Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-12-2016, 11:41 PM (This post was last modified: 18-12-2016 11:47 PM by socialistview.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Slavery.
http://m.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/...Slaves.htm

Women weren't considered property.
http://www.jewfaq.org/women.htm

And god cares for the innocent being that's why gods justice had to be satisfied by sacrifice. There's a price nomatter how spoiled you want to be.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes socialistview's post
19-12-2016, 12:36 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(18-12-2016 11:37 PM)socialistview Wrote:  I believe in evolution between the species but not having common ancestor. God made monkeys close to man but man wasn't a monkey.

Your personal beliefs are irrelevant. In the search for truth, the scientific method is the way that we have found to validate truth claims that works, and when we apply this validation there is no support for the fatuous statement you have just made.

Unless you want to propose a better method for doing science than what we've got, you are merely saying "I believe, I believe" and your relationship with actual truth is zero.

I hate how idiots like you seem to have concluded that you can choose your own truth. You cannot. There is an objective world out there. Truths about that real world are not changeable. We *have* a method to find these truths. You with your total lack of understanding of evolution and basic principles of science come along and think you can say "I've read all the books, I think creationism is the shit". For FUCKS sake.

Either publish a goddamn paper, find a good scientific reference for your claim or GTFO.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
19-12-2016, 01:20 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Well evolution again is a theory not a truth or a law. We still have yet to find good supporting evidence for transmutation. Theories have lasted hundreds of years then debunked hundred years later just becuase it seems right doesn't mean well find it correct later.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2016, 01:26 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(19-12-2016 01:20 AM)socialistview Wrote:  Well evolution again is a theory not a truth or a law. We still have yet to find good supporting evidence for transmutation. Theories have lasted hundreds of years then debunked hundred years later just becuase it seems right doesn't mean well find it correct later.

You are an idiot. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're a fool and a dangerous one, because you don't know that you're a fool.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
19-12-2016, 02:30 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
It seems like these airless words means you don't have an idea of anything either.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2016, 03:05 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(19-12-2016 02:30 AM)socialistview Wrote:  It seems like these airless words means you don't have an idea of anything either.

You have not read my posts so how the fuck would you know? You just have something that you want to believe and despite that you've got no knowledge or ability, you think you can dismiss the accumulated scientific knowledge of centuries of effort just because you don't like the conclusion.

Feel free to continue believing in magic. Stop being a tit and pretending it's reasonable.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
19-12-2016, 03:37 AM (This post was last modified: 19-12-2016 03:53 AM by Deesse23.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(19-12-2016 01:20 AM)socialistview Wrote:  Well evolution again is a theory not a truth or a law.

You dont know what truth is, and you particularly dont know shit about science.
"law" is something you dont have a clue about either most probably, and now you are either going to slander me or demonstrate that i am wrong by sying something silly about law(s).

Second, why spamming links about rapists and their victims? Didnt you already establish that:
(09-12-2016 04:56 PM)socialistview Wrote:  I don't care about rape all women are sluts anyway it doesn't really harm them despite the emotional pridefulness they may have
You are not only a rape apologist but a liar. Luckily for you that doenst add much to it. Facepalm

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Deesse23's post
19-12-2016, 03:53 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(18-12-2016 02:45 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  
(18-12-2016 02:25 PM)morondog Wrote:  You're telling me your performance last night was you spanking us? Laugh out load
Let me give you a very simplistic analogy.
If I say the sky appears blue and you say it appears green and it is actually blue and you do not believe it you have been spanked and you don't know it.
Meaning, I told the truth and it was rejected.

That is a lot of hybris from someone we already have demonstraed to be ignorant of so many things, his own bible in particular.
Is there anything the bible says about hybris? Hint: I know the answer, just want to know if you are willing to admit what you are engaged in, knowingly so.

Just to avoid any mnisunderstanding: Have we demonstrated that you have been wrong on anyting yet?

..........

(18-12-2016 03:16 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Scientists in the field look at the evidence and say there was no flood.
Other scientists in the field look at the evidence and say there was a flood.
You do know that the big flood contradicts the laws of physics, do you?

..........

(18-12-2016 03:16 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  So I post the conclusions given by my guys and you post the conclusions given by your guys.
There is no such thing as "your" and "my" scientists. There are theories who can demonstrated to be accurate and that havent been disproved, and there are the ones that had to be skipped. Not every oponion is as valid as any other.
Only someone who realizes that he is/was shown to be wrong is trying to bring the conversation down to something like "its all subjecte, we all have *our* scientists, we all have our beliefs", etc. No, there is a difference: We can show our statements to be true, you cant, thats a massive difference.


(18-12-2016 03:16 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  I am not "lying" and you are not "lying" and neither are either of the scientists. So what do we do? You do not accept the conclusion that there was a flood. We can argue all day long and people will get pissed at me and call me stupid and a liar and belittle me and say I am believing a fairy tale that is two thousand years old.
What's the point of all the discussion?
You tell us, you came here all hybris and claimed to have experience in arguing with atheists. You came here and claimed to be able to defend your beliefs. There is also a difference between someone rejecting comletely unfounded beliefs, and someone rejecting things that have demonstrated to be true by a method that worked and catapulted us into the 21t century. If you dont understand the science, educate yourself. If you feel uncomfortable because the results undermine your religious belief, you need to work on your intellectual honesty.
I told you multiple times that the worst thing is not you lying to us, i can live with that, you don thurt me, but that you are lying to yourself.


(18-12-2016 03:16 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  I try to stick to just trying to tell the story the way the Bible states it and there is no evidence for that other than the Bible itself. Doesn't mean it is not true.
That is it? That is all you have at the bottom of the barrel? Doesnt mean its not true!? Thats what i am talking about all the time: intellectual honesty, honesty with yourself.
Take your quote and change Bible for Quran. What do you get? Cognitive dissonance, because both could be true.

Honestly, dead serious: How do you find out what is true and what not? What would you say if i say "there is no evidece for Zeus than the Ilyad itself"? You must admit that if your standard for believing in what you believe, is applied by someone else to aynthing else in this world, you would laugh him out of the room with us, rightfully so.

..........

(18-12-2016 03:24 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  I believe that what I have is important enough to state it and even wrestle with atheists about it no matter the "slings and arrows" that come my way.
It is not only important what you have but how did you become to believe this. What was your standard for accepting what you are trying to defend/sell to us.
You already admitted that your standard is nonexistent (see above, the bible is evidence for itself). Do you expect us to lower our standards too? Why?

We all agree that the existence of an all powerful being that created everyting that exists, who will throw us into a fiery pit if we dont love him is an important thing. The most important thing in (and outside of) the universe. But if you have no good reason to believe this yourself (and you basically and tacitly admit it), why should we believe it?

We accept your right to have a silly belief, we dont have to accept your silly belief, and we have the right to expose it as silly, when you come here to advertise and claim to defend it. After all we didnt come to your home or forum and asked you to defend your belief. In fact you are attacking established scientific facts and theories all the time, as if that would give your belief any more credibility.

Oh, and for calling you out so often for being so dishonest with yourself. I believe you are really honest here, although missing the larger picure.

..........

(18-12-2016 03:24 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  If I am right and you all end up in Hell I do not want it
...and we dont want you to tell us we are responsible. We want you to admit who is responsible for setting up this despicable and immoral system and its immoral rules, instead of weaseling out with "we bring this upon ourselves" or "our decision" or any other argument that you bring forth that anyone but god is responsible fur us ending in the hell he created for the silly and mundane reason of not.believing.in.him.
Victim shaming never was a good way to show empathy, at least not believably so.

..........

(18-12-2016 03:32 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  
(18-12-2016 03:29 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  Snarky? Just delusional.
Not delusional if I end up being right.
Pascals wager is such a horrible argument. What if muslim islamists are right and you should blow yoursef up with C4 instead to post on TTA? You are missing 72 virgins dude! Isnt that a worthy goal?

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Deesse23's post
19-12-2016, 05:23 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(19-12-2016 03:53 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  We all agree that the existence of an all powerful being that created everyting that exists, who will throw us into a fiery pit if we dont love him is an important thing. The most important thing in (and outside of) the universe. But if you have no good reason to believe this yourself (and you basically and tacitly admit it), why should we believe it?

I disagree that it's important. Bzltyr, until you demonstrate that believing in the existence of your God is rational I have nothing to fear from hell or the devil or any of that. He is as made up as Santa Claus. If you can show differently, do so.

To tell us what you believe to be the truth in order to save us from hell is commendable, but before you do so, please properly verify what you believe to be the truth. You are like a kid telling me to walk backwards when going to bed in case the monster gets me. I might do it just because you are a kid, to allay your fears, but the monster is not there.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like morondog's post
19-12-2016, 06:06 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(18-12-2016 11:41 PM)socialistview Wrote:  And god cares for the innocent being that's why gods justice had to be satisfied by sacrifice. There's a price nomatter how spoiled you want to be.

It has nothing to do with being spoiled. Demanding a blood sacrifice is immoral. That isn't caring for the innocent, it is demanding that the innocent suffer to pay for the crimes of the guilty. It is barbaric and disgusting.

As for your other links, more apologetics to twist the plain text into something that doesn't sound quite so bad is missing the point. These are supposedly the rules handed down by an omniscient, omnipotent god so we'd expect them to be comprehensive and life-affirming and instead they read just like what we'd expect from primitive tribal groups. The fact that people can spin them into something less horrific says that humans have advanced, not that there was anything good there in the first place.

(19-12-2016 01:20 AM)socialistview Wrote:  Well evolution again is a theory not a truth or a law.

Nice little equivocation you have there. A theory in science is something that has been tested and explains all known evidence. It isn't just some random guess. Evolution by natural selection has been thoroughly investigated and tested for more than 100 years and it explains what we found and has been used to predict new things to look for that were also found. It is an incredibly solid bedrock and your denial of it is laughable. It's still a "theory" because science always maintains room for changing its mind if new evidence comes along; science doesn't claim "Truth™" on anything, just the best available explanation of the facts.

A "law", by the way, is not something higher than a theory. A scientific law is just a description of how something consistently works. They are just statements of the facts of reality as we understand them. Theories are what are used to explain laws. Your use of the words shows that you have ZERO undertsanding of what science is or how it works.

Quote:We still have yet to find good supporting evidence for transmutation.

No, we understand how to transmute elements using nuclear reactions. We also know that transmutation is the sense of alchemy is utter bunk.

Quote: Theories have lasted hundreds of years then debunked hundred years later just becuase it seems right doesn't mean well find it correct later.

Correct. If and when new evidence contradicts an existing theory then that theory has to be replaced... it would be rare that one was completely overturned though. Theories evolve just like we did. That's a good thing. It shows we are learning and understanding more about the universe. I'll take that over what religion offers any day (and twice on Sunday).

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like unfogged's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: