Forum would not let me post it. Said it was too big(a few short paragraphs...go figure.). Yes. AGAIN, these are TWO DIFFERENT VERSES. The above one I was talking about does not even mention "rape" at all(but it strongly implies such by it's context and wording). False and this is easily proven so. You are trying to put forth rational justification for your positions here(otherwise we would not even be able to really discuss this) and you do not shy from this when you believe you have such justification. For you to suddenly and arbitrarily throw out the "I'm not objective" thing in answer to a seemingly unanswerable point I make...that is by definition a 'dodge'. What we are trying to get at here IS objective truth(in as much as we can get at such) because otherwise you would just be wasting our time. I am not going to be convinced by "faith" or emotional pleas etc. and you know this. This is partially true but there is more to this than you let on. When it comes to very minor things which I barely expressed any concern over, which ultimately fall to subjective interpretations(with little room for objectivity) then I have expressed my concerns, agreed to disagree and so forth and moved on.
You saying you HAVE made your case but claiming the problem is simply my (you imply arbitrary) 'dislike' of your answers...that is a bit shifty guy and I suspect you know this. If you are unable to make a rational case and you want to go with the 'rationality isn't everything/I have faith' type reasons(as you have repeatedly) then so be it, but be honest about it. My problems with your attempts at rationally justifying your points/claims is that for the most part you have been very irrational(in terms of "rules of inference", logical consistency etc.). Straw man. The above is not a position I have held or expressed but you are setting it up and knocking it down as if it WERE my position. Also I do not think "rice" is a Chinese word so I would, in the above instance, look up whatever word was used and it's exact definitions/usages, just as I do with Hebrew. The problem with the ancient Hebrew is that we have a lot of modern believers in some form of the god Yahweh(including Christians) who are very selective and sometimes even dishonest about how they 'interpret' the writings in the OT. They want very much for God to be 'perfect' as he is described in the Bible and so they rationalize away anything that contradicts this using bizarre twists of logic and 'interpretation'(see the flat earth fiasco which I believe is found in Isaiah II and describes the earth as a flat disk-shaped object where the sky is "as a tent to dwell in" but Christians and some Jews try to posit re-interpretations that do not jive with actual Hebrew usages, for one example). Here is a source: simple logic and understanding of language. The word "take" does not in this context mean anything other than taking captive wives. They are talking about WAR booty here. Moses does not say "Let the children go free" or "take care of those who are too young...". He says to KILL EVERY ONE EXCEPT THE VIRGIN GIRLS. Now honestly guy, why would men spare only these pre-sexual girls here? This makes perfect sense when you consider man's history and sexual drive and the social climate of the times but not as something a moral god(or his favored spokespersons) would endorse.

To be cont'd...

AGAIN, no one has said otherwise. So what you are doing here is invoking a straw man.

As an aside, science IS entirely dependent on rationality/reason. It is the only methodology which can make this claim. So you are really waging an uphill battle here by attacking science as not being the totality of rationality(which it is not) while providing no alternative methodology to get at the truths you believe exist. What you are doing is akin to getting into a boxing ring, claiming that "violence is not the only way to win this title match"(which may even be true) but then providing no other explanation for how you can achieve such. So far you have not. You have resisted such repeatedly and I understand why: You are kind of caught between the devil and the deep blue sea here and you cannot even consider 'drowning' in the apparent fact that your god is imaginary and geography and culture are the reasons you believe in this particular god(and not, say Allah or Kim Jong Il). So you must turn to fight the 'devil' here but this particular devil(rationality/science/reason) cannot be bested by faith-based proclamations and 'feelings' and such. This is 100% dishonesty here and you know this. I would not even bother discussing the matter if all I had were unqualified assertions as per your above straw man(the straw man is an error in reasoning by the way guy. No argument rooted in this fallacy can be considered correct.). Rational evidence! The same caliber that would convince YOU to believe in Santa Claus or Zeus or an orbiting tea-pot etc. All of these entities including your god share the exact same degree of rational justification(and no, popularity does not trump this).

Let me try to illustrate this for you by contrasting a claim which I am positive you do not believe is true with your own claims of God's existence:

Santa Claus - The claim is(was) that a magical man piloting a flying sleigh once per year delivers presents to all the children of the world(and sometimes adults) in a single night by forcing himself(via magic?) down chimneys etc.

Evidence - Millions of children believe this claim and were told it was true by their parents and others in their societies.

And...

God - A magical entity credited with pretty much everything except 'evil' who listens to and sometimes grants prayers("wishes directed at a supernatural entity" according to Einstein), whose only distinct and agreed upon attributes are omnipotence, omniscience and omni-benevolence.

Evidence - Fallacious arguments, popularity and longevity of beliefs/claims and ignorance or misunderstandings of natural explanations.


Now as for what evidence I would consider credible, yes...I am taking a rather scientific angle here because the claim is a SCIENTIFIC CLAIM! Any claim about the objective reality we share, falls under the jurisdiction of science to examine, confirm and/or expose as not likely or impossible. You do not seem to understand my point above and you keep repeating the same error. That you are able to rationalize ways for things to seem "borne out" for you is irrelevant to this whole matter. Morals, I will admit are completely subjective and this makes it difficult to debate the subject but my point here is that if you employ circular reasoning and presupposition then you are already on the opposite path from finding truth. Not at all. But I think employing the 'translation defense' to excuse blatantly inconsistent or morally wrong ideas is just plain wonky. Like I said the same tactic can be and is employed in defense of every claim or belief imaginable.

Will get back to this later....

[me] no it's not - it's an honest explanation of my position. You, of course, must take everything I say in that context. [/me]

False and this is easily proven so. You are trying to put forth rational justification for your positions here
you again misunderstand my words - I was admitting to a lack of total objectivity following a statement that you made that I wasn't objective (I was being honest, not dishonest as you claim). I wasn't saying "I don't need to be rational in this discussion" or "here's a good argument: I'm not objective"
I AM trying to counter your arguments with reason, yes. Just because you don't accept my arguments doesn't mean they're not valid. More below.

[me] I'm not saying that - in fact I've been making my case - I realise you don't accept my arguments but you don't put forward any source to support your own (re: how to interpret the Bible quotes, the original Hebrew, the situation at the time) [/me]

This is partially true but there is more to this than you let on. When it comes to very minor things which I barely expressed any concern over, which ultimately fall to subjective interpretations(with little room for objectivity) then I have expressed my concerns, agreed to disagree and so forth and moved on.
Yes but you also haven't backed up your major assertions about interpretation with an independent source (biased or otherwise).

You saying you HAVE made your case but claiming the problem is simply my (you imply arbitrary) 'dislike' of your answers...that is a bit shifty guy and I suspect you know this. If you are unable to make a rational case and you want to go with the 'rationality isn't everything/I have faith' type reasons(as you have repeatedly) then so be it, but be honest about it. My problems with your attempts at rationally justifying your points/claims is that for the most part you have been very irrational(in terms of "rules of inference", logical consistency etc.).
I strongly disagree - I haven't offered conclusive proof but my arguments have been rational. Your arguments have been rational too but I think you confuse 'inconclusive evidence' with 'no evidence'.
I've only been asserting that your arguments against the existence of God and the translations of the Bible are based in fallacy. Not that the existence of God and my interpretations are unquestionable fact. (My belief is that they are but that's not what this discussion is about)

[me]Let me give you an example: In Chinese they ask "Did you eat rice?" but they mean "Did you eat a meal?" - if a holy book had written in Chinese: "And you shall eat rice and be grateful" - you would argue that it says "rice" and therefore is commanding people to eat rice and be grateful for it but anyone with any background knowledge could tell you that the real meaning was "be grateful for your food" [/me]

Straw man.
see what you do? You take an analogy about the need to know the culture before interpreting the language and you turn it to "I never said anything about rice" or "I never said you don't need to look at the culture" but you even repeat this mistake later.
The above is not a position I have held or expressed but you are setting it up and knocking it down as if it WERE my position. Also I do not think "rice" is a Chinese word so I would, in the above instance, look up whatever word was used and it's exact meaning
'rice' is the English word, "饭" ('fan' is the pinyin romanisation, in case you/your computer can't read Chinese) is the Chinese word. It's exact meaning is 'rice'. However it is also used with other words to mean 'meal'. But this is what I meant - the word means 'rice' but in the context I mentioned it means something else.

