Question about flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-03-2015, 11:24 AM
RE: Question about flood
(20-03-2015 09:42 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I am not worthy enough to shake the hand of Jesus.

No, you'd just kill for him.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RobbyPants's post
20-03-2015, 12:39 PM
RE: Question about flood
(20-03-2015 10:56 AM)Helio Wrote:  It's not the same thing - the lions know they will die of starvation if they do not make a kill.

You are talking about the killing of prey animals, I am talking about the killing of non-prey animals. I've seen a lion kill a hyena just for the hell of it, didn't even eat it. That sounds like premediated murder to me.


(20-03-2015 10:56 AM)Helio Wrote:  No, survival of the fittest is a law that has been used to describe the behaviour of animals in the wild.

But we are all animals, though. Humans are animals too.

(20-03-2015 10:56 AM)Helio Wrote:  Morality evolved because it contains survival value.

Who determined that survival is a good thing, and why is it a good thing? Suppose another species of animals determined that the earth is only for their species, and to hell with everyone else...so they just started killing off other species...that would be survival value considering there will be a lot less competition for food if they did it.

(20-03-2015 10:56 AM)Helio Wrote:  Humans can be considered herd animals, so we as a society agree that murder should have repercussions. (In this case, laws to enforce order)

Ahhh, so our laws are based on what we agree upon...so if we all agreed that the rape of children is just fine, then there would be nothing morally wrong with it, correct?

(20-03-2015 10:56 AM)Helio Wrote:  Taxonomically, yes, humans (Homo Sapiens) are animals.

Exactly Yes

(20-03-2015 10:56 AM)Helio Wrote:  Lions kill for survival - they do not take pleasure in killing and they have to kill quickly because they know a clan of hyenas are not too far away.

I saw a video where a lion ambushed and killed a cheetah for no reason at all. The cheetah posed no threat to it whatsoever. The lion just killed it. Again, sounds like premediated murder to me.

(20-03-2015 10:56 AM)Helio Wrote:  How do you come to that conclusion? Consider

I will give you a prime example, although I am sure you already know this...but when a male lion takes over a pride, he will kill all of the cubs, and the reason is (according to what we think), is that he wants his generation to be carried on as opposed to another lion...so he will kill the cubs, which will allow the females in the pride to be "mate ready", and then they can copulate.

Is this an evil thing to do? Suppose a woman's boyfriend/husband moves into the house and kills all of the women's children that did not belong to him...is this an evil thing to do.

Which case is the evil one? The lion? The man's? Both?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2015, 12:43 PM
RE: Question about flood
(20-03-2015 11:10 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  You mean for "crimes" like blowing it onto the floor instead of in your dead brother's wife who was just killed by god?
Like for "bringing the wrong kind of fire" to the altar?
Like calling someone bald?
Like for touching the ark while trying to keep it from falling over?
For looking over your shoulder?
For being raped?

Our society has better morals than this, thus demonstrating that we did not get our morality from this wicked construct.

Sounds like justified punishments for individuals that disobeyed the commands of the Almighty...although I don't know where you got the "raped" stuff from.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2015, 12:44 PM
RE: Question about flood
(20-03-2015 11:24 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  No, you'd just kill for him.

Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2015, 12:59 PM
RE: Question about flood
(20-03-2015 12:44 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 11:24 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  No, you'd just kill for him.

Yes

[Image: skeptical-sm_zps59fc1324.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
20-03-2015, 02:23 PM
RE: Question about flood
(20-03-2015 12:44 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 11:24 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  No, you'd just kill for him.

Yes

How wonderful. You and your pestilential religion are rotten to the core. At least if you ever *do* carry out your stupid ideas you'll be rapidly removed from society. Shame that we can't do it in advance, but ja, just muttering threats isn't actually illegal as far as I know.

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
20-03-2015, 03:26 PM
RE: Question about flood
My apologies for interjecting into this discussion, but there were a few things I was interested in discussing.

(20-03-2015 09:38 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  We don't have original copies of anything in antiquity, first of all...so therefore, if you hold every other ancient writing to the same standards that you hold the Bible, then we wouldn't be able trust anything in antiquity and therefore the entire genre of history will be unreliable. But of course, your standards are different than actual historians.

Wait, are you saying the Bible is a historical account? Do you think all ancient texts are historical accounts? Does that mean that Hercules, Thor, Vishnu, Amaterasu, Shangdi, the Kraken, Epic of Gilgamesh, Amun-Ra, Mummu, Tiamat, Apsu, Zues and Mohammad are all historical truth?

Actually, if one does use the standards of actual historians, the Bible is just a collection of fairy tales “borrowed” from other fairy tales (of which you assume are false anyway). Try reading a few books on the subject of the history of the Bible and other ancient texts from the era that the Bible was written.


(20-03-2015 09:38 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-03-2015 06:13 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  I am an atheist, not because I don't want to believe, but because I want to believe in that which is true, and all logic and evidence points to a belief that there is no God.

What logic and what evidence...or is this just...more...words.

Are you willfully ignorant or just in denial?

Here is a short list of the logic and evidence:

1. Problem of Evil
2. Euthyphro dilemma
3. Problem of Hell
4. Problem of Heaven
5. Occam’s razor
6. Problem of multiple religions
7. SPAG (Self Projection as God)
8. Incompatible-properties argument
9. History of the Bible (specifically an argument against the Abrahamic religions)
10. Theological noncognitivism
11. No objectively verifiable evidence exists for the existence of any god or gods
12. Psychology, Physics, Biology and the Scientific Method and the fact that Science actually works
13. Argument from poor design
14. Praying to anything including inanimate objects is equally as effective as praying to a god or gods
15. Paradox of free will
16. Argument from inconsistent revelations
17. All religious apologetic arguments have been refuted (despite your denial that they have)
18. Omnipotence paradox and Omniscience paradox
19. Argument from non-belief
20. Destiny of the unevangelized
21. Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit
22. Epistemological razor
23. Russell’s teapot
24. Alder’s razor
25. Argument from locality
26. Inability of a god or gods to heal amputees

Dude, you have SO so so far to go. You’d have a better chance of arguing for UFO’s, Ancient Aliens and Bigfoot.

Most of the points I listed actually have sub-categories of additional problems too. Also, I only listed things I’m familiar with, there is probably more that I’m not familiar with.

(20-03-2015 09:38 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-03-2015 06:13 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  1. The term "maximally great" is not defined. Clearly, this is intended to mean God, but the term is far too vague for any logical argument. And the assertion that such a being is possible is nothing more than an assertion. The assertion has no validity, and all that follows is invalid.

As mentioned previously, any good advocate of the argument will start it off by first defining God, and this can be done by using the definition as a sort of an abstract (summary) BEFORE you begin the argument...or you can define God and use the definition as the first premise of the argument...either way, you are defining God before you begin the argument.

So at this point, the continual crying about how God isn't defined in the argument just won't work.

Actually, “God” hasn’t been defined. That is the problem. Notice how you haven’t actually defined God when claiming that God has been defined. Ironically, a lot of times, religious folks will give the knee jerk reaction, when they can’t honestly define God, by claiming that God can’t be defined. As if not being defined is a good thing. Those who try to actually define God use words that they themselves are undefined. This is the illusion of thinking God has been defined as the definition itself is undefined and therefore God remains undefined while we are meant to think God has been defined. The same problem happens when we try to define imaginary concepts that don’t exist in reality. I note this in my list above, it is called theological noncognitivism.

(20-03-2015 09:38 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-03-2015 06:13 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  2. The second point does not follow logically from the first. It is possible for a human to live in a life-support capsule on Mars, but there is no human living there. The falsity of the statement leaves everything that follows invalid.

Right!!! So there is a possible world at which no humans are living on Mars. So what? That is a contingent truth, not a necessary one...and of course if you don't know the difference between the two, you won't see the significance in the distinction, which you obviously don't.

The problem with this step in the ontological argument is that it assumes just because something possibly exists that it does in fact exist. The typical ontological argument that I’m familiar with often makes the claim that something that exists is greater than something imagined (which could be possible) but again this has the same problem of not defining greater and not giving any reason why this is true nor demonstrating that it is indeed true, thus there is no reason to assume it is true. Why is it a bad thing to assume just because something possibly exists that it does in fact exist? Because anything we imagine then becomes reality according to the argument. If we imagine a being that is capable of killing the maximally great being, then this is also true because the ontological argument is true. If we imagine a maximally great island, then it exists. If we imagine a maximaly great superhero like Superman or the Hulk, then they exist.

The ontological argument basically is a means to convince someone that something imaginary is real. If God did in fact exist, would we still need the ontological argument?

(20-03-2015 09:38 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-03-2015 06:13 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  3. The third point is even more illogical than the previous two. It is downright idiotic.

Based on what? You most certainly HAVEN'T proven anything to be idiotic, sir Laugh out load

I’d say point 2 was the most illogical of all the points. Point 3 goes back to the assumption that the maximally great being would exist in all possible worlds, again without any justification to make such an assumption.

(20-03-2015 09:38 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-03-2015 06:13 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  4., 5. and 6. The fourth, fifth, and sixth points would be true if the points above made any sense, but they don't, so these are irrelevant.

Ahh, so at least you realize that if the first few premises are true, then the rest just logically follows as you go down the line. The problem is, you made a half ass attempt at an analogy to explain why #2 is false, which you failed miserably considering that you compared a contingent truth to a necessary truth, which is literally a comparison of apples and oranges.

Points 4, 5 and 6 are irrelevant because they are just unnecessary conclusions already reached in point 3. If we jump to the assumption that this being exists in every possible world then we already assumed that it exists. The ontological argument might as well be just these three points; 1: God by definition exists, 2: Anything defined to exist, does in fact exist, 3: God exists. That is all the argument is, trying to define God into existence. It starts with the premise that God exists, and assumes this premise is true without ever actually logically demonstrating anything.

In basic Logic 101, this is an attempt at deductive reasoning, however the problem with deductive reasoning is that the premise has to be true and the reasoning is completely useless if the premise isn’t true. So the ontological argument is useless until God can be objectively demonstrated to exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like SevenPatch's post
20-03-2015, 04:51 PM
RE: Question about flood
(20-03-2015 12:44 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 11:24 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  No, you'd just kill for him.

Yes

So you are the same as a member of ISIS? Would you strap on a bomb vest?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2015, 04:53 PM
RE: Question about flood
(20-03-2015 04:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 12:44 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Yes

So you are the same as a member of ISIS? Would you strap on a bomb vest?

Of course, but only if the voices tell him to.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2015, 08:05 AM
RE: Question about flood
Without re-reading this entire thread, I'm not sure which poster said that if God commanded him to kill his child, he'd assume God had a good reason for it, and he'd do it. This brings up one of the most fundamental reasons why religion is dangerous:

How in the world do you know it was God who told you to kill your child? You are simply not capable of distinguishing between the voice of God, the voice of Satan, or the voice arising from psychosis inside your own head. Lots of murderers say (and many actually believe) that God told them to commit their crimes.

A person who believes that God talks directly to him and gives him direct commands is a serious danger to everyone around him, and belongs in prison.

An atheist, on the other hand, knows that any voices in his head are just his head malfunctioning. So if the voices tell him to kill someone, he goes to a shrink instead of becoming a murderer. Only theists kill people on orders of voices in their head.

"El mar se mide por olas,
el cielo por alas,
nosotros por lágrimas."
-- Jaime Sabines
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like daniel1948's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: