gdp's Comments

Conversational Atheist : God: The Abusive Boyfriend

Mon, 6 Feb 2017 18:43:00 +0000

I said possibly psychotic.

Conversational Atheist : Jesus: Unacceptable Sacrifice

Mon, 6 Feb 2017 18:41:57 +0000

After you die do you expect to go to figurative heaven?

Conversational Atheist : Tough Questions: "Can God do evil?"

Mon, 6 Feb 2017 18:41:01 +0000

What is your position on abortion? Unreservedly in support for the same reasons you've listed above, right?

Conversational Atheist : Bible: Slavery

Tue, 2 Oct 2012 12:04:22 +0000

Yes.

Conversational Atheist : Bible: Slavery

Tue, 2 Oct 2012 12:03:59 +0000

"All this to come to his point, that Paul didn't address/come against slavery simply because he feared for his life if he did. By coming against something so culturally accepted would have put his life in danger." I'll copy and paste part of what I said to Dave Marriott below: This type of response is always astounding to me. I mean, simply astounding. This is the kind of response an atheist would give for why an atheist would or would not do something. Basically, it's a practicality argument -- which makes complete sense if you are humans, operating in a world of human constraints, against other humans, and without any sort of divine guidance, encouragement or support. This, however, is NOT the situation that these people are in, according to Christianity. You can only seriously make and defend a practicality argument, if you suppose or assume that God does not exist/has no influence.

Conversational Atheist : Bible: Slavery

Tue, 2 Oct 2012 12:01:34 +0000

You raise a lot of interesting points. Because I'm short on time tonight, I want to focus on two of your points. "It's easy to define to allow all your readers to think that the God of the Bible gives instruction on American slavery -- and then quote verses that pertain to Roman slavery (or OT slavery). This is unfair and misleading." Ok, let's say I accept your charge. Then what does the Bible say about this kind of *worse* slavery? At best it's silent, and we have to find our morals in a different way than a closer reading of the Bible. "While I'm at it, here are some reasons that Paul and other NT authors did not begin a radical slave-uprising..." This type of response is always astounding to me. I mean, simply astounding. This is the kind of response an atheist would give for why an atheist would or would not do something. Basically, it's a practicality argument -- which makes complete sense if you are humans, operating in a world of human constraints, against other humans, and without any sort of divine guidance, encouragement or support. This, however, is NOT the situation that these people are in, according to Christianity. You can only seriously make and defend a practicality argument, if you suppose or assume that God does not exist/has no influence.

Conversational Atheist : Strategies for dealing with crazies

Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:39:43 +0000

Thanks for continuing this conversation! How do you envisage this sort of thing to "not work"? You must be saying that there won't be a time (in the near future) where protests that end in deaths will not occur on the news that a page of the Quran was destroyed, right? But how would that work if every single day another page at least was destroyed? Imagine protests where people die happening in a country every day for months. At some point, there simply has to be a mitigating response -- either from the rest of the country saying "ok, enough!" or simply running out of protestors willing to risk their lives.

Conversational Atheist : Strategies for dealing with crazies

Mon, 17 Sep 2012 20:49:41 +0000

So you're saying on day 1 of the auto-defiler experiment, the entire world would engulf itself in a spasm of violence? I think it would drag on for at least a few months! The key thing is that however long a spasm of violence does drag on, to make it a certainty that this auto-defiling is going to continue.

Conversational Atheist : Strategies for dealing with crazies

Mon, 17 Sep 2012 20:47:06 +0000

I think it would be funny to have a protest against the Quran/Islam that's as mild as can possibly be -- have signs like, "The Quran is a mediocre book!" or "Mohammad had a few good ideas, a few bad ideas!"

Atheist Revolution : Public Executions for Those Who Criticize Islam

Mon, 17 Sep 2012 20:02:49 +0000

"I will admit that my gut reaction when I hear something like this is to suggest that we collectively increase our criticism of Islam." I think this is completely correct. These protests have been unsurprising to those of us who keep a watch on this kind of thing, but the violent protests in Sydney, for example, have caught a number of people surprised. People seem confused that even in first world nations far removed from the middle east, that Islam can have such an influence. I think we can use a bit of strategy as well by having a prescribed criticism/action in response to unacceptable behavior. I wrote up some ideas along these lines here: http://conversationalatheist.com/2012/09/strategi... Keep up the good work.

Conversational Atheist : Bible: Slavery

Tue, 5 Jul 2011 07:19:20 +0000

Thanks for stopping by, Hendrick! You've got the closest thing to a verse that says slavery is wrong. The NRSV quotes it as: 1 Corinthians 7:20-24 "Let each of you remain in the condition in which you were called. Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever. For whoever was called in the Lord as a slave is a freed person belonging to the Lord, just as whoever was free when called is a slave of Christ. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of human masters. In whatever condition you were called, brothers and sisters, there remain with God." Pauls says, twice in those 5 verses to remain in whatever condition you were called to Christ. If you're a slave, remain in that condition. Why? The one who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freed person belonging to the Lord. In God's eyes, that person is not a slave, but a freed person. Of course every freed person when called is Christ's slave... Two points. 1. This is clearly not a condemnation of slavery as an institution. If God wanted to make this clear, He's a worse communicator than the UN. 2. It seems to me that Paul is writing to not become slaves of human beings in the same sense that Jesus says you can't serve two masters. Sure, be a human slave -- but you are truly a master to God. Remember that, and you a free.

Conversational Atheist : Comments for Azeusism has caused every major atrocity in modern history!

Mon, 2 May 2011 16:08:34 +0000

Chill dude. I started the whole argument that you hate with "Find the flaw in the following argument:" You got it right!

Conversational Atheist : Comments for Who Would Die for a Lie?

Mon, 28 Feb 2011 06:58:43 +0000

A) The moral teaching? Is there a supernatural realm that can interact with us humans? If you answer yes, the full force of the possibility confronts you. If you answer no, you don't believe God has an influence on humanity. B) I'd agree that for natural explanations, "could be" would have varying degrees of believability informed by our everyday experience. We find a coin balanced on its edge -- it could be that I tried to flip it and it landed on it's side. Or, it could be that I balanced it to make a point. You don't have that luxury with supernatural explanations. How do you put even rough odds on one supernatural explanation over another? C) What? I'm granting you for the sake of argument that everyone you want to have been an eyewitness died proclaiming what they saw. I'm saying, one supernatural explanation is that all of them were possessed by trouble-making spirits. Why would people lie about it? They were possessed, and people who are possessed do and say things contrary to what you expect people to do. Dead simple explanation.

Conversational Atheist : Going from Is to Ought

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 23:45:23 +0000

I've spent some time considering your argument. He's not necessarily saying that we ought to be concerned about the well-being of all conscious creatures -- he's saying that that's what the study of morality concerns itself with. Also, you have an interesting Worst-Case Scenario where some creatures get pleasure from the absolute suffering of the remaining conscious creatures in the universe. I think Harris would split the difference with you and say, "Will you at least admit that the absolute worst suffering for all conscious creatures is bad and cannot be confused with good?" I think the rest of his argument plays out fine as long as you have a starting point that's unequivocally bad. Thanks for commenting, you gave me a lot to think about, sorry for taking to long to respond. I'm going to cross-post my comment.

Conversational Atheist : Comments for Mohammad: Sex with 9 year old

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 23:38:30 +0000

1. WaitingForArgument is not an atheist, he's asking why people didn't respond. He's on your side (from what can tell) and so the insults are misdirected. 2. There is an enormous temptation to think that theist and atheist views are held in the same way, with the same conviction, and for similar reasons. Please resist this temptation. No one has argued that what was technically legal from the laws of California and Delaware in the 1800's is the perfect example of how a person ought to live his life. If a person did argue for this, he's an idiot. I wrote before: "I condemn any modern system that encourages or even accepts 9 year old (or younger) girls being married to and having sex with 40+ year old men. You seem to think that this is allowed somehow in California -- if this is the case, then I condemn it unequivocally. I have no issue criticizing California, or any other system (including Islam, Sharia, etc.). " Islam does teach that they have a perfect model for acting morally -- which people should strive to aim toward -- the way that Mohammad lived his life. Now you come with an interesting argument -- this life which is supposed to be the perfect example of how to lead a moral life is so poorly documented that you can produce conflicting accounts how old the women he married were. Ok, I accept your argument, the Hadith is contradictory on apparently important moral questions concerning Mohammad's life. How does that possibly help the case for basing moral behavior on the collection of contradictory passages about Mohammad's life? You've made my argument stronger. Want to try again?

Conversational Atheist : Comments for Slavery in the Bible

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:25:11 +0000

You're right -- there is a verse that doesn't allow you to sell a free man into slavery. Lest you misconstrue Exodus 21:16 is somehow making a larger point against slavery itself, please note what's written in the same chapter 4 verses later: Exodus 21:20-21 (NRSV) When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property. I'm not sure what the point of the rest of your comment. Yes, some atheists use the Bible as some form of written proof (I prefer the word evidence) that religion is evil, and that it is fiction, written by men, and to point out its ironies (I prefer the word contradictions both internal and with modern moral sentiments). Also, yes, when people commit their life to following a terrible book full of falsehoods and dangerous writing, I will point these facts out in an attempt to both fix the believer and warn nonbelievers. The next two sentences have no connection that I can see with your previous comment. Do you think that it is wrong to argue against writing that you find offensive and wrong? (I'd hope not, because I think that's what you're trying to do in your comment). What is it that atheists do that makes you physically ill with shame? Any why?

Conversational Atheist : Homosex is immoral -- an atheist responds

Sat, 20 Nov 2010 02:42:19 +0000

Please quote the Bible verses that are against slavery.

Conversational Atheist : Homosex is immoral -- an atheist responds

Thu, 18 Nov 2010 22:55:14 +0000

3. "The 1 Timothy 6:1-5 passage ... is a directive of how to live a godly life under the yoke of slavery. Trying to argue against this would be extremely difficult." Almost as difficult as making the case the that the Bible condemns owning slaves as immoral. You know that Article 4 of the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights says, "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms." Looks like the Bible could take a few pointers from the UN on morality -- unless you don't think that owning people as slaves is immoral?

Conversational Atheist : Homosex is immoral -- an atheist responds

Thu, 18 Nov 2010 22:47:05 +0000

2. "The point is that any quote from the Bible that attempts to turn the bible against itself..." Ok good -- you'll note that this entry never once tries to do that. (If you think it does, please quote what you're talking about).

Conversational Atheist : Homosex is immoral -- an atheist responds

Thu, 18 Nov 2010 22:44:53 +0000

I'm going to separate these out into different comments: 1. The argument -- "if Christianity were true, contradiction X would obtain, therefore, Christianity is not true" -- is valid. The only possible arguments that would contradict this argument is if it concluded "Christianity is true." -- Which, none of my arguments do. Therefore, there is no contradiction. Concluding Christianity is false and arguing that Christianity gets specific questions wrong is perfectly coherent.