerous way of thinking.

> I agree.  Stalin may have had good intentions but I wouldn't suggest 
> following someone like Hitler.

But the point is that you haven't given any *reason* why Hitler was bad but
another lover of genocidal atrocities, viz. your God, wasn't. You have simply
stated this position rather than defending it against the charge that it is
a piece of mindless and content-free dogma. This could lead one to suspect
that it is exactly mindless and content-free dogma, and your opacity when it
comes to getting the point does nothing to dispel the impression.


>>> For your assumption of contradiction to hold water you would have to know
>>> both God and the people that were killed intimately.

>> Not one of the victims of the Holocaust has been an acquaintance of mine.
>> I reckon I should feel comfortable with their deaths.

> Hitler had no right to do what he did.  Hitler is not God.

Aaargh. This is circular assuming, as I strongly suspect, that said "right"
which God has but Hitler doesn't derives from God being God and, as you say,
Hitler not being God. It's utterly vacuous, and reduces to "God" being a mere
label for He Who Can Do No Wrong. Why can He do no wrong? Why, because He's
God of course. Gakk. After a few revolutions this stuff just makes you want
to go out and murder cute fluffy gerbils, doesn't it? No? Maybe it's just me.


>>> and then proceed to be crucified, boiled in oil, stoned, sawn in half etc...
>>> knowing full well the lie they were dying for.

>> What about the priests of Baal whom one of the prophets of Yahweh
>> slaughtered, in 1 Kings 17 (I think)?  Did they die for a lie, or
>> maybe Baal is The One and Only Lord after all?

> Its in 18.  Isreal was starting to abandon the Lord and go over to a false
> god Baal.  Jezebel (Ahab's babe) was killing the prophets of God in the name
> of Baal.  That was God's way of showing who was the Real God.  They died
> for a lie.

But the *point*, dammit, is that this demonstrates that people *have* been
known to "die for a lie" in the full belief that it wasn't a lie, and thus
to suggest that the purported martyrdom of the apostles indicates the truth
of their beliefs is shown to be illogical.


>> What about the people who were tortured to death by the Inquisition
>> for maintaining the opinion that the Bible is a book of lies and that
>> Christianity is drivel?

> You're confusing political powers with people who try to follow Jesus and
> the gospel.

No he isn't. He is attacking your suggestion that martyrdom points to the
correctness of one's beliefs if "one" is an apostle of Jesus, but not
apparently if "one" isn't. Groundless special pleading, start to finish.


>> Or they did confess that they had been talking nonsense, but were
>> executed none the less.  Or they had managed to brainwash themselves
>> and one another into believing the strange tale they had come up with.
>> Or they had simply lost their wits, all of them.  Or one of feenty-feen
>> other explanations, none of which is more implausible than what they are
>> claimed to have claimed.

> yea right.

Yeah, right he is. But somehow there seems little point trying to discuss
Ockham's Razor before even the rudiments of logical thought manage to secure
a foothold in your brain. Yes, I know this is ad hominem, but Mr Beiter no
doubt thinks that a logical fallacy is something to do with sex organs. You
have to try to shake *something* loose, and logic alone is clearly not going
to do the trick.


>>> hint: Start claiming all the apostles really didn't get martyred and IT was
>>>      all a lie too!

>> This is certainly a claim which is worth considering.  I'll sooner
>> believe that it was all a lie than that what the Gospels say about
>> Jesus of Nazareth is anything other than a lie.

> A lie of that extent would have been uncovered and squashed during that time
> and would not have lived.  How long does a lie like that live now-a-days?
> (ie: Nixon/Watergate, Regan/contras, Quayle/intelligence, Swaggart/lust etc..)

Logic check: these are known frauds because they have been unmasked. Can
you list some examples of unknown frauds which have *not* been unmasked?
Examples of The Perfect Robbery, which remains undetected?

At the risk of further ad hominem, I plead with you to start thinking for
f***'s sake and for yours.


>|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
>|Joe.Beiter@arden.linet.org               The Long Island Network Project   |
>|The Courts of Chaos Semi-Public Access   Long Island New York: USA         |
>|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|

Cheers

Simon

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Out-of-context quotes from s.r.c #12:

           "We should remain faithful to God because God is God."
Newsgroups: alt.atheism