Christians: bad for society.

Post Reply New Topic

Gentlemen, I suspect that most of our differences on this thread are based on semantics.

There is no reason to think that Divine cognition has anything to do with human cognition

you can find more explanation of this here:

(http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=8363)



These are assertions of personal values. I have already shown you how God cannot be simple through the use of my two examples.




Well name me one composite that cannot exist as two separate parts.



Well let me explain. If God and morality are separate then God could do something immoral. Morality would be subject to God and not truly objective.



Your definition of moral objectivity is subject to itself; therefor moral objectivity cannot be routed in your definition. For something to be truly morality objective it must be subject to nothing.



But as an atheist you have no ground from which to apply objective morality. Your view of what is good or bad cannot be properly explained when challenged.



Then I have ample grounds for believing what you said to be not true.



Your the one making the sweeping claim that Christians are bad for society. Its up to you to prove the truth of this statement.



So basically your saying I have to argue with you on your terms and based on your world-view. This is childish.

I tend to agree. But considering what is at stake; it seems a worthwhile effort to soldier on.

Because he was. You actually have to petition to leave the church, listen to a priest try to talk you out of it, and then the Catholic church STILL considers you baptized. Thats why my title says I am an apostate aspie. A lapsed Catholic is still very much a Catholic.

Good point: I actually had to call my Parish Priest on this one.

Its called a Latae sententiae; as in the person is excommunicated the moment they commit the offence. There are eight grounds for Latae sententiae excommunication; in McVeigh's case it would be apostasy.

Last edited by 91 on 12 Nov 2010, 3:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

An already DEAD human embryo. Nobody is killing embryos for stem cells, they are making secondary use of the remains.That is a lot different than your strawman statement.

Of course you probably think peoples bodies should be encased in steel coffins and cement for most of several millenia rather than putting the components back into circulation.

A dead embryo was once a live embryo. The anti-embyonic-stem-cell people oppose creating embryos and then killing them for the purpose of extracting the stem cells. The believe that the fusion of egg and sperm acquires a Soul in the instant of fusion. They are one step shy of that opening scene in the Monty Python movie which attributes life and value to each and every sperm.

ruveyn

Look, I am pretty much done. You continue to assert the same points that I feel that I have rebutted sufficiently a few times over. You even deny the rebuttals as.... well... existing. And even further, so much of this is just so far off of what I consider the topic, I don't really have an interest. I don't care. Even your last stage is hardly a rebuttal, as your link doesn't talk about divine cognition and its workings. Your claim that I only made a value statement is silly. Your point about composition is irrelevant, as separability does not mean "separated", so the conceivable existence of separation does not mean that the two properties are separate in practice, which is also the failure of your argument about God and morality, as two things can be conceptually different, while one thing can be defined in terms of the other. I've already spent a lot of time and effort arguing how your requirements are not necessary for my efforts, and with little to no engagement with this in a serious manner. You seem to outright reject this.

As for having ample grounds to consider what I state false, please do so in reference to the facts I presented, and that other posters presented. If you want, present new facts and angles, such as done by Inuyasha, but as it stands, I am not accepting the meta-ethical argument as legitimate any more. I've done enough. I think I've made my points in a manner that ought to be understandable. After all, within the context in which I was speaking, I've shown my case to be sufficiently true for others to accept and add their own points to. There is understanding. Beyond that, I don't think I have any reason to care.

I don't see why upholding that you have to argue these on the terms I provided, and in connection to my worldview is childish. It certainly keeps arguments separate. It certainly keeps the discussion on the topic I consider relevant. Frankly, I see your efforts tied up more with sophistry, and in many cases poor and annoying. To exclude these perspectives is thus only a boon. Upholding the topic is more useful.

The entire article is about the philosophy of a perfect being; you clearly did not read it.

As to it being off topic; I asked you to establish on what objective grounds you could consider Christians could be bad? You took this as an invitation to attack my view of objective values; which is a case I think I have made; but you have not. It was you who chose to go off topic when you attacked my grounds for objectivity.

The reason 'I' just used the word 'I' is important. Since for you to establish why Christians are bad for society you need to establish why I should think this is so. This is my world-view that you are judging at the moment. Now if your position is to be the case; then the case would need to be established in such a way as to invalidate any subjective criticism I might make. Otherwise you are just stating your opinion; since you are making the case that one billion people are bad for society then the burden of proof is justifiably high.



No I reject that it is compatible with any conceivable concept of an all powerful, all knowing and benevolent God. I do this based on two examples that I have provided that prove that the concept of God must be simple. You have simply contended, repeatedly that the concept God must be complex. I have already stated why this is not the case.



I am not required by any of the logic you have presented to do any more than argue that you have no grounds to contend that something is universally bad.



Its childish because you are saying that I must conform to using your world-view when discussing your statement that my world-view is bad for society.

this obviously should rise questions like this:

http://www.comereason.org/theo_issues/theo080.asp

so does this debate.



and yet christians and other religions try to explain this odd-god-thingy.

people follow blindly without thinking. as do sheep...

sheep have shepherds. like the religious lambs and sheep:

http://www.biblestudyguide.org/articles ... epherd.htm

shepherds exploit their sheep by shaving them to keep warm themselves. shepherds also kill their lambs and sheep to eat them when they are hungry. shepherds also sacrifice lambs and sheep and shatter their blood for no sound reason...

if sheep knew... they would NOT follow.

religious sheep follow. no matter what.

Are you implying God shouldn't allow bad things to happen and not allow people to do bad things. Excuse me, but that sounds like you're advocating God should treat us like inanimate objects. Are you saying you would want God to treat you as a puppet?

sorry, but there is no god. so there is no "allowing" or "treating" to refer to.

so what are you trying to tell/ask me?

the odd-god-thingy is obviously in your world.. not mine. you are the one who believes that stuff and acts like a sheep by following the shepherd and swallow whatever they want you to believe. not me.

i merrily wrote some of the typical catch-22 statements down we atheists amuse ourselves with when participating in pointless discussions like this... although we know it won't make any difference at all.

believers want to believe. period.

If there is no God, then quite frankly how the heck did the Israelis manage to win a war that started as soon as they became a country against just about every country in the Middle East? They were pretty much in the worst tactical situation you can think, outnumbered to the point it was ridiculous and they still managed to win.

There may be such a thing as luck, but using luck as an explanation at a certain point doesn't fly. There are also incidents of people falling from heights that should have killed them and they managed to survive (in some cases without any broken bones).

I am glad you asked that. The Israelis have recovered the Lost Ark of the Covenant which is an alien artifact that Moses received on Har Sinai nearly 3000 years ago. It has some very interesting side effects. I causes Syrian tanks to stall dead on the Golan Heights and it causes Arab speaking military commanders to march straight into ambushes. Any one who reads the Bible should get the message: Don't F*ck around with Jews on their own turf. It says somewhere in Geneisis that YHWH (who is really a very advanced extra terrestrial being) told Abraham any who blesses Abraham will be blessed and any one who curses Abraham will be cursed. See if it isn't so.

ruveyn

Talking about the war in I believe started on May 14, 1948.

Yup. The Israel of Joshuah who slew the Ca'ananites was reborn in that war. I was happy to see Jews put away the loathsome craft of money lending and take up righteous arms.. Those are the real Jews who overcame the seven nations that practiced human sacrifice. Unfortunately all the good stuff did not last. As soon as Jews startedd living in big cities they took up a lot of bad habits which led to their down fall. They took up with pagan women and started doing real-estate speculation. Bad news. Jews were at their best when they kept flocks and kept the commandments.

ruveyn