I was just given two AiG Newletters.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-03-2012, 08:44 PM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2012 09:02 PM by SixForty.)
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
(19-03-2012 11:23 AM)kineo Wrote:  Just because a trait for ethical behavior is or is not present in a particular species does not mean that we should consider it a positive trait for humanity. It simply means that the evidence for that trait is or is not present in other species. It makes no ruling on it being either right or wrong- just natural.

I agree - which is similar to the point I was trying to make! The previous post was arguing that certain things (i.e. a predisposition not to murder) are just evolutionary traits found in certain animals. I was making the point that there are various traits found in animals, should we simply emulate them all? If not, picking and choosing seems arbitrary, without some specific standard to justify why we conform to one moral value and not another.

(19-03-2012 11:23 AM)kineo Wrote:  Humans just have a an advanced capability to make a decision about how ethical any particular behavior is.

So in the animals, it's neither right nor wrong, just natural, but in humanity, we suddenly have the capability to determine right and wrong? Why is it not just natural for us? If you claim that we have an advanced capability, that implies that there exists an objective standard that we are advancing towards. Which is the point I've been trying to make all along! Objective morality does exist!

(19-03-2012 11:23 AM)kineo Wrote:  But, when a humanist speaks of "acceptable" in relation to behavior, we speak of impact on the world around you, with an emphasis typically on other humans.

But again, this simply seems arbitrary. It elevates humanity as being special in some way. Why? Why not imply special value to bacteria? Perhaps bacteria mutated and evolved Humanity simply to allow bacteria to flourish, and so what is morally good is what is best for the flourishing of bacteria.

(19-03-2012 11:23 AM)kineo Wrote:  But I would like to think that the impact I have on the world is a positive one, even if small and only affecting a few people around me. I desire that my legacy be a positive one- or neutral at worst.

But the end result will always be neutral. Any positive effect will have a finite lifetime, and will eventually be forgotten. Ultimately, under your paradigm, the universe is destined for heat death, and all things will be forgotten and meaningless. In your view, the ultimate end result will always be the same: pointless.

(19-03-2012 11:23 AM)kineo Wrote:  We all know that the golden rule is not limited to the Bible. It is as Biblical as the story of Jesus is unique. That is to say, not very unique.

Maybe that's because the golden rule didn't originate with the bible - it originated with God. The bible just put it down on paper. And those lovely comparisons of Jesus to others are always humorous - Anyone who wants to can find evidence to twist into stories like that. Whatever floats their boat, I guess.

(19-03-2012 11:23 AM)kineo Wrote:  Because the universe entirely is unconcerned with how ethical you are. You cannot choose to disobey math. You cannot choose to disobey gravity. And something is either logical or not logical. But ethics/morality are not the same for all species or life. Math and gravity is the same for everything- for everyone.

You can choose to be bad at math. You may have difficulty understanding gravity. And people commit logical fallacies all the time. It's not a question of whether or not we always recognize when something is right, it's a question of whether or not it is right. We can have a fallible moral sense, just like our other senses. For example, someone can be colour blind. This doesn't mean that the colours don't exist, it just means that that person perceives them differently. Same with our moral sense, just because someone may perceive something to be moral, doesn't mean that it is moral. The claim is that there is an objective realm of moral values that we apprehend through moral experience, just as there is an objective realm of physical objects that we apprehend through sensory experience. This speaks to ontology, whereas you are speaking mostly to epistemology.

(19-03-2012 11:23 AM)kineo Wrote:  It makes no sense to hold morality to be objective. There is no foundation for such a claim.

Really? Think of the worst possible thing that someone can do. The most immoral act someone can commit. Are you saying that your repulsion of that is simply a byproduct of evolution and society? Suppose that the next generation of children evolved to disagree with you, and consider that act moral. Suppose everyone decides to accept it, and society changes to consider it moral. Would you simply go right along with them? Or would you fight tooth and nail and stand up and say that it's wrong?

(19-03-2012 11:23 AM)kineo Wrote:  We don't reference Seth's videos all that much here, even though it is his forum. So in keeping with the name, here's one of his vids on the subject:
These are such old arguments, and weak ones at that. It's the lack of any serious substance in these videos that brought me to this website in the first place, to see if the creator was actually serious. But since you've brought it up, let's talk about some of it. We'll look at the first few accusations.

The video claims that God endorses rape. It identifies 2 passages about Lot and his daughters. Please tell me where in those passages it says that God endorses what was done. Because I personally don't see it. This is a story about what actually happened. It's history, it's just telling the facts. Just because the bible records something that happened, that doesn't mean that God endorses it. (Otherwise, we'd have to arrest everyone at CNN for endorsing terrorism)

The next claim is that God endorses human sacrifice, with the story of Jephthah. Again, please tell me where in this story God endorses what was done. All I see is a guy who makes a promise to God he shouldn't have made. What is God to do then - cause the Israelites to lose the war, and allow hundreds or thousands of deaths, just to save the life of one girl? Again, just because the bible records a historical story, it doesn't mean that God endorses what was done.

As for the claims of endorsing slavery, these almost exclusively come from people who don't understand the concept of Hebrew slavery in the old testament. It's an unfortunate comparison of what we think of slavery being today, when in fact it was nothing like that. A much better term would be bond servant (which some translations use) - it would avoid the misunderstanding that people read into it all the time. Hebrew slavery in the old testament was effectively the world's first bankruptcy laws. And those laws contained rules on how long the servitude was to last (all slaves were set free after a period of time), how the servant was to be compensated, etc. So unless someone can actually explain the ancient Hebrew laws regarding slavery (including the Year of Jubilee), then I can't really take the claim of God endorsing slavery seriously. It's just another one of the straw man arguments you hear all the time. "God has no morals since God endorses action X" But in reality, God doesn't endorse action X in the way it is being made out.


(19-03-2012 01:54 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  No mentally healthy human has the predisposition to believe "eating our young is acceptable"

This is logically fallacious. It's called the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You are redefining the concept of "mentally healthy human" to preclude a conclusion that you don't like. It's arbitrary and effectively circular.

(19-03-2012 01:54 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  As I have repetitively stated for all my past posts, THERE IS A CERTAIN OBJECTIVITY TO MORALITY. The norm that society creates.

This is not objectivity - it is subjectivity by very definition. Maybe we need to clarify what we're talking about here. When I talk about morality being objective, I'm saying that certain moral values are valid independently of whether anyone believes in them or not. It appears that your definition of objective is different. Should we possibly come up with different terms to clarify what we are speaking of? I'd be open to suggestions if you have any.

