Religion should prepare us for a mentality, not faith to God

Author: Intelligence_06

Posts

Total: 166
#151
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@SirAnonymous
But then you accept that evil exists , the bible makes it clear that evil exists but you want me to prove that evil exists to discuss evil.
Yes, because you can't appeal to the Bible or God as a source of morality because don't believe them.

So it the bible wrong then? Is what god clearly states and commands wrong too.?The onus is not on me. I have simply questioned YOUR gods biblical commands. 


So in order for you to say God is evil, you need an objective source of evil apart from God or the Bible.

Nonsense. It is the bible I am questioning and the vile commands of your god. 


So I ask again: do you think morality is objective, and if so, where does it come from?
Irrelevant. 


Even if you're right and God did command those things
You are reminding me of that dulcet dunce ethag5. He too attempts deny what the bible states : Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head."Leviticus 20:9

(I think you're taking them out of context,

It a bit late in the day to throw that oft used line  -  your taking it/them out of context .  But if you believe it to be the case, then why didn't you simply put those  vile words of your gods commandment into the correct "context" for me in the first place? I may have had a better understanding of the words. Here you go, put these biblical words into context for me, right now. " Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death."






Unless you have an objective basis for morality, you have no objective basis for condemning God or His commands, regardless of what they are.

I have every right to say your god is a vile and vicious god who kills for no reason and to question his commands and to scrutinize and question the whole of the scriptures.  My morality is not the issue as much as you want to throw the onus on me.  You have shown to me that you wouldn't carry out your god commands. You have shown me you have better morals and principles than those of your own god and you have shown me that you have more compassion  your god ever had.

   

#152
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
These are definitional truths. They are true because of how we define two, four, five circle and square. They are based on linguistic conventions more than logic. I don't mind using language prescriptively but you can't just define something into existence you must actually demonstrate that something which fits your definition actually exists.
I agree. I used only definitional truths simply because those were what I though of first. It was quite unintentional. I also agree that, to a certain extent, that logic is based on predictable behavior, as you said. At least, our perception of logic is strongly influenced by predictable behavior. However, I don't think it's true to say that we can't apply logic before Planc time. The laws of physics might indeed break down there. However, the laws of logic won't. A valid syllogism will still be valid.
We can demonstrate that trees grow from acorns. We have multiple documented cases. We have one universe whose origin we can only speculate on. That gives us a documented sample size of zero and that gives us nothing to base our logic on.
Yes, it gives us a sample size of zero, but I disagree that it gives us nothing to base our logic on. If time and the universe have a cause, then there are a few things we can tell about it. True, we can't tell anything very specific about it, but we can determine a few general things. It must be able to cause the universe, which requires a significant degree of power. Also, in order to cause something as complex as the universe, it must also have a significant degree of knowledge. In order to cause time, it must itself be outside of time.
Even if I grant timeless and spaceless which sounds indistinguishable to me from nonexistent
But why would that be nonexistent?
 why on earth would I grant necessarily powerful or knowledge entity whatever that means? 
See above.
#153
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Stephen
So it the bible wrong then? Is what god clearly states and commands wrong too.?
I don't think so, but since you do think they are wrong, you can't appeal to them as an objective basis for evil.
The onus is not on me.
It is absolutely on you. If you don't have an objective basis for morality, then the worst you can say about God and His commands is that you simply don't like them. Unless you have an objective basis for morality, nothing is objectively evil.
Nonsense. It is the bible I am questioning and the vile commands of your god.
But it you don't have an objective basis for morality, then you have no objective basis on which to question the Bible and God's commands.
You are reminding me of that dulcet dunce ethag5. He too attempts deny what the bible states
What precisely do you hope to achieve with ad hominems?
It a bit late in the day to throw that oft used line  -  your taking it/them out of context .  But if you believe it to be the case, then why didn't you simply put those  vile words of your gods commandment into the correct "context" for me in the first place?
Because if you don't have an objective basis for morality, then it doesn't matter a whit whether you take them out of context or not. It doesn't matter what God commanded. In order for it to matter, you would need an objective basis on which to approve or condemn God's commands. Otherwise, all you have is your personal opinion.
I may have had a better understanding of the words. Here you go, put these biblical words into context for me, right now. " Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death."
See above.
I have every right to say your god is a vile and vicious god who kills for no reason and to question his commands and to scrutinize and question the whole of the scriptures.
Yes, you have the right, but you don't have an objective basis on which to so, rendering your questioning and scrutinizing utterly pointless.
My morality is not the issue as much as you want to throw the onus on me.
It is indeed the issue. If your morality is subjective, then you can't condemn anything as objectively wrong.
#154
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@SirAnonymous
A valid syllogism will still be valid.
Ok I got one. (IF) we have only one universe to observe whose origin is a mystery (if it even has one) (THEN) we have nothing to base our logic on and logic will necessarily have no predictive power.
Also, in order to cause something as complex as the universe, it must also have a significant degree of knowledge. 
Snow flakes are complicated. DNA is complicated. Neither requires something knowledgable as a catalyst. Your logic doesn't follow.
It must be able to cause the universe, which requires a significant degree of power.
Avelaches are powerful events but they can be caused by nothing more than the kinetic energy of a sound wave. In other words a force that wouldn't knock over a mouse. Sometimes powerful events are triggered by causes that are not powerful. Your logic doesn't follow.
Even if I grant timeless and spaceless which sounds indistinguishable to me from nonexistent
But why would that be nonexistent?
Because as far as I know in order to exist you need to occupy some space and last for some duration. That is literally how we recognize an existing thing from a thing which doesn't exist. Like you I don't have all the answers and logic doesn't really help in this case but if you are going to rely on logic I don't think you can logically posit a real thing that occupies no space and does not exist for any duration. Logically speaking a thing which occupies no space and lasts for no time just isn't.



#155
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
I think we've arrived at an impasse. I think it's inherently illogical for time and the universe, or anything else, to begin without having a cause, so there must be a timeless, spaceless cause. However, you think it's inherently illogical for something to be be timeless and spaceless. I'm not sure either of us can make any progress at this point. Agree to disagree?
#156
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@SirAnonymous
I agree that neither of us has the answer.
#157
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
I agree that neither of us has the answer.
Wouldn't this imply that we're both wrong, so the universe neither has a cause nor doesn't have a cause? I'm probably reading too much into that statement. Anyway, it was good talking to you. I really appreciate that you stayed civil the whole time and tried to think through the issues. That's rare, especially on the internet.
#158
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@SirAnonymous
I don't know isn't the wrong answer when you don't know. And your welcome. Becoming irrational is anathema to logical debate and incivility does not facilitate frank conversation. 
#159
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Becoming irrational is anathema to logical debate and incivility does not facilitate frank conversation. 
+1
#160
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@SirAnonymous
 it the bible wrong then? Is what god clearly states and commands wrong too.?
I don't think so....


And so you make the argument circular .  One the one hand you are saying you don't know what you would do in the case of your child cursing you as a parents adding that  " for me to know what I would do in any situation I have not experienced". And on the other you say the command to kill your child for this behaviour is not wrong. Leviticus 20:9 . And then on top of this you  insist that I first prove evil exist although that in  your own scripture the word evil appears in the entire Bible 613 times in 569 verses in 343 chapters in 60 books. The word evildoer appears 2 times and evildoers appears 12 times in the KJV Bible. 

The  fact of the matter  is you are just not brave enough to admit that the bible is wrong to have such a horrific and vicious command from god. But instead choose to throw the onus onto the questioner. 

Don't waste your time telling me I have to prove anything, because  I don't.  The command is there, as is the biblical evidence that evil exist and Christians the world over believe it exists.  




#161
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Stephen
And so you make the argument circular . 
That's an interesting claim to make, especially since your following sentences don't show anything resembling circularity.
And on the other you say the command to kill your child for this behaviour is not wrong.
I didn't say that it was right or wrong. I said that you couldn't prove it was wrong. There's a difference there.
And then on top of this you  insist that I first prove evil exist although that in  your own scripture the word evil appears in the entire Bible 613 times in 569 verses in 343 chapters in 60 books. The word evildoer appears 2 times and evildoers appears 12 times in the KJV Bible.
That could not be more irrelevant. You don't believe that the Bible is true, so you can't appeal to it as evidence that evil exists.
The  fact of the matter  is you are just not brave enough to admit that the bible is wrong to have such a horrific and vicious command from god.
Again, what do you hope to achieve with ad hominems?
But instead choose to throw the onus onto the questioner. 

Don't waste your time telling me I have to prove anything, because  I don't.
Yes, you do. You are the one making the positive claim here. You are claiming that there is an evil command in the Bible. That requires you to prove three things:
1. The Bible contains the command.
2.  Evil exists.
3. The command is evil.
Again, since you don't think the Bible is true, you can't appeal to it to support 2 and 3.
#162
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@SirAnonymous
You simply have no answers  or excuses to defend the vile actions and commands of your god  . So you attempt to throw the onus of proving evil exists onto the questioner.

You are a pathetic coward. 
#163
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Stephen
You are a pathetic coward. 
You're free to think that. It honestly doesn't bother me. I'm sorry we couldn't have a civil discussion, and I apologize if I offended you in any way. Judging from your other posts directed to me, this does seem to be your honest opinion about me, so I think I will just let you be. If it's any consolation, you won't have to deal with this pathetic coward any longer. Have a nice day.
Sincerely,
SirAnonymous
#164
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Castin
What does your family think of Revelations 21:8? John 3:18, Mark 16:16, etc?
Well, asked my eldest brother his thoughts,  he takes the view of Revelations 21:8 being metaphorical death of the evil in a person, that they'll be reforged/reborn through some sort of experience in the afterlife, until the evil in them is burned away, again metaphorically.

He thinks that believing that Jesus is not all a person needs to do, but it is more about believing in and following his teachings and what is right. Says that even demons in the Bible acknowledge Jesus to be the son of God, My brother said something about the connotations of a Greek word that I forget.

Said he did not think it's the washing away of dirt that saves a person, but the appealing of god, a clean heart, or clean mind.

My eldest brother has more reasonings and references to the Bible for exactly 'why he believes this, and would likely complain at my summery of his thoughts not truly explaining what he thinks, but I don't care quite enough to put it all together.

16 days later

#165
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,222
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Lemming
Ha, you really asked him. Cool. 

Well, I like his interpretation, so I would call your communication of it a qualified success. 

So to be clear, does he think faith, belief in Christ, etc is purely optional for entrance into heaven, or just not all you need?

40 days later

#166
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Castin
Hadn't forgotten, just hadn't talked much to my eldest brother in a time.
His answer was that he thought belief in Christ was needed to enter Heaven, but also believed that people would be able to meet/learn about Jesus after they died.