1818 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

If there is no God, there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. . . . We are machines for propagating DNA . . . . It is every living object’s sole reason for being. Survival.

Yet we see non theists moralizing all the time. They attack theism and Christianity all the time making moral judgements BUT they have no rational basis for making Moral judgements.

Let me take but one example, slavery. I've argued that without an objective moral standard of what is right and wrong, any judgments about right and wrong are just individual opinions. So, when an atheist says slavery is wrong, what he really means is that he thinks slavery is wrong for him, in the same way that he thinks that,say, that chocolate ice cream is right for him. He isn't saying what is wrong objectively, because on atheism there are no objective moral rules or duties. He is speaking for himself: "I wouldn't own a slave, just like I wouldn't eat broccoli - because it's yucky!". But he has no rational argument against other people owning slaves in other times, cultures and places, because their justification for owning slaves is the same as his justification for not owning slaves : personal subjective preference.

Edited by shadowhawk, 10 January 2014 - 01:43 AM.

[platypus]

The Christian God was perfectly OK with having slaves in the Old Testament. It seems like keeping slaves was not objectively morally wrong at all. Is it morally right to torture people forever just because you want to do it?

[johnross47]

Premise one seems about correct, but I haven't given any though to what else could give rise to "objective values".

Remember I said:
“...there’s the distinction between being objective or subjective. By “objective” I mean “independent of people’s opinions.” By “subjective” I mean “dependent on people’s opinions.” So to say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or bad independent of whatever people think about it. Similarly, to say that we have objective moral duties is to say that certain actions are right or wrong for us regardless of what people think about it. So, for example, to say that the Holocaust was objectively wrong is to say that it was wrong even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was right, and it would still have been wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them so that everyone believed the Holocaust was right.”
http://www.longecity...270#entry634870

You said, "This one is easy: there are no "objective" moral values. "

Is there anything, right or wrong in your belief system?

Something like a bit of meaningful comment at long last. I can partly go along with this use of objective/subjective; some people could write books on the distinction and its implications but this is perfectly useable, as a starting point. I would certainly deny the existence of objective moral values, not just because I see neither source nor evidence for them, but also because, as with the objectification of concepts mentioned earlier, it is a reification. Also, even if moral values were given by a god or gods, that would not make them objective; it would make them externally imposed. Your definition of course is carefully worded to allow for that....if they are imposed from outside they are not dependent on people's opinions; and that is where I depart from your definition. Objective does not mean externally imposed.

to return to the "syllogism"

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists

1. sneaks in a false definition of objective. Also, since god-given values would not be objective, they would be subjectively god's, this is merely trying but failing to say that if god does not exist, god's opinions do not exist.
2. given that interpretation of 1. this becomes a detached assertive fragment with no connection to the rest.
3. there is no longer any syllogism for this to be the conclusion of. ie It's not even wrong.

The details of moral ideas vary enormously from place to place and time to time; I don't think that is controversial enough to need examples; but the deep underlying principles are surprisingly consistent, even if their implementation is very varied. The bases are mainly concerned with fairness and with protecting the survival of your own group. They evolved very early in human history. Some monkey show a basic understanding of fairness and equity, though only in relation to themselves, some apes a little more. The principles have gradually been extended out to larger and larger groups and can now be extended to all life, by more morally advanced people. For a good introduction to this, down to the biological bases of these behaviours, see Patricia Churchland's recent book "Touching a Nerve, the Self as Brain" pp 83-120, as far as I recall. (It's already packed up to move house.) It has of course been discussed by many people in different evolution related subjects.

As usual you have ducked the issue when somebody makes a criticism of your logic. Answer the point or admit you can't.

[platypus]

The Xtian god is a great example of how objective moral do not exist, not even for gods. Can we close this case and move to the next "proof"?

[sthira]

Sharks rape each other.

Do you have a reference for this?  Nothing in the literature suggests sharks "rape" other sharks.  You're using the term rape anthropomorphically. 

Meanwhile, the accurate scientific term to describe when one individual aggressively restrains another is forced copulation.  Forced copulation has been observed in several species, but not in sharks.

 

Wolves steal each others food [...]

"Steal" is also an anthropomorphic (human-to-human legal) term that does not translate well to other animals.  Wolves eat.

 

[...]spiders canalize and kill each other and I could go on.  

I guess you mean "spiders cannibalize" other spiders, and the reasons for it aren't very complicated.  Larger (carnivorous) spiders eat smaller prey because they're hungry and they're opportunistic.  Their eating behavior is not too different from your own eating behavior.

Lets see how you apply this.  In order to win the second world war we believed it was right to carpet bomb Germany killing men, women and children.  The Nazis fired..."

Now that you've applied Godwin's Law, may we assume this thread will be locked?

[sthira]

To atheists: no one can say for certain that god does not exist.  To theists: no one can say for certain that god exists. The honest position shall remain agnosticism.  We don't know if god exists and we don't know if god does not exist.  Why is ignorance so terrifying for all of you to admit?

[Deep Thought]

To atheists: no one can say for certain that god does not exist. To theists: no one can say for certain that god exists. The honest position shall remain agnosticism. We don't know if god exists and we don't know if god does not exist. Why is ignorance so terrifying for all of you to admit?

That we proclaim ourselves to be either theists or atheists even though we lack the knowledge to disprove or prove God exist?

I can admit that most religous claims on the nature of the existence of God cannot be falsified, but that's because subjective reality usually can't be refuted. Unless of course someone tries to use reification to treat an abstraction as a real thing.

I was born as a blank slate and have never been convinved that God exists. If I was born in the wilderness, I wouldn't even know there was a God. I may even have begun constructing my own religion as a means of understanding the weather and so forth - because the brain is really good at modelling the world around us. Nothing that we think exists, exists in a real sense. Most things in the modern world are based on abstract tools and abstractions.

Based on this I wouldn't characterize myself as being ignorant when the discussion falls on religion.

Abstraction: As in an idea, a concept or construct that only exists as an idea. For example, the abstract idea of a cube, which we all recognize.

Edited by Deep Thought, 10 January 2014 - 01:57 PM.

[platypus]

To atheists: no one can say for certain that god does not exist. To theists: no one can say for certain that god exists. The honest position shall remain agnosticism. We don't know if god exists and we don't know if god does not exist. Why is ignorance so terrifying for all of you to admit?

Are you also agnostic about the existence of a pink unicorn orbiting Jupiter? Or are you willing to say that that odds for the existence of said unicorn seem to be minuscule, in your opinion? I'd save "agnosticism" for issues where your assessed probability is close to 50/50..

[johnross47]

To atheists: no one can say for certain that god does not exist. To theists: no one can say for certain that god exists. The honest position shall remain agnosticism. We don't know if god exists and we don't know if god does not exist. Why is ignorance so terrifying for all of you to admit?

Are you also agnostic about the existence of a pink unicorn orbiting Jupiter? Or are you willing to say that that odds for the existence of said unicorn seem to be minuscule, in your opinion? I'd save "agnosticism" for issues where your assessed probability is close to 50/50..

If it's odds based then the god of W L Craig and Shadowhawk probably doesn't exist. When they are really pressed they fall back on Borde Guth Vilenkin, which they misuse massively. The paper only proposed that an expanding universe must be finite in space and said nothing about what came before the beginning of the expansion. None of the scientific proposals, for what came before, includes an anthropomorphic beardy psychopath in space who is able to be completely outside of our space and time but can still move the levers within our space time, and who cares about every tiny infringement of his rules,( particularly his sexual rules), although he is unimaginably massive and involved with billions of billions of stars and their planets. This hideous being is obviously the creation of small, narrow, local minds, mired in bronze age darkness and fear. The chance that such a being might exist, anywhere, never mind outside space time, is ludicrous. For a detailed examination of this see;

[sthira]

Are you also agnostic about the existence of a pink unicorn orbiting Jupiter? Or are you willing to say that that odds for the existence of said unicorn seem to be minuscule, in your opinion? I'd save "agnosticism" for issues where your assessed probability is close to 50/50..

While I think I understand your larger point, no, I'm not agnostic about the existence of pink unicorns orbiting Jupiter.  NASA has sent several spacecrafts with cameras into Jupiter's orbit -- Junocam, for example -- and we see no pink unicorns.

However.  Spectacular, mind-blowing objects and events do exist within this universe of which we're ignorant.  Some of these may be outside of our physical abilities to grasp until we're dragged kicking and screaming into realms of evidence.

Our ape brains continue to evolve on planet earth in order for our species to survive the pressures of life here.  We adapt to this reality.  This reality (earth life) is not the only universal reality.  Other realities exist.  Our brains -- electrochemical materials and processes -- may be physically unable to grasp other possibilities.  But our physical limitations do not mean other realities don't exist.  God -- "big bang cause" -- may or may not be one of those.  We don't know.  Our advancing tools will xontinue to aid us in our quest "to know."

While we wait, why affirm or deny possibilities?  Stay curious, remain open.  But if we're talking about the Xtian god of SH, then I'm with you: it's a myth that we've outgrown.  It's dying a slow painful death, and we say good riddance.  Once upon a time this Xtian god was clearly useful to certain sections of the human population (mostly white, power-holding males) but today it's antiquated and in need of updates.

[shadowhawk]

Platypus:
The Christian God was perfectly OK with having slaves in the Old Testament. It seems like keeping slaves was not objectively morally wrong at all. Is it morally right to torture people forever just because you want to do it?

. The Xtian god is a great example of how objective moral do not exist, not even for gods. Can we close this case and move to the next "proof"?

Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
http://www.nizkor.or...ed-herring.html

So I will decline to answer, especially when you do not answer amy of my questions. I think I have shown you have no basis to make any objective moral judgements So you turn to namecalling.

johnross47:
As usual you have ducked the issue when somebody makes a criticism of your logic. Answer the point or admit you can't.

What point?

sthira:
To atheists: no one can say for certain that god does not exist. To theists: no one can say for certain that god exists. The honest position shall remain agnosticism. We don't know if god exists and we don't know if god does not exist. Why is ignorance so terrifying for all of you to admit?

Do you know this? How?

[johnross47]

Premise one seems about correct, but I haven't given any though to what else could give rise to "objective values".

Remember I said:
“...there’s the distinction between being objective or subjective. By “objective” I mean “independent of people’s opinions.” By “subjective” I mean “dependent on people’s opinions.” So to say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or bad independent of whatever people think about it. Similarly, to say that we have objective moral duties is to say that certain actions are right or wrong for us regardless of what people think about it. So, for example, to say that the Holocaust was objectively wrong is to say that it was wrong even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was right, and it would still have been wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them so that everyone believed the Holocaust was right.”
http://www.longecity...270#entry634870

You said, "This one is easy: there are no "objective" moral values. "

Is there anything, right or wrong in your belief system?

Something like a bit of meaningful comment at long last. I can partly go along with this use of objective/subjective; some people could write books on the distinction and its implications but this is perfectly useable, as a starting point. I would certainly deny the existence of objective moral values, not just because I see neither source nor evidence for them, but also because, as with the objectification of concepts mentioned earlier, it is a reification. Also, even if moral values were given by a god or gods, that would not make them objective; it would make them externally imposed. Your definition of course is carefully worded to allow for that....if they are imposed from outside they are not dependent on people's opinions; and that is where I depart from your definition. Objective does not mean externally imposed.

to return to the "syllogism"

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists

1. sneaks in a false definition of objective. Also, since god-given values would not be objective, they would be subjectively god's, this is merely trying but failing to say that if god does not exist, god's opinions do not exist.
2. given that interpretation of 1. this becomes a detached assertive fragment with no connection to the rest.
3. there is no longer any syllogism for this to be the conclusion of. ie It's not even wrong.

The details of moral ideas vary enormously from place to place and time to time; I don't think that is controversial enough to need examples; but the deep underlying principles are surprisingly consistent, even if their implementation is very varied. The bases are mainly concerned with fairness and with protecting the survival of your own group. They evolved very early in human history. Some monkey show a basic understanding of fairness and equity, though only in relation to themselves, some apes a little more. The principles have gradually been extended out to larger and larger groups and can now be extended to all life, by more morally advanced people. For a good introduction to this, down to the biological bases of these behaviours, see Patricia Churchland's recent book "Touching a Nerve, the Self as Brain" pp 83-120, as far as I recall. (It's already packed up to move house.) It has of course been discussed by many people in different evolution related subjects.

As usual you have ducked the issue when somebody makes a criticism of your logic. Answer the point or admit you can't.

I'm challenging you again...answer the point instead of pretending that nothing has been said. Prove your not a fraud.

[shadowhawk]

To atheists: no one can say for certain that god does not exist. To theists: no one can say for certain that god exists. The honest position shall remain agnosticism. We don't know if god exists and we don't know if god does not exist. Why is ignorance so terrifying for all of you to admit?

Are you also agnostic about the existence of a pink unicorn orbiting Jupiter? Or are you willing to say that that odds for the existence of said unicorn seem to be minuscule, in your opinion? I'd save "agnosticism" for issues where your assessed probability is close to 50/50..

If it's odds based then the god of W L Craig and Shadowhawk probably doesn't exist. When they are really pressed they fall back on Borde Guth Vilenkin, which they misuse massively. The paper only proposed that an expanding universe must be finite in space and said nothing about what came before the beginning of the expansion. None of the scientific proposals, for what came before, includes an anthropomorphic beardy psychopath in space who is able to be completely outside of our space and time but can still move the levers within our space time, and who cares about every tiny infringement of his rules,( particularly his sexual rules), although he is unimaginably massive and involved with billions of billions of stars and their planets. This hideous being is obviously the creation of small, narrow, local minds, mired in bronze age darkness and fear. The chance that such a being might exist, anywhere, never mind outside space time, is ludicrous. For a detailed examination of this see;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KvZGauAmo8

I listened to the video and it is just a recap of lawerence Krauss. It hinges or falls on is nothing something, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUuS_EDT9OE&feature=em-uploademail

We are not discussing the kalam right now.

REVOLVING DOOR FALLACY
1. A. And B. Have a discussion on a topic that involves several points, 1. 2. 3. 4. 5....
2. B. Does not like the way the discussion is going and though the discussion has progressed to point #5 and beyond, she repeatedly returns to point # 1 to frustrate the discussion.
3. When A. Complains, B. Claims A. Won’t discuss the issues.

OTHER PEOPLES THOUGHTS FALLACY
1. A. claims B. Needs to think for herself and not use other peoples thoughts in their discussions.
2. This objection is often to quotes from various media sources, books, movies, lectures, etc..
3. B. asks A. “Tell me what you know that you didn’t learn from someone else.”
4. Everything we know came from someone or something else.
5. Often A. Has no evidence of their owne.

Edited by shadowhawk, 10 January 2014 - 11:34 PM.

[shadowhawk]

johneoss47
I'm challenging you again...answer the point instead of pretending that nothing has been said. Prove your not a fraud.

Challenge away!!! I ask you again, what point? Perhaps you haven’t a clue and yet you expect me to answer, “it.” Off topic attempt to derail the discussion. You have done this many times before. No proof.

Edited by shadowhawk, 11 January 2014 - 12:14 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Back on topic:
Euthyphro Dilemma

I frequently hear the Euthyphjro Dilemma raised by nonbelievers in response to the moral argument. It’s called the Euthyphro Dilemma, named after a character in one of Plato’s dialogues. It basically goes like this: Is something good because God wills it? Or does God will something because it is good? If you say that something is good because God wills it, then what is good becomes arbitrary. God could have willed that hatred is good, and then we would have been morally obligated to hate one another. That seems crazy. Some moral values, at least, seem to be necessary. But if you say that God wills something because it is good, then what is good or bad is independent of God. In that case, moral values and duties exist independently of God, which contradicts premise 1.

The weakness of the Euthyphro Dilemma is that the dilemma it presents is a false one because there’s a third alternative: namely, God wills something because he is good. God’s own nature is the standard of goodness, and his commandments to us are expressions of his nature. In short, our moral duties are determined by the commands of a just and loving God.

So moral values are not independent of God because God’s own character defines what is good. God is essentially compassionate, fair, kind, impartial, and so on. His nature is the moral standard determining good and bad. His commands necessarily reflect in turn his moral nature. Therefore, they are not arbitrary. The morally good/bad is determined by God’s nature, and the morally right/wrong is determined by his will. God wills something because he is good, and something is right because God wills it.

[shadowhawk]

Related to the Moral Argument: EVIL AS PROOF OF GOD.





http://www.str.org/a...od#.UtCQB7QdySo

[Deep Thought]

Platypus:
The Christian God was perfectly OK with having slaves in the Old Testament. It seems like keeping slaves was not objectively morally wrong at all. Is it morally right to torture people forever just because you want to do it?

. The Xtian god is a great example of how objective moral do not exist, not even for gods. Can we close this case and move to the next "proof"?

Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
http://www.nizkor.or...ed-herring.html

So I will decline to answer, especially when you do not answer amy of my questions. I think I have shown you have no basis to make any objective moral judgements So you turn to namecalling.

But if the topic is relevant, you are the one committing a logical fallacy.

Edited by Deep Thought, 11 January 2014 - 07:44 AM.

[Deep Thought]

Back on topic:
Euthyphro Dilemma

I frequently hear the Euthyphjro Dilemma raised by nonbelievers in response to the moral argument. It’s called the Euthyphro Dilemma, named after a character in one of Plato’s dialogues. It basically goes like this: Is something good because God wills it? Or does God will something because it is good? If you say that something is good because God wills it, then what is good becomes arbitrary. God could have willed that hatred is good, and then we would have been morally obligated to hate one another. That seems crazy. Some moral values, at least, seem to be necessary. But if you say that God wills something because it is good, then what is good or bad is independent of God. In that case, moral values and duties exist independently of God, which contradicts premise 1.

The weakness of the Euthyphro Dilemma is that the dilemma it presents is a false one because there’s a third alternative: namely, God wills something because he is good. God’s own nature is the standard of goodness, and his commandments to us are expressions of his nature. In short, our moral duties are determined by the commands of a just and loving God.

So moral values are not independent of God because God’s own character defines what is good. God is essentially compassionate, fair, kind, impartial, and so on. His nature is the moral standard determining good and bad. His commands necessarily reflect in turn his moral nature. Therefore, they are not arbitrary. The morally good/bad is determined by God’s nature, and the morally right/wrong is determined by his will. God wills something because he is good, and something is right because God wills it.

...
This view of morality has been eloquently defended in our day by such well-known philosophers as Robert Adams, William Alston, and Philip Quinn. Yet atheists continue to attack the straw men erected by the Euthyphro Dilemma. In the recent Cambridge Companion to Atheism (2007), for example, the article on God and morality, written by a prominent ethicist, presents and criticizes only the view that God arbitrarily made up moral values—a straw man that virtually nobody defends. Atheists have to do better than that if they’re to defeat contemporary moral arguments for God’s existence

Read more: http://www.reasonabl...d#ixzz2q4cpl6sT

Do you have any thoughts on this matter?

Related to the Moral Argument: EVIL AS PROOF OF GOD.





http://www.str.org/a...od#.UtCQB7QdySo

If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

I think he's taking this out of context. Of course an atheist won't ascribe to the fact that "objective moral values" exist - you'd have to have a foot inside the religious world to believe that. It's a religious concept.

Besides the premise is non-sequitur, it does not logically follow that if God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. You'd have to be brought up as a christian to believe in this.

Though if he had stated:

If Christianity does not exist, then the abstract belief in the concept of objective moral values do not exist inside the minds of christians. (Given, that they don't find something else to believe in.)

I could buy that. Believing in objective moral values almost requires someone to be religious, in the sense that he'd be believing in a construct of his mind, and actively engaging in magical thinking. I.e. believing that some meta-ethical concept of universal moralism will somehow affect the world around him.

Oops. Double-posted.

Edited by Deep Thought, 11 January 2014 - 08:03 AM.

[N.T.M.]

Premise one seems about correct, but I haven't given any though to what else could give rise to "objective values".

Objectivist epistemology would be a good place to start. Although in a technical sense there are no absolutes, insofar as they do exist, they exist in this form.

I already defined what is meant by “Objective.” What disagreement do you have with my definition? Are you claiming you have the true one?
http://www.longecity...270#entry635144

I agree with your definition of objective, but I think your argument ignores the very guidelines that you explicated. I mentioned objectivist epistemology because it seems to provide the most objective basis for morality. Really, the center of the problem is that it's difficult--if not impossible--to prove a moral absolute.

[shadowhawk]

Premise one seems about correct, but I haven't given any though to what else could give rise to "objective values".

Objectivist epistemology would be a good place to start. Although in a technical sense there are no absolutes, insofar as they do exist, they exist in this form.

I already defined what is meant by “Objective.” What disagreement do you have with my definition? Are you claiming you have the true one?
http://www.longecity...270#entry635144

I agree with your definition of objective, but I think your argument ignores the very guidelines that you explicated. I mentioned objectivist epistemology because it seems to provide the most objective basis for morality. Really, the center of the problem is that it's difficult--if not impossible--to prove a moral absolute.

And I agree with the often difficulty of moral philosophy. Proof here does not mean subjectivism otherwise there are as many proofs as there are people. Everyone does what is right in their own eyes. Might as well say there is no morality. Morality can not mean majority either as I illustrated with racism. Evolution can not provide us with morality, unless we want to live in a jungle where might makes right as long as you survive,

Define more clearly what you mean by “objectivist epistemology.”

[shadowhawk]

Platypus:
The Christian God was perfectly OK with having slaves in the Old Testament. It seems like keeping slaves was not objectively morally wrong at all. Is it morally right to torture people forever just because you want to do it?

. The Xtian god is a great example of how objective moral do not exist, not even for gods. Can we close this case and move to the next "proof"?

Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
http://www.nizkor.or...ed-herring.html

So I will decline to answer, especially when you do not answer amy of my questions. I think I have shown you have no basis to make any objective moral judgements So you turn to namecalling.

But if the topic is relevant, you are the one committing a logical fallacy.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I asked Platypus
http://www.longecity...270#entry635144
http://www.longecity...270#entry635315
http://www.longecity...270#entry635315
http://www.longecity...270#entry635365
(Even Repeated several times more)

““Lets see how you apply this. In order to win the second world war we believed it was right to carpet bomb Germany killing men, women and children. The Nazis fired rockets into Great Brittan with little concern who they hit. Each side believed in their own sides moral position.”
http://www.longecity...270#entry635315

Based on your view, were they both right? Neither was right. One or the other was right.”

No answer by Platypus. This is typical of his style for the last few years. I wanted to see, given his theory of there being no objective morals, “This one is easy: there are no "objective" moral values.“ How would he apply his position?
http://www.longecity...270#entry635060
As I said this “easy,” one was repeatedly put to the test. So what did Platypus do? He started attacking Theists and God.

1. The Old Testament. Between four and six thousand years ago, the Israelites had a war and some details were recorded in the Bible. There is no other record. You may study this if you wish. http://www.amazon.co...ntt_at_ep_dpi_1
You either believe the Biblical reasons or account or you have no other evidence. Platypus rejects the Biblical reasons and puts his own spin on it. Christians believe the Biblical reasons for this war and have no other evidence.

2. Slavery: http://www.amazon.co...ntt_at_ep_dpi_1
Excerpt:
“We should compare Hebrew debt-servanthood (many translations render this “slavery”) more fairly to apprentice-like positions to pay off debts — much like the indentured servitude during America’s founding when people worked for approximately 7 years to pay off the debt for their passage to the New World. Then they became free.

In most cases, servanthood was more like a live-in employee, temporarily embedded within the employer’s household. Even today, teams trade sports players to another team that has an owner, and these players belong to a franchise. This language hardly suggests slavery, but rather a formal contractual agreement to be fulfilled — like in the Old Testament.3

Through failed crops or other disasters, debt tended to come to families, not just individuals. One could voluntarily enter into a contractual agreement (“sell” himself) to work in the household of another: “one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself” (Leviticus 25:47). A wife or children could be “sold” to help sustain the family through economically unbearable times — unless kinfolk “redeemed” them (payed their debt). They would be debt-servants for 6 years.4 A family might need to mortgage their land until the year of Jubilee every 50 years.5

Note: In the Old Testament, outsiders did not impose servanthood — as in the antebellum South.6 Masters could hire servants “from year to year” and were not to “rule over … [them] ruthlessly” (Leviticus 25:46,53). Rather than being excluded from Israelite society, servants were thoroughly embedded within Israelite homes.

The Old Testament prohibited unavoidable lifelong servanthood — unless someone loved his master and wanted to attach himself to him (Exodus 21:5). Masters were to grant their servants release every seventh year with all debts forgiven (Leviticus 25:35–43). A slave’s legal status was unique in the ancient Near East (ANE) — a dramatic improvement over ANE law codes: “Hebrew has no vocabulary of slavery, only of servanthood.”7

An Israelite servant’s guaranteed eventual release within 7 years was a control or regulation to prevent the abuse and institutionalizing of such positions. The release-year reminded the Israelites that poverty-induced servanthood was not an ideal social arrangement. On the other hand, servanthood existed in Israel precisely because poverty existed: no poverty, no servants in Israel. And if servants lived in Israel, this was voluntary (typically poverty-induced) — not forced.”

Christians do not believe in slavery

3. As for torturing people where does God say this is alright?

Deep Thought, have you thought deeply about this? How have I committed a logical fallacy? Platypus won't answer my questions and instead name calls. You seem to agree with it!

[shadowhawk]

Sharks rape each other.

Do you have a reference for this? Nothing in the literature suggests sharks "rape" other sharks. You're using the term rape anthropomorphically.

Meanwhile, the accurate scientific term to describe when one individual aggressively restrains another is forced copulation. Forced copulation has been observed in several species, but not in sharks.

Wolves steal each others food [...]

"Steal" is also an anthropomorphic (human-to-human legal) term that does not translate well to other animals. Wolves eat.

[...]spiders canalize and kill each other and I could go on.

I guess you mean "spiders cannibalize" other spiders, and the reasons for it aren't very complicated. Larger (carnivorous) spiders eat smaller prey because they're hungry and they're opportunistic. Their eating behavior is not too different from your own eating behavior.

Lets see how you apply this. In order to win the second world war we believed it was right to carpet bomb Germany killing men, women and children. The Nazis fired..."

Now that you've applied Godwin's Law, may we assume this thread will be locked?

Sharks. Wolves, Spiders, Aliens
I didn’t bring them up! I wish you would read before making posts like this.
http://www.longecity...270#entry635186
http://www.longecity...270#entry635186

Have you ever seen a shark rape? No foreplay. How about Ducks or pigeons, do you like to watch them?

Are you trying to make my point, “Evolution and Nature,” can’t be our source of human morality," wrong? Do you believe they can? Anthropomorphic to do so, don't you think? Tell that to Platypus.
http://www.longecity...270#entry635315

Speaking of spiders, you said, "Their eating behavior is not too different from your own eating behavior," speak for yourself, I am sure it is true. Also Anthropomorphic don't you think? Your morals are the same but you could go to jail for that!

Edited by shadowhawk, 12 January 2014 - 12:47 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Slavery in the Bible:

[platypus]

Since god changed the deal between the Old Testament and the New Testament not even those values are "objetive". And of course, God is perfectly free to change the deal and acceptable morals again.

[DukeNukem]

Sorry, SH. Eric couldn't help himself.

Attached Files

•  screen-shot-2014-01-12-at-1-42-43-pm.png   146.83KB   23 downloads

[N.T.M.]

Sorry, SH. Eric couldn't help himself.

lol I've used this same argument in response to the ontological proof for God (obviously not exactly in that form).

[shadowhawk]

Sorry, SH. Eric couldn't help himself.

You got me, Eric exists. However you provided no evidence.

[shadowhawk]

Sorry, SH. Eric couldn't help himself.

lol I've used this same argument in response to the ontological proof for God (obviously not exactly in that form).

Neither is Eric. (a great being)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6o7UEPODVU



We will deal with the Ontological argument next, perhaps you will have a defeater for it?

Edited by shadowhawk, 14 January 2014 - 07:55 PM.

[Deep Thought]

Sorry, SH. Eric couldn't help himself.

You got me, Eric exists. However you provided no evidence.

1. If God does not exist, then Eric has existed.

2. God does not exist.

3. Therefore, Eric exists

[shadowhawk]

Sorry, SH. Eric couldn't help himself.

You got me, Eric exists. However you provided no evidence.

1. If God does not exist, then Eric has existed.

2. God does not exist.

3. Therefore, Eric exists

I noticed you did not respond to my last post to you. Typical... Do you expect me to respond to a blank wall?
http://www.longecity...300#entry635811

OK a little more foolery.

1. If God does not exist, then Eric has existed.

2. God does not exist.
Proof. http://www.longecity...sm/#entry501885
http://www.longecity...360#entry630701
3. Therefore, Eric exists
Eric does not exist.

Are you seriously arguing Eric exists based on this? I bet you are. If there is a God, would you worship?

Edited by shadowhawk, 15 January 2014 - 08:05 PM.