Dawkins vs Pell

Originally posted by JS357

I think its self evident, but that's just me, so let me spell it out, what is there to debate with an unbeliever?

It's not self evident, but it IS evident. And the converse -- what is there to debate with a believer? But that only leads to the question, why is there so much "debate" in spite of the evidence against its efficacy?

Maybe it' ...[text shortened]... debate, is not being debated. [Edit: if debate is the right format to use, to begin with.]

In your opinion, what is the "crux of the issue"? What is there to debate that is not being debated?

Originally posted by sonhouse
I posted two but that's beside the point. Tell me exactly why it is a hypothetical scenario about women being worth 35 sheckels and men 50 or kill your children if they diss you? Why is that hypothetical when it is in the bible, yet you take it as real that men only can be leaders therefore putting women by definition on a lesser plane. Tell me how that is real and the two issues I mentioned are hypothetical?

lol, we dont deal in shekels anymore, but ill tell you what, i ll give you two camels and
thirteen goats and forty sheep for your Martin Guitar and ill throw in a Harp so you can
harp on about the change from the mosaic law to its annulment in 33 C.E. an event that
you seem blissfully unaware of, LOL, shekels, thats funny, real funny.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sure thing, i guess its a matter of personal taste. Isn't like your PM an openly
professed atheist, and a woman 😲, one of the few heads of state to declare her
atheism, a very dangerous combination I hasten to add 😛

That settles it. I'm moving to Australia. I'm so tired of all of my US politicians pretending to be religious to get votes here. 😞

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
lol, we dont deal in shekels anymore, but ill tell you what, i ll give you two camels and
thirteen goats and forty sheep for your Martin Guitar and ill throw in a Harp so you can
harp on about the change from the mosaic law to its annulment in 33 C.E. an event that
you seem blissfully unaware of, LOL, shekels, thats funny, real funny.

Martin guitars notwithstanding, why are you side stepping the issue? The issue is the bible clearly states a man is worth 50 shecks and a woman 35. It doesn't matter if it is in clams, rupies, lyra, baht, pennies, the fact is the bible states a woman is worth 70% of a man. And it also says to kill your children if they diss you. Why is it you don't follow those precepts, they are in the bible after all, and say it's immutable that men conveniently control women in your society based on biblical text. You clearly (not you personally, I mean JW) cherry pick which part of the bible you make immutable and which part of the bible is poo poo'd.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
In your opinion, what is the "crux of the issue"? What is there to debate that is not being debated?

After my initial post I edited it because I question the value of debate in this. I question it because I believe the crux of the issue is what the two sides have in common, not what they differ about. I don't think it will help for me to lay out what I think that is. But it has to do with making an ontology out of what is at most, an epistemology. I will lay it out briefly anyway.

Metaphysical naturalism on the one side, meaning, taking the methodology of science as the deliverer of truth.

Metaphysical supernaturalism on the other side (needing no explanation).

Naturally there are varying degrees of commitment and "fundamentalism" on the two sides, and some here are not taking sides to any degree. But the extremes tend to get the attention from each other on the forum, making extreme views seem to be the prevalent ones.

Also, both sides will deny that they have this in common. At least at the extremes, they will.

Neither side wants to understand how the others minds work. And they work similarly. At the extremes.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Martin guitars notwithstanding, why are you side stepping the issue? The issue is the bible clearly states a man is worth 50 shecks and a woman 35. It doesn't matter if it is in clams, rupies, lyra, baht, pennies, the fact is the bible states a woman is worth 70% of a man. And it also says to kill your children if they diss you. Why is it you don't follow t ...[text shortened]... ry pick which part of the bible you make immutable and which part of the bible is poo poo'd.

lol, crying about a difference of fifteen shekels, that's real bitter! So i am just on my
way up to the temple in Jerusalem, want me to offer up a couple of turtle doves on
your behalf?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Like FMF, you are entitled to think and voice your opinions, one thing is clear, following
the advice of secularists will lead to disaster, applying Biblical principles really is the
course of wisdom as the divorce rates demonstrate. I am not saying Jehovahs
witnesses are immune, but the fact is, your chances of a successful marraige are
enhanced a thousand fold through the application of said principles.

So we discriminate against women just to keep the divorce rates down, wonderful.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
That settles it. I'm moving to Australia. I'm so tired of all of my US politicians pretending to be religious to get votes here. 😞

Pretending? some of them are religious, are they not? Here in the UK, its not the
same, politics and the state are firmly divided, it mattered not to anyone what religious
afiliation the prime minister has, i don't think anyone gives it a second thought.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
So we discriminate against women just to keep the divorce rates down, wonderful.

discriminate is your term, not mine and no the divorce rates are kept low because of
the application of Biblical principles, not because of discrimination. How else are we to
account for the huge gulf between those applying Biblical principles and those not?
Hmmmm?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
discriminate is your term, not mine and no the divorce rates are kept low because of
the application of Biblical principles, not because of discrimination. How else are we to
account for the huge gulf between those applying Biblical principles and those not?
Hmmmm?

You still can't admit you cherry pick which biblical principles you follow and which ones you poo poo. And it seems ok for women to be only worth 70% of men in your world. If that isn't sexist I don't know the meaning of the term.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You still can't admit you cherry pick which biblical principles you follow and which ones you poo poo. And it seems ok for women to be only worth 70% of men in your world. If that isn't sexist I don't know the meaning of the term.

Mosaic Law has been annulled for two thousand years, learn the difference, but if that's
the best you have then its the best you have, no issues for me.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
discriminate is your term, not mine and no the divorce rates are kept low because of
the application of Biblical principles, not because of discrimination. How else are we to
account for the huge gulf between those applying Biblical principles and those not?
Hmmmm?

I would imagine that the perceived shame of divorce for Biblical principle appliers would be so great that they would rather live in misery for the rest of their lives just to save face.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Mosaic Law has been annulled for two thousand years, learn the difference, but if that's
the best you have then its the best you have, no issues for me.

Annulled for 2000 years. So why do you have an old testament then? It is not your god's word? Why don't you Paulists come right out and just throw it away, only use the NT?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Annulled for 2000 years. So why do you have an old testament then? It is not your god's word? Why don't you Paulists come right out and just throw it away, only use the NT?

What you seem to fail to realize is that the OT comes in handy when promoting some beliefs. When it gets in the way of others, then the claim of Mosaic Law being annulled is invoked. It's really quite simple. I'm surprised you struggle with such simple concepts.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Pretending? some of them are religious, are they not? Here in the UK, its not the
same, politics and the state are firmly divided, it mattered not to anyone what religious
afiliation the prime minister has, i don't think anyone gives it a second thought.

We're still weighed down with religious fundamentalists that deny the clear separation of church and state mandated by the 1st Amendment of our Constitution. 😞