Total posts: 2,182
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
But were you not adamant and say: "I'm not here to start a conversation about the Christain God, that is a topic for another time". #1
And you brought up. If you were to continue to make comments and questions about Christianity, I would have not continued the conversation.\
But you haven't shown any evidence for god nor have you offered any evidence of gods
Two words:
Moral Law
Morality? You are going in circles. Simply saying god is good and "good is by definition is god" simply doesn't cut it ,my friend. You are making statements.
God is good, because objective good can only exist if God exists.
No/ But appears that you have done exactly that simply by telling us that the definition of "good is god".
But objective good isn't a human category. If you want to talk specifically about objective good, then we aren't talking about a humanly made category.
You are talking about a human category, when you make the assumption that:
Works = Good. And that God must do works in order to be good.
No, I am asking YOU to show me evidence of gods goodness. You have made the claim that god is "by definition-good".
Yes. Because in order for us to have an objective good, there must be an objective law, which in turn has to have an objective law giver. A mind before ours. A greater one.
Therefore, God must obtain "goodness" in order for the concept of objective good to exist for us.
Which god has offered that?
The Christian God, but we will stop it there because that's getting into specific territory.
Well it depends on which god you are actually referring , so wouldn't god the father of all mankind lead by example? Are we no to follow his example?
Thats getting into specifics. I'm simply only arguing the existence of God in this forum. Not the specific one.
If I am to follow someones assumed "good nature" I would like to see some examples of what "good" is.
Alright. God. There you go. There's your example.
You are really stupid aren't you? Do you not read what you yourself have written?
You can think my definition is bad. But if you can't provide a better one yourself, then you're yelling from the bottom of the cliff.
Ok, so show me examples of either these entities displaying their good nature? And from where you got your sources.
I apologies for bringing up the Trinity. That is irrelevant.
But you haven't given a single example of either have you.
Again, Triune. My mistake.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
What is sacrificial love?What did god sacrifice?
In this specific case, it is sacrificing something that you love for the love of others.
In Christianity God scarified his Son and put the burden of death upon him.
"IF" ? Well, first off you haven't shown me any evidence of the existence of a god , good. loving or otherwise..
We have literally been talking about evidence of the existence of a God. Morality. We are talking about that specific one right now.
Second, you still haven't show a single example of god or his "good" works proving he is "good". What you have done is invented your own definition of the word "good" and asserted that the definition of good is- god.
You're putting God into categorical terms.
You're also telling me that in order for God to be good, he has to do good works?
Man doesn't even need to do good works in order to obtain eternal life.
So why should God be held to that standard?
Heck, why do you have the authority to hold God to a categorically human standard?
Also, you say I invented my own definition of the word God, then prove it. What is the definition then if mine is just made up?
Again you have only made a statement and not shown a single example of god or The Trinity and his good nature.
You didn't ask me to show an example of the Trinity. You asked me:
What is "his nature" and show an example of his good nature?
I responded with the answer to the first question with:
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are 3 persons in one nature.
And the second one with:
An eternal relationship.
An eternal loving bond.
His nature is love by definition.
The answer to both was the trinity and his nature shows an eternal loving relationship. That is his good nature.
How?
To repeat myself:
An eternal relationship.
An eternal loving bond.
Indeed they can. And without the interference or influence or command and instruction of a god.
Without the command is correct, but the rest unfortunately no.
God interferes in our hearts, and influences creation. He also instructs moral law, and that is what guides people to do good things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
That is a statement not a example. Can you give me an example of gods good on display?
His sacrificial love.
And do you have any examples of how god represents or defines the word "good"?
If God is the ultimate being and has full control over his creation, then he defines everything including good.
What is "his nature" and show an example of his good nature?
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are 3 persons in one nature.
An eternal relationship.
An eternal loving bond.
His nature is love by definition.
And can you name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever.
No. Because non-believers can do and believe good things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
I’m an agnostic Atheist. I think it’s possible that God exists, just very improbable.
Would you consider doing a debate titled:
It is more likely than not that a God exists?
Or at least conversate about it if you prefer?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
And do you have any examples of how god represents or defines the word "good"?
His nature. He has his moral code written in our hearts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
1} Patriarchal Creator God ----illogical, lack of common sense critical thinking ----- i.e, is an imagined { Meta-space mind/intellect/concept } as if the human{s} were a God, outside of the conceptually finite, occupied space Universe, looking back in, as if they, as God, held in their Meta-space conceptually this imagined Universe in their imagined hands.
Are you presuming God is imagined?
Because if you are then all of reality imagined? Because that's where I get my evidence.
2} God as the eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe.
No, he is beyond Space and Time. That is the only logical explanation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Define the word good, for us.
God. And I know that seems like I am joking, but I am not.
God is the definition of goodness. He defines it. You can't get objective good from anywhere else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
What advanced protective measures do we have to ensure that someone with a gun can't kill other people? I've never heard of such a thing.
Two words.
Law Enforcement.
And no one is arguing that only assault weapons are lethal. You're engaging in a black or white fallacy. The issue with assault weapons is how much more lethal they are compared to say handguns or hunting rifles.
But that depends on the skill level of the shooter. I could have a Glock-17 and still smoke a dude with an assault weapon if I had better skill.
But all that aside, you still ignored every point I made about the idea that harm caused by any tool or product should be regulated. If the problem is that people are more mentally ill than ever, then it's common sense that this gives us more of a reason to limit the access that people have to weapons which a mentally ill population can use to destroy itself.
But then you're taking away the rights for those who aren't mentally ill to defend themselves with weapons of their choice.
Of course, I would totally trust the government if they came to me and said," You might hurt people. Therefore, we are taking away your rights just in case"
Never seen that in any other society (sarcasm).
There is a reason we don't let toddlers play with knives,
So, government is our parent, and we are the toddlers?
Yeah, I fundamentally disagree.
The government is to be a servant to the people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You're free to define atheism however you wish, but this definition does not apply to the vast majority of people you would call atheists.
You don't get to choose a name and choose your own definition for it.
Atheist: a person who disbelieves in the existence of God or gods: (Oxford Languages).
Suck it up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
THe big bang happened in nature, so it can't be supernatural. It can be singular, but we don't know that that's the case. "Whatever ignited it"? Can you explain?
The Big Bang's origins did not have a natural origin as we know understand natural. It supposedly had a supernatural origin.
The Universe requires three things:
Matter
Time
Space
Matter was what the Big Bang or the Singularity contained so it wasn't there before.
Time started at the Big Bang. This is backed up by famous scientists including Einstein.
Space didn't exist because that was the end product of the Big Bang.
So, we had none of the fundamental natural building blocks for any type of existence at the origins of the Big Bang.
Time started at the Big Bang, so by definition there was no before the Big Bang.
The Big Bang in of itself is a supernatural theory, of the origins of the universe. And the majority of the evidence leads to it.
That's not what the laws of nature tell us. It's our experience so far, but we have seen amino acids spontaneously synthesize in several different experiments, As you are aware, amino acids are the precursor to proteins, these are the building blocks of life. And besides, life only has to come from non life once. Again though, how does this mean gods exist?
There is so much fundamentally wrong with that.
Science has not even been able to recreate RNA. In order to be able to produce any type of life, you need RNA. Once you figure that out, its a billion steps more to figuring out life. But we haven't even gotten close to RNA yet. Not even close.
RNA is very unstable. In order for it to be properly produced, it needs an environment where the decomposition process is slower than the life-giving process.
And RNA once it generates spontaneously only once, it doesn't' remember how to do it again, so no it doesn't have to happen just one time. It has to happen multiple times with no help, and no guiding process or learning process. And RNA requires it to be consistent in order to stay alive.
So no, it actually has to happen multiple times a day, continuously, and constantly in order to sustain only RNA. Thats not even talking about Cells or DNA. And that's not even diving into the smaller parts of the system and how impossible those get too.
And I never said this means God exists. Please don't misrepresent my points.
I told you, I'm open to the possibility. Sadly, so far it seems like your only supporting argument is one from incredulity or complexity, neither of which are compelling.
But you have to hold yourself accountable too. If you want me to provide rational evidence as to why I believe in God, I also expect you to provide the same for your philosophy. Just like I can't say," Well I don't understand how God works, so I just have to trust it", you can't say," Well I don't know all about science so I just have to trust it."
Because by extension, maybe they won't want to harm me, and maybe they'll look out for me if I look out for them. That's how societies work, and in fact how they form.
Why specifically is society forming a good thing though? Why is societal progression good?
There is no standard. It's something a community agrees upon.
So there is a standard. A community standard.
I have a question. You said "yes I do" in response to my question do you use "what would a god or gods do" when making moral decisions. Why would gods, who so far it seems we're only ready to ascribe the "ignition" of the big bang to, care what you do?
Well, that's going into my specific religion. And that's a conversation for another time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I answered this one: something that would be completely against everything we know about the laws of nature and our shared existence.
Well if you’re talking about things like the Big Bang, Origins of Life, and Origins of morality, those concepts do go against the laws of nature. Might I add mathematics do as well.
The Big Bang is a supernatural event in of itself, or at least whatever ignited it.
The Origin of Life had to of been against the laws of nature, because the laws of nature tell us that life cannot come from non-life. It isn’t possible.
The Origins of morality also meet that criteria, but we are already talking about it in this next section, so I’ll leave it to that.
I'm not saying the complexity of life ISN'T overwhelming. But my lack of ability to comprehensively understand that doesn't make evidence for anything other than my own limitations. How are you getting evidence of a god or gods from the complexity of life?
Not only the complexity, but the origins. That is a supernatural event as well. And we have overwhelming evidence for it.
Your saying you have a lack of knowledge on the complexity of life, therefor you assume there is an answer, but you say your not getting evidence of God or Gods?
Your presupposition that the answer has to be someone naturalistic in order to be considered logical, is exactly what I was talking about. You have to be open to the possibility of God or Gods being real.
Why are you even able to comprehend the idea of the supernatural. It’s never been demonstrated to you yes? So how can you even wrap your head around it. But obviously you are in some sense.
By 'good,' I mean what's generally accepted as good
I apologize for the correction but that is a circular definition.
not harmful to the people around me, or in accordance with the implicit agreement among the people in my community, or what's required for the protection of my family, the benefit of others. etc
Why is not being harmful to the people around you, good?
But I literally have never said to myself, when presented with a decision with moral implications, "what would god or gods do here?" Is that a tool you find yourself using in your life today?
Yea I do.
Obviously I wasn’t asking you if you believe in a universal standard, I just asked where you find or standard.
First of all, yes I do.
Second of all obviously there are subjective moral values in the world, but I would argue concepts and specific ones are objective. The concept of good for example. What determines good?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I am open to the concept of gods. I just have never seen anything that convinces me they're real, that they exist today, or interact with our daily lives. I can certainly see how some gods made sense to people years ago, particularly pantheon style systems like those of Greece, Rome, ancient Norse, Hindu, etc. Does that help?
What would convince you?
What type of extraordinary evidence would you require?
You're smuggling this, perhaps not intentionally, but several times here. How did you get from small g gods to a specific god here?
I meant to say God or Gods. Either one suffices.
I don't understand how life itself is an indicator of anything beyond life being here.
The complexity of life is overwhelming. I would recommend listening to a couple of lectures and talks by Dr. James Tour. He is very educated in the field of the origins of life and the complexity it holds.
On of the fundamental comparisons I love to make is the computer/brain.
If you found a fully working laptop on a planet far away, you wouldn’t assume that it was created by random unguided processes. You would assume someone created that laptop or at least a designer had to play a part.
And so I believe that it is funny that our body’s, just one cell contains more data in the DNA than the whole Encyclopedia Britannica.
And that is one cell. Not even getting into the complexity of proteins and amino acids, the building blocks of life, and the amount of stuff it takes for those to even come close to produce small pieces.
Divine command as I understand is a moral system (divine command wrestles with is it moral because god says it's moral, so god dictates morality by fiat, as opposed to morality guiding god's decisions, making god subject to morality, not author of it), not evidence of anything unless you accept prima facie that a particular god exists (which again is the cart before the horse).
I apologize I egregiously used the wrong language. I mean to say “divine intervention” instead of command.
Excellent. Let's leave personal experience off the list, because I don't have yours and you don't have mine, so we can't argue that sensible.
That’s fair, however I wasn’t using it as an argument point I was simply providing an answer to the question. Just to clarify.
Let's pick one and just see where it goes. I nominate morality.
Let’s do it.
For me, I try to live a moral life. I don't always get it right, admittedly. I don't believe in any gods, and none of my decisions vis a vis morals are ever run through the filter of "what would a god do here." I don't kill anyone, I don't rape anyone, I don't steal from anyone, I try to be a good dad, all that without any gods. I don't do the right thing for a reward, I don't avoid the wrong thing for fear of punishment in some other dimension, as Christians do. If I don't need any gods to be a moral person, how does morality support the existence of gods? particularly if proto-morality, the concept of fairness, exists in animals who do not have, as far as we can tell, any concept of gods.
I’m gonna start this off with questions to your comments on morality. What do you mean by good? What do you mean by the right thing? What do you mean by the wrong thing? What do you mean by moral person?
Because when you make truth statements about good or fair or right or wrong, you are comparing whatever you’re calling right or wrong, to a standard. There is a standard there that you use to measure right or wrong. So what standard do you use?
What was the evidence that compelled you to make the decision to follow that religion?
I already told you the evidence. You chose to go off of the moral evidence for conversation. But the other ones exist too. If I am misunderstanding I apologize.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Something that departs from everything we know today about the nature of our world or existence would be "extraordinary."
So you would need some supernatural evidence?
I thought we were limiting, at least for now, to theism, which to my understanding is the existence of some god or gods, not any specific deity. Using that paradigm, I don't know what sort of extraordinary evidence there would be. You know who'd know that? The gods trying to prove their existence. Such beings would be able to provide strong evidence, I'd think, particularly if they interact with our real world day to day lives. Did you have something in mind to propose? Maybe there's another approach to this question that will help us move the discussion forward.
Well I personally believe that any evidence that a God or Gods could provide wouldn’t matter to true atheists at least because atheism in of itself starts with the presupposition that no God exists, therefore everything has a materialistic or natural explanation.
For instance Richard Dawkins was asked what it would take for him to believe in God. He replied by saying,” nothing” because he presumed if he did see a miracle, he would assume it was a hallucination or technologically advanced aliens.
In order to have a conversation like this, you have to have a level of openness to God or the concept. If you go in with the purpose of proving God wrong and not actually searching for truth, then you will find any reason to not believe, or to deny.
As for your statement regarding a God or Gods being able to show themselves, I have my personal reasons as to why, God doesn’t, but that entails Christianity. I guess it depends on which God you look at to determine the answer to that question of why God doesn’t show himself.
Either way I do think there is strong evidence for God. Life itself is an indicator of divine command as well as our universe and our moral structures in society. All the foundations of humanity are built on a structure that is beyond our physical selves. That’s why we can have philosophical interactions like these I believe.
What evidence was it that convinced you when you picked your religion that you had the right set of gods? Tell me what it was and I'll tell you if it's enough to convince me. At some point, you were not religious, and then at another point, you were.
I don’t think I would have enough space to put all the evidence of the reasons, but I can add them as we go. I can provide the basic foundations of mine, but I won’t go into the Christian aspect until I have passed the evidence for God aspect first.
My main reasons are:
Origins of Life
Origins of the Universe
Morality
Mathematics
Personal experience
And we can go into those if you have specific questions. These go very deep, and they seem surface level, but we can get into it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
All past arguments from different forums I can’t claim to understand full context, nor do I admit to agree with myself with the old content. I don’t know if you saw my abortion forum, but I stated I am back with new opinions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I would say that "some" would be a start. To believe something extraordinary, generally you'd need an "extraordinary" amount of evidence, right?
I mean I guess it depends on your definition of extraordinary. Like us as humans believe that we are conscience, yet we have no knowledge of what that even is. The only evidence we have is our being if that makes sense.
So I guess that it depends on your definition of extraordinary. How much does that entail?
For example, if I said I owned a dog, you'd probably take me at my word, inasmuch as you'd be able to tell a third party "That guy has a dog." If I said I owned an elephant, you might need more than my word, maybe a few pictures of me and my elephant, maybe I'd show you receipts for food I buy for the elephant, or the trailer I have on my car so I can take my elephant places. Then you could tell a friend "I know it sounds weird, but that guy owns an elephant, and I am confident in that because XYZ." If I said I owned a dragon, you probably want to see the dragon yourself before you could say "That guy owns a dragon," to someone else. Or, before you start donating money to my dragon reserve park and dragon preservation society, right? Or before you start living your life according to the new information that dragons are a real thing, like taking measures to avoid being eaten by dragons, or trying to learn how to get a dragon of your own.
Yes obviously I agree 100% with everything you said right here.
Big claims require big evidence.
So the question becomes what your definition of extraordinary is?
For God at least, or Theism, how much would that entail?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
That is not true at all. Up until recent decades assault weapons were banned nationally and many areas of the country restricted guns in ways the SC blew up when they decided the term malitia in the constitution meant 'every individual American'.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the only ban on assault weapons that I see was the 1994 assault weapon ban that expired 10 years later in 2004.
Other than that I can’t find a national ban on assault weapons in America.
So unless I am missing something, my point still stands. School shootings weren’t even a concept like they are today back then when all types of guns were legal. They didn’t need to be assault weapons to be lethal.
Also, guns are far more advanced today than they were for the majority of the nation's history and the quantities in which they flood our communities is relatively new as well.
That doesn’t change the fact that we have more advanced protective measures now that match the danger just like back then, and even so, assault weapons aren’t the only weapon that is lethal.
Guns is actually not the only issue in this area of school safety. More knife attacks are happening today in schools by students than ever in American history.
This doesn’t seem like a problem of weapons. It seems like a problem of motivation or mental health.
This really isn't complicated. No other developed nation on earth has as many guns as we do, and no other developed nation on earth suffers from gun violence at the rate we do.
Is the problem gun violence, or death. Which is the mark?
Also if you’re taking about gun violence specifically then Brazil actually takes the crown.
Moreover, even if it is a societal problem that doesn't mean we have no obligation to respond.
You’re absolutely correct. We 100% should do something about it. We can’t just let it happen. I propose more school security.
There is a reason prisons take their inmates shoelaces. No one in their right mind would just say "we have an inmate problem" and leave it there. It's common sense that we apply in every area of our life - if a tool or product is being used in a way that is causing harm, we regulate or even ban the use of that tool or product to minimize it's harm.
What is the extent of that though?
Like I pointed out, knife attacks in schools are also up. Should we take those away?
Also the inmate scenario doesn’t help your case. The reason we take away their shoelaces is because they don’t have the same amount of rights because they are in prison. American people do have rights. It’s never a good idea to subject the rights of the free American people in the name of safety.
It is for prisons, because the prisoners have chosen to limit their own rights by committing crimes. They have less, therefore we treat them with less. That means it makes sense to take away the shoelaces.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
My lack of belief in gods is that I don't have enough evidence to believe otherwise. I can't append "therefore it was done by gods" to every "I don't know."
I believe your second point is fair. I wouldn’t try to assume God of the Gaps Fallacy, just like I wouldn’t want an Atheist to use Time of the Gaps Fallacy, which is basically the same thing in principle.
As for your first point:
How much evidence would you need to believe otherwise? How much evidence would be enough?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Well, I would personally like others to express why they believe what they believe then go off of that.
I’m giving the opportunity for both theists and atheists to express why they believe what they believe.
I apologize if I didn’t make that more clear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I agree on a personal note, however I believe that the dialogue between atheists and theists is very interesting, and athiests do have fair objections to the idea of God.
That’s the reason for this forum. I’ll probably have better luck with interaction whenever I start with the Biblical dialogue forum lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Atheism: Belief that no God exists
Theism: Belief that a God or Gods exist
That includes Muslims, Hindus, possibly agnostics, and Mormons, as well as any other religion that has an idea of God.
So no, not just the Christian God.
Created:
Posted in:
We have had guns for the majority of the history of the United States as a legal right.
Now more than ever we have the strictest gun laws ever in American history.
So why is it that we have more gun violence now than before?
Maybe it's not a gun problem. Maybe it's a societal problem.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm not here to start a conversation about the Christain God, that is a topic for another time.
I would also love in the future to do conversations on cross references and disputes in the Bible. I think that would be a very entertaining and enlightening conversation.
But I felt like I needed to do this one first so here it is.
You can state your position and why, and people are welcome to challenge it, and hopefully we can get some entertaining and educational conversations going in this forum. I will be adding in as well.
The topic is Atheism v.s Theism. So, anything at all to do with that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Well since he can and you can't, best leave it to him.
Fine by me lol.
He defines it anyways.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Then for that one subject the objective and the subjective are identical, which doesn't help you (who are not god) prove anything.
Yes. Gods mind is the objective mind that determines morality. He is the ultimate authority. It is both objective and subjective.
Also I cant prove anything. Thats impossible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No the objective is Gods nature. He can’t change that otherwise he’s not God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
What whim cannot change is the objective. If god can lie about 1+1=3 then he can lie about about abortion being murder (on the false premise that god is saying anything to anybody).
God can’t lie though. At least the Biblical God can’t.
It’s not in his nature. If God lied, it wouldn’t be God. God is perfect. Lying makes him imperfect. Therefore he is not God.
It’s false to even attempt to say God can lie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The subject is the perceptor. A greater mind is still a subject, no matter how much you trust it.If god can say that 1+1 = 3 then logic does not exist and there is nothing to debate because debate is just as null as math. If god cannot create and maintain contradictions then 1+1 = 2 doesn't come from his mind, it is objective.
But God can’t say 1 + 1 = 3. That’s illogical. That doesn’t work in the context of how we understand math now.
Your argument doesn’t make any sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
Joshua 6:21
- Verse: "They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, and donkeys."
Next verse’s say,” “Meanwhile, Joshua said to the two spies, “Keep your promise. Go to the prostitute’s house and bring her out, along with all her family.” The men who had been spies went in and brought out Rahab, her father, mother, brothers, and all the other relatives who were with her. They moved her whole family to a safe place near the camp of Israel.”
Joshua 6:22-23
So when the Bible says “ destroyed….every living thing in it”, it obviously makes an exception for this with the prostitute. So we have to assume that there is some leverage when we are talking about this attack on Jericho.
On top of this, the only command sanctioned by God, was to take the city. God did not specify the way in which they were supposed to do it (except for how to take down the walls). God did not say,” Go kill the women and children. So even if this was evil, (which it isn’t) then we still wouldn’t have an objection.
Ezekiel 9:5-6
Verse: "As I listened, he said to the others, 'Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter the old men, the young men and women, the mothers and children..."
The chapter title for chapter 9 is:
The slaughter of the idolaters
Earlier in the chapter:
“He said to him, “Walk through the streets of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of all who weep and sigh because of the detestable sins being committed in their city.” Then I heard the Lord say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all—old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin right here at the Temple.” So they began by killing the seventy leaders.”
Ezekiel 9:4-6 NLT
God commanded them to kill all those who did have the mark on their forehead. The only ones without the mark on their forehead were the ones not looking at the sin in the city and detesting it. So people who are committing the sins.
And when it comes to the women and children part, you have to understand culture back then.
If I were to say to you,” We’re gonna destroy that football team” I don’t actually mean we are gonna destroy them. Rather I am being over dramatic to emphasize a point.
Scholarly opinion for this chapter indicates that when God said,” Kill them all - old and young, girls and women and little children.” He is using emphatic language to emphasize the point of:
Kill everyone without a mark no matter what.
So we have no proof that any children died in this slaughter. The only people that died were idolaters.
Numbers 31:17-18
Verse: "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."
I think this is a wrong thing to do. However Gods only command was to take revenge on the people. This whole part you quoted and after and a bit before was Moses’s doing. I’m not here to justify everything Moses has ever done. And that doesn’t have anything against scripture either.
1 Samuel 15:3
Verse: "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."
This one is a tricky one I’ll give you that. But this story in of itself requires A LOT of context so this could be a topic in of itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Of course. This was an eye opening debate that challenged me and I think an overall really productive conversation.
Thank you for being apart.
Created:
Posted in:
You dont define my morality either. So is my morality objective to you? It still depends on mind. There is no "objective to me". Something either depends on mind or it doesnt. There is no 3rd.
Morality depends upon a mind to understand it. Not the origin of it.
If morality is subjective, then the origin is our minds. If morality is objective, then the origin is a mind greater than ours for it to be objective TO US.
Again, what they did was wrong according to my and the standard of most other people. Most people disagreed.
According to this worldview though, the fact that you disagree doesn’t change the fact of it being wrong or not. Because ultimately it wasn’t. It was different space time matter, eliminating other space time matter.
And morality is subjective right? So that would mean whether you think it’s right or not, ultimately it would only be wrong to you, and would hold no ground against anyone else.
If 0 is the only number to represent value of human life, then human life has no value. Simple. I think maybe "infinity" would be more suitable to your case than 0, just a suggestion. 0 is worthless.
Thank you for the correction. Yes infinity would be a better ideal for this case.
If you say so. I dont really plan to extend this debate to eugenics. Why is eugenics bad?
Because you’re killing people……
Some questions cannot be answered with yes or no. Mostly yes isnt a complete yes. It’s just mostly yes.
Ok so let me ask it a different way then. Are there objective truths in the world?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Ultimate mind, infinite mind.... it’s still mind, and morality it creates is still subjective. Morality depends on mind
Not subjective to us. It’s objective to us, because we as a race don’t define it, but a higher power does.
The nazi obviously thought they were doing the right thing. I dont see what is your point here at all.
Not only thought, but knew. According to your subjective worldview, what the Nazis did wasn’t wrong. They deemed it right. Therefore it was right. Because the society determines the morality correct?
Only if value of human life is 0, which means human life has no any positive value. Agree?
I only used 0 to represent the human life being completely equal with all other human life.
What do eugenics even have to do with this conversation, unless you think they improve quality of life?
Well if you have a subjective material worldview, then yes it does improve quality of life. Survival of the fittest. Eugenics is the best way to achieve that.
I’m not advocating for it. I am 100% against it because I believe it’s a moral evil. But you can’t say it’s evil and you’re advocating for abortion on the basis of quality of life. That’s literally eugenics. And when I confronted you you didn’t deny it.
My eyes mostly tell the truth. Unless I am dreaming. So mostly yes, I would say. Does this help?
Just yes or no? One word answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
No, it still applies same logic, that morality would be a product of its mind, thus depend on mind.
Yes, I agree. But this mind is the ultimate mind, making the morality it produces an ultimate morality. An objective morality.
Sure, I think it was wrong due to lowering quality of life, and majority was even clueless about.
To the Nazi's?
We have already discussed this mathematical problem. If two persons are equal, then two worth more than one.
Problem is people aren't math equations. They're people.
If 0 = 0 then 0+0 = 0
See we have the same value.
I am promoting abortion, which is proven to increase both quality of life and life expectancy. Its simple.
All you needed to say was no to eugenics....
So, you are.
Many people who are in great pain prefer death over life, thus harm caused by birth is greater.
But some don't. The story of Job in the Bible actually lays this out very well.
But also, why would I trust my preference, if I am in pain? Because technically I am not a well enough functioning human being according to you to be considered productive because of those thoughts, so why would I trust an unproductive human according to your worldview?
As much as you trust your eyes. Of course, there are people who dont trust their eyes. Heh.
So yes or no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amber
Cite the German legal statutory law then. I'll wait, for 5 seconds, because you can't.
I don't need to.
"Our" conversation? LOL! Delusional much?No. It has no comparative value. Mass genocide of a particular class/group/heritage of already born persons a particular political party doesn't like =/= the personal liberty right of females to abort a pregnancy.
It actually has a lot in common.
Nazis don't want Jews in their home (earth) therefore they exterminate human lives with genocide.
Certain women don't want the child that they helped to conceive consentingly, therefore they exterminate the child.
And for rape cases, that's a whole different argument that we are currently discussing.
Also yes, it is a human being.
It is a human life, but we are about to go over that in one of your responses, so I'll save that for this bit.
yes, it is a fetus. Fetus =/= [a] child.Offspring =/= [a] childA fetus is in utero.Educate yourself for fucks sake:
The definition of Fetus:
Unborn Offspring
Can we at least agree on that, then I can go somewhere with it?
I'm more educated than you are on the subject, as both a female and an adult with experience in the academics of the subject matter whereas you are not.
First of all, I was saying "Ok cool. What's your point" because it didn't hold anything to the current argument we were having.
Also, the fact you are a female doesn't help your Ethos in this debate.
And the other credentials are impressive. Why are you wasting your time with me then?
Looks like someone's not getting enough attention in the real world.
When the states have passed laws banning abortion, it forces females to become state sanctioned incubators.
Love the use of the terminology (sarcasm).
Wrong. It forces women to either:
A: Take responsibility for their sex life
B: Not murder a child that they had no control over conceiving (rape).
Just because someone commits an act of injustice does not give you the right to commit another worse injustice. Yes, killing a baby in the womb is worse than rape. It is murder.
Point flew over your head like a 747.When they all meet the same basic criterion for biological life, yeah, they are exactly the same, ignoramus.
Didn't fly over my head I understood clearly.
I was pointing out that yes technically by definition your skin cell is a living human cell.
But that cell:
1. Has your DNA (A fetus does not have only your DNA)
2. Your skin cell doesn't have the potential or criterion to grow into an independent living human being.
And yet that's exactly why less than 1.2% of all abortions have been after 22-24 weeks you ignoramus.And the majority of all abortions have been before 14 weeks gestation, the majority of those before six weeks.
Cool. Again, doesn't address my point addressing your point about saving the mother's life........
You make no sense here.Again, ignoramus.
It's still a human being??
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
It would still be the product of the mind, no matter how great the mind is. So still subjective value thing.
Not if the being holding the authority for morality is all powerful and the ultimate authority.
Society determines which morality is most popular and most valuable to most people.
So in Nazi Germany, it wasn’t wrong to hunt down Jews?
Needs of the many vs few.
You cannot logically explain why goals of few outweigh goals of many. Simple math about what weighs more.
Neither weigh more. EVERYONE is equal and created in the image of GOD.
So a dichotomy choice between healthy person and severely ill person makes it obvious who you should produce, no?
So you’re promoting eugenics?
Reducing pain of born people, improving quality of life of born people, reducing death rates of born people...
So if someone has bad quality of life, and they are in pain we should just kill them? And I’m not talking about letting them die. I’m talking about killing them. Against their will. Cause that’s what abortion is.
Thats irrelevant to this debate, but there are observable truths, which are closest to objective truth there is.
Is that statement you just made objectively true?
We know by tautology that women have more liberty if they have a choice to have abortion or not. We also know by statistics of death rates, liberty, life expectancy and many other, that legal abortion benefits.
Doesn’t answer my objection.
That goal is not really achieved.
It literally is. Millions of lives are saved.
That goal is not really achieved. It just makes most of those women have unsafe abortions instead safe.
Should we just give serial killers body armor to protect them from police bullets?
Murder is wrong. Just because it won’t stop doesn’t give a justification for allowing and protecting it.
You would be forcing women to give birth by denying them of abortion. Its not "you or rapist".
In any other case it’s their choice so no. In the rape cases is the rapist choice so no either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amber
There was nothing "legal" about the extermination of the Jews. It was a military occupation and eradication of groups of people the tyrant dictator didn't like. There was no one to stop him until the US and Russia got involved.
In Germany in WWII, Nazi's were leading politically. That means they could establish laws in Germany. Since it was permitted for Nazis to kill Jews, by Germany's standards it was legal.
Also, what happened in Germany in WWII has absolutely no comparative value to the abortion topic.
Apparently, it does, because that's how far our conversation got.
There you go again with the use of a misnomer. A pregnancy is not a child.
Is it a fetus?
If so, what does the word fetus mean?
Fetus: Offspring
What is it the offspring of? A human.
So, a fetus is just human offspring. What else is human offspring?
Children.
According to various data sources like the Guttmacher Institute and CDC, before RvW was invalidated, less than 1.2% of all abortions performed in any given year happen when the fetus is viable.
Cool. Your point is?
Yet forcing a female to be your personal incubator to satisfy your feelings of morality is less morally wrong????
Unless it's a case of rape, no one is forcing the woman to be an incubator of a human life.
And in a case of rape, it's not me forcing them, it's the rapist. And like I said rapists should be castrated and killed.
And? Every cell within the human organism meets the same basic biological criteria for life as the zygote, blastocyst, etc. Same for gametes too. Skin cells too, and each time you go out in the sun and get burned, you're terminating a living human cell(s).
Does my skin cell have the potential for growing into a child?
Yeah, they are not the same at all.
And if the pregnancy is a risk to the life of the female, it is self-defense and survival of the fittest to terminate the pregnancy. She can always try again.
Glad you brought this up. Do you know there is literally a 0.005 percent chance that an abortion will ever be necessary to save the mother. There is only one case where it is absolutely necessary. And in those cases, I think we can make exceptions obviously.
Really? A defective fetus at 3 months with the high probability of killing the pregnant female is a dangerous way to determine the value of the pregnancy???
Yes, a defective child at 3 months old with the high probability of killing the mother is a dangerous way to determine the value of the human being.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
You stand for pro life. Does this include being against other contraceptives besides abortion?
If it terminates the life after conception, then yes, I am against it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Size of mind does not make product of the mind objective. Product of the mind is still dependent on mind.
I never said it was size. I said a greater mind. A mind that determines morality for all of us would have to be greater.
You can punish people even if their actions arent objectively wrong. They are wrong according to our standard.
Ok. So, society determines morality then?
If the Nazi's were in charge, would it be morally good do help hunt down Jews?
I would rather produce healthy child than child with down syndrome. I myself would also rather be healthy.
As would I. Doesn't mean you get to disregard the people with those illnesses and throw them away.
The line is defined by my position in this debate. Fetus under 24 weeks can be aborted. Its simple.
Ok good. And is there a reason or reasons for that or just that it can't feel pain.
Its the goal of most people. I said this before, there are no objective values. Value is in mind.
Are there objective truths?
All children are closer to that goal than 24 weeks fetus, but banning abortion lowers quality of life.Children should be free as much as possible obviously. They should also be happy. This is all obvious.What you are suggesting wouldnt produce more quality life, and it would even reduce number of quality lives.
So, your value in humans is their quality in life. How do you know someone suffering might rise out of it?
How do you know someone successful might fall?
Is that really the way you want to determine worth and value?
Your action of banning abortion forces victim who would otherwise have abortion, to give birth. This is clear.
No, the purpose of banning abortion is to prevent the murder of children. If someone was raped, the only one forcing them to give birth would be the rapist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
No, morality is not independent of mind even if some minds are greater than others. Its still mind.
If it is objective for us, then a greater mind must have created that standard. Thats what I'm saying. I agree yes.
Objectively, no action is good or bad. Its the mind which gives value to actions. Otherwise, no value exists.
So, if a man came up to you and said, I believe rape is beautiful, then would he be wrong?
No, he wouldn't. He wouldn't be right either. It would just be his opinion.
And if we applied this idea to law, then you couldn't actually punish him for raping someone, because its technically not wrong.
It plays a part in determining value. People prefer shorter lives in happiness, freedom than longer lives in pain.
I don't believe the down syndrome child has any less right to life than a healthy child does.
Nor does the child with cancer.
It adds negative value. Its the anti-goal, something which makes life worse and what people want to remove.
So yes or no?
Many countries have legal euthanasia for people who suffer great pain. Pain is one of the things that matter.
You didn't answer my question. Should we be able to legally stab people with CIP?
Being old isnt the goal. The goal is happy and free person. Fetus is much closer to sperm than you.
Where is the line?
Is being happy and a free person an objective value, or only your opinion on what the goal should be?
The distance from origin to goal indeed adds value. If goal is free, happy, productive individual - fetus isnt closer.
Children are not free, some are not happy, and most aren't productive. Should we kill them?
"Many in the medical community believe there’s clear evidence that a fetus – a developing baby in the womb – can’t feel physical pain until after the 24th week"
24 weeks is still before birth. It's still a fetus right?
Most abortions happen almost as soon as unwanted pregnancy is detected, before 24th week, before fetus feels pain.
I'm not talking about most abortions; I'm talking about what you are arguing.
However, as explained before, your position would force rape victims to give birth, thus further violating their body.
The only one who would be forcing it would be the rapist. And rapists should be castrated or killed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Probably. So far no one has shown me morality which exists independent of mind. God doesnt change that.
Ok good.
So, you concede that in order for morality to exist, then a mind has to exist.
If morality is subjective than that means it is determined by you and me, which would in turn mean nothing is truly good or bad. It's all just a matter of opinion. Evil wouldn't exist.
But if morality is objective, meaning that some things are ultimately objectively wrong or evil, then there has to be a mind that is above all our minds to determine that.
I believe rape is always wrong. But thats irrelevant, since it doesnt make my opinion objective at all.
So, you're admitting that objectively, rape could be an ok, or even good thing?
Unborn people arent equal to born people.
How so? What determines value?
Most people are completely okay with aborting fetuses that are defective.
Does quality of life determine value?
Unborn, by being unborn, never sentient and never feeling pain, are less valuable than born people by comparison.
They can.
But even if you were right, does "feeling pain" determine value?
In that case we should just stab people with CIP, right?
By development, unborn people are less worthy than born people, many closer to being sperm than being born.
I'm closer to being sperm than being old. Should I be killed? I don't think that the distance you are from your origins determines your value.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I don't believe the quality of life determines value, when it comes to human beings. Otherwise, you could justifiably defend genocide. You become Hitler.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
It doesn't matter where it leads. It is the truth that morality is always subjective and depends upon an opinion.
Is that objectively true?
My opinion on rape does not make my opinion objective. Also, many rapists think rape is morally justified.
So, yes or no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
What people want. "Better" and "morality" were always defined by people's goals. So just use people's goals instead.
I don't believe morality is a subjectively defined thing. Otherwise, morality would be relative. And that just leads to a bunch of problems.
Yet you have shown no way to objectively meassure it. You have no value in number assigned to.
I can give you some examples
Is there any time, any situation that rape is morally justifiable? And not just morally justifiable, but actually morally beautiful? If your answer is no, then you agree with me.
I do entertain the idea of God, but I wouldnt put my eggs in that basket. Not really useful.
Helps out a lot actually.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Who is? I am kinda interested in this ultimate authority which you talk about that determines human value.
Well, I can say with confidence that human value is objective, and not a subjective value.
And God is a pretty good argument for that. But for that it would have to be a different argument completely.
You said that two are not more valuable than one. So I figured you think they are equal.Now you say two are not equal to one. Two are not more valuable nor equal to one.
All humans have the same amount of value. You can't add, subtract, multiply or divide that.
Other people have preferences too. They want a better quality life, not mere numbers. Quality life is generally preferable.
But what defines better?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Most people can imagine life with no liberty,
I can't. It's a human concept.
Basically, you conceded that some lives are more desirable to live than others, thus they have more value.
According to me. I do not determine value.
You do. You said values of all people's lives are equal. Thus, no preferable individual life can exist.You prefer to live life as you do than life in cage and torture. You value lives differently.
I value lives differently. But I am not the ultimate authority that determines value.
It isn't subjective.
Thus, you cannot explain why you prefer such life without giving more value to one life over other.
Because I have preferences.
Its a basic rule of logic. Explain why two human lives are equal to one human life in value.
I never said two are equal to one. I said each individual life is equally valuable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
You cant imagine less pain or more pain? Less liberty or more liberty? Most people can imagine those.
No, that's not what you said. You said NO pain or NO liberty.
Not less or more.
Thats what you said. You prefer the life you have now over the one mentioned. Two lives are not equal.
In order for that to be true, I would have to be the determiner of value, but I am not. I don't determine the value of others.
If each person has equal value individually, then mathematically speaking, two persons must have double value of one.
Humanity is not a math equation.
Created: