Author Topic: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge  (Read 19331 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2728
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1073 on: March 31, 2014, 09:32:40 AM »
  Biblical morality is not just pulled out of thin air.

If it was pulled out of thin air, it would be believable that it came from God, who lives in the thin air.

However, [nearly] all the morality in the Bible is designed to service a growing culture or civilization. The rules can be come to by observation, philosophy, and trial and error.

You can very easily make a case for sexual immorality, because you can see the detrimental health effects of indiscriminate sex. You listed them. Your mistake.  If there were no STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and jealousy, you would have to build your case on total woo. You would have to say something like the Indian cultures do; that orgasms bind people's auras together, and their auras become polluted.

Nearly all "morality" in the Bible is like that. There are some cryptic ones, like Sabbath on Saturday. Why not Wednesday? Guess where that one came from? Thin air. That one came from God, because it doesn't matter to anybody.

I'll repeat: your mistake is knowing how morality works. If you can explain it, then it didn't come from God.

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2728
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1074 on: March 31, 2014, 09:37:18 AM »
I'll tell you what, Jst: come up with an example of morality in the Bible that you can't explain, or don't understand the reason for, and then follow that up with an dissertation on how it is infallible, and a human couldn't have written it.

Once you have done that, I don't think we need to talk on this subject anymore.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Online wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2533
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1075 on: March 31, 2014, 10:12:20 AM »

Aside from personal experience, I know God exists because no fallible human wrote all the infallible principles found in the Bible.

Which infallible principles are you referring to; the ones that approve of slavery, the ones that tell people to kill a woman who was raped, the ones that recommend the stoning of unruly children, the ones who call vegtable gardens an abomination, or the ones that contradict other principles found within the same book?

Yes, all that, but who is defining these 'principles' as infalliable? The ethics in the OT and the NT is well known in other cultures and we know there is a big Babylonian influence in OT. The Babylonians had most of the ethics that the OT has so why do you think the bible is so special?

Who? Jstwebbrowsing, per my quoting of him

Sorrry, yes!
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2105
  • Darwins +376/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1076 on: March 31, 2014, 10:48:04 AM »
Quote from: jdawg
So he does things like 'healings' or other manifestations of favorable circumstances for his own purposes and gains.  Does that apply to 'smiting' or other manifestations of unfavorable circumstances?

Yes, although like healing if he does it's occurances are only far and few between.  For example he will not allow this planet to become uninhabitable because someone likes to push nuclear buttons.  His general purpose for this earth is to establish his kingdom on it.  Whatever it take he will not allow that purpose to be thwarted. 
I take it that the entering of sin into the world was part of the plan then?

Where do you stand on 'free will'?  Did Pontius Pilate have any 'free will' to condemn Jesus to crucifixion?  Sound like if he didn't, it would have thwarted god's purposes for Jesus to sacrifice himself to save man from sin (which seems to run counter to his purposes, as he allowed sin to enter the world to begin with).  Did Mary have free will to reject god's offer for her to birth the son of god?  Did Noah have free will to reject god's call to build a big boat?

Quote
Quote from: jdawg
It sounds like he does stuff completely independently of what human needs and desires are, or their imploring or protestations humans may have toward this god-entity.  If god wants person X to accomplish some goal, and accomplishing said goal requires person X has or does not have certain characteristics (e.g. debilitating disease), then god will manifest a change in person X irrespective of whether person X asks for it or not, right?

At times yes.  The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one sort of thing.  Also I am not saying that he definately does do these things.  I'm saying he may.  He will make use of whatever options are available to him.  His first choice is not to interfere with human free will and their ability to manage themselves or else the past history of now and throughout the Bible is for nothing.
He may also be a malevolent trickster.  He may also be an incompetent deity.  He may also desperately care about the affairs of lemurs but not really care, at all, about humanity.  He may also be a figment of your imagination.  But those aren't the possibilities that you ascribe with the greatest probability.  You go with the 'omnipotent, omniscience, omnibenevolent' option.

And, with him being omnipotent and omniscient and all...'He'll make use of whatever options are available to him'?  He's god, the Unquestioned Lord and Master of All RealityTM - he has every conceivable and inconceivable option available to him.

Quote
Quote from: jdawg
Honestly, this god-entity you're describing sounds a bit like a jerk on a power trip.  Certainly doesn't sound like someone who cares about humanity.

While human salvation is closely tied to his purposes that is not his primary purpose.  His first pupose, at least that is recorded in the Bible is the sanctification of his name and the vindication of his sovereignty.  Only with that out of the way can he do anything to benefit humans in the long run.
That seems to run very counter to the idea of 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one sort of thing'.  It looks like the needs of one - god - outweigh the needs of the many - people.  Seeing as how his first purpose is to accomplish his goals.  If he's got time for it after he's done dealing with his business, he'll look into that whole 'helping out humanity' schtick.

Quote

Quote from: jdawg
Could you explain the whole 'sending-my-son-to-die-for-the-salvation-of-humanity-from-sin' thing to me, and how it relates to humanity still paying wages of sin?  What, exactly, was the nature of this whole 'salvation' bit?

Jesus was on this earth for three reasons.  The first reason was to declare the truth about God and his kingdom, this having to do with God's primary purpose listed above.  Secondly he was here to be anointed as God's king for this earth.  Lastly he was here to give his life a ransom for many.  While these three things are bound up together there is a pecking order and he acts according to this order.  The Lord's prayer shows the proper pecking order.

1.  Let your name be sanctified.
2.  Let your kingdom come.
3.  Let your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
4.  Give us our daily needs.
5.  Forgive us for our sins.
6.  Protect us from temptation.

These are proper things to pray for and their order of importance.  The Ten Commandments, likewise, listed God first.
Did you know that there are children in Africa starving to death because they are not having their 'daily needs' met?  Again, is this one of those 'god has his sh*t to take care of first, he'll get to them later' bits?  Needs of the many outweighing the needs of the one indeed.

Quote
Quote from: jdawg
I'd expect him to stop a 6-year old child from being gang-raped.  I'd expect hims to stop a 10-year old child from dying from a medically preventable illness like diabetes simply because his/her parents misunderstood the instruction manual on 'how to live in a way that is good and pleases god'.

If God were ruling us I'd expect to never get sick at all and there to be no need of a medical profession such as we know it today.  Those ultimately responsible for the death of the 10-year old are those that do rule the earth now.  Mankind has become the Prodigal Son and will receive nothing from God while it is out squandering it's inheritance.  It is very much a case of tough love.  But no harm has been done that will notbe undone.  And no harm will be allowed that cannot be undone.
That 10 year old suffered and died because her parent where under the impression that god wanted them to pray to him for healing, yet god did nothing to correct them.  Yeah, sure, blame the parents - I do too - but put at least some of the blame on the guy who had every opportunity and every power to stop THIS TEN YEAR OLD CHILD FROM SUFFERING TO DEATH.

Quote
Quote from: jdawg
Now isn't the time because, what, he's got other sh*t to do?

Basically yes.  Since the story of Eden Jehovah has taken progressive and identifiable steps to establish his own rulership over the earth, through a kingdom (government).  During this time humans have been allowed to experiment with every form of government they can think of to establish their own rulership over the earth in place of God's.  God is willing to help but certain conditions must be met and mankind has not met those conditions.

Quote from: jdawg
God has no rulership to oppose.  He has not established rulership here on Earth.  Otherwise, he'd do something.  Just 'declaring' rulership doesn't mean a thing.  I can declare my rulership over the United Kingdom, but unless I do something to actually exercise that authority, my 'rulership' is meaningless.

No, he is in the process of establishing it.  These are some of the steps he has taken.

1.  He built a small nation that would live under his rulership for a time and he used it to establish the line of his king.
2.  He brought forth laws to protect the nation and to teach it right from wrong.  At times he directly interefered to maintain the continuance of this nation.
3.  He anointed his king.
4.  Christ sacrificed his life to ransom those that would come to rule with him (the elect) and those that would come to be his subjects (all others that place faith in his sacrifice).
5.  A global witness is being carried out about #4 while Christ continues the selection process to it's completion.  Christ himself started this global witness.  His disciples carry it to completion.

The rest is future.
Man, this god guy sounds like a procrastinating, un-empathetic moron.  Or is he stuck following someone else's marching orders?  Is that why he has to stick with such a cruel, sh*tty plan?  He wants to do better, but he can't sidestep supergod's plans or something?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1603
  • Darwins +28/-109
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1077 on: March 31, 2014, 01:00:08 PM »
Don't get commerce and morality mixed up. They are two very different things. Sex sells. America is predominately christian. It is America that all those sexy ads and programs are aimed at. Someone sees the connection, I guess.

That is a good point.  Commerce does not necessarily reflect morality, however it can affect it.  And the U.S. does not have a monopoly on sexual immorality but it is the place that affects me and my children the most.  I also am aware it's predominately Christian.  I myself live in the "Bible Belt".  But I've never argued that just because someone believes Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected that that made them moral people.

Quote
Yes and no. I don't have to imagine myself being wronged before I decide not to wrong another.

Of course not.  Often times the right thing to do is obvious, and I think people in general want to do the right thing.  You don't have to be a Christian to be that way.  However, you don't have to be an atheist to be that way either.  I somehow get the sense some of you guys think that a Christian can't do anything without asking what God would do.  For me, I don't do things God says without any thought to the matter.  I do it because I agree it's the right thing to do and is the optimal way to live.  At this point no faith is required and really obediance is coincidental.

But I think where we diverge is when the right thing to do is not so obvious or even is impossible to know.  Maybe the right decision depends on knowing the future.  Raising children can often put you in those situations.  What then?  For me, I seek advice from family, I listen to professionals, etc., etc., just like most people.  But the problem with that is professionals and family all have their own opinions and sometimes they conflict.  What then?  At the end of the day, noone can predict the future.  For me, when the cards are all on the table and I come up empty handed, and it really matters what I decide, I default to what the Bible says because I have always been in agreement with it in the past.  This is where faith comes in and I have never been disappointed by it.

What about you?  Do you have a default position?

Quote
But I certainly agree with the golden rule, which has been around in one form another for thousands of years, and existed in many cultures, from Ancient China and Babylon to Rome and Greece and yes, even the bible.

Can you prove this statement?  I quoted Confucius above but it was not the golden rule as taught in the Bible.

However that is still beside the point.  The Bible says people have a moral compass.  It just says they don't always use it for good. 

Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1603
  • Darwins +28/-109
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1078 on: March 31, 2014, 02:29:08 PM »

Your definition of what is "immoral" is completely out of whack and that is the problem. So too, no one is forcing you to take your children outside.

Awesome argument.

Quote
If you choose to believe that sex is "evil"

Where have I said that?

or that human physiology has some "satanic", "spiritual", "dark" mumbo jumbo attached to it (which is just nonsense anyways)[/quote]

Where have I said that?

Quote
then go live with the Amish and stop complaining.

I'm not Amish.

Quote
This is just fear mongering (which is really all your religion spreads).

I'm not sorry the truth inconveniences you.  Perhaps if you had children you love, you'd have cause to think on these things and how it affects them.

Quote
Who ever said anything about "promoting sex"? Now you are just being dishonest (lying for Jesus) and misrepresenting my position.

Where did I accuse you of promoting sex?

Quote
We live in a free society.

Quote
no one is forcing you to take your children outside.

Something is wrong with these two statements.  You mean you want to live in a free society and to hell with how I feel?  Do you somehow benefit if sex is plastered everywhere in society?  If it is moral then show me the benefit to society.

Quote
Eating hamburgers can cause heart decease, cancer, childhood obesity, and lots more.

No.  Eating too many of them can.  So would you say eating too many of them is beneficial or detrimental to society?  Moral or immoral? 

Quote
Driving cars causes carbon monoxide in the air (which is cancerous), and cars are dangerous. People use them as weapons all the time. Are you looking to ban those now too?

I've not suggested anything be banned.

Quote
Now, STDs (including AIDS) can effect married people too.

I never said it didnt.

Quote
I guess sex, as a whole, is just immoral then (according to your twisted logic) right?!

I've never said that.

Quote
Unwanted pregnancies aren't directly "harming" anyone either (and married people have them too!).

So then as long as it's not direct then it's okay?

Quote
They may be an inconvenience but most people deal with it and either have the child and do their best or allow for adoption. Again, your attempt here fails because it applies to married couples as well.

So then because it happens to married couples everything else goes too?  Is this beneficial or detrimental? 

Quote
Regarding abortion, married couples have them too!
Quote

And that makes sexual immorality okay?

So you get no help there dude. So too, you will have a lot of work ahead of you to show 1) that 100 or so cells is a "person" or "soul", and 2) how a woman's choices with her body are necessarily doing harm to her or other people around her in this case.

Quote
Oh, like "hamburger immorality"? There is nothing "immoral" about consenting adults

Consenting adult can do whatever they want.  I don't like seeing sex plastered everywhere.  Can you understand the difference?

Quote
It's too bad your religion has caused you to think this way.

My beliefs protect me from Aids, STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and abortions.  That's freedom.

