ARTIFICIAL LIFE WARBLGARBLE!!!

Okay, Ive been trying to figure out what I can add to the OMFGTHEYMADEABACTERIAFROMSCRATCH hysteria. I cant come up with much more than ‘WARBLEGARBLE!!!!!!!’, but luckily, many others in the blagosphere didnt totally lose their heads and have some great posts up (leave links to your favorites in the comments, I missed some, I know).

I just think its funny that a week ago I was bitching about how this group didnt explain how they synthesized their artificial genes (a few hundred nucleotides for each HIV-1 gene), cause it is really hard to go from “DNA sequence on a computer” to “DNA sequence in real life”, and then Venters like “Yeah, we made a genome thats about a million base pairs. heh.”

… OMFGWARBLEGARBLE!!!!

But this finding has raised up some old emotions in me:

Craig Venter: Figured out a faster, better, universally accepted/applied sequencing method, left the human genome project because of King Collins. Vilified by jealous loser scientists and ‘science journalists’ alike, cause hes ‘mean’ or ‘arrogant’ or something, which means as much in science as his favorite brand of pop. Travels round the world (and round your body) sequencing everything he can get his hands on. Sequenced the first complete human genome. Figured out how to make artificial creatures that run on man-made DNA.

Francis Collins: The ‘Good Guy’ of the human genome project. A ‘rock star’ in science. Scientific accomplishments include finding some disease genes, and patenting them (didnt cure/treat them, nor have they been cured/treated 20 years later). Got appointed as head of the human genome project after James Watson is forced out for opposing patents. Keeps getting appointed to political positions. Makes stupid websites and writes stupid books.

Makes the ‘battle’ between Venter/Collins at the turn of the century kinda funny, now. There is no comparing these two men, certainly not as scientists, but people will have them paired up in their brains for decades.

Man. Craig Venter and the teams working for him are innovative, awesome mother fuckers. Thats all I got to say.

Comments

  1. #1 BeamStalk
    May 21, 2010

    Man. Craig Venter and the teams working for him are innovative, awesome mother fuckers. Thats all I got to say.

    That is all that needs to be said.

  2. #2 Rhology
    May 21, 2010

    Wow! An amazing feat of intelligent design.

    Say, ERV, why’d you leave that part out? You know, the part about how this demonstrates the power of design performed by intelligent agents in the process of creation of life. I wonder why that might be…

  3. #3 Jared
    May 21, 2010

    My response to Venter being an “asshole” and “mean” is the same as my response to someone claiming Mayr was an “asshole” and “rude” and “mean.”

    “You can be the most obnoxious and arrogant fuck you want to be when you’re right!”

  4. #4 Shane Killian
    May 21, 2010

    Venter FTW! The man is made of awesome.

  5. #5 Vene
    May 21, 2010

    Be as much of an asshole as you want if you can make a synthetic genome.

  6. #6 D. C. Sessions
    May 21, 2010

    We live in a world where Paris Hilton is a household name. It follows that celebrity is a virtue in its own right which trumps actual accomplishments so completely that the latter might as well never have happened.

  7. #7 Hansen
    May 21, 2010

    Isaac Newton was a mean asshole too. Nuff said.

  8. #8 gillt
    May 21, 2010

    Imagine if it was Venter rather than Collins who helmed NHGRI for the past decade.

  9. #9 Jerry Coyne
    May 21, 2010

    Besides, Venter has a yacht and Collins has bupkus. That makes Venter the TRUE rock star!

  10. #10 Doc Bill
    May 21, 2010

    I would have Venter’s baby and, hot damn, he’s just the guy to make that possible!

    Seriously, though, notice how one’s scientific output drops to zero once infected with creationism? Collins has become completely non-functional as a scientist while Venter is discovering new life, new civilizations and bolding going where no man has gone before!

  11. #11 TheSlat
    May 21, 2010

    Venter is my Hero. Sailing around the world sequencing genomes? making new life? my life is so depressing in comparison.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORTyaK3d4eA

  12. #12 Jesse
    May 21, 2010

    @2 Rhology

    YAAFM

    This is not in any way, shape or form evidence that some magical unicorn riding, rainbow shitting deity designed us.

  13. #13 John Marley
    May 21, 2010

    Say, ERV, why’d you leave that part out? You know, the part about how this demonstrates the power of design performed by intelligent agents in the process of creation of life. I wonder why that might be..

    I think Abbie left that part out because it’s a load of foetid dingo’s kidneys.

  14. #14 leonids11
    May 22, 2010

    @2 Rhology

    Congratulations! Thanks to the work of Venter’s team, you finally have some intelligent agents to worship who actually exist! As a polytheist who believes in “the power of design performed by intelligent agents,” how many deities do you now worship?

  15. #15 Rhology
    May 22, 2010

    Lots of scorn, no answers for the obvious.

    @14 leonids, I don’t worship “intelligent agents”, just FYI. Are you really that dense?

  16. #16 Jesse
    May 22, 2010

    You did get an answer. This is not in any way, shape or form evidence that 6000 years ago, some jealous deity who liked to turn people into salt and condoned rape designed us. Or are you an old earth creationist? In that case, it is not evidence that 4.5 billion years ago, some cranky-ass god designed us. Since it is not evidence of what you want it to be, ERV has no reason to talk about it, except maybe to point out that there is evidence that ID is not even close to science. ID is politics, period. It should be treated as such.

  17. #17 John Marley
    May 22, 2010

    Lots of scorn, no answers for the obvious.

    Okay, I’m gonna take a moment to feed the IDTroll.
    Your only question was:

    Say, ERV, why’d you leave that part out?

    My answer:

    because it’s a load of foetid dingo’s kidneys.

    covered that question completely.

    We all know you meant to use Venter’s accomplishment to support ID creationism. It doesn’t. You can’t make that logical leap. It doesn’t follow.

    When you can show us some evidence of what Godthe Designer did, and when (or that it even ever existed), we’ll consider your hypothesis.

    Until then, please STFU.

  18. #18 Rhology
    May 22, 2010

    Jesse @16 – I never said it was proof for any of those things. I love how you just jump to your own biases w/o listening. It’s not very intellectually honest.

    And if ID is not close to science, why is this a scientific discovery about the creation of sthg cool via intelligent design? Don’t be stubborn to the point of stupidity.

  19. #19 Rhology
    May 22, 2010

    (BTW, you have no evidence the Bible condones rape. You just made that up. And that’s not intellectually honest either.)

  20. #20 Tommykey
    May 22, 2010

    Of course we can be open minded to the possibility that our universe and everything in it came about from some intelligent designer (or designers). Though I consider myself an atheist, I know I cannot 100% rule out the possibility that some greater intelligence is behind all of this.

    However, even allowing for the possibility, I draw a different conclusion than our Christian friend.

  21. #21 Jesse
    May 22, 2010

    From your blog:

    “Our good friend ERV has comments on it, which are refined and coherent, true to form. Strangely, she leaves out the obvious, that the creation of this bacterial cell was due to ****INTELLIGENT DESIGN****. Gosh, I wonder why she might leave that out…”

    You are clearly trying to make people think that because scientists did it in a lab, God did it. What I’m saying here is that you are a fucking hypocrite.

    Furthermore, the Bible states that if I rape an unmarried Virgin, I have to pay her father 50 shackles of silver and then she will be my wife.

    NIV, Deuteronomy 22:28:
    28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. [c] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

    Judges 21 has an army going in, killing all men and women – except for the virgin women. They were to be taken for wives, whether they wanted it or not. Yes, that does lead to rape.

    Lets not forget that Lot offered his own daughters up for rape (Genesis 19):

    6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”

    P.S. Noah was a drunk.

  22. #22 Jon
    May 22, 2010

    ERV is discussing an instance where an intelligent agent designed and created something, and we have abundant evidence for this in the form of documentation. We also know the intelligent agent that performed te act, thus we can reject a naturalistic explanation for Venter’s cell.

    When Rho provides an identification for the designer or designers of life and cold hard evidence for their existence and their role in designing life, then I’m sure many a scientist will accep ID. Otherwise, Rho needs to stuff it with the false comparison.

  23. #23 mcmillan
    May 22, 2010

    Rhology – can you point to anything about this work that is connected to anything the ID people are put forward?

    Just because they synthesized a living organism doesn’t suggest this is anything like what happened to get life started on Earth. I doubt there’s many (if any) that would have argued against the idea that intelligent agents were incapable of design. It’s just that there’s no evidence that some intelligence has been tinkering with lifeforms before this.

  24. #24 Joe
    May 22, 2010

    Rho,

    This is why the Venter work has little to with ID and why there is no reason for ERV to make this connection.

    No one is disputing that an all powerful god could create whatever an all powerful god wanted to create, including “desinged” sequences of DNA. However, this tells us nothing about whether or not a given sequence of DNA was, in fact, created by this god. To determine if a given sequence of DNA was created by a god, we need to know the history of that sequence, have a mechanism for its creation and have a testable hypothesis that will allow us to determine if our hypothesis of a god-designer is false.

    What if a given sequence as not created by the god-designer? How can we tell?

    I believe that humans can now create the polio virus from scratch. So, if I was crossing the heath, and I came across a polio virus, how can I tell if it was created by humans or by natural processes? Saying that humans can create polio virus tells me nothing about the origins of the virus that I’ve just found on the heath.

  25. #25 Cain
    May 22, 2010

    Come on guys, Rho is just here because he’s worn out his erv hair doll and needs an Abbie fix.

    Trolls can live forever if you throw saltines at them once a month. Let this one die.

  26. #26 Rhology
    May 22, 2010

    Jesse @21,

    You are clearly trying to make people think that because scientists did it in a lab, God did it.

    Actually, you’re showing yourself to be a fool. What I said is what I meant. Period.

    Furthermore, the Bible states that if I rape an unmarried Virgin, I have to pay her father 50 shackles of silver and then she will be my wife.

    So…the Mosaic Law PUNISHES YOU for doing it, and you think the Mosaic Law says rape is OK? Um, whatever.

    Lets not forget that Lot offered his own daughters up for rape

    Are you so dense as not to know that a historical account can RECORD sthg w/o condoning it? Reading comprehension?

    Jon @22,
    When Rho provides an identification for the designer or designers of life and cold hard evidence for their existence and their role in designing life, then I’m sure many a scientist will accep ID.

    I can, but I’m not doing so here. My intent here is to remind you, like it or not, that this event was caused by ID. And in this case we know exactly who did it; their names are on the paper.

    mcmillan @23,
    Rhology – can you point to anything about this work that is connected to anything the ID people are put forward?

    Yes – look at the names on the paper. Their work was intelligently designed (and performed, and studied, etc).

    Just because they synthesized a living organism doesn’t suggest this is anything like what happened to get life started on Earth

    Fair enough, but now you’re backpedaling from the excitement ripple among the Darwinosphere. That’s not too intellectually honest of you.

    Joe @24,
    This is why the Venter work has little to with ID

    Actually, this work was intelligently designed. You know, b/c Venter is an intelligent agent. You guys are such biased haters, it’s amazing how far you’ll go.

    No one is disputing that an all powerful god could create

    What’s funnier is that THE DARWINISTS here are bringing that up. I’m not.

    So, if I was crossing the heath, and I came across a polio virus, how can I tell if it was created by humans or by natural processes?

    There might be some ways; I’d need more info. But I can tell you that there are two options:
    1) unguided unintelligent cause
    2) guided intelligent cause
    and the only one we’ve OBSERVED, the only one with which we have experience, is #2. #1 is just guesswork, thus begging the very question at hand.

  27. #27 Joe
    May 22, 2010

    “Actually, this work was intelligently designed. You know, b/c Venter is an intelligent agent. You guys are such biased haters, it’s amazing how far you’ll go.”

    Sorry, I should have been clearer. By “ID”, I meant “this is why the Venter work has little to with ID/creationistism as promoted by ID/creationists. Obviously, Venter’s work is intelligently desingned, but by “ID”, I was referring to the ID/creationism movement, and not just the fact that Venter is intelligent.

    I think it unlikely that you want ERV to say “intelligently designed” just say “intelligently designed”. If it’s not your wish for this work to somehow be tied to your belief in God as the creator of life on Earth, then what’s the point of your complaint?

    “What’s funnier is that THE DARWINISTS here are bringing (God) up. I’m not.”

    I’m confused. Do you have any other intelligent desingers in mind when we’re talking about creating all of the DNA sequences that we see on earth? These sequences clearly pre-date Venter, so we can’t attribute them to him or any other human. What does that leave?

    “There might be some ways; I’d need more info.”

    So, the answer is no, you can’t answer the question about the origin of the polio virus by looking what you found on the heath.

  28. #28 Jon
    May 22, 2010

    Rho,

    No one here is doubting or claiming that Venter et al did not intelligently engineer life, and if pointing that out is your sole purpose, then mission accomplished. Though we all already knew that.

    However, as I said before, unless you can both identify another designer of life and support your identification with objective evidence, then this paper says not a thing about the “theory” of intelligent design.

  29. #29 Jesse
    May 23, 2010

    @25 Rho,

    As I said, you are a fucking hypocrite.

    I can, but I’m not doing so here.

    “Oh, I could identify the designer, but I won’t.” You are full of shit and we all know it. Your idea of the designer is God. The very nature of ID is that it attracts people who are dishonest. If you advocate ID and you know what it is, you are being dishonest from the start. ID was designed that way. It is politics that was designed to get around the court system. In other words, it requires people to lie.

    You talk intellectual about dishonesty. We know a human designed this cell. Nobody is denying that. It is obvious, which makes you Capitan Obvious. The reason for you to bring this up is to imply that it always requires an intelligence for this sort of thing to exist. If that is not the point, then you have absolutely no point for bringing up ID, unless you want to show that humans can design complex things. But we already knew that too and it is obvious. At least I’m straightforward enough to tell you what I think and not hide it in polite language and smarmy insinuation.

    Oh, and I didn’t even come close to giving all the examples of when rape is OK in the Bible. When it is punished is when the woman is A) married or B) in property “you broke it, you bought it” sort of way. God encouraged the rape of all the women in Jerusalem in Zechariah 14:

    1 A day of the LORD is coming when your plunder will be divided among you.

    2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city.

    When Lot offered his daughters up to save strangers, it was consistent with the Old Testament theme that women were chattel.

  30. #30 JoeB
    May 23, 2010

    Rho, you missed one of Jesse’s examples in your reply

    Judges 21 has an army going in, killing all men and women – except for the virgin women. They were to be taken for wives, whether they wanted it or not. Yes, that does lead to rape.

    if you are going to condescendingly respond “reading comprehension”, you should probably read/address the whole post.

  31. #31 Der Bruno Stroszek
    May 23, 2010

    So…the Mosaic Law PUNISHES YOU for doing it, and you think the Mosaic Law says rape is OK? Um, whatever.

    That’s a punishment? Paying a token amount of money to the victim’s father and marrying the victim whether she likes it or not is an appropriate punishment for rape? What the fuck is wrong with you? I hope you’re not married, Rho, or you’ve got some explaining to do.

    Did the Church use this sort of thing as an advertisement in its early days? “Follow Yahweh and rape all you want for only fifty shackles!”

  32. #32 Rhology
    May 23, 2010

    The point I’ve made about ID here is distressingly simple. The only reason I can think of to strawman it so badly is b/c it makes you uncomfy. Give me a reason to think my actual argument is wrong; until then you’ve said nothing to hurt it.

    @30 Joe,
    Prove those women were raped. Don’t imagine, assume, or naked-assert it.

    @31 Der Bruno,
    The original assertion was that the rapist wasn’t punished. It was refuted, with ease. Now you move the goalposts and wonder about the propriety of the punishment. Please provide an objective moral standard by which we may judge punishments to be good/bad punishments for a given action. Make sure it’s OBJECTIVE, not “empathy” or “intuition” or “that’s what society thinks TODAY”. Kthx.

  33. #33 Rhology
    May 23, 2010

    @31 Der Bruno,
    Also, I forgot – prove that the punishment is a “token amount”. I’ll be interested to see you back up your assertion with some relevant bkgrd knowledge of the time period. No response from you will be taken as an admission that you pulled the biased and groundless accusation out of your anal orifice.

  34. #34 qetzal
    May 23, 2010

    I can tell you that there are two options:
    1) unguided unintelligent cause
    2) guided intelligent cause
    and the only one we’ve OBSERVED, the only one with which we have experience, is #2. #1 is just guesswork, thus begging the very question at hand.

    Fair enough. I guess for the moment that means we must assume that all life on earth was created by Homo sapiens. After all, that’s the only intelligent agent we’ve ever observed to do so.

  35. #35 Joe
    May 23, 2010

    What was your simple point about ID again? I lost track.

  36. #36 Tyler DiPietro
    May 23, 2010

    It’s so funny to watch you defend treating women as chattel just to squirm out of the fact that the Bible condones rape, Rhology.

  37. #37 Tyler DiPietro
    May 23, 2010

    BTW,

    “Prove those women were raped. Don’t imagine, assume, or naked-assert it.”

    What do you think virgin women being taken against their will are being taken for? A night of Bingo?

    It’s gonna be funny to watch you thrash and sink faster into this pit of quicksand.

  38. #38 Marishi
    May 23, 2010

    Jeremiah 13:22 And if thou say in thine heart, Wherefore come these things upon me? For the greatness of thine iniquity are thy skirts discovered, and thy heels made bare.

    So it is OK rape a woman of she has sinned. Rhology paying money as compensation for rape is simply converting an act of sexual violence into an act of commerce without any regard for the dignity of the woman who has suffered violence. Modern secular society regards rape as a punishable crime and not a civil matter. You shouldn’t try wasting your time defending the Bible – it is a nest of very vile prescriptions.

  39. #39 Jesse
    May 23, 2010

    Rho, you have not made any points about ID here. You came in and told us something that we already know because it is blazingly obvious. It is just as obvious as telling some guy walking down the street that he is alive. By doing so, you are advocating for ID. Tell me otherwise and I will not hesitate to label you a liar.

    ID is nothing but a nest of lies tailored for political purposes.

  40. #40 Tyler DiPietro
    May 23, 2010

    I gather that Rho is just one of those guys who has a very hard time dealing with uncertainty and gray areas. Venter and his team demonstrated a potential new technique for engineering life-forms, so that must demonstrate that all life is intelligently designed. Now the Bible is his source of morality, so it can’t contain a single morsel of immorality. The black and white nature of everything he argues is very telling.

  41. #41 Stephen Wells
    May 24, 2010

    Amusing that the ID-friendly Collins hasn’t achieved anything like this, while Venter and his team have taken a good look at natural mechanisms and worked out how to make them do it our way. I’m going to argue that the “design hypothesis” is actively bad for scientists; looking at things and deciding that a wizard did them by magic doesn’t lead to great mechanistic insights.

    I think Rhology’s claim, that being forced to marry your rapist constitutes their being punished for rape, puts him/her/it completely beyond the bounds of decent human discourse. Vile dehumanisation of women.

  42. #42 Der Bruno Stroszek
    May 24, 2010

    You know what I find funny about this? If we were talking about homosexuality, or abortion, or sex outside marriage, Rho would be the one insisting that moral standards were non-shifting and absolute, and we went objectively wrong the second we departed from the Biblical views on such things. But give a Christian a crime they secretly approve of and all of a sudden they start acting like the po-mo liberals of their worst nightmares: “Well, it could have been an appropriate punishment for the society back then! Women might have loved to marry their rapists back then! We can’t judge another time and culture by our standards!” Remember this the next time they’re talking about, say, Saudi Arabia.

    Apparently, the idea that a fine – any fine, of any amount – is a pissweak punishment for raping someone is just my corrupt godless morality shining through; a true Christian knows that rape is no big deal and we shouldn’t get so uptight about it. (I love Rho’s argument that it would be all fine if the punishment was a large sum of money. Yeah, that would make everything OK.)

    By any human standards, that’s an argument-loser. By Rho’s standards, yep, you’ve won the argument there, buddy. Well done. Can you stop thinking about my anus, though? I’d rather not know a rape enthusiast like you was obsessed with my arse. Get back to cornholing your friend Jesus, there’s a good chap.

  43. #43 Rhology
    May 24, 2010

    @36 & 37 & 40 Tyler,

    It’s so funny to watch you defend treating women as chattel

    And you can quote me doing that…where again?

    What do you think virgin women being taken against their will are being taken for? A night of Bingo?

    Unlike you apparently, I don’t project my own twisted ideas onto the text. I just let it speak for itself. Quote it proving your point or give it up.
    By this time, you would’ve quoted it substantiating your perverted projection, so I conclude you can’t do so. Thanks for sharing your unfounded opinion!

    Venter and his team demonstrated a potential new technique for engineering life-forms, so that must demonstrate that all life is intelligently designed.

    And there goes Tyler with yet another projection, of his own biases onto me. I didn’t say that here, Tyler. Maybe you didn’t read what I DID say. I’d commend the practice to you. You know, reading.

    @38 Marishi,
    So it is OK rape a woman of she has sinned.

    You have no idea what you’re talking about. Thanks for playing.

    @39 Jesse,
    Rho, you have not made any points about ID here. You came in and told us something that we already know because it is blazingly obvious

    Actually I made one point, and one only. In comment #2, I said Wow! An amazing feat of intelligent design. If you need help finding it, hit Control + F on your keyboard from this page and type “Rhology”, hit Next until you find it.

    @42 der Bruno,
    But give a Christian a crime they secretly approve of and all of a sudden they start acting like the po-mo liberals of their worst nightmares:

    It would appear you don’t know what you’re talking about either. Where have I made excuses or acted like morality is relativistic? Again, direct quotes will suffice.

    “Well, it could have been an appropriate punishment for the society back then!

    For you who are apparently unfamiliar with the concept of an internal critique, I’m taking your position for granted and then showing how YOU are being inconsistent in that challenge. Sorry your brain missed it. I’m reminding you that you’re being intolerant of a culture and time period that’s not your own, and challenging you to provide a moral standard by which we can judge good/bad objectively. As it is, you’re just expressing your own biases, but why should anyone else agree with you?

    And I note (surprise, surprise) that you’re back but you haven’t answered my challenge questions. Guess you can’t. Ta ta.

    Peace,
    Rhology

  44. #44 Jesse
    May 24, 2010

    (ERV – I forgot to enter my name and info on that last post – you don’t have to let it through. If you do, I apologize in advance for the double post.)

    Actually I made one point, and one only. In comment #2, I said Wow! An amazing feat of intelligent design. If you need help finding it, hit Control + F on your keyboard from this page and type “Rhology”, hit Next until you find it.

    No, I don’t. I already read that. Maybe you should hit control-f and so that you can find and read the rest of your post:

    Say, ERV, why’d you leave that part out? You know, the part about how this demonstrates the power of design performed by intelligent agents in the process of creation of life. I wonder why that might be…

    So, by ID, you obviously meant “intelligent agents.” That Craig Venter is an intelligent individual blazingly obvious. That Craig Venter and his crew did this is blazingly obvious. The only reason for you to bring this up is to advocate for ID. So, are you advocating for the entirety of ID, or are you treating it like you do the Bible and only acknowledge the parts that are convenient for you at the time? You know, doublethink.

  45. #45 Joe
    May 24, 2010

    And having done nothing but make the blindingly obvious point that intelligent people created a DNA sequence…Rho is gone.

  46. #46 Jason
    May 24, 2010

    There’s a huge bit to be thankful for that Venter and Lander split credit (why don’t you cite the first authors in both?).

    Because of that, Celera Genomics didn’t get to patent the sequence, keeping it open source for everyone, public and private entities alike.

    I, for one, think Lander is way cooler. But I’m way biased.

  47. #47 Der Bruno Stroszek
    May 24, 2010

    It would appear you don’t know what you’re talking about either. Where have I made excuses or acted like morality is relativistic? Again, direct quotes will suffice.

    Well, how about in the same fucking post as the above quote?

    I’m reminding you that you’re being intolerant of a culture and time period that’s not your own

    “Rape was totally good back then! Let’s not judge horrendously backwards morality by any sort of rigorous standards! Why won’t you show tolerance towards rapists, you big meanie?”

    You just don’t have a clue, do you?

  48. #48 Der Bruno Stroszek
    May 24, 2010

    As a last-ditch effort to hammer this incredibly obvious point into your fucking skull: imagine if a judge sentencing, say, a drug dealer responsible for the murders of several people said that he should go free, but he should pay fifty thousand pounds to the families of everyone he killed. Oh, and he should be given a supply of free drugs for life, too.

    Would you honestly think that was a fair punishment? Would you really be sat there thinking “Well, fifty grand is a lot of money – looks like justice has been done”? If you heard of this happening in another country, would you be trolling forums claiming we shouldn’t judge other cultures if their laws seem too lax by our standards?

    Or is this instance completely different, because it’s a crime that you’re not personally hard for and isn’t extensively justified in your favourite book of childrens’ stories?

  49. #49 Tyler DiPietro
    May 24, 2010

    “And you can quote me doing that…where again?”

    Oh, so you don’t think that selling a rape victim to the rape perpetrator is a moral thing to do. Glad you finally admit you disagree with the Bible, fuckhead.

    “Unlike you apparently, I don’t project my own twisted ideas onto the text.”

    Yeah, like I’m the one who thought of taking virgin women against their will. You deny the obvious fact that such women were victimized. You’re probably one of those guys who thinks a woman who dresses slutty deserves to be raped. Fuck you, asshole. I hope you get hit by a fucking bus you stupid fuck.

    “I didn’t say that here, Tyler.”

    Then what the fuck is your point? You came in here saying “OMG WHAT AN AMAZING FEAT OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN!!!!” What the fuck is that supposed to prove?

    Oh wait, you’re not here to actually argue for anything, you just want to annoy us all and fuel a long thread where you offer nothing but snideness. Fuck off and die, already.

  50. #50 Rhology
    May 24, 2010

    One thing that amuses me about y’all commenters is how little it takes to reduce you to profanity-spewing outrage robots.

    @46 & 47 Der Bruno,

    Give us a standard by which we can judge behavior good or bad. Don’t merely appeal to how YOU feel.

    @48 Tyler,

    Oh, so you don’t think that selling a rape victim to the rape perpetrator is a moral thing to do

    Oh, so you can’t quote me. Noted.

    Yeah, like I’m the one who thought of taking virgin women against their will.

    Prove. It. Was. Against. Their. Will.
    Evidence. Evidence.

    You’re probably one of those guys who thinks a woman who dresses slutty deserves to be raped. Fuck you, asshole. I hope you get hit by a fucking bus you stupid fuck.

    Oooh, may I quote you on that? Haha, so predictable.

    You came in here saying “OMG WHAT AN AMAZING FEAT OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN!!!!” What the fuck is that supposed to prove?

    That it was achieved (just like every single other feat that laboratory scientists achieve) via ID. That’s it.
    (And maybe a little tiny bit of me wanted to see you implode again like you’re doing now. Mission accomplished, BTW.)

  51. #51 Joe
    May 24, 2010

    (What the fuck is that supposed to prove?)

    “That it was achieved (just like every single other feat that laboratory scientists achieve) via ID.”

    The disingenous Rho strikes again. Or the honest but pointless Rho strikes again. I’m not sure which.

  52. #52 Tommykey
    May 24, 2010

    One thing that amuses me about y’all commenters is how little it takes to reduce you to profanity-spewing outrage robots.

    I’ve developed an immunity to it.

  53. #53 Jesse
    May 24, 2010

    One thing that amuses me about y’all commenters is how little it takes to reduce you to profanity-spewing outrage robots.

    Oh, profanity bothers you? You see, we can’t be sure with you. Are you making another completely pointless observation, or are you hinting that you don’t like it? You have proven yourself to self to be less than straight forward, so for now, I’m going to fucking assume that you don’t fucking like it.

    Given that you came here, made a dipshit non-point based on something that was fucking obvious, asked a moronic question where the answer is just as fucking obvious, started flinging around shit accusations of intellectual dishonesty when you’re the asshole who is completely intellectually dishonest, applied your fucked up intellectual dishonesty to your own fuck-fest-filled (rape, consensual and otherwise) holy book, and you have a tendency to whine about fowl language being thrown around, I’m going to say that you’re a sandy little cunt.

    Your question has been answered. But I expect that you’re going to go tell all of your little dick-sniffing friends that us stupid atheistic Darwinists couldn’t answer it. Your little pet Morton’s Daemon has overwhelmed any sign of intelligence that might have been present at your birth.

    Now, go DIAF.

  54. #54 Jesse
    May 24, 2010

    Prove. It. Was. Against. Their. Will.
    Evidence. Evidence.

    LOL, you are a dumb one, aren’t you.

    You do know that married people have sex, right? I’m asking because I’m not quite sure about you. You are talking about the forced marriage of over 400 girls when you count the ones from Shiloh and you are going to assume that none of them were raped. 400 of them just had their mothers, fathers, siblings, friends, etc… killed and were taken as chattel.

    It’s in the Bible, but it’s not good enough for you.

    Oh, and you completely ignored Zechariah 14.

    I also love your moral relativism. I hope you don’t go spouting crap about moral compasses to people.

  55. #55 Tyler DiPietro
    May 24, 2010

    “Prove. It. Was. Against. Their. Will.”

    So you honestly think that people taken away after a fucking war are asked for their consent? You are retarded.

    “Oh, so you can’t quote me. Noted.”

    The Bible says, you believe it, that settles it. Is that a fair statement?

    “That it was achieved (just like every single other feat that laboratory scientists achieve) via ID. That’s it.”

    Speaking of which, I’m still waiting for that definition of ID. I’m sorry to rack your tiny brain but it’s the only way to resolve questions like this.

    “(And maybe a little tiny bit of me wanted to see you implode again like you’re doing now. Mission accomplished, BTW.)”

    Don’t flatter yourself, Rho. Work put me in a shitty mood and you just happened to writing stupid comments when I got home.

  56. #56 Tyler DiPietro
    May 24, 2010

    BTW,

    “Oooh, may I quote you on that?”

    If that’s what melts your butter, sure.

    Rho is a hardcore faithhead, so he’ll cling to any possible deniability to avoid having to admit that something in the Bible is immoral, which in turn is in order to avoid admitting that the Bible is fallible.

    Rho wouldn’t give other war criminals this kind of benefit of the doubt, he’s not that stupid or inhuman. But because it’s in the Bible, all norms of human reason go out the window. This is obvious, textbook denialism. His whole worldview is at stake.

  57. #57 Der Bruno Stroszek
    May 25, 2010

    @46 & 47 Der Bruno,

    Give us a standard by which we can judge behavior good or bad. Don’t merely appeal to how YOU feel.

    It’s not what I feel, you miserable little turd, it’s what every morally conscious being whose head isn’t wedged up their arse feels.

    Look – women don’t like being raped. This is undeniable. It removes their freedom of choice and involves physical violence, therefore it is wrong. They dislike the men who raped them. Again, obvious to everyone with a brain. Therefore, it is an act of barbarism to force them to marry their rapists. Don’t give me shit about “respecting other cultures” – if another culture can’t accept that rape is a crime, it doesn’t deserve respect on this issue. I can’t believe I’m having to fucking spell this out, it’s like being asked what you thought of Hitler, or whether cancer is a good thing.

    I fully expect you to be back along soon with another batch of witless moral relativism. “Buh buh buh some people who’ve been murdered enjoy being murdered! How can we say that genocide is bad? Durr, you made a swears therefore my defence of rape is correct. Don’t be mean.”

  58. #58 Stephen Wells
    May 25, 2010

    Message from Rhology to other creationists: please retire argument “Scientists can’t make life in the lab, therefore God did it” and use argument “Scientists can make life in the lab, therefore God did it”.

  59. #59 Rhology
    May 25, 2010

    I get that most of you want to make this all about me and how awful I am and how worthy of hate-filled, intolerant profanity-laced playground invective. But I don’t really feel like messing with it, so keep going all you want.

    @54 Jesse,
    You do know that married people have sex, right

    So no evidence of forced sex. Noted. You’re just assuming it.
    I find it a bit mean-spirited of you to assume that these women would be so grudging as to withhold sex from a husband who is supposed to be treating them with respect and providing for them. So you assume the worst of EVERYONE in the equation. Except yourself, of course, b/c you are a spotless angel.

    you completely ignored Zechariah 14.

    Yes, b/c it has nothing to do with the spin put on it by the commenter who brought it up. Read it.

    I also love your moral relativism.

    I’m glad. Too bad you have no idea what that means.

    @55 Tyler,
    So you honestly think that people taken away after a fucking war are asked for their consent?

    No evidence. Again, noted. It’s just an assumption.

    “Oh, so you can’t quote me. Noted.”
    The Bible says, you believe it, that settles it. Is that a fair statement?

    Yes, the latter is a fair statement. Asserting that the Bible says that “selling a rape victim to the rape perpetrator is a moral thing to do” is simply false. I’ve asked you numerous times to prove rape occurred, and you respond over and over again with mere assumption. That’s called a fail.

    I’m still waiting for that definition of ID.

    Design from an intelligent agent. Not that hard.

    @57 Stephen Wells,
    please retire argument “Scientists can’t make life in the lab, therefore God did it” and use argument “Scientists can make life in the lab, therefore God did it”.

    I don’t use the former, just FYI. I’ve been saying the latter for a while now. Strangely, I never get responses to it. Interestingly, even the blogger on whose space we’re commenting (can’t name her b/c it makes my comment go to the spam filter) had no response. Interesting. Very interesting.

    Peace,
    Rhology

  60. #60 Cain
    May 25, 2010

    you call women that would withhold sex from the men that slaughtered their friends and families a month before…”so grudging”?

    Rho you’re an excellent Christian.

    A while ago erv(the blag) thought you were spam and automatically threw your comments in the trash. I think I know why now. It was a little smarter then the rest of us.

  61. #61 Joe
    May 25, 2010

    “Strangely, I never get responses to it.”

    More disingenous comments. You received several specific response to this argument.

  62. #62 Tommykey
    May 25, 2010

    Interestingly, even the blogger on whose space we’re commenting (can’t name her b/c it makes my comment go to the spam filter) had no response. Interesting. Very interesting.

    Maybe she’s just been too busy. Don’t want to be too hasty in making assumptions now! :-)

  63. #63 Kemanorel
    May 25, 2010

    I get that most of you want to make this all about me

    No. We would rather you go so we can have useful conversation.

    how awful I am and how worthy of hate-filled, intolerant profanity-laced playground invective. But I don’t really feel like messing with it, so keep going all you want.

    No hate. We just think your inane babbling is pompous, annoying, ignorant, stupid, and requires a twist in logic so severe that you could be the contortionist with Circus Olay.

    I’m glad. Too bad you have no idea what that means.

    Does not compute… I think if you had to give a definition of moral relativism, you’d have to look it up first.

    No evidence. Again, noted. It’s just an assumption.

    Asserting that the Bible says that “selling a rape victim to the rape perpetrator is a moral thing to do” is simply false. I’ve asked you numerous times to prove rape occurred, and you respond over and over again with mere assumption. That’s called a fail.

    Wow. You must have “Bible glasses” thicker than Professor Farnsworth’s.

    Something tells me it’d take you about 30 seconds to fall into Stockholm Syndrome in a similar situation. That’s the ONLY way you could possibly find a way rationalize that what’s being described here is all the women take to being wives without a fight and without being raped.

    You’re a subbie for BDSM acts, huh?

    I don’t use the former, just FYI.

    You shouldn’t be using EITHER of the statements. Neither of those is follows to a logical conclusion. The ONLY conclusion that can be properly drawn from the recent scientific advancement is that life does NOT need to have a deity.

    You can not imply ANYTHING about how life started based on this. Are you familiar with the robot phrase, “Does not compute?”

  64. #64 David
    May 25, 2010

    You have to understand. Rho is in denial.

    With respect to the question of rape, unless you have written testimony from the ancient victims of rape, Rho will claim that you can’t prove that rape occurred.

  65. #65 Tommykey
    May 25, 2010

    unless you have written testimony from the ancient victims of rape, Rho will claim that you can’t prove that rape occurred.

    In that case, I want a copy of Jesus’ birth certificate with “God” written in the space for Father and the OB/GYN’s exam report that Mary’s hymen was intact before the birth happened.

  66. #66 Paul (A.)
    May 25, 2010

    Rhology (responding to Tyler DiPietro):
    Yeah, like I’m the one who thought of taking virgin women against their will.
    Prove. It. Was. Against. Their. Will.
    Evidence. Evidence.

    Sorry, brother Rho, the burden is on YOU, not Tyler.

    Prove that the women consented.

    Where is your evidence?

  67. #67 Kemanorel
    May 25, 2010

    In that case, I want a copy of Jesus’ birth certificate with “God” written in the space for Father and the OB/GYN’s exam report that Mary’s hymen was intact before the birth happened.

    I’d also like to see sworn statements from the people he claimed to heal and from the people who claim to have witnessed his “miracles,” documentation of his actual execution, doctor verification he was actually dead, and doctor verification that he was alive three days later.

  68. #68 'Tis Himself
    May 25, 2010

    Let me see if I’ve got this straight. An army commits general genocide against another group of people, sparing only the female virgins. According to the apologist the virgins, whose male and non-virgin family, friends, and acquaintances have all been slaughtered, are willing to be sexual partners with the murderers of the genocide victims.

    To paraphrase Darth Vader: “The stupid is strong in this one.”

  69. #69 David
    May 25, 2010

    Tis Himself,

    Yes, that’s Rho’s argument. Unless you can produce a written statement from the victims to contradict this conclusion, his blind faith will remain intact.

  70. #70 hoary puccoon
    May 25, 2010

    This guy Rho is classic blame-the-victim. Rapists more often than not claim the sex was consensual. Like (true case of a friend of mine) “It was consensual. She should have known the gun I was holding to her head was only a .22!”

    Yeah, prove that when you had sex with the guy after he killed your father, mother, and all of your brothers including the five-year-old, that you didn’t really think it was just great.

    I’m not religious, but I respect the bible as a very early historical document. By trying to make it something it isn’t, true believers like Rho turn it into something obscene.

  71. #71 Tyler DiPietro
    May 25, 2010

    Rho, I’m just gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your just not capable of very deep thought. You can’t explain why you think this instance of “design by an intelligent agent” has any implications for ID as we understand it, which is the idea that some aspects of biology are too “complex” to arise through natural evolution. Either it’s that you aren’t making an argument because you know it will immediately be shot down, or you simply can’t. I’m going with the latter.

    Oh, and on the matter of rape and the Bible: at this point I’ve just realized that it’s pointless to argue with true believer.

  72. #72 Stephen Wells
    May 26, 2010

    Apparently Rho can read a Mosaic law which says “If a man rapes a virgin he has to pay her father some money and marry her”, and then write this, from his post 59: ‘Asserting that the Bible says that “selling a rape victim to the rape perpetrator is a moral thing to do” is simply false.’

    So, the Mosaic law is immoral and/or Rho can’t read and/or he’s just a fuckwit.

    Also, Rho’s definition of ID, “Design from an intelligent agent”, means that ID has no role in life’s origin and evolution on this planet, due to the absence of any intelligent agents to do it.

  73. #73 Jesse
    May 26, 2010

    I’m glad. Too bad you have no idea what that means.

    LOL, Read your own shit, you fucking dolt:

    I’m reminding you that you’re being intolerant of a culture and time period that’s not your own, and challenging you to provide a moral standard by which we can judge good/bad objectively.

    Prior to the comma is damn near the text book definition of moral relativism, and it came out of your ass. It’s not me who has no idea what it means.

  74. #74 Rhology
    May 26, 2010

    @60 Cain,
    you call women that would withhold sex from the men that slaughtered their friends and families a month before…”so grudging”?

    1) I again note the naked assumption that you know their state of mind. It’s not in the text, you know. For all you know, these virgins hated their parents like many teenagers do and wanted to get away. There, I just extrapolated without any particular justification for it! Now I’m like you!
    2) That’s their husband. He saved her from the consequences of sin carried out on her sinful society.

    @61 Joe,
    You received several specific response to this argument.

    Like where, other than people mocking me, and others saying “Yes, you’re right. So what?”?

    @64 & @69 David
    With respect to the question of rape, unless you have written testimony from the ancient victims of rape, Rho will claim that you can’t prove that rape occurred.

    I’m just asking for evidence, not naked assertions based on people’s opinions 1000s of yrs after the fact. One of my favorite things about this thread is all the atheists whining about the guy asking for evidence.

    Unless you can produce a written statement from the victims to contradict this conclusion, his blind faith will remain intact.

    Rivaled only by your blind faith that your naked assertions are true.

    @66 Paul & @68 ‘Tis Himself
    Where is your evidence?

    I’m like most atheists I know. They claim they haven’t seen enough evidence to believe in God. I didn’t think you’d mind that I just parrot them here – I haven’t seen any evidence. Show me the evidence.

    @70 hoary
    This guy Rho is classic blame-the-victim.

    Please quote me doing so.
    You can’t. Fail.

    true believers like Rho turn it into something obscene.

    Please provide an argument that rape is objectively bad. I’d like to know your objective standard for morality.
    If it’s self-referential along the lines of empathy or intuition, please demonstrate why anyone else should regard your intuition or empathy as normative or prescriptive for anyone else.

    @72 Stephen Wells,
    ‘Asserting that the Bible says that “selling a rape victim to the rape perpetrator is a moral thing to do” is simply false.’

    Ah, so to you, a judicial punishment is equivalent to “selling” the victim. Sorry, but DING DING! You’re an idiot! Congratulations!

    @73 Jesse,
    LOL, Read your own shit, you fucking dolt:

    I’m reminding you that you’re being intolerant of a culture and time period that’s not your own, and challenging you to provide a moral standard by which we can judge good/bad objectively.

    Prior to the comma is damn near the text book definition of moral relativism

    Sorry you’re unfamiliar with the concept of the internal critique. *I* don’t believe in moral relativism, which you’d know if you spent a modicum of time reading my own blog. But it’s apparently a lot to ask for some anon, profane troll to actually do a bit of research.
    Obviously, I am taking the fact that YOUR ATHEISTIC POSITIONS result in moral relativism, and then showing that you’re inconsistent with your own position. It’s an argument ad absurdum. Yes, I *KNOW* it’s textbook moral relativism – I’m aping YOU.
    One is left wondering on what basis atheists like you like to style yourselves the keepers of reason, when you can’t even follow a simple argument like this one. You do make me giggle, though, so that’s something at least.

    Peace,
    Rhology

  75. #75 Jesse
    May 26, 2010

    I’m reminding you that you’re being intolerant of a culture and time period that’s not your own, and challenging you to provide a moral standard by which we can judge good/bad objectively.

    You’re reminding me that I’m being intolerant of a time period and culture that is not my own? Who says that I need to be reminded? I’m intolerant of other cultures all the time and I know damn well that I am. You step in with the obvious yet again. Nice dodge though.

    What would you do if your daughter was raped and the guy who did it offered you 50 sheckels or the equivalent? Would you accept it, not report the rape to the authorities and make your daughter marry the guy? Or, just pretend that there are no authorities, would you make your daughter marry the guy? Seriously, would you do that, or would you maybe seek revenge? Trust me on this, since you believe that morality comes from the Bible and you believe that you aren’t a moral relativist, there is only one answer that does not make you a hypocrite there.

  76. #76 David
    May 26, 2010

    “I’m reminding you that you’re being intolerant of a culture and time period that’s not your own”.

    Everyone needs to remember that Rho is a cultural relativist. Wonder what he thinks of the Spanish conquest of the Incas. I don’t believe that we have any victim testimony there either, so…no atrocities were committed.

    When Rho rejects the obvious approval of forced sex in the OT, he says that he’s “parroting” those who want more evidence that Jesus is God. But he’s not parrotting. He really, really believes what he’s saying about rape and the OT.

    If you reject the claim that Jesus is God, then Rho will tell you that you are an idiot, illogical, ignorant of theology and any number of other creative insults. When Rho rejects the claim that the Bible provides evidence that the OT God approved forced sex, what is Rho?

  77. #77 Joe
    May 26, 2010

    “Like where, other than people mocking me, and others saying “Yes, you’re right. So what?”?”

    Actually, you received more than this to your claim that “scientists can make life in the lab, therefore God did it”. You received an explanation of why this claim is not valid.

  78. #78 Tommykey
    May 26, 2010

    Wow, this thread has really gone off on a tangent, from Craig Venter to rape or allegations thereof in the OT.

    Back to the original topic, sure we can call Venter and his team “intelligent designers” if that floats your boat. What separates them from the theistic concept of an intelligent designer is that Venter’s team had to work with materials that exist, mapping genomes of existing organisms and so forth.

    The “Cdesign proponentsists” crowd’s concept of a designer, at least as I understand it, is an entity that basically poofed things into existence that did not previously exist. Not just life, but the stars and the gases that comprise them, rocky planets, water, comets, gaseous planets, et cetera.

    One of the analogies I have heard creationists use, though not, to my knowledge, our friendly neighborhood Christian commenter here, is that if a painting requires a painter, then the existence of our universe requires that there be a creator.

    However, a painter can only paint what he or she knows or observes, such as a landscape, a portrait and so forth. Even abstract art has its basis in the artist trying to present some known entity or idea in a unique way.

    Considering what we know of the universe, if it was created by some enormously powerful intelligent being, where did it get its ideas from? We exist in a universe filled with billions of galaxies, each filled with billions of stars, and most likely, many billions of more planets. From our own observable solar system, there are incredible details such as volcanoes on Jupiter’s moon Io, rocky planets and moons with little or no atmosphere covered with craters showing evidence of tremendous impact events. There are rings around Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune that were not observed until our probes passed them by. A methane atmosphere on Saturn’s moon Titan. Did the creator make these things based on things that existed in the creator’s dwelling place, or are we supposed to believe that it made all this up out of its own thoughts? If it is the latter, that’s the difference between ID and Venter putting synthetic genes into dead cells.

  79. #79 Tommykey
    May 26, 2010

    Please provide an argument that rape is objectively bad. I’d like to know your objective standard for morality.
    If it’s self-referential along the lines of empathy or intuition, please demonstrate why anyone else should regard your intuition or empathy as normative or prescriptive for anyone else.

    You can apply what ever “objective” standard you want, there will always be individuals who will violate it.

    Say I believe God exists, Jesus was His Son and that God considers rape a sin. But maybe I still don’t care. I still want to rape, and if I go to hell when I die for being a rapist, so what? It didn’t stop me from not committing rape.

    The objective standard is the highest standard that one can conceivably attain. Nobody wants to be raped. Nobody wants anyone they care about to be raped. Non-rape is universally applicable, whereas rape is not, because not everyone can rape. The act of rape, to use your term, is an act of “personal preference”, whereas a recognition that no one should be raped is an acknowledgment that people have rights that exists regardless of one’s personal preferences. It can be either religiously or secularly based.

    If one baseball pitcher strikes out batters with a fast ball, while the other strikes them out using a slider, they’re both good pitchers. To arrogate to your religious beliefs the sole right to determine what is right or wrong is akin to saying that only pitchers who strike out batters with fast balls are good pitchers.

  80. #80 Rhology
    May 26, 2010

    @77 Joe,
    you received more than this to your claim that “scientists can make life in the lab, therefore God did it”. You received an explanation of why this claim is not valid.

    I made that claim? Where precisely? Please quote me, thanks.

    Yeah, you can’t quote me. You made that up.

  81. #81 Kemanorel
    May 26, 2010

    Yeah, you can’t quote me. You made that up.

    It isn’t a direct quote. I realize you’re logically challenged, but “scientists can make life in the lab, therefore God did it” is exactly what you implied at #26 when you said:

    So, if I was crossing the heath, and I came across a polio virus, how can I tell if it was created by humans or by natural processes?

    There might be some ways; I’d need more info. But I can tell you that there are two options:
    1) unguided unintelligent cause
    2) guided intelligent cause
    and the only one we’ve OBSERVED, the only one with which we have experience, is #2. #1 is just guesswork, thus begging the very question at hand.

    That’s exactly what you’re saying: life was created intelligently in a lab, therefore life originally came into existance via an intelligent designer.

    Three words: DOES NOT COMPUTE!

    The stuff before the comma: “life was created intelligently in a lab” does not imply the stuff after the comma: “therefore life originally came into existance via an intelligent designer.”

  82. #82 Joe
    May 26, 2010

    “Yeah, you can’t quote me. You made that up.”

    Wells: “Please retire argument “Scientists can’t make life in the lab, therefore God did it” and use argument “Scientists can make life in the lab, therefore God did it”.

    Rho: I don’t use the former, just FYI. I’ve been saying the latter for a while now. Strangely, I never get responses to it. Interestingly, even the blogger on whose space we’re commenting (can’t name her b/c it makes my comment go to the spam filter) had no response. Interesting. Very interesting.

    Repeat. “I’ve been saying the latter for a while now”. THE LATTER IS…”Scientists can make life in the lab, therefore God did it”.

  83. #83 Fortuna
    May 27, 2010

    Rhology;

    These comments weren’t directed at me, but what the hell.

    I find it a bit mean-spirited of you to assume that these women would be so grudging as to withhold sex from a husband who is supposed to be treating them with respect and providing for them.

    Is that an assumption on your part there, that they were treated with respect and were provided for? Can you quote the Bible to the effect that all the forcibly-married female captives were treated with respect and were provided for by their captor-husbands?

    So you honestly think that people taken away after a fucking war are asked for their consent?

    No evidence. Again, noted. It’s just an assumption.

    Well, yeah.

    Compare and contrast it to your un-stated (though implicit) assumption that every single woman taken as a war prisoner gave their consent to be married to their captors.

    Asserting that the Bible says that “selling a rape victim to the rape perpetrator is a moral thing to do” is simply false.

    Well, the Bible does say that a rapist should buy his victim from her father. The codes of conduct prescribed in the Bible are (or were) moral, according to you, are they not?

  84. #84 Jesse
    May 27, 2010

    @Rho 80, I noticed you failed to answer my question:

    What would you do if your daughter was raped and the guy who did it offered you 50 sheckels or the equivalent? Would you accept it, not report the rape to the authorities and make your daughter marry the guy? Or, just pretend that there are no authorities, would you make your daughter marry the guy? Seriously, would you do that, or would you maybe seek revenge? Trust me on this, since you believe that morality comes from the Bible and you believe that you aren’t a moral relativist, there is only one answer that does not make you a hypocrite there.

  85. #85 Jesse
    May 27, 2010

    Oh, and by the way, if you don’t like the conclusion I drew from Zechariah 14, you still have to account for who worked up a number 6 on Jerusalem. Because there was still some raping going on. According to the Bible. Which you say is truth. God condoned raping.

  86. #86 Rhology
    May 27, 2010

    @82 Joe,

    You know what? You’re right, you did quote me that time. Unfortunately, I’d misspoken that time. So, kudos for quoting me correctly. Demerits to everyone else for allegedly quoting me, yet never showing up with the goods when challenged.
    When I said, in response to: “Scientists can make life in the lab, therefore God did it”; this: “I’ve been saying the latter for a while now” was this, actually: Scientists can make life in the lab, therefore this furnishes more evidence for ID, whereas the opposite is often claimed by Darwinians.
    My apologies for the mistake.

    @83 Fortuna,
    Can you quote the Bible to the effect that all the forcibly-married female captives were treated with respect and were provided for by their captor-husbands?

    Yes – see the various portions of the Mosaic Law where women receive legal protection.

    Compare and contrast it to your un-stated (though implicit) assumption that every single woman taken as a war prisoner gave their consent to be married to their captors.

    The point is that we can’t know what they were thinking, and yet the entire argument from the other side is that they CAN AND DO know what those women were thinking. I’m simply asking for evidence. What’s so funny is that they all get mad when I demand evidence, and yet they’re so quick to demand evidence for things related to, say, evolution, and always (usually dishonestly) say “I follow the evidence”. Not this time, it would appear.

    the Bible does say that a rapist should buy his victim from her father.

    I’d appreciate a direct biblical citation so we can take a direct look at it.

    @84 Jesse,
    @Rho 80, I noticed you failed to answer my question:

    Yes, b/c it was worthless. What relevance to the question at hand has asking me what *I* would do? You’re tempting me to become like you, exercising anachronistic judgments. Sorry, that’s your job apparently.

    if you don’t like the conclusion I drew from Zechariah 14, you still have to account for who worked up a number 6 on Jerusalem.

    God condoning rape and God decreeing that rape occur and yet judging those who commit rape are 2 very different things. This is the part where you realise your deep and wide ignorance of biblical theology.

  87. #87 Jesse
    May 27, 2010

    Yes, b/c it was worthless. What relevance to the question at hand has asking me what *I* would do? You’re tempting me to become like you, exercising anachronistic judgments. Sorry, that’s your job apparently.

    It is not a worthless question. Your refusal to answer tells me that you would not follow Biblical law in such a case and you know that makes you a moral relativist.

  88. #88 Fortuna
    May 27, 2010

    Rhology;

    Can you quote the Bible to the effect that all the forcibly-married female captives were treated with respect and were provided for by their captor-husbands?

    Yes – see the various portions of the Mosaic Law where women receive legal protection.

    That’s a “no”, then. You’re simply assuming that the Israelites conducted themselves according to the Law wrt. their female captives. Unless, that is, you know of a passage in which the Bible explicitly spells out “all the captives were treated with the utmost respect and were fully provided for”, or the equivalent?

    The point is that we can’t know what they were thinking,

    Indeed. One wonders why you attempted to imply that they all consented to marriage, then.

    and yet the entire argument from the other side is that they CAN AND DO know what those women were thinking.

    You’re welcome to try to frame it that way, if you like. Personally, I don’t think anyone’s violated their epistemic duties in supposing that war prisoners might not be too enthused about being married to the members of an invading army that just got done killing damn near everyone.

    Remember, we’re comparing assumptions about the mindset of people whose thoughts are not directly attested to. The assumption you are advancing is bizarre, given what we know about how humans think.

    I’d appreciate a direct biblical citation so we can take a direct look at it.

    Deuteronomy 22:28-29

  89. #89 Fortuna
    May 27, 2010

    God condoning rape and God decreeing that rape occur and yet judging those who commit rape are 2 very different things.

    Oh? If God did not wish for rape to occur, and thus condone it, then why decree it?

  90. #90 Rhology
    May 27, 2010

    You’re simply assuming that the Israelites conducted themselves according to the Law wrt. their female captives.

    ???? The question has NEVER been “did rape sometimes occur?” It’s been “Did God say it was OK in the Bible?”
    Strange that you’d think that the notion of the existence of sin would disprove the Bible, when it’s kind of all about sin and the remedy.

    One wonders why you attempted to imply that they all consented to marriage, then.

    To show that YOU DON’T KNOW.

    I don’t think anyone’s violated their epistemic duties in supposing that war prisoners might not be too enthused

    And we’re all happy you feel that way. I guess I’m just interested in evidence.

    Deut 22:28-29 – 28“If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, 29then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.

    I already identified that not as a sale but as a punishment, a fine.

    If God did not wish for rape to occur, and thus condone it, then why decree it?

    B/c God seeks His own glory above all else and determined that the world would go this way. There are lots of reasons, but I’m not about to go into all that here. For your edification.

  91. #91 David
    May 27, 2010

    Some may find the following of interest.

    http://formerfundy.blogspot.com/2010/05/does-god-of-bible-condone-rape-part-two.html

    Pay particular attention to the translation of the Hebrew word “anah”. By the way, Rho’s term for captured virgins forced to have sex with their captives is “war bride”.

  92. #92 Fortuna
    May 27, 2010

    Rhology;

    ???? The question has NEVER been “did rape sometimes occur?” It’s been “Did God say it was OK in the Bible?”

    No, this was my question:

    Is that an assumption on your part there, that they were treated with respect and were provided for?

    One would almost think you were trying to move the goalposts. Nah, that can’t be it.

    One wonders why you attempted to imply that they all consented to marriage, then.

    To show that YOU DON’T KNOW.

    Well ALRIGHT THEN, Captain Capslock. I’m glad you admit to forwarding a specious argument just to take the piss, as it were.

    And we’re all happy you feel that way. I guess I’m just interested in evidence.

    Can you guess, from the part of my comment you declined to quote, what evidence I adduced in support of my feeling?

    I already identified that not as a sale but as a punishment, a fine.

    I know you did. That does nothing to change the plain meaning of the text; you break, you buy it. The “it” in this case being a person.

    This isn’t rocket surgery. Imagine you are female, living in Biblical times. You are raped; you rapist pays your father, and you are now his wife. Pretty sweet deal for a rapist willing to pay for the privilege of forcing matrimony upon his victim, which in this hypothetical case, is you.

    B/c God seeks His own glory above all else and determined that the world would go this way.

    Well, that’s just skippy. That doesn’t quite address the contradiction implicit in a perfect being condemning something it willed in the first place.

    There are lots of reasons, but I’m not about to go into all that here.

    As is your prerogative. Rather than make me claw my eyes out scouring that link for something relevant to my question, though, maybe you could point me to something more specific?

  93. #93 Rhology
    May 28, 2010

    @92 Fortuna,

    No, this was my question:
    Is that an assumption on your part there, that they were treated with respect and were provided for?
    One would almost think you were trying to move the goalposts.

    Oh, OK. Well, then, my answer is that I don’t assume it either way. It’s an irrelevant question in any case. I don’t see why I should scratch my head and wonder whether human beings sin or abuse righteous commands and situations – that’s clear and evident. What IS important is what God said to do.

    I’m glad you admit to forwarding a specious argument just to take the piss, as it were.

    Please provide an argument to the effect that it is specious to point out that someone making a positive assertion doesn’t actually know that the assertion is true. Thanks!

    That does nothing to change the plain meaning of the text; you break, you buy it. The “it” in this case being a person.

    Or you rape her, you are punished. Please provide an actual argument that this is a “sale” and not a judicial fine, given that this part of the Mosaic Law describes punishable actions and the prescribed punishments. You know, context and all that.

    Imagine you are female, living in Biblical times.

    I am neither female nor living in biblical times. I’m not going to play these fantasy games.

    Pretty sweet deal for a rapist willing to pay for the privilege of forcing matrimony upon his victim, which in this hypothetical case, is you.

    1) You seem to be implying this is a bad thing. Please provide an objective moral standard by which you can know what is good and bad.
    If you’re making no such implication, I simply agree with your non-implication: So what?
    2) Not a particularly sweet deal if he only wanted quick sexual release.
    3) I suppose you’d prefer she be left alone, and as it’d be known she wasn’t a virgin, she’d have a very hard time finding a husband. But you don’t care about that, now do you?
    4) The Mosaic Law gives her rights as the wife, and her husband can’t do her wrong w/o being further punished.
    5) I’d love to see your background knowledge to the effect that 50 shekels of silver is a “sweet deal”. Like handing over a fiver.

    That doesn’t quite address the contradiction implicit in a perfect being condemning something it willed in the first place.

    Please prove that God’s decreed plan is not, in fact, perfect. Make sure to specify what standard you’re using to judge between “perfect” and “imperfect”.

    maybe you could point me to something more specific?

    I did. Are you familiar with “hyperlinks“?

  94. #94 Fortuna
    May 28, 2010

    Rhology;

    Oh, OK. Well, then, my answer is that I don’t assume it either way. It’s an irrelevant question in any case. I don’t see why I should scratch my head and wonder whether human beings sin or abuse righteous commands and situations – that’s clear and evident. What IS important is what God said to do.

    Good for you. All I was driving at was your apparently ludicrous assumption that every single war captive consented to be married. This, coming in the context of remarks in which you castigated people for making far less bizarre assumptions. Go back and read what I actually wrote, if this is still unclear to you.

    Please provide an argument to the effect that it is specious to point out that someone making a positive assertion doesn’t actually know that the assertion is true. Thanks!

    Umm, no? That isn’t what I was saying. See above.

    Please provide an actual argument that this is a “sale”

    Rapist forks over money, gets permanent access to victim.

    I am neither female nor living in biblical times. I’m not going to play these fantasy games.

    I can see why you wouldn’t want to, since you’d be apt to be raped, have your family killed, etc.

    1) You seem to be implying this is a bad thing. Please provide an objective moral standard by which you can know what is good and bad.

    Does Christianity today take a dim view of rape? My impression is that it does, so let’s go with that.

    2) Not a particularly sweet deal if he only wanted quick sexual release.

    Granted. Not that this makes it any less the case that there would still be a standing invitation for rapists to pay in order to lock down their victims permanently.

    3) I suppose you’d prefer she be left alone, and as it’d be known she wasn’t a virgin, she’d have a very hard time finding a husband. But you don’t care about that, now do you?

    I’d prefer that women not be treated as chattel in the first place, nor valued primarily for their ability to provide a virgin hymen for their husband-masters to destroy.

    4) The Mosaic Law gives her rights as the wife, and her husband can’t do her wrong w/o being further punished.

    Does that include the right not to be raped further?

    5) I’d love to see your background knowledge to the effect that 50 shekels of silver is a “sweet deal”. Like handing over a fiver.

    I said it was a sweet deal for a rapist willing to pay, not that it was trivial. But for what it’s worth, Deuteronomy cites 100 shekels as being an appropriate fine for a transgression committed by a married man against his wife, if I recall correctly. I’m guessing the intent was not to bankrupt the household and thus punish the wife further, but I could be wrong.

    Please prove that God’s decreed plan is not, in fact, perfect.

    I said the being is allegedly perfect, not the plan. There’s those goalposts again.

    I did. Are you familiar with “hyperlinks”?

    Quite. There’s no way I’m reading the multiple linked articles in sequence, though. I’m not honestly that curious about your favorite myth. I was hoping you could just provide a straightforward explanation, but I’m willing to accept it’s just too complicated to sum up quickly.

  95. #95 Rhology
    May 28, 2010

    All I was driving at was your apparently ludicrous assumption that every single war captive consented to be married

    Which assumption I never made. I merely pointed out that nobody here gets to assume anything; I’m demanding evidence for the positive assertions others have made. And apparently they don’t have any such evidence. Instead they apparently prefer to play pretend. So…why aren’t you getting after *them*?

    Rapist forks over money, gets permanent access to victim.

    Under the rule of law of marriage.

    I can see why you wouldn’t want to, since you’d be apt to be raped, have your family killed, etc.

    Ah yes, b/c EVERYONE in ancient times was subject to nearly constant violence.
    Methinks you read too much Dan Brown.

    Does Christianity today take a dim view of rape? My impression is that it does, so let’s go with that.

    Are you a Christian?
    If not, let’s go with my original question, to *you*.

    I’d prefer that women not be treated as chattel in the first plac

    Please prove that women are treated as “chattel”.
    Please also prove that treating women as “chattel” is objectively a bad thing.

    Does that include the right not to be raped further?

    1) Yes. Being married sort of usually implies consent to sex.
    2) It’s not like the woman is forced to marry the man. The Law is referring to the man’s obligation.
    3) You haven’t proved that rape is objectively a bad thing. Please do so. Now.

    Deuteronomy cites 100 shekels as being an appropriate fine for a transgression committed by a married man against his wife, if I recall correctly.

    So you concede the “sweet deal” point, then, due to your ignorant prejudicial assertion. Now we’re making progress.

    I said the being is allegedly perfect, not the plan. There’s those goalposts again.

    The PLAN is perfect too. Goalposts? Where have I *ever* said anything different? Maybe you need to learn what “moving the goalposts” means.

    There’s no way I’m reading the multiple linked articles in sequence, though.

    Ah well, you can lead the atheist to information, but you can’t make him learn.

    Peace,
    Rhology

  96. #96 Fortuna
    May 28, 2010
    1) You seem to be implying this is a bad thing. Please provide an objective moral standard by which you can know what is good and bad.

    Does Christianity today take a dim view of rape? My impression is that it does, so let’s go with that.

    It occurs to me that this should be “a dim view of forced matrimony and probable continued rape”, rather than just rape as such.

  97. #97 Tyler DiPietro
    May 28, 2010

    “Yes. Being married sort of usually implies consent to sex.”

    Lulz.

  98. #98 Fortuna
    May 28, 2010

    Rhology;

    Which assumption I never made.

    You’ve already admitted you implied it, which was my point. Looking to the log in one’s own eye, and such.

    I merely pointed out that nobody here gets to assume anything

    Great. I rejoice at the thought you may one day live up to your own standards.

    Rapist forks over money, gets permanent access to victim.

    Under the rule of law of marriage.

    Be it resolved that forced marriage is moral, according to you. Or was at one time, but isn’t anymore, perhaps.

    Ah yes, b/c EVERYONE in ancient times was subject to nearly constant violence.
    Methinks you read too much Dan Brown.

    Didn’t say EVERYONE was subject to nearly constant violence. Methinks that Dan Brown remark sounded like quite a zinger in your head.

    But hey, I’m feeling magnanimous, so I’ll concede “apt” is overstating the case. I’ll rephrase to “I can see why you wouldn’t want to imagine yourself in the circumstances of an ancient female war-captive”.

    Are you a Christian?
    If not, let’s go with my original question, to *you*.

    Your question was to provide a standard, and I have. Is forced matrimony to ones’ rapist moral according to your worldview? Was it moral at one time, but no longer? I’m in the mood for an internal critique.

    Please prove that women are treated as “chattel”.

    According to the Bible, fathers may sell their daughters into slavery. Husbands may also stone their wives to death if they can’t provide proof of their virginity upon being married.

    Please also prove that treating women as “chattel” is objectively a bad thing.

    I’m more interested to know how this plays out within your own worldview. The way I see it, you have four possible endgames if you acknowledge the Bible endorsed treating women as chattel:

    1.) It was good then, but is bad now.
    2.) It was bad then, and now.
    3.) It was neither objectively good or bad.
    4.) It was good then, and would be good now.

    1) Yes. Being married sort of usually implies consent to sex.

    Don’t assume it, prove it. With evidence. These are your standards, at least in this thread, let us recall.

    2) It’s not like the woman is forced to marry the man. The Law is referring to the man’s obligation.

    So the marriage portion of the prescribed punishment is optional? Kindly prove it.

    3) You haven’t proved that rape is objectively a bad thing. Please do so. Now.

    No need, this being an internal critique and all. The real question is since you think rape is bad, how do you square that with the instances in which the Bible condones it?

    Incidentally, I already know you’ve read through Dave’s link in the thread above, so let’s please not pretend you’re unaware of the Bible’s discussion of rape as if it’s something that’s just expected to happen when you take an attractive woman captive.

    So you concede the “sweet deal” point, then, due to your ignorant prejudicial assertion.

    Nope. For rapists who are willing to pay the fine to lock down a victim, it’s a sweet deal, just as I said. The 100 shekel fine is also, in point of fact, right there in Deuteronomy.

    The PLAN is perfect too. Goalposts? Where have I *ever* said anything different? Maybe you need to learn what “moving the goalposts” means.

    Sigh. I said that a perfect God condemning the results of his own plan makes no sense. You’re welcome to claim that both God and his PLAN are perfect, but without actually showing that there is no contradiction inherent in a perfect God condemning something he brought about in the first place, it doesn’t address what I said. You’re simply shifting the discussion away to your canned apologetics, and that is the goalpost shifting, to say nothing of shifting the burden of proof.

    Ah well, you can lead the atheist to information, but you can’t make him learn.

    Can you blame me? I mean, the banana disproved evolution, so I’m all traumatized, now.

    You’re still cordially invited to explain it in your own words, if you wish.

  99. #99 Tommykey
    May 28, 2010

    I find it a bit mean-spirited of you to assume that these women would be so grudging as to withhold sex from a husband who is supposed to be treating them with respect and providing for them

    That’s textbook Nice Guyism. “Hey, I provide food and shelter for you, so you owe me sex.”

    For some women, it’s just not enough to lie back and “think of England.”

  100. #100 Tyler DiPietro
    May 28, 2010

    Upon review, it would appear that the Bible does indeed consider rape a crime. However, it’s not a crime committed by a man against a woman, but rather a crime committed by a man against another man. It’s transgression of the man’s property rights.