Question about flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-03-2015, 08:16 AM
RE: Question about flood
(22-03-2015 08:14 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  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.

I think it should be a bannable offense. One warning, then boom. Drinking Beverage




Not seriously - they need to be held up to ridicule. Yes





Then boom. Dodgy

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
22-03-2015, 09:03 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:  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

Morality comes from the ability to consider the consequences of our actions. A particular action or choice is morally right when it promotes happiness, well being or health or it minimizes unnecessary harm or suffering or it does both. A particular action or choice is morally wrong when it diminishes happiness, well being or health or it causes unnecessary harm or suffering or it does both.




Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
22-03-2015, 10:31 AM
RE: Question about flood
(22-03-2015 08:16 AM)Chas Wrote:  ... they need to be held up to ridicule.

I think Call_of_the_Wild is doing a pretty fine job of ridiculing himself.

A few posts back he dismisses the problem of multiple religions out of hand by asserting that the resurrection is so well established as to render all other religions obsolete.

Item: There's zero evidence anywhere except in the self-serving Christian Gospels to support the resurrection. (The laughable argument that "It must be true because the Bible says it's true and the Bible must be true because the Bible says it's the Word of God." If the Bible is the Word of God then God is a moron because the Bible is jam-packed with lies, mistakes, and contradictions. Fortunately for Christians who are not bat-shit crazy fundamentalists, there's really no need for a Christian to view the Bible as anything other than a collection of allegories, poetry, and ancient mythology whose value is purely literary.)

Item: Lots of religions have resurrection myths with equally good (i.e. bullshit) "evidence" in their stories.

"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
[+] 4 users Like daniel1948's post
22-03-2015, 11:39 AM
RE: Question about flood
(22-03-2015 02:47 AM)morondog Wrote:  Ah I see, so God's standard of good is that rape and so forth is lovely.

How the hell was rape "lovely" when they were commanded to put rapists to death??

Makes no sense.

(22-03-2015 02:47 AM)morondog Wrote:  Killing for God is AOK.

Again, a sarcastic statement based on another hopeless soul that is so pissed off at God for his commandments, yet, this hopeless soul can't explain why killing is objectively wrong on an atheistic worldview at which humans are nothing but animals, and animals kill each other.

Makes no sense.

(22-03-2015 02:47 AM)morondog Wrote:  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.

How do you know that your moral's are the correct standard, or are you using your moral codes to justify whether your own moral codes are right or wrong?

Kinda like the common atheist quip when they say "you are using the Bible to explain the Bible"

Using your own moral standards to base whether or not your moral standards are right or wrong is the moral version of "using the Bible to explain the Bible" Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2015, 11:49 AM
RE: Question about flood
(22-03-2015 08:14 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  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

If you think genocide is wrong (on atheism) you are presupposing a standard of goodness, but you cannot adequately explain why YOUR particular standard of goodness is the right standard and genocide is the wrong standard.

So you are basically saying "God is not abiding by MY moral standards, so God is wrong, and I am right".

Wait a minute, your moral standards?? Who are you? Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2015, 11:55 AM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2015 12:02 PM by TubbyTubby.)
RE: Question about flood
(22-03-2015 11:39 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Using your own moral standards to base whether or not your moral standards are right or wrong is the moral version of "using the Bible to explain the Bible" Laugh out load
People like you are why we haven't done better as a species. You are a pitiful example of the result of child indoctrination.

You're are an arrogant, irritating, delusional and dangerous fucked up human being and a proper knob-head to boot.

Using Tapatalk
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2015, 11:57 AM
RE: Question about flood
(22-03-2015 10:31 AM)daniel1948 Wrote:  I think Call_of_the_Wild is doing a pretty fine job of ridiculing himself.

I am just a service worker...making a case call Big Grin

(22-03-2015 10:31 AM)daniel1948 Wrote:  A few posts back he dismisses the problem of multiple religions out of hand by asserting that the resurrection is so well established as to render all other religions obsolete.

Yes

(22-03-2015 10:31 AM)daniel1948 Wrote:  Item: There's zero evidence anywhere except in the self-serving Christian Gospels to support the resurrection.

I disagree with that, but either way, you are assuming that the Resurrection accounts in the Bible cannot be true unless they are substantiated by external-Biblical sources, which is fallacious reasoning.

The Bible could be true regardless of whether there is any outside books or documents to support it.

(22-03-2015 10:31 AM)daniel1948 Wrote:  (The laughable argument that "It must be true because the Bible says it's true and the Bible must be true because the Bible says it's the Word of God."

This is an old and played out quip by atheists...and it is in the same line of played out quips as the famous "God of the gaps" quips that atheists are so quick to snap on Christians with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2015, 12:05 PM
RE: Question about flood
(22-03-2015 11:49 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 08:14 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  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

If you think genocide is wrong (on atheism) you are presupposing a standard of goodness, but you cannot adequately explain why YOUR particular standard of goodness is the right standard and genocide is the wrong standard.

So you are basically saying "God is not abiding by MY moral standards, so God is wrong, and I am right".

Wait a minute, your moral standards?? Who are you? Laugh out load

The standard is not atheism, but secular humanism.

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
22-03-2015, 12:08 PM
RE: Question about flood
(22-03-2015 11:57 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The Bible could be true regardless of whether there is any outside books or documents to support it.

There is no reason to suppose that it is.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
22-03-2015, 12:12 PM
RE: Question about flood
(22-03-2015 11:49 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 08:14 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  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

If you think genocide is wrong (on atheism) you are presupposing a standard of goodness, but you cannot adequately explain why YOUR particular standard of goodness is the right standard and genocide is the wrong standard.

So you are basically saying "God is not abiding by MY moral standards, so God is wrong, and I am right".

Wait a minute, your moral standards?? Who are you? Laugh out load

Who are we? We are the people who exist on this planet, determining acceptable behavior for society as we go along, changing that behavior when needed, and punishing those who go against the standard. There is no objective right and wrong, but if it makes you feel better, imagine society is god and you need to obey the rules 'because god says so and god is more powerful than you.' You're used to that line of thinking; it shouldn't be too much of a stretch. Drinking Beverage

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like guitar_nut's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: