The hypocrisy of supposedly rational "free-thinkers"

[The Laughing Man]

More often than not, "free-thinkers" (aka "infidels" aka most unbelievers) berate Christians for supposedly being nothing but irrational, illogical and emotional while lauding themselves as the paragons of rationality, logic and reason. However, every single one of them resorts to (or supports others who resort to) very irrational, illogical and emotional arguments from outrage when discussing the alleged atrocities God committed in the Bible. This is hypocrisy, plain and simple.

[stevencarrwork]

If you could tell us where sceptics claim to be Vulcans, and have no emotions.......

I'm not sure why you say these atrocities in the Bible are only 'alleged'. Are you claiming that they never happened?


What is irrational about being outraged by the genocidal acts in the Book of Joshua?

I was thinking of putting Bible extracts in my sig. Is this a good one to choose?

1 Samuel 18:6-8
When the men were returning home after David had killed the Philistine, the women came out from all the towns of Israel to meet King Saul with singing and dancing, with joyful songs and with tambourines and lutes. As they danced, they sang:

"Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands."
Saul was very angry; this refrain galled him. "They have credited David with tens of thousands," he thought, "but me with only thousands. What more can he get but the kingdom?"

It illustrates the jealousy of Saul that God's favourite had killed 10 times as many people. Should Saul have praised David for killing more people than he had?

[The Laughing Man]

03-12-2003 @ 10:55 AM
stevencarrwork:

If you could tell us where sceptics[sic] claim to be Vulcans, and have no emotions.......

Sceptics? Is that pronounced like "septic?" :rofl:

Anyway, did I say skeptics were unemotional like Vulcans? No. I didn't even allude to such a thing. Obviously, skeptics are quite emotional, but they pride themselves on supposedly being rational.


I'm not sure why you say these atrocities in the Bible are only 'alleged'. Are you claiming that they never happened?

No, I am saying that skeptics allege in their irrational, illogical and emotional arguments from outrage that they are "atrocities."

[The Laughing Man]

BTW, I deliberately editted out your argument about a specific Bible passage. That's not on topic as this thread is about skeptics themselves. If you want to discuss it and/or other passages, please start threads for them.

[johnransom]

03-12-2003 @ 10:37 AM
Jinx72:

More often than not, "free-thinkers" (aka "infidels" aka most unbelievers) berate Christians for supposedly being nothing but irrational, illogical and emotional while lauding themselves as the paragons of rationality, logic and reason. However, every single one of them resorts to (or supports others who resort to) very irrational, illogical and emotional arguments from outrage when discussing the alleged atrocities God committed in the Bible. This is hypocrisy, plain and simple.

FWIW, I've always been of the opinion that "free-thought" really means "free-of-thought".:dufus:

[Rusty T]

However, every single one of them resorts

Really? What a sweeping indictment. I'm sure you can back this up.

[WinAce]

More often than not, [Westerners] (aka "infidels" aka most unbelievers) berate [fundamentalist Muslims] for supposedly being nothing but irrational, illogical and emotional while lauding themselves as the paragons of rationality, logic and reason. However, every single one of them resorts to (or supports others who resort to) very irrational, illogical and emotional arguments from outrage when discussing the alleged atrocities [Bin Laden] committed in the [News]. This is hypocrisy, plain and simple

:huh:

[The Laughing Man]

03-12-2003 @ 11:16 AM
tizzidale:

Quote:
However, every single one of them resorts

OR supports others who resort...


Really? What a sweeping indictment. I'm sure you can back this up.

Sure. Pick any skeptic website. They will resort to arguments from outrage or support other skeptics who make them.

[lordsnooty]

Because of course, right-wing fundamentalist Christians have a monopoly on morality.

Hint for you: Emotion/morality/outrage and rationality are not mutually exclusive.

Paul

[crazyfingers]

03-12-2003 @ 05:09 PM
Jinx72:



Sceptics? Is that pronounced like "septic?" :rofl:


Why no. Why would you make that error?

[stevencarrwork]

03-12-2003 @ 08:01 PM
crazyfingers:



Why no. Why would you make that error?

Well, somebody who can't even speak the Queen's English in his rather colourful posts, may not have learned how to spell sceptic correctly.

[crazyfingers]

03-12-2003 @ 04:37 PM
Jinx72:

More often than not, "free-thinkers" (aka "infidels" aka most unbelievers) berate Christians for supposedly being nothing but irrational, illogical and emotional while lauding themselves as the paragons of rationality, logic and reason. However, every single one of them resorts to (or supports others who resort to) very irrational, illogical and emotional arguments from outrage when discussing the alleged atrocities God committed in the Bible. This is hypocrisy, plain and simple.

It seem pretty clear to me that nontheists do not actually believe that the attricities in the bible are actually true. Rather they question Christian claims that the god that they believe in should be described as all-good and yet they also believe that the god that they believe in did those things.

I don't think that there is hipocrisy on the part of nonbelievers for point out that apparent oversight on the part of some Christians.

[johnransom]

03-12-2003 @ 02:04 PM
stevencarrwork:



Well, somebody who can't even speak the Queen's English in his rather colourful posts, may not have learned how to spell sceptic correctly.

Hmmm...maybe he speaks the President's English?

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-12-2003 @ 11:37 AM
Jinx72:
More often than not, "free-thinkers" (aka "infidels" aka most unbelievers) berate Christians for supposedly being nothing but irrational, illogical and emotional while lauding themselves as the paragons of rationality, logic and reason.
First of all, WHAT IS WITH QUOTATIONs BEING TURNED INTO TEXT WITH THE QUOTES?!?! :argh: (I mean through the web board stuff)

That said, I don't think your generalization is fair. Is it true that some atheists do so? Perhaps, but I think that you may just be bumping into the more on the net. How often have you dealt with atheists in the real world? You bump into them here because they come looking for you. Its different.

Kurt Vonnegut wrote that its not that we want to take away your god, its just that we don't need it. We want you to have your comfort and spirituality. It means alot to you. We wouldn't want you to part with that. I don't try to convert my family members, though I will talk bible and all.

And I wrote that it seems some theists take our belief of a personal god's non-existence as a threat on their own beliefs, when in fact that has nothing to do with the case. I believe both sides are guilty of a sort of arrogence of knowing the truth, or even knowing what the other believes. However, most atheists are former theists, it isn't a born disorder that we have. So we may understand theism a bit more than theists can understand atheism.

However, every single one of them resorts to (or supports others who resort to) very irrational, illogical and emotional arguments from outrage when discussing the alleged atrocities God committed in the Bible. This is hypocrisy, plain and simple. (my emphasis)
I usually get people into trouble when they say, "every one", or "they are the best ever". Its taking the little of which they've experienced and apply it to the whole, in which they could never truly experience altogether. You can't say all, becaue you don't know 1% of all atheists. It wouldn't be fair for me to compare christians on the web to the ones in the real world all together. I compare christians in my mind with those in my family and those I know. I think that is a much fairer example.

As for atrocities in the bible, I wouldn't mind going into that with you on another thread, because God is guilty of asking for alot of blood, especially in the Torah. And then there is no sense of remorse, the same remorse he feels whenever hurting his own nation. God's love for Israel is spectacular, this is evidenced by a scripture in Jer which I don't have with me right now. However, there are other issues, and legitimate ones. The bible is full of them. There is nothing wrong discussing and scrutinizing the bible. Its what brings you closer to truly understanding it.

[stevencarrwork]

03-12-2003 @ 08:13 PM
johnransom:



Hmmm...maybe he speaks the President's English?

I hope not.

I don't think even the president speaks the President's English very well.

[Jaltus]

Don't make me move this thread to poli-sci!

:wink:

[Vorkosigan]

What an interesting opening post. The poster would have us believe that it is "irrational" to get outraged over atrocities.....

[Christy]

No, you do not understand what he is saying. He is not saying that it is unreasonable to be outraged by things in the Bible.

[Christy]

:arg :argh:

No, You do not understand what he is saying. He isn't saying that feeling outraged by things that written in the Bible is irrational, he is just showing how hypocritical it is for Atheist to claim that it is all emotions why people believe, and use emotions for disbelief. Something to that extent.

[Christy]

Sorry for posting that twice

[Christy]

To Jimmy Higgins

Why would you even care about this stuff for?

[Christy]

:jade:

I don't know why I wrote that. I'm tired.

[Vorkosigan]

03-13-2003 @ 02:55 AM
Christy:

:arg :argh:

No, You do not understand what he is saying. He isn't saying that feeling outraged by things that written in the Bible is irrational, he is just showing how hypocritical it is for Atheist to claim that it is all emotions why people believe, and use emotions for disbelief. Something to that extent.

Do atheists claim that? I have never met one who said "it is all emotions why people believe." Belief may be irrational, but that is not the same as saying it is all emotional, unless you subscribe to the position that rationality and emotion are somehow opposed.

Vorkosigan

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-13-2003 @ 01:56 AM
Christy:

To Jimmy Higgins

Why would you even care about this stuff for? Thats usually the reply an atheist gets when they know the bible better than the other person. Funny stuff really. I've heard that specific reply a few times now.

I care because I find history extremely interesting. I don't think Jinx has responded to it yet either. I guess all atheists are impatient because I am being so right now. They must also all love hippos and race in triathlons and watch the Powerpuff Girls too!

[johnransom]

03-13-2003 @ 03:16 AM
Vorkosigan:



Do atheists claim that? I have never met one who said "it is all emotions why people believe." Belief may be irrational, but that is not the same as saying it is all emotional, unless you subscribe to the position that rationality and emotion are somehow opposed.

Vorkosigan

Not quite what Jinx said. What he said was, broken down:

1. Atheists charge theists with using irrational, illogical and emotional arguments.
2. Atheists believe they think rationally, logically and unemotionally.
3. Atheists then use irrational, illogical and emotional arguments.
4. Atheists are therefore hypocrites.

The conclusion is actually false, because there is no reason to accept that the atheist belief is #2 is correct. Unfortunately for atheists, that doesn't put them in any better light, because the only alternative is to be mistaken.

But Jinx was not opposing reason and emotion. Viscerally, they seem opposed, but I think it quote possible to emote rationally (such as in the concept of righteous indignation). As for reasoning emotively, that's less clear to me, and this is probably the basis for the intuitive idea that the two are opposed.

It's also the background for the whole Mars and Venus thing...

[lordsnooty]

03-13-2003 @ 04:16 PM
johnransom:
Not quite what Jinx said. What he said was, broken down:

1. Atheists charge theists with using irrational, illogical and emotional arguments.
2. Atheists believe they think rationally, logically and unemotionally.
3. Atheists then use irrational, illogical and emotional arguments.
4. Atheists are therefore hypocrites.

The conclusion is actually false, because there is no reason to accept that the atheist belief is #2 is correct. Unfortunately for atheists, that doesn't put them in any better light, because the only alternative is to be mistaken.
Or correct.

Paul

[WinAce]

It's irrational to point out that a benevolent + omnipotent god ordering genocide is a logical contradiction?

[johnransom]

03-13-2003 @ 11:39 AM
lordsnooty:


Or correct.

Paul

Whereby you prove your irrationality and illogic. It is impossible to correctly claim rationality and logic and at the same time employ irrationality and illogic.

[johnransom]

03-13-2003 @ 11:43 AM
WinAce:

It's irrational to point out that a benevolent + omnipotent god ordering genocide is a logical contradiction?

Depending on the various definitions of those terms, no. But it is however irrational to apply the conclusion to the Christian God.

[WinAce]

03-13-2003 @ 02:20 PM
johnransom:

Depending on the various definitions of those terms, no. But it is however irrational to apply the conclusion to the Christian God.

It is?

[johnransom]

03-13-2003 @ 02:00 PM
WinAce:



It is?

Obviously. The Christian God is not so defined. It's a partial definition, but by no means complete.

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-13-2003 @ 02:20 PM
johnransom:
Depending on the various definitions of those terms, no. But it is however irrational to apply the conclusion to the Christian God. What bible are you reading?
(Exodus 9:35 my emphasis)
Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh. For I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his courtiers, in order that I may display these My signs among them, ...how I made a mockery of the Egyptians and how I displayed My signs among them-in order that you may know that I am the LORD.God ravishes Egypt so he can prove how cool he is? How loving.

But it gets better.
(Exodus 11:9 my emphasis added)
And the LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the marvels that I have put within your power. I, however, will stiffen his heart so that he will not let the people go.He does all this so that in the end he can slay Egyptian first borns!
(Exodus 4:23)
I have said to you, "Let My son go, that he may worship Me," yet you refuse to let him go. Now I will slay your first-born son.Show me the love here. I beg of you, just show me the all loving Christian God who must kill every first born in Egypt because he wouldn't let the Pharoah let the Hebrews out.

[Christy]

I have read the whole Bible. I didn't put it into context though.

[AtheistArchon]

- Being rational does not mean being void of emotions. It's that simple.

- Besides, most of the arguments we're talking about are designed from the moral standpoint of the Christian, I think, and not the atheist, although in most cases I believe the moral sentiments are shared.

[johnransom]

03-13-2003 @ 03:12 PM
Jimmy Higgins:

What bible are you reading?
(Exodus 9:35 my emphasis)God ravishes Egypt so he can prove how cool he is? How loving.

But it gets better.
(Exodus 11:9 my emphasis added)He does all this so that in the end he can slay Egyptian first borns!
(Exodus 4:23)Show me the love here. I beg of you, just show me the all loving Christian God who must kill every first born in Egypt because he wouldn't let the Pharoah let the Hebrews out.

Outrage, outrage, outrage. You make absolutely no point whatsoever. Here's your definitional problem, since you obviously fail to grasp it:

1. God is all loving, but that doesn't mean He has to be all warm and fuzzy.
2. God is all loving, but He's also all just.
3. God is all loving, but He's not an appeaser.
4. God is all loving, but he has numerous other qualities that dictate how He expresses that love.

Get your anachronizing atheist blinders off, quit emoting all over the place and start thinking critically. Which means, first of all, figure out how evil can exist wthout God.

[stevencarrwork]

03-14-2003 @ 04:32 PM
johnransom:


Get your anachronizing atheist blinders off, quit emoting all over the place and start thinking critically. Which means, first of all, figure out how evil can exist wthout God.

'... figure out how evil can exist without God.'

What a great line for a sig.

[lordsnooty]

03-14-2003 @ 04:32 PM
johnransom:
Which means, first of all, figure out how evil can exist wthout God.
I love how some Christians actually cannot comprehend 'good' or 'evil' without there being a magical man in the sky to define it for them.

Paul

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 11:32 AM
johnransom:
Outrage, outrage, outrage. You make absolutely no point whatsoever. Geesh, the amount of researching I do, I'd figure I'd get some sort of respect in here. No point whatsoever? I can toss plenty of more instances where God shows how he enjoys bringing pain into the fold!

Here's your definitional problem, since you obviously fail to grasp it:Again with the lack of respect.


1. God is all loving, but that doesn't mean He has to be all warm and fuzzy.
2. God is all loving, but He's also all just.
3. God is all loving, but He's not an appeaser.
4. God is all loving, but he has numerous other qualities that dictate how He expresses that love.He takes the Pharoah and won't let the Pharoah let the Hebrews go. He then takes the fact that the Pharoah hasn't let them go so that God can smite every Egyptian first-born son! God causes A to happen and then punishes Pharoah because of it. This isn't being just, this is being murderous. This is not an example of Genesis 50:20
Even though you meant harm to me, God meant it for good, to achieve his present end, the survival of many people.Perhaps this is another "absurd" idea of mine, but one of the most critical parts of the Tanakh is this line. God makes good out of bad. It is, however, the bad of man that God uses to create good. The Exodus example, however, shows the bad that God makes, in order to do more bad, in order to do good.

How can God not be responsible for the murder of each first-born, if he was the reason for the Pharoah not letting the Hebrews out?

Get your anachronizing atheist blinders off, quit emoting all over the place and start thinking critically. Thinking critically? What have I been doing previously? Copying some atheist version of the AIG for failures in the bible? I thought my study into the Tanakh was critical thinking.

Which means, first of all, figure out how evil can exist wthout God. Easy. It is easier to take advantage of someone than to be equal with them. Just like the christians I was looking to buy a house off of. Of course, they never disclosed the fact their house needs a new roof. Would have let that slide. Why? Because it was easier for the christians to sell me their problem.

[Jimmy Higgins]

:joy:
Too much bumping. Why do threads always end with my posts?

[Socrates]

Steven Carr:
Well, somebody who can't even speak the Queen's English in his rather colourful posts, may not have learned how to spell sceptic correctly.I happen to agree with you, and this is the Australian spelling too. But it's notable that ORGANIZED Skepticism spells it with a K, like the Yanx. It's ironic because they are forever spruiking on about how YEC is a "right wing American fundamentalist" invention, yet they are the ones who adopt an American spelling -- because they are outgrowths of American skeptic/humanist groups :bonk: And as I've shown elsewhere, YEC is the historica teaching of the Christian church, so in reality it goes back to the ancient Hebrews (who got it from God).

[Vorkosigan]

[b]spruiking on about how YEC [/QUOTE]

"spruiking" Good word, nice and juicy. Is that genuine Aussie idiom, or just an idiosocrastic twist?

Vorkosigan

[Blake Reas]

There is no alleged to it. God told Joshua to run the people out of the land and slaughter them, burn there cities, and in many cases kill their livestock. I ask this question though, what makes God unjust in this? The Canaanites where not exactly your model citizens themselves this is how YHWH worked out his plan in giving Israel the promised land. I see no real problem here just an emotional argument.

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

[Blake Reas]

03-14-2003 @ 05:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=35186#post35186)
lordsnooty:


I love how some Christians actually cannot comprehend 'good' or 'evil' without there being a magical man in the sky to define it for them.

Paul
Would you please tell me what it is then, in your atheistic worldview? I do not believe it can "exist"(actually I think Evil is nonexistence to an extent i.e. abscence of God). I know you will come back with the argument that even in the theistic worldview that Evil is a slippery thing which I agree. It still does not negate the fact that we have a sense for evil.
If I am wrong though I do not see why if Atheism is true why Evolution would not have weeded out some irrational fear of some thing that we call "evil" that really does not exist except in our emotions.

Regards,
Blake

[Nowhere357]

Blake Reas:

Would you please tell me what it is then, in your atheistic worldview?

IMO evil is willful immoral actions and intentions.


If I am wrong though I do not see why if Atheism is true why Evolution would not have weeded out some irrational fear of some thing that we call "evil" that really does not exist except in our emotions.

If evil has some sort of objective existence, aren't we morally obligated to resist and oppose it?

[djdavo]

03-15-2003 @ 02:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=35636#post35636)
Jimmy Higgins:

How can God not be responsible for the murder of each first-born, if he was the reason for the Pharoah not letting the Hebrews out?[/b]

yeah...it'd be real horrible to die and go to heaven for eternity as those babies did.
your assumption is this world is all there is, that's why you and many other atheists misunderstand much of what's in the bible. or rather, don't understand where christians are coming from.
in your scripture all of the people except pharoah had a choice during any one of the plagues to leave or to get on Gods' side.


off topic....i apologize.

[KingDavid8]

03-13-2003 @ 09:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=34138#post34138)
Jimmy Higgins:

Show me the love here. I beg of you, just show me the all loving Christian God who must kill every first born in Egypt because he wouldn't let the Pharoah let the Hebrews out.

First of all, the Pharoah had enslaved the Hebrews for YEARS, and could have let them out at any time before the events with Moses started. Overall, it wasn't God holding the Pharoah back, but the fact that the Pharoah was a cruel man who enjoyed having Hebrew slaves and saw no problem with killing THEIR children (in case you were thinking the Pharoah was an innocent party in this whole thing).

Secondly, how many of the Egyptians sided with the Hebrews over the Pharoah? They could have avoided all of this themselves, if they'd wanted (in case you were thinking the Egyptians were innocent parties in this whole thing).

As for the Egyptian babies, who, obviously, hadn't done the Hebrews any harm at all and thus WERE innocent parties in this whole thing - yes, God ended their lives. But He also gave them their lives in the first place. A net gain on their part.

So where is the love? The love is in the fact that God let these events play out so that the Hebrews could learn to trust and rely on God in a way they hadn't before. Without these events, the path would not have been set, the path which brought us Jesus Christ, who died for the sins of mankind - and the living embodiment of the covenant made after God rescued the Hebrews.

David