The problem with the ancient Hebrew is that we have a lot of modern believers in some form of the god Yahweh(including Christians) who are very selective and sometimes even dishonest about how they 'interpret' the writings in the OT.
That's not a problem if you look at it objectively. You need to look into the culture of those people at that time and look at the rest of their writings and see how these words are used. I provided one explanation, quite rational, as to how the words you're interpreting as 'rape' etc are used. You haven't provided an alternative source to show they mean what you say. You just say 'it's obvious and logical'

They want very much for God to be 'perfect' as he is described in the Bible and so they rationalize away anything that contradicts this using bizarre twists of logic and 'interpretation'
Or they explain it that way to people who only take the words literally in English.
Again - understand the context at least before using 'the Bible said ...'

(see the flat earth fiasco which I believe is found in Isaiah II and describes the earth as a flat disk-shaped object where the sky is "as a tent to dwell in" but Christians and some Jews try to posit re-interpretations that do not jive with actual Hebrew usages, for one example).
tent as in covering? Yep, that's the sky - outside is the wilderness of space. I haven't looked this up and I'm sure you wouldn't accept an explanation that isn't literal.
If you like you can try this:
http://www.geocentricity.com/astronomy_of_bible/flatearth/doesbibleteach.html
Just because it's put in terms that the people of the time could understand doesn't make it wrong. 'The 4 corners of the Earth' is commonly used in language (English so I'll accept a link explaining the Hebrew from you if you've got one) to mean the farthest reaches of the Earth. etc.

[me]If you can find a source to support your assertion that "take for yourselves" means 'rape' then please, let me see it. I can only argue what I know. [/me]

Here is a source: simple logic and understanding of language. The word "take" does not in this context mean anything other than taking captive wives.
In English? In Hebrew? "simple logic and understanding of language"? Saying that doesn't make it so. You have provided no source for your interpretation.

They are talking about WAR booty here.
which in your context means 'sex slaves'? I'm glad not all the people of the world think like that.
Moses does not say "Let the children go free" or "take care of those who are too young...". He says to KILL EVERY ONE EXCEPT THE VIRGIN GIRLS. Now honestly guy, why would men spare only these pre-sexual girls here? This makes perfect sense when you consider man's history and sexual drive and the social climate of the times but not as something a moral god(or his favored spokespersons) would endorse.
exactly - so your interpretation fits in with your view of those people but so does mine. So provide some evidence. You're the one who's fond of evidence ;)

AGAIN, no one has said otherwise. So what you are doing here is invoking a straw man.
again, I'm not.

As an aside, science IS entirely dependent on rationality/reason. It is the only methodology which can make this claim. So you are really waging an uphill battle here by attacking science as not being the totality of rationality(which it is not)
at least we agree on that.
while providing no alternative methodology to get at the truths you believe exist. What you are doing is akin to getting into a boxing ring, claiming that "violence is not the only way to win this title match"(which may even be true) but then providing no other explanation for how you can achieve such.
all I've been doing is explaining some misunderstandings in the Bible. You don't accept my explanations. Fair enough, I didn't really expect you to.


[me]I'll happily accept science and/or rational arguments. [/me]
So far you have not.
I haven't accepted your arguments - that's not the same thing ;)
I've argued against your 'logical conclusions' (it'd be a boring discussion otherwise LOL) because I believe they are flawed and based in the assumption that God doesn't exist and therefore your logic works. (I know, I know, you don't make assumptions, you're completely neutral and just require proof. Which is fine for not accepting my arguments that God exists but don't work the other way to show He doesn't)

You have resisted such repeatedly and I understand why: You are kind of caught between the devil and the deep blue sea here and you cannot even consider 'drowning' in the apparent fact that your god is imaginary and geography and culture are the reasons you believe in this particular god(and not, say Allah or Kim Jong Il). So you must turn to fight the 'devil' here but this particular devil(rationality/science/reason) cannot be bested by faith-based proclamations and 'feelings' and such.
LOL nice metaphor. I HAVE however considered that God doesn't exist. I reject that as there is no reason for me to give up my faith based on word-play or a lack of complete proof. The explanations about the Bible may seem convoluted to someone who has made up their mind about the words based on the English but that doesn't make them inherently wrong. They seem quite straight forward and at least plausible to me (and yes, I know I'm not objective :P )

[me]The problem is that the so-called rational arguments against God are "but He can't exist, it's not rational" or "look, literal interpretations" etc (but we've been down this road before too). [/me]

This is 100% dishonesty here and you know this.
actually, it's not. It's a generalisation.
I would not even bother discussing the matter if all I had were unqualified assertions as per your above straw man(the straw man is an error in reasoning by the way guy. No argument rooted in this fallacy can be considered correct.).
again you hide behind the straw man straw man argument but you don't provide the 'qualification' to your assertions that you say you have.


Let me try to illustrate this for you by contrasting a claim which I am positive you do not believe is true with your own claims of God's existence:

Santa Claus - The claim is(was) that a magical man piloting a flying sleigh once per year delivers presents to all the children of the world(and sometimes adults) in a single night by forcing himself(via magic?) down chimneys etc.

Evidence - Millions of children believe this claim and were told it was true by their parents and others in their societies.
until they found evidence to the contrary - either their parents told them or they caught their parents in the act or they pulled the fake beard on the guy at the school fair.

And...

God - A magical entity credited with pretty much everything except 'evil' who listens to and sometimes grants prayers("wishes directed at a supernatural entity" according to Einstein), whose only distinct and agreed upon attributes are omnipotence, omniscience and omni-benevolence.

Evidence - Fallacious arguments, popularity and longevity of beliefs/claims and ignorance or misunderstandings of natural explanations.
the fallaciousness of the arguments isn't proven at all. ignorance and misunderstanding of natural explanations doesn't preclude God. Nor does it prove Him.
I understand why you don't believe in God. You need proof. All I've been saying is that He is not irrational.


Now as for what evidence I would consider credible, yes...I am taking a rather scientific angle here because the claim is a SCIENTIFIC CLAIM! Any claim about the objective reality we share, falls under the jurisdiction of science to examine, confirm and/or expose as not likely or impossible.
Then you can look for your evidence or not, as you wish. I doubt you'll find it printed on an asteroid. And you won't find scientific mistakes in His creation (nor a bablefish).


You do not seem to understand my point above and you keep repeating the same error. That you are able to rationalize ways for things to seem "borne out" for you is irrelevant to this whole matter. Morals, I will admit are completely subjective and this makes it difficult to debate the subject but my point here is that if you employ circular reasoning and presupposition then you are already on the opposite path from finding truth.
I understand your point. But it doesn't make those explanations wrong - provide some alternative evidence?



[me] so you think it's a poor idea to look beyond English translations with no knowledge of the culture that wrote it down? [/me]
Not at all. But I think employing the 'translation defense' to excuse blatantly inconsistent or morally wrong ideas is just plain wonky. Like I said the same tactic can be and is employed in defense of every claim or belief imaginable.
but they're only morally wrong if you translate it wrongly in the first place and that's my point.
You can't say "it's obviously wrong, therefore I needn't consider the context" just because some others have used context to justify immorality before.

Ok, we're going round in circles now. I think this is a good time to agree to disagree.
I thank you for the discussion but I'm going to bow out. (if I can help myself LOL)

I have to get at the reply later but for the love of freaking Dianna Ross guy, can you PLEASE look up the term "logical fallacies"(Google should bring up a thousand pages with detailed explanations). Also take note that the following are STRAW MEN against me:

1)'You just don't believe in God because you don't have 100% PROOF!'(paraphrased) - Not a position I hold and uses a loaded term("proof") to mis-characterize me. I would easily settle for actual evidence that could be scrutinized and followed rules of inference or a sound argument that followed from premise to conclusion.

2)")I doubt you'll find it printed on an asteroid. And you won't find scientific mistakes in His creation (nor a bablefish)." - The above applies to your "printed on an asteroid" comment and the "You won't find scientific mistakes..." comment is both a sort of unqualified assertion fallacy and an irrelevant conclusion fallacy. Not too mention it is completely vague and arbitrary...
Irony points for the Doug Adams reference though...;)


Lots to get to when I get a minute but will be back later.

EDIT: Also, you keep using this word "assumption"/"assumed"...I do not think it means what you think it means.

Tony

I'd settle for an actual, testable hypothesis. Every time they accidentally give us one and it turns out to test false we get some hand waving about god being behind the next mountain... until at this point he possibly exists in some dimension somewhere outside of our space and time, and does this stuff, instead of that stuff... whatever.

I still maintain that science is of no use in disproving god, though. It can only really prove that there is no need for god for the physical universe to keep doing its thing. Philosophy seems to be much more suited for enabling us to toss the whole concept of a deity.

LMAO yes, I know what the term means, thank you.
If you'd like more info on it then try this link:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx
it gives an overview of the most common ones.
You might want to check if the parts about "Argument from Personal Incredulity" , "Reductio ad absurdum" (Bigfoot and teapots) , "The Fallacy Fallacy" , and a reverse look at "Genetic Fallacy" don't apply to your own reasoning at times.
Also "Straw Man" - calling something a straw-man so you don't need to argue it is NOT a logical conclusion - in a debate you need to show HOW it is a straw-man. My argument of the Chinese translation was an analogy, NOT a false analogy (you just have to get the point of it rather than expanding it to include what it didn't).

1)'You just don't believe in God because you don't have 100% PROOF!'(paraphrased) - Not a position I hold and uses a loaded term("proof") to mis-characterize me. I would easily settle for actual evidence that could be scrutinized and followed rules of inference or a sound argument that followed from premise to conclusion.
but whenever such evidence is presented you simply 'don't find it very convincing'
edit, which is fine but you need to say why - you quote 'logic and understanding' as your reason - might be better to explain it a bit more.

2)")I doubt you'll find it printed on an asteroid. And you won't find scientific mistakes in His creation (nor a bablefish)." - The above applies to your "printed on an asteroid" comment and the "You won't find scientific mistakes..." comment is both a sort of unqualified assertion fallacy and an irrelevant conclusion fallacy. Not too mention it is completely vague and arbitrary...
Irony points for the Doug Adams reference though...;)
:)
but that wasn't really an argument again, just an exaggerated and silly way to express that you're not going to find 'scientific evidence' of God because science only studies the way the universe works and yes, it works. But I've gone over this before (or perhaps it was the other thread) - having a scientific explanation doesn't preclude "God does it" (and I know that's not evidence for but it's wrong to conclude evidence against).

EDIT: Also, you keep using this word "assumption"/"assumed"...I do not think it means what you think it means.
you keep assuming I don't know what stuff means (LOL) (I know that was more a suspicion than an assumption).

But like I said, I'm bowing out unless there's something new to argue.

That is not an example of "Reductio ad absurdum". You are presuming that Bigfoot and teapots and such are by default somehow more absurd than God. They are not and analogies using these existential claims(potential or actual claims both) are perfectly valid to illustrate the flaws in your own claims. Also I have no idea why you think the Argument from personal incredulity applies to me here?! I think you tried to support the idea that you knew about and understood these fallacies via a quick Google search, copy and paste here. ?! ROTFLMAO! Oh the irony! You commit the straw man right here to excuse your use of the straw man! LOL! Done! Several times over now. It WAS a false analogy for the reasons I detailed before. Saying "nuh uh. Was not!" does not change this. False. You cannot just put forth irrational nonsense and call it "evidence" and then go after me for debunking it and claim I am just ignoring the evidence. So far you have not given any rational justification for your claims that passed skeptical scrutiny and I go into a lot of detail explaining why your attempts fail.. ?!
Ok...I think you are basically trying to say that just because we can use science to understand how the universe works and thus far have found nothing to infer God does not mean God does not exist? Do I have that right basically?
Because that would be kind of correct for the most part but here is the problem(s):

1) If there is nothing to infer God's existence then we have no reason to say such a thing exists in the first place.

2) Positing "God" without regard for rules of inference is violating Ockam's Razor by adding Rube Goildberg -caliber complications for no good reason.

3) MOST gods, and especially the Judeo-Christian(and also the Islamic) "God" CAN be and HAVE BEEN proven impossible over and over again. I have done so in this thread IIRC and so far these 'proofs' of God's impossibility have only been answered by arguments from personal incredulity, lack of understanding of the paradoxes involved and falling back on 'faith' or threats of damnation.

Missed this before I think. This is true but very irrelevant. Science itself is, very often(most often?)not in the 'disproving' business. The exception being when someone posits a scientific claim that is clearly defined with grounds for falsification. Then of course one can use science to falsify such if it is indeed false. Science cannot be used to prove magical pixies do not exist, Santa Claus, etc. That is a task for logic/critical thinking and the only things which can be disproven via logic are those things which violate the Law of Non-contradiction(i.e. Square shaped circles, an omniscient yet free willed God, etc.).

But this does not mean that all things which cannot be outright disproven are still possible and even if some ARE still possible, probability is the important thing to consider. Things which we cannot concurrently observe and which do not seem to effect physical reality in any measurable way cannot be asserted to exist in the first place and no one has burden to disprove them in order to say 'Not true'.