Furthermore, if morality is simply the norm that society creates, then it becomes basic herd mentality, and as such is simply whatever is fashionable for the day. So someone who commits a moral "wrong", for example a priest sexually abusing a young child, is simply committing a moral faux pas, no different than wearing white socks with black shoes.

In reference to morality being subjective, you previously stated "Humans, however, do not accept such actions {animals doing what they are predisposed to do} because we have evolved to morally believe they are not {right}" Saying morality is subjective only because we have evolved it is committing the genetic fallacy. It matters not how we come about to know or understand morality - that doesn't make things more or less true. Whether I learn that 2+2=4 from my parents, from my teachers, from a book or intuitively from my own experience in the world, none of that has any relevance to the fact that 2+2=4. So the belief that we get our morals through evolution is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not there are objective moral absolutes.

In addition, if morality is subjective, then the concept of moral progress is irrelevant. There is no such things as moral progress, it is all just moral change. Progress implies a direction towards some type of destination (or away from some type of starting point) But if there is no objective standard by which morality can be measured, then there can be no directed movement towards or away from anything. We are not sailing away from a moral departure port (a negative moral value) or towards a moral destination (a positive moral value), we are simply adrift on an amoral sea, sometimes heading this way, and sometimes heading that way, with nothing but slight scenery changes along the way. We can discuss moral trends, but we can't consider them progress. We are really no better or worse than any generation to have ever gone before - we are simply different.

As for more evidence that there are objective moral values, consider the concept of intent. The purely subjective view of morality doesn't consider the concept of intent. It is concerned only with results. For example, consider someone who decides to bomb a hospital. They create a bomb vest, put on a jacket over top, travel to the hospital in question, walk into the waiting room, and press the detonator button. But nothing happens. It turns out that he screwed up in wiring the bomb. So he leaves and goes home, without anyone ever knowing what he tried to do. At home, he has a change of heart and dismantles the bomb, never to try again. In a world where morality is defined by things like whether or not we hurt other people, or whatever is best for the majority, this person has not done anything morally wrong. His actions were morally neutral. I submit that this is absurd - he's definitely committed a moral wrong. You can come up with other examples like this. Take a sniper who goes to a school, sets up on a rooftop across the road, and starts firing at students. But he accidentally brought blanks instead of live ammunition. Nobody dies, nobody knows any different. But the guy definitely committed a moral wrong. Or how about a guy who volunteers bringing meals to shut-in seniors. He decides one day to rape an elderly lady. He shows up at her house, enters, and proceeds to prepare for the act. But then he discovers her in her bed, deceased. She died peacefully in her sleep overnight. So he leaves, and no one ever knows what he planned.

Under an evolutionary subjective view of morality, these events are all morally neutral, but only because the perpetrator lucked into that. Under your definition, none of these people did anything morally wrong - and yet I think almost everyone would define those situations as morally wrong.

Also, under the view of moral good being that which does not cause harm or pain, it's not that difficult to come up with examples of acts that cause no harm or pain yet clearly seem morally wrong. In fact, these examples amplify the enjoyment of life for some, while being joy/pain neutral for the rest of the world, and therefor would qualify as morally good. Take for example a father whose daughter is injured horribly in a car wreck. She is on life support systems, but he cares for her at home since he's rich. She is in a persistent vegetative state. She also has a destroyed central nervous system, so feels no physical pain whatsoever. She has severe brain damage which is causing complete amnesia, so remembers nothing at all from the time of the accident on. The father decides to use her for his own sexual pleasure. He rapes her repeatedly, for a period of months. She suffers no physical pain, since she can't feel the encounter. Since she has complete amnesia, she suffers no psychological pain or emotional pain. So in the end, it turns out to be morally neutral - there is no actual harm committed to her, and there is no affect on the greater good of society in anyway. Actually, since the father increases his pleasure and enjoyment in the world, his acts are morally good. The net value of personal enjoyment of the world in general has risen, so we must be able to judge what he's done as morally good.

In addition, consider a man who comes across a box abandoned in the woods. He takes it home, opens it, and discovers it to be full of child pornography. It turns out that he enjoys looking at it, so he keeps it. He didn't make it, so he wasn't hurting anyone - the damage was already done. He wasn't buying it, and so supporting the abuses that were done in the first place. No one knows he has it, he just looks at it every night and it brings him pleasure. It doesn't bring anyone else in the world pain, but increases his pleasure, and so there is a net gain on the good of society and as such, it is morally good. Under your paradigm, creating child pornography would be morally wrong, but merely possessing it would be morally neutral at worst, and possibly morally good. I find that absurd, and I'm pretty sure most people would agree.

(19-03-2012 01:54 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Please, oh, please define to me the way you look at it.

I just did. I look at it without assuming naturalism and materialism.


(19-03-2012 09:53 PM)robotworld Wrote:  Convergent evolution occurs if two separate groups of organisms thrive in similar environmental conditions. These two groups of organisms will have analogous structures. The wing is a fine example, here's a diagram to illustrate: {snip} Different species facing similar selection pressures will lead to the phenomena of convergent evolution.

And yet convergent evolution may not happen in those circumstances. Take for example the vast difference between the reflective eyes of a lobster versus the refractive eyes of a crab. These are drastically different, and would have had to evolve in drastically different ways. And yet lobsters and crabs are supposedly very close on the evolutionary tree. They live in similar environments, with similar lifestyles, and would therefore be under very similar selective pressures. But they end up vastly different - no convergent evolution.

In addition, there are examples of convergent evolution happening in non-similar environments with non-similar selective pressures. The idea of convergent evolution is applied haphazardly. It seems to sometimes explain certain events, but other events it should explain, it can't. To me, that's not good science. That's just wishful thinking.

And seriously - the convergence of slightly similar wing structures is way different than extremely similar moles.

(19-03-2012 09:53 PM)robotworld Wrote:  Also, are you really expecting all the fossils of the most recent common ancestor to be uncovered? You have to consider that fossilisation is very rare in the first place.

Not all the fossils, but at least a statistically measurable number! We have hundreds of millions of fossils from all over the world. There should be millions of different fossils covering hundreds of thousands of transitional species, and yet all we have are about a dozen supposedly transitional species, all of which are highly suspect. Oh yeah, and we have a waste bin full of species that people at one time thought were transitional, but now we know weren't. The evidence for transitional species just isn't there.

(19-03-2012 09:53 PM)robotworld Wrote:  Anyway, here's a picture of one of my favourite transitional fossils, Tiktaalik. Cute guy in my opinion.

We could go into all the details of all the problems associated with Tiktaalik directly, or we could just consider the fact that we supposedly now know that Tiktaalik wasn't a transition to tetrapods, since tetrapods were around millions of years earlier than Tiktaalik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2012, 11:47 PM
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
(18-03-2012 12:34 AM)SixForty Wrote:  Starcrash - "I don't understand why you believe that a person has to either believe in evolution or creation, but I'll grant you that most people do. However, I don't see why "belief in a Creator" leads to a sacredness of fetal life. In fact, if you believe that aborted babies go straight to heaven, carrying a baby to term should be the last thing on your mind. It's not logical to allow a child to go as far as being allowed to rebel against God if you can send the poor kid straight to heaven without the aggravation or heartbreak of seeing him or her possibly go to Hell."
Fourty going on six,

Babies are almost never aborted at even 5 months. Obviously you know NOTHING about how hospitals and clinics operate.
You need to continue your education.

Define "conception".
a. sperm approaches egg ?
b . 1st electron of sperm cell enters electron cloud of egg cell ?
c.. sperm contacts egg wall ?
d sperm 1/2 way into egg ?
e. sperm entirely in egg ?
f. DNA of sperm contacts DNA of egg ?
g. DNA replication begins ?
h. DNA replication 0.567534521897 % complete ?
i 1st DNA replication complete, (poof..soul enters) ?
j. 2nd DNA completes ?
k. zygote forms ?
l. zygote multiplies ?
m. zygote begins to travel ?
l. zygote approaches endometrial wall ?
m. zygote touches endometrial wall ?
n. zygote implants in endometrial wall ?
Tell us, when exactly in there, the futus becomes "sacred".

As far as "babies going STRAIGHT to heaven" goes. You weren't paying attention last week.

Did you think they go around the block first?
Going places takes time. Spacetime ONLY exists here, NOT in the spiritual realm.

The origin or morality does NOT rest in religion, or with gods. You need an Anthropology course.

200 years ago people thought slavery was ok. Oh, slipery slope. So advences are bad. Good one.

You are seriously funny. TTFN

The angry gods require sacrifice. Now get outside and slay them a goat. Cadet in Terse But Deadly
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes San Onofre Surfer's post
25-03-2012, 12:30 AM
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
(24-03-2012 08:44 PM)SixForty Wrote:  I agree - which is similar to the point I was trying to make! The previous post was arguing that certain things (i.e. a predisposition not to murder) are just evolutionary traits found in certain animals. I was making the point that there are various traits found in animals, should we simply emulate them all? If not, picking and choosing seems arbitrary, without some specific standard to justify why we conform to one moral value and not another.

Picking and choosing is essentially arbitrary in the sense that right and wrong are relative. There is no one true right. The world is a serious of grey tones, where some things more easily appear right than others. Your perception of right and wrong is colored by your environment- by the society in which you were raised.

(24-03-2012 08:44 PM)SixForty Wrote:  So in the animals, it's neither right nor wrong, just natural, but in humanity, we suddenly have the capability to determine right and wrong? Why is it not just natural for us? If you claim that we have an advanced capability, that implies that there exists an objective standard that we are advancing towards. Which is the point I've been trying to make all along! Objective morality does exist!

Again, right and wrong are relative. Our ability for higher thinking allows us to make standards by which our societies live.

(24-03-2012 08:44 PM)SixForty Wrote:  But again, this simply seems arbitrary. It elevates humanity as being special in some way. Why? Why not imply special value to bacteria? Perhaps bacteria mutated and evolved Humanity simply to allow bacteria to flourish, and so what is morally good is what is best for the flourishing of bacteria.

The special value we hold for ourselves as humans is self-centered, but we are that way for the purpose of survival. I believe that you are in a way correct about humanity evolving simply as a way to allow bacteria to flourish- except that instead of bacteria, it is DNA that flourishes. DNA is a replicator and it has gotten extremely good at replicating. Its ability to replicate has taken many different forms, but ultimately in whatever form it exists, it exists for the purpose of replication. Nothing more than that.

(24-03-2012 08:44 PM)SixForty Wrote:  But the end result will always be neutral. Any positive effect will have a finite lifetime, and will eventually be forgotten. Ultimately, under your paradigm, the universe is destined for heat death, and all things will be forgotten and meaningless. In your view, the ultimate end result will always be the same: pointless.

Exactly. Pointless maybe in the ultimate sense, but not pointless for you. Not pointless for me. Because we're still here. And we'll make the most of it while we're able- and hopefully be able to enjoy it in the process.

(24-03-2012 08:44 PM)SixForty Wrote:  Maybe that's because the golden rule didn't originate with the bible - it originated with God. The bible just put it down on paper. And those lovely comparisons of Jesus to others are always humorous - Anyone who wants to can find evidence to twist into stories like that. Whatever floats their boat, I guess.

Or rather it simply works best for surviving in communities. You'll attribute the golden rule where you will. But as for Jesus, many of the similarities are striking between the story of Jesus and other stories. So striking that it seems foolish to ignore them.

(24-03-2012 08:44 PM)SixForty Wrote:  Really? Think of the worst possible thing that someone can do. The most immoral act someone can commit. Are you saying that your repulsion of that is simply a byproduct of evolution and society? Suppose that the next generation of children evolved to disagree with you, and consider that act moral. Suppose everyone decides to accept it, and society changes to consider it moral. Would you simply go right along with them? Or would you fight tooth and nail and stand up and say that it's wrong?

Take child sacrifice, for example. Or any human sacrifice for that matter, but children especially. In some societies it was perfectly acceptable. Even Abraham would have sacrificed his son. The individuals would likely object, but the community would push for the sacrifice so that they could please whatever gods needed pleasing. And Jephthah even did go through with it according to the Bible (Judges 11:30-40)! We've since evolved our morals to remove that way of thinking as acceptable. Same with genocide. The Bible supports genocide- completely and utterly destroying an enemy's entire society by not only killing the men but also the women and children. Infanticide was commanded by the God of the Bible.

1 Samuel 15:3
English Standard Version (ESV)
3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

Today we would balk at this sort of action. We do- we consider it tragic. But the Bible has many stories of child-killing.

(24-03-2012 08:44 PM)SixForty Wrote:  These are such old arguments, and weak ones at that. It's the lack of any serious substance in these videos that brought me to this website in the first place, to see if the creator was actually serious. But since you've brought it up, let's talk about some of it. We'll look at the first few accusations.

An argument doesn't need to be new for its merit to stand.

(24-03-2012 08:44 PM)SixForty Wrote:  The video claims that God endorses rape. It identifies 2 passages about Lot and his daughters. Please tell me where in those passages it says that God endorses what was done. Because I personally don't see it. This is a story about what actually happened. It's history, it's just telling the facts. Just because the bible records something that happened, that doesn't mean that God endorses it. (Otherwise, we'd have to arrest everyone at CNN for endorsing terrorism)

Genesis 19:19 Lot is speaking to the angels which have come to deliver him from Sodom.
Behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life. But I cannot escape to the hills, lest the disaster overtake me and I die.

So God still acted favorably toward Lot even after he threw his daughters out to the crowd looking to rape the angels. Even as just a chronicling of events, God endorsed the rape of Lot's daughters by still saving him- by acting favorably toward him above the rest of Sodom.

But why stop there? Rape is hardly a rare occasion in the Bible.
Judges 21:10-24 Israelites steal women to be their wives. Presumably they had no choice in the matter and would have been raped even if they were considered "wives" after being stolen.
Numbers 31:7-18 Moses chastises the Israelites for not slaying all of the women as he had commended. He tells them to slay all of the children and the women who have slept with man. He tells them that they can keep the virgins that they captured and make them wives. Again- raping through non-consensual sex.
Deuteronomy 20:10-14 Israelites are commanded to approach a town and ask for surrender. If the town surrenders and opens their gates then they will be rewarded with serving in forced labor. If they don't surrender then the Israelites are to attack and kill all the men. But they can keep the women and children and livestock for their own.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 I'm sure you've heard this one- the penalty for raping another man's daughter is that he must pay 50 silver pieces to her father and then marry the daughter. But- you may argue that this is beneficial to the woman because now she'll be taken care of and no one would have married a raped woman otherwise! That's a problem of the morals of a society. Being that it's God's society, you'd think maybe he could make them care a little bit less about the virginity of someone who's raped, right?
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 Yep, more forced married resulting from the spoils of war. This must have happened a lot. But God still finds favor with his people- the raping, pillaging, marauding Israelites of the Old Testament. And they all of this at His command!



(24-03-2012 08:44 PM)SixForty Wrote:  The next claim is that God endorses human sacrifice, with the story of Jephthah. Again, please tell me where in this story God endorses what was done. All I see is a guy who makes a promise to God he shouldn't have made. What is God to do then - cause the Israelites to lose the war, and allow hundreds or thousands of deaths, just to save the life of one girl? Again, just because the bible records a historical story, it doesn't mean that God endorses what was done.

I'm not going to argue this one. The Bible doesn't specifically say God endorsed it, following your logic. God did still allow the Israelites to win, knowing full well that Jephthah's daughter would be sacrificed as a result. He may not be behind it, but he still allows it.

(24-03-2012 08:44 PM)SixForty Wrote:  As for the claims of endorsing slavery, these almost exclusively come from people who don't understand the concept of Hebrew slavery in the old testament. It's an unfortunate comparison of what we think of slavery being today, when in fact it was nothing like that. A much better term would be bond servant (which some translations use) - it would avoid the misunderstanding that people read into it all the time. Hebrew slavery in the old testament was effectively the world's first bankruptcy laws. And those laws contained rules on how long the servitude was to last (all slaves were set free after a period of time), how the servant was to be compensated, etc. So unless someone can actually explain the ancient Hebrew laws regarding slavery (including the Year of Jubilee), then I can't really take the claim of God endorsing slavery seriously. It's just another one of the straw man arguments you hear all the time. "God has no morals since God endorses action X" But in reality, God doesn't endorse action X in the way it is being made out.

This is still wrong. Men and women are taken as spoils of war throughout the old testament for forced labor, sex slaves, forced marriage, etc.

It's not a straw man argument- this stuff is in the book! And much of it is commanded by God or his direct servants like Moses or Eleazar. The God of the Old Testament is not a likeable character by today's standards- which are much different than the standards of the time. What we call "right" and "wrong" today doesn't jive with what was "right" and "wrong" then. That's not objective morality. It's quite subjective.

Godzilla Kitten, Directed by J.J. Abrams
[Image: Kineoprojectfinished3_zps79916ea4.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2012, 01:08 AM
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
(24-03-2012 11:47 PM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  Babies are almost never aborted at even 5 months. Obviously you know NOTHING about how hospitals and clinics operate.
You need to continue your education.

You clearly don't read what I write. I never made a claim one way or the other on the frequency of abortions at any stage of pregnancy. I simply stated at what stage it is legal, and compared those stages to whether or not the baby feels pain, which was the point being put forth. This is simply another straw man here. You are getting very good at committing logical fallacies - I think you should turn pro at it.

(24-03-2012 11:47 PM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  Define "conception".
{snipped irrelevant nonsense}
Tell us, when exactly in there, the futus becomes "sacred".

First of all, I don't need to. Plenty of more knowledgable people than I have already done so. I'll let the professional medical testimonies and medical textbooks referenced here speak to that point.

But since you are likely to ignore professional evidence again, as you so continually do here, I'll go ahead and answer your question with this: when it comes to the issue of abortion, the exact moment doesn't really matter. What matters is, by the time a woman knows she's pregnant, the baby is well past the point of being fully human. That is undeniable.

(24-03-2012 11:47 PM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  As far as "babies going STRAIGHT to heaven" goes. You weren't paying attention last week. Did you think they go around the block first? Going places takes time. Spacetime ONLY exists here, NOT in the spiritual realm.

You really like to keep coming back to that, don't you. All it does is show your complete lack of understanding. You keep adding nothing here, but just ranting. As I mentioned before, I already concede the fact that you can rant much better than I.

(24-03-2012 11:47 PM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  The origin or morality does NOT rest in religion, or with gods. You need an Anthropology course.

Prove it. And remember, we're not talking about how people learn about morality, or how they understand morality. You've made a claim about the origin of morality. Prove where it came from. Just once I'd like to see if you can back up a claim you make with real, intelligent facts.

(24-03-2012 11:47 PM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  200 years ago people thought slavery was ok.

And thank God for strong religious people like William Wilberforce who took a stand and said "This is wrong". Not, "I think this is wrong" - not "I have a feeling this is wrong" - not "I believe this is wrong". Just simply "This is wrong".

(24-03-2012 11:47 PM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  Oh, slipery slope. So advences are bad. Good one.

Um, you're using an example of forward progress to try and discount an example of backwards retreat? Really? This statement is absurd! The fallacy of false analogy written all over this one!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2012, 04:40 AM
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
(25-03-2012 01:08 AM)SixForty Wrote:  
(24-03-2012 11:47 PM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  Define "conception".
Tell us, when exactly in there, the futus becomes "sacred".


But since you are likely to ignore professional evidence again, as you so continually do here, I'll go ahead and answer your question with this: when it comes to the issue of abortion, the exact moment doesn't really matter. What matters is, by the time a woman knows she's pregnant, the baby is well past the point of being fully human. That is undeniable.


That is patently false. Many women don't know if they are pregnant, until they get a pregnancy test. At 2 days, only the test can tell. Are you for real ? The link you provided also does nothing except to say "moment" of conception. It's as ignorant of basic Biology as you are.

I don't need to prove anything. You are the one making the crazy claims. Who cares when a fetus feels pain or not, if abortions are almost NEVER done at the gestational ages you talk about ? YOU obviously think it is. YOU brought up the subject. And since EVERYONE is more knowledgeable than you, it leaves a LOT of room for reference, doesn't it.

"ignoring "professional evidence" ? Hahahaha. Professional fools. So now you're a "professional" ? god help us (if there was one, which there isn't)

Can you read ? I asked you to define the "moment" the fetus becomes "sacred". No one asked you to state when a fetus is human, (although you couldn't do that either, and You used a label that is meaningless, and obviously, you can't explain your nonsense. No one (except YOU), talks about humans being "sacred". What the hell is "sacred" anyway ? Obviously you know nothing about Biology, and can't answer the question. NO medical "professional" has EVER said a baby is "sacred". You are deluded, beyond belief. No wonder you have two strikes against your sanity. 1. YE 2. C indeed.

Per your usual, saying something is a rant, and "shows a lack of understanding" is NOT an argument. Clearly your capabilities are challenged, as obviously you can't reply with logic, and science, and condescension and name calling. Prove morality comes from religion. I don't have to prove anything. It is well known, that the ORIGINS of morality rest in group survival, and individual survival. Yours is the extraordinary claim. Again, obviously, you know nothing about that which you speak. You DO need the Anthro course. No one is talking about "understanding". The origins of morality rests in cultural and survival. NOT religion. If you had a real education, you would know that.

Do you live in the backwoods of Kentucky ? Have you EVER been to school ?

Lets hear some more about babies going "straight" (around the block), and where they "go" to wait, to "go" to heaven, and how LONG it takes to get there. Idiot.

I was told : (Proverbs 26:4) Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest ye be like unto him yourself.

Obviously, they were right.

The angry gods require sacrifice. Now get outside and slay them a goat. Cadet in Terse But Deadly
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes San Onofre Surfer's post
25-03-2012, 09:03 PM
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
(25-03-2012 04:40 AM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  and condescension and name calling.

should say.. but only with...

Also the answers to why I "keep coming back to that", (time dependance), are :

a. you never answered the argument, and in fact, by your staement : "gods plan 'before' time began" betrayed a profound ignorance of Philosophy and Physics.

b. it destroys your god concept. Every term one can use to describe the "existence", (including that word itself), of a god REQUIRES a temporal, or super-temporal dimension of time. (And in THIS univsese it requires space also, as Einstein proved spacetime are not separate dimensions). Knowing, loving, getting angry, begetting, becoming appeased by a death, all require a temporal dimension in which to proceed, or they are meaningless. It does not DISprove god(s), but it DOES mean there is no human word or concept that is available to refer to it, (a god)...so nothing can be said about a god.

c. if the Singularity is true, (the Big Bang), it invalidates EVERY concept of god, (including that it "acted" BEFORE the Big Bang, thus cannot be it's cause).

The angry gods require sacrifice. Now get outside and slay them a goat. Cadet in Terse But Deadly
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes San Onofre Surfer's post
26-03-2012, 03:53 AM (This post was last modified: 26-03-2012 04:28 AM by SixForty.)
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
(25-03-2012 12:30 AM)kineo Wrote:  The world is a serious of grey tones, where some things more easily appear right than others. Your perception of right and wrong is colored by your environment- by the society in which you were raised.

But our perception of something doesn't speak to the actual truth of the matter. My perception of logic can be flawed, for example by consistently committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent. My perception of logic may be coloured by the society I was raised in, but that doesn't speak to whether or not there are actual objective logical truths that exist.

(25-03-2012 12:30 AM)kineo Wrote:  DNA is a replicator and it has gotten extremely good at replicating. Its ability to replicate has taken many different forms, but ultimately in whatever form it exists, it exists for the purpose of replication. Nothing more than that.

I find that to be an arbitrary conclusion. You are taking a descriptive comment about the nature of DNA (it's replication) and assigning that description as it's purpose. I breathe, but breathing is not my purpose. Dogs eat, but eating is not their purpose. Water flows downhill, but I wouldn't claim that to be it's purpose, no more than I would evaporation or quenching thirst. DNA does many different things - why is replication defined as it's purpose?

(25-03-2012 12:30 AM)kineo Wrote:  Genesis 19:19 Lot is speaking to the angels which have come to deliver him from Sodom. Behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life. But I cannot escape to the hills, lest the disaster overtake me and I die.

So God still acted favorably toward Lot even after he threw his daughters out to the crowd looking to rape the angels. Even as just a chronicling of events, God endorsed the rape of Lot's daughters by still saving him- by acting favorably toward him above the rest of Sodom.

This is an absurd conclusion. First, the verse does not say he found favour for attempting to give his daughters over to rape. The verse is simply Lot acknowledging that he found favour for some reason, but doesn't speak to the reason. From the passage, it could easily be deduced that he found favour for feeding and sheltering them. But even further, if you read the entire story in context, it could be deduced that Lot found favour with them before they even arrived, since it appears God's plan was to save Lot all along. You appear to be making a judgement about why God found favour with Lot here, without the actual support for your conclusion. Second, making the conclusion that God endorsed the rape of Lot's daughters just because He saved Lot is absurd! Just compare that with other stories of fallible men - God didn't endorse murder just because Moses killed someone and God still used him; God didn't endorse adultery just because David slept with Bathsheba and God still blessed his reign as king; God didn't endorse prostitution just because Rahab was spared from the destruction of Jericho. The bible clearly shows many instances of God using less than stellar people - that in no way means that he endorses everything they do! I think you're making an unwarranted leap here to come up with the conclusion that you do.

(25-03-2012 12:30 AM)kineo Wrote:  He may not be behind it, but he still allows it.

So he should step in at every point to stop people from being idiots? The only way you can possibly accept that is if you are willing to give up your free will. I don't think you want to be God's puppet anymore than he want's people to be his puppets. If you are going to accept free will, then you can't accuse God for not jumping in and taking it away from people at every moment they may make a poor decision.

All your comments here about the details about the Old Testament are valid questions. However, they have all been dealt with - by people spanning thousands of years! Most have easy answers, but some do have very hard, complex answers. But honestly, I don't know why people even bother bringing up all these little points. If you really want to paint God to be a monster, why not just go for the jugular? The buck stops with the flood - the biggest massacre of all. An entire planet wiped out - likely tens of millions of people slaughtered in one big hit, with only 8 people saved. Men, women, children, good, bad, everyone in between. All drowned - one of the most psychologically terrifying deaths there is. If you really want to claim God as a monster, don't bother with all those other petty little claims about rape, human sacrifice or genocide. Pull out the big gun - near mass extinction!

But again, there are answers to all of this. If you are just pulling these issues out because you want to discredit the bible, then I doubt any information would ever convince you otherwise. If you actually want to dig into the truth of the book to understand these issues, I'd suggest starting with a book called Is God a Moral Monster by Paul Copan. Very eye opening to anyone who wants to read critically about the issues.

(25-03-2012 12:30 AM)kineo Wrote:  This is still wrong.

See, this is where you lose me. You are being completely inconsistent with yourself. You claim morality is subjective. You claim that it is coloured by environment and society. You claim it is influenced by evolution, that we have just become more advanced with our higher thinking. You claim it is all relative.

Then you go and make an absolute, objective statement like "This is still wrong". You just self-refuted your own entire argument.

To San Onofre Surfer: Wow! Where to begin!

(25-03-2012 04:40 AM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  That is patently false. Many women don't know if they are pregnant, until they get a pregnancy test. At 2 days, only the test can tell. Are you for real ?

Logical Fallacy - Irrelevant Thesis. I didn't make a claim about the exact moment of conception. My claim was that at the earliest possible point a woman can ever know she is pregnant, we are already well past the point of the embryo being human. (verifiable from this thread, post #74) You've attacked a point I didn't make, and ignored the point I did make.

(25-03-2012 04:40 AM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  I don't need to prove anything. You are the one making the crazy claims.

Lie - You claimed "The origin of (sic) morality does NOT rest in religion, or with gods." (post #72) That is a positive claim, and requires reasoning to back it up. If you can not back it up, it becomes a prejudicial conjecture and is again logically fallacious.

(25-03-2012 04:40 AM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  Who cares when a fetus feels pain or not, if abortions are almost NEVER done at the gestational ages you talk about ? YOU obviously think it is. YOU brought up the subject.

Lie - I didn't bring up the issue of a fetus feeling pain. That point was initially made by Starcrash, which is verifiable through a simple check back through this very thread. (post #46) I responded to the point being made.

Logical Fallacy - Irrelevant Thesis. Once again, you are arguing against a point that I did not make. I made no claim about the frequency of abortions at any stage of development. My point was to legality. (verifiable from post #47 and #74)

(25-03-2012 04:40 AM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  "ignoring "professional evidence" ? Hahahaha. Professional fools. So now you're a "professional" ?

Logical Fallacy - Straw Man. I never at any point in time called myself a professional. As a matter of fact, I referred the answer to external professionals, thereby implying I am NOT a professional on the issue.

Logical Fallacy - Ad Hominem Attacks. The article linked to contains quotes from 5 professors of medicine, a medical doctor, a philosopher of medical ethics, and 8 medical textbooks, among other quotes. Calling them professional fools just because you disagree with them is logically untenable. The credentials are real.

(25-03-2012 04:40 AM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  You used a label that is meaningless, and obviously, you can't explain your nonsense. No one (except YOU), talks about humans being "sacred". What the hell is "sacred" anyway ? Obviously you know nothing about Biology, and can't answer the question.

Lie - I was not the only one talking about humans being sacred. Again, I was not even the one to bring up the subject. It was initially mentioned by Starcrash, which is again verifiable through a simply check back through this very thread. (post #39)

(25-03-2012 04:40 AM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  NO medical "professional" has EVER said a baby is "sacred".

Lie - Numerous medical professionals have claimed a baby is sacred. Consider the Sanctity of Life Act put before the US Congress (HR 2597 for the 2007 version). The word sanctity is defined as being sacred. The bill was sponsored by 2 medical doctors and 2 others who have PhD's in health related fields. Or how about the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Search their website for articles about the sanctity or sacredness of human life. Or how about the Journal of Medical Ethics. Again, you can search for various articles by medical professionals about the sacredness of babies - born or unborn. That's just 3 quick and easy examples to prove your lie that NO medical professional has EVER said a baby is sacred.

(25-03-2012 04:40 AM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  Clearly your capabilities are challenged, as obviously you can't reply with logic, and science, (but only with) condescension and name calling.

Lie - I have made multiple valid scientific points, as verifiable from the record in this thread. I have provided links to external scientific sources, as verifiable from the record of this thread. I have replied with logic by citing multiple logical fallacies that you keep committing - not only referencing them, but describing them by name and outlining how you are committed said logical fallacies.

(25-03-2012 04:40 AM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  I don't have to prove anything. It is well known, that the ORIGINS of morality rest in group survival, and individual survival.

Logical Fallacy - Prejudicial Conjecture. You made a positive claim regarding the origin of morality, with nothing to verify your claim beyond a feeble "everybody knows it". With no support, your claim becomes irrelevant.

(25-03-2012 04:40 AM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  If you had a real education, you would know that. Do you live in the backwoods of Kentucky ? Have you EVER been to school ?

Logical Fallacy - Ad Hominem Attack.

(25-03-2012 04:40 AM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  you never answered the argument,

Lie - I provided sufficient argument to the points brought up in the other thread, including links to external sources to support my claims, as verifiable on the record in the other thread (YEC explanation for traveling light - posts #51 and #58)

(25-03-2012 04:40 AM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  and in fact, by your staement : "gods plan 'before' time began" betrayed a profound ignorance of Philosophy and Physics.

Finally, you actually have the shades of a valid point here. I used a word that, in context, should have been obvious to the point at hand by anyone reading it. However, someone may come along and attempt to equivocate upon it, as you have done, and so I will concede. I should have used a different word. So I hereby apologize for using a poor choice of words, and I hereby amend the statement to read "God's plan outside of when time began". This clarifies the point being made, and changes none of the argument or support which I have given.

(25-03-2012 04:40 AM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  Every term one can use to describe the "existence", (including that word itself), of a god REQUIRES a temporal, or super-temporal dimension of time.

Logical Fallacy - False Analogy. You continue to impose conditions INTERNAL to this universe onto concepts OUTSIDE of the universe. This is simply illogical. Conditions which exist only inside a closed system cannot be imposed upon entities outside the system.

(25-03-2012 04:40 AM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  Knowing, loving, getting angry, begetting, becoming appeased by a death, all require a temporal dimension in which to proceed, or they are meaningless.

Logical Fallacy - False Example. You continue to confuse "states of being" with "processes of doing". You keep mixing in examples of "acts that are done" to attempt to prove that something applies to "states that exist". For example, getting angry is clearly different than being angry. It's clear from the very words used!

(25-03-2012 04:40 AM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  if the Singularity is true, (the Big Bang), it invalidates EVERY concept of god,

Logical Fallacy - Irrelevant Thesis. You are again arguing against a point which I never made. I made no concession whatsoever that the Big Bang was true.

(25-03-2012 04:40 AM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  including that it "acted" BEFORE the Big Bang, thus cannot be it's cause

Logical Fallacy - Unargued Philosophical Bias. You are drawing a conclusion that an entity external to the conditions inside the universe is unable to create the conditions inside the universe. You do this by implying the law of cause and effect in a temporal way, yet you have given no reason to support your biased belief that this law must extend beyond the confines of this universe.

(25-03-2012 04:40 AM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  I was told : (Proverbs 26:4) Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest ye be like unto him yourself. Obviously, they were right.

I find it quite ironic that you bring this up, since this is effectively what I have been doing all along with you - not stooping to your level of ranting without support. However, you seemed to have missed the next verse "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes." Which is why, unlike you, I have provided sound, rational, reasonable support to counter your unsound, logically fallacious, factually incorrect rantings. Clearly you need such answers, since you are appearing wise in your own eyes only.

Now, let's summarize what we've seen here. In 2 short posts, you've:

- committed 10 logical fallacies which have been accurately documented, and teetered on the verge of an 11th if you don't provide supporting evidence for the point that was made.
- claimed 6 outright lies, which are all verifiably false according to the records here and referenced elsewhere.

If you care to address any of the actual points being made, you are welcome to do so. If you wish to simply continue to rant, rant away on your own.

QED!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2012, 02:18 PM
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
(26-03-2012 03:53 AM)SixForty Wrote:  
(25-03-2012 12:30 AM)kineo Wrote:  The world is a serious of grey tones, where some things more easily appear right than others. Your perception of right and wrong is colored by your environment- by the society in which you were raised.

But our perception of something doesn't speak to the actual truth of the matter. My perception of logic can be flawed, for example by consistently committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent. My perception of logic may be coloured by the society I was raised in, but that doesn't speak to whether or not there are actual objective logical truths that exist.

And there are few objective truths out there- namely those that you referenced earlier in our discussion: laws of gravity, mathematics, etc. So far as I know there is no evidence to suggest that morality has any objectivity at all.

So, I have to admit that I'm not the best person to argue this case. I'm neither an anthropologist nor an archeologist, so this argument is conjecture coming from me- so I fully expect you to ignore it or even shoot it down, but that's ok. It simply means I have a lot to learn in this area. So this is what I think, and as I learn more on the subject my opinion will probably change. When we say something is right or wrong, we consider it so because of a combination of both our genes and environmental history. We may be wired, because of our evolutionary history, to believe that killing of the members of our immediate social circles is wrong because community was and is necessary for our survival as a species. Over time we've built upon that more or less genetic instinct into a much more complex code for behavioral management. Our immediate communities are now much larger and more complex than they were throughout our early evolution, and so our morality has changed to accommodate these changes. Again, conjecture. I'll have to research more on this later.

(26-03-2012 03:53 AM)SixForty Wrote:  
(25-03-2012 12:30 AM)kineo Wrote:  DNA is a replicator and it has gotten extremely good at replicating. Its ability to replicate has taken many different forms, but ultimately in whatever form it exists, it exists for the purpose of replication. Nothing more than that.

I find that to be an arbitrary conclusion. You are taking a descriptive comment about the nature of DNA (it's replication) and assigning that description as it's purpose. I breathe, but breathing is not my purpose. Dogs eat, but eating is not their purpose. Water flows downhill, but I wouldn't claim that to be it's purpose, no more than I would evaporation or quenching thirst. DNA does many different things - why is replication defined as it's purpose?

I'm not sure sure it's arbitrary, but you're right that replication is not its sole purpose. The other aspect of DNA (information storage) is there for the purpose of aiding the replication. Elements of the DNA code that work against its replication may cause the replication to cease entirely. This means mutations in the DNA code that are beneficial or non-threatening to replication get passed on and mutations in the code that are problematic do not. Richard Dawkins discusses this a little bit in "The Blind Watchmaker" (I highly recommend) and extensively in "The Selfish Gene" (I haven't read).

Here's some more info on the selfish gene theory.

But this part of the discussion is carrying us further away from the discussion of morality. But perhaps closer to its origin. You believe morality to be a divine creation, inherent in all human beings- based on Biblical suggestion and the fact that certain moral characteristics appear to be present in all humans.

It seems to me that morality is simply an evolved trait- or a series of traits that we wrap up into the box of morality. The moral characteristics presents in all humans are those that are best suited for survival- an example being disapprobation of murder (especially to other humans within our own family or community). It seems easy to me to see how this type of trait could and would evolve and is consistent with other social animals, like gorillas and chimps. Both gorillas ans chimpanzees posses social ethical traits that are similar to such traits in humans, but more rudimentary. Without those traits, though, the species would not survive. Humans would not have gotten very far without such traits either.

(26-03-2012 03:53 AM)SixForty Wrote:  
(25-03-2012 12:30 AM)kineo Wrote:  Genesis 19:19 Lot is speaking to the angels which have come to deliver him from Sodom. Behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life. But I cannot escape to the hills, lest the disaster overtake me and I die.

So God still acted favorably toward Lot even after he threw his daughters out to the crowd looking to rape the angels. Even as just a chronicling of events, God endorsed the rape of Lot's daughters by still saving him- by acting favorably toward him above the rest of Sodom.

This is an absurd conclusion. First, the verse does not say he found favour for attempting to give his daughters over to rape. The verse is simply Lot acknowledging that he found favour for some reason, but doesn't speak to the reason. From the passage, it could easily be deduced that he found favour for feeding and sheltering them. But even further, if you read the entire story in context, it could be deduced that Lot found favour with them before they even arrived, since it appears God's plan was to save Lot all along. You appear to be making a judgement about why God found favour with Lot here, without the actual support for your conclusion. Second, making the conclusion that God endorsed the rape of Lot's daughters just because He saved Lot is absurd! Just compare that with other stories of fallible men - God didn't endorse murder just because Moses killed someone and God still used him; God didn't endorse adultery just because David slept with Bathsheba and God still blessed his reign as king; God didn't endorse prostitution just because Rahab was spared from the destruction of Jericho. The bible clearly shows many instances of God using less than stellar people - that in no way means that he endorses everything they do! I think you're making an unwarranted leap here to come up with the conclusion that you do.

I see what you're saying, and I go back and forth on this one. This God is supposed to be a perfect being and cannot abide evil, yet he finds favor in someone who chooses something we now find very evil. Either our morality has changed or else God is not a moral being. But maybe that's a false dichotomy. There are other options- such as God creating methods of supplication for forgiveness. But it does seem like our view on morality has changed when we read this chapter of Genesis.

This act of Lot's is not treated as an evil act. The angels come into the city and lot entreats them to stay with him, despite their objection. Lot knows that the city will turn bad at night and the angels won't be safe (because apparently God's angels can't take care of themselves?). He insists strongly that they stay with him and he'll take care of them- prepare them a meal, prepare a bed, etc. He is treating this angels with high honor and as special guests. They're angels of God, right? They should be treated with great respect. And part of that great respect and honor is to ensure that they don't get raped, so instead he pushes his daughters out the door. The angels should be honored to be treated with such great reverence. The people of Sodom were bad people and Lot and his family were good, and they were stuck in this horrible place until they were given favor and were saved by God's angels. There is a lesson to be learned- honor God above yourself and your family and you will be rewarded. It does not read as just a historical chronicle like you say it is- because there is a lesson. I know this from many Bible studies focused on this well-known story during my time as Christian. It's used frequently to teach lessons. It's not just a historical event, and it's not treated as such by many Christians.

But you're right- it is a somewhat weak argument to use Lot- but still an argument can be made. There are many other Biblical accounts that I referenced where Israelites were instructed to take wives from the spoils of war- forced marriage, with presumably forced consummation (rape). Those are not weak arguments- they are direct commands through Moses from God.


(26-03-2012 03:53 AM)SixForty Wrote:  
(25-03-2012 12:30 AM)kineo Wrote:  He may not be behind it, but he still allows it.

So he should step in at every point to stop people from being idiots? The only way you can possibly accept that is if you are willing to give up your free will. I don't think you want to be God's puppet anymore than he want's people to be his puppets. If you are going to accept free will, then you can't accuse God for not jumping in and taking it away from people at every moment they may make a poor decision.

All your comments here about the details about the Old Testament are valid questions. However, they have all been dealt with - by people spanning thousands of years! Most have easy answers, but some do have very hard, complex answers. But honestly, I don't know why people even bother bringing up all these little points. If you really want to paint God to be a monster, why not just go for the jugular? The buck stops with the flood - the biggest massacre of all. An entire planet wiped out - likely tens of millions of people slaughtered in one big hit, with only 8 people saved. Men, women, children, good, bad, everyone in between. All drowned - one of the most psychologically terrifying deaths there is. If you really want to claim God as a monster, don't bother with all those other petty little claims about rape, human sacrifice or genocide. Pull out the big gun - near mass extinction!

But again, there are answers to all of this. If you are just pulling these issues out because you want to discredit the bible, then I doubt any information would ever convince you otherwise. If you actually want to dig into the truth of the book to understand these issues, I'd suggest starting with a book called Is God a Moral Monster by Paul Copan. Very eye opening to anyone who wants to read critically about the issues.

Yes, the flood is often used to show just how evil God can be. He even promised never to do it again, as if it were somehow wrong of him to do in the first place. And he did this trying to "step in and stop people from being idiots" too. But, you bring up free will- which I also do not see how it can exist with an all-knowing, all-powerful God. But that's a whole other discussion- which I really wouldn't mind taking part in.

But with regard to "digging into the truth" this is one of my biggest pet peeves about the Bible. I spent years studying it in church, youth group, Bible studies, Master's Commission. I spent years teaching it, expounding on it, digging into the Greek and Hebrew with my concordance. And I've come to realize that it's not an ageless document, and it's not a perfect "Word of God". If it were a true divinely inspired book, then why must we research every single verse and review the original Greek and Hebrew for possible re-interpretations; and also let's not forget about historical context! Truely to study the Bible you must be a Biblical historian. So what about all those people who can't be a historian? They'll never know the REAL truth of this ageless inspired Word. Especially if they're unlucky enough to have been born in a third world country. So if they get hung up on these horrific acts from a supposedly just God, then they're screwed! Because maybe they don't have the time and resources to focus on really digging in to the truth. The layman simply cannot win.

The Bible is just a work of man and no divine inspiration is evident. It's a tedious book with lots of good messages, bad messages, and tedious "history". Evidence suggests that it was written and re-written and modified over the years by many different authors. And it was revised and rewritten presumably for the purpose of control- to gather support and control the people of a nation- Israel.

(26-03-2012 03:53 AM)SixForty Wrote:  
(25-03-2012 12:30 AM)kineo Wrote:  This is still wrong.

See, this is where you lose me. You are being completely inconsistent with yourself. You claim morality is subjective. You claim that it is coloured by environment and society. You claim it is influenced by evolution, that we have just become more advanced with our higher thinking. You claim it is all relative.

Then you go and make an absolute, objective statement like "This is still wrong". You just self-refuted your own entire argument.

Not so. As I've argued, morality has evolved with people. At that the Bible was written slavery and servant-hood were acceptable as perfectly moral behavior- and still is in some places in the world. But we've largely reached a point in humanity where we regard these things as wrong- and that they always were wrong. And that humanity was wrong to engage in slavery and forced servant-hood. We now recognize that each person has a right to dignity and freedom (freedom so long as they act morally/ethically), and when I say "This is still wrong" I say so with that in mind. Not by some objective rule, but by the ethics that have been built upon and improved throughout our history. You want me to recognize an objective law, but I do not. Any ethical or moral rule we have comes from us and nowhere else. The rights to freedom and dignity don't come from a god, but from our recognition that each person has one life to live and it should be lived with the ability to strive to live a good life.

You are trying to suggest that there is more meaning to my words than what I intended them to. But that could be partly my fault for not clarifying that in the post where I said that. But the fact remains that neither the Bible nor God has anything to say about slavery being bad- just that slaves should obey their masters. Our societies in the US and in many first-world countries now believe slavery to be wrong. We are now morally superior to the Bible in that respect.

Godzilla Kitten, Directed by J.J. Abrams
[Image: Kineoprojectfinished3_zps79916ea4.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kineo's post
27-03-2012, 02:23 PM
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
This thread turned really shitty over the last few days.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2012, 02:26 PM
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
Hmmm, I need to find some more YEC "science" to post.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kingschosen's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: