Question about flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-03-2015, 08:13 AM
RE: Question about flood
(20-03-2015 12:39 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  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.

A lion will kill a hyena to reduce competition for prey. It will also kill a hyena so there's more chance it's cubs will survive.

(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.

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

Yes, but it's a law that has been observed in the wild and agreed upon between zoologists.

Quote:Who determined that survival is a good thing, and why is it a good thing?

It's nature - survival of the fittest.

Quote: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.

That's happening right now.

Quote: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?

And thankfully, that's not what been agreed upon.

Quote: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.

One less cheetah for that lion's cubs to worry about.


Quote: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?

No, it's not nice - but it is nature, purely instictual from the lion. He'll put his life on the line the next day for his own cubs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2015, 08:22 AM
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?

Frightening isn't it? And these are the people who claim to have a monopoly on morality.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2015, 09:00 AM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2015 08:57 PM by Call_of_the_Wild.)
RE: Question about flood
(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  My apologies for interjecting into this discussion, but there were a few things I was interested in discussing.

Fresh meat Yes

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  Wait, are you saying the Bible is a historical account?

Yes

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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?

No

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

Christianity borrowed from whom?



(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  Here is a short list of the logic and evidence:

1. Problem of Evil

In order for there to be a problem of evil, one has to presuppose a standard of goodness at which the evil is in contrary too, and on atheism, there is no objective problem of evil, but a subjective problem of evil. So before we can get in depths with this argument, first I would need to know on what grounds does an atheist stand on for objective morality?

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  2. Euthyphro dilemma

Euthypro dilemma is like saying "Is it an apple because it came from an apple tree, or does coming from an apple tree make it an apple" Laugh out load

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  3. Problem of Hell
4. Problem of Heaven

Never heard of these two.

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  5. Occam’s razor

The God Hypothesis has more explanatory value than the Nature Hypothesis, so it is necessary to go with the explanation that better explains the question of origins (life, morality, consciousness, universe).

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  6. Problem of multiple religions

Due to the strong case that can be made for Christianity/Resurrection, all other religions seem very obsolete.

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  7. SPAG (Self Projection as God)
8. Incompatible-properties argument

Never heard of these two.

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  9. History of the Bible (specifically an argument against the Abrahamic religions)

I am a Christian, so theoretically, my belief begins with the New Testament, so you can debunk the Old Testament all you want to, but I am on a completely different geographical location with the New Testament, and it is here I'd like us to meet for battle Yes

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  10. Theological noncognitivism

Never heard of this one.

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  11. No objectively verifiable evidence exists for the existence of any god or gods

The kalam cosmological argument is objective, verifiable, and demonstrable evidence of a First Cause.

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  12. Psychology, Physics, Biology and the Scientific Method and the fact that Science actually works

If you can't scientifically explain how life came from nonlife, knowledge came from ignorance (consciousness), the universe came from nothing, and the concept of objective morality...then apparently, science isnt working too well.

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  13. Argument from poor design

A poor design is still a design Laugh out load

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  14. Praying to anything including inanimate objects is equally as effective as praying to a god or gods

Based on what?

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  15. Paradox of free will

This may be your biggest chance.

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  16. Argument from inconsistent revelations

Never heard of this one.

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  17. All religious apologetic arguments have been refuted (despite your denial that they have)

Refuted by whom?

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  18. Omnipotence paradox and Omniscience paradox

Elaboration needed.

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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

Never heard of these.

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  Dude, you have SO so so far to go. You’d have a better chance of arguing for UFO’s, Ancient Aliens and Bigfoot.

Well, if you say so Laugh out load

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

According to Christian theism, God is an unembodied mind. Now sure, I can't tell you what an unembodied mind looks like, but the concept is definitely conceivable, because I can...CONCEIVE IT. God also has four attributes that makes up his character...he is omnipotent (the most powerful being one can imagine), ominiscient (knowing the truth value of all propositions), omnipresent (at all places at all times), and and omnibenevolent (the ULTIMATE standard of moral perfection).

You made it seem as if this was supposed to be a difficult task, when it is actually quite easy.

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  The problem with this step in the ontological argument is that it assumes just because something possibly exists that it does in fact exist.

Actually, it doesn't. It assumes that all POSSIBLE necessary truths must be ACTUALLY true <---this statement is what you must grasp. This may take a while for you to grasp, it took me a long time...but you are smarter than me, right? Big Grin

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

That is the original OA...but I am talking about the Modal version...so basically, none of what you said in the above encyclopedia relates to the version I am defending.

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  I’d say point 2 was the most illogical of all the points.

Based on?

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

That is because you are only looking at the outline of the argument at face value. Obviously, the person defending the argument will go through the argument step by step and explain why each premises is true.

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

Well, if #2 is true, then it is a pretty damn good assumption that this being exists in every possible world.

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

The definition of something is independent of whether or not that "something" exists. This is something that I recognize, and I am the one that is defending the argument Laugh out load So obviously, that isn't what is being done here.

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  It starts with the premise that God exists,

No, it starts with the premise that it is POSSIBLE for God to exist. That is a big fundamental difference that you need to realize.

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  and assumes this premise is true without ever actually logically demonstrating anything.

Again, you only have an outline of the argument...the defender of the argument will go down the list one by one and make a case for each premise.

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

All premises are true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2015, 09:10 AM
RE: Question about flood
(21-03-2015 08:13 AM)Helio Wrote:  A lion will kill a hyena to reduce competition for prey. It will also kill a hyena so there's more chance it's cubs will survive.

And a drug dealer will kill a rival drug dealer to reduce competition for drug revenue. They will also kill a rival drug dealer to keep from being killed themselves, sometimes them, AND their family.

Remember, those drug dealers are ANIMALS, on your view. Animals kill other animals for whatever reason.

(21-03-2015 08:13 AM)Helio Wrote:  Yes, but it's a law that has been observed in the wild and agreed upon between zoologists.

Wait a minute, so zoologists are the ones that gets to make the rules??

(21-03-2015 08:13 AM)Helio Wrote:  It's nature - survival of the fittest.

Who said that survival was a good thing??

(21-03-2015 08:13 AM)Helio Wrote:  And thankfully, that's not what been agreed upon.

So objective morality comes from the leading population...so what if everyone agreed that torturing children for fun was right...would it be right??

(21-03-2015 08:13 AM)Helio Wrote:  One less cheetah for that lion's cubs to worry about.

Right!! And when a drug dealers kills a rival drug dealer, it is one less rival drug dealer to worry about in terms of the former drug dealer's well being (life) and also for drug sales revenue...two birds with one stone.

(21-03-2015 08:13 AM)Helio Wrote:  No, it's not nice - but it is nature, purely instictual from the lion. He'll put his life on the line the next day for his own cubs.

But if that is the lion's law, who are you to say it isn't nice??? So you and the lion have a differences of opinion on this matter, don't you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2015, 10:56 PM
RE: Question about flood
(20-03-2015 12:43 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(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.

Don't know where the rape stuff came from? Are you serious?!! Facepalm Numbers 31 (keeping only the virgin Midianite girls but killing everyone else), Deuteronomy 22 (must marry the rapist if not betrothed, if you are, you are stoned. If you don't cry out loud enough in a city, you are stoned), Judges 21 (Teaching the Benjaminites to kidnap girls for themselves to repopulate), 2 Samuel 12 (David's wives are condemned to be raped for David's screw up as a punishment and god kills a child of David's). What the hell do you think they were capturing them for? These are only a couple of them and they are completely condoned by god. You are one disgusting human being if you think that any of this is justified, righteous, or good.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2015, 11:55 PM
RE: Question about flood
(21-03-2015 10:56 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Don't know where the rape stuff came from? Are you serious?!! Facepalm Numbers 31 (keeping only the virgin Midianite girls but killing everyone else), Deuteronomy 22 (must marry the rapist if not betrothed, if you are, you are stoned. If you don't cry out loud enough in a city, you are stoned), Judges 21 (Teaching the Benjaminites to kidnap girls for themselves to repopulate), 2 Samuel 12 (David's wives are condemned to be raped for David's screw up as a punishment and god kills a child of David's). What the hell do you think they were capturing them for? These are only a couple of them and they are completely condoned by god.

Dude, please...stay off of those infidel sites. No one got raped in any of those scriptures. Judges 21 wasn't even ordered by God. Deut 22 doesn't actually benefit the rapist by requiring him to marry the woman that he raped and prohibiting him from divorcing her...because if she refuses sexual relations with him throughout the marriage, he can't divorce her, and he can't have have sex with anyone else without committing adultery, which was punishable with death. So it was a catch-22 for the rapist so he was better off keeping his penis in his pants.

2 Samuel 12, no one is being raped there, either. Absalom had sex with his fathers wives, for all you or I know, that could have been consensual, and once again, rape is neither said nor implied here. That is just you reading into the scriptures once again, in order to have something there to justify your continual unbelief.

(21-03-2015 10:56 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  You are one disgusting human being if you think that any of this is justified, righteous, or good.

And you are judging God based on your own personal standard of what it means to be "good", huh? Without being able to explain where you get your standards of morality from, huh? Laughat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2015, 02:47 AM
RE: Question about flood
(21-03-2015 11:55 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(21-03-2015 10:56 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  You are one disgusting human being if you think that any of this is justified, righteous, or good.

And you are judging God based on your own personal standard of what it means to be "good", huh? Without being able to explain where you get your standards of morality from, huh? Laughat

Ah I see, so God's standard of good is that rape and so forth is lovely. Killing for God is AOK. Being a douchenozzle for God - as long as it's *for God* that you're a troglodyte, that's the best thing ever Smile

I think I'll pass ya know. Fucked if I care where I get my morals from, they've got a much better claim to justification, righteousness and goodness than the twaddle you peddle.

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
22-03-2015, 04:52 AM
RE: Question about flood
(22-03-2015 02:47 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(21-03-2015 11:55 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  And you are judging God based on your own personal standard of what it means to be "good", huh? Without being able to explain where you get your standards of morality from, huh? Laughat

Ah I see, so God's standard of good is that rape and so forth is lovely. Killing for God is AOK. Being a douchenozzle for God - as long as it's *for God* that you're a troglodyte, that's the best thing ever Smile

I think I'll pass ya know. Fucked if I care where I get my morals from, they've got a much better claim to justification, righteousness and goodness than the twaddle you peddle.

You're getting to know CotWLaughat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2015, 08:14 AM
RE: Question about flood
I'm always impressed by the balls it takes for a theist to come on here, be reduced to saying that something like genocide is moral because god commanded it, then turn around and tell us in the throes of debasement they have been reduced to that we are the immoral ones because they aren't interested enough in the subject to figure out where morality comes from.

I tend to think that justifying genocide through divine command theory should be a warnable offence, but for now I'll be content to de-rep when I see such posts.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Hafnof's post
22-03-2015, 08:16 AM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2015 08:32 AM by The Organic Chemist.)
RE: Question about flood
(21-03-2015 11:55 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Dude, please...stay off of those infidel sites.

By "infidel" sites, you mean biblegateway.com? The christian-run website with tons of different translations? Laughat


Also, let's define what rape is here.
Quote: Webster's dictionary
1: an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a person by force
2: unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent — compare sexual assault, statutory rape
3: an outrageous violation

(21-03-2015 11:55 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  No one got raped in any of those scriptures. Judges 21 wasn't even ordered by God.

I'll give you that. However can you cite ANY passage that says rape is wrong? Where was the condemnation from the almighty for the act? Perhaps you should refresh yourself with WHY the women were gone in the first place (hint: it's the previous chapter). This act is within the definition of rape as they took the girls against their will for the purposes of repopulating the Benjaminites which requires sex since the last time I checked, sex is required for procreation.

Quote: Judges 21
15 The people grieved for Benjamin, because the Lord had made a gap in the tribes of Israel. 16 And the elders of the assembly said, “With the women of Benjamin destroyed, how shall we provide wives for the men who are left? 17 The Benjamite survivors must have heirs,” they said, “so that a tribe of Israel will not be wiped out. 18 We can’t give them our daughters as wives, since we Israelites have taken this oath: ‘Cursed be anyone who gives a wife to a Benjamite.’ 19 But look, there is the annual festival of the Lord in Shiloh, which lies north of Bethel, east of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem, and south of Lebonah.”

20 So they instructed the Benjamites, saying, “Go and hide in the vineyards 21 and watch. When the young women of Shiloh come out to join in the dancing, rush from the vineyards and each of you seize one of them to be your wife. Then return to the land of Benjamin. 22 When their fathers or brothers complain to us, we will say to them, ‘Do us the favor of helping them, because we did not get wives for them during the war. You will not be guilty of breaking your oath because you did not give your daughters to them.’” 23 So that is what the Benjamites did. While the young women were dancing, each man caught one and carried her off to be his wife. Then they returned to their inheritance and rebuilt the towns and settled in them.



(21-03-2015 11:55 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Deut 22 doesn't actually benefit the rapist by requiring him to marry the woman that he raped and prohibiting him from divorcing her...because if she refuses sexual relations with him throughout the marriage, he can't divorce her, and he can't have have sex with anyone else without committing adultery, which was punishable with death. So it was a catch-22 for the rapist so he was better off keeping his penis in his pants.

Facepalm And this makes it ok how? What about the girl? Wouldn't it have been easier for god to say NOT to rape a woman instead of making her marry him and thereby forcing her to attempt to withold sex from him (which if he raped her before, why would he stop after marriage?) It may be a Catch-22 for the guy but it is hell for the girl. Now not only does she have to marry this asshole and see him every day but now she has the pleasure of a lifetime of being reminded of her ruined life every time she sees him. Try to put yourself in her shoes and tell me that is just and fair. If the law was put that she did not have to marry him and he alone would be punished, she could then maybe move on with her life, maybe meet someone who actually cares about her, and perhaps live a happier life you'd then have a point. But no, she must marry the guy who forced himself on her.


(21-03-2015 11:55 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  2 Samuel 12, no one is being raped there, either. Absalom had sex with his fathers wives, for all you or I know, that could have been consensual, and once again, rape is neither said nor implied here. That is just you reading into the scriptures once again, in order to have something there to justify your continual unbelief.

This is god talking through Nathan to David (Absalom was not part of this situation, not sure why you mentioned him). Here are a few different translations of the same passage.
Quote: 2 Samuel 12: 11 “This is what the Lord says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’” (NIV)
Quote: 2 Samuel 12: 11 This is what the Lord says: ‘See, I will bring trouble against you from your own family. I will take your wives in front of your eyes and give them to your neighbor. He will lie with your wives in the light of day. 12 You did it in secret. But I will do this in front of all Israel, and under the sun.’” (RSV, NKJV, NLV, and ESV)


I'm sorry, I thought that god always fulfilled his promises. My bad. And since it would be against their will, that would also qualify as rape. You are also completely ignoring that the authors are treating women as if they are nothing more than pawns that are only to be used. Women are people too and deserve more respect than that.


(21-03-2015 11:55 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  And you are judging God based on your own personal standard of what it means to be "good", huh? Without being able to explain where you get your standards of morality from, huh? Laughat

I am not saying anything about god here, I am talking about you. My standards of morality come from my innate desire to survive and to help the species survive. That is easily explained by evolution. If you don't know why, don't be lazy and look it up. There are tons of posts on here talking about this very thing.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: