Agnapostate
Rookie
- Banned
- #41
"Killing in the name of God" is a red herring.
What relation has the comment to a "red herring"? As with the terms "strawman" and "ad hominem attack," that seems a term used in the most inaccurate contexts.
If you look at each and every instance where killing has been done in the name of God, you will find not only killing that goes against what Christianity teaches, but you will find a mortal man behind it with an agenda that also will not be in concert with the teaching of Christianity.
Actually, there's a greater scriptural basis for not only killing, but numerous other acts and behaviors now recognized as immoral than there is against such acts. The scriptural endorsement of slavery in the Old and New Testaments and perceived endorsement of ethnic/racial subjugation in the book of Genesis provided greater ammunition for the anti-abolitionists than the abolitionists, for example.
Fred Phelps is a perfect example. That man is as much a Christian as Adolf Hitler was. He uses the name to try and justify his sick, twisted beliefs. But detractors are QUICK to pick up on his claim to Christianity in an attempt to label all Christians as the same.
Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so far out of line from the founder of Protestantism's angry ranting against "the Jews and their lies." Phelps's beliefs are also not far out of line from scriptural justification for the killing of homosexuals, except that he hasn't actually killed anyone, as far as I know.
I always love this argument.
Prove what YOU believe is fact.
No, JB has one of his rare instances of accuracy here; he's correct that you bear the moral burden of proof because you're the one attempting to assert that existence of something rather than its nonexistence. For example, consider Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy.
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
You're not both equivalently guilty of usage of the argumentum ad ignorantiam; it's you who has appealed to ignorance by demanding proof of God's nonexistence instead of offering proof of his existence when the burden of proof is on those who would assert the existence of an unseen object or entity.
So let's apply some logic here. Life, and consequently Man was created by happenstance. Just teh exact mixture of air, water and minerals came together at exactly the perfect time to create life on Earth; which , just happens to be a planet perfectly situated in the galaxy to support life as we know it.
That is neither logical, nor is it mathematically even close to likely.
It's indeed statistically improbable, but if were to occur, how would you know that it had? Would there be large signs or banners announcing that the statistical improbability had in fact come to fruition? What element of Earth would be different had this statistically improbable event indeed become reality?
Where science attempts to encroach on religion, it fails miserably.
Actually, there are numerous falsifiable elements of religion, contrary to the typical assertion that they "cannot touch each other." For example, some of the standard fare against theism consists of this:
The Paradox of Omnipotence
1. Either God can create a stone that he cannot lift, or he cannot create a stone that he cannot lift.
2. If God can create a stone that he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent.
3. If God cannot create a stone that he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent.
4. Therefore, God is not omnipotent.
A Perfect Creator Cannot Exist
1. If God exists, then he is perfect.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect.
4. But the universe is not perfect.
5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe.
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist.
The Problem of Evil
1. If God exists, then the attributes of God are consistent with the attributes of evil.
2. The attributes of God are not consistent with the existence of evil.
3. Therefore, God does not and cannot exist.