the loss of god

pm9347
Theist
pm9347's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2007-03-12
User is offlineOffline
the loss of god

im concerned that the loss of god in our society is creating a world that will be an terrible place to live. Look at the news everday the worst type of human behavior is is shown , our society is falling apart. now its true our media is the worst at reporting the truth. They are more interested in selling papers , but looking at the issue god has been removed from the basics of the community, and now people have lost the fear of judgement by god . Since they have no one to fear and fear causes guidance , they feel they are free to do whatever they want , killing , divorce , rape , etc. how do athiest maitain a moral system without guidance ? is there a moral code ? does the law become the guidance ? i need some understanding.

 

pat


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
NoDeity wrote:I also find it

NoDeity wrote:

I also find it a little entertaining that he didn't respond to my comments about not being able to figure out what he was talking about.

 

Hey I got a life outside this forum too. Working on that one.

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Still

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Still think captive women really were just sex-slaves? 

 

Yeah pretty obvious there's alot going on there within the context of the social structures of the times. Personally, I think giving women the right to vote, own property separate from their husbands, ect., ect. was a bad idea. Of course walking hand in hand with this failure is mens loss of community accountability to the well being of their wives, so I guess we make mistakes when we try to fix problems we create through the reality of our fallen nature.

 

That's why there is no hope of earthly reconciliation. You can't make sin not sin by building supports around it to try and prop it up as legitimate and good. Things just don't work that way. The effort alone to build the props have their own social cost which adds weight to the already precarious endeavor.

 

What was the scripture reference about bashing babies heads in? I guess I missed that.

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:  What was

tr1nity wrote:

 

 

What was the scripture reference about bashing babies heads in? I guess I missed that.

   Psalm 137:7-9   "O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed, blessed shall be he who repays you with what you have done to us.  Blessed shall be he who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock."

   Hosea 13:16       "Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword; their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open."

   1 Samuel 15:2-3  "Thus says the Lord of Hosts, 'I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt.   Now go and strike Amamlek and devote to destruction all that they have.  Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' "

 

 

"And the Lord said unto the theists on this thread, 'Utterly smite the abominable atheists on this forum for they offend me;  go forth with your flaming sword of semantics and your holy shield of equivocation !!! Do not spare them ! ' "

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

tr1nity wrote:

What was the scripture reference about bashing babies heads in? I guess I missed that.

   Psalm 137:7-9   "O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed, blessed shall be he who repays you with what you have done to us.  Blessed shall be he who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock."

   Hosea 13:16       "Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword; their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open."

   1 Samuel 15:2-3  "Thus says the Lord of Hosts, 'I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt.   Now go and strike Amamlek and devote to destruction all that they have.  Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' "

tr1nity , you don't know your Bible very well, do you? You really need to fix that, before you attempt to argue for anything based on it...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:Personally, I

tr1nity wrote:

Personally, I think giving women the right to vote, own property separate from their husbands, ect., ect. was a bad idea.

You are joking right? This is sarcasm that can't be easily seen as sarcasm due to its written format, right? You wouldn't really advocate our society returning to a bronze age social structure in which women are incapable of indepentent survival due to their inability to work or own property and have to rely on a man to provide for them.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:   Psalm

BobSpence1 wrote:

   Psalm 137:7-9   "O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed, blessed shall be he who repays you with what you have done to us.  Blessed shall be he who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock."

   Hosea 13:16       "Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword; their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open."

   1 Samuel 15:2-3  "Thus says the Lord of Hosts, 'I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt.   Now go and strike Amamlek and devote to destruction all that they have.  Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' "

tr1nity , you don't know your Bible very well, do you? You really need to fix that, before you attempt to argue for anything based on it...

 

Thanks man alright. I didn't doubt that was in there...never doubted that. Just work on computer searches mostly then I verify by reading it in my bible, researching the notes. I've read the entire bible by now. It's been blasted into me my entire life.

Sure I could do better. Need to formally organize my thoughts by book of the bible to argue my point, my belief about the bible. Sure I was given that project and I'm lagging...sorry about that.

 

I guess I wasn't motivated enough to do all that unless you guys were serious. Sometimes I wonder... appreciate you pulling that up. I'll take a look at those right away.

 

Now my knee jerk reaction to these presented in this way as some kind of self standing morality claim is that this is your fundamental problem... that is that the standard cannot stand...  "respect for all life" for instance. 

 This cannot include "respect for the life that disrespects life" as this, if practiced would actually cause one to fail the first standard in pursuit of the next.

 

1. You cannot respect life by respecting its disrespect.

 

So this "truth" claim of yours has no foundation on which to stand as "All" life cannot be respected if any life is to be respected.

 

So if you disrespect specific lives that disrespect life what do you do? Respect used to be a big thing. War is ugly.... and what the hell would you want to go keeping some of that crazy murderous stuff around that those other guys were doing? When the balance of "life" is felt as directly as those small tribes of people felt, lifes balance and the knowledge of its boundaries was far more acute because you could "see" the boundaries of your kingdom, and know what it is to be overtaken by wicked enemies. Death, in this case, was iminent. Death to the entire society of which you were a part.

 

Because you know the real truth, you know that disrespect for life is total destruction, and you know this destruction, for you have seen it with your very eyes

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Further you utterly destroy

Further you utterly destroy disrespect for "All life is to be respected" is and remains...the truth.

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

 If I use enough double negatives everyone will agree with me.

 

 

Because they can't not without disagreeing with me.

 

 

*nods*

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:BobSpence1

tr1nity wrote:

Now my knee jerk reaction to these presented in this way as some kind of self standing morality claim is that this is your fundamental problem... that is that the standard cannot stand...  "respect for all life" for instance. 

 This cannot include "respect for the life that disrespects life" as this, if practiced would actually cause one to fail the first standard in pursuit of the next.

 

1. You cannot respect life by respecting its disrespect.

 

So this "truth" claim of yours has no foundation on which to stand as "All" life cannot be respected if any life is to be respected.

 

So if you disrespect specific lives that disrespect life what do you do? Respect used to be a big thing. War is ugly.... and what the hell would you want to go keeping some of that crazy murderous stuff around that those other guys were doing? When the balance of "life" is felt as directly as those small tribes of people felt, lifes balance and the knowledge of its boundaries was far more acute because you could "see" the boundaries of your kingdom, and know what it is to be overtaken by wicked enemies. Death, in this case, was iminent. Death to the entire society of which you were a part.

 

Because you know the real truth, you know that disrespect for life is total destruction, and you know this destruction, for you have seen it with your very eyes


You are the only one going on about "respect for all life". Your comments are irrelevant to the point of egregious harm to infants and disrespect of women.

The broad terms in which are going on about "life" convey no coherent meaning.

The God of the old testament endorses the idea of total disrespect for all tribes apart from his "chose" one, so he is deserving of no respect.

Whatever went on in a war, nothing justifies taking it out on the innocents, whether or not they are of your tribe.

I do know the truth, and it is that there is no God except as an idea in the mind of the believer, and that the Bible is destructive of true morality.

 

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:tr1nity

Jormungander wrote:

tr1nity wrote:

Personally, I think giving women the right to vote, own property separate from their husbands, ect., ect. was a bad idea.

You are joking right? This is sarcasm that can't be easily seen as sarcasm due to its written format, right? You wouldn't really advocate our society returning to a bronze age social structure in which women are incapable of indepentent survival due to their inability to work or own property and have to rely on a man to provide for them.

 

Oh most certainly I would, but I would further encourage the men that would join me....and it would take every last one of us, to also organize a social contract of accountability to the women under our charge.

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:tr1nity

BobSpence1 wrote:

tr1nity wrote:

Now my knee jerk reaction to these presented in this way as some kind of self standing morality claim is that this is your fundamental problem... that is that the standard cannot stand...  "respect for all life" for instance. 

 


You are the only one going on about "respect for all life". Your comments are irrelevant to the point of egregious harm to infants and disrespect of women.

 

 

 

Well I guess one would assume that when you get cancer, you want the doctors to get all of it. How much cancer do you want the doctors to leave inside of you?

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


Peppermint42
atheistSuperfan
Peppermint42's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-11-15
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote: I know too

tr1nity wrote:

 

I know too much to know that the temporariness of life leaves it completely without meaning without God. There is no shiny thing here and now that can dull deaths sting. You can acquire and consume but to what end. Pleasures I've had but they pass. The void remains un aided, without recourse, unresolvable, empty and iminent.

 

Death is not a natural part of life, it is its absence.

 

and... I'm so pathetic that I myself would not even have had children if it were not for God. He gave my daughter to me.

 

How about being a volunteer and making this world a better place for that daughter of yours?  Wouldn't that be worth living for, even if you don't exist for eternity?  What about writing a book revealing new perspective on a popular subject, immortalizing your name forever in literature?  What about inventing a machine that will make life for future generations much more productive and efficient?  What about going outside and appreciating the beauty of the world, created or not, and doing something to preserve it so that people will continue to be able to appreciate it as well?  Are those things not, in themselves, worth living for? 

 

Why do you believe that your daughter only exists due to divine intervention?  Did God magically cause you to have sex?  Wasn't that kind of your idea, not God's?  And loving your daughter and loving your wife (or girlfriend or whoever had your baby for you) should mean more to you than anything that may or may not happen in the afterlife because they're HERE and NOW and whether or not your soul lives forever, your body HERE and NOW doesn't and you'll be missed when you die.  Do you only love them because God makes you love them?  If so, then you truly do live an empty, pathetic life.


NoDeity
Bronze Member
NoDeity's picture
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-10-13
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:NoDeity

tr1nity wrote:

NoDeity wrote:

Oh, come on.  Are you seriously telling us that you are convinced that you could not find any joy or meaning in your existence without having faith in God?  Would not even that child you are shown cradling in your arms be an incentive to carry on?  Could you really not love, laugh, cry, learn, and wonder without believing in God?

Honestly, I find it difficult to believe.

 

I know too much to know that the temporariness of life leaves it completely without meaning without God. There is no shiny thing here and now that can dull deaths sting. You can acquire and consume but to what end. Pleasures I've had but they pass. The void remains un aided, without recourse, unresolvable, empty and iminent.

 

Death is not a natural part of life, it is its absence.

Fully apprehending one's own mortality and the mortality of one's loved ones is, I think, a grief experience and the processes one goes through when grappling with it are similar to what one goes through in other grief experiences, including the actual deaths of loved ones.  

Two thirds of what I can reasonably expect to be my natural life span is already gone.  Close family members have died.  Good friends have died.  Some day, I will die.  My wife, too.  

Yes, death is ugly.  I hate it when people speak of death as "part of life".  It's bullshit -- trite, disneyish, pseudo-deep bullshit.

The way for me to deal with these unpleasant realities has been to contemplate them, to recognize and dwell on the inevitability and finality of death.  Then, finally, to accept all that and move on.  Yes, there is death and pain and horror but there is also beauty and life and love.

To some extent, I think it's a conscious choice -- a choice to live.

Reality is the graveyard of the gods.


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Gallowsbait wrote: How

Gallowsbait wrote:

 

How about being a volunteer and making this world a better place for that daughter of yours?  Wouldn't that be worth living for, even if you don't exist for eternity?  What about writing a book revealing new perspective on a popular subject, immortalizing your name forever in literature?  What about inventing a machine that will make life for future generations much more productive and efficient?  What about going outside and appreciating the beauty of the world, created or not, and doing something to preserve it so that people will continue to be able to appreciate it as well?  Are those things not, in themselves, worth living for? 

 

 Do you only love them because God makes you love them?  If so, then you truly do live an empty, pathetic life.

 

Of course those things are wonderful and the fact you even have the opportunity to know such good things is because God revealed them to you through the perspective He allowed you to know. There is power now to allow for this generation to drop ideas of eternity and continue for a time. It's the generation after the "no God" philosophy has taken hold that will crumble causing my children, grand children and even possibly great grand children great pain and suffering.

 

We, our society, is built upon the sacrifice, the loss of individuals entire lives even to the point of them giving them directly. Giving up God will do NOTHING but degrade this particular GOOD trait making stronger the most base of human behavior of self to self, for self, by self.

 

 

To Magus:

You said I missed something, no not at all. You are the one who missed the point. I know that it is TRUE that a nurturing society is good therefore I believe it is possible that YOU may try to promote that type of society out of self interest. Like I said there is power now to persist with that alone for a time as the Godly worldview that has been created for you to live in teaches many good things. The problem is reality! There will be people that will not do that, have not done that. They care nothing for the care of the nurturing society and I am positive that their number will grow not diminish with the removal of God.

 

Your foolishness calls for the barbarians to come in hordes to the gates of the great city. All the good works in your right hand matter nothing when stood next to body burn pits you create by the works in your left.

 

2. Fundamentally you cannot say you love life if you join the armies of the dead.

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


Peppermint42
atheistSuperfan
Peppermint42's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-11-15
User is offlineOffline
Gallowsbait wrote: Do you


Gallowsbait wrote:

 Do you only love them because God makes you love them?  If so, then you truly do live an empty, pathetic life.

tr1nity wrote:

Of course those things are wonderful and the fact you even have the opportunity to know such good things is because God revealed them to you through the perspective He allowed you to know. There is power now to allow for this generation to drop ideas of eternity and continue for a time. It's the generation after the "no God" philosophy has taken hold that will crumble causing my children, grand children and even possibly great grand children great pain and suffering.

 

We, our society, is built upon the sacrifice, the loss of individuals entire lives even to the point of them giving them directly. Giving up God will do NOTHING but degrade this particular GOOD trait making stronger the most base of human behavior of self to self, for self, by self.

 

 

 

It was a yes-or-no question.  Does God force you to love your family, YES or NO? 

 

 


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:The broad

BobSpence1 wrote:

The broad terms in which [you] are going on about "life" convey no coherent meaning.

 

Yeah I know... being alive vs. being dead is a pretty wild concept to get your head around. I'll give it time to sink in.

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Gallowsbait

Gallowsbait wrote:

 

Gallowsbait wrote:

 Do you only love them because God makes you love them?  If so, then you truly do live an empty, pathetic life.

tr1nity wrote:

Of course those things are wonderful and the fact you even have the opportunity to know such good things is because God revealed them to you through the perspective He allowed you to know. There is power now to allow for this generation to drop ideas of eternity and continue for a time. It's the generation after the "no God" philosophy has taken hold that will crumble causing my children, grand children and even possibly great grand children great pain and suffering.

 

We, our society, is built upon the sacrifice, the loss of individuals entire lives even to the point of them giving them directly. Giving up God will do NOTHING but degrade this particular GOOD trait making stronger the most base of human behavior of self to self, for self, by self.

 

 

 

It was a yes-or-no question.  Does God force you to love your family, YES or NO? 

 

 

Gallowsbait wrote:

 

 

It was a yes-or-no question.  Does God force you to love your family, YES or NO? 

 

 

 

I guess I don't really get the question. I could not know love if I did not know God. Call it forcing if you like. Even knowing it I still diminish its perfect standard which even you yourself claim to know as you wrote  "then you truly do live an empty, pathetic life."

I would like to say that it would be a pathetic life but I cannot. If I did not know love there would be no life at all.

 

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: Because

ClockCat wrote:

 Because they can't not without disagreeing with me.

 *nods*

 

Moving into tongues I see. I wish your post was worthy of debate but you need to qoute ME where I used a double negative in order for the space your post takes up to be of any value for your argument.

 

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:BobSpence1

tr1nity wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The broad terms in which [you] are going on about "life" convey no coherent meaning.

 

Yeah I know... being alive vs. being dead is a pretty wild concept to get your head around. I'll give it time to sink in.

Don't be f**ing stupid. That was not what I was referring to.

Arguing about "all life deserving respect" is inevitably going to lead to contradictions. 

Unqualified, "life" includes everything from every bacteria and horrific parasite to ourselves - trying to argue that somehow 'all' that deserves respect is nonsense, which is what you were running into in your attempt to discuss it.

We personally value our own life, unless it has become overwhelming difficult or painful, so even that is not a universal.

A gut urge to avoid death is inherent in all creatures, for solid evolutionary reasons.

As a social species, we similarly value the continued existence of our friends and relatives. 

Religious dogma provides a way to pervert such inherent values.

Are you eventually going to make some intelligent comments?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
NoDeity wrote:To some

NoDeity wrote:

To some extent, I think it's a conscious choice -- a choice to live.

 

You know I find it incredibly interesting that the Aztecs actually raised up and tested the best and brightest to become sacrifices for the sun god. It amazes me that a people could live life looking forward to their death in such a way.

 

You see, you have been trained to see the world rightly through a particular matrix that doesn't just come from everywhere. You have been given the concept of self that exists both apart from your society and amongst it. You can see much, but do not fail to remember where such a great gift came from. You did not and could not self create it unless given a foundation that built the type of self that you currently are which of course means you could create nothing.

 

 

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Crumbs

tr1nity wrote:

Gallowsbait wrote:

 

How about being a volunteer and making this world a better place for that daughter of yours?  Wouldn't that be worth living for, even if you don't exist for eternity?  What about writing a book revealing new perspective on a popular subject, immortalizing your name forever in literature?  What about inventing a machine that will make life for future generations much more productive and efficient?  What about going outside and appreciating the beauty of the world, created or not, and doing something to preserve it so that people will continue to be able to appreciate it as well?  Are those things not, in themselves, worth living for? 

 

 Do you only love them because God makes you love them?  If so, then you truly do live an empty, pathetic life.

 

Of course those things are wonderful and the fact you even have the opportunity to know such good things is because God revealed them to you through the perspective He allowed you to know. There is power now to allow for this generation to drop ideas of eternity and continue for a time. It's the generation after the "no God" philosophy has taken hold that will crumble causing my children, grand children and even possibly great grand children great pain and suffering.

 

We, our society, is built upon the sacrifice, the loss of individuals entire lives even to the point of them giving them directly. Giving up God will do NOTHING but degrade this particular GOOD trait making stronger the most base of human behavior of self to self, for self, by self.

 

 

To Magus:

You said I missed something, no not at all. You are the one who missed the point. I know that it is TRUE that a nurturing society is good therefore I believe it is possible that YOU may try to promote that type of society out of self interest. Like I said there is power now to persist with that alone for a time as the Godly worldview that has been created for you to live in teaches many good things. The problem is reality! There will be people that will not do that, have not done that. They care nothing for the care of the nurturing society and I am positive that their number will grow not diminish with the removal of God.

 

Your foolishness calls for the barbarians to come in hordes to the gates of the great city. All the good works in your right hand matter nothing when stood next to body burn pits you create by the works in your left.

 

2. Fundamentally you cannot say you love life if you join the armies of the dead.

 

Sometimes when we argue with theists I realise that too often belief in god is constructed on top of the ruins of the person we are talking to. Then there's this gelatinous prose.

"You cannot say you love life if you join the armies of the dead...The barbarians in their hordes at the gates of the great city."

I don't know what you do for a living Tr1n but I think you have the makings of a novel inside you.

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
+1

BobSpence1 wrote:

tr1nity wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The broad terms in which [you] are going on about "life" convey no coherent meaning.

 

Yeah I know... being alive vs. being dead is a pretty wild concept to get your head around. I'll give it time to sink in.

Don't be f**ing stupid. That was not what I was referring to.

Arguing about "all life deserving respect" is inevitably going to lead to contradictions. 

Unqualified, "life" includes everything from every bacteria and horrific parasite to ourselves - trying to argue that somehow 'all' that deserves respect is nonsense, which is what you were running into in your attempt to discuss it.

We personally value our own life, unless it has become overwhelming difficult or painful, so even that is not a universal.

A gut urge to avoid death is inherent in all creatures, for solid evolutionary reasons.

As a social species, we similarly value the continued existence of our friends and relatives. 

Religious dogma provides a way to pervert such inherent values.

Are you eventually going to make some intelligent comments?

 

+1

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Arguing

BobSpence1 wrote:

Arguing about "all life deserving respect" is inevitably going to lead to contradictions. 

 

Well you were the one arguing against your self described "egregious" acts written of in the Bible. I simply offered that I could not think of any reason YOU would have to offer as justification for this position you have chosen to take.

 

So I went into a "perhaps" mode and offered that perhaps you meant "All life must be respected" or something similar as your iconic standard for calling bashing babies heads in as automatically "egregious". As we were talking about human babies I don't think it matters what you say I must mean. The definition of life I was using clearly was referring to human life or its decisive ending particularly that was being discussed.

 

I of course argue that it is not automatically "egregious" to bash babies heads in. It would be "egregious" to save babies at the expense of the lives of your entire people. Bashing their heads in is actually quite painless too. Better than letting them die of exposure or something along those lines.

Try to keep up, ok?

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:Bashing their

tr1nity wrote:

Bashing their heads in is actually quite painless too. Better than letting them die of exposure or something along those lines.

 

  I'm sure Andrea Yates, the religiously obsessed, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates ) nut job, would whole-heartedly  agree with your opinion, except her chosen method was drowning.

  

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Peppermint42
atheistSuperfan
Peppermint42's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-11-15
User is offlineOffline
*copy/pasted from the wiki

*copy/pasted from the wiki page* 

 

"While in prison, Andrea stated she had considered killing the children for two years, adding that they thought she was not a good mother and claimed her sons were developing improperly. Yates told her jail psychiatrist, "It was the seventh deadly sin. My children weren't righteous. They stumbled because I was evil. The way I was raising them, they could never be saved. They were doomed to perish in the fires of hell."[53]"

 

Is this how much you love your children?  Are you willing to kill them if you think they might somehow end up in hell if you don't?

 


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Gallowsbait wrote:Is this

Gallowsbait wrote:

Is this how much you love your children?  Are you willing to kill them if you think they might somehow end up in hell if you don't?

 

 

Now your just being stupid. One does not equal the other. These babies we were talking about were a member of a people that came to destroy the people of God. God only made a covenant with one line of people initially, the others had no relationship with him and as such were treated as merely an infestation. This in no way has any applicability today as we don't have "a people" anymore.

 

Just arguing that within the context of the scriptures referenced there's nothing egregious about stopping a human virus from over taking you. You seen 13th warrior? How many of those things you want to leave hanging around the outskirts of your village eh? Modern language called peoples of this caliber savages. In that environment, it was good to stop from dying by removing the virus.

 

Anyway I find it hard to believe you're seriously making that kind of ridiculous comparison. You don't really believe it makes any kind of sense do you?

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Gallowsbait wrote: They

Gallowsbait wrote:

 They stumbled because I was evil. The way I was raising them, they could never be saved. They were doomed to perish in the fires of hell."[53]"

 

 

Well certainly I wouldn't know from where she got that insane idea and do not pretend to even guess at it. Sounds like the usual works thing, yeah that's what it is, they'll go to hell cause they'll sin.

 

Certainly not Christian

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:  These

tr1nity wrote:

 

 

These babies we were talking about were a member of a people that came to destroy the people of God. God only made a covenant with one line of people initially, the others had no relationship with him and as such were treated as merely an infestation. This in no way has any applicability today as we don't have "a people" anymore.

 

  We don't have a people ?     I suspect FurryCatHerder is going to get right in your face for saying that. The Jews are still G-d's chosen people....and remember the Jews aren't white.

 

tr1nity wrote:

  Just arguing that within the context of the scriptures referenced there's nothing egregious about stopping a human virus from over taking you.

  You know who else thought this way ?    Hint:  they called human virus's "untermenschen"

 

    PS , would you shoot an abortion doctor ? You seem like the type.

 

 

 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:You seen 13th

tr1nity wrote:

You seen 13th warrior? How many of those things you want to leave hanging around the outskirts of your village eh? Modern language called peoples of this caliber savages. In that environment, it was good to stop from dying by removing the virus.

But the people that the ancienct Israelites wiped out were not inhumanly evil like the bear people from the 13th Warrior were. If we accept the old testament as historical fact, then we see that the Israelites lived peacefully with various groups of foreigners before deciding to kill them all. Israelites would intermarry with their friendly neighbors and everything would be going well. Then YHWH would get angry that they were allowing themselves to intermingle with people who don't worship YHWH. Then the Israelites would kill everyone who married a foreigner and all of the foreigners (including infants and sometimes including the animals owned by the foreigners). This wasn't the Israelites defending themselves from assaults by the bear people from the 13th Warrior. This was the Israelites living among friendly groups and then deciding to ethnically cleanse the region that they were in and to kill anyone who has an interracial marriage. The Israelites were the savages in all this. If you engaged in an interracial marriage, the penalty was death by impalement. Finding a wife amongst your friendly neighbors and then being killed by your fellow Israelites for contaminating yourself by contact with a foreigner was nothing like defending oneself against the semi-human bear people that had to be wiped out in the 13th Warrior. YHWH's commands to commit genocide and kill people who marry foreigners is not in any way comparable to norse warriors defending themselves against assaults by cannibals. You really want to wipe out all of the cannibal bear people that want to eat every last one of you. You really shouldn't wipe out the friendly neighboring tribe that is your source of non-incest wives.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
None of this makes any sense to me

tr1nity wrote:

These babies we were talking about were a member of a people that came to destroy the people of God. God only made a covenant with one line of people initially, the others had no relationship with him and as such were treated as merely an infestation.

 

Funny that the god the chosen people invented chose them to be his people. Not what you would expect is it?

This business about covenants with god, dehumanisation of the unbelievers and infestations have a disturbingly familiar sound to them.

Clearly in the old testament god is cheerfully involved in the facilitation of genocide.

It's unwise of you to take the bible literally, tr1n. Beyond that point there be dragons.

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Big E
Big E's picture
Posts: 129
Joined: 2009-11-05
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:butterbattle

tr1nity wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

What is "truth?" Why can't life exist if there is no "truth?"

umm, certain procedures must be followed to conceive and raise a child. The absence of following these procedures makes life absent. Is this not true?

Indulge me please, because I've heard this very same argument used against gay marriage and allowing gays to raise children,which is usually an issue with theists mostly.


NoDeity
Bronze Member
NoDeity's picture
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-10-13
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:You see, you

tr1nity wrote:
You see, you have been trained to see the world rightly through a particular matrix that doesn't just come from everywhere. You have been given the concept of self that exists both apart from your society and amongst it. You can see much, but do not fail to remember where such a great gift came from. You did not and could not self create it unless given a foundation that built the type of self that you currently are which of course means you could create nothing.

Yes, I am shaped not only by my genetics but also by the cultural background from which I come and everything I have experienced throughout my life.  What is your point?  Please be very specific.  I have little interest in riddles and I appreciate the clear and concise expression of ideas.

Reality is the graveyard of the gods.


Peppermint42
atheistSuperfan
Peppermint42's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-11-15
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:Gallowsbait

tr1nity wrote:

Gallowsbait wrote:

Is this how much you love your children?  Are you willing to kill them if you think they might somehow end up in hell if you don't?

 

 

Now your just being stupid. One does not equal the other. These babies we were talking about were a member of a people that came to destroy the people of God. God only made a covenant with one line of people initially, the others had no relationship with him and as such were treated as merely an infestation. This in no way has any applicability today as we don't have "a people" anymore.

 

Just arguing that within the context of the scriptures referenced there's nothing egregious about stopping a human virus from over taking you. You seen 13th warrior? How many of those things you want to leave hanging around the outskirts of your village eh? Modern language called peoples of this caliber savages. In that environment, it was good to stop from dying by removing the virus.

 

Anyway I find it hard to believe you're seriously making that kind of ridiculous comparison. You don't really believe it makes any kind of sense do you?

 

OK I'm not talking about "a people" killing other peoples' babies right now.  I'm talking about a woman who was convinced by a sermon preached by her preacher that she was a bad parent and that her kids would go to hell because she was raising them wrong.  Granted, she was clinically depressed and nobody should have left her alone with the kids in the first place, but she felt so convicted that killing her own children was better than letting them potentially go to hell that she actually went through with it.  My question was whether or not you felt that strongly about your faith that you would kill your children to prevent them from sinning.  They'd just go straight to heaven, right? 

 

 


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Gallowsbait wrote:  I'm

Gallowsbait wrote:

  I'm talking about a woman who was convinced by a sermon preached by her preacher that she was a bad parent and that her kids would go to hell because she was raising them wrong. 

 

See post 177 for my response.

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


Peppermint42
atheistSuperfan
Peppermint42's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-11-15
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:Well certainly

tr1nity wrote:

Well certainly I wouldn't know from where she got that insane idea and do not pretend to even guess at it. Sounds like the usual works thing, yeah that's what it is, they'll go to hell cause they'll sin.

 

Certainly not Christian

 

I don't know what "the usual works thing" is.  And your answer is what, exactly? 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:BobSpence1

tr1nity wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

tr1nity wrote:

Now my knee jerk reaction to these presented in this way as some kind of self standing morality claim is that this is your fundamental problem... that is that the standard cannot stand...  "respect for all life" for instance. 

 


You are the only one going on about "respect for all life". Your comments are irrelevant to the point of egregious harm to infants and disrespect of women.

 

Well I guess one would assume that when you get cancer, you want the doctors to get all of it. How much cancer do you want the doctors to leave inside of you?

What the hell are you talking about? This still makes no sense as a response to what we are asking you.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:What the

BobSpence1 wrote:

What the hell are you talking about? This still makes no sense as a response to what we are asking you.

He is trying to say that genocide is great. He doesn't want to come out and phrase it that way, so he uses analogies with cancer and the cannibals from "The 13th Warrior" to try and show us why bronze age tribes wiping out other bronze age tribes is a moral thing. He wants you to support Israelites wiping out their neighbors (infants and all) in same way that you would support a doctor completely wiping out a cancer. He hasn't put all that together at once in one post, but I'm pretty sure that is what he is trying to say. He is very coy about his statements and claims. You get fragments of an argument in each post. I guess that we were supposed to add together his posts about cancer, "The 13th Warrior," and people complaining about genocide and infanticide in the Old Testament to understand his views on the matter. That's my interpretation anyways. He refuses to just come out and say what he means, so I'll just guess and compile a few of his posts together to turn it all into a coherent set of claims or arguements.

 

Gallowsbait wrote:

I don't know what "the usual works thing" is.  And your answer is what, exactly? 

He hasn't come out and said it, but I suppose that he is a salvation by grace and not a salvation by works Chrisitian. Some of them think that you earn your way into heaven by your works (salvation by works). Others think that you enter heaven by god's grace alone (salvation by grace). Christians who believe in one of those two propositions tend to think that those who believe otherwise are hell-bound and/or not "true" Christians. It would be nice if he would just come out and say what he means. Playing this guessing game in which we fill in the blanks to try and turn his idea fragments into meaningful comments is a pain in the ass.

Perhaps I am misrepresenting tr1nity in all this. But, given his refusal to be clear and specific, this kind of vague guessing at his propositions is the best we can manage.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Peppermint42
atheistSuperfan
Peppermint42's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-11-15
User is offlineOffline
Well thank you, Jormungander,

Well thank you, Jormungander, for taking the time to scrape together some kind of practical idea from tr1nity's incomprehensible posts.

 

*sorry I misspelled your name but I think I fixed it now


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:tr1nity

BobSpence1 wrote:

tr1nity wrote:

Well I guess one would assume that when you get cancer, you want the doctors to get all of it. How much cancer do you want the doctors to leave inside of you?

What the hell are you talking about? This still makes no sense as a response to what we are asking you.

 

Well how does it not make sense...to you.

 

 

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:] Well how

tr1nity wrote:

 

 

Well how does it not make sense...to you.

 

 

  I dunno, does it not make sense to you that it in turn does not make sense to us ?  Does that make any sense to you because I can't make any sense of this senseless lack of sense.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Perhaps I

Jormungander wrote:

Perhaps I am misrepresenting tr1nity in all this. But, given his refusal to be clear and specific, this kind of vague guessing at his propositions is the best we can manage.

 

You are an educated atheist. well done. You're spot on.

 

Other than the genocide thing, I never said anything like that was "ok", I just explained it's necessity as an option offering the argument against the automatic default to the claim of the description of the killing of women and children in the bible as being this something called "egregious".

 

I was accused of committing some type of failure here, so I offered that even the decision of what IS egregious is subject to debate. I do not recognize those scriptures as being evidence of this "egregious" thing.

 

I further believe I have clearly written my argument as to why these acts were not egregious within the context of their described occurrence.

 

You, on the other hand remain unable to offer your argument as to why it IS egregious. Just saying it is over and over again isn't an argument. It's called a "bald" or unfounded assertion.

 

So why then are my arguments wrong? (You should deal with key points, qoute if you like,  and use post #'s as a reference)

 

And what are your arguments for these acts being "egregious"? If this is done, then I may respond. If it is not I might comment on the madness some of you spew because it entertains me.

 

 

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:   

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

   Does that make any sense to you because I can't make any sense of this senseless lack of sense.

 

Your lack of understanding "in general" is not my problem. Now if you pull a particular piece out an offer your argument why you can't understand it, I may respond. 

Just saying "this makes no sense" is an assertion.

 

So in my response to you I will assert "Yes it does make sense".

 

Next please...

 

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:He

Jormungander wrote:

He refuses to just come out and say what he means, so I'll just guess and compile a few of his posts together to turn it all into a coherent set of claims or arguements.

 

 

Ok, I believe it is good that those tribes ,as described in the bible, were removed from the face of the earth. It allowed us to "live" here and now versus being dead or more likely non-existent as our ancestors would have wiped themselves out long ago.

 

I further argue that this cannot be looked upon as a general rule or some type of self standing iconic truth. We are not to run around and find people to wipe off the face of the earth randomly.

 

We ARE however called to respect all life and further to destroy its disrespect at the most fundamental level. May it be that this earth would never have to experience such horror and barbarism again.

 

But it will...

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Gallowsbait wrote:I don't

Gallowsbait wrote:

I don't know what "the usual works thing" is.  And your answer is what, exactly? 

 

My answer to what?

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

  We don't have a people ?     I suspect FurryCatHerder is going to get right in your face for saying that. The Jews are still G-d's chosen people....and remember the Jews aren't white.

 

Well that assertion is beautiful let me tell you. Certainly ALOT going on in there. I'm sure there's a religious debate forum that covers this very argument. I assert that the jewish people ceased to exist once the covenant was removed at the time and date of Christ's death on the cross and culminated in its absolution at the time of the fall of the temple in 70 a.d.

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
 

    PS , would you shoot an abortion doctor ? You seem like the type.

 

A mother murdering her own child, and any that assist such a thing, should be subject to the death penalty as applied , if convicted, by the appropriate laws of the land within the context of due process.

 

 

 

 

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote: So in my

tr1nity wrote:

 

So in my response to you I will assert "Yes it does make sense".

   What makes sense ?

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Gallowsbait wrote: They'd

Gallowsbait wrote:

 They'd just go straight to heaven, right? 

 

 

Can't say, don't know anything about that crazy woman's religion. A world that pursued that particular thing as some kind of truth claim would wipe itself out very suddenly I think. Alot of dead kids, wow!

 

I can't seem to find a scripture reference where killing your kids would save them. I do however know that killing people here and now does not judge them to hell. THAT particular judgment IS made in the next life.

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

   What makes sense ?

 

all of it.


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:To Magus:You

tr1nity wrote:

To Magus:

You said I missed something, no not at all. You are the one who missed the point. I know that it is TRUE that a nurturing society is good therefore I believe it is possible that YOU may try to promote that type of society out of self interest. Like I said there is power now to persist with that alone for a time as the Godly worldview that has been created for you to live in teaches many good things. The problem is reality! There will be people that will not do that, have not done that. They care nothing for the care of the nurturing society and I am positive that their number will grow not diminish with the removal of God.

You are wrong.  See for yourself.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity

tr1nity wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

   What makes sense ?

 

all of it.

  Could you repeat the question, I don't even remember what it was.


 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.