Online Now 2240

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

Online now 2178
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Reply

The bible and Greek mythology

  • Slinwin8773 said... (original post)

    You should stop. You're out of ammo.

    You should start. You haven't said anything yet.

    signature image
  • "Of course right conduct originates with God. He is right in and of Himself, and so He naturally does right. That's the point. Your question isn't as clever as you want it to be. It's essentially the same truth. Without a central authority (ie. God) there's no logical foundation for right and wrong. If we're an accidental colliding of non-sensical molecules then where does our right to make up rules come from? One person should be able to do as he/she sees fit and the next the same. And, who has the right to tell one he/she is right and one he/she is wrong? I asked the question first. Why are you dodging? "

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No dodging here. I think I asked the question before you did but that is neither here nor there.

    If God himself is the definition of good, then anything he decides to do is good. That means that If we say, on the one hand, that something is right because God commands it, then the only reason why we should do something is that God commands it. It makes God’s commands arbitrary, because there is no reason why God commanded something other than the fact that he did. If this is the case, God could’ve commanded something else, or even something contrary, or something horribly evil and simply declared it good. If God is the creator of morality like he’s purportedly the creator of the universe, then he could have simply declared any act good, and there would be no moral reason to distinguish such a God from the Devil. This presents us with the seemingly absurd position that even the greatest atrocities might be not only acceptable but morally required if God were to command them.

    Tell me. Who is the cause of the most atrocities in the bible? God or the Devil?

    This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by OmegaBuckeye 3 years ago

    signature image
  • Did you even READ my post. It specifically says "In short, you assume that your opponent believes something that he or she did not explicitly state."

    I said nothing about what Christians believe. I simply criticized your sophomoric debate tactics.

    Christians do not try to sway people to their beliefs with any more fervor than the other groups I mentioned. It is a human condition, not a religious one...

    signature image signature image signature image
  • "...where does our right to make up rules come from? One person should be able to do as he/she sees fit and the next the same. And, who has the right to tell one he/she is right and one he/she is wrong? "

    The right comes from our willingness to live in a Society governed by mutually self preserving principles. For the most part we do live as we see fit and the same for the next person. Have you ever heard the phrase, "my rights end where they conflict with someone elses"?

    signature image
  • Horns247

    Rivver

    OmegaBuckeye said... (original post)

    Tell me. Who is the cause of the most atrocities in the Bible? God or the Devil?

    It's not even close.

    Noah's Flood
    Plagues in Egypt
    Sodom and Gomorrah
    Famine
    (the list goes on and on)

    God killed millions of people in the bible, less than 100 deaths can be credited to the Devil.

  • Rivver said... (original post)


    God killed millions of people in the bible, less than 100 deaths can be credited to the Devil.

    I would say none can be credited to the Devil. Can you show me any?

    signature image signature image signature image
  • nirvanabama said... (original post)

    Christians do not try to sway people to their beliefs with any more fervor than the other groups I mentioned. It is a human condition, not a religious one...

    Good point. I don't think chrisitans are much differnent than used car salesmen either.

    Also, you are assuming this is a debate. I'm not trying to debate anyone here.

    This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by devidee 3 years ago

    signature image
  • Horns247

    Rivver

    nirvanabama said... (original post)

    I would say none can be credited to the Devil. Can you show me any?

    Off the top of my head, the 7 sons and 3 daughters of Job. Though God allowed it happen for the wager, so they should probably split the credit.

  • "Also, I don't believe you ever touched my Cosmological argument for there being a God. So... I'll share it with you once more. Why? Because it puts evolution folk on the stand in a courtroom to defend the defenseless.

    Everything in existence has a first cause. Therefore, the Universe and everything within it (matter, beings, species, etc.) must have a first cause. Here goes the argument.

    Every finite and contingent being has a first cause.
    A causal loop cannot exist.
    A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
    Therefore, a First Cause, or something that is not an affect, must exist.

    So, an individual can believe in a fairy tale imaginary friend... or you can believe numbers, equations, physics, thermodynamics (which are really my friends too), and scientific laws are your god. You see... your imaginary big bang of hollywood just doesn't sound very reasonable to folks who look at the world and see order within nature... not chaos. "
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    What created God?

    If all that is required to get around the first cause argument is an entity that exists outside of time, then all we need to do is postulate a single particle that exists outside of time and triggered the Big Bang. It need not have any additional powers. Besides, this particle might even exist, depending on how you define "outside of time." Photons, light particles, do not experience time, since they move at the speed of light. Therefore, according to this argument, light can pop into existence without cause.

    Theists will object that this particle should have a cause. But they have already refuted this argument by granting that there exists an uncaused cause in the first place. If God can exist without a cause, why not a particle? Why not the universe?

    In fact, time is a part of the Universe, so with no Universe, there is no time. Maybe the Big Bang is actually the first instance of time.

    signature image
  • devidee said... (original post)

    Good point. I don't think chrisitans are much differnent than used car salemen either.

    If you had only said...

    "Good point. I don't think most Christians are much differnent than used car salesmen either."

    By insulting the entire group (Christians or Used Car Salesman) you weaken you stance as a debater. Bring something to the table, devidee! Any moron can spew insults...

    (see how I kinda called you a moron...that's what I am talking about!)

    signature image signature image signature image
  • nirvanabama said... (original post)

    If you had only said...

    "Good point. I don't think most Christians are much differnent than used car salesmen either."

    By insulting the entire group (Christians or Used Car Salesman) you weaken you stance as a debater. Bring something to the table, devidee! Any moron can spew insults...

    (see how I kinda called you a moron...that's what I am talking about!)

    Why do you assume I'm debating. How do you debate someone who actually believes in make believe.

    signature image
  • Rivver said... (original post)

    Off the top of my head, the 7 sons and 3 daughters of Job. Though God allowed it happen for the wager, so they should probably split the credit.

    It appears to me that Devil had to ask, so I would contend he couldn't do this without God. Also, IIRC the Devil/Satan didn't KILL these people. They just died (at his request)...

    signature image signature image signature image
  • devidee said... (original post)

    Why do you assume I'm debating. How do you debate someone who actually believes in make believe.

    Would you feel better if I called it arguing? I am just trying to advance the discussion and limit the b.s.

    signature image signature image signature image
  • nirvanabama said... (original post)

    Would you feel better if I called it arguing? I am just trying to advance the discussion and limit the b.s.

    You can't advance a discussion when the starting point is one side believing in magic and mysticism.

    That is why I'm not debating here. I'm ridiculing.

    signature image
  • devidee said... (original post)

    You should start. You haven't said anything yet.

    I know you are but what am I? I'll do it on your level now.

  • Slinwin8773 said... (original post)

    I know you are but what am I? I'll do it on your level now.

    You're out of ammo, bro.

    signature image
  • Horns247

    Rivver

    devidee said... (original post)

    You're out of ammo, bro.

    That was quick.

    roflmao

  • devidee said... (original post)

    I'm not trying to sway anyone. That's what christians attempt to do.

    There is no debate here. Either you believe in fairty tales and zombies as true or you don't.

    devidee... this is the definition of you and your rhetoric...

    Ad hominem
    "An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter another’s claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself. True believers will often commit this fallacy by countering the arguments of skeptics by stating that skeptics are closed minded. Skeptics, on the other hand, may fall into the trap of dismissing the claims of UFO believers, for example, by stating that people who believe in UFO’s are crazy or stupid."

    You see.. most people have not called you stupid for not believing in a god or God. Also, no one says you believe in fairy tales where something comes from nothing, man comes from apes, and all of this was by random chance.

    It's very difficult to enter into this discussion when one has a closed-mind, feels authoritative, believes in their adept intellect, or just acts like they have all the answers.... and the opposite side has none.

    You see.. I've seen some valid points on your part, but you constantly attack the person or call their position stupid or ignorant. Therefore, this discussion, your point of view... has really turned this discussion into a crapshoot. There is no way anyone can effectively discuss anything with you, because you are so arrogant. Unfortunately, I was really looking forward to discussing things on this topic... but due to the value of time... and the amount of fallacies on both sides.... I'm done.

    Keep up the crapshoot everyone. Hopefully someone will get through.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by TrojansFightOn 3 years ago

  • OmegaBuckeye said... (original post)

    Come on guys, you read into my statement something that wasn't there. I actually want you to think and be honest. I simply asked where our foundations of right and wrong originate without God. I'm not talking about Christianity (which is a faith, not a religion) or any religion. If we originate from animals, and quite by accident, then where do our rightful notions of morality come from?

    Actually I'll goi ahead and answer your question then you can answer mine. First of all I'll clarify something for you since I am sure from your previous posts that you don't actually understand any of the science behind evolution. Evolution is not a completely random process (accident). There are two major componants to evolution. First there is the mutation aspect which introduces the change needed for the evolutionary process. Second, and just as importantly, there is something called natural selection which drives the direction of the evolutionary process. On average, those creatures with an advantage over others in their environment are more likely to survive and pass on their genes.

    Now to answer your question. Any social group of animals has both a social heirarchy and behavioural rules. This is true from ant colonies, wolf packs, chimpanzee troops, to humans. Morality evolved as a means of keeping the cohesian of the social groups. Those groups that worked together with the altruistic model were more likely to survive and pass their genes on. This is why as a general rule we see things that are for the group's benefit as virtuous and those things done for the self as immoral. Murder inside the group is bad, murder of outside competition (war) is good. Persecution by the media of your team good, persecution by the media of my team bad. Suicide because the person does not want to live anymore bad, killing self to save someone else in the group good. This is a simple breakdown for you, but it really gets much more complex when you talk about all the variations that can happen with morality.

    Omega...that is a very good answer. As someone who used to be sympathetic to your viewpoint you've displayed a clarity of thought that is commendable. Thank you.

    So, you're resting your position on morality on what we've learned from animals. Respectfully, i think you've started with a losing position already. If animals are the seat of our morality then how can we ever hope to be any better than them, morally speaking? In other words, since we've all simply "evolved" from nothingness (by the accidental colliding of non-sensical molecules, quite devoid of any purpose or any kind of rightness) there can never be any hope of a real right and wrong. You said it yourself, virtue is nothing more than what is best for the majority or most powerful. It doesn't matter how much evolution you have. And, your model fails because in the animal kingdom order is only kept because the other animals in the pack are too afraid or simply unable to challenge the other more powerful animal(s). So, the biggest, baddest, and often most selfish, of the group dictates what's "good" and what's "bad" for the group (notice here that good and bad are wholly subjective). There's no movement toward any real seat of right and wrong. It's simply a Hilterian peace based on my tanks being bigger than yours. This is the best that evolutionary theory can conjure on the subjest of good and bad, right and wrong. We need a system that teaches some things are OBJECTIVELY good and bad, right and wrong, beyond who's the biggest and baddest, and with the very notions coming from a Being higher than us. We need things to be right simply because they're right and some things to be wrong simply because they're wrong. Otherwise the slave owners can't be wrong because they were simply acting on what was best for them as the powerful ones of their time. We all know they were wrong intrinsically because God (objective morality who created us on purpose with a natural morality) made us to know that. You must see that this position is the most logical. It took me a while too, but pleased think about it.

    Now, to your explanation on evolution/natural selection. Evolution is a completely random process in the sense that there wasn't/isn't a scentient being guiding it. It is simply a random and accidental colliding of non-sensical molecules that luckily produced life over time. You mentioned mutations, and rightfully so since evolutionary theory needs mutations in order to go. However, mutations are actually a degenerating of a creature rather than an improving of it. We don't have any observable examples today of how mutations move a species forward. So evolutionists are bound to say that they did in the past. That's all good and well but the fossil evidences for this aren't there. And, logically it's really difficult to hang your hat on multiple species being improved by a system that natural degenerates them. Now, some may say that God used evolution to bring things to be the way they are today. That's true to a certain extent. Your gave a nice description in natural selection. It's true that species have evolved quite a bit within their own kinds. The fossil record and modern genetics prove that overwhelmingly. For instance, we can see among the cat species that there are common ancestors among the cats (tigers, lions, cheetahs, house cats, etc.). This is an indication of micro-evolution, or natural selection within a kind. However, what the fossil record and modern genetics do not demonstrate is any kind of macro-evolution, or evolution going beyond the various kinds. It looks like dogs were simply created dogs (and evolved within that kind) and cats were simply created cats (and evolved within that kind), and so on.

    Let me ask you this, name on major tenant of the THEORY of evolution that has been scientifically proven as fact. In 150+ years scientists haven't been able to move their theory into the category of scientific fact. Yet, they very dubiously teach it as fact even thoughthey know it's not.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by goodnews 3 years ago

    signature image

    South Carolina Gamecocks. The 2010 National College Baseball Champs.

  • TrojansFightOn said... (original post)

    devidee... this is the definition of you and your rhetoric...

    Ad hominem "An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter another’s claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself. True believers will often commit this fallacy by countering the arguments of skeptics by stating that skeptics are closed minded. Skeptics, on the other hand, may fall into the trap of dismissing the claims of UFO believers, for example, by stating that people who believe in UFO’s are crazy or stupid."

    You see.. most people have not called you stupid for not believing in a god or God. Also, no one says you believe in fairy tales where something comes from nothing, man comes from apes, and all of this was by random chance.

    It's very difficult to enter into this discussion when one has a closed-mind, feels authoritative, believes in their adept intellect, or just acts like they have all the answers.... and the opposite side has none.

    You see.. I've seen some valid points on your part, but you constantly attack the person or call their position stupid or ignorant. Therefore, this discussion, your point of view... has really turned this discussion into a crapshoot. There is no way anyone can effectively discuss anything with you, because you are so arrogant. Unfortunately, I was really looking forward to discussing things on this topic... but due to the value of time... and the amount of fallacies on both sides.... I'm done.

    Keep up the crapshoot everyone. Hopefully someone will get through.

    I'd be interested in hearing your point of view TrojansfightOn.

    signature image

    South Carolina Gamecocks. The 2010 National College Baseball Champs.

  • TrojansFightOn said... (original post)

    devidee... this is the definition of you and your rhetoric...

    Ad hominem "An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter another’s claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself. True believers will often commit this fallacy by countering the arguments of skeptics by stating that skeptics are closed minded. Skeptics, on the other hand, may fall into the trap of dismissing the claims of UFO believers, for example, by stating that people who believe in UFO’s are crazy or stupid."

    You see.. most people have not called you stupid for not believing in a god or God. Also, no one says you believe in fairy tales where something comes from nothing, man comes from apes, and all of this was by random chance.

    It's very difficult to enter into this discussion when one has a closed-mind, feels authoritative, believes in their adept intellect, or just acts like they have all the answers.... and the opposite side has none.

    You see.. I've seen some valid points on your part, but you constantly attack the person or call their position stupid or ignorant. Therefore, this discussion, your point of view... has really turned this discussion into a crapshoot. There is no way anyone can effectively discuss anything with you, because you are so arrogant. Unfortunately, I was really looking forward to discussing things on this topic... but due to the value of time... and the amount of fallacies on both sides.... I'm done.

    Keep up the crapshoot everyone. Hopefully someone will get through.

    Again you have to repsect the other side to debate. I have no repsect for people who believe in a fictional story and try to dictate to the society around them based on it.

    signature image
  • TrojansFightOn said... (original post)

    It's very difficult to enter into this discussion when one has a closed-mind, feels authoritative, believes in their adept intellect, or just acts like they have all the answers.... and the opposite side has none.


    Sans the belief in their adept intellect.... that describes a large chunk of religious people I have debated in my life (not all by any means.). It's the exact reason why I haven't really gotten involved in this debate. And it's probably the exact same reason why Davidee has made it very very clear that he is not debating.

    On the flip side, I think that science is very much so NOT closed-minded At the end of the day, believing that a book written thousands of years before you were born is the word of god and the truth and no amount of evidence can change that is far far more closed-minded than going off of evidence and science, and changing what your belief and view is based on the evidence and facts on hand.

    If you can't agree on some very basic things, there isn't any point in debating. You'll just end up with a headache.

  • Horns247

    Rivver

    goodnews said... (original post)

    We all know they [slave owners] are erong intrinsically because my imaginary space diety ... made us to know that.

    In 150+ years scientists haven't been able to move their theory into the category of scientific fact.

    1. Have you ever actually read the bible? Not only did it condone slavery, but it gave instructions on where you should get them, how hard you can beat them, and how to pass them on to your children as property.

    2. You clearly don't understand the scientific side of any of this "discussion." A scientific theory will always will be a scientific theory, no matter how much new and/or better evidence is found.

    Creationists are good for a laugh.

  • Rivver said... (original post)

    1. Have you ever actually read the bible? Not only did it condone slavery, but it gave instructions on where you should get them, how hard you can beat them, and how to pass them on to your children as property.

    No, no, no. You don't understand. You are not supposed to take that part literally. You are only supposed to take the parts that support my agenda literally.

    Praise be unto him, the Spaghetti Monster.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by devidee 3 years ago

    signature image
  • "Let me ask you this, name on major tenant of the THEORY of evolution that has been scientifically proven as fact. In 150+ years scientists haven't been able to move their theory into the category of scientific fact. Yet, they very dubiously teach it as fact even thoughthey know it's not." --Goodnews

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ALL of science is 'THEORY'.

    You do not understand the way the word 'THEORY' is used in science. As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

    Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.

    A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.

    It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.

    Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves.

    Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions

    This post was edited by OmegaBuckeye 3 years ago

    signature image