RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 >   
  Topic: The "I Believe In God" Thread, You may know him from "Panda's Thumb"...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2011,14:27   

Quote (Steverino @ Jan. 15 2011,13:55)
Dennis,

Ever try to post anything coherent? I mean, just once?

That would require the author to be coherent... even just once.

At least IBIG was coherent.  He was wrong a lot, but at least you could talk to him.  Not like JoeG or cowardly-trenchcoat boy.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2011,16:22   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 15 2011,14:27)
...At least IBIG was coherent.  He was wrong a lot, but at least you could talk to him.  Not like JoeG or cowardly-trenchcoat boy.

I beg to differ on that: IBelieve's idea of "civility" is to mindlessly worship him as the Godhead, and anything less is Devil worship Atheism.

IBelieve's idea of "evidence" is to either quotemine and twist other people's words in order to deliberately distort everything they say, or to simply assert that he has "FAITH," and to ask him to provide honest support his dishonest word games is Devil worship Atheism.

IBelieve's idea of "discussion" is to make up some stupid rhetorical question that speaks volumes about his own willful stupidity, and then ignore all responses in order to boast how smart he is, except for a few responses that he maliciously distorts in order to mock and humiliate those people for not being as stupid as he is.

And then there is the fact that IBelieve conflates "Atheism" with Devil worship, Science, Evolution, Abiogenesis, Islam, hate crimes, Communism, Stalinism and Religious Intolerance.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2602
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2011,16:24   

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 15 2011,14:22)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 15 2011,14:27)
...At least IBIG was coherent.  He was wrong a lot, but at least you could talk to him.  Not like JoeG or cowardly-trenchcoat boy.

I beg to differ on that: IBelieve's idea of "civility" is to mindlessly worship him as the Godhead, and anything less is Devil worship Atheism.

IBelieve's idea of "evidence" is to either quotemine and twist other people's words in order to deliberately distort everything they say, or to simply assert that he has "FAITH," and to ask him to provide honest support his dishonest word games is Devil worship Atheism.

IBelieve's idea of "discussion" is to make up some stupid rhetorical question that speaks volumes about his own willful stupidity, and then ignore all responses in order to boast how smart he is, except for a few responses that he maliciously distorts in order to mock and humiliate those people for not being as stupid as he is.

And then there is the fact that IBelieve conflates "Atheism" with Devil worship, Science, Evolution, Abiogenesis, Islam, hate crimes, Communism, Stalinism and Religious Intolerance.

Not to mention dividing by zero, and improper resolution of the leading-tone.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2011,10:57   

good to know you chaps continue to attract high quality tards here.  i've missed it

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2011,11:09   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 17 2011,10:57)
good to know you chaps continue to attract high quality tards here.  i've missed it

This is like being jealous of your friend contracting the Bubonic Plague.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2011,12:49   

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 17 2011,12:09)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 17 2011,10:57)
good to know you chaps continue to attract high quality tards here.  i've missed it

This is like being jealous of your friend contracting the Bubonic Plague.

only if you find the bubonic plague absolutely hilarious.  AND I DO

i got to thinking about the epic tardery i have witnessed here over the years and thought i'd check in.  its a kwok free zone which is a huge boon, unlike Louis who is a huge boor

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2011,14:45   

Aside from random spam from a coward who thinks he's going to cut my head off with a machete, it's pleasant enough.

The real tards are staying away... cowards.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2011,19:03   

Dear IBIG,

You don't know what to say. The truth does that to people.

Now that you're beginning to realize the difference between the way science works (nothing wrong with that), and the way faith works (nothing wrong with that), I have something else for you to ponder.

In the physics of sub-atomic particles there is a principle that states, "That which is not forbidden is compulsory."

That means, if an interaction or a particle is not forbidden by quantum mechanics, then it does exist, even if it exists at low probability.

Now, the science of chemistry is something like macro-quantum mechanics, and if "that which is not forbidden is compulsory" is true in micro-quantum mechanics then surely it is also true in macro-quantum mechanics as well.

And what is bio-chemistry but a specialize, but very important, subset of chemistry? So biochemistry is subject to the same principle "that which is not forbidden is compulsory".

And this is why life emerging from non-life, by natural means, without the intervention of any intelligent agent, is guaranteed: "that which is not forbidden is compulsory".

Carbon atoms have a proclivity for self-organization. You couldn't stop it if you tried, and neither is there any rule, law, or principle that forbids it.

Abiogenesis is guaranteed.

  
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2011,19:06   

And it's patented!

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2011,08:04   

It seems that IBelieve is back, and he's still too cowardly to respond here again.

If he really believed in the bullshit he spouts, you would at least think he would be able to make an attempt to explain how saying "God spoke the laws into existence" is somehow better than science beyond him simply having "FAITH" (sic), or at least explain to us how saying "God spoke the laws into existence" is supposed to be different than saying "God magically poofed the world into existence using magic."

Then again, I may as well be wishing for the Moon.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2011,08:49   

I gave the coward a comment and that's all he deserves.  Just a reminder that he is too cowardly to come to his own personal thread.  And a reminder that I have offered to teach him everything he thinks doesn't exist and he's cowardly refused everytime.

Ah well...

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
MichaelJ



Posts: 462
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2011,12:48   

IBIG has run away again

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2011,13:16   

Hey IBIG,

answer this for me:

If God commanded people to start eating babies, what would you do?

There are three possible answers:

1) "No, it would still be immoral." That one's easy, and the best answer, and of course it demolishes the idea that God dictates what is moral.

2) "God would never do that, because God is moral." In order for this statement to have any meaning, morality must exist independent of God -- otherwise we could not decide whether God would do a particular thing based on whether or not that thing was moral, because that would be synonymous to asking ourselves whether God would do a particular thing based on whether God would do a particular thing.

3) "Knives out and start the rotesserie!" This, and only this, preserves the idea that morality comes from God, and only from God.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2602
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2011,18:49   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 19 2011,11:16)
Hey IBIG,

answer this for me:

If God commanded people to start eating babies, what would you do?

There are three possible answers:

1) "No, it would still be immoral." That one's easy, and the best answer, and of course it demolishes the idea that God dictates what is moral.

2) "God would never do that, because God is moral." In order for this statement to have any meaning, morality must exist independent of God -- otherwise we could not decide whether God would do a particular thing based on whether or not that thing was moral, because that would be synonymous to asking ourselves whether God would do a particular thing based on whether God would do a particular thing.

3) "Knives out and start the rotesserie!" This, and only this, preserves the idea that morality comes from God, and only from God.

Your logic was impeccable, Captain, we are in grave danger.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2011,23:22   

Yeah, IBelieve is too cowardly to come back.

He's too busy whining at me about how mean I am to point out that he's a boorish, lying asshole.

  
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2011,23:47   

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 19 2011,23:22)
Yeah, IBelieve is too cowardly to come back.

He's too busy whining at me about how mean I am to point out that he's a boorish, lying asshole.

Well, he is certainly going bugshit back at the Panda's Thumb again.

http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-246067

Man, he is so stupid!!!!

--------------
If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.

   
IBelieveInGod



Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2011,08:07   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 19 2011,13:16)
Hey IBIG,

answer this for me:

If God commanded people to start eating babies, what would you do?

There are three possible answers:

1) "No, it would still be immoral." That one's easy, and the best answer, and of course it demolishes the idea that God dictates what is moral.

2) "God would never do that, because God is moral." In order for this statement to have any meaning, morality must exist independent of God -- otherwise we could not decide whether God would do a particular thing based on whether or not that thing was moral, because that would be synonymous to asking ourselves whether God would do a particular thing based on whether God would do a particular thing.

3) "Knives out and start the rotesserie!" This, and only this, preserves the idea that morality comes from God, and only from God.

Here is the problem with your answer 1, God would not command people to start eating babies, therefore your point is moot. Without God there would be no morality, without God man would commit more evil then we could ever imagine.

Today the world is attempting to build an ethical system based on morality without God. Men have tried many ways to teach this new godless form of morality. "Values clarification" was a very popular phrase of the last decade in our public schools. It was an attempt to let our children to essentially make their own standards of morality and behavior. It was a disaster as it justified almost any kind of awful behavior.

In an earlier discussion I pointed out the atrocities of Atheist countries over that past 100 years. We call them atrocities, but were they really? If what they did was based on their own moral/ETHICAL standards, and there are no absolute moral standards, then were they really atrocities? If you give man the ability to create his own moral and ethical standards apart from God, then anything goes. Countries could decide that killing and eating babies is perfectly moral, and it then would be perfectly moral if morality is apart from God. Don't you see the silliness of your argument.

In your second point you state "God would never do that, because God is moral." and you went on to state that "In order for this statement to have any meaning, morality must exist independent of God -- otherwise we could not decide whether God would do a particular thing based on whether or not that thing was moral, because that would be synonymous to asking ourselves whether God would do a particular thing"  The problem with your argument is that God gave each of us a conscienceconscience and it by our conscience that we know right and wrong. So you could state that our conscience is the moral compass that God gave us, therefore you are wrong again.

1 Timothy 4:1-2 (New International Version, ©2010)

1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2011,08:55   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 20 2011,08:07)

 God would not command people to start eating babies


No, only to kill them. Either by bashing them against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9) or asking people to kill their own children as some kind of perverted "loyalty test".
 
Quote
Without God there would be no morality, without God man would commit more evil then we could ever imagine.

But lots of people who believe commit evil acts.

How come?

 
Quote
Today the world is attempting to build an ethical system based on morality without God.


Not "attempting", it's already been done. And the sky has not fallen.
 
Quote
Countries could decide that killing and eating babies is perfectly moral, and it then would be perfectly moral if morality is apart from God. Don't you see the silliness of your argument.

Or they could decide that anybody who does not believe in a particular God is not a real person and as such can be treated as an outcast.
 
Quote
So you could state that our conscience is the moral compass that God gave us, therefore you are wrong again.

So you win either way? How nice for you. But why do these "moral compasses" provide such inconsistent results?

How come at one point in history owning slaves was moral, and now it's not? Did God change her mind?

Also, if what you say is true then it's logical that the more religious you are the more you'll stick to those God given morals.

And yet....
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece
Quote
The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US academic journal, reports: “Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world.

“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.

Quote
The study concluded that the US was the world’s only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional. Mr Paul said that rates of gonorrhoea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffered from “ uniquely high” adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates, the study suggested.

Mr Paul said: “The study shows that England, despite the social ills it has, is actually performing a good deal better than the USA in most indicators, even though it is now a much less religious nation than America.”


Another recent study also showed that the more religious a society the more immoral behaviour was present. I don't have a link to that right now, but it's not like that's going to matter anyway as you'd just ignore it in any case.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2011,09:50   

OK, IBIG.  Apparently, you didn't notice that "God would never say that" is the second option in the list and dealt with already.

You claim that morality is defined by God, yet the "God would never order that" is based on an external morality that God must obey... so your entire point is logically useless.  But thanks for playing.

Let's try one more.

Around 1000 BC, the great Chinese general Hu Lin was commanded by the Chinese War God to destroy a village.  The land had been given to the War God's peoples.

So General Lin attacked the village and was victorious.  The War God demanded that the entire village be slaughtered, man, woman, child, livestock, etc.  General Lin did this because his War God commanded it.

Did he act morally?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2011,10:49   

Score zero for IBIGs reading comprehension for missing point 2 (or intentionally ignoring it - which is more likely?).  

Oldman - in (defense?) of the Psalm, that one was probably written by an Israelite exiled to Babylon who was dreaming of the good old days, so I'm not sure that can be laid at God's feet.  However, it does refer to the (mythical) wars of conquest where the genocide occurred, and it is in the divinely inspired bible, so you can say that God approves of it...so maybe it can.  I wouldn't call it a command in that instance, but I'd definitely go with the "God approves" side of the argument.  

Doesn't change your point one bit, but I just wanted to clarify that bit (assuming my knowledge is correct, that is).

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2011,10:50   

Biggy, Biggy, Biggy...

You fail on the merits, yet again.

Here is your daily meditation, my young padawan novice: contemplate the full meaning of the words tantum religio potuit suadare malorum as they apply to your own feverish collection of delusions.

Do not return until you have grokked the depth of this koan, for only then will you grasp the reason you are soundly mocked.


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2011,11:38   

[quote=IBelieveInGod,Jan. 20 2011,08:07][/quote]
Quote
Here is the problem with your answer 1, God would not command people to start eating babies, therefore your point is moot.


Oh, but his command about selling daughters as slaves and prostitutes (Exodus 21:7-11) or and his command that children who curse their parents should be put to death (Exodus 21:17) is good by you. Ooookaaaay...

LOL!

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2011,11:44   

[quote=IBelieveInGod,Jan. 20 2011,08:07][/quote]
Quote
In an earlier discussion I pointed out the atrocities of Atheist countries over that past 100 years. We call them atrocities, but were they really? If what they did was based on their own moral/ETHICAL standards, and there are no absolute moral standards, then were they really atrocities? If you give man the ability to create his own moral and ethical standards apart from God, then anything goes. Countries could decide that killing and eating babies is perfectly moral, and it then would be perfectly moral if morality is apart from God. Don't you see the silliness of your argument.


Oddly, you seem to have ignored the fact that more Christians have committed atrocities than so-called "atheist countries". Given that, apparently even Christians can decide that eating babies is perfectly "moral" according to your bible and actually do all sorts of similar things anyway. Makes me wonder why you think this "moral standard" you babble on about actually exists. Clearly there's no evidence of such to found in your bible or from your supposed "god".

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2011,12:11   

Biggy is unable to apply Lord Acton's observation to his imaginary friend.  To paraphrase the peer in question:

Power corrupts.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
 
Therefore, if his imaginary friend is omnipotent, it would also be utterly, thoroughly corrupt.

This conclusion is only avoidable through the fallacy of special pleading and some pseudointellectual rationalizations that make Stockholm Syndrome look like a healthy adjustment...and yet he wonders why his magic book with the magic words fails to move us.

Too bad the problem of theodicy predates the events of NT mythology by a fair margin.


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
phhht



Posts: 38
Joined: Oct. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2011,19:13   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 20 2011,08:07)
...God gave each of us a conscience... and ... by our conscience that we know right and wrong. So you could state that our conscience is the moral compass that God gave us...

Poofster,

As usual, I have trouble following the logic of your claims.  Let me ask you some questions for clarification.

You say that God gave each of us a conscience.  Does God give a conscience to atheists?

I think you must say yes.  Otherwise, God withholds the knowledge of right and wrong from atheists.

It seems to follow that atheists have a "moral compass" just like you do.

I am an atheist, and my conscience tells me that your god is a bloody-thirsty monster whose crimes are almost infinite in number.

What's going on here, Poofster?  Why can't your God get his own story straight?

--------------
Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothese-la.
-- Pierre Simon Laplace, explaining the absence of any mention of God in his work

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2011,20:04   

Quote (Robin @ Jan. 20 2011,11:44)
[quote=IBelieveInGod,Jan. 20 2011,08:07][/quote]
 
Quote
In an earlier discussion I pointed out the atrocities of Atheist countries over that past 100 years. We call them atrocities, but were they really? If what they did was based on their own moral/ETHICAL standards, and there are no absolute moral standards, then were they really atrocities? If you give man the ability to create his own moral and ethical standards apart from God, then anything goes. Countries could decide that killing and eating babies is perfectly moral, and it then would be perfectly moral if morality is apart from God. Don't you see the silliness of your argument.


Oddly, you seem to have ignored the fact that more Christians have committed atrocities than so-called "atheist countries". Given that, apparently even Christians can decide that eating babies is perfectly "moral" according to your bible and actually do all sorts of similar things anyway. Makes me wonder why you think this "moral standard" you babble on about actually exists. Clearly there's no evidence of such to found in your bible or from your supposed "god".

The reason why IBelieve ignores the fact that Christians have committed far more atrocities than all "atheist" countries combined is because IBelieve deliberately conflates "atheist" with anything and anyone he dislikes.

To IBelieve, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Abiogenesis, those are all Atheist.  Islam, terrorism, brusselsprouts, devil-worship, those are Atheist, too.

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 462
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,02:25   

Oh IBIG is back. You said that Stalin killed 20 million people for practicing Christianity. Can you show the reference please or were you just making things up?

  
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,17:17   

Quote (phhht @ Jan. 20 2011,19:13)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 20 2011,08:07)
...God gave each of us a conscience... and ... by our conscience that we know right and wrong. So you could state that our conscience is the moral compass that God gave us...

Poofster,

As usual, I have trouble following the logic of your claims.  ...

What's going on here, Poofster?  Why can't your God get his own story straight?

Hey Phhht!

Miss your posts on PT.

Too busy?

Hope you return.

Tack så mycket!

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,19:45   

Quote (phhht @ Jan. 20 2011,19:13)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 20 2011,08:07)
...God gave each of us a conscience... and ... by our conscience that we know right and wrong. So you could state that our conscience is the moral compass that God gave us...

Poofster,

As usual, I have trouble following the logic of your claims.  Let me ask you some questions for clarification.

You say that God gave each of us a conscience.  Does God give a conscience to atheists?

I think you must say yes.  Otherwise, God withholds the knowledge of right and wrong from atheists.

It seems to follow that atheists have a "moral compass" just like you do.

I am an atheist, and my conscience tells me that your god is a bloody-thirsty monster whose crimes are almost infinite in number.

What's going on here, Poofster?  Why can't your God get his own story straight?

I'd add that my conscience can't let two people who love each other be barred from getting married, even if they are of the same sex (consenting adults only, please).  Is that from God, too?  If so, then, boy...is he confused.  

(Do you think God could be a little bit gay?  The reduction of women to second class, the good-ol-boys club priesthood, the "burning bush", the long list of decorations for the inner sanctum in the Temple...just sayin'....)

eta - using the holy ghost, his "partner", to impregnate Mary instead of gettin' it on like Zeus...I don't know.
:p

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,14:57   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 19 2011,13:16)
Hey IBIG,

answer this for me:

If God commanded people to start eating babies, what would you do?

There are three possible answers:

1) "No, it would still be immoral." That one's easy, and the best answer, and of course it demolishes the idea that God dictates what is moral.

2) "God would never do that, because God is moral." In order for this statement to have any meaning, morality must exist independent of God -- otherwise we could not decide whether God would do a particular thing based on whether or not that thing was moral, because that would be synonymous to asking ourselves whether God would do a particular thing based on whether God would do a particular thing.

3) "Knives out and start the rotesserie!" This, and only this, preserves the idea that morality comes from God, and only from God.

Nice argumentation here. And the 3rd option demonstrates that the equation God<=>morality is just completely meaningless and useless, since whatever comes from God is moral, by definition.

  
  741 replies since Oct. 31 2010,16:04 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (25) < ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]