on the problem of sanctimonious attitudes expressed by...

Post Reply New Topic

I did what is acceptable when facing a loaded question. You still have not shown any historical evidence that God's command lead to the killing of Canaanite children, given the places attacked, this is unlikely. The question then compares two time periods ancient Israel and the modern west. If the question were asked about killing in the same time period, most children in the region who were killed for their 'defective' natures were simply left outside to die, sacrificed to their Gods or in ancient Egypt left on manure heaps (though in this latter case, the religious in the society rescued them). Interestingly infanticide only became formally illegal in the Mediterranean after the Christianization of the Roman Empire. So I reject the question.

Didn't God order them to wipe them all out (including children and women) in the Bible?

Is God commanding Achan's kids to be stoned to death also not so?

By the way, this isn't about what historical evidence says, but about what you believe the Bible says.

Not me, I actually believe in no God. Not a god in the "conscious omnipotent omniprescient sentience" sense. A positive belief, not a negation of belief. Not believing in anything is agnosticism.

As a staunch and unyielding atheist, I think religion is neat. I am jealous of the faithful. I also like to have conversations with people that disagree with me, but I dislike arguments where people try to cram their beliefs (including atheism) down other people's throats.

I feel like it's never ok to say "no, you are wrong and insane for what you believe, _______ IS THE ONLY TRUTH." A nicer way to say the same thing is "I've considered that, but that explanation wasn't enough for me. What really made sense to me was ______." Kind of like saying "I'm not into that band" instead of "that band sucks."

As soon as you tell someone that what they believe sucks, the conversation is over and you have degenerated into playground name calling. AKA bullying. How many people here, atheists and deists alike, complain about being bullied on the playground as a kid, only to bully others by browbeating each other, trying to "win" "arguments?"

"atheists suck because..." and "deists suck because..." isn't a discussion at all. It's an exercise in futility blown into a semipro trolling sport. A scathing, cleverly turned phrase isn't going to convince anyone to start beliving or stop believing anything.

People have told me I should move to the Deep South USA because of the way I feel about discussions. The Southern Hospitality thing, where people want to hear what other people think/feel, and are open about the way they think/feel. And are actually courteous about it.

I'd like to point out that quoting passages of scripture as proof to an atheist is as futile as trying to disprove faith with rationality. Come now, people, that's just disrepsectful. Tease each other a little bit, sure, but be friendly about it.

My best friend is a Christian of the Stiger Church. She's amazing. Lives her life like Jesus, in a state of voluntary poverty, so she can be closer to and relate better to the needy in her volunteer work. How could I hate religion when it can inspire people to do amazing things like that? We talk religion a lot, and it's mutually enriching. She's never tried to convert me, and I've never tried to shake her faith.

ps, hey 91...I'm an atheist who isn't impressed with either "history," or "progress." I grew up atheist, and have never been capable of Deist faith. I've tried. Doesn't work for me. :D

I part ways with Dr. Craig on this and instead support the position put forward by Paul Copan and Matt Flannagan, that the language in the text is reflective of historical hyperbole. It is a position which the historical record supports. That the Israelite forces slowly pushed the Canaanites out of Palestine. The separation of the two cultures is not as stark as Dr. Craig would have us believe. The Israelites themselves were involved in human sacrifice at some points and many of them worshiped Canaanite Gods; on the converse side, many Canaanite became faithful followers of Yahweh. What one draws from the narrative is the extreme determination of the faithful Israelites to follow a very different path, one that did not allow for child sacrifice, the Israelites triumphed in this struggle. The passages which talk of the absolute destruction, as Paul Copan points out, were not civilian centers and the Canaanites were not wiped out in an act of Biblical Sanctioned Genocide as Richard Dawkins contends.

If you are familiar with my posts, you will know that I am not a biblical literalist, in fact I don't think that view is particularly useful. I do hold that scripture is divinely inspired and that it is remarkably, though not perfectly, accurate as a historical account. I personally think that the discussion over literal, inspired etc is mostly an internal issue.