[split] An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-06-2014, 10:10 PM
RE: [split] An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(02-06-2014 07:03 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  ...
It's her 16th birthday. A blue Honda civic just pulled up outside. Do you walk her out and help her in, buckle her seatbelt and wave bye-bye?

Depends... has she sinned?

Dodgy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
02-06-2014, 11:37 PM
RE: [split] An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(01-06-2014 04:44 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You think it strange that God would create a world that He knew beforehand would become corrupt.

God can do that. He is God you know.

...according to your fairy tale. But the iron-age goatfuckers who invented it (and the moronic cunts who buy it -- YOU) were too fucking stupid to figure out how dumb it would be to get pissed off over it and destroy its toys. I mean, I'm just a human, and even *I* figured it out.

Dumbass.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
03-06-2014, 05:46 AM
RE: [split] An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(02-06-2014 04:45 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  It's astonishingly sad that you don't see how horrific a god such as this is. Middle of the road Christians sort of own up to it, but not you. It demonstrates one thing. That you are so deluded and brainwashed into accepting the fire and brimstone stories as true that you and your pathetic church justify them in every way you can. You are so convinced this stuff is real that you can't distinguish right from wrong anymore much less what is reality. You and other religious people have invented a "truth" that you all proclaim to be god but find the only way to keep it going is to make excuses and pile on more dogma to make it fit some sort of twisted morality.

I've discussed the flood with numerous apologists. It should come as no surprise that the different ways a person deals with the flood myth is exactly the same as the ways a person deals with cognitive dissonance. If you believe in two contradictory ideas, A and B, you have three options:
  • Reject A
  • Reject B
  • Create an illusion to convince yourself there is no contradiction to remove the dissonance.
So, as it pertains to the flood:
  • Reject God's omnibenevolence.
  • Reject some portion of the flood myth (or all of it).
  • Insist that this was actually the most just and best outcome, but we simply can't comprehend it.

Really, the only difference between the first and third point is that in the third, the apologist says that God looks bad, but we just don't understand it and have to accept that he's good on faith. I've noticed almost every apologist I talk to will start with the third approach. If you get them talking long enough, they eventually migrate to the first position and get all indigent about it. Bonus points if they get sick of the conversation and use the stock "yeah, we'll see who's right when you're burning in hell" response.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
03-06-2014, 07:58 AM
RE: [split] An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(02-06-2014 07:03 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(02-06-2014 06:12 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  nothing you said addresses the post you quoted from me. I asked in the post you quoted: why is God immoral and what is immoral anyway?

Morality is an expanded set of principles expounding on the innate grasp of moral behavior we are born with as a evolved tribal organism.

Imagine you got married, and had a beautiful baby girl. On her 5th birthday you get into a machine that allows you to see, with absolute certainty, every possible path of her life. It lets you see her children, and their children, and 1,000s of generations beyond.

In every timeline, on her 16th birthday, you see her get into a blue Honda Civic, learn the driver will later collide with a schoolbus next to a high explosive factory. 30,000 people will die.

It's her 16th birthday. A blue Honda civic just pulled up outside. Do you walk her out and help her in, buckle her seatbelt and waive bye-bye?

you say we have an innate sense of morality that we are all born with.

i agree.

but if you are a moral relativist then you cannot argue that God has broken some objective moral law which says one ought not be a tyrant.

you want to claim that we all are born with a conscience but then deny objective moral values which our conscience tells us we should adhere to.

you are sawing off the branch you are sitting on.

if all that exists are opinions about what is right and wrong then there is nothing that makes your opinion more preferable over mine. the minute you try to argue that your opinion is better because it is more empathetic or whatever, you are no longer a moral relativist but appeal to being empathetic as an objective moral duty.

hence you affirm premise two of the moral argument and since you have offered no objection to premise one, it follows that God exists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2014, 09:43 AM
RE: [split] An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(03-06-2014 07:58 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(02-06-2014 07:03 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Morality is an expanded set of principles expounding on the innate grasp of moral behavior we are born with as a evolved tribal organism.

Imagine you got married, and had a beautiful baby girl. On her 5th birthday you get into a machine that allows you to see, with absolute certainty, every possible path of her life. It lets you see her children, and their children, and 1,000s of generations beyond.

In every timeline, on her 16th birthday, you see her get into a blue Honda Civic, learn the driver will later collide with a schoolbus next to a high explosive factory. 30,000 people will die.

It's her 16th birthday. A blue Honda civic just pulled up outside. Do you walk her out and help her in, buckle her seatbelt and waive bye-bye?

you say we have an innate sense of morality that we are all born with.

i agree.

but if you are a moral relativist then you cannot argue that God has broken some objective moral law which says one ought not be a tyrant.

you want to claim that we all are born with a conscience but then deny objective moral values which our conscience tells us we should adhere to.

you are sawing off the branch you are sitting on.

if all that exists are opinions about what is right and wrong then there is nothing that makes your opinion more preferable over mine. the minute you try to argue that your opinion is better because it is more empathetic or whatever, you are no longer a moral relativist but appeal to being empathetic as an objective moral duty.

hence you affirm premise two of the moral argument and since you have offered no objection to premise one, it follows that God exists.

So now we're at the point where Walker has given up on basic grammar, such as capitalization. I wonder how much longer before he drops all punctuations and just starts typing in full on lolcat? Consider

I imagine it looks something like this...

[Image: hqdefault.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
03-06-2014, 10:05 AM (This post was last modified: 03-06-2014 10:08 AM by rampant.a.i..)
[split] An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(03-06-2014 07:58 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  [quote='rampant.a.i.' pid='585832' dateline='1401757436']

Morality is an expanded set of principles expounding on the innate grasp of moral behavior we are born with as a evolved tribal organism.

Imagine you got married, and had a beautiful baby girl. On her 5th birthday you get into a machine that allows you to see, with absolute certainty, every possible path of her life. It lets you see her children, and their children, and 1,000s of generations beyond.

In every timeline, on her 16th birthday, you see her get into a blue Honda Civic, learn the driver will later collide with a schoolbus next to a high explosive factory. 30,000 people will die.

It's her 16th birthday. A blue Honda civic just pulled up outside. Do you walk her out and help her in, buckle her seatbelt and waive bye-bye?

you say we have an innate sense of morality that we are all born with.

i agree.

but if you are a moral relativist then you cannot argue that God has broken some objective moral law which says one ought not be a tyrant.

you want to claim that we all are born with a conscience but then deny objective moral values which our conscience tells us we should adhere to.

you are sawing off the branch you are sitting on.[/quote]

Studies show a three month old can tell stealing is wrong. Babies have an evolved morality, yet you claim to be unable to understand why genocide by drowning is wrong.

(03-06-2014 07:58 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  if all that exists are opinions about what is right and wrong then there is nothing that makes your opinion more preferable over mine.

Nobody said opinion but you.

I provided you a simple one-line definition:

Morality is an expanded set of principles expounding on the innate grasp of moral behavior we are born with as a evolved tribal organism.

Do you see the word opinion in there anywhere?

(03-06-2014 07:58 AM)Jeremy E Walkerthe minute you try to argue that your opinion is better because it is more empathetic or whatever, you are no longer a moral relativist but appeal to being empathetic as an objective moral duty.[/quote' Wrote:  Word salad. Opinions are like Jeremy E. Walkers.

[quote='Jeremy E Walker' pid='586109' dateline='1401803893'hence you affirm premise two of the moral argument and since you have offered no objection to premise one, it follows that God exists.

Is this Jeremy's proof of god by direct rectal extraction?

How exactly does that follow, given God as depicted in your bible is an immoral, childish tyrant, and of our morality was directly absorbed from said tyrant we would be logically incapable of observing this?

And yet it is blatantly obvious to everyone but you.

[Image: atemanys.jpg]

You dumb?

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2014, 10:10 AM
RE: [split] An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(03-06-2014 07:58 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(02-06-2014 07:03 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Morality is an expanded set of principles expounding on the innate grasp of moral behavior we are born with as a evolved tribal organism.

Imagine you got married, and had a beautiful baby girl. On her 5th birthday you get into a machine that allows you to see, with absolute certainty, every possible path of her life. It lets you see her children, and their children, and 1,000s of generations beyond.

In every timeline, on her 16th birthday, you see her get into a blue Honda Civic, learn the driver will later collide with a schoolbus next to a high explosive factory. 30,000 people will die.

It's her 16th birthday. A blue Honda civic just pulled up outside. Do you walk her out and help her in, buckle her seatbelt and waive bye-bye?

you say we have an innate sense of morality that we are all born with.

i agree.

but if you are a moral relativist then you cannot argue that God has broken some objective moral law which says one ought not be a tyrant.

you want to claim that we all are born with a conscience but then deny objective moral values which our conscience tells us we should adhere to.

you are sawing off the branch you are sitting on.

if all that exists are opinions about what is right and wrong then there is nothing that makes your opinion more preferable over mine. the minute you try to argue that your opinion is better because it is more empathetic or whatever, you are no longer a moral relativist but appeal to being empathetic as an objective moral duty.

hence you affirm premise two of the moral argument and since you have offered no objection to premise one, it follows that God exists.



Jeremy Jeremy Jeremy - why you need to sell God on an atheist website? Why?
It is just so SO very lame.

Premise one + premise two does NOT = God exists.
You're just straight up silly, dude.


silly


Laugh out load

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WitchSabrina's post
03-06-2014, 10:51 AM
[split] An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
[Image: ajutepy2.jpg]

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
03-06-2014, 10:54 AM
RE: [split] An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
I'm both a newbie on this site and more than a little confused here! How could a child possibly have an innate sense of morality when morality itself or ones view of moral/immoral behaviour is constantly changing. It's extraordinarily difficult at times for ordinary compassionate, educated and thoughtful people to decide what's right and wrong on major issues and far better minds than ours have pondered long and hard over ever-changing views on morality.

Quite honestly, it's rather ridiculous that one believes that a stork can deliver a fully matured philosopher who knows immediately that cutting another cent off the hourly rate of a poor rice planter in Cambodia to provide another dividend to a rich fat speculator in New York and earn the stockbroker another upgrade on his BMW is wrong!

isn't it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2014, 11:09 AM (This post was last modified: 03-06-2014 11:25 AM by rampant.a.i..)
[split] An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(03-06-2014 10:54 AM)Malaprop Wrote:  I'm both a newbie on this site and more than a little confused here! How could a child possibly have an innate sense of morality when morality itself or ones view of moral/immoral behaviour is constantly changing. It's extraordinarily difficult at times for ordinary compassionate, educated and thoughtful people to decide what's right and wrong on major issues and far better minds than ours have pondered long and hard over ever-changing views on morality.

Quite honestly, it's rather ridiculous that one believes that a stork can deliver a fully matured philosopher who knows immediately that cutting another cent off the hourly rate of a poor rice planter in Cambodia to provide another dividend to a rich fat speculator in New York and earn the stockbroker another upgrade on his BMW is wrong!

isn't it?

Nice straw man you've built there, but the post you're referring to said "basic moral principles," not "ethical stock trading" or "economic ethics".

http://youtu.be/HBW5vdhr_PA

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: