May 23, 2011

Dr. William Lane Craig's Fanboy


Is there any wonder why I love Dr. William Lane Craig and many Atheists despise him? I can see why now y'all call him names and attempt to discount him. He is, quite literally, dangerous to your beliefs and religion. God has certainly blessed this man. Wow, that just had to hurt. His cuts run deep, although I doubt this will be acknowledged by any Atheists. These 5 points would be a good poster on my wall.

5 things that cannot be scientifically evidenced, but we're all rational to accept:

1. Logical and mathematical truths, science presupposes logic and math.
2. Metaphysical truths. Like the universe was created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age.
3. Ethical beliefs and statements of value
4. Aesthetic judgments. Beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven
5. Science ITSELF cannot be justified by the scientific method. Its also permeated with unprovable assumptions.

193 comments:

  1. Dan, you do know that William Craig actively endorsed genocide, right? If I wanted to humiliate Craig, I'd just point out what a sociopathic fuck his religion has made him:

    Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.

    Craig, that "earthly naturalistic perspective" is called valuing human life, you asshole. Isn't that one of the things your cult is trying to take credit for?

    Craig, cont'd
    So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.

    Compare this with an atheists' view:

    The part I can't imagine, the stuff I'm having real trouble with, is imagining voluntarily raising my hand and hacking them to death. I have a choice in that situation, and I know myself well enough that if have to choose between killing people and letting them live, I'd let them live, not that it would be a difficult decision at all. I also have no illusion that, in this imaginary situation where I have all the power and my 'enemies' are weak and helpless, I am the one who is being wronged.

    Anymore of that shit about atheists "borrowing from the christian worldview" when it comes to morals, Dan?

    ReplyDelete
  2. More later on that video when I can be certain my remarks will actually show up.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ok...he seems to misuse the genetic fallacy argument: If it's shown that god belief came about through fear and ignorance, etc. then doesn't that shoot down the claim of the bible of it being his "revelation"? After all, fear and ignorance were around before your holy book was, and if they were the source of god belief, then perhaps that's why the book was written in the first place.

    Because of fear, etc. not because of "divine revelation". Hence why I keep on hand the sites that show the bible's scientific and prophetic problems.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Reynold,

    >> Dan, you do know that William Craig actively endorsed genocide, right?

    Are you certain that was Genocide or Capital Punishment?

    To say that God created genocide when he eliminated the people of Sodom and Gomorrah or the people NOT in Noah's Ark is grossly misrepresenting the facts.

    >>Craig, that "earthly naturalistic perspective" is called valuing human life, you asshole.

    So you VALUE a child rapist OVER the child? You pity the guilty, is your problem.

    "Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent." ~Ayn Rand, Atheist

    >>if have to choose between killing people and letting them live, I'd let them live

    Wow, you hate Veterans? Tell those atheists who got drafted to go to war that if they do not kill the enemy they would get killed and watch those atheists blow the villages up.

    WAIT A SECOND!!! You just admitted that there are NO ATHEISTS IN FOXHOLES! Bwahahahahahahhah!!!

    Because if you serve in the Military, you are INDEED picking up the Sword to defend the liberties granted to us by God. Silly Atheist, thanks for the laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thats right. Dans OK with serving a little capital punishment, He likes to serve it not to just murderers, but anyone who is a sinner.

    Wait though, not only the sinners though, also all their innocent children too. Nothing is more righteous, good or just than his god giving every human the right to exercise freewill, but if they are not exactly the way Dan's god wants them to be, no matter how little the are off or if only guilty by association, kill them all will fire and brimstone. Oh wait, thats not killing, murdering them, genocide, infanticide, or any bad sounding word at all. Though there must have been many people and innocent children were in no way guilty of any crime that deserve capital punishment, if his god dished it out it is the appropriate measure of justice being issued to all.

    You always provide a good laugh to cheer up the middle of my week Dan.

    BTW Dan, have you come up with an explanation for your god allowing, no commanding his people, to subjugate the innocent little Canaanite girls after killing all of their friends and family?

    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  6. D.A.N,

    >> Are you certain that was Genocide or Capital Punishment?

    It was the death of innocent people, D.A.N. It was the death of innocent children (using the argument that god was merciful by sending those kids to heaven to live by his side forever through a violent and horrible death, that’s merciful alright…sarcasm)

    The Canaanites were killed at your god’s command because he was a xenophobe and a racist (I don’t need to remind you of that horrible period of history during the WWII, do I?)


    >> To say that God created genocide when he eliminated the people of Sodom and Gomorrah or the people NOT in Noah's Ark is grossly misrepresenting the facts.

    (Here you are sugarcoating again) No, it doesn’t. Your god chose to wipe out Sodom and Gomorrah from the face of the planet because – according to him – those people were immoral. Really? Lot (whom your god chose to spare because he was “just and righteous”) wasn’t exactly a good example of morality, neither his daughters. Or you forgot that Lot offered his 2 virgin daughters to be raped by a furious mob? And Lot got drunk by his two daughters so they could have sex with him? If god really valued moral standards – since he is all-knowing – he would know what Lot and his daughters would do and Lot’s family wouldn’t be spared of destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

    >> So you VALUE a child rapist OVER the child?

    We value human life. Does it mean we have nothing against a child rapist? Of course not. I’m against a child rapist, I have no pity for him and he deserves to be punished (by our legal system) for hurting children.

    Here you are distorting everything we say. What Reynold tried to say by “ (…) that "earthly naturalistic perspective" is called valuing human life (…)” is that we value our lives and other people’s lives here on earth instead of preferring and longing for the empty promise of “living happily forever and ever in heaven”. We prefer to enjoy our lives on this planet and we value that. That’s why we are against taking people’s right to live by killing them.

    Where Reynold said something about a child rapist again?

    >> Wow, you hate Veterans?
    Again, where Reynold said that his hates veterans? Please, D.A.N, have a mature conversation instead of giving your own twisted interpretation of what we say here. For goodness’ sake!!!

    (besides, remember that commandment that says “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour”? Of course you do. I guess you choose to ignore and disobey what your own ultimate authority (the bible) says when is convenient for you.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yep, dipshit Dan caught twisting words again...big surprise. Thanks bellecherie Go read the blog post he linked to in his reply to me for a laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dan quoting me:
    Dan, you do know that William Craig actively endorsed genocide, right?

    Are you certain that was Genocide or Capital Punishment?

    To say that God created genocide when he eliminated the people of Sodom and Gomorrah or the people NOT in Noah's Ark is grossly misrepresenting the facts.

    No, it's stating the simple truth. To justify this "capital punishment" of yours, even the children would have to be guilty.

    And yes, I knew you'd bring up your previous post...

    Craig, that "earthly naturalistic perspective" is called valuing human life, you asshole.
    So you VALUE a child rapist OVER the child? You pity the guilty, is your problem.
    No, asshole...it's the CHILDREN and WOMEN being killed who I have a problem with! How many people did the pregnant women and their babies rape?

    Sigh....you people are so fucking dishonest.

    Jesus...for this genocide to be justified, every single person among them had to have been a rapist!

    Is that one of the gifts of the holy spook or something?

    "Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent." ~Ayn Rand, Atheist
    So can you show then what the babies and pregnant women that the Isrealite soldiers killed actually did to deserve capital punishment?

    if have to choose between killing people and letting them live, I'd let them live
    Wow, you hate Veterans?
    Where the fucking hell did you get that idea, please? Are you implying that your version of "veterans" would have no problem killing women and children just on the say-so of biblegod?

    Your fellow military men must be so proud.

    Tell those atheists who got drafted to go to war that if they do not kill the enemy they would get killed and watch those atheists blow the villages up.
    In real life, Dan the enemies capable of doing that are NOT little babies like the ones the Isrealite soldiers killed in the OT. Get the hint yet?

    WAIT A SECOND!!! You just admitted that there are NO ATHEISTS IN FOXHOLES! Bwahahahahahahhah!!!
    Huh? Where the hell did I say that?

    Because if you serve in the Military, you are INDEED picking up the Sword to defend the liberties granted to us by God.
    Wrong. If you serve in the military, you are defending the liberties that have been granted by PEOPLE, not any "god". Gov'ts under xian rule in the past have had damn few liberties. From the signing of the Magna Carta onwords it was PEOPLE taking up arms and demanding rights that gave us our rights.

    The bible says that one should obey those in authority over you. The colonists went against that.

    The bible on the other hand says that the slave should serve his master all the more even when the master is "froward". \

    Silly Atheist, thanks for the laugh.
    Bullshitting christian, thanks for another confirmation of your dishonesty.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Reynold: "Craig, that "earthly naturalistic perspective" is called valuing human life, you asshole."

    Dan: "So you VALUE a child rapist OVER the child? You pity the guilty, is your problem."

    Valuing all human life does not equal valuing one group over another. Your conclusion is based on Insane Troll Logic. You do know that its possible to punish criminals without killing them, right?

    "Wow, you hate Veterans?"

    I guess it depends which veterans we are talking about. Soldiers who are fighting for freedoms or even their very survival, don't really have any choice but to take life or lose their own life or freedom. "veterans" who attack countries unprovoked, torture and slaughter POWs, and commit genocide don't deserve the same respect. I hate Nazi "veterans" as much as I hate the ancient Israelite "veterans" for unprovoked genocide, justified by religious belief.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Reynold,

    I just read a great article called "Killing the Canaanites" by Clay Jones in the CRI Journal so this is fresh in my mind. Was killing the Canaanites justified? Yes. Completely. We would be hard pressed not to deliver a verdict of capital punishment on them even in these days. Capital punishment is completely justified and I encourage it as a solution against evil. The Canaanites were a very wicked bunch. From what I read they were rampant incestuous, adulterous, idolatrous, child sacrificing people. Not only did they encourage homosexuality, but bestiality! They deserved to die. Sodom and Gomorrah had a justified fate. It was not divine genocide, it was capital punishment. I cannot see it any other way these days. In the past I would say it was harsh and decry the actions as genocide but it would be only to justify my own sinfulness.

    Ok, so for D.A.N, the killing/capital punishment of Canaanites was justified because – according to his god - they were and I quote rampant incestuous, adulterous, idolatrous, child sacrificing people. Not only did they encourage homosexuality, but bestiality! They deserved to die. Wow!!! Those innocent babies, kids, including those who weren’t even born yet were part of this “very wicked bunch”? What did they do to deserve such a cruel punishment? They were guilt by association? I guess that according to god D.A.N believes and according to D.A.N himself, they were. What disturbs me most is that D.A.N sugarcoat this awful and despicable act by saying his god was being merciful by saving those children from a sinful life (by slaughtering them) by wanting them to live with him in heaven for all eternity. Really? The only “child sacrificing people” I see here is god and those people who killed those children in the name/command of their god.

    D.A.N saying that those Canaanites people deserved to die clearly shows how little he values human lives. And then he has the nerve to say that we are the immoral ones.

    I also read he claimed he was an atheist? That is – officially - the joke of the month!!!


    PS: You’re welcome, my friend :)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Are these 5 points the same ones as last time D.A.N. did a little wiggle over William Lane Craig? If so, I addressed them at the time and D.A.N. had no response. I expect no different this time.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Freddies dead,

    >> Are these 5 points the same ones as last time D.A.N. did a little wiggle over William Lane Craig?

    No, but thanks for bringing things to the posts point though. It was apparent that the post was hijacked and misdirected for a purpose.

    5 things that cannot be scientifically evidenced, but we're all rational to accept:

    1. Logical and mathematical truths, science presupposes logic and math.
    2. Metaphysical truths Like the universe was created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age.
    3. Ethical beliefs and statements of value
    4. Esthetic judgments. Beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven
    5 Science ITSELF cannot be justified by the scientific method. Its permeated with unprovable assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  13. And how is any of that (even if we accepted that, wich I suspect some here will argue against soon) evidence of your god?

    ReplyDelete
  14. D.A.N. said...

    Freddies dead,

    >> Are these 5 points the same ones as last time D.A.N. did a little wiggle over William Lane Craig?

    No, but thanks for bringing things to the posts point though. It was apparent that the post was hijacked and misdirected for a purpose.

    You didn't seem to mind while you were accusing atheists of valuing child rapists over children and hating war veterans.

    5 things that cannot be scientifically evidenced, but we're all rational to accept:

    1. Logical and mathematical truths, science presupposes logic and math.
    2. Metaphysical truths Like the universe was created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age.
    3. Ethical beliefs and statements of value
    4. Esthetic judgments. Beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven
    5 Science ITSELF cannot be justified by the scientific method. Its permeated with unprovable assumptions.


    As Reynold quite rightly points out these aren't evidence of your God, they are merely attempts to undermine science as an explanatory tool. I'm not sure why Christians feel they need to attack science, perhaps it's because they realise that ignorance helps propagate their ridiculous beliefs.

    1. Belief in your God also presupposes logic. Your determination of God's existence rests on your ability to reason about information you perceive - this includes the information you claim to have been given in your 'revelations'.
    2. There's no way to determine the truth value of metaphysical propositions so metaphysics is, in essence, meaningless. The attempt to claim a knowledge on a higher level than empirical science forces metaphysicians to separate their statements from experience making them nonsense.
    3. Of course ethical statements and statements of value can be evidenced by science. The moment you assign anything a value you make it verifiable based on experience and it enters the region of empirical science.*
    4. And yet again, assigning a value, and beautiful/ugly/good/bad are value judgements, allows us to build an empirical framework making it possible to demonstrate them through science.*
    5. WTF? Science is knowledge, knowledge is justified true belief, the scientific method is a means by which you can justify your beliefs.

    * There is a caveat in that the exact values given to these judgements may be very difficult to calculate, but the simple fact that you're assigning a value makes it empirical.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "1. Logical and mathematical truths, science presupposes logic and math."

    I'll grant you logic for now, cause that's not really an area I'm an expert in so trying to argue it would be difficult. Mathematics are proven scientifically.

    It would appear that you are someone who just accepts mathematical laws on faith without having any conception of what it means or how it was derived.

    I'm standing in the field there are 3 rocks to my left and 2 to my right, I push them together, and count the result. It's five rocks! But that's not enough, to prove it, I need to test it again and again, I can add 2 apples to 3 apples, 2 cups to 3 cups. But my word isn't good enough, we'll need a peer review process. So far anyone who adds 2 objects and 3 objects will get the answer 5. Observable, testable, repeatable...Holy Shit, it sounds like we used science to prove 2+3=5

    Is that clear enough for you? Mathematical laws are observed, tested and verified and you can verify them yourself if you know how. Memorizing mathematical laws with no idea of how they are derived is a Massive Education Failure.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ha, I thought it would be fun to see what William Lane Craig's response on the whole Canaanite issue would be and I found this gem.

    http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767

    You need to read the entire thing to how humorous it is. He carefully makes a noose to string up the argument against his believe in the beginning, but seemingly unknown to him, he hangs himself with it in the end.

    Its like the guy who runs over himself with his own car. You think its impossible, but when you see it happening its truly amazing and it boggles the mind.

    I know it will hurt, but please try to read it all. If I have time later I'll help to point out the issues in his ramblings to make it easy for Dan to understand.

    Maybe it if Dan sees someone else doing what he does here regularly, he'll finally realize the error of his way/thinking.

    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  17. "1. Logical and mathematical truths, science presupposes logic and math."

    I'll grant you logical cause I don't have enough knowledge about that to argue for it, but mathematical is easily proven scientifically. The fact that you seem to accept math on faith, indicates that your teachers failed you, they only had you memorize mathematical laws without teaching you how they are derived.

    Lets take the 6x4 as an example. I have four baskets, each of them with 6 rocks in them. I dump it into a big pile and count up the rocks and I find there are 24 rocks. 6x4=24. But that might be a fluke so I should try a few more times, and with different objects, like eggs apples, cups, as many different tests as I possibly can. After doing all of that and getting 24 every time, I submit it to my peers for evaluation. Obviously they won't just accept my claims at face value, but the good news is that the test is easily repeated and they can verify it themselves.

    Observability, testability, repeatability...holy crap we just used science to prove 6x4=24. I bet if you try real hard you can verify some laws of math for yourself. But since you might make a mistake you should get some people to double check it, just in case.

    Memorizing mathematics without understanding how it is derived is a massive education failure.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dan,
    What maximum sacrifice would you make to insure that every one of your kids get to heaven? Just wondering.

    ReplyDelete
  19. At first I thought this entire blog was a big giant Poe. Sadly, it isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dan with regard to:

    3. Ethical beliefs and statements of value

    ..I offer this quotation from an essay by Elizabeth Anderson, John Rawls Collegiate Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

    "I am arguing that morality, understood as a system of reciprocal claim mak­ing, in which everyone is accountable to everyone else, does not need its authority underwritten by some higher, external authority. It is underwritten by the authority we all have to make claims on one another. Far from bolstering the authority of morality, appeals to divine authority can undermine it. For divine command theories of morality may make believers feel entitled to look only to their idea of God to determine what they are justified in doing. It is all too easy under such a system to ignore the complaints of those injured by one's actions, since they are not acknowledged as moral authorities in their own right. But to ignore the complaints of others is to deprive oneself of the main source of infor­mation one needs to improve one's conduct. Appealing to God, rather than those affected by one's actions, amounts to an attempt to escape accountability to one's fellow human beings."

    Kind of turns on its head your claim that atheists are merely seeking to avoid accountability to your god. You might find the whole essay instructive reading...

    ReplyDelete
  21. Froggie,

    >>What maximum sacrifice would you make to insure that every one of your kids get to heaven? Just wondering.

    Well, its a loaded question. It reminds me of one of those truth or dare question as a kid. But I will appease you. If I could do certain things I would. In reality, there is a limit as to what I can do to ensure my kids get into Heaven. I follow God's instructions to raise a child knowing Him and from there, its between Him and my kids. I can only trust Him and be a good leader to be a good example. Of course, I would do pretty much anything if I could do anything, but that is steeped in fantasy land. Christ has done all there needs to be done, as you know. What I won't do is make a deal with the devil for gain, or destroy my relationship with God. To say, for example, I would go to hell if it ensures my kids go to heaven is wrong threefold. First, its a bribe and against God's will. Second, the one way to ensure my kids get to heaven is be that good tree for them to show them what the goal is. To lead by example basically. Otherwise, I am placing my kids over God in breaking the first Commandment. Third, and most important, no unrepentant sinner wants Heaven, or Christ, so it would literally be against their will to put them in a place they wish not to be in, Heaven. I do not wish that on my kids. I want my kids to make their own choices. Even bad decisions, in life I should clarify, are good. After all, without mistakes there is no learning. If they choose Hell, and that is what it would be 'a choice', then sadly with a heavy heart, so be it.

    I know many Atheists that have professing Christian parents that are not being Christians at all. There is a conflict in the child's mind. It confuses the kids to which they abandon it all, baby and bathwater. "If that is being a Christian, then forget it." mentality. Or worse, if they are abandoning God, then I will too. Its destructive and wrong and we can ONLY count on God to correct those misunderstandings. As you know, my Dad said "Good, I want to go to Hell, that is where my friends are" and its that confusion and illogical thinking that gets people in real trouble. Maybe Atheists know their parents will not be in Heaven, like mine, and just wish to be with them instead of God. Not me. No relationship is worth giving up my relationship with God. Not even my own parents or kids.

    I do raise my kids with ONLY one demand or wish. I don't care if they grow up to be Scientists, Engineers, or Doctors. I don't care if they get bad grades and flunk out of college. I do not put those type of life's pressures on them at all. I don't care if they flip burgers for their entire life. I don't care if they become billionaire entrepreneurs. ALL I care about is that they make it to Heaven, that is it. Its my ONLY wish for them.

    For now, they're little so they would go to Heaven by default. Come on Christ! I would be devastated if one, or any number of them, grew up to be Atheists. I must admit, even if wrong, I would feel that it was my fault if that happened. I would second guess every choice I made and probably would go mad thinking about it. I have declared war with the Devil and his world, after all. Fortunately, I do place my entire trust into God to give me no more then I can handle. I am a huge wimp for things like that, I cannot handle that type of news, so hopefully God will not put that burden on me.

    I shutter the thought. Thanks for giving me the image of my kids possibly in Hell though. Nothing like being haunted on a Friday. I think I will take them to the Beach and show them what Heaven may be like, this weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  22. D.A.N,

    >> I know many Atheists that have professing Christian parents that are not being Christians at all. There is a conflict in the child's mind. It confuses the kids to which they abandon it all, baby and bathwater. "If that is being a Christian, then forget it." mentality.

    The thing about this mentality “you’re an atheist therefore you go to hell because you deny god” is an empty threat. In my case at least it wasn’t the reason why I decided not to be a christian anymore and become an atheist. Even though my parents are christians (my father is a catholic and my mother is a recently converted evangelical) they never told me – after I came out to them as an atheist - I was doomed to hell. I’ve heard that threat (that christians say is a fact and a warning, not a threat) many times before and I just don’t take it serious. I don’t feel offended or angry by it. I just ignore.

    For example: if I say to a christian he’s going to Helgardh (the Nordic mythology version of hell) because he denies Thor and Odin by not believing in them is an empty threat since he doesn’t believe in Helgardh, Valhalla, Thor, Odin and all the rest of nordic mythology.

    It’s the same thing with us. There’s no use saying we are going to heaven if we turn to god, because is an empty promise. There’s no use saying we’re going to hell because we’re atheists because is an empty threat. We don’t believe in the christian mythology or any other for that matter.

    But it’s wrong to threaten someone (specially a kid who is highly impressionable) telling them they’re going to be tortured and suffer for all eternity in hell if they do something wrong.

    A real story: The son of a friend of mine was going to a catholic school. The principal was a priest and there were a lot of nuns working there as teachers. One day, this boy was talking and telling jokes during class. The teacher (who was a nun) came to him and told him he was going to hell because he was being disobedient. The kid was terrified and he got home crying out of fear to his mother because of that threat. That’s not right. His mother got furious and went to the school in the next day and called the nun out on her bullshit and thankfully took her son out of that school.

    That “hell threat thing” is like saying: if you don’t do as I say I will destroy your life, I’ll make you be fired from where you work, I’m going to burn down your house, make your wife divorce you and take your kids away from you, etc…but don’t get me wrong, it’s not a threat. It’s a fact. And the reason I say/do this is because I love you.

    That’s how things works with the god you believe in.

    The thing is: some fanatic religious parents are capable of doing anything from keeping their children out of some imaginary suffering.

    That woman who tried to kill her two children and then herself because she was terrified by the chance of her and her children being left behind in the rapture is an example. In her mind. she didn’t want her and her children to go through the tribulations until the end of the world in October. She tried that awful act so they could go to heaven.

    PS: I’m not saying that you are capable of killing your own children, ok?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dan,

    I see you're still putting up with all the lame brained atheists and their pseudo-logic.

    In all my life I think I've met maybe 1 or 2 honest atheists out of hundreds.

    Here they are all condemning God based on moral values that they know either come from God or from nowhere at all.

    Isn't that sweet?! Er,... or rather stupid I should say.

    They have no foundations for any moral values at all, yet moralize you on God's actions being immoral!! Amazing duplicity and blindness.

    What is their moral condemnation of God based on? What moral values? From whence? What foundation?

    Collective cultural agreement? Well sometimes.

    Personal opinion? Yes, that's it!

    Wow, how convincing a foundation huh?

    So under atheist idiocy, Hitler was did nothing wrong at all. Rapists are neither good nor evil. Serial killers are just acting out their own moral choices and no such choices can be either evil or good.

    Proof?
    As atheist high priest Dawkins wrote,
    the universe "has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference."

    "No purpose, no evil, no good"

    Just think of it!
    All these little atheists blind boys come here berating you and your God for evil - all while evil not existing under atheism!

    ROTFL is the best response, well, after shaking ones heads in disbelief at such self-contradictory ravings.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Animal Morality.

    So what's the explanation for that? Did Chimoses receive the ten Chimandments from God? Thou shalt not pull a chain to shock another chimp in exchange for food. If thou sees a chimp drowning go and rescue it.If two male chimps are about to fight, the females shall pull the rocks out of their hands, etc.

    Funny thing is that there is no evidence of religion in chimps and monkeys, they don't have any rules for worshiping God, their ethics is entirely based on what is good for the community.

    Do you understand how murder is bad for society? Every time you kill someone you make the whole society a little weaker. There are rare cases where society uses capital punishment, is to remove individuals who cause more harm to society than good, but these cases have to be regulated. If anyone was able to get away with murder society would be less productive from all the people being killed.

    Property rights. Unlike chimps and monkeys humans create goods that they trade with each, they grow food, they make cars, even the computer you're using. But why trade if you can just take? Well the downside to that is, if people are going to just steal food, the farmer won't bother trading, he'll just grow enough for himself and his family and spend the rest of his efforts defending it.

    Specialized occupations make society more efficient, but specialized occupations can't exist without protection of property rights. DO you understand? Are you even capable of comprehending how ethics and morality make society more efficient, and more comfortable? Monkeys and chimps figured it out, so I hope you can too.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Gary,

    The god portrayed in the bible (the god D.A.N follows) is immoral indeed. He incites and condones genocide, infanticide, death by stoning (of homosexuals, nonbelievers, women who got raped, rebellious children, etc). And D.A.N thinks that when men commit those terrible acts by their god’s command/name or when god does the killing himself is not immoral and condemnable because in D.A.N’s mind god is always just and - since god is the ultimate authority - his orders and actions should never be questioned.

    D.A.N doesn’t agree with murder, but when god does it or commands it, it’s ok because “god knows best”. But when men do terrible things just for the sake of doing it, then is wrong, immoral and condemnable.

    The problem with D.A.N’s reasoning and “logic” is that he always claims that morality is objective, but he contradicts himself when he says god is always right even when he does/commands things to be done in his name (such as the ones I mentioned above) which D.A.N knows are despicable.

    People can’t have both ways. Or D.A.N agrees with genocide, infanticide, death by stoning or he doesn't.

    Our morality is based on our conscience and how our society works and their laws. And that changes from individual to individual, to one society to another and to one time to another.

    Take islamic theocracies for example. In some countries is morally correct to whip or stone a woman because she was raped or because she cheated on her husband or because she’s not a virgin. Now in the modern western societies this is unacceptable, immoral, wrong and illegal. If a man does that to a woman – it doesn’t matter what religion he is part of – he will be prosecuted and be sent to jail.

    D.A.N says atheists can’t be accountable to morality and we can’t be against rape, infanticide, genocide, etc, because of “our atheistic worldview.” But – as I pointed out before – D.A.N is the one who can’t be accountable to that. He follows a book that is immoral as Mein Kampf, he sugarcoats the violent acts committed/ordered by his god claiming god is always merciful, just and benevolent (in the case of the death of the Canaanite children who were killed because god wanted those children to be in heaven with him); in his mind the killing of the Canaanites wasn’t genocide, it was capital punishment (???). What those kids, including the ones who weren’t born yet (and also the entire Canaanite people) did to deserve this “capital punishment”? Your god’s actions show he is exactly the opposite of merciful, just and benevolent.

    I can be a moral person and I can be against harming other living beings because I care about others, I have something called empathy - that’s not a exclusive christian value – and I’m accountable not only to myself but also to my relatives, to my loved ones, to the society and to the world I live in and I don’t want anything bad happening to them. So, if I can prevent it someone from being harmed I will. If I see something wrong or bad happening I have the right to disagree, I can show my disagreement, I can protest against it, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  26. So, Dan has come out as WLC's fanboy. I hope Sye isn't feeling too rejected...

    ReplyDelete
  27. They have no foundations for any moral values at all, yet moralize you on God's actions being immoral!! Amazing duplicity and blindness.

    Gary, I'm assuming that you're human, like the rest of us. That provides the foundation for our morality - our reciprocal claims upon each other as sentient, intelligent beings. I claim the right not to be murdered by you, and you claim the same right of me. Denial of these claims is what requires justification, not the upholding of them. If you have no justification, or a justification that is inadequate to the result, then that is an immoral act. Morality exists because we are what we are.

    It is on this basis that we condemn the actions of the god portrayed in the Bible - lebensraum for the Israelites doesn't provide sufficient justification, in human terms, for acts of genocide against the Canaanites, in the same way that it didn't justify the Nazis' slaughter of Jewish people.

    At the end of the day, it takes an irrational, religious frame of mind to deny empathy and to 'justify' acts of violence against real, feeling beings by claiming to follow the imagined dictates of an imaginary god, or to be fulfilling an imagined version of history or destiny or some other hubristic bullshit. The minute you start valuing ideas over people, that's when the trouble starts.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Gary said... (to Dan)

    I see you're still putting up with all the lame brained atheists and their pseudo-logic.

    I see your manners have not improved from the last time you came on here and got your arse handed to you.

    In all my life I think I've met maybe 1 or 2 honest atheists out of hundreds.

    You've met 1 or 2 honest atheists out of hundreds of honest atheists? You should get out of your Mom's basement more.

    Here they are all condemning God based on moral values that they know either come from God or from nowhere at all.

    As you don't seem to believe in moral absolutes (holding God to some other standard than the one you say governs humanity), is there some reason that I should accept your abitrary system of subjective morality?

    Isn't that sweet?! Er,... or rather stupid I should say.

    You can say what you like, it's a free country, doesn't make you right of course...

    They have no foundations for any moral values at all,

    We do.

    yet moralize you on God's actions being immoral!!

    Are God's actions moral because they conform to an absolute standard of morality? Or are they moral because they're God's actions? If it's the former then there is a standard that must sit uncreated, uncaused and co-eternal, making your God unnecessary. If it's the latter then there's no reason for me to subscribe to your subjective interpretation of an unproven deities' abitrary whims.

    Amazing duplicity and blindness.

    I agree it's amazing how blind you have to be to dismiss all the other accounts for morality despite your own account being nothing more than personal preference.

    What is their moral condemnation of God based on?

    The supposed moral code you claim your worldview professes...

    What moral values?

    The ones you claim your God espoused.

    From whence?

    From Christian's interpretations of the supposed Word of God.

    What foundation?

    I'd ask you the same question but I expect I'd get nothing more than baseless assertion rather than informed argument.

    Collective cultural agreement? Well sometimes.

    Personal opinion? Yes, that's it!

    Wow, how convincing a foundation huh?


    And "because my imaginary friend says so" is so much better, right?

    cont'd...

    ReplyDelete
  29. cont'd...

    So under atheist idiocy, Hitler was did nothing wrong at all.

    Under Christian idiocy he did it with the full complicity of your God and may even have been granted eternal paradise for his actions, cause that's so much better.

    Rapists are neither good nor evil.

    As a Christian you certainly can't call them evil, women are nothing more than property in your professed worldview. The 'punishment' for rapists is ... well, nothing if the rape victim doesn't shout loud enough and financial remuneration to the father (plus marrying the victim) only if they get caught. You reduce the crime of rape to being no different than someone breaking a plate.

    Serial killers are just acting out their own moral choices and no such choices can be either evil or good.

    Proof?
    As atheist high priest Dawkins wrote,
    the universe "has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference."

    "No purpose, no evil, no good"


    I see your concept of proof is no more developed than your concept of morality. Since when have serial killers and universes been synonymous? Such false equivocation also undermines your commitment to logic somewhat.

    Just think of it!

    I wish you'd take a bit of your own advice and think.

    All these little atheists blind boys come here berating you and your God for evil - all while evil not existing under atheism!

    If you actually compare your God's alleged actions to the supposedly perfect standard that you claim He has instituted then, quite plainly, He has done evil; genocide ... twice, for starters. It seems as if you don't believe in an absolute, objective standard of morality and yet you wish to hold atheists to just such a standard. I wish you would make your tiny mind up about it.

    ROTFL is the best response, well, after shaking ones heads in disbelief at such self-contradictory ravings.

    Well, after reading your self-contradictory ravings, I have to agree. Consider me ROTFLing as we speak.

    ReplyDelete
  30. freddie shooting down Dan's bullshitvcont'd...

    So under atheist idiocy, Hitler was did nothing wrong at all.


    Under Christian idiocy he did it with the full complicity of your God and may even have been granted eternal paradise for his actions, cause that's so much better.
    Remember John Hagee and this message?

    Then there's Dan who would let the Nazis know that he was hiding Jews...

    ReplyDelete
  31. Good to see Gary and Dan in company again. No mention of Syes debacle on your blog there Gary.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Dan,
    Thanks for your answer to my recent question.

    Froggie

    ReplyDelete
  33. http://patientandpersistant.blogspot.com/2011/06/third-debate-on-presuppositional.html

    I've accepted Syes challenge for a Third Debate.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I note that dishonest dispshit Dan never did reply to my exposing the extent to which he twisted my words previously.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Reynold,

    Which one? I have been accused with so many I lost track. This one:

    >>Craig, that "earthly naturalistic perspective" is called valuing human life, you asshole.

    So you VALUE a child rapist OVER the child? You pity the guilty, is your problem.

    "Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent." ~Ayn Rand, Atheist

    My point was that you had pity for the guilty that perished.

    Anyway, how about next time restating it or giving a location to get better results. I have been quite busy lately on other blogs addressing Atheists...issues.

    ReplyDelete
  36. D.A.N,

    First of all: where in his arguments, Reynold said anything about "value a child rapist over the child"? He said he values human life. What "valuing a child rapist over the child" has to do with valuing human life?
    Even if one thing had something to do with the other; does it mean Reynold wants child rapists to go unpunished for their crimes? I pretty much doubt that.

    For what I see in your posts and comments you are the one who doesn't value human life by saying the caananites deserved the "capital punishment" (your own words) because they were sinners to the eyes of your god. The killing of the caananites by israelite soldiers wasn't capital punishment; it was genocide.

    Using your "logic" D.A.N: the killing in Rwanda among the tutsis and hutus wasn't genocide; it was actually capital punishment.

    Now, stop with the "twisting our words" and putting in your comments words we never said in the first place; you are being completely dishonest (not only intelectually) by doing that.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Dan, the lying fuck continues to lie:

    D.A.N. said...

    Reynold,

    Which one? I have been accused with so many I lost track. This one:

    >>Craig, that "earthly naturalistic perspective" is called valuing human life, you asshole.

    So you VALUE a child rapist OVER the child? You pity the guilty, is your problem.

    No. You constantly fucking lie. Apparently so fucking much that you can't even keep track of them anymore.

    "Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent." ~Ayn Rand, Atheist

    My point was that you had pity for the guilty that perished.

    My rebuttal to you, which you totally fucking ignored, you prick, was to ask you just how could the babies and pregnant women that were killed have been guilty of rape?

    Anyway, how about next time restating it or giving a location to get better results.
    No excuses, you lying asshole.

    May 24, 2011 2:45 PM is where bellecherie nailed you, and May 24, 2011 4:47 PM is where I nail you for your lies.

    I have been quite busy lately on other blogs addressing Atheists...issues.
    More like you're being too fucking dishonest to
    Yeah...our "issues"! The main one here is that you xians keep fucking lying, twisting our words even after we show you how you're doing that!

    ReplyDelete
  38. D.A.N is always manipulating information, distorting our opinions with the sole intention to fit the idea he has that atheists aren't/can't be good people for not believing (or by denying/revolting against god as D.A.N said many times)

    D.A.N tries to demora­lize us in anyway he can because - deep down - he doesn't have valid arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  39. That's it exactly, Bellcherie. Dan has been trying (for years!) to show the superiority of his world view, but this blog is in exactly the same state it was back then - with the exception that his audience now knows him to be dishonest.

    Dan reminds me of a certain emperor and his new clothes...

    ReplyDelete
  40. Bellecherie ,

    >>First of all: where in his arguments, Reynold said anything about "value a child rapist over the child"? He said he values human life. What "valuing a child rapist over the child" has to do with valuing human life?

    Valuing life, ALL life, is wrong when certain life does NOT value other lives. This is why I quoted Ayn:

    "Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent." ~Ayn Rand, Atheist

    You see, if you value the rapist life you are committing treason against the innocent. You should not value life at ALL COSTS. What you're claiming is that you would FIGHT FOR Hitler in his defense. That is not a life worth valuing. That was my entire point when I ranted about value a rapist over the child. Its wrong.

    My question to you now is, is being "completely dishonest" wrong? If so, how?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Reynold,

    >>My rebuttal to you, which you totally fucking ignored, you prick, was to ask you just how could the babies and pregnant women that were killed have been guilty of rape?

    Guilty of rape? I do not see the connection. They're guilty sinners. Babies are not guilty of rape, they're the result of it. I am confused but you can call me more names if you wish. I have a tough enough skin to be your punching bag if it helps you get to God.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Bellecherie,

    >>D.A.N is always manipulating information, distorting our opinions with the sole intention to fit the idea he has that atheists aren't/can't be good people for not believing (or by denying/revolting against god as D.A.N said many times)

    No, I call it like I see it. If you believe Reynold is being kind by cussing at me then that is merely your opinion in delusion. No distortions here. You're not good because you're human, not that you believe in God or not. I am no better then you by any stretch. I just admit that I am wretched, you deny that you are.

    ReplyDelete
  43. D.A.N,

    >>You see, if you value the rapist life you are committing treason against the innocent. You should not value life at ALL COSTS. What you're claiming is that you would FIGHT FOR Hitler in his defense. That is not a life worth valuing. That was my entire point when I ranted about value a rapist over the child. Its wrong.

    Tell me if I am wrong, but what I understood based on what you said "you should not value life at ALL COSTS", you would kill a child rapist in a heart beat if you had the chance. I wouldn't. But does it mean I value a child rapist over a child? No, because I do believe a criminal should pay for his crimes by facing a trial and being put in jail for a very long time.

    Now, I would never fight for Hitler in his defense; what he did to millions of people was genocide and it was bad/wrong/despicable - and - if he didn't commit suicide he would be judged as a war criminal and he would probably be condemned to the death penalty just like it happened to some of his nazi friends. Due to the circumstances at the time I would definitely agree with that punishment.

    Now; let me ask you a question: did Reynold said - with all the letters - he values a child rapist over a child?

    >>My question to you now is, is being "completely dishonest" wrong? If so, how?

    You are being dishonest by claiming in your comments things we never said. I was a victim of your dishonesty. In a lot of comments about the rape subject I said that - if I was raped - I would live to report my rape and to make sure the rapist pay for crimes by being judged and spending most of his life in jail. You misinterpreted what I said telling by doing this "I would give myself to evil/you said I would be a whore because - somehow - you confused (on purpose, maybe?) "putting the guy in jail" with "court/monetary settlement" which I have no idea what did you get that from because I never said that (I 'll quote you here "I guess I should of stressed a MONETARY settlement. That was what was on my mind when I was saying that.) Look it up in all of my comments I put here (http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2011/04/humanist-religion-reigns.html) and tell me where I did say something remotely close to make monetary settlement with a rapist and I shut my mouth.

    >> No, I call it like I see it.

    You don't deny what you see and what you (want to) see is atheists are bad/immoral because we are not accountable to some divine entity. You said here many times we (the atheists) can't be accountable to a morality and a conscience because our morality come from us/our conscience instead of coming from your god and his laws. You said we can't be against such crimes as rape, infanticide, murder, genocide,etc, because of "our atheistic worldview" even though we pointed out to you - many times - we can because we care about others.

    Here you are lying again. Where did I say - with this same words - I deny being wretched?
    Again, you see what you want to see. What you see is immoral atheists. And you do everything to fit that opinion of yours, including disobeying one of the 10 commandments (“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour”) you are supposed to follow since you're a role model christian.

    (continues)

    ReplyDelete
  44. D.A.N,

    (cont)

    And - as I pointed out many times - you are the one who can't be against slavery, rape, infanticide, genocide, mass murder, incest, etc., because the bible you use as an ultimate authority incites/condones all that. What you do? You sugarcoat; like you did about the endorsement of rape in the bible by saying "Your quote mine of Isaiah 13:16 was obvious. It even reads as a poem. Look at the spacing and form of the words. It’s not INSTRUCTIONS as you are claiming. You do understand that this entire thing was a dream of Isaiah's. Just read Isaiah 1:1 which I said "So, because it was written as a poem and it was Isaiah’s dream it makes less terrible? No, it doesn't... and then you answered me because it was a poem It makes it less INSTRUCTIONAL as you said it was. Don't try to change the subject.. Look at my/your comments about it here (http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2011/04/humanist-religion-reigns.html)

    As I said before by distorting our words, manipulating information at your behalf to fit the opinion you have that atheists can't be good and are not accountable to a conscience and morality because they don't believe in some god is being dishonest (not only intellectually). I'll repeat: you do this to us because you have no valid arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  45. D.A.N,

    >> Guilty of rape? I do not see the connection. They're guilty sinners. Babies are not guilty of rape, they're the result of it.

    D.A.N, you said the killing of the Canaanites by the Israelite soldiers wasn’t genocide; it was capital punishment. So, what Reynold asked you – if it was capital punishment – what did the babies and pregnant women did to deserve such punishment? Did they rape anyone? Or because –as you said - the women’s pregnancy and the babies were the result of the rape, so does it mean they were guilty by association and they deserve to be slaughtered for it?
    If the babies and the children weren’t guilty sinners at the eyes of your god, so why they had to die? Why god didn’t spare them? (give a different an answer than “god was being merciful because he wanted those children to be on his side in heaven for all eternity” because it’s not going to cut it. If you don’t have a different answer, please…don’t waste your time writing it so I won’t waste my time reading it)

    >> I am confused but you can call me more names if you wish. I have a tough enough skin to be your punching bag if it helps you get to God.

    Now you’re acting like a martyr for the cause. Congratulations for the emotional blackmail… (being sarcastic)

    By the way you’re showing how the god you believe really is (a bloodthirsty, sadistic psychopath who manipulates human beings for his own amusement) it gives more reason to not believe/follow your god. So you can stop being a punching bag, because it’s completely useless, ok?

    ReplyDelete
  46. D.A.N,
    The reason Reynold is calling you names is because he lost temper because you're being dishonest.

    I'm angry at you for the same reason. Put yourself in our shoes. if it was the other way around: how would you feel if Reynold and me distorted everything you say by giving our own misleading interpretation of your arguments? I bet you wouldn't be too happy about it.

    I can't speak for Reynold, but it pisses me off - even after the many times Reynold and I called you out on your bullshit - you continue to lie and twist everything we say. You continue with your dishonesty.

    We are all adults here. Even though we don't agree with each other in many things, we can have mature debate. But it's difficult to have a mature debate when one of the debaters is lying to his teeth. Don't you think?

    By being dishonest to us you're also being disrespectful - and since respect should be earned and not given unconditionally - it makes it real hard to respect you.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Bellecherie,

    >>did Reynold said - with all the letters - he values a child rapist over a child?

    If Reynold says he values ALL life then in so many words he is saying that is valuing a rapist life more then a child's life by, as Ayn and I pointed out, pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent.

    >>I was a victim of your dishonesty.

    Is that wrong? If so, how is that wrong within your worldview? You see, people can BELIEVE that something is wrong without knowing why it is wrong, but in order to KNOW that something is wrong, they must know WHY it is wrong. How can anything be universally wrong within your worldview? You speak as if wrong is universal, abstract, and invariant. Is it? If so, how do you account for universal, abstract, invariant things in your worldview? If not, your argument falls apart.

    >> Look it up in all of my comments I put here ... and tell me where I did say something remotely close to make monetary settlement with a rapist and I shut my mouth.

    The real point was made HERE so no need to bring it up all over again. I used the term "also" as a literary device to include all possible scenarios. If you meant when you said, "make him pay for his crime" by a monetary reason, like the Kobe Bryant trial, then I pointed out that would be what a whore would do. You want to believe, and make it seem, that I am liar so you took it that way. Its you who apparently is "always manipulating information, distorting my opinions with the sole intention to fit the idea" you have that Christians aren't/can't be good people for believing. :7)

    >>You said here many times we (the atheists) can't be accountable to a morality and a conscience because our morality come from us/our conscience instead of coming from your god and his laws.

    Yea, please explain HOW is that possible? Again, you speak as if morality is universal, abstract, and invariant. Is it? If so, how do you account for universal, abstract, invariant things in your worldview? If not, your argument falls apart.

    >> You said we can't be against such crimes as rape, infanticide, murder, genocide,etc, because of "our atheistic worldview" even though we pointed out to you - many times - we can because we care about others.

    So its absolutely and objectively wrong? If so, how is that possible in your worldview? Go to proofthatGodexists.org for more explanation on that point.

    >>Again, you see what you want to see.

    Truth

    >>What you see is immoral atheists.

    What I see is unaccountable assumptions.

    (To be cont'd)

    ReplyDelete
  48. Bellecherie cont'd,

    >>And you do everything to fit that opinion of yours, including disobeying one of the 10 commandments (“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour”) you are supposed to follow since you're a role model christian.

    Yea, someone is lying to you alright. :7)

    >>And - as I pointed out many times - you are the one who can't be against slavery, rape, infanticide, genocide, mass murder, incest, etc., because the bible you use as an ultimate authority incites/condones all that

    Are you certain of that? If so, how is it possible to be certain within your worldview? How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    >>So, what Reynold asked you – if it was capital punishment – what did the babies and pregnant women did to deserve such punishment?

    Your argument falls apart when you assume that babies are innocent. You both must understand that we are born evil to understand my point here. No one is innocent. If sin is indeed evil, it is, then we're all evil.

    >> Put yourself in our shoes.

    Was for so many years.

    >> how would you feel if Reynold and me distorted everything you say by giving our own misleading interpretation of your arguments?

    You mean like this current situation? Meh. Same old, same old.

    >>I bet you wouldn't be too happy about it.

    Its to be expected. Par for the course.

    >>We are all adults here.

    Nanny nanny boo boo stick your head in doo doo.

    >>But it's difficult to have a mature debate when one of the debaters is lying to his teeth. Don't you think?

    Yes I agree. Please stop doing so.

    >>By being dishonest to us you're also being disrespectful - and since respect should be earned and not given unconditionally - it makes it real hard to respect you.

    Welcome to my world. As a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Dan, you are full of it. We are not "suppressing" a damned thing! You have NO evidence that your god has "revealed" himself to us.

    You have also not apologized for being exposed as a bullshitter yourself. You just change the subject into attacking us.

    Fuck you.

    ReplyDelete
  50. D.A.N. said...

    Reynold,

    >>My rebuttal to you, which you totally fucking ignored, you prick, was to ask you just how could the babies and pregnant women that were killed have been guilty of rape?


    Guilty of rape? I do not see the connection. They're guilty sinners. Babies are not guilty of rape, they're the result of it. I am confused but you can call me more names if you wish. I have a tough enough skin to be your punching bag if it helps you get to God.
    You're "confused" all right...you went on and on and on about how those acts of genocide in the bible were actually capital punishment....that those people were rapists, blah blah and deserved to die. I pointed out that not all of those people could have possibly deserved that punishment.

    Case in point, the babies and pregnant women, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  51. bellecherie, when you get sick of the constant bullshit from Dan, you can come visit The WeAreSmrt forums, or the Skeptic Friends forum.

    ReplyDelete
  52. D.A.N,


    >> Is that wrong? If so, how is that wrong within your worldview?

    I really want you to answer me this: someone begins to distort something you said by giving a different meaning of what you really wanted to say. You call this person on his/her bullshit many times, asking this person to stop being dishonest and yet this person continues to lie, putting in your mouth words you never said. Is that right or wrong?

    >> The real point was made HERE so no need to bring it up all over again. I used the term "also" as a literary device to include all possible scenarios. If you meant when you said, "make him pay for his crime" by a monetary reason, like the Kobe Bryant trial, then I pointed out that would be what a whore would do. You want to believe, and make it seem, that I am liar so you took it that way. Its you who apparently is "always manipulating information, distorting my opinions with the sole intention to fit the idea" you have that Christians aren't/can't be good people for believing. :7)

    You see? Here you are distorting everything again. If - for example - I said: "I would make him pay for his crime" it would be - maybe - open to interpretation. But I didn't. I said - many times - "I would make him pay for his crimes by reporting the rape and making sure he would go to trial and spend most of his life in jail". So, where are "all possible scenarios" here? I only see just one: someone going to jail for a crime he committed.

    I don't have a idea about christians. I never said a christian can't/aren't good people for believing in god. They can; but their goodness doesn't depend on some god even though - some of them - think it does.

    >> Yea, please explain HOW is that possible? Again, you speak as if morality is universal, abstract, and invariant. Is it? If so, how do you account for universal, abstract, invariant things in your worldview? If not, your argument falls apart.
    How can you? You said many times morality is always objective. And then your argument fell apart when you said something about your father: "He was very successful in his mind but he was morally bankrupt in my world."
    Or you think morality is always objective or you think morality is always subjective. You can't have both ways and change that when is convenient for you.

    (continues)

    ReplyDelete
  53. D.A.N,

    (cont)

    >> So its absolutely and objectively wrong? If so, how is that possible in your worldview?

    Rape, incest, murder, genocide, infanticide, etc, are considered crimes and I consider wrong - not only because is against the law - but also because it hurts people. Even - if in my country - all of those things were legal, I wouldn't agree with it.
    That site is a joke...I don't even waste my time visiting it again.

    >>Me: Again, you see what you want to see.

    D.A.N: Truth

    Here's the proof of your dishonesty...CHECK AND MATE!!!

    >>Yea, someone is lying to you alright. :7)
    yes, you are the one who's lying.

    >>And - as I pointed out many times - you are the one who can't be against slavery, rape, infanticide, genocide, mass murder, incest, etc., because the bible you use as an ultimate authority incites/condones all that

    Are you certain of that? If so, how is it possible to be certain within your worldview? How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    I don't have to answer that: just read those passages from the bible where raped women can be stoned to death; where children are killed; where Lot offers his daughters to be raped by angry men; where Lot's daughters got their father drunk and had sex with him; where rebellious children have to be stoned to death (which you said in one of your comments you would consider doing it if your kids disobey you); killing fetus; etc; etc...

    >> Your argument falls apart when you assume that babies are innocent. You both must understand that we are born evil to understand my point here. No one is innocent. If sin is indeed evil, it is, then we're all evil.
    Babies are not innocent? What did they do for being born evil? So - considering your argument - if babies were evil/guilty too, why god didn't send them to hell instead of sending them to heaven? So - it also means - that you're going hell too, after all you're evil/sinner/guilty in the eyes of your god; it doesn't matter if you're a christian/god believer. I guess I will see you in hell then.

    >> No, you didn't put yourself in our shoes. Or if you did - you didn't learn your lesson.

    >>We are all adults here.

    Nanny nanny boo boo stick your head in doo doo.

    By reading this, I'll change what I said: we are all adults here, except you.

    >>Yes I agree. Please stop doing so.
    Really? You are asking for me to stop lying? Since when I'm lying? I am not the one distorting everything Reynold or me say in here.

    >>Welcome to my world. As a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.

    Ok; answer me this: you don't believe in the hindu goddess Kali. So, does it mean you are denying her, rebelling against her, suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to Kali; denying her existence and professes contempt against Kali?

    Saying I do all that to your god is like saying I'm being rebellious against the Tupã (who is also a mythological god from the indigene culture) because I don't believe in him

    ReplyDelete
  54. D.A.N

    (cont)

    >> So its absolutely and objectively wrong? If so, how is that possible in your worldview?

    Rape, incest, murder, genocide, infanticide, etc, are considered crimes and I consider wrong - not only because is against the law - but also because it hurts people. Even - if in my country - all of those things were legal, I wouldn't agree with it.
    That site is a joke...I don't even waste my time visiting it again.

    >>Me: Again, you see what you want to see.

    D.A.N: Truth

    Here's the proof of your dishonesty...CHECK AND MATE!!!

    >>Yea, someone is lying to you alright. :7)
    yes, you are the one who's lying.

    >>And - as I pointed out many times - you are the one who can't be against slavery, rape, infanticide, genocide, mass murder, incest, etc., because the bible you use as an ultimate authority incites/condones all that

    Are you certain of that? If so, how is it possible to be certain within your worldview? How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    I don't have to answer that: just read those passages from the bible where raped women can be stoned to death; where children are killed; where Lot offers his daughters to be raped by angry men; where Lot's daughters got their father drunk and had sex with him; where rebellious children have to be stoned to death (which you said in one of your comments you would consider doing it if your kids disobey you); killing fetus; etc; etc...

    >> Your argument falls apart when you assume that babies are innocent. You both must understand that we are born evil to understand my point here. No one is innocent. If sin is indeed evil, it is, then we're all evil.
    Babies are not innocent? What did they do for being born evil? So - considering your argument - if babies were evil/guilty too, why god didn't send them to hell instead of sending them to heaven? So - it also means - that you're going hell too, after all you're evil/sinner/guilty in the eyes of your god; it doesn't matter if you're a christian/god believer. I guess I will see you in hell then.

    >> No, you didn't put yourself in our shoes. Or if you did - you didn't learn your lesson.

    >>We are all adults here.

    Nanny nanny boo boo stick your head in doo doo.

    By reading this, I'll change what I said: we are all adults here, except you.

    >>Yes I agree. Please stop doing so.
    Really? You are asking for me to stop lying? Since when I'm lying? I am not the one distorting everything Reynold or me say in here.

    >>Welcome to my world. As a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.

    Ok; answer me this: you don't believe in the hindu goddess Kali. So, does it mean you are denying her, rebelling against her, suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to Kali; denying her existence and professes contempt against Kali?

    Saying I do all that to your god is like saying I'm being rebellious against Tupã (who is also a mythological god from the indigene culture)

    ReplyDelete
  55. D.A.N

    You are a hypocrite. You keep on telling lies about us and then you claim you're doing the same thing to you. All the things I said here was based on your own words and I quoted them for you to see I wasn't taking them out of my arse (like you are doing, you big fat liar)

    ReplyDelete
  56. Reynold,

    >>I pointed out that not all of those people could have possibly deserved that punishment.

    To which I pointed out that we're all born evil. You might want to reread that analogy at the post. You think people don't deserve punishment, but you're not taking in account of their evil actions.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Bellecherie,

    >>Is that right or wrong?

    I am NOT asking IF its wrong I am asking HOW is it be wrong in your professing worldview. I'm asking how you account for things that are absolutely "wrong" with a chance material universe?

    “[A]n evolving, chance universe cannot account for absolute, unchanging, universal laws of logic [and morality]. Indeed, absolute law contradicts the notion of incessant change which necessarily involves relativism.” ~Bahnsen GL (2007) Pushing the Antithesis: The Apologetics Methodology of Greg L. Bahnsen, American Vision, Powder Springs, GA, 207

    ReplyDelete
  58. D.A.N,

    >> I am NOT asking IF its wrong I am asking HOW is it be wrong in your professing worldview. I'm asking how you account for things that are absolutely "wrong" with a chance material universe?

    But I asked you if it was right or wrong and you didn’t answer me. You’re dodging the question. Just answer it: someone begins to distort something you said by giving a different meaning of what you really wanted to say. You call this person on his/her bullshit many times, asking this person to stop being dishonest and yet this person continues to lie, putting in your mouth words you never said. Is that right or wrong?

    I can account for things to be wrong or right due a lot of things: my conscience; my life experiences, the laws in my country contribute to that too; (even though there are things in our constitution I don’t agree with…for example: homophobia is not considered a punishable crime. Homophobia is a hate crime and it should be punished just like racism.); how my parents raised me contribute – in part – to that (there are some things they taught me I don’t agree with it and I never obeyed them in that department because it goes against my moral standards)

    ReplyDelete
  59. I'd ask you to give an example of an absolute, unchanging, universal law of morality but I'm scared of getting hit when you start windmilling your arms wildly in an attempt to handwave away any objections to the examples you're likely to put forward.

    ReplyDelete
  60. D.A.N,

    The example you use '"the girl and the sheep in the snow" got old.

    Besides, the fact someone is good or evil it doesn't depend on some imaginary god.

    Arcodding to your logic - it doesn't matter if you follow god's rules, if you believe in god, if you're a christian, if you pray everyday, if you ask for forgiveness, if you go to church, if you do voluntary work...none of these things are going to erase the fact you're an evil sinner. According to your professing worldview, you're going to hell.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Bellecherie,

    >>Besides, the fact someone is good or evil it doesn't depend on some imaginary god.

    You cannot even account for anything being 'good or evil' without God. Care to try, as I have been asking for some time now?

    >>Arcodding [sic] to your logic - it doesn't matter if you follow god's rules, if you believe in god, if you're a christian, if you pray everyday, if you ask for forgiveness, if you go to church, if you do voluntary work...none of these things are going to erase the fact you're an evil sinner. According to your professing worldview, you're going to hell.

    Well, indeed it doesn't matter if you follow god's rules, if you pray everyday, if you ask for forgiveness, if you go to church, if you do voluntary work...none of these things are going to erase the fact you're an evil sinner. The only way to salvation is NOT through works or anything we do. You are confusing false religions with Christianity. The Word of God, that is Jesus Christ, has done all of the work already. We have been made clean by the Word. False religions have a common denominator and that is there assault on the term "Justification." They are working toward their salvation. We are working as a result of our salvation. The religion we show is a result of what God did. It is an external response. For example, we love because he first loved us, right? The false religions out there have a completely different gospel. As a result they bring their filthy rags and present them to God thinking they are working their way to God. We have been made clean by the Word. The false religions make themselves clean.

    ReplyDelete
  62. D.A.N,

    >>You cannot even account for anything being 'good or evil' without God. Care to try, as I have been asking for some time now?

    Yes, I can. I don't believe in any gods; I don't depend on some mythical divine entity's rules to live by; I don't use some holy book of fiction as guide for moral conduct and yet I don't go out there killing people; hurting children, stoning gays, torturing animals, etc, and why? Because I have empathy - which allows me not wanting/not liking to see others to suffer - and a conscience that tells me all those things are wrong and bad. Not to mention I'll be punished for it and being in jail is not part of my plans.

    My morality and conscience doesn't come - thankfully - from the god you believe in because that god doesn't have a conscience, feels no empathy and is an immoral/unjust/unrighteous bully. I'm not perfect but I am more righteous and moral than the god portrayed in the bible because I don't condone rape, slavery, genocide, homophobia and infanticide. I don't ask people to kill innocents in my name. I would like to think that even you D.A.N is more righteous and moral than your god. But I have my doubts about it because you're always defending/making excuses about your god's bad actions; you always sugarcoating the huge immorality your god has by telling the same old story about the girl and the sheep in the snow, claiming we are evil dirty sinners at god's eyes. You always claim - that no matter how violent god's actions/god is - he knows best/he has his reasons and we should shut up and accept his will without questioning because he's god, he put us in this world and he can take us out of it anytime he wants and sends to eternal torture in hell...sorry for my french...but fuck that!!!

    >> The only way to salvation is NOT through works or anything we do. You are confusing false religions with Christianity. The Word of God, that is Jesus Christ, has done all of the work already. We have been made clean by the Word. False religions have a common denominator and that is there assault on the term "Justification." They are working toward their salvation. We are working as a result of our salvation. The religion we show is a result of what God did. It is an external response. For example, we love because he first loved us, right? The false religions out there have a completely different gospel. As a result they bring their filthy rags and present them to God thinking they are working their way to God. We have been made clean by the Word. The false religions make themselves clean.

    So, if JC came and done all the work by sacrificing himself to save us (which is not much of a sacrifice if you know you're going to ressurrect and rise to heaven) from our past and future sins, so we are not born evil sinners as you claim we are since our sins are already forgiven. And it doesn't matter how much someone screws up, how bad someone is, how many violent/immoral/cruel acts someone commits during his/her life, this person is automatically forgiven and his/her sins automatically forgiven because JC saved him/her 2000 years when he died nailed to the cross.

    The only reason you think we - atheists - can't be accountable to morality/conscience/good/bad/right/wrong is because we don't have/need some god (yours particularly) in your lives telling us thorugh a book on how to live, because we know all that doesn't come from some imaginary invisible higher/superior authority in heaven who rules mankind and the entire universe with an iron fist.

    In your worldview - D.A.N - is like this: no believing in god = no moral standards/no moral guidance/no accountability. That's just fallacious.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Bellecherie ,

    >>In your worldview - D.A.N - is like this: no believing in god = no moral standards/no moral guidance/no accountability. That's just fallacious.

    I completely agree, that would be fallacious. But that is now what is being claimed here, so its an irrelevant thesis on your part. I said without God you cannot account for these things. In other words you're borrowing from my worldview to account for yours. Its reduced to the absurd.

    In a Christian worldview we have a foundation for unchangeable, repeatable, universal reason because it flows directly from the nature of God. You do not. You cannot account for that AT ALL as all you have is randomness, matter and motion. That is it for your worldview. You cannot account for any laws whatsoever.

    If someone rejects Christianity they will end up, if they're honest and consistent, at the bottom with radical skepticism. All bets are off and all up for grabs. Completely arbitrary moral system; it's going to be pick and choose. People don't live like that though, we go to school and turn in papers on time so you can get the grade. With the Atheistic worldview, school doesn't matter; grades don't matter; education doesn't matter; nothing matters with that worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Ok, people - Sye is on the Living Waters webtv program on Friday and I've agreed to debate him one on one there.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Paul,

    Do you mean Here on Friday at 11:30 pst?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Interesting chain of logic. Women and children can be slaughtered because, "we're all born evil"

    1. Taking someone's life is justified if its capital punishment.
    2. Capital punishment is justified against anyone who is evil.
    3. "we're all born evil"
    4. Killing anyone at anytime is justified through capital punishment.

    Go ahead and point out any mistakes in any of the steps. Actually "we're all born evil" really explains why someone can be anti abortion but pro capital punishment, fetuses aren't born yet, so they aren't evil. We have to wait until after they're born to kill them. Thanks for explaining that.

    "pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent."

    I thought there were no innocent in your worldview, so who is it treason against?

    ReplyDelete
  67. MaxFF,

    Initially that sounded like a brilliant argument.

    That is why we all deserve Hell, right? God is justified to remove all of us even.

    Yes, you're justified to do whatever you wish because there is no worse fate then hell if that is your goal. Even if there were no hell at all, as the Atheist's worldview demands, one cannot argue against this either. If life just ends, and there is no purpose, then the argumentation stands. Doing ANYTHING is justified. Moral relativism ensues.

    >>I thought there were no innocent in your worldview, so who is it treason against?

    OK Touché! Why did this just become hard? Someone is bringing their "A" game. I need a moment to think about all of this. I will clarify later. Nice work, I am temporarily stumped. Not that its hard to do.

    ReplyDelete
  68. D.A.N ,

    >> I said without God you cannot account for these things. In other words you're borrowing from my worldview to account for yours. Its reduced to the absurd.

    In a Christian worldview we have a foundation for unchangeable, repeatable, universal reason because it flows directly from the nature of God. You do not. You cannot account for that AT ALL as all you have is randomness, matter and motion. That is it for your worldview. You cannot account for any laws whatsoever.

    But, since I'm an atheist and I'm not a christian you claim I can't be accountable to morality/conscience/good/bad/right/wrong because - according to you/as you said before - I'm without god. In your worldview - for someone to be accountable to morality/conscience/good/bad/right/wrong they have to believe in god and they have to be a christian (like all those things were exclusive christian/god believers values); anyone who doesn't fit those criteria cannot be accountable to anything. Since - according to you - we are not accountable to anything, there's nothing in the world that keeps us from doing something bad like murdering someone, raping a child, etc, when - in fact - there is: empathy and a conscience. You also claim we can't complain when we see something bad/wrong happening to other person - when in fact - we can. I already saw many bad things happening to people and I'm conniving to their suffering by walking away or simply pretending I don't see it. I actually did something to help this person because there were a lot of bad things happening to her thanks to an abusive husband and I didn't want to see her/her kids to get hurt or killed.

    Based on your worldview and how you think about us I would react like this: "So what if she's being beaten practically to death by her drunkard husband on a daily basis? I'm an atheist and I can't be accountable to that. So, I'll just sit here and watch the beatdown."

    >> If someone rejects Christianity they will end up, if they're honest and consistent, at the bottom with radical skepticism. All bets are off and all up for grabs. Completely arbitrary moral system; it's going to be pick and choose.

    Skepticism is a bad thing? Questioning is never a bad thing. It allows you to think more, to learn more and teaches not to be a sheep. But that's what your religion doesn't allow his followers to do: "you should never question our dogmas; you should never question god and his actions/the priest/the num/the pastor because they are authorities and they know better/more than you. You just have to lower your head and accept whatever is handed to you and be thankful for it". Pfffffffffffffffff... that's bullshit.

    It's funny you claiming skepticism to be an arbitrary moral system (when in fact refers to questioning attitude of knowledge and opinions/beliefs stated as facts) when is your religion fits the definition of arbitrary moral system. Your religion is very dogmatic; there's no between; preaches that morality is always objective and universal completely ignoring the differences between societies, individuals and social groups; using your own words “In a Christian worldview we have a foundation for unchangeable, repeatable, universal reason because it flows directly from the nature of God. “; says that or you obey their rules and dogmas or you're out - basically is "my way or the high(hell)way." scare tactics (which is not that scary).

    ReplyDelete
  69. D.A.N,

    >> That is why we all deserve Hell, right?

    Based on the argument you used by saying all of us are born evil sinners, yes. We deserve hell, no matter what we are or what we do.

    >> Even if there were no hell at all, as the Atheist's worldview demands, one cannot argue against this either. If life just ends, and there is no purpose, then the argumentation stands. Doing ANYTHING is justified. Moral relativism ensues.

    We don’t demand there’s no heaven or no hell; we just don’t believe in them because there’s no evidence that proves – without a shadow of doubt – that there’s a hell and a heaven.

    We are good people and we do good things – but since we are not perfect – it’s obvious we make some mistakes once in awhile, do some bad/wrong things once in awhile and since we have a conscience we deeply regret by making those mistakes/bad and wrong things; we say we’re sorry and we move on. We don’t lose our sleep at night thinking “I’m so going to hell for this.” or celebrate in our death bed Yaaayyy, I’m going to heaven and meet the lord because I’m a good person and I never did anything bad in my life!!!”

    ReplyDelete
  70. Bellecherie,

    >>we just don’t believe in them because there’s no evidence that proves – without a shadow of doubt – that there’s a hell and a heaven.

    We all understand just how disingenuous that really is. Because if you actually were an Atheist, it wouldn't be possible to have evidence for some non existing God. All evidence must be interpreted to comport with your naturalism, or atheism. Also, it is my position that everyone already believes that God exists.

    >>We are good people and we do good things – but since we are not perfect – it’s obvious we make some mistakes once in awhile, do some bad/wrong things once in awhile and since we have a conscience we deeply regret by making those mistakes/bad and wrong things...

    There is a huge difference between doing right or wrong and justifying right and wrong.

    Meister states, "By arguing for a belief in or knowledge of morality without providing a justification for morality, atheists confuse moral epistemology (moral knowledge) with moral ontology (foundation existence of morality)."

    Here is the real question: What grounds the atheists' moral position? What makes their moral views more then mere hunches, inklings, or subjective opinions?

    >>we say we’re sorry and we move on. We don’t lose our sleep at night thinking “I’m so going to hell for this.” or celebrate in our death bed Yaaayyy, I’m going to heaven and meet the lord because I’m a good person and I never did anything bad in my life!!!”

    Let's hope all that changes. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  71. D.A.N,

    >>We all understand just how disingenuous that really is. Because if you actually were an Atheist, it wouldn't be possible to have evidence for some non existing God. All evidence must be interpreted to comport with your naturalism, or atheism. Also, it is my position that everyone already believes that God exists.

    How come that is disingenuous? The reason I don't believe in gods because there's no evidence to their existence. I never claimed "I don't believe in god because I know he doesn't exist". You are inverting the burden of proof; since you are the one making the claim that god exists, heaven and hell are real places the burden of proof lies on you.

    For example: if I claimed on your blog in a comment that - during a surgery - I had a cardiac arrest, I was "dead" and I went to heaven and saw Jesus. Everyone here you would ask for some evidence of that, because, you know - personal experiences alone are not evidence for anything. I tell them I don't have any evidence; it was a personal experience. Would they take my word for it? Of course not; they wouldn't believe me and they would tell that. So - I get disappointed at them - and I tell them: "Prove I'm lying". The thing is: they don't have to prove anything; I do. I am the one making the claim I went to heaven and saw Jesus, so the burden of proof lies on me. If someone believes in me by taking my testimony about my personal experience alone as evidence, then this person is a gullible idiot.

    >> There is a huge difference between doing right or wrong and justifying right and wrong.

    I am not justifying right or wrong.

    Another example: I stole US$ 50, 00 from my father, even though knowing stealing is wrong and illegal. My father finds out about it. I would try to justify my mistake by saying to my father I stole his money "because I needed to buy a new pair of shoes" or that "I needed to buy a book for me to study for my exams on college"? No. I would say "I'm sorry, I should've just asked you the money instead of stealing it"; if my father decided to report me to the police and make sure I would be punished by my crime by putting me in jail, I wouldn't make no excuses or justifications or even beg him not to do this to me. I made a mistake and I have to face the consequences.

    >> Here is the real question: What grounds the atheists' moral position? What makes their moral views more then mere hunches, inklings, or subjective opinions?
    Morality is relative and subjective. I can't speak for every atheist; I can only speak for myself: my morality comes from my conscience and my personal experiences, the laws in my country, how my parents raised me contribute - in part - to my morality. The fact I have empathy towards others also contribute to that.

    Do you want an example of it? You consider threatening your own kids with stoning to be a good and effective way to teach them not be rebellious and disobedient. I don't. If I had kids I would never threat them with stoning - because - besides being illegal in my country, my children would fear me instead of respecting me, I consider it to be a awful and despicable form of punishment to be made against anyone. I would never do that to them, no matter how disobedient they were to me. Grounding them would be enough and they would learn their lesson.

    (continues)

    ReplyDelete
  72. D.A.N,

    >>We all understand just how disingenuous that really is. Because if you actually were an Atheist, it wouldn't be possible to have evidence for some non existing God. All evidence must be interpreted to comport with your naturalism, or atheism. Also, it is my position that everyone already believes that God exists.

    How come that is disingenuous? The reason I don't believe in gods because there's no evidence to their existence. I never claimed "I don't believe in god because I know he doesn't exist". You are inverting the burden of proof; since you are the one making the claim that god exists, heaven and hell are real places the burden of proof lies on you.

    For example: if I claimed on your blog in a comment that - during a surgery - I had a cardiac arrest, I was "dead" and I went to heaven and saw Jesus. Everyone here you would ask for some evidence of that, because, you know - personal experiences alone are not evidence for anything. I tell them I don't have any evidence; it was a personal experience. Would they take my word for it? Of course not; they wouldn't believe me and they would tell that. So - I get disappointed at them - and I tell them: "Prove I'm lying". The thing is: they don't have to prove anything; I do. I am the one making the claim I went to heaven and saw Jesus, so the burden of proof lies on me. If someone believes in me by taking my testimony about my personal experience alone as evidence, then this person is a gullible idiot.

    >> There is a huge difference between doing right or wrong and justifying right and wrong.

    I am not justifying right or wrong.

    Another example: I stole US$ 50, 00 from my father, even though knowing stealing is wrong and illegal. My father finds out about it. I would try to justify my mistake by saying to my father I stole his money "because I needed to buy a new pair of shoes" or that "I needed to buy a book for me to study for my exams on college"? No. I would say "I'm sorry, I should've just asked you the money instead of stealing it"; if my father decided to report me to the police and make sure I would be punished by my crime by putting me in jail, I wouldn't make no excuses or justifications or even beg him not to do this to me. I made a mistake and I have to face the consequences.

    >> Here is the real question: What grounds the atheists' moral position? What makes their moral views more then mere hunches, inklings, or subjective opinions?
    Morality is relative and subjective. I can't speak for every atheist; I can only speak for myself: my morality comes from my conscience and my personal experiences, the laws in my country, how my parents raised me contribute - in part - to my morality. The fact I have empathy towards others also contribute to that.

    Do you want an example of it? You consider threatening your own kids with stoning to be a good and effective way to teach them not be rebellious and disobedient. I don't. If I had kids I would never threat them with stoning - because - besides being illegal in my country, my children would fear me instead of respecting me, I consider it to be a awful and despicable form of punishment to be made against anyone. I would never do that to them, no matter how disobedient they were to me. Grounding them would be enough and they would learn their lesson.

    (continues)

    ReplyDelete
  73. (it's bellecherie here, google went nuts again...if appears repeated comments, just ignore them)

    D.A.N,

    >>We all understand just how disingenuous that really is. Because if you actually were an Atheist, it wouldn't be possible to have evidence for some non existing God. All evidence must be interpreted to comport with your naturalism, or atheism. Also, it is my position that everyone already believes that God exists.

    How come that is disingenuous? The reason I don't believe in gods because there's no evidence to their existence. I never claimed "I don't believe in god because I know he doesn't exist". You are inverting the burden of proof; since you are the one making the claim that god exists, heaven and hell are real places the burden of proof lies on you.

    For example: if I claimed on your blog in a comment that - during a surgery - I had a cardiac arrest, I was "dead" and I went to heaven and saw Jesus. Everyone here you would ask for some evidence of that, because, you know - personal experiences alone are not evidence for anything. I tell them I don't have any evidence; it was a personal experience. Would they take my word for it? Of course not; they wouldn't believe me and they would tell that. So - I get disappointed at them - and I tell them: "Prove I'm lying". The thing is: they don't have to prove anything; I do. I am the one making the claim I went to heaven and saw Jesus, so the burden of proof lies on me. If someone believes in me by taking my testimony about my personal experience alone as evidence, then this person is a gullible idiot.

    >> There is a huge difference between doing right or wrong and justifying right and wrong.

    I am not justifying right or wrong.

    Another example: I stole US$ 50, 00 from my father, even though knowing stealing is wrong and illegal. My father finds out about it. I would try to justify my mistake by saying to my father I stole his money "because I needed to buy a new pair of shoes" or that "I needed to buy a book for me to study for my exams on college"? No. I would say "I'm sorry, I should've just asked you the money instead of stealing it"; if my father decided to report me to the police and make sure I would be punished by my crime by putting me in jail, I wouldn't make no excuses or justifications or even beg him not to do this to me. I made a mistake and I have to face the consequences.

    >> Here is the real question: What grounds the atheists' moral position? What makes their moral views more then mere hunches, inklings, or subjective opinions?
    Morality is relative and subjective. I can't speak for every atheist; I can only speak for myself: my morality comes from my conscience and my personal experiences, the laws in my country, how my parents raised me contribute - in part - to my morality. The fact I have empathy towards others also contribute to that.

    Do you want an example of it? You consider threatening your own kids with stoning to be a good and effective way to teach them not be rebellious and disobedient. I don't. If I had kids I would never threat them with stoning - because - besides being illegal in my country, my children would fear me instead of respecting me, I consider it to be a awful and despicable form of punishment to be made against anyone. I would never do that to them, no matter how disobedient they were to me. Grounding them would be enough and they would learn their lesson.

    (continues)

    ReplyDelete
  74. D.A.N,

    (cont)

    Another example: your father considers morally justifiable to take advantage of people while you don't (for what's worth, I don't think is correct/justifiable to take advantage of people either). So, in that case your morality is not objective and it's relative.
    After you said this, you can't keep on claiming moral values are universal and objective. If they were it would be two case scenarios: or your father would consider taking advantage of people being morally wrong; or you would consider taking advantage of people being morally correct and justifiable.

    Also the fact you consider your god's violent actions are righteous and justifiable and when man does it for doing it is bad and wrong also shows your morality is relative; it depends on who does the acts.

    I gave you an example in other post and I put here again:

    "I’m talking to my friend that I consider stealing wrong and those who commit this crime should go to jail. Then my friend says to me: “Well, your father is a thief. So why don’t you turn him in to the police?”. Then I tell her: “Oh, no! He’s my father. It’s not immoral and wrong when he’s the one stealing.”
    “My friend tells me again: “How come? If someone else does the stealing it’s wrong, but when your father does it is right? You can’t have it both ways. Or you consider stealing wrong or you don’t.”
    I answer her. “But my father knows best and I can’t question/doubt his actions.”

    That's how things works between you and your god, D.A.N.

    >>we say we’re sorry and we move on. We don’t lose our sleep at night thinking “I’m so going to hell for this.” or celebrate in our death bed Yaaayyy, I’m going to heaven and meet the lord because I’m a good person and I never did anything bad in my life!!!”

    Let's hope all that changes. :7)

    This not going to happen...do you know why? Because it's a waste of time worrying about some afterlife that - maybe - doesn't exist. I would never waste the only life I have (until proved otherwise) by thinking about it. There are a lot of interesting things on earth for us to enjoy (going to the beach, taking an ice cream, walking with the boyfriend or girlfriend, taking your kid to an amusement park, listening to blasting rock 'n' roll, swimming, watch the stars, reading a nice book, taking the rain, going to a nightclub and dance until your feet hurts, etc), why worry about what's going to happen after you die? I don't lose my sleep over it and I'm fine.

    ReplyDelete
  75. "Yes, you're justified to do whatever you wish because there is no worse fate then hell if that is your goal."

    What is this? Hell? I thought capital punishment was okay in your worldview. Did the Hebrews go to hell for any of the genocides they committed? I thought it was okay to kill them all, even women and children, because everyone is born evil.

    If someone killed your children, would that be a bad thing in your worldview? If so, how? Are your children less wretched and evil than any children that have been killed by the Hebrews in the Bible. Are they somehow better, more innocent? Exactly how is any killing wrong in your worldview? Entire Genocides are okay, and there's no need for trials to find out what crimes people committed, because everyone is born evil, they're all guilty. Why would anyone go to hell for murder, when every murder is capital punishment?

    ReplyDelete
  76. Bellecherie,

    >>That's how things works between you and your god, D.A.N.

    Hardly. Let's give it a try. There is plenty of evidence for God's existence. God has provided it everywhere. God has provided evidence in the stars of the heavens. God has provided evidence in the power of the seas, and the beauty of the forest. God has provided evidence in the intricacy of the human body. God has provided evidence in the course of history. God has provided evidence in the work that He did in the lives of the Israelites. God has provided evidence in the life of his Son and the miracles that were performed in His resurrection. God has provided evidence in the way He judges nations. God has provided evidence in the scriptures, revealing Himself through the prophets and the apostles. God provides evidence when you look at the wonderful harmony of the Bible written over many centuries by many men. God has provided evidence in the way that the Bible itself satisfies the deepest spiritual needs of people. God has provided evidence in the life transforming power of the Bible. We can go on and on.

    You see, plenty of evidence for God.

    >>I would never waste the only life I have (until proved otherwise) by thinking about it.

    Hehe, You do understand that you're writing all this to my blog. The main subject being God. No, you think about it alright. Thanks for your time doing so.

    >>I don't lose my sleep over it and I'm fine.

    Fine, I will, and have, for you. To die is gain.

    >>(it's bellecherie here, google went nuts again...if appears repeated comments, just ignore them)

    Just leave it, they ALL go through to my account. If they do NOT show up in Blogger comments I go and remove EVERYTHING from the Spam filter. No need for duplicating...ever!

    ReplyDelete
  77. MaxFF,

    >>If someone killed your children, would that be a bad thing in your worldview?

    Yes and no. No they will be in Heaven, Yes, because I would miss those maple syrup kisses until I see them again. I would be always humming this song to get me through the daily pain.

    >>Are your children less wretched and evil than any children that have been killed by the Hebrews in the Bible. Are they somehow better, more innocent?

    Well good question, I don't know that one. If followed out, the Canaanite children were under what I call the Old Covenant Messianic Kingdom of David and they may have even perished to exist no more. I am not certain. This point even contradicts my point that God was bringing them home spiel, but God did not prepare a place for them yet...maybe. My kids, thank Jesus, are under Christ’s New Covenant Church Kingdom and are saved forever, and ever, if they get to Heaven young.

    >>Entire Genocides are okay, and there's no need for trials to find out what crimes people committed, because everyone is born evil, they're all guilty.

    Look at a virus, you're committing genocide by getting a vaccine or eradicating all those birds. You are eradicating a community to save yourself and your community. Is that being horrible? You may even say the virus is "bad" for us and that you are punishing the parasite for trying to kill your current community. The virus is evil simply. What justifies you doing such a thing to the balance of nature? Self preservation? Quite at odds with your professing naturalism, since you are intervening with natural forces for self preservation.

    God may have, just maybe, viewed the Canaanite community as a virus that will infect the elect. I believe the Bible, as a whole, states as much even. What you call "shameful" is quite the hypocrite of you to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  78. D.A.N,

    >>That's how things work between you and your god, D.A.N.

    I guess you understood my example wrong. I didn't mention any thing remotely close to the proof of god's existence in the example I gave you. What I meant to say you think god is being righteous and just even though through acts of violence. But when a human being does just for the sake of doing it, then you think is bad/wrong/immoral. Basically according to you - the act itself is righteous/unrighteous; immoral/moral; justifiable/not justifiable depending on who does it or who commanded to be done.

    For me, it doesn't work that way. Such crimes as rape, infanticide, genocide, murder, sexual abuse children and teenagers, slavery, hate crimes, kidnapping, etc, are wrong and immoral, it doesn't matter who does it or who commanded to be done. But - since morality is subjective; there are people who think:
    - rape is justifiable (like the "correctional rape" of homosexual women);
    - genocide is justifiable (like the holocaust in WWII and the genocide in Rwanda);
    - slavery is justifiable (in my country there are farms of sugar cane and cotton where adults and children work long hours without getting paid; the farmers think that slavery is justifiable because they don't spend their profit by paying a monthly salary to those people, by giving them a fair work hours, a weekly recess, a month of paid vacation, making sure their employees' kids go to school, etc)
    - sexual abuse of children and teenagers are justifiable in some countries and even in some religious communities because 12, 13 year old girls are forced to marry with men who are old enough to be their father or even their grandfather;
    - murder is justifiable in some countries like honor killing, death by stoning of homosexuals/women who lost their virginity before getting married/raped women/women who committed adultery/thieves,etc

    Does it mean I agree with all that? Absolutely not. I'm against all those things because it goes against human rights.

    That's why I don't agree with the god portrayed in the bible; because he endorses and commands all those things to be done in his name. That's why I say - at my eyes - I'm way better, moral and righteous than your god. For example: if god asked me to kill my son to prove my faith in him (like he asked Abraham) I would tell god to go fuck himself for asking me to kill my own son.

    (continues)

    ReplyDelete
  79. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  80. D.A.N,

    (cont)
    >> There is plenty of evidence for God's existence. God has provided it everywhere. God has provided evidence in the stars of the heavens. God has provided evidence in the power of the seas, and the beauty of the forest. God has provided evidence in the intricacy of the human body. God has provided evidence in the course of history. God has provided evidence in the work that He did in the lives of the Israelites. God has provided evidence in the life of his Son and the miracles that were performed in His resurrection. God has provided evidence in the way He judges nations. God has provided evidence in the scriptures, revealing Himself through the prophets and the apostles. God provides evidence when you look at the wonderful harmony of the Bible written over many centuries by many men. God has provided evidence in the way that the Bible itself satisfies the deepest spiritual needs of people. God has provided evidence in the life transforming power of the Bible. We can go on and on.

    - The stars are massive and bright balls of plasma held together by gravity and they the are result of interstellar matter, when a cloud of gas becomes gravitationally unstable.
    - The power of the seas (of you mean by the tides) are occasionally caused by the gravitational forces the moon, the sun and the rotation of Earth exerts on the seas.
    - Forests are beautiful due the variety of species of animals and plants; no god needed to explain that;
    - Biology, human physiology and anatomy explain the intricacy of the human body; again no god needed;

    - History is man made. I never saw a history book saying god played an important part in US and his allies winning the WWI and the WWII; or that god played an important part on the declaration of independency of Brazil in 1822 or even the proclamation of the republic in 1889 or in the abolition of slavery in 1888.
    - Sure, god made israelites to become killers of innocent Canaanite people;
    - Where is your evidence (not the bible) that god provided evidence in the life of his son aka god himself in human form, his miracles and his resurrection?
    - Again, circular reasoning: the bible is evidence for god because is the word of god...moving on;
    - The bible is far from being harmonic. It's full of contradictions. Those guys who wrote the bible never came to a common ground;
    - the bible is far from giving me any spiritual comfort when it says I can be stoned to death for being gay, considers me a lesser person because I'm woman and says I deserve to be killed and burn in hell because I'm a non believer.
    - If you mean god gave the bible the power to transform people into hating, hypocrite, homophobic and intolerant believers, then I agree with you.

    >> Fine, I will, and have, for you. To die is gain.

    To die is gain? So everyone should just kill themselves already so they can go to a blissful afterlife. Why wait? (being sarcastic)
    Now, being serious: death is a normal process in life; there's no gain, no loss (besides our own life). It just something that happens to everyone. We are born, we accomplish some things in the between and then we die. We are buried and rot and are eaten by worms or we are cremated and turned into ashes.

    PS: don’t need to lose your sleep over me; if you have to lose your sleep over something…do it because you’re watching TV, listening to music, comforting your kids after they had a nightmare or even making love with your wife

    ReplyDelete
  81. D.A.N,

    >> Look at a virus, you're committing genocide by getting a vaccine or eradicating all those birds. You are eradicating a community to save yourself and your community. Is that being horrible? You may even say the virus is "bad" for us and that you are punishing the parasite for trying to kill your current community. The virus is evil simply. What justifies you doing such a thing to the balance of nature? Self preservation? Quite at odds with your professing naturalism, since you are intervening with natural forces for self preservation.

    Comparing killing a virus with genocide? What??? (facepalm)
    Unless something changed in the world that I’m not aware of, virus are not human beings and killing and keeping the virus from spreading is not genocide. It’s a form of defense.

    Virus aren’t evil. They are infectious agents that replicate only inside the living cells of organisms. But does it mean we have to let the virus follow his nature and see people dying of ebola, swine flu, hepatitis, etc? Of course not.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Mhich,

    >>- The stars are massive and bright balls of plasma held together by gravity and they the are result of interstellar matter, when a cloud of gas becomes gravitationally unstable.

    Did you observe that? How did you get out there? Or did you take it on faith that the scientists made the right "tests" to get those results? Etc, etc. yadda yadda yadda.

    >>It’s a form of defense.

    Great! Hope that helps you understand more. Purging the Canaanites was a form of defense, against evil.

    >>Virus aren’t evil.

    Black death was pure evil. Evil invites filth ans squallier. I just know I will be labeled as a racist with this but, AS AN EXAMPLE, have you ever seen or lived in a Ghetto? It invites evil. Even rich kids are getting diseases by sharing dirty needles.

    >>They are infectious agents that replicate only inside the living cells of organisms.

    Yes, EVIL sure does. Get my points yet?

    >>But does it mean we have to let the virus follow his nature and see people dying of ebola, swine flu, hepatitis, etc? Of course not.

    Which Canaanite do you wish to dash against the rocks first? I think this analogy is now wearing thin.

    ReplyDelete
  83. D.A.N. said...

    Reynold,

    >>I pointed out that not all of those people could have possibly deserved that punishment.


    To which I pointed out that we're all born evil.
    Actually, you originally went and ignored what I said and claimed that I valued the rapists lives over that of their victims.

    You might want to reread that analogy at the post. You think people don't deserve punishment, but you're not taking in account of their evil actions.
    I will ask you again, Dan...what in hell did those babies do to deserve being killed?????????

    You're the one blathering about "their evil actions", after all.

    This shows just how fucking anti-human religious thought can be...when you justify the killing of babies because they're "born evil"!

    ReplyDelete
  84. D.A.N,

    >> Me:The stars are massive and bright balls of plasma held together by gravity and they the are result of interstellar matter, when a cloud of gas becomes gravitationally unstable.

    D.A.N: Did you observe that? How did you get out there? Or did you take it on faith that the scientists made the right "tests" to get those results?

    I observe stars every night and I know there are bright balls of plasma held together by gravity and I didn't take that on faith. I actually read books and sites about astronomy and that's how I know. What we know about stars was discovered by scientists in the field who found out about the stars and their origin through evidence they got through scientific studying and experiment. Scientists didn't take how stars originated out of the arse or based on some mythological faith.

    Now, how do you know Jesus aka god performed miracles and resurrected in the third day? Were you there? Did you observe that? Do you have any concrete evidence of his "rising from the dead" thing (without mentioning the bible)? Or you just base your claims that Jesus aka god performed miracles and resurrected on the third day through personal revelations and a hearsay written 2000 years ago?

    >> Me :It’s a form of defense.

    D.A.N: Great! Hope that helps you understand more. Purging the Canaanites was a form of defense, against evil.

    But the canaanites were virus inside some living organism? No. They were people and they were killed in the name of your god by israelite soldiers. What happened to them wasn’t a defense against evil or capital punishment; it was genocide.

    Comparing killing people with the killing of virus (who are not conscious beings) is wrong.

    >> Black death was pure evil. Evil invites filth ans squallier. I just know I will be labeled as a racist with this but, AS AN EXAMPLE, have you ever seen or lived in a Ghetto? It invites evil. Even rich kids are getting diseases by sharing dirty needles.

    Ok, nature itself (not the human one) is not evil or good; is just indifferent. A virus - when infecting an entire population - doesn't think: "I'm going to infect those people and kill half of Europe because I'm evil". The black plague was result of infestation of rats brought by ships that came from asian countries those rats had an flea which carried the virus of bubonic plague and when someone was bitten by that flea got sick and died in few days. That's what happened. Those rats weren't evil because their fleas' bites infected millions of people. They just found a propitious place with propitious conditions for them to live, get food and reproduce. Unfortunately a lot of people got sick and died.

    What does it have to do with people getting disease by sharing needles with living a ghetto? There are a lot of people who don't live or never went to a ghetto and they still got sick. A virus doesn't "chose" people based on where and how they live; what their sexual orientations are; what habits they have, etc. You are not a racist; you are ignorant and misinformed.

    The Katrina didn't appear with the sole purpose to destroy New Orleans, to kill and hurt people and making other people homeless. It just happened and - unfortunately - New Orleans was at its path.

    >>Me: They are infectious agents that replicate only inside the living cells of organisms.

    D.A.N: Yes, EVIL sure does. Get my points yet?

    No, I don’t get your point because it’s so non sense! My goodness! Evil is a human behavior, not a virus who invades every single cell in your body. So, don't compare evil with virus.

    >> Which Canaanite do you wish to dash against the rocks first?

    To be honest, I would choose no canaanite to dash against a rock. Why? Because killing people is not my thing and the canaanites did nothing bad or wrong - to me or to anyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Reynold;

    D.A.N is going - again - say those babies deserved to be killed because they were born evil sinners.

    Which makes no sense. According to D.A.N's claims; god killed those children so they can live in heaven with him for all eternity because they were innocent. How someone can be innocent and evil sinners at the same time? It makes no sense.
    And - if they were evil - why god sent them to heaven instead of sending them straight to hell?

    There's no sense in D.A.N's logic (if we can call it logic...)

    ReplyDelete
  86. Reynold,

    >>I will ask you again, Dan...what in hell did those babies do to deserve being killed?????????

    I have no clue. Maybe they broke the 5th Commandment and wouldn't take a nap. ALL I have been saying is that there was a REASON why God did what He did and that I trust Him and His reasons. I trust Him to make the right and good choices for us because we know nothing without Him.

    >>This shows just how fucking anti-human religious thought can be...when you justify the killing of babies because they're "born evil"!

    And ONCE AGAIN you have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Mhich,

    >>There's no sense in D.A.N's logic (if we can call it logic...)

    With a standard of logic which does not comport with your worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  88. D.A.N,

    >> I have no clue. Maybe they broke the 5th Commandment and wouldn't take a nap. ALL I have been saying is that there was a REASON why God did what He did and that I trust Him and His reasons. I trust Him to make the right and good choices for us because we know nothing without Him.

    The babies broke the 5th commandment? How come babies killed someone or disrespected their parents (I don't know if you know, but depending on the christian branch, the 5th commandment can be "Thou shalt not kill" and can also be "Honour thy father and thy mother"- btw I never agreed with that "honour thy father and thy mother" commandment; as I pointed out before - respect is to be earned, not given unconditionally because they are your parents, because they put you in this world, etc - but I digress). But how babies - including the unborn ones who died along with their mothers - broke the 5th commandment (whatever that commandment might be)?

    You - once again - proved to have a relative morality (which contradicts your arguments) by saying god is always right and good even when he commands people to kill for him. That's the problem, D.A.N. Tell me if I'm wrong; but from where I'm standing - if your god commanded you to kill someone (a non believer or even someone who works on the 7th day, for example...since your bible tells non believers and people who work on the 7th day should be put to death) at his name, you would do it...after all "there was a REASON why God did what He did and that I trust Him and His reasons. I trust Him to make the right and good choices for us because we know nothing without Him."

    Come on, if you trust god to make the "right and good choices" even through a violent act such as slaughtering innocent people (which you think are not that innocent) because YOU know nothing without him (please, don't include us in your non sense batshit crazy religion/belief/dogma). Which it means you are - basically - a sheep. You never question your religion, your god and your bible. You just accept everything the bible/your god/your religion says and preaches; including the immoral/violent/awful/despicable acts against other living beings (such as rape, slavery, genocide, mass murder, death by stoning, forcing raped women to marry their rapists, incest, infanticide, human sacrifice, animal sacrifice,etc).

    ReplyDelete
  89. D.A.N,

    >> With a standard of logic which does not comport with your worldview.

    it's your religion/belief who doesn't comport logic. Unless you think is logic:
    - the entire universe, earth and all life forms being created in 6 days;
    - earth existing for about 6.000 - 10.000 years
    - Adam originating from a puddle of mud;
    - Eve originating from Adam's rib;
    - a talking snake;
    - Lot's wife turning into a pile of salt;
    - the existence of unicorns mentioned in the bible (would that be The "Almighty" Invisible Pink Unicorn? lol)
    - dinosaurs and humans living together;
    - an ark made of wood carrying a couple of all the species in the world, during the big flood (that must be a big mother fucker big ark; if you consider how many species there are in the world, not to mention the logistic problems - but that's for an article I'll write about it considering the hypotheses of Noah's Ark being real...)
    - Mary getting pregnant without having sex (unless it already existed artificial insemination back then and I didn't know about it)
    - Mary giving birth and still continuing being a virgin;
    - Jesus ressurrecting a dead man and duplicating the fish and bread; turning water into wine;
    - Jesus coming back from the dead after three days and then going up to the heavens, with body and soul;
    - Mary being taken away to the heavens with body and soul;
    - etc

    That's all very logic and rational, alright... (sarcasm)

    PS: you didn't answer this question: Now, how do you know Jesus aka god performed miracles and resurrected in the third day? Were you there? Did you observe that? Do you have any concrete evidence of his "rising from the dead" thing (without mentioning the bible)? Or you just base your claims that Jesus aka god performed miracles and resurrected on the third day through personal revelations and a hearsay written 2000 years ago?

    And - for curiosity - I'll ask you the same thing you asked me: Which Canaanite do you wish to dash against the rocks first? Would you have the stomach to do it?

    ReplyDelete
  90. D.A.N. said...

    Reynold,

    >>I will ask you again, Dan...what in hell did those babies do to deserve being killed?????????


    I have no clue.
    Then why argue for their deaths then? Why call it "capital punishment" instead of what it is, fucking murder?

    Maybe they broke the 5th Commandment and wouldn't take a nap. ALL I have been saying is that there was a REASON why God did what He did and that I trust Him and His reasons. I trust Him to make the right and good choices for us because we know nothing without Him.
    Another baseless assumption. And on that idiocy you're willing to overlook the killing of babies, and it's us atheists who have no basis for morality??

    What evidence is your god even real in the first place? What evidence is there that we'd know nothing without him? Most importantly, even if that were the case, how does that excuse the huge moral double standard here of a being how orders us not to murder, but himself kills babies?

    This shows just how fucking anti-human religious thought can be...when you justify the killing of babies because they're "born evil"!

    And ONCE AGAIN you have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for.
    Bullshit. It's your worldview that cant account for any moral law. All you have is an assumption that those babies deserved to die, based on some book that you assume is "god's word", a "god" who acts morally inconsistent, to say the fucking least.

    And you claim that atheism can't account for morality? You, who's defending genocide by calling it "capital punishment"?

    Holy fuck.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Dan, you said that you wouldn't dash any Caananite against a rock. Oh? What if your god told you to?

    ReplyDelete
  92. Reynold,

    >>Dan, you said that you wouldn't dash any Caananite against a rock. Oh? What if your god told you to?

    I would dash a Canaanite against a rock without God even asking if he attempted to hurt or rape my family. From what I can read, their debauchery included killing children themselves to sacrifice for their god. God telling me to do something about it would be a mere bonus to my resolve.

    Let me guess, you would coddle them in their behavior and call it love? *pshaw

    ReplyDelete
  93. "I would dash a Canaanite against a rock without God even asking if he attempted to hurt or rape my family."

    It's been awhile since I read the Bible but I think the story went something like this. The Hebrews escaped from Egypt, the wandered around the desert for awhile, then when they got out of the desert they found Canaan, which was a nice place with arable land for farming, and they killed everyone there to take the land.

    Specifically what I'm asking is, were there any examples of Canaanites raping or hurting the Hebrews? And I'm not trying to poke a hole in your argument with this question, I'm actually asking because I don't know, and you know the Bible better than I do.

    "From what I can read, their debauchery included killing children themselves to sacrifice for their god."

    Again, exactly where in the Bible, or other sources if you have them, does it describe the behavior of the Canaanites? Things like child sacrifice is a pretty serious accusation, so hopefully you can back it up.

    ReplyDelete
  94. D.A.N,

    >> I would dash a Canaanite against a rock without God even asking if he attempted to hurt or rape my family.

    D.A.N, you never heard anything about reporting criminals to the police instead of "making justice by your own hands"? "(that's not justice, it's payback full of vengeance). Reporting criminals to the police is the right thing to do. They will pay for their crimes by doing jail time (it's not monetary settlement, just saying it before you go distorting my words all over again)

    Besides, the canaanites (specially women and babies) didn't do any of those things to you or to your family. They did nothing wrong to anybody. Your god was the only one who had something (who knows what) against the canaanites and in furious tantrum decided to exterminate them by asking israelite soldiers to do the dirty job for him. Unless you think the canaanites were wrong and evil sinners by simply existing.

    >>From what I can read, their debauchery included killing children themselves to sacrifice for their god. God telling me to do something about it would be a mere bonus to my resolve.

    That already proved my point you are capable to do anything in the name of your god. Man, I wish I was wrong...really. It's sad and disappointing to see someone having no respect for a human life and willing to do whatever necessary in the name of some mithological god. It's saddens me to see human life has no value at all to you D.A.N.

    Then you have the nerve to say atheists can't be accountable to right/wrong/good/bad/conscience/morality. What you said here also proves what I said many times: you are the one who can't be accountable to right/wrong/good/bad/conscience/morality, because you simply have no conscience; you lost it to blind faith, to religion. Your mind is so dependant on what the bible and what your god says that you can't think for yourself and you are able to use what they say to justify your twisted sense of morality. Fom where I standing you are no different from those fundamentalist muslins who are willing to do anything in name of their god.

    I'm shocked because it's the first time I see someone saying what you said.

    My heart is literally aching right now. Now - more than ever - I'm glad to be atheist. I'm glad I don't share the same worldview and ideology with you. If not believing, not accepting and not following the god you believe in makes me a person doomed to burn in hell - according to you - so be it. I prefer to be there with my fellow atheists, skeptics, secular humanists, agnostics, free thinkers and other "heathens" than spending eternity in heaven with people like you. If this is kind of salvation you want for us, I don't want it and I don't need it.

    ReplyDelete
  95. MaxFF,

    >>Specifically what I'm asking is, were there any examples of Canaanites raping or hurting the Hebrews?

    They were harming children, and themselves, by worshiping another god in such a despicable way. It hurts humanity. It was interesting to read the association of the name of Ba'al. Like the term "Beelzebub" (Baal-Zebub) for example.

    >>Again, exactly where in the Bible, or other sources if you have them, does it describe the behavior of the Canaanites?

    Biblical: Jeremiah 32:35, Leviticus 18:21 ( KJV)

    Extra Biblical: Funerary jars have been found with the bodies of young children distorted by suffocation as they struggled for life after having been buried alive as a sacrifice to Canaanite gods. Such young children have been found in the foundation pillars of Canaanite houses, and sometimes religious ceremonies were associated with their sacrifice (Wilson, 1973, p. 85).

    ReplyDelete
  96. Mhich,

    >> Reporting criminals to the police is the right thing to do.

    Police are report takers. 90% + (conservative estimates) of ALL crimes are committed BEFORE police arrive. Test for it yourself. Show me ONE RAPE that was STOPPED by the police. JUST ONE. Its all OUR DUTY to uphold justice for everyone. As a mere example, if your little sister is pinned under some dude, he is with knife who is about to plunge it into her. Are you claiming that you would not get involved but would just merely call the police? Really?

    The police are representatives for us in justice. We appoint them to do that work. We can fire them from that work, if they fail to carry out their job. They're not justice in themselves. Unless its your claim that police NEVER commit crimes, your argument falls apart.

    >>Then you have the nerve to say atheists can't be accountable to right/wrong/good/bad/conscience/morality.

    I never said any such thing. You obvious do not understand. I said you cannot account for truths that are absolute, immaterial, universal like the laws of logic, reason, and yes morality. Of course you are accountable in your morality, because their is a God to be accountable to. In a Christian worldview we have a foundation for unchangeable, repeatable, universal reason because it flows directly from the nature of God. You do not. You cannot account for that AT ALL as all you have is randomness, matter and motion. That is it for your worldview. You cannot account for any laws whatsoever. You have no foundation for these things. That is my point when I say you cannot "account" for these things.

    ReplyDelete
  97. D.A.N,

    >> They were harming children, and themselves, by worshiping another god in such a despicable way.

    Considering your god exists: one day god gets all pissed off (like a 3 year old spoiled brat having a tantrum for not getting all the attention) at hindus because they worship other gods; so he decides to just wipe out from the face of the earth all the hindus because they are not worshiping him; so he asks - for example - christian american soldiers to do his dirty job for him. According to your reasoning, it's not genocide...it's capital punishment against the hindus because they were not worshipers of your god and therefore they got what they deserved. Very nice, D.A.N. It's a way to go: to kill all those who don't believe in your god. Basically is "my way or the high(hell)way".

    >> Its all OUR DUTY to uphold justice for everyone.

    So that's why I should just grab my shotgun (if I had one)and shoot a criminal; because that's justice being done, right? That's not how I do things, D.A.N. If I see a crime being committed I'll call the police. Then the victim can report the crime; there will be an investigation and - in case of getting the criminal and gathering evidences that proves he is guilty - he will be sent to trial; considered guilty by a jury and sent to prison. That's justice. And it all begins with the police doing their job.
    If I see my sister being attacked I'll knock the guy down and then call the police; I wouldn't kill him.

    >> Unless its your claim that police NEVER commit crimes, your argument falls apart.

    First: police committing crimes is not a rule. I live in a country where we have a lot of dirty cops. But does it mean all the cops are corrupted bad guys? No.
    And even - for the sake of argument - if all the cops were dirty, how come that gives me the right to just kill the criminals because they messed with family? That makes me a vengeful vigilante.

    >> I said you cannot account for truths that are absolute, immaterial, universal like the laws of logic, reason, and yes morality.

    You said right there we can't be accountable to morality. When - in fact - you are the one who can't be accountable to it because you are willing to do anything - including immoral acts - in the name of your faith/your god. Period. You are the one who defends your god by saying he's always right and good, even though when he commands/does himself immoral acts as killing an entire population which only "sin" they committed was believing in other gods. You are the one defending genocide saying it was actually "capital punishment". Come on!
    You say we can't be accountable to such things as a conscience and morality just because our moral standards don't come - thankfully - from your god. You say we can't be accountable to morality because - again, thankfully - we don't use a immoral holy book as a guide for moral conduct and as a compass on how to live our lives.
    So, when you say your god's morality is different from ours, I agree with you. My morality is way different ∕better than the morality of the god you believe in. My morality is way different ∕better than yours because I'm against anything than harms people for no reason and I make no lame excuses to justify immoral acts from a petty god (or for anyone else for that matter)
    Thankfully I'm not accountable to the god you believe in.
    What you seem to forget and ignore is: I'M NOT A CHRISTIAN. I DON'T BELIEVE IN GODS. MY MORALITY IS NOT BASED ON SOME IMAGINARY GOD'S TEACHINGS. I DON'T USE THE BIBLE AS ULTIMATE AUTHORITY. AND YET I'M ACCOUNTABLE TO MORALITY AND TO THE LAWS WHICH RUNS MY COUNTRY AND THE WORLD. I DON'T NEED SOME DIVINE FOUNDATION TO BE ACCOUNTABLE TO ALL THOSE THINGS. DID YOU GET MY POINT NOW OR DO YOU WANT ME TO DRAW FOR YOU?

    ReplyDelete
  98. Based on what I saw about D.A.N's sense of morality, I wouldn't be surprised if he agrees with the bigot on this video: (I hope to be wrong...if I'm please, D.A.N, tell me, ok?)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI-4wY9ZOL8&feature=feedfbc

    ReplyDelete
  99. D.A.N. said...

    Reynold,

    >>Dan, you said that you wouldn't dash any Caananite against a rock. Oh? What if your god told you to?


    I would dash a Canaanite against a rock without God even asking if he attempted to hurt or rape my family.
    Even if it was a little baby?

    From what I can read, their debauchery included killing children themselves to sacrifice for their god. God telling me to do something about it would be a mere bonus to my resolve.
    So when they kill their own children, it's debauchery, which I would agree with your assessment here, but when foreigners kill their children, it's by your "holy" god's command, right?

    What's that quote again? "We had to burn the village down in order to save it"?

    Let me guess, you would coddle them in their behavior and call it love? *pshaw
    Wrong guess, dipshit Dan...I' still talking about babies here. Think a little bit.

    ReplyDelete
  100. For more examples of xian moral nuttery, read from here on.

    It touches on Sin as a reason for genocide and Child sacrifice is biblically approved. The section of Archaeology and Canaanite child sacrifice might be illuminating here.

    ReplyDelete
  101. A little bit under that last heading:

    Because he is not a trained biblical scholar, Miller is not sufficiently critical of the interpretations that even Ahlström must be asked to justify. It has long been known that there were a variety of means by which people in Canaan buried their dead. Elizabeth Bloch-Smith summarizes them well: [61]
    Simple graves
    Cist graves
    Storage jars (Pithos) burials
    Anthropoid coffins
    Cremation burials

    In other words, the urns may represent cremation burials, and nothing at those sites tells us otherwise. In fact, Galling himself provides a footnote to articles about "cremated burials." [62] An authoritative summary of the Tel 'Ajjul states:
    "There is some indication of Phoenician-style cremation burials in cemetery 1000."[63] There is no indication of human sacrifice.

    Prof. Stager, on the other hand, overlooks that the vast majority of diseases do not leave evidence on bones. Thus, one cannot, as Prof. Stager does, use this lack of disease in the bones as evidence that these were healthy children. Nor does Miller seem to realize that Jeffrey Schwartz, the official osteologist of the Carthage excavations has come to a very different conclusion about the manner of death of the infants at Carthage. Schwartz says:


    In fact, the statistics at present indicate that, on the basis of cranial and long bone measurements, approximately 81 percent of all individuals in my sample -- whether from single individual urns or double individual urns -- were late third-trimester fetuses...These statistics imply that at least 54 percent, but possibly as many as 81 percent, of the individuals from my sample died of natural causes before they were cremated -- which means, of course, that most of the individuals in this sample had not been sacrificed in the sense of being victims of a blood-killing.

    ReplyDelete
  102. What it says in the article: Moreover, some creationists even use medicalized language, quite similar to that of Nazi ideologues, to explain the necessity of genocide of the Canaanites. Gleason Archer, a renowned evangelical creationist, phrases it thus:

    “Just as the wise surgeon removes dangerous cancer from his patient's body by use of the scalpel, so God employed the Israelites to remove such dangerous malignancies from human society.”

    Archer has no trouble thinking of Canaanite children as being part of the "malignancy" that had to be removed.

    What D.A.N said to MaxFF: "God may have, just maybe, viewed the Canaanite community as a virus that will infect the elect."

    Borderline: canaanites were like an evil disease infecting mankind which deserved to be wiped out from the planet. I see a similar twisted reasoning between Archer and D.A.N.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Reynold,

    Interesting article, btw.

    ReplyDelete
  104. D.A.N.,

    I'm not really here to argue about the typical topic. I don't consider myself well-informed enough nor do I have the time to give enough effort in forming a valid claim about it. Or maybe I'm just not making the time ... Either way, I do have one thing to bring up.

    On both sides of the emotionally charged argument for or against theism or atheism, our ugliness comes out. We say mean things, think mean things, basically just feel aggression toward other people. And while it does take me out of my comfort zone to deal with that kind of aggression, I'm beginning to start to do that - to try and inform myself enough so I can enter the "arena".

    I don't feel, though, that this aggression is necessary.

    For example, you said above, "Yes, EVIL sure does. Get my points yet?"

    That, I feel, is a good sample of the kind of snobby attitude theists and atheists alike take. It's cruel and unproductive. I grew up Catholic, and I remember one of the most influential lessons was that we should turn the other cheek. If you're receiving that sort of aggression, which it seems you are, isn't it best to not return it? There are ways to communicate your point without being rude.

    In fact, I feel that's just a good lesson for arguing in general. There are always going to be emotions involved, and there is always going to be the temptation to make a snide remark here and there. But unless it's done for comedy, it seems to only be unproductive. It makes the other person feel bad, angry, etc., and it allows their emotions to cloud their judgment.

    I find it saddening reading through your blog posts that you often react to angry comments in a manner that certainly seems to be snobbish and somehow superior. I'm not saying it's unwarranted. I'm saying it's unproductive and, if I'm honest, tempts me to forget about forming any opinion in fear that I would be attacked. I won't, but it is tempting.

    Maybe the best way I can say it is that clarity in an argument doesn't require added rudeness. Maybe a little further, the added rudeness might actually take precedence over anything that you said. When you said, "get my points yet?" I had no desire to read back through your points but instead to just walk away. I resisted that desire, but a lot of people won't.

    Finally, you may think that since there is such opposition to religion, an edgier approach is necessary - the being rude is a part of the strategy. It may be true that you need to be more forthright about your claims, but there is a different between being forthright and rude. Similar to the difference between assertive and aggressive.

    I hope that made sense and was somewhat helpful. I may be back to posit some arguments against some of your other points, but at the moment, like I said, I feel I'm not informed enough to defend my positions. But when I do, I will try to be respectful as possible.

    Connor

    ReplyDelete
  105. Connor,

    >>That, I feel, is a good sample of the kind of snobby attitude theists and atheists alike take. It's cruel and unproductive.

    Is being cruel and unproductive wrong? If so, how?

    >>I grew up Catholic, and I remember one of the most influential lessons was that we should turn the other cheek.

    Good advice, did they give that same advice to little alter boys? Yuck!

    Remember in Pulp Fiction when Vincent (John Travolta) said to Wolf "A please would be nice."

    Wolf said "Get it straight buster - I'm not here to say please, I'm here to tell you what to do and if self-preservation is an instinct you possess you'd better do it and do it quick! I'm here to help - if my help's not appreciated then lotsa luck, gentlemen."

    Vincent: "I don't mean any disrespect, I just don't like people barking orders at me."

    The Wolf: "If I'm curt with you it's because time is a factor. I think fast, I talk fast and I need you guys to act fast if you wanna get out of this. So, pretty please... with sugar on top. Clean the car!"

    and scene.

    So if I am curt with you Connor, it's because time really is the factor and you could die tomorrow.

    So pretty please with sugar on top, seek Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  106. D.A.N.,

    >>Is being cruel and unproductive wrong? If so, how?

    I feel being cruel is wrong because it's hurting others when there's the alternative of not hurting others. The rudeness is an unnecessary part of the message itself. If the message itself strikes a nerve, then that's unavoidable.

    Hurting others unnecessarily is wrong because I see others as reflections of myself. We're all human. I don't like to hurt myself, so I try not to hurt others.

    Being unproductive isn't wrong. I decided to assume that you wanted to productive toward a goal with your statements. If I was wrong in that, I'm sorry.

    >>Good advice, did they give that same advice to little alter boys? Yuck!

    I feel like you avoided the advice.

    >>So if I am curt with you Connor, it's because time really is the factor and you could die tomorrow.

    The OED defines curt as, "so brief as to be wanting in courtesy or suavity." The other definitions are all dealing with the length of the message, one saying, "short to a fault."

    If you were truly trying to be curt, all extraneous rudeness would be put aside leaving a clear, concise, perhaps somewhat discourteous message. In other words, if the message is really short and to the point, it might sound rude. But when you add other comments, the altar boy comment, for example, that adds unnecessary rudeness. Unless it's in a comedic context. Then I'd probably laugh.

    Also, it is very true that I could die tomorrow. While I really do appreciate the concern you have for me and possibly all others involved, we each are 100% responsible for ourselves. If I die and go to hell, then that's my problem. It's not up to you to convince me because I can only convince myself. And when I do try to convince myself, if all the messages I've gotten advertising seeking Jesus were rude, then they would be harder than they are already to accept. So if my potential death tomorrow is the reason for your rudeness, which is not curtness, I think the rudeness is unnecessary. It only turns people away. In this time-sensitive situation, I don't think that's a good thing.

    Connor

    *I removed the other comment (June 20, 2011 6:22PM) because I forgot an important point. Sorry!

    ReplyDelete
  107. Conner, the reason that Dan receives so-called hostile replies is because we keep catching him lying, both about us and to us. Read the comments in this post and you'll see what I mean.

    here

    And no, dipshit Dan, I do not value the life of rapists, thank you very much. At least in my worldview you have to actually do something horrible to warrant that dismissal. In your worldview, even babies are born "sinners"!

    ReplyDelete
  108. cja411;

    I've been posting in D.A.N's blog for quite some time and - based on what I saw in his comments and posts about D.A.N avoiding things we said to him:

    1 - sometimes he doesn't answers, which is ok...he doesn't have to and I respect that (in case he doesn't answer one of my questions, I ask him again just one more time; if he still doesn't answer I don't insist, because - maybe - it means he doesn't know the answer)

    2 - he avoids what we say to him by adressing different issues which have nothing to do with what we said in the first place;

    3 - D.A.N does this thing which he understands things we say here as he wants to understand. He sees things the way he wants to see, no matter how much you explain to him he's wrong about what the original message really meant. He gives meanings to things we say here that have nothing to do with what we wanted to get across. Basically, I say "potato" he understands "horse" just for you to see how much he misinterprets almost everything in our comments;

    4 - I agree with you that being rude is not nice, but - sometimes - it really hits a nerve, specially when there is dishonesty and lies in the middle of the discussion - which comes from D.A.N (he knows what I'm talking about) and since "turning the other cheek" is just a way to make the person who attacks to keep on with the attacks without being called out on his/her bullshit and it's a completely uneffective way to solve things, because simply doesn't solve anything.

    ReplyDelete
  109. To Mhich,

    Concerning #4, when I say "turn the other cheek," I do not mean to stop calling someone out on his/her BS. I mean to not return the kind of aggression. Maintaining the debate is crucial, of course. Also, I feel that while being rude can hit a nerve, being clear, penetrating, and persistent with what you are saying is more effective.

    I have to admit, I mildly regret saying anything. I understand that people have the right to speak in their own way, rude or not. Also, rudeness is subjective, and I have been known to take offense too easily.

    It was all in the spirit of helping out, though.

    Connor

    ReplyDelete
  110. Connor,

    But sometimes is difficult not winding up being rude to someone, specially when the person continues to lie even after being called out. D.A.N distorts almost every coment we make to fit in the idea atheists are not moral people. Two examples:

    1 - he said I would be whore if I made a monetary/court settlement to a rapist. Then he came with the excuse he understood making the rapist pay for crimes for monetary settlement even after I told him a hundred times I would make the rapist pay for his crime by reporting the crime, making sure he would judged, condemned and sent to jail for a long time;

    2 - Reynold said he values human life and D.A.N came with this "you value a child rapist over a child" argument. What one thing has to do with the other?

    3 - So, Reynold and I called him out on his bullshit and tried to explain to him a lot of times what we meant to say and he continued being dishonest and a liar. So, no wonder Reynold and I were rude to him.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Dan The Dishonest asked Is being cruel and unproductive wrong? If so, how?

    Connor replied: I feel being cruel is wrong because it's hurting others when there's the alternative of not hurting others

    As someone who used to spend time trying to get Dan to be reasonable, Connor, I'm familiar with both the style and content of what he write. His above question was disingenuous; he had no intention of either responding to what you originally wrote, or listening to how you might reply to his question. His goal was simply to shut you up.

    I agree with you, in that hostility often adds nothing to the conversation, and is even more often counter-productive.

    Should you decide to hang around and comment further here, I'm confident you'll begin to understand why much of Dan's readership appears hostile. I myself no longer post here, because I found hostility to be the only intelligible response Dan was worthy of.

    Maybe you'll come to a different conclusion...

    ReplyDelete
  112. In any case, I'm not criticizing what you wrote, Connor.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Connor,

    >>I feel being cruel is wrong because it's hurting others when there's the alternative of not hurting others.

    You feel? So its merely subjective or more accurately, you're a relativist. You cannot "complain" that others feel that being rude is a good thing if you are consistent with your worldview. If things are relative, as your worldview demands, then how is it that you are complaining when others are doing something different then what you feel. By complaining you are being inconsistent that your worldview doesn't agree with. I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview, but rather I urge you to repent of it.

    Is what I am doing absolutely wrong? If not, you have no argument.

    “[A]n evolving, chance universe cannot account for absolute, unchanging, universal laws of logic. Indeed, absolute law contradicts the notion of incessant change which necessarily involves relativism.” ~Bahnsen GL (2007) Pushing the Antithesis: The Apologetics Methodology of Greg L. Bahnsen, American Vision, Powder Springs, GA, 207

    In a Christian worldview we have a foundation for unchangeable, repeatable, universal reason because it flows directly from the nature of God. You do not. I believe you cannot account for that AT ALL as all you have is randomness, matter and motion. That is it for your worldview. You cannot account for any laws whatsoever. Care to try?

    >>I feel like you avoided the advice.

    Was that wrong to do? If so how, within your worldview? It is not at all my claim that your reasoning is faulty, I simply want to know your basis for assuming that it isn't.

    >>But when you add other comments, the altar boy comment, for example, that adds unnecessary rudeness.

    With a standard of logic which does not comport with your worldview.

    >>It's not up to you to convince me because I can only convince myself.

    My argument is not intended to be convincing, I am merely commanded to speak the truth, 'convincing' is out of my hands.

    >>And when I do try to convince myself, if all the messages I've gotten advertising seeking Jesus were rude, then they would be harder than they are already to accept.

    You do not have that ability. How do you know that you can convince yourself?

    >>It only turns people away.

    How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid? Could you be wrong about this, or any, point? If not, how?

    *Please stay with me for a little more, a point will be made.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Reynold,

    >>Conner, the reason that Dan receives so-called hostile replies is because we keep catching him lying, both about us and to us.

    Was that wrong to do? Is lying wrong? If so how, within your worldview? Have you addressed THIS point yet?

    ReplyDelete
  115. Mhich,

    >>So, Reynold and I called him out on his bullshit and tried to explain to him a lot of times what we meant to say and he continued being dishonest and a liar.

    Is lying wrong? If so, how can it be within your worldview?

    Y'all are speaking if morality and reason are universal. Are they?

    ReplyDelete
  116. Wem,

    >>I agree with you, in that hostility often adds nothing to the conversation, and is even more often counter-productive.

    So morality is a consensus? In that, all morality must be agree'd upon in order for it to be universal? Otherwise, your argument falls apart.

    >>His above question was disingenuous; he had no intention of either responding to what you originally wrote, or listening to how you might reply to his question. His goal was simply to shut you up.

    How do you KNOW this? The past? Do you use your reasoning when you reason about the past 'success' of your reasoning? Obviously you do, which makes your position viciously circular. Also, assuming that you have nothing else to go on, begs the question AND commits the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

    >>I myself no longer post here, because I found hostility to be the only intelligible response Dan was worthy of.

    Bwahahaha, SURE that is the reason. Who is full of lies now? Hypocrisy, its your strongest suite.

    Claiming that you "no longer post here" in a post here was very entertaining to say the least. Thanks for that, please stick around, my personal Jester.

    Sure I evoke responses that your worldview CANNOT account for. You cannot claim that things are wrong at all. So I act wrong to get that UNIVERSAL response from y'all. You collectively, obviously, feel that its wrong. YET, you have a atheistic worldview that cannot account for universals. Oh, and please do not cry foul Wem, you certainly have an atheistic worldview no matter what you claim. I am merely making an observation about all of you that is certainly consistent with how we all feel. Being rune is indeed wrong. I have an account for why its wrong, God, you all cannot have the same account as I do. So the question is for all, minus a true Deists, as you as to HOW its wrong within your worldview of no God?

    Incidentally Wem, I have YET to hear you claim that its wrong because it flows from our Creator. NOT ONCE! So please either point me in that direction where you did indeed say that, at S.M.R.T. even, or put that "claim" aside that you're a Deist.

    ReplyDelete
  117. D.A.N.,

    >>So the question is for all ... how it's wrong within your worldview of no God?

    I can see your point here, and I will say that I don't know. I'm not informed enough to know where our morality comes from, I have heard that it comes from human needs and interests. Maybe it's wrong because it conflicts with my need for love and my interest in understanding.

    I think there is a case to be made for that, too. You said, "I have an account for why its wrong, God, you all cannot have the same account as I do."

    What exactly does God say about rudeness and why it's wrong? Or, in a broader sense, what does God say is moral and immoral? It seems that interpretations have changed over the years, and there certainly seems to be a difference in interpretation today (different religions, different denominations within those religions, etc.). The interpretation of God's word seems to be subjective to me. How can you know that yours is the correct one, even with faith which potentially belongs to members of any theistic religion?

    Also, you determined that I'm a relativist because I said "I feel ...". I think you're giving me too much credit. I say "I feel" because I'm unsure. I don't have the confidence or knowledge to go with "I know" or "It is true that." At least with everything.

    Connor

    ReplyDelete
  118. D.A.N,

    Is lying wrong? If so, how can it be within your worldview?

    My goodness D.A.N!!! Are you such an ignorant person since birth or for majority of votes? Sometimes I think you're not for real, because such ignorance in just one person can't be possible!

    The issue adressed at this moment is not about "lying being wrong or not"...The issue adressed here is your dishonesty. Damn!
    But since, you adressed this issue now, I'll answer you: lying could be right or wrong; it depends on the situation.

    For example: you distorting, twisting and giving false interpretations about certain subjects adressed by Reynold and I in your blog to fit in the opinion you have atheists are not accountable to morality, since we don't use some god as a role model and the bible as a guide for moral conduct and - as, again, according to you - we support evil by valuing human life (which in nowhere in our comments we claimed supporting evil - because - let's be honest - this is an interpretation you pulled out of your arse) is wrong. Unless you're the kind of person who enjoys having your words' meanings completely distorted and enjoys being lied to. Do you?

    You use lies and twists our words because - at least in my opinion - you simply have no intention to answer the questions we adress you; which makes me think we are constantly hitting your nerves by asking them constantly. So - again, in my opinion - you use as tactics lies, misinterpretations and deceit to avoid those questions.

    Then - to avoid the real issue - you come with this "how can something be wrong in your worldview?" bullcrap. So, this time I'll ask you almost the same thing: how something can be right or wrong in your worldview since your moral compass always depends on what your god/bible says? The same god/bible that endorses evil/despicable acts such as genocide (which you defend claiming is capital punishment for who knows what); infanticide (which you also defend by claiming your god is being merciful by killing children); slavery, rape, mass murder, human sacrifice, treating women like lesser beings, death by stoning, etc. Which means you are the one suportting evil acts (as long as they are done in the name of your "merciful and loving" god) and you are the one who values a arbitrary set of dogmas from some arbitrary mythical god over all human lives.

    Since I don't support those evil acts mentioned in your bible and I don't use god/bible as guides for moral conduct like you do, my morality is completely different from yours. Which already proves morality is relative and subjective, entiendes?

    ReplyDelete
  119. Mhich wrote (of Dan whose blog attracts Atheists thatDebunk him): Sometimes I think you're not for real, because such ignorance in just one person can't be possible!

    I think the clue is found just above the comment box here. Dan isn't concerned with the truth, nor does he care to represent his readers' opinions accurately, nor does he worry that what he's saying makes sense or not.

    This is nothing but a game.

    In which case, we really shouldn't take him at face value. We should assume he doesn't really mean what he says, because the only point to this blog is to beat your opponent in a contest in which Dan gets to make up the rules as he wishes.

    ReplyDelete
  120. D.A.N. said... (to Mhich)

    As usual Dan, when challenged, resorts to his presupp rubbish.

    Is lying wrong?

    Yes.

    If so, how can it be within your worldview

    Because lying causes harm.

    Y'all are speaking if morality and reason are universal. Are they?

    I have no idea. None of us have made a claim to omniscience like you have Dan. I'm happy to concede that there are instances where lying could be considered right - to use the old cliche, lying to a Nazi about the whereabouts of a Jew.

    You of course claim that morality is absolute despite your complete inability to back up that claim.

    Can you give us a moral that is absolute?

    After all you've actively shown that you don't really believe in absolute morality when you claimed that your God must have sufficient moral justification to commit genocide - totally contradicting any claim you might make that murder is absolutely wrong.

    Maybe you could do us the courtesy of answering Euthyphro's dilemma?

    ReplyDelete
  121. Conner,

    >> I'm not informed enough to know where our morality comes from, I have heard that it comes from human needs and interests.

    Out of character, I appreciate your honesty and reflection. This is all I wish for the others here. To, instead of being combative, to reflect on these subjects to try to understand themselves and what they believe more.

    In character, you cannot know because without God its impossible to know anything. If it did come from the subjectivity of human needs and interests then morals someday may change. Rape, for example, may be perfectly fine someday. If the population diminishes as a for instance. That if humans even pass laws that its OK to rape 13-45 year old woman for the express purpose to repopulate the planet. Much like Sea lions. Will that make rape perfectly acceptable? Would you go and rape a girl because its legal to do so now? If not, why not?

    >>What exactly does God say about rudeness and why it's wrong?

    Well, this is why I am asking you these questions, to get you to think about it for a moment. How do you KNOW anything in your worldview? You, rightfully, expressed an 'unsure' position.

    The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything. It is the Christian position that God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them.

    Understand though that I am not here to coddle people, to me that is not love at all. Perfect love is a constant confronter.

    Matthew 22:39, Leviticus 19:17-18 tells us how to treat people so that is what I do. I am not here to strive for popularity. It takes far more love to confront to ignore the situation.

    As it says it Matthew, "And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself"

    But what does this truly mean? Does that mean we are to love them no matter what they do because we are sinners also? Do we coddle them in their sins, tell them God loves them no matter what? Nope, Jesus was clear when he said this. He was telling us what the standard was. The way to show your love to your neighbor is to warn them and their sins will take them to hell.

    The only way you can show your love to your neighbor was outlined in Leviticus 19:17-18 "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the LORD."

    These are harsh words sometimes. Just because it appears that I am being a jerk to them does not mean that I am one. I know I don't have to explain things to you but I just want you to know that I try to do things out of love, not hate. I also fully understand that truth always is confrontational, there is always someone on the wrong side of truth. This is a very serious and real subject for you and I. If I didn't love you enough to tell you the truth, then I wouldn't. Truth hurts, I understand. My Dad always said that only a friend will tell a friend that they stink. An enemy would never tell you that spinach is in between your teeth. I would. Just understand that one thing.

    (To be cont'd)

    ReplyDelete
  122. Conner Cont'd,

    Perception is key here. This is a bad example because of the shallowness of the subject, but if your wife asks you if those jeans makes her look fat, you can answer in many ways. You could lie and say no. She feels great but lives in delusion. You could smooth it out to divert the attention to a better outfit that you like. She continues to not know the truth that is merely set aside for a short time. You can be truthful and flat out say yes. She thinks you're rude, and makes you sleep on the couch even, but truth was revealed. Atheists believe I am rude or obnoxious to them, at times I have been, but its always out of love for them enough, to be truthful to them.

    >>The interpretation of God's word seems to be subjective to me.

    It can be. Instead of saying what do these verses mean to me, we should say what do these verses mean. Period.

    >>How can you know that yours is the correct one, even with faith which potentially belongs to members of any theistic religion?

    First, I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Also, personally I use an Exegesis method of interpretation instead of an eisegesis method. Does this mean that eisegesis is wrong, I would say yes, because it is a capricious attitude. It may even be breaking the 2nd Commandment and making a god to suite yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Mhich,

    >>The issue adressed at this moment is not about "lying being wrong or not"...The issue adressed here is your dishonesty. Damn!

    Fine. Is being dishonest wrong? If so, how can it be within your worldview? :7)

    >>how something can be right or wrong in your worldview since your moral compass always depends on what your god/bible says?

    Well, because things stem from our Creator to know what is right or wrong. He is the Creator and Establisher of all else. God's immutability also makes things consistent.

    >>The same god/bible that endorses evil/despicable acts such as...

    Would you agree that perception has a key role in all of these?

    >>Since I don't support those evil acts mentioned in your bible and I don't use god/bible as guides for moral conduct like you do, my morality is completely different from yours.

    *sigh Before we address that you have made some assumptions of your point that you will have to defend before the claim is even valid. Like Razi Zacharias said that I highlight in one of my posts, you have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for. That is your presupposition of the claim, is it not? Otherwise, the claim self destructs.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Wem,

    >>We should assume he doesn't really mean what he says, because the only point to this blog is to beat your opponent in a contest in which Dan gets to make up the rules as he wishes.

    Where I agree that I am quite competitive and love to win a good argument, if I do "win" then we both win because a win for me is you submitting to Christ. If that does happen, we both win. Besides, as you're quite aware, the only 'rule' is for you to bring your "A" game. Evidence of that will be a miracle in itself. :7)

    Remember I said to you..."Incidentally Wem, I have YET to hear you claim that its wrong because it flows from our Creator. NOT ONCE! So please either point me in that direction where you did indeed say that, at S.M.R.T. even, or put that "claim" aside that you're a Deist."

    Anything to show yet? Your avoidance, and silence, is quite telling as your "a" game. Thanks for that. Form this day forward I will consider you an Atheist. Unless, of course, you claim God is the Creator that is. Is He?

    Whatever Jon.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Freddies Dead,

    >>Because lying causes harm.

    Is causing harm is wrong? If so, how? How can you claim that harming others is wrong in a random universe. Harm could be the right thing to do. How can you KNOW that it isn't?

    >>After all you've actively shown that you don't really believe in absolute morality when you claimed that your God must have sufficient moral justification to commit genocide - totally contradicting any claim you might make that murder is absolutely wrong.

    You claiming that its genocide does NOT mean that it was in the term that you are meaning it. In a negative connotation. Its your claim so you MUST provide any evidence that it was indeed genocide. It was, as well documented, capital punishment.

    Is genocide wrong? If so, how? I just learned that the word 'genocide' was invented in 1944 and it referenced the extermination of the Jews, by the Nazis. I am sure we all agree that was wrong and without good reason.

    Now, I must also admit, for the sake of truth, that it may be genocide also. If it means in the strictest and narrow of sense genos (Greek for family, tribe, or race) and -cide (Latin for killing) then yes the killing of the Canaanites was genocide. If you are injecting that genocide is wrong, like the Nazis killing the Jews was, then I disagree.

    "Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aimed at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves." ~ Raphael Lemkin

    That is NOT the same. If there were a tribe that ditched their babies into fire we would seek to stop that even today. Granted we would not dash the babies into the rocks to accomplish that, but just because we have different forms of punishment, then the past, does not make it better. The aim was annihilation of the religion, practices, and evil of the Canaanites. The result was the destruction of all of them. Maybe, because of the limited resources, that was the only way to do such a thing.

    >>Can you give us a moral that is absolute?

    1st and 2nd Commandments. Serving other gods, other then God, is absolutely wrong.

    Euthyphro's dilemma is quite easy for me. Its morally good, commanded by God, because it stems from His nature. Next?

    ReplyDelete
  126. Euthyphro's dilemma is quite easy for me. Its morally good, commanded by God, because it stems from His nature. Next?

    Yup. Good is whatever God says is good. Thus, rape, torture, intoxication, fornication, lying, stealing - none of those are absolutely wrong.

    Dan is the ultimate moral relativist. At least he's finally admitted it

    ReplyDelete
  127. "Is causing harm is wrong? If so, how? How can you claim that harming others is wrong in a random universe. Harm could be the right thing to do. How can you KNOW that it isn't?"

    I'm pretty sure people have tried to explain this before, but I'll try this again. People, as well as some other animals, have empathy. It gives humans a predisposition toward cooperation. I don't expect you to accept this as a basis for morality, but I'm hoping you can at least understand how empathy, and cooperation, can give a survival advantage, compared to not cooperating. It is literally in your best interests to work with other people rather than try to make all your own clothes, grow your own food, make your own shelter, and provide all your own needs. Empathy gives people a predisposition for this kind of cooperation.

    How can we say it's wrong? Because empathy tells us its wrong. Now not all people are identical and there are sociopaths who do not have empathy. They are dangerous to society. We don't punish them in the name of God, or the victims, we do it on behalf of the entire society. Have you noticed that violent crimes are not considered crimes against victims, but are crimes against the state? Anti-cooperative behavior puts everyone in danger.

    Good morals will literally triumph over bad morals, because anti-cooperative behavior will always be defeated by cooperative behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  128. D.A.N,

    >> Is being dishonest wrong? If so, how can it be within your worldview?

    Avoiding the real issue by changing the subject, again? This argument you keep bringing up is getting older each time you use it.

    >>Well, because things stem from our Creator to know what is right or wrong. He is the Creator and Establisher of all else. God's immutability also makes things consistent.

    Since you are only accountable to your god and the bible, how can you be accountable to morality since the god/bible you follow (and so strongly defend) are completely intolerant/violent/immoral by endorsing murder, slavery, rape, infanticide, abortion (which you seem to be against), etc? Or your christian worldview says all those things are right, justifiable and unquestionable only when your god/bible says it is?

    >> Would you agree that perception has a key role in all of these?

    It's not a perception; it's what your god/bible says. The bible you follow says a raped woman should marry the man who raped her and the rapist should pay her father some money over his "damaged property" (that's called monetary settlement for a crime); it says a disobedient child should be taken to the limits of town and be stoned to death by the elders; it says non believers, homosexuals and people who work on the 7th day should be put to death; the list goes and on and on... Let's face it; your book and your religion are outdated; it has nothing to do with the modern world and society we live in. Someone who lives following such an outdated book and religion could be as well living in the dark ages or - better yet - in the bronze age when your holy fairy tale book was written.


    >> Before we address that you have made some assumptions of your point that you will have to defend before the claim is even valid.

    Let me explain you something: all those acts endorsed by your bible and your god are not only wrong and immoral but also illegal. Try to enslave someone, to stone one of your children, to sell your daughter to her rapist or to offer her to an angry mob to spare some strange visitors from sexual violence to see what happens to you.

    >> Isn't it rather unrealistic, and perhaps self centered, for God to condemn a bunch of Atheists, who don't believe in him, when He hasn't given them any convincing reason to believe in Him?

    If god really exists he's doing a pretty lousy job at showing it (unless you consider seeing some stain in your toast that resembles a guy with long hair and a beard to be a convincing evidence for his existence).
    The reason why I'm an atheist is because there's no evidence that gods exist. If god really exists and wants us to know, how should give a hell of evidence that it would be against all the natural laws that rules our world and the universe at the same time for the entire world to see. And that's not what happens.

    Your belief in god is based - besides faith - in your personal experiences and I don't believe in personal experiences which have no evidence that validates them.
    Faith is when you believe in something even when you don't have evidence that proves that something to be real. Basically, if you had evidence you wouldn't need faith.

    I don't have to believe in some god when there's no evidence to prove he is real. For argument's sake: your god really exists and he - who knows why - doesn't show himself to us. So, he can't demand us to believe in him because we don't have proof to know he is real; he can't blame and punish us for something that it's actually his fault.

    Razi Zacharias didn't answer the question. He did the same thing you do: avoided the question by bringing some subject that has nothing to do with the question. The question wasn't about god's morality; it wasn't about moral laws and good and evil; it was about god not showing his existence and punishing people for it.

    ReplyDelete
  129. D.A.N,

    >> What you said: I just learned that the word 'genocide' was invented in 1944 and it referenced the extermination of the Jews, by the Nazis. I am sure we all agree that was wrong and without good reason.

    Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a social group based on race, political views, religion, nationality or culture. Capital punishment, is the sentence of death upon a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offence. The offence here can be subjective; in Islamic theocracies women get capital punishment (aka death by stoning) for adultery (actually is rape, but they blame the woman – not the rapist - for the crime committed against her; which is totally unfair to the women, but I digress)

    The killing hutus and tutsis in Rwanda was a genocide. The killing of the Canaanites was a genocide. The killing of muslins during the Crusades was genocide.

    Now, the sentence Ted Bundy got was capital punishment because he was prosecuted, considered guilty and his crimes were so revolting and horrid that it was considered a huge offence to society.

    What did the Canaanites did exactly to deserve capital punishment? Your imaginary god didn’t like the Canaanites worshiped another imaginary gods?

    If – one day – someone kills me because I’m an atheist, it will be capital punishment instead of plain homicide; which - according to what you say - I had it coming because I don’t believe in gods?

    ReplyDelete
  130. MaxFF,

    >>People, as well as some other animals, have empathy.

    How do you KNOW empathy is right? .

    >>It gives humans a predisposition toward cooperation.

    Is cooperation good? Cooperation could be the wrong thing to do, how do you KNOW it is right?

    >>I don't expect you to accept this as a basis for morality, but I'm hoping you can at least understand how empathy, and cooperation, can give a survival advantage, compared to not cooperating.

    Survival advantage? One would survive MORE by eliminating competition. Look at capitalism, monopoly would be preferred from the business's standpoint. How do you KNOW empathy and cooperation is actually preferred?

    >>It is literally in your best interests to work with other people rather than try to make all your own clothes, grow your own food, make your own shelter, and provide all your own needs.

    Doesn't that just make you codependent? Codependent is not a positive by any stretch. One could argue that depending on others is actually a bad thing. Look at how the US was created. We were dependent on the UK. Freeing slaves and allowing their independence was a good thing. I am sure their master demanded cooperation from them and empathized with them by allowing them to live, and eat the scraps they provided. My point is that how can you KNOW that your position is better then others?

    >>How can we say it's wrong? Because empathy tells us its wrong.

    So "empathy" commands, leads, and has a mind? Isn't that like saying Natural selection? If its natural, how can it select?

    >>They are dangerous to society.

    Again with a knowledge claim. *Sigh How do you KNOW this? Could evidence in the future show that to be false?

    >>Anti-cooperative behavior puts everyone in danger.

    What makes societies preferable? Who decided that? Is it merely subjective?

    >>Good morals will literally triumph over bad morals, because anti-cooperative behavior will always be defeated by cooperative behavior.

    So good is better then bad? Is that universal? Is that absolute? You do understand that you're arguing from my worldview now. You cannot claim this without the absolute standard that is in my worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  131. "How do you KNOW empathy is right? "

    It leads to cooperation which is the cornerstone of civilization.

    "Is cooperation good? Cooperation could be the wrong thing to do, how do you KNOW it is right?"

    Cooperation leads to civilization and makes our lives easier. If you want, you can burn own your house, destroy all your belongings, and live deep in the forest, making your on weapons and tools, and build your own shelter, and hunt your own food etc. Most people prefer a steady supply of food, and a reasonable sense of security instead of a dangerous uncertain life. If you still don't understand the benefits of cooperation, you may want to research division of labor. People specializing in different jobs is more productive, than everyone spending all their time gathering the minimum food for survival.

    "Survival advantage? One would survive MORE by eliminating competition. Look at capitalism, monopoly would be preferred from the business's standpoint. How do you KNOW empathy and cooperation is actually preferred?"

    If there is enough food for everyone then there is no need for competition. Once again, division of labor produces more food. Secondly if you try to take out your "competition" you will be perceived as a threat, and rightly so, since you are killing people, you are dangerous. There's a good chance someone will eventually kill you to protect their own life. Cooperation provides more security than trying to fight everyone you meet.

    "Doesn't that just make you codependent? Codependent is not a positive by any stretch."

    Once again, you are free to destroy everything you own made by someone else, and live in some remote location by yourself, making everything you use, if you hate being codependent. The rest of us will enjoy a steady supply of food and all the other benefits of society.

    Since you seem to have a serious problem comprehending the benefits of cooperation and division of labor there's not much point in continuing the conversation. Let me know if you figure it out.

    ReplyDelete
  132. D.A.N,

    >> So good is better then bad? (…) You do understand that you're arguing from my worldview now. You cannot claim this without the absolute standard that is in my worldview.

    Are we arguing from your worldview? Seriously? You worldview is not responsible for the concepts of good and bad. Your religion took that from non religious/humanist worldviews and claims to own that standard. Which it doesn’t. And your religion – still not happy – gave her own interpretation and standards to what she considers to be right and wrong and decided they should be dogmas. What your religion (and other organized religions) preach are completely outdated and has no value/use/importance in modern societies.

    Not too mention your religion is pretty much hypocritical to mention is a force for good in the world when some of her actions and policy shows exactly the contrary when your it ignores/goes against human rights in the name of those dogmas. That’s why religions are starting to decline in some countries. Those countries realized religious outdated dogmas/beliefs have no place in there. Thankfully (I hope that happens in my country too – if it happens in my lifetime it will be even better or else I’ll have to move to New Zealand…lol)

    Basically, religions are digging their own grave.

    ReplyDelete
  133. D.A.N. said...

    Freddies Dead,

    >>Because lying causes harm.

    Is causing harm is wrong? If so, how?

    Yes, by definition.

    How can you claim that harming others is wrong in a random universe.

    What random universe? Maybe you'd like to join us in this universe which has physical laws governing actions and reactions i.e. not random.

    Harm could be the right thing to do.

    It could be, in certain circumstances i.e. a doctor cutting into a patient to take out a tumour. I never claimed ethical situations were easy.

    How can you KNOW that it isn't?

    Depends on your definition of 'KNOW' in this instance. If you mean the general usage of the term then I 'KNOW' by experience. If you're using 'KNOW' to mean being 100% absolutely certain then I will say that I don't 'KNOW'. I don't see how anyone could be 100% certain without being omniscient. Maybe you could explain how as you've made the claim that you can be.

    >>After all you've actively shown that you don't really believe in absolute morality when you claimed that your God must have sufficient moral justification to commit genocide - totally contradicting any claim you might make that murder is absolutely wrong.

    You claiming that its genocide does NOT mean that it was in the term that you are meaning it. In a negative connotation.

    There's a positive connotation to genocide? Really? That's a definition I've never seen.

    Its your claim so you MUST provide any evidence that it was indeed genocide.

    It fits the description Dan, as you admit later on in your reply.

    It was, as well documented, capital punishment.

    Rubbish Dan, it's not been well documented as capital punishment anywhere. There's the verses in the Bible which describe the total annihilation of the Canaanites (genocide) or the annihilation of most of humanity in the flood (also genocide) and then Christians have re-interpreted those verses in such a way as they can feel comfortable with their conception of God slaughtering huge swathes of humanity whenever He feels like it.

    Is genocide wrong?

    Yes.

    If so, how?

    It causes harm.

    cont'd...

    ReplyDelete
  134. cont'd...

    I just learned that the word 'genocide' was invented in 1944 and it referenced the extermination of the Jews, by the Nazis. I am sure we all agree that was wrong and without good reason.

    Now, I must also admit, for the sake of truth, that it may be genocide also. If it means in the strictest and narrow of sense genos (Greek for family, tribe, or race) and -cide (Latin for killing) then yes the killing of the Canaanites was genocide. If you are injecting that genocide is wrong, like the Nazis killing the Jews was, then I disagree.


    So you agree that it's genocide but then you disagree that it's genocide. You really should make up your mind Dan.

    "Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aimed at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves." ~ Raphael Lemkin

    That is NOT the same.


    Not the same as what Dan? Not the same as killing every last member of a tribe? Drowning all but 8 memebers of humanity and the vast mojority of all life on the planet? I think you'll find that it's exactly the same.

    If there were a tribe that ditched their babies into fire we would seek to stop that even today. Granted we would not dash the babies into the rocks to accomplish that, but just because we have different forms of punishment, then the past, does not make it better.

    So killing babies is wrong except when God orders the killing of babies. Your moral relativism is showing Dan.

    The aim was annihilation of the religion, practices, and evil of the Canaanites. The result was the destruction of all of them. Maybe, because of the limited resources, that was the only way to do such a thing.

    Wtf? Limited resources? Your God is omnipotent, yes? How on earth would He be limited in His ability to stop the Canaanites? Stop handwaving Dan and just admit that the story of the destruction of Canaan is to instill fear in those who don't share the Christian belief - "if you do not believe as we do then just look what our God can do to you".

    >>Can you give us a moral that is absolute?

    1st and 2nd Commandments. Serving other gods, other then God, is absolutely wrong.

    And of course neither of those commandments apply to God Himself making them less than absolute. Care to try again?

    Euthyphro's dilemma is quite easy for me. Its morally good, commanded by God, because it stems from His nature. Next?

    That's no answer. All you've done is move the question back a level. Is God's nature good because it conforms to an objective standard of goodness or is it good because it's God's nature?

    ReplyDelete
  135. D.A.N. said... (to MaxFF)

    You cannot claim this without the absolute standard that is in my worldview.

    You may claim that your worldview has an absolute standard but you've yet to demonstrate the truth of that claim. Furthermore you continually undermine this claim by continually resorting to a double standard which allows you to absolve your God of exactly the same immorality that you condemn humanity for.

    ReplyDelete
  136. It's an absolute standard that's relative.

    Run away, Dan...

    ReplyDelete
  137. "Look at capitalism, monopoly would be preferred from the business's standpoint"

    Interesting that you bring up monopoly, in order for it to work it needs cooperation, not only from everyone who works there, but also the cooperation of the customers to give them money in exchange for whatever good or service. If people are not happy with the monopoly they can start their own business. Monopolies have been challenged in the past, Apple had a monopoly on home computers in the 80s, and in 90s the little guys at Microsoft successfully challenged them. The only way for a monopoly to maintain its status is to cooperate, give people good products and fair prices, or someone else will do a better job.

    So instead of cooperation, you think it would be better for survival to kill their competition and try to form a monopoly. Imagine the strongest man in the world and the second strongest man in the world have a fight to the death. The strongest man wins obviously, but he is badly injured from the fight, and in his weakened state an average man kills him.

    The important thing to remember is that the strongest man in the world can defeat any other man, but he cannot defeat every other man. You seem to think that survival of the fittest means the strongest can do what he wants and nobody can stop him, but in fact no individual is strong enough to fight thousands of other people. Cooperation with others provides more security than trying to fight everyone you meet.

    "Again with a knowledge claim. *Sigh How do you KNOW this? Could evidence in the future show that to be false?"

    How bizarre. Could evidence show that being killed isn't dangerous? Well I guess in theory it could. However until that happens we will continue to trust the observations that being killed will in fact lead to death and we will have laws against it. If evidence shows you can survive longer by being killed than we would probably change our laws.

    "What makes societies preferable? Who decided that? Is it merely subjective?"

    It is subjective. There aren't many, but some people live the life of a hermit in isolated places. If you don't like society you can leave. Most of us have decided that society is better.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Whoops. Messed up the formatting.

    Dan quoting someone else:
    >>Since I don't support those evil acts mentioned in your bible and I don't use god/bible as guides for moral conduct like you do, my morality is completely different from yours.


    *sigh Before we address that you have made some assumptions of your point that you will have to defend before the claim is even valid. Like Ravi Zacharias said that I highlight in one of my posts, you have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for. That is your presupposition of the claim, is it not? Otherwise, the claim self destructs.

    If anything "self destructs", it's the xian claim to morality and how you clowns use the laws of logic.

    See what I've just posted in that post Dan himself linked to to show just how old and tired Dan's circular reasoning bullshit is starting to get. And that's not even close to the beginning of when he starts using it.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Ah, I missed a perfect chance here.

    D.A.N. said...

    Reynold,

    >>Conner, the reason that Dan receives so-called hostile replies is because we keep catching him lying, both about us and to us.


    Was that wrong to do? Is lying wrong?
    In your own worldview dipshit, YES!! Why preach at us about how your worldview is the only basis for morality if you don't even follow it?

    If so how, within your worldview? Have you addressed THIS point yet?
    Address your own hypocrisy first, douchebag.

    Notice. Dipshit Dan claims that it's only his worldview that forbids lying. So what happens when he gets caught lying? Instead of even just apologizing, he just tries to switch the subject and throws is back onto the atheist.

    The point here is that if xians can't even be fucking bothered to live up to their own moral code, how can they go running around saying that their worldview is the only one that provides a basis for morality in the first fucking place?! It's obvious that their worldview doesn't help them at all.

    So they cowardly try to change the subject to put the other guy on the offensive. Fuck that, and fuck them.

    Dan is not the only guy to do this, either. I've seen Comfort, Theodore Beale and others do this shit.

    ReplyDelete
  140. if xians can't even be fucking bothered to live up to their own moral code, how can they go running around saying that their worldview is the only one that provides a basis for morality in the first fucking place?

    I think dishonesty has a lot to do with it.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Reynold,

    >>See what I've just posted in that post Dan himself linked to to show just how old and tired Dan's circular reasoning bullshit is starting to get.

    First, your bare assertion was to counter circular reasoning? Nice "a" game.

    Also, don't forget Reynold that you conceded that we can have certainty via revelation but still, is 'circular reasoning' absolutely fallacious? You keep bringing up logical fallacies as if you thought logic was absolute.

    Was that wrong to do? Is lying wrong?

    >>In your own worldview dipshit, YES!!

    Yes I agree lying is wrong in my worldview. That is NOT the point here. When I ask is lying wrong, I am asking from your worldview. Are you borrowing from my worldview to "ACCOUNT" for things, like lying being wrong, again? If so, I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview, but rather I urge you to repent of it.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Wem,

    I will be the first to admit that I was wrong, or that I lied, but I have to put into account my audience. If y'all cannot even account for lying being wrong, why should I even acknowledge something that is not there?

    You all are saying that something exists without evidence, like lying, yet you want to me take it on faith that it exist. Then, all this time, you all are complaining that is what we are doing? Really!? Hypocrisy much?

    To solve this "problem" of ours Jon, all you you have to do is say that lying is wrong because it stems from our Creator. Then we will be on the same worldview and we then CAN account for why lying is wrong. Then, and only then, we can address what is perceived as a lie from me. Until then. We sit in limbo waiting for someone to account for lying without the Creator. I still sit with my chin on my fists, waiting.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Lying is wrong because it is anti-cooperative. Morality develops in humans because its useful for cooperation and cooperation is useful for survival. I'll make one last attempt to explain this to you.

    Today farmers produce a lot more food than they did before. The mechanization of farms has created far more productive farms than ever before. The farmers did not design, or construct the machines themselves, but the cooperation of many individuals leads to a steady food supply for all of them. If you are not cooperative and try to be a farmer by yourself, if you have locusts or drought you will have no society to turn to in times of trouble and you will die. In a cooperative society, if any farmer has a bad season the others produce more than enough food to make up for it. Cooperation leads to stable food supply, anti-cooperation is tenuous uncertain food supply.

    Other than food people also need water. Instead of digging a well or finding the nearest river, you can have a steady supply of water provided to you. The cooperation of scientists and engineers developed water purification technologies that greatly increase the amount of drinkable water.

    Shelter. modern houses are far sturdier and secure than ancient ones, the are built through the cooperation of an architect, several builders, and all the people who actually gathered the material in the first place.

    Security. Nobody wants to be killed, so they collectively agree not to kill each other. If somebody can kill your neighbor and get away they can easily kill you and get away with it. Even if the person who was murdered is your worst enemy and you hate them, its in your best interests to punish murderer to discourage it future murder, if you don't you could be the next victim.

    Every single aspect relating to human survival is improved by cooperation. Are you really going to reap the benefits of cooperation while at the same time deny there are any?

    ReplyDelete
  144. Dan
    Yes I agree lying is wrong in my worldview. That is NOT the point here.

    Then stop DOING it, for fuck's sake! No amount of apologizing will help so long as you keep fucking lying!

    And yes, dipshit Dan, it IS the point. If your worldview can't help you act moral as it obviously can't stop you from lying, then it's obvious that your worldview is useless as a basis for morality.

    ReplyDelete
  145. As for "our worldview accounting for why lying is wrong", well Dan, MaxFF has said it as well as the rest of us have, over and over again on your blog.

    But you'll never accept our reasons and will instead just keep asking that same fucking question over and over again whenever we catch you in one of your lies: "Why is lying wrong in YOUR worldview"?

    We've told you, repeatedly.

    ReplyDelete
  146. MaxFF,

    >>Morality develops in humans because its useful for cooperation and cooperation is useful for survival.

    Was there a meeting? If so when was it? ALL people, across all genders and races show signs of the consequences / telltales of when a person lies, like; They experience sweaty palms; They experience induced swallowing; Their heart rate increases; Their faces turn red; They avoid eye contact; compression of pupils; They speak more quickly, etc. etc. This is with everyone human being on the planet. (Except of course for sociopaths and those who have perfected deception)

    O.k., ... so these are physical reactions (that cross all humanity), that occur when people lie, keeping in mind that none of them are at all based upon comfort, self esteem, or integrity, why is that?

    Here's a hint, lying is a spiritual event. It's not merely a physical action. Lying is an offense against God. When His creation lies, He is ashamed of His creation and simply separates Himself. Therefore He has constructed us with built in sensors that perhaps we just might someday, in our blind little, self seeking minds, finally get the big picture.

    >>The mechanization of farms has created far more productive farms than ever before.

    Actually Monocrops bring food crisis. Look up "Monocropping" and educate yourself. Your analogy fails completely because if people were more independent, instead of dependent on companies like Monsanto, people would be able to feed and grow more. The manufacturing of crops through monocropping has literally destroyed the soil and impeded everyone's freedom.

    >>The cooperation of scientists and engineers developed water purification technologies that greatly increase the amount of drinkable water.

    Why? Certainly, not more effective then nature. Man has corrupted our water supplies, and necessity of the EPA shows evidence that modern science corrupts. Pollution Control is not for beaver droppings by any stretch of the imagination. Nature knows what to do, man does not. You might look in to joining the cult of science.

    >>modern houses are far sturdier and secure than ancient ones, the are built through the cooperation of an architect, several builders, and all the people who actually gathered the material in the first place.

    Absolutely false! Case in point look at Haiti. A simple mud structure would of been far superior to those "modern" structures that killed so many. People here look at buying much older houses since they were built better then modern ones. My point is newer is not always better.

    >>Security. Nobody wants to be killed, so they collectively agree not to kill each other.

    Or kill first :P

    >>If somebody can kill your neighbor and get away they can easily kill you and get away with it.

    YES! That is why we do not need police, who are report takers but need SELF protection. Thankfully, its protected with our 2nd Amendment. Ask yourself, how many rapes have been prevented by the police? Then you will begin to understand why self preservation is far superior then community agreements.

    >>Every single aspect relating to human survival is improved by cooperation.

    Your argument falls apart with evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Reynold,

    lying is wrong in my worldview

    >>Then stop DOING it, for fuck's sake!

    First I have not lied at all. Second, WHY? If it cannot be accounted for in YOUR worldview why do you CARE if I lie or not? Unless you BORROW from my worldview, which obviously you are doing, then you have NO ARGUMENT! Why is lying wrong, in your relativistic worldview? Otherwise repent of your worldview of No God, and hold my hand to glorify Him.

    >>...it IS the point. If your worldview can't help you act moral as it obviously can't stop you from lying, then it's obvious that your worldview is useless as a basis for morality.

    Are you claiming that your worldview stops you from lying? Is your worldview useless as a basis for morality? If not, please explain. As you well know lying in my worldview is wrong with evidence to show WHY! Lying for gain is GOOD, within the boundaries of your worldview. How can you possibly argue that it is not? This fallacy of community of yours is complete bogus. Are more modern "online" communities better for mankind? If not, then there goes your argument of advancement and progress. Why is lying wrong? If I lie to everyone and show a real emergency, like my car broke down, and I just need some change (like the beggars) I can pull in about $200 a day tax free cash. How is that not good? How is not draining a society not good for me? From an atheistic worldview, why is community cooperation valid? The evidence shows that I can certainly gain more from lying, stealing, and pillaging.

    ReplyDelete
  148. D.A.N,

    >> Are you borrowing from my worldview to "ACCOUNT" for things, like lying being wrong, again? If so, I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview, but rather I urge you to repent of it.

    Ok, I'm going to speak to you in the only way you understand things (or so it seems). Your worldview is the only one who can be accountable to the affirmation "lying is wrong", because that's what your god says.

    One of the ten commandments - that you follow by the letter says "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour”.

    Well...when you lie to your teeth by taking our words out of context and giving the interpretation you want to fit in the idea you have that atheists can't be accountable to morality because we don't believe in your god and don't follow your religion. Borderline: you are breaking a commandment that you should always obey no matter what; after all that commandment came from your god and it's set on stone. It can't be questioned and - sure - it can't be ignored.

    But you chose to ignore your own god's commandments when is convenient for you, right? Or am I wrong about that? If so, why? Does your god aproves lying only when is used to distort the words of non believers? I don't remember to see that written in that bible of yours...interesting...

    ReplyDelete
  149. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  150. D.A.N. said...

    Reynold,

    lying is wrong in my worldview

    >>Then stop DOING it, for fuck's sake!


    First I have not lied at all.
    Like HELL you haven't. Let me refresh your little mind, AGAIN.

    Second, WHY? If it cannot be accounted for in YOUR worldview why do you CARE if I lie or not? Unless you BORROW from my worldview, which obviously you are doing, then you have NO ARGUMENT!
    Are you on crack? Did we NOT AGAIN try to explain to you WHY lying is wrong without your biblegod saying so. And, just as I knew you would, you'd disregard any answer that MaxFF and us have given in favour of your own answer.

    Are you that ignorant to assume that other societies, other cultures older than xianity also don't like lying?

    Tough shit. Whether you reject our reasons or not, those reasons are valid for us. So quit pretending that we have no reason not to lie. They're just different than yours.

    By going on like you do and pretending that we have no reason not to lie is itself a lie; just as is the introductory paragraph on this blog. There is no "we" Dan, just you. A single person. No "Christians, ministers, theologians, and apologists for the Christian faith" Dan, just you.

    Why is lying wrong, in your relativistic worldview?
    Wait, wait. You call yourself "pro-life" yet you have no problem with babies and children being killed if biblegod commands it, and you say that OUR worldview is "relativistic"??

    Been answered repeatedly, here and in other posts. Be honest enough to admit it.

    Otherwise repent of your worldview of No God, and hold my hand to glorify Him.
    Right...show she exists first, and secondly, show why a baby killer deserves "glory".


    Dan
    Are you claiming that your worldview stops you from lying?
    It does a better job for me than your worldview does for stopping YOU from lying...

    Is your worldview useless as a basis for morality? If not, please explain.
    Our society still functions decently well. Better than societies which ran under your worldview, or Islam's, or ANY totalitarian view for that matter. No crusades, no xian religious persecutions; people are free to worship or not as they please. In stark contrast to when xianity ruled in the past, and where Islam rules today.

    As you well know lying in my worldview is wrong with evidence to show WHY!
    All you said is that it's wrong because biblegod forbids it. Why? Against his nature? Bullshit.

    Your own god lies according to your own holy book. I've shown you these verses before.

    2 Chronicles 18:22
    1 Samuel 16:2 <-- your god has him tell a half-truth because Samuel is afraid of Saul. What, couldn't god protect Samuel without having him lie?


    Lying for gain is GOOD, within the boundaries of your worldview.
    Uh, no.

    Fuck the rest of your reply...you don't have a clue.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Reynold,

    **Aww you deleted your comment!...Grrrr, Well since I took time to write this I am going to post it anyways. Enjoy

    "First I have not lied at all."

    >>Like HELL you haven't. Let me refresh your little mind, AGAIN.

    OK we NEED to back up and slow down a bit because obviously we have different definitions of lying.

    I already said that "My point was that you had pity for the guilty that perished." That you "VALUE a child rapist OVER the child", as an example. You value the guilty over the innocent would be to put it simpler. The Canaanites were GUILTY and DESERVED punishment. You obviously disagree to which I quoted Ayn, glibly I will grant you, "Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent." ~Ayn Rand, Atheist

    Now if that was a lie then we have a disagreement as to what is a lie.

    >>So quit pretending that we have no reason not to lie. They're just different than yours.

    I never said you don't have a reason, its just you cannot account for the reason, you have no basis for assuming that your reasoning is valid. They're not JUSTIFIED as a true belief. The ability to justify rationality as opposed to the destruction of it. They are merely subjective which makes it irrelevant. Because in your subjective worldview lying is fine since morals are subjective. You can complain, sure, but in the end its irrelevant. If your worldview is played out to its end even, EVERYTHING is irrelevant, even arguing about lying on a blog, or relationships, jobs, success, grades, achievements, etc. In the end we are all leveled on an even playing field of dirt and end. Darkness. So why are we discussing things?

    >>First, show that she exists, without your constant circular reasoning, ...

    Don't forget Reynold that you conceded that we can have certainty via revelation but still, is 'begging the question' absolutely fallacious?

    >>and secondly, why "glorify" a fucking baby killer??

    Different realms of understanding and because He, God, deserves our worship. Can you take a life and then resurrect them at a later date? God can. God's plan is sound and trustworthy. He will raise the dead and right every wrong. Can you? No, you deserve no such glorification. You deserve warning and rebuke. (Titus 3:10-11)...because I love you.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Reynold,

    (Spam filter got you again...grrr)

    OK moving on.

    >>Are you that ignorant to assume that other societies, other cultures older than xianity also don't like lying?

    Not at all. God burned it into all of our consciences. Lying is a spiritual event like I just said.

    >>By going on like you do and pretending that we have no reason not to lie is itself a lie;

    You have reason, as I ALWAYS say, its just you have no basis for assuming that your reasoning is valid. You know this much...to say otherwise may be grounds for a lie itself. Careful. Would hate to label you a hypocrite to boot. :7)

    >>just as is the introductory paragraph on this blog. There is no "we" Dan, just you. A single person. No "Christians, ministers, theologians, and apologists for the Christian faith" Dan, just you.

    There isn't? Before I can even address this assertion, how can you possible KNOW THIS???? Do you KNOW I do NOT have a comity of trusted Christians that I refer to for any issues? Are you CERTAIN that there are not more then just me? If so, how are you certain? Did you even KNOW that ALL Christians are ministers, theologians, and apologists for the Christian faith? Are you claiming there are NO Christians here AT ALL? Really? Dude, you're reaching so far now. Its sad. I am worried for you. This "skeptic" thingy is not working for you at all.

    >>It does a better job for me than your worldview does for stopping YOU from lying...

    O'rly? Can you explain to me how?

    >>Better than societies which ran under your worldview, or Islam's, or ANY totalitarian view for that matter.

    Wait a minute you want to bring up entire societies that have a single worldview? Like Stalin, Mao, Pot, Ill, Castro, and other atheistic regimes. The US has multiple worldviews. If we were all Christian we WOULD NOT have over 50 million and counting, unborn murders. That is a testament to your atheistic worldview. Be proud.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Guess what, Dan? I mentioned "ANY totalitarian view" for a reason. Anytime anyone tries to FORCE their views on others you get this kind of shit.

    Thing is, you apologists love to say that "Stalin, Mao, etc" are all "atheistic" but never admit to the abuses run under xian rule, like Calvin's Geneva.

    Here's a hint: Atheism is not synonymous with Communism. Look them up if you don't believe me.

    Look at countries like Sweden, Holland, or New Zealand.

    And now you're pretending to be "pro-life" again? You idiot! You can NOT complain about the so-called "50 million unborn murders" when YOUR OWN GOD demanded the deaths of pregnant women and children. At least with abortions, they are chosen by the women themselves, and the women aren't killed also.

    Oh, by the way, most abortions are done in the early stages BEFORE there are any brains or nerves to feel pain have developed in the fetus.

    Your worldview doesn't allow you to be consistently pro-life. On the one hand, you look at abortion and call it a testament to my "worldview", when atheism doesn't even have anything to say about abortion, yet it's YOUR worldview that has pregnant women and babies killed, with you defending that!

    That is a testament to your worldview. Be proud, and stay hypocritical.

    ReplyDelete
  154. The comment I deleted was the one that I posted above your reply. I had a paragraph mangled up.

    OK we NEED to back up and slow down a bit because obviously we have different definitions of lying.

    I already said that "My point was that you had pity for the guilty that perished." That you "VALUE a child rapist OVER the child", as an example. You value the guilty over the innocent would be to put it simpler.

    THERE is your lie, Dan! I am NOT TALKING ABOUT THE RAPISTS, OK? I'm talking about the women and children!


    The Canaanites were GUILTY and DESERVED punishment. You obviously disagree to which I quoted Ayn, glibly I will grant you, "Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent." ~Ayn Rand, Atheist

    Now if that was a lie then we have a disagreement as to what is a lie.

    No, what we have hear is that you are including in your "punishment" of the Canaanites the pregnant women, babies and children!

    Here's a tip: If it was just the murderers, rapists, etc that were "punished" I'd have no problem. They gave up their right to live. But it wasn't just them, was it?

    Come on...your god allegedly was able to provide for all of his "chosen people", why not the innocents of that other group? If you dodge by saying that no one is innocent I'll just say that applies to the "chosen people" as well.

    A god that spared the lives of those too young to have committed those crimes shows more "holiness" then one who doesn't, and your worldview would at least be more consistent when it comes to being "pro-life".

    It does a better job for me than your worldview does for stopping YOU from lying...
    O'rly? Can you explain to me how?
    Yeah. You keep doing it.

    Not at all. God burned it into all of our consciences. Lying is a spiritual event like I just said.
    Remember I brought up examples where your god endorsed lying. Obviously, lying is not against his nature then. So why would he or she forbid us to do it?

    ReplyDelete
  155. And your justifications for your and every xians, and islamic (same god, really) double standard continue:

    Different realms of understanding and because He, God, deserves our worship. Can you take a life and then resurrect them at a later date? God can.
    How many of those Canaanite babies got a second chance at life?

    God's plan is sound and trustworthy. He will raise the dead and right every wrong.
    Oh? So then somehow those kids and pregnant women can go to heaven? How? Christ said that HE'S the only way to heaven. Also, the bible doesn't say that those kids were killed as any kind of "mercy", it just said that the entire race of people was killed because of their sins.

    The bible clearly implies guilt even to the Canaanite babies, just as you did earlier when you said that no one was innocent.

    Now think: Where do non-innocents go when they die?



    Can you? No, you deserve no such glorification.
    Who said I wanted it? Besides, even your god can't "right every wrong" (see above) besides...you can't "unrape" someone now, can you?

    You deserve warning and rebuke. (Titus 3:10-11)...because I love you.
    Tell that to someone who believes you.

    ReplyDelete
  156. "Actually Monocrops bring food crisis."

    Locusts and other parasites cause food crisis, modern technology prevents as many famines as it leads to. It also has benefits, a guy using tractor instead of pushing a plow can grow more crops, a guy driving a harvester can harvest more crops than a guy with a scythe, water pumps grow larger crops than natural rainfall, taking famines into account, modern farms, still grow more food than a guy pushing a plow.

    "Your analogy fails completely because if people were more independent..."

    ...Any drought or parasite would kill you because you have no one to turn to for food. You keep talking about being dependent on other people, but you're not dependent on any one farmer, or any one company, there are nunch of them to pick and choose from, and if one has a famine, the others produce enough to make up for it. If you only depend on yourself, anything that destroys your crops will kill you. If there's lots of food sources cooperating, it lowers the risk for everyone.

    "Or kill first"

    Based on that and previous comments about forming a monopoly by killing all the competition, it seems that you think all humans are competition and the best chance for survival is to kill everyone you meet so you can have all that food for yourself.

    Suppose you have a farm that you grow food at. The world is incredibly sparsely populated(maybe because of lack of cooperation)and you only have to kill a mere 1000 people. That gives you enough room between your farm and the nearest living guy to be relatively safe, at least for the time being. For the strongest .1% this would probably be a decent strategy for survival. For the other 99.9% it would be very bad for survival. It is in their best interests to cooperate, for mutual protection. Given a choice between 99.9% chance of survival and .1%, 99.9% chance is lower risk and is the superior method of survival. Cooperation is lower risk.

    ReplyDelete
  157. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  158. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  159. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  160. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  161. @ DAN

    First half of the transcript of my recent Third Debate on Presuppositional Apologetics with Sye Tenbruggencate on ERic Hovinds Creation Today webtv show is available here - http://patientandpersistent.blogspot.com/2011/06/annotated-transcript-of-third-debate-on.html

    I'll be completing the remainder over the coming week.

    Chris Bolt of Choosing Hats has accepted my challenge to a debate too - http://www.choosinghats.com/2011/06/an-acceptance-of-paul-bairds-debate-challenge/, that will happen sometime over the coming months, although the details are still to be agreed.

    Let me know anytime that you think your line of argument is good enough.

    I prefer face to face live debates but Skype is good enough with unedited audio available to both parties for transmission - all copyright remains joint but audio can be published under an agreed Creative Commons licence.

    You don't have to rush to make a decision, it wouldn't happen until December 2011.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Reynold,

    >>Here's a tip: If it was just the murderers, rapists, etc that were "punished" I'd have no problem. They gave up their right to live. But it wasn't just them, was it?

    No but woman were having babies just so they can ditch them in to the fire. Do the deserve to live with that knowledge? As far as the babies, we have already discussed that God was bringing them home not murdering them or killing them. God was giving the children life...with Him.

    These are NOT lies.

    >>Come on...your god allegedly was able to provide for all of his "chosen people", why not the innocents of that other group? If you dodge by saying that no one is innocent I'll just say that applies to the "chosen people" as well.

    Here is the difference. I am chosen cause Christ chose me to submit to Him. You want to know when you are saved? When you submit to Christ, and your entire life changes forever and ever. You will not fully submit to Christ, fruit of the unsaved.

    >>A god that spared the lives of those too young to have committed those crimes shows more "holiness" then one who doesn't, and your worldview would at least be more consistent when it comes to being "pro-life".

    Again, you're NOT taking into account that we are rallying to prevent murders by being anti-murder/pro-life. I am sure you're not claiming that pro-murder/abortion people are doing God's "work", are you? God has the ability to bring kids home to Him. You do NOT posses that "talent" so we fight against YOU. I am almost certain that you're smarter then you're portraying in these conversations. Your "resistance" is so obvious. And you wonder why its my claim that you're in denial about things of God? *pshaw

    >> Obviously, lying is not against his nature then. So why would he or she forbid us to do it?

    Your conversation should go to Him now. Ask Him, He will answer. BTW adding a she as to be "unclear" as who it actually is is an obvious denial game of who He is. God was, and is, very clear who He is and you just deny it. Its obvious. You can ONLY deny Scripture, you cannot search and NOT find the truth. You're obviously in denial.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Reynold,

    >>How many of those Canaanite babies got a second chance at life?

    All of them. They got to grow up in Heaven. What better "life" is that? Certainly a better life then the life their parents had planned for them.

    >>The bible clearly implies guilt even to the Canaanite babies, just as you did earlier when you said that no one was innocent.

    Yes, I must concede to that possibility. The woman killing their babies were guilty, but not the babies. The babies might have just simply perished (not sent to hell). I will let you know as soon as I do. I have an appointment with God, I will ask Him then. Hopefully I can get the word back to you, but I'd rather you ask Him yourself. :7)

    >>Where do non-innocents go when they die?

    Where you will be if you continue this path. Where do innocent Canaanite babies go when they die? They may have just ceased to exist. God has the ability to use that option. My point is that I trust His choices. What ever they were.

    >>you can't "unrape" someone now, can you?

    Can you tell us how do you KNOW this? MIB figured it out, I am certain God could too. :7p

    ReplyDelete
  164. D.A.N,

    (it's mhich)

    For example: we both have farms which cultivate corn. My farm is next to yours.
    The thing is, since I have more corn than I need while you don’t have enough corn to feed your family - based on what you said here - you will see me as competition and then – one day – you will just invade my farm, kill me to eliminate the competition and take my farm to yourself.

    It wouldn’t be much easier to just come to my farm and ask for my exceeding corn?
    Maybe you have something I need – for example – more orange than you need. I don’t have enough oranges and you don’t have enough corn, so we can make an arrangement: I give you the exceeding corns and you give me the exceeding oranges. Everybody wins.

    Of course there are situations in our society that are seen as competition. For example, job interviews. When you go to a job interview there will be other people interested in the same job you are, therefore they are your competition in the same you are theirs. You may not help them – or they may not help you – after all they want the job as much as you do. The employer will give you the job based on your skills and experience in that line of work. You’re not going to play dirty to eliminate the competition in order to get it…or will you?

    If you eliminate the competition by playing dirty and your employer finds out he won’t give you the job; after all, he wants someone who works in teams instead of working all by himself; he wants someone who cooperates with the other employees instead of competing against them at everything.

    PS: I deleted the previous comments because of the typos and desconsider the messages if they repeat; that "spam thing" happened again...

    ReplyDelete
  165. D.A.N,

    >> As far as the babies, we have already discussed that God was bringing them home not murdering them or killing them. God was giving the children life...with Him.

    But as you pointed out before everybody is a sinner, including the children and the unborn ones. According to your belief only those who repent and accept god will be saved. Otherwise, they are doomed to eternal damnation. The unborn children didn’t have the chance to choose your god in order to be saved when your god decided to slaughter them. SO – according to your belief – all those unborn children were doomed to hell.

    >> MIB figured it out, I am certain God could too.

    You know that device – in the movie – was used to erase people’s memory, right?
    Comparing your god to movie characters? That’s a progress coming from you D.A.N, if you are beginning to recognize the possibility of your god being as fictional as the MIB guys (unless you believe in that “UFO cover up made by the government” paranoia too).

    >> About the lying I’m going to repeat one of my comments and I ask you to answer it. Ok?

    D.A;N: Are you borrowing from my worldview to "ACCOUNT" for things, like lying being wrong, again? If so, I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview, but rather I urge you to repent of it.

    Me:Ok, I'm going to speak to you in the only way you understand things (or so it seems). Your worldview is the only one who can be accountable to the affirmation "lying is wrong", because that's what your god says.

    One of the ten commandments - which you follow by the letter says "Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor”.

    Well...when you lie to your teeth by taking our words out of context and giving the interpretation you want to fit in the idea you have that atheists can't be accountable to morality because we don't believe in your god and don't follow your religion. Borderline: you are breaking a commandment that you should always obey no matter what; after all that commandment came from your god and it's set on stone. It can't be questioned and - sure - it can't be ignored.

    But you chose to ignore your own god's commandments when is convenient for you, right? Or am I wrong about that? If so, why? Does your god approves lying only when is used to distort the words of non believers? I don't remember to see that written in that bible of yours...interesting...

    ReplyDelete
  166. MaxFF,

    >>modern technology prevents as many famines as it leads to.

    Pretty please, go watch documentaries like "King Corn", "Big River", and "Broken Limbs" and many, many more like them. You will certainly understand how much of a drain monocropping is to the world. Its MORE harmful than anything else. It destroys EVERYTHING.

    ReplyDelete
  167. D.A.N,

    For example: we both have farms which cultivate corn. My farm is next to yours.
    The thing is, since I have more corn than I need while you don’t have enough corn to feed your family - based on what you said here - you will see me as competition and then – one day – you will just invade my farm, kill me to eliminate the competition and take my farm to yourself.

    It wouldn’t be much easier to just come to my farm and ask for my exceeding corn?
    Maybe you have something I need – for example – more orange than you need. I don’t have enough oranges and you don’t have enough corn, so we can make an arrangement: I give you the exceeding corns and you give me the exceeding oranges. Everybody wins.

    Of course there are situations in our society that are seen as competition. For example, job interviews. When you go to a job interview there will be other people interested in the same job you are, therefore they are your competition in the same you are theirs. You may not help them – or they may not help you – after all they want the job as much as you do. The employer will give you the job based on your skills and experience in that line of work. You’re not going to play dirty to eliminate the competition in order to get it…or will you?

    If you eliminate the competition by playing dirty and your employer finds out he won’t give you the job; after all, he wants someone who works in teams instead of working all by himself; he wants someone who cooperates with the other employees instead of competing against them at everything.

    PS: I deleted the previous comments because of the typos and ignore the repeated comments, that “spam thing” happened again (that was the main reason why I deleted my blog here)

    ReplyDelete
  168. Michelle,

    >>Well...when you lie to your teeth by taking our words out of context and giving the interpretation you want to fit in the idea you have that atheists can't be accountable to morality because we don't believe in your god and don't follow your religion.

    I have not done anything you're claiming (lying). Care to point to any evidence, or is this going to be gripes and complaints month?

    And ONCE AGAIN, you ARE accountable to morality because there is a God who is the Judge of all. You CANNOT account for morality in your worldview. Learn the difference because you're frustrating the discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Paul,

    >>Let me know anytime that you think your line of argument is good enough.

    I thought we had that discussion already?

    >>You don't have to rush to make a decision, it wouldn't happen until December 2011.

    The post is still up, just continue the discussion. I do not own a webcam if you want it "live" though. Care to donate for one?

    ReplyDelete
  170. "Pretty please, go watch documentaries like "King Corn", "Big River", and "Broken Limbs" and many, many more like them. You will certainly understand how much of a drain monocropping is to the world. Its MORE harmful than anything else. It destroys EVERYTHING. "

    Okay so monocropping is bad. Are tractors more or less productive than a plow. Is a harvester more or less efficient than a scythe, are water pumps more or less efficient than digging a irrigation ditch. You are disregarding thousands of years agricultural innovations because of one bad practice. If people realize that moncropping is bad and stop they will still use technology like tractors etc because they are more efficient. You can in fact produce more food with technology than without.

    Also feel free to address the points about lower risk, by cooperation(multiple food sources), vs high risk of trying to make it on your own(one food source), that I mentioned.

    One more question. Are you making posts on this blog entirely by yourself or through cooperation? Think carefully, did you build the computer yourself or buy it? Did you write the boot software, operating system, browser, or pay for them? Is the computer powered by a generator you built or do you pay the electric company? Do you pay an internet service provider? Is there any cooperation at all required to post on this blog?

    ReplyDelete
  171. D.A.N

    >>I have not done anything you're claiming (lying). Care to point to any evidence, or is this going to be gripes and complaints month?

    I will:

    1 – When you claimed you understood I was talking about making monetary settlement to a rapist even after I told you many times what I really meant to say was: reporting my rape and make sure to see the rapist facing trial, considered guilty and spend most of his life in jail in order to keep him from making another victims.

    2 – When said Reynold hated war veterans where it wasn’t what Reynold was saying (the subject Reynold borught it up had nothing to do with war veterans in the first place)

    3 – when you said Reynold valued a child rapist over a child, where in fact Reynold didn’t say that. In anywhere in his comment he mentioned a child rapist

    4 – The final nail on your coffin that proves you are dishonest: In one of my comments you answered me this:

    >>Me: Again, you see what you want to see.

    D.A.N: Truth

    If you doubt, you can look here: text

    ReplyDelete
  172. Dan
    Yes, I must concede to that possibility. The woman killing their babies were guilty, but not the babies.
    So as punishment, the Isrealites killed the babies also. The same as one of the crimes that the Canaanites are alleged to be guilty of!

    The babies might have just simply perished (not sent to hell).
    "Might"? That's it? "Might"?!

    I will let you know as soon as I do. I have an appointment with God, I will ask Him then. Hopefully I can get the word back to you, but I'd rather you ask Him yourself. :7)
    I'd rather that his "holy book" of answers would actually justify his killing of babies NOW! Or even better, portrayed this "moral paragon" as NOT having the babies killed in the first place!

    Where do non-innocents go when they die?
    Where you will be if you continue this path. Where do innocent Canaanite babies go when they die? They may have just ceased to exist.
    Remember, Dan. You said that according to your worldview that no one in truly "innocent".

    God has the ability to use that option. My point is that I trust His choices. What ever they were.
    Blind faith, based on what? When you even admit that you accept his actions no matter what they were? All based on the "holy word" of a baby-killer?

    ReplyDelete
  173. D.A.N. said...

    Reynold,

    >>Here's a tip: If it was just the murderers, rapists, etc that were "punished" I'd have no problem. They gave up their right to live. But it wasn't just them, was it?


    No but woman were having babies just so they can ditch them in to the fire.
    So the babies had to be KILLED in order to stop them from being killed.

    Do the deserve to live with that knowledge?
    So you'd rather fucking KILL them instead???

    As far as the babies, we have already discussed that God was bringing them home not murdering them or killing them. God was giving the children life...with Him.
    So he presumably does with the spirits of aborted children, so in your worldview what's the big deal, really?

    As an atheist I can say that it's a big deal because in both cases, those lives are gone forever! At LEAST most abortions are done early enough that there's no brain or nervous system to allow any actual suffering to occur.

    Besides, biblically how do you know? You admit in a later comment on this post that you don't know. You're only ASSUMING it! Remember, you said that in your worldview that no one is "innocent".

    These are NOT lies.
    That's NOT the lie I'm accusing you of! You kept accusing me of valuing the RAPISTS lives over the lives of the kids! THAT'S the fucking lie!

    >>A god that spared the lives of those too young to have committed those crimes shows more "holiness" then one who doesn't, and your worldview would at least be more consistent when it comes to being "pro-life".
    Again, you're NOT taking into account that we are rallying to prevent murders by being anti-murder/pro-life.
    You're not taking into account that your own god is acting morally inconsistent here. Your last statement completely ignored what I had just said.

    I am sure you're not claiming that pro-murder/abortion people are doing God's "work", are you?
    You're the one claiming that in both cases "god" takes the kids to heaven, are you not? Only difference is that in one case "god" has the babies killed on his orders, and in the other case (actual abortions) god hasn't given any such order.

    Besides, your own holy book isn't exactly consistently "pro-life" now, is it?
    Exodus 21:22-23 just has the guy pay a fine if he makes the woman lose the baby she carries.
    Leviticus 27:6 doesn't place any value on infants younger than one month old
    Numbers 3:15-16 doesn't have infants younger than one month old counted as people.

    How about these "pro-life" verses?
    2 Samuel 12:14
    Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28
    Hosea 9:16


    God has the ability to bring kids home to Him. You do NOT posses that "talent" so we fight against YOU.
    Where did I ever say or imply that I was pro-choice? I've said before on this blog that I'm pro-life. Another lie of yours it looks like.

    I am almost certain that you're smarter then you're portraying in these conversations. Your "resistance" is so obvious. And you wonder why its my claim that you're in denial about things of God? *pshaw
    I AM certain that you ARE as dishonest as you look. It seems that you've just lied about my life stance. Good grief. Why do you think I'm raising such a fuss over this? (Or as you delude yourself into thinking: I'm "in denial" about your "Moral" god).

    ReplyDelete
  174. Dan
    And ONCE AGAIN, you ARE accountable to morality because there is a God who is the Judge of all. You CANNOT account for morality in your worldview. Learn the difference because you're frustrating the discussion.
    It's YOU who should learn, Dan. Some of us, MaxFF, Me, Bellecheried HAVE given our reasons for acting moral. Again, you disregard them, and continue your FALSE claim that we "cannot" account for morality in our worldview.

    Just because YOU don't accept our reasons for acting moral does NOT mean that we have no reasons for acting moral!

    That by the way, is an example of you lying, Dan.

    It's you who can't account for morality Dan, with a god who acts as morally inconsistent at the one you've got.

    ReplyDelete
  175. That by the way, is an example of you lying, Dan.
    Yup.

    It's you who can't account for morality Dan, with a god who acts as morally inconsistent at the one you've got.
    *I* have accounted for Dan's morality better than Dan has. It'd be sad if he weren't so pig-headedly stupid in pretending otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  176. Michelle,

    I already explained all of this but I will appease.

    1. I was using a literary device called "for example" or "in addition" in other words when I say "and if you settle for monetary reasons that makes you a whore." Now that does not mean I am calling you a whore, that means that if you did indeed settle for a cash amount instead of imprisoning the jerk, then you reveal your god of money and makes you a whore. It was MERELY a side bar. You confusion from there was NEVER rectified because of your verbose arguing.

    2. When he said that ONLY and ALL Atheists would say "if have to choose between killing people and letting them live, I'd let them live" So then I lashed back that he must hate Atheistic Veterans (no Atheists in foxholes?) then because they volunteer to fight battles and such. I admit to a harsh lash back and my wording was garbled, on my part, because of what he said. But again, these were literary devices, to make a strong extreme point to counter the extreme position, certainly not a lie.

    3. Already addressed with "I already said that "My point was that you had pity for the guilty that perished." That you "VALUE a child rapist OVER the child", as an example. You value the guilty over the innocent would be to put it simpler. The Canaanites were GUILTY and DESERVED punishment. You obviously disagree to which I quoted Ayn, glibly I will grant you, "Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent." ~Ayn Rand, Atheist

    Now if that was a lie then we have a disagreement as to what is a lie."

    4. Yes, I do indeed want to see and strive for truth. How do you see that as a lie? That was a very sincere comment. Look at the second example of you attempting to place words in front of me and I merely correct your ASSUMPTIONS:

    You:>>What you see is immoral atheists.

    Me:What I see is unaccountable assumptions.

    You see, you try pigeonholing me that I will not allow and then you scream that I am a liar? Whatever cuckoo. The clocks are a chiming.

    Again your handwaving is squashed and its time to move on. Let me guess, more handwaving? I thought so.

    ReplyDelete
  177. Reynold,

    >>It's YOU who should learn, Dan. Some of us, MaxFF, Me, Bellecheried HAVE given our reasons for acting moral. Again, you disregard them, and continue your FALSE claim that we "cannot" account for morality in our worldview.

    Dude are you doing this on purpose now? Of course some Atheists are moral and are good citizens. That is NOT the issue at all. It NEVER was although you keep bringing it to that point. As I said so eloquently :), you ARE accountable to morality because there is a God who is the Judge of all. You CANNOT account for morality in your worldview though. You're still frustrating the discussion. Accounting for morals is entirely different then held accountable for morals. Get it yet? How do you justify as a true belief that morals are good, or good is good, in your worldview.

    As an example, we're not asking if people are "present and 'accounted' for" we are asking how do they account for their presence in this universe within their worldview. See the difference yet?

    I am NOT asking 'why' you're moral, I am asking HOW do you know that your reasoning, about morals, in your worldview is valid?

    Your perceived confusion is epic.

    >>That by the way, is an example of you lying, Dan.

    fanboy Wem:>>Yup

    Just because your fanboy Wem agrees with you, does NOT make it true. That is NOT a lie at all. Its your confusion as to the question. I accept your apology even if you cannot be man enough to give one.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Reynold,

    >>Remember, Dan. You said that according to your worldview that no one in truly "innocent".

    I know I did. These small "issues" I trust will be rectified when I get more information. Not that its owed to me.

    >>Blind faith, based on what?

    There you go again injecting words that have no valid place into a conversation. I ask how is your reasoning valid about morals and you scream that you can be moral. Now I said I trust God and you scream "blind faith"

    For your information AGAIN:

    Faith is not "blind", faith is trust. Faith is a strong belief in a supernatural power that control human destiny, complete confidence in a plan, a loyalty or allegiance to a cause.

    Webster says:

    1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
    2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
    3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs.

    Faith, in a sense, is synonymous with loyalty and TRUST. In fact the synonyms are: confidence, trust, reliance, conviction, belief, assurance, devotion, loyalty, faithfulness, commitment, fidelity, constancy, fealty, dedication, allegiance.

    I am not blind about my trust in God at all.

    >>So the babies had to be KILLED in order to stop them from being killed.

    YES!!! They were much safer in God's arms then any human. Get it yet? Of course not!

    >>So he presumably does with the spirits of aborted children, so in your worldview what's the big deal, really?

    To me, a bunch of children in Heaven, when all their parents are in Hell, is not Heaven at all. Its a big deal that we are ALL in Heaven together. All children and their parents.

    >>You kept accusing me of valuing the RAPISTS lives over the lives of the kids! THAT'S the fucking lie!

    Its not a lie to quote, "Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent." ~Ayn Rand, Atheist

    And then that is why,this is the important part,I ASKED: "So you VALUE a child rapist OVER the child?"

    It was a question, HOW is a question a lie? Please explain that one to me.

    >>Where did I ever say or imply that I was pro-choice? I've said before on this blog that I'm pro-life. Another lie of yours it looks like.

    My mind just exploded! Wow, if defending a pro-choice position is pro-life, then I will give you that. You're just playing games with me then? How do you justify your entire argument then? Be that as it may, even though I agree with you, how do you know that your reasoning about pro-life is valid? :7)

    ReplyDelete
  179. D.A.N,


    >> I was using a literary device called "for example" or "in addition" in other words when I say "and if you settle for monetary reasons that makes you a whore." Now that does not mean I am calling you a whore, that means that if you did indeed settle for a cash amount instead of imprisoning the jerk, then you reveal your god of money and makes you a whore. It was MERELY a side bar. You confusion from there was NEVER rectified because of your verbose arguing.

    Did I mention the part you called me a whore in my previous comment? No. I mentioned the part you thought (or wanted to think) I said making monetary settlement to a rapist even though I explained you many times that what I really meant to say was: report the rapist to the police and make sure he would be sent to trial, considered guilty and pay for his crime by spending a very long time in jail. I don’t know where did you get “monetary settlement” from my example. Do you mind to explain me how did you understand or confused “monetary settlement” with “paying for his crime by spending a very long time in jail” exactly?

    PS: What you said: “I guess I should of stressed a MONETARY settlement. That was what was on my mind when I was saying that.”

    >> When he said that ONLY and ALL Atheists would say "if have to choose between killing people and letting them live, I'd let them live" So then I lashed back that he must hate Atheistic Veterans (no Atheists in foxholes?) then because they volunteer to fight battles and such. I admit to a harsh lash back and my wording was garbled, on my part, because of what he said. But again, these were literary devices, to make a strong extreme point to counter the extreme position, certainly not a lie.

    But how come "if have to choose between killing people and letting them live, I'd let them live" and “hating war veterans” are similar or even connected somehow? One thing has nothing to do with the other. Reynold said – with all the letters in his comment – that he hates war veterans? My answer is no. What’s yours, D.A.N? Your problem is that you see what you want to see, you interpret our comments the way you want by twisting our words and distorting the meaning of what we really meant to say. You even claim we said things we never said in the first place (again, remember the ”monetary settlement” thing)

    >> Already addressed with "I already said that "My point was that you had pity for the guilty that perished." That you "VALUE a child rapist OVER the child", as an example. You value the guilty over the innocent would be to put it simpler. The Canaanites were GUILTY and DESERVED punishment.

    It’s my opinion no one should have the freedom to live taken away from them. Does it mean I value a child rapist over a child? No. But it means I should just grab a shotgun and blow his brains out? That’s not justice, is being a vigilante. A child rapist should pay for his crimes (not by monetary settlement, I might add) by spending a long time in jail (life in prison without parole in a maximum security prison is a very good punishment)

    As I asked you before: where Reynold said – with this exact words – that he values a child rapist over the child? Do you mind answering that?

    I’ll quote Reynold here that proves you’re wrong: And no, dipshit Dan, I do not value the life of rapists, thank you very much.

    (continues)

    ReplyDelete
  180. (cont)
    Another example of your dishonesty:

    What you said to me when I told you I value human lives: “What you're claiming is that you would FIGHT FOR Hitler in his defense

    Now, where did I say that? Show me – in any of comments – where did I say that with this exact words…

    (BTW, I guess you are the one who would fight for Hitler, after all - for you – genocide is actually capital punishment, right?)


    >> Yes, I do indeed want to see and strive for truth.

    Meaning: you manipulate information at your behalf and the behalf of your religion in order to justify your opinion that atheists can’t be accountable to morality just because we are not christians and because we don’t believe in your god even many of us have proved to you many times we can be accountable to morality and you are the one who can’t be accountable to morality by accepting the moral relativism of your god/bible.

    You are the one condemning humanity by the same despicable acts your god did/ordered to be done. You defend your god by saying he’s always merciful and loving no matter what he does, because – according to you – your god has his reasons and it’s not up to you to question/doubt/judge his actions.

    If – nowadays – your god decided to wipe out from the face of the planet all non-christians and all non-believers by a really violent and painful death, you would agree, because for you, god knows best. As you said before – you may not understand your god’s actions now but you will understand it someday and that’s why you never disagree with your god’s will/actions.

    The only reason you come up with this ”atheists can’t be accountable to morality” is because you don’t agree and don’t accept the fact our morality doesn’t come from your god and your bible. Because our morality is based on other things which doesn’t include your god/your religion/your bible in the equation.

    ReplyDelete
  181. D.A.N. said...

    Reynold,

    >>Remember, Dan. You said that according to your worldview that no one in truly "innocent".


    I know I did. These small "issues" I trust will be rectified when I get more information. Not that its owed to me.
    And there you go with your BLIND FAITH again. Without evidence, without justification, you blindly assume that everything will be alright. "Small issues"? What is NOT a small issue then, if the fates of babies who never had a chance to accept biblegod before they died is a "small issue"?

    Blind faith, based on what?
    There you go again injecting words that have no valid place into a conversation.
    Look who's talking, Mr. "So you value the life of a rapist over the child?" Dan!

    I ask how is your reasoning valid about morals and you scream that you can be moral.
    No, I did not "scream". I explained why we have morals and why we feel our reasons are valid, as have others. You however keep dismissing the reasons that we gave and then PRETEND that somehow justifies your saing that we have no reason. (see your latest reply), and you say that WE are "confused"?

    Now I said I trust God and you scream "blind faith"
    Given the lack of evidence for him/her, and given that you yourself admitted that whatever he does with the souls of the babies that he had killed will be fair even though you're not certain what he'd do with them, I say YES. You do have blind faith.

    For your information AGAIN:
    Faith is not "blind", faith is trust. Faith is a strong belief in a supernatural power that control human destiny, complete confidence in a plan, a loyalty or allegiance to a cause.

    Faith is believing something without evidence. For example, your assumption that god will treat the souls of the babies that he had killed fairly, even though you admitted that you don't actually know what he'd do with them.

    Webster says:
    1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
    2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
    3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs.

    Faith, in a sense, is synonymous with loyalty and TRUST.

    Where the fuck is the evidence that a rational person would use before they'd believe in it?

    In fact the synonyms are: confidence, trust, reliance, conviction, belief, assurance, devotion, loyalty, faithfulness, commitment, fidelity, constancy, fealty, dedication, allegiance.

    I am not blind about my trust in God at all.

    Yes, you are. You said that you don't know what he's going to do with the souls of the babies killed, but that no matter what, you'll assume that it's fair. You repeated that sentiment in your latest reply to me.

    So the babies had to be KILLED in order to stop them from being killed.
    YES!!! They were much safer in God's arms then any human. Get it yet? Of course not!
    Hey did you NOT say earlier that you didn't actually know what happens to those children?

    Besides, even if what you said is true, the same is true for those who are aborted, are they not? Are not THOSE children safer in God's arms than in any human's arms? If so, then why bitch about abortion?

    How in YOUR WORLDVIEW Dan, can you justify your "Pro-life" position, especially in light of those verses I quoted earlier? You know, the ones that show that biblegod didn't consider babies younger then one month old to be people?

    ReplyDelete
  182. So he presumably does with the spirits of aborted children, so in your worldview what's the big deal, really?
    To me, a bunch of children in Heaven, when all their parents are in Hell, is not Heaven at all.
    So you figure that those kids won't be happy in heaven? Guess what? Everyone in heaven will have friends and family who didn't make it. What about that nonesense verse that god will wipe away all tears then? Yeah, so are you admitting that heaven won't be all it's cracked up to be?

    Its a big deal that we are ALL in Heaven together. All children and their parents.
    As I said, won't happen for most.

    You kept accusing me of valuing the RAPISTS lives over the lives of the kids! THAT'S the fucking lie!
    Its not a lie to quote, "Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent." ~Ayn Rand, Atheist
    Care to explain your reason for quoting that line then? Right there you imply that I feel pity for the guilty (the rapists), which you later accused me of with your "question". If that's not why you quoted her, then why in fuck did you quote that saying then?

    You fucking dishonest prick.

    And then that is why,this is the important part,I ASKED: "So you VALUE a child rapist OVER the child?"

    It was a question, HOW is a question a lie? Please explain that one to me.

    The way you worded the question implies that you think that I value a child rapist over the child. I had to "prove" to you that I did not.

    Here's an example of another such question. Imagine if someone walked up to you in public and asked you this: "Dan, did you stop having sex with your children yet?"

    Get the point yet?


    Where did I ever say or imply that I was pro-choice? I've said before on this blog that I'm pro-life. Another lie of yours it looks like.
    My mind just exploded! Wow, if defending a pro-choice position is pro-life,.....
    Care to explain just how in FUCKING HELL that defending the rights of those babies that your god had killed is "pro-choice" (we all know what xians mean when they say "pro-choice")!

    ....then I will give you that. You're just playing games with me then?
    No. I'm being straight with you. YOU are the one playing games. You're the one who asks accusatory questions, expecting us to have to defend ourselves, then when you're called out on your bullshit question, you whine about "how is asking a question a lie".


    How do you justify your entire argument then? Be that as it may, even though I agree with you, how do you know that your reasoning about pro-life is valid? :7)
    Once a person dies, thats it. No second chances, nothing. Besides, if we all went around doing that shit, humanity wouldn't survive now, would it?

    Now you'll resort to your usual dishonesty: You'll disagree with my reasons and pretend that we have NO reason to be "pro-life".


    Which is what you did in your last reply to me. Fuck, I'm getting sick of your games.

    ReplyDelete
  183. It should read: "Which is the same kind of thing you did in your last reply to me" in regards to being moral.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Michelle,

    “What you're claiming is that you would FIGHT FOR Hitler in his defense"

    >>Now, where did I say that? Show me – in any of comments – where did I say that with this exact words…

    OK, you're getting way too sensitive in a conversation. If you say something like. 'I value and fight for all life.' To show that absurdness of that point I would INJECT a question like, "So you value Hitler's life?" then follow it up with “What you're claiming is that you would FIGHT FOR Hitler in his defense" to make my point. Its simply called a Hyperbole. That is all that is going on here. I am not saying that you want, or you said you want, monetary retribution from a rapist. Never once did I say that. I just said that IF you do you'd be a whore for doing so. You're getting the conversation all confused because you possibly do not understand how language, and literary devices, are used. Too harsh? Sue me.

    ReplyDelete
  185. Reynold,

    >>If that's not why you quoted her, then why in fuck did you quote that saying then?

    I will tell you why. Because you said,

    >>"Craig, that "earthly naturalistic perspective" is called valuing human life, you asshole."

    If you value the lives of the Canaanites then its AS IF you value a rapist OVER a raped child. You value murderers OVEr the Murdered. You value Hitler OVER the Jews, BECAUSE..."Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent." ~Ayn Rand, Atheist.

    You're smarter then this, I just know it. You understand what I am saying, but I believe you just want to create some drama to have some excuse to say, "You see God, that's why I don't follow you" but that just will not cut it on that frightful day, for you, will it? Try it a court room, "I know it was wrong to speed judge, but I don't like those cops." Shooting the messenger, kicking the dog,...none of these "tactics" are effective.

    >>Care to explain just how in FUCKING HELL that defending the rights of those babies that your god had killed is "pro-choice" (we all know what xians mean when they say "pro-choice")!

    Dude I concede, I sure thought you were fighting for the rights of the pro choice people. When you say things like:

    >>"At least with pro-choicers, the mother has a choice, and she's not also killed unlike when your god wanted it that way."

    Or

    >> "Yet a democrat comes along and implies or says that they're pro-choice and all of a sudden you people crucify him."

    or this entire comment.

    Yes we have a history together. But will say though, I assumed you were pro-choice by the past comments. Forgive me if I was wrong, or if you changed your mind later. Either way, I am very happy you are pro-life. Do not let me hinder that path you are currently on.

    >>No. I'm being straight with you. YOU are the one playing games.

    No I am straight also, and that's even if you begged me for a game of naked twister. :7p Defend that.

    how do you know that your reasoning about pro-life is valid?

    >>Once a person dies, thats it. No second chances, nothing.

    To me that is a flimsy fallacious appeal to ignorance. It certainly cannot be knowledge. Otherwise, you should have an answer for the next question. How do you KNOW that once a person dies, that's it?

    Dude, you need a better worldview. Want to borrow mine? (That was rhetorical)

    >> You'll disagree with my reasons and pretend that we have NO reason to be "pro-life".

    Your inductive reasoning is lacking I would say. I am not allowed to point that out? I merely am trying to show you my deductive reasoning for the same subject. We both trust our senses and reasoning, but of the two of us, I can justify doing so in a non-viciously circular fashion, you cannot.

    ReplyDelete
  186. D.A.N,

    D.A.N: “What you're claiming is that you would FIGHT FOR Hitler in his defense"

    >> ME: "Now, where did I say that? Show me – in any of comments – where did I say that with this exact words…"

    It’s what you claimed in your post I would fight for Hitler’s defense when I said I value human life. But, Hitler is an exception. It was different times. If Hitler didn’t have killed himself, probably he would be sentenced to death – and in that case – I would agree with capital punishment because Hitler was responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people – which only “mistake” they committed (according Hitler and his nazi friends) – was not belonging to his ideal of a superior race and – in the case of political enemies - being openly against the nazi regime.

    >> That is all that is going on here. I am not saying that you want, or you said you want, monetary retribution from a rapist. Never once did I say that. I just said that IF you do you'd be a whore for doing so.


    Again and for the last time: I didn’t mention the ”whore part”; which I didn’t feel offended at all (I’ve been called a lot of things way worse than whore and I didn’t feel offended by those either). You thought that - when I said I would make the rapist pay for his crime by making sure he would spend a long time in jail – you said you understood “monetary settlement” even after I told you a lot of times it wasn’t what I meant to say (maybe you paid attention only to the word “pay” and ignored everything else). It took a lot of comments for you to finally understand what I meant to say.

    I’ll quote the part when you finally got the picture: “I guess I should of stressed a MONETARY settlement. That was what was on my mind when I was saying that. If you send him to prison for 30 years, you're my friend not a whore.

    You keep insisting on your own interpretation and distorting our words even after we corrected you many times is being dishonest. Then – instead of recognizing your mistake – you always dodge the question by saying the same old bullshit:

    “How can being dishonest and lying be universally wrong in your worldview?
    "Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent."

    (which makes me think your reasoning is quite limited…)

    ReplyDelete
  187. D.A.N. said...

    Reynold,

    >>If that's not why you quoted her, then why in fuck did you quote that saying then?

    I will tell you why. Because you said,

    >>"Craig, that "earthly naturalistic perspective" is called valuing human life, you asshole."


    If you value the lives of the Canaanites then its AS IF you value a rapist OVER a raped child.
    You've never even bothered to say "as if" in your earlier rantings.

    Besides, that's NOT the case if, as I had pointed out later, you do something like murder or rape. Then, you show that you yourself have no respect for human life, and you forfeit yours. I had said that I value human life until you do something like that.

    You value
    murderers OVER the Murdered. You value Hitler OVER the Jews, BECAUSE..."Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent." ~Ayn Rand, Atheist.

    There you fucking go again...now I "value Hitler over the Jews"? Because you quote an Rand saying something that had NOTHING TO DO WITH EITHER OF THEM? What? Please explain.

    You obviously aren't honest enough to note where I said that once a person does something like rape, they've forfeited their own life's value. What Hitler did was obviously worse than rape.

    Think! If I truly valued Hitler's life over the Jews, WHY would I even make statements like "valuing human life" in the first place? With Hitler, we have ONE GUY snuffing out the lives of MILLIONS. Don't you think that a person who values human life would show concern over MILLIONS of people being killed?

    Where do you get that I have "pity" for Hitler please? Your quote doesn't even make fucking sense! Besides, in YOUR WORLDVIEW, NO ONE IS INNOCENT! Remember?? If no one is innocent, then WHERE IS THE FUCKING TREASON?

    You can't even dodge this time either, asshole, because you didn't even bother phrasing that as a question!

    ReplyDelete
  188. You're smarter then this, I just know it. You understand what I am saying, but I believe you just want to create some drama to have some excuse to say, "You see God, that's why I don't follow you"...
    Wrong as usual. I'm pointing out the moral inconsistency of your so-called "morally perfect god". That, and you're somehow assuming that I actually believe that he exists? Huh?

    ...but that just will not cut it on that frightful day, for you, will it? Try it a court room, "I know it was wrong to speed judge, but I don't like those cops." Shooting the messenger, kicking the dog,...none of these "tactics" are effective.

    Good think I'm not actually using those tactics. All I'm doing is pointing out that the "judge" is himself guilty of what humans would call "war crimes".

    Besides, I can SEE the judge, I can read about and see the penalties for speeding.

    They're independently verifiable, unlike your god.

    Me: Care to explain just how in FUCKING HELL that defending the rights of those babies that your god had killed is "pro-choice" (we all know what xians mean when they say "pro-choice")!
    Dude I concede, I sure thought you were fighting for the rights of the pro choice people. When you say things

    like:

    >>"At least with pro-choicers, the mother has a choice, and she's not also killed unlike when your god wanted it that way."

    I see that you don't understand the meaning implied by the words "AT LEAST". Let me spell it out for you. It explicitly shows that I don't go for their point of view.

    Or

    >> "Yet a democrat comes along and implies or says that they're pro-choice and all of a sudden you people crucify him."

    So? I'm just saying what his position is, NOT whether I agree with it or not. I'm just saying that you people have gone overboard.


    or this entire comment.
    God, you're full of shit.

    ReplyDelete
  189. Yes we have a history together. But will say though, I assumed you were pro-choice by the past comments.
    While ignoring places where I had outright SAID that I was "pro-life". Typical.

    Forgive me if I was wrong, or if you changed your mind later. Either way, I am very happy you are pro-life. Do not let me hinder that path you are currently on.
    Why would you hinder me? Are you admitting in the end, that you are NOT pro-life?? Do you even bother to read what you write sometimes?

    Too bad that YOU'RE not consistently pro-life yourself. You keep defending genocide and the killing of little kids, so long as it's god who orders their death.

    Me: No. I'm being straight with you. YOU are the one playing games.
    No I am straight also, and that's even if you begged me for a game of naked twister. :7p Defend that.
    I'm not even going to touch that.

    Dan: how do you know that your reasoning about pro-life is valid?
    Me: Once a person dies, thats it. No second chances, nothing.
    Dan: To me that is a flimsy fallacious appeal to ignorance.
    I don't care what it is "to you". That's your opinion. You don't even have that. Remember, AGAIN those bible verses I posted earlier where it shows that your god didn't value the lives of those under one month old? Or when he had babies killed because of the actions of their parents? What's YOUR reasoning for it? It can't be the bible now, can it?

    It certainly cannot be knowledge. Otherwise, you should have an answer for the next question. How do you KNOW that once a person dies, that's it?
    Easy. Absolutely NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that anything goes on afterwards. When a person is brain-damaged their cognitive and other functions are impaired. Yet when the brain outright dies and decomposes, YOU are suggesting that they somehow have all their facilities BACK??


    Dude, you need a better worldview. Want to borrow mine? (That was rhetorical)
    It had better be. YOUR worldview has you and people like you defending genocide and then has you running around calling yourselves "pro-life"!

    You'll disagree with my reasons and pretend that we have NO reason to be "pro-life".
    Your inductive reasoning is lacking I would say. I am not allowed to point that out? I merely am trying to show you my deductive reasoning for the same subject.
    You don't HAVE any "reasoning", deductive or otherwise for this. You've just gone and done what you always do: Disregard our reasons then pretend that we have no reason at all. You're just being more verbose.


    We both trust our senses and reasoning, but of the two of us, I can justify doing so in a non-viciously circular fashion, you cannot.
    We've been over that shit over and over again. Paul and Stepehen Law have been over that shit with the guy who you got this shit reasoning from. Guess what? Both you and Sye TenBruggencate have had to "trust" your senses well before you both heard of "the gospel". Both of you have had to learn to think about the world around you before you've heard the gospel. Otherwise, how'd either of you be able to see the bible to read it, and how would you have the ABILITY to read the bible in the first place.

    Both of you have had to come to rely on your senses and reasoning at least to some extent before you heard of god.

    Therefore, you can't use him as "justification" for your reasoning or your ability to "trust" your senses. You Dan especially can't, since you never started up with this "how can you know your reasoning is valid" shit until AFTER Sye came here.

    ReplyDelete
  190. @ DAN
    "The post is still up, just continue the discussion. I do not own a webcam if you want it "live" though. Care to donate for one?"

    You don't need a webcam for a Skype audio only debate - my skype name is paul.baird9

    Let's get this arranged.

    ReplyDelete
  191. Paul,

    >>Let's get this arranged.

    I believe Sye did a thorough job already. What more could I add? Why would you want to go from the majors down to the minors anyway? You appear to want to save face in some way. Do you request to sit at the kids table during Thanksgiving too?

    I am satisfied with the THREE discussions/debates that you already had with Sye. ...are you?

    What do you seek to gain? Have you practiced since then? All joking aside, I would suck at live discussions. I have 5 kids screaming all day around me, all the time. Yes, it would be entertaining, but it would frustrate the discussions for sure. I am just not equipped for such a set up. That is why I have a blog instead. It works for me, and I can get back to a discussion at my leisure. I am sure you would understand that my kids come first.

    "Stop the debate, I have to change a poopy diaper live" Erm, no thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  192. @DAN - LOL. Well, thanks for admitting you're a minor league player who can't multi-task. :-)

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>