Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe
Raf

Are You More Moral Than Yahweh?

Recommended Posts

And by the way, "eternal realities" is a presumption that allows you to excuse these atrocities. Take away the presumption, and you'll see them for what they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2014 at 1:04 PM, Mark Sanguinetti said:

Different laws for different cultures.

^God's moral relativism. 

There is no context wherein God's approval or endorsement of child abuse, rape, murder, genocide, human sacrifice, slavery, misogyny, condemnation for crimes of other parties, etc is moral. Those are always immoral.

Edited by Longhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Longhunter said:

^God's moral relativism. 

There is no context wherein God's approval or endorsement of child abuse, rape, murder, genocide, human sacrifice, slavery, misogyny, condemnation for crimes of other parties, etc is moral. Those are always immoral.

You ain't seen nothing yet. Keep reading.

Edited by Raf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Longhunter said:

^God's moral relativism. 

There is no context wherein God's approval or endorsement of child abuse, rape, murder, genocide, human sacrifice, slavery, misogyny, condemnation for crimes of other parties, etc is oral. Those are always immoral.

(by oral I assume you mean immoral)

Good another player lol  (Raf put me on ignore)

What is your definition for gods?   Raf takes a fundy viewpoint.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2014 at 7:46 PM, Mark Sanguinetti said:

Jesus Christ IMPROVES God's Law

Jesus endorsed the OT saying "No jot or tittle shall be changed"

He also passed up every opportunity to denounce things such as slavery, but decided not to. Instead the NT uses slave/master analogies as a positive example. 
Also, Jesus' "best" examples of morality, found in the Sermon on the Mount, are terribly flawed. 

Lastly, to say Jesus "improves" god law is an admission that God's morality meter is flawed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

(by oral I assume you mean immoral)

Good another player lol  (Raf put me on ignore)

What is your definition for gods?   Raf takes a fundy viewpoint.

 

Yes, "immoral".

I don't posit a definition since I don't hold the belief that they exist. The theist should define their terms, but the character of the god of The Bible is typically the classical definition (transcendent being, creator, etc). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do get to see quoted material, and I think it would be nice if certain people didn't presume to characterize my position when they've repeatedly shown such a failure at basic reading comprehension skills that it's healthier to ignore them than swim through their sewage for a salient point.

"The character of God in the Bible" is my definition for Yahweh, as I've said repeatedly. Dismiss that as "the fundy viewpoint" if you wish, but it's Yahweh as opposed to the conveniently shifting, goalpost-moving evolving God that some people keep trying to make this thread about.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Longhunter,

 

The word you changed from "oral" to "immoral" SHOULD have been changed from "oral" to "MORAL."

You're welcome.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Raf said:

I do get to see quoted material, and I think it would be nice if certain people didn't presume to characterize my position when they've repeatedly shown such a failure at basic reading comprehension skills that it's healthier to ignore them than swim through their sewage for a salient point.

"The character of God in the Bible" is my definition for Yahweh, as I've said repeatedly. Dismiss that as "the fundy viewpoint" if you wish, but it's Yahweh as opposed to the conveniently shifting, goalpost-moving evolving God that some people keep trying to make this thread about.

Pffft

You get to characterize my view with "evolving God", than you set the precedent.  

"be honest" 

"be honest"

"be honest"

after repeated "evolving God" mis-characterizations 

 

 

Edited by Bolshevik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Longhunter said:

Yes, "immoral".

I don't posit a definition since I don't hold the belief that they exist. The theist should define their terms, but the character of the god of The Bible is typically the classical definition (transcendent being, creator, etc). 

I am neither theist nor am I atheist nor am I agnostic.

I made my claims based on scientific research.  

God is real like numbers are real and serve a function in reality.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

I am neither theist nor am I atheist nor am I agnostic.

 

You can't be neither. They are a true dichotomy. You either accept the claim that a god exists or you do not accept it. There is no middle ground.
Also, if you are not agnostic, that is a claim that you do know weather a god exists or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Longhunter said:

You can't be neither. They are a true dichotomy. You either accept the claim that a god exists or you do not accept it. There is no middle ground.
Also, if you are not agnostic, that is a claim that you do know weather a god exists or not.

False.

Think of those definitions as absolutes on a non-linear spectrum, if you are able at this time.

Edited by Bolshevik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that's what a true dichotomy is, by definition. This is basic logic.
There is no middle ground between accepting a claim and not accepting a claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Longhunter said:

No, that's what a true dichotomy is, by definition. This is basic logic.
There is no middle ground between accepting a claim and not accepting a claim.

Interesting.

I used to see it that way as a Wayfer and as Atheist.  

I disagree with the lack of middle ground.  

Do you agree at least God served a role in building our present society?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bolshevik said:

Interesting.

I used to see it that way as a Wayfer and as Atheist.  

I disagree with the lack of middle ground.  

 

What's the 3rd option between accepting a claims as true and not accepting a claim as true?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Longhunter said:

What's the 3rd option between accepting a claims as true and not accepting a claim as true?
 

Not being a robot?

One option is partly true and the other option is partly true?  By definition there's more options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a basic fact of logic. You are claiming a middle ground in a dichotomy, that's a logical violation.

 

Law of Identity

  1. Something is what it is and isn't what it is not. Something that exists has a specific nature.


Law of Non-Contradiction

 

  1. Something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense.
     

    Law of Excluded Middle

    1. A statement is either true or false, without a middle ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, something is either A or Not A. 
You either accept a claim or you do not. That's a direct negation of the statement. It is by necessity and by definition a true dichotomy. To deny that is a formal logical fallacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's go with sense in the non-contradiction.

The god that is being insisted i s nonsensical and is a red-herring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 minutes ago, Longhunter said:

No, something is either A or Not A. 
You either accept a claim or you do not. That's a direct negation of the statement. It is by necessity and by definition a true dichotomy. To deny that is a formal logical fallacy.

Like a Liger is not a Tiger?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that may be an example, but the direct analogy would be" Something is either a Tiger or not a tiger".
There is no middle ground.

You are either a theist or not a theist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Longhunter said:

that may be an example, but the direct analogy would be" Something is either a Tiger or not a tiger".
There is no middle ground.

You are either a theist or not a theist. 

A liger is genetically part tiger.  You would need more description to say it is not a full tiger, whatever that is.  

I think I already posted about the problems with Laws.  The I, Robot example?

You are insisting in absolutes that I will not agree to because I know alternatives exist.  God is an abstraction of many ideals over many generations.  That exists.  To insist God does not exist is to voluntarily put blinders on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several problems:

A liger may share some properties with a tiger, but is not a Tiger. There is no middle ground. Similarly with a God. You can define it how you want, but it is either A or not A. 

Please demonstrate an alternative to A or not A.

Atheism is not an assertion that God does not exist, merely not accepting the claim. You are conflating theism/atheism with gnosticism/agnosticism. 
I'm using the true dichotomy of accepting the claim and not accepting the claim. There is no middle ground. There may be diferent concepts of God, but far any of them, you either accept it or do not accept it, without middle ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the sake of this discussion, it might serve our purpose best to limit the definition of God to that which is present in the sections of scripture being examined.

Edited by waysider
spelling
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Longhunter said:

. . .
Atheism is not an assertion that God does not exist, merely not accepting the claim. You are conflating theism/atheism with gnosticism/agnosticism. 
I'm using the true dichotomy of accepting the claim and not accepting the claim. There is no middle ground. There may be diferent concepts of God, but far any of them, you either accept it or do not accept it, without middle ground.

If I look at this cup in front of me and someone refutes my claim that it exists, I'm still getting a cup of coffee.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...