Quote
You are against hamburgers or billboards? Are you a vegetarian? How about water? Are you against water? People have used it to drown other people in it! Should we have mandatory "H2o safety buddies"? If it's the billboard you're against, then are you against people being able to do with their property what they wish? You act as if a billboard is forcing you to buy. Are you against all advertisements? If so, please demonstrate how advertisements are harmful in general. We will need direct studies, not just hearsay or correlations.

My children looking at hamburgers, water, or anything of that nature does not offend me.  While I think the over commercialism of fast food is bad, I am not offended by a picture of a hamburger.

Quote
I'd like to see you prove the case that people having sex, in and of itself, is "detrimental" or harmful to others.

I never said that.

Quote
Again, do you want to ban the use of motor vehicles? Because those can be "detrimental" as well. How about banning kitchen knives? They cut people a lot!

I haven't suggested banning anything.

Quote
You are attempting another logical fallacy (called the converse accident fallacy) - trying to take exceptional cases and apply them to the whole. That is irrational.

"The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and pay the penalty."  (Proverbs 27:12)  There is no fallacy there.


Quote
Instead of just stating that we have a disagreement why not actually state where the disagreement is? Please demonstrate how consenting adults (who are not married) having sex is somehow unnecessarily harmful to others.

I never said it was.  I said sexual immorality was harmful and you took your own cue from there.  My specific complaint was sex being plastered everywhere.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1448
  • Darwins +98/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1079 on: March 31, 2014, 03:40:27 PM »
For me, I don't do things God says without any thought to the matter.

What do you do when you disagree with your god?
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1650
  • Darwins +63/-32
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1080 on: March 31, 2014, 05:22:48 PM »
the infallible bible - how so, bible says pi is a whole number, birds are bats, insects have 4 legs, rabbits chew their cud and on and on and on and on...


Signature goes here...

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1081 on: March 31, 2014, 08:55:59 PM »
the infallible bible - how so, bible says pi is a whole number, birds are bats, insects have 4 legs, rabbits chew their cud and on and on and on and on...

Do any of these claim (even if true) mean that ALL of the claims are true?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1650
  • Darwins +63/-32
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1082 on: March 31, 2014, 10:13:18 PM »
not sure yr point - i personally don't think Pi is a whole number, not sure what you think about it. also irrevelevant if all claims in the bible are true except one, infallible and inerrant means infallible and inerrant, keeping score on how many claims are true or false is moot when dealing whith infallible and innerrant to which nothing can be added or subtracted....please do not bring the argument re change in meaning of words or transcription errors or translation errors...infallible is infallibe and innerrant is innerrant according to the fundies at least.
Signature goes here...

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2728
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1083 on: March 31, 2014, 10:44:11 PM »
No.  Eating too many of them can.  So would you say eating too many of them is beneficial or detrimental to society?  Moral or immoral? 

That's an interesting question actually. The secular definition of morality is to do with optimizing the civilization/culture. The religious morality is the same, but tends to express itself in absolutes. PORK IS AN ABOMINATION. One act of adultery or even thinking about a divorced woman gets you hell. Screwing your mama, lying with a mankind... all really bad, even if you only do them once. Homosexuality and screwing your mama should be fine in moderation.

The laws of Jesus work on a sliding scale, because most of them cannot be turned into statutes. So, it's OK if you love your enemy only occasionally. OK, if you walk 1.7 miles.

Secular morality says it's OK to eat the occasional burger, but not become fat, and be a diabetic burden to the health system. However, we still don't have a clue how heart disease and diabetes really work, so we can't punish fat people, or really proscribe anything, because half the time it doesn't work. A religious stoning attitude to health tips has its limitations, because it encourages an attitude of victimization, where it may not be due. Judaism was short on health tips, and it's difficult to interpret the anti-sex laws as being for health, because males are half exempt from them. They are really about property.

Girls who have been raped, basically get thrown in the bin, in religious cultures. That's not moral.

Sexual exploitation and obsession may not be moral, but attempting to suppress it by using threats from an invented God, has big problems. People only get over the threats, by removing invented-God from their lives. That's an indication of how much of a toll it takes on them. The homosexual community is best at removing invented-God from their lives, so we can guarantee that 10% of the community is invented-God-proof, simply because of a decree against homosexuals.

If invented-God's morality is so good, then why do atheist and non-Judeo cultures survive just as well? Surely a real God could think up a morality that cured all of society's ailments? People would be pleased to follow it, because it worked.

Why do people keep coming into work, with the flu? Why hasn't invented-God put in a statute against that? Is it because the people who wrote the Bible didn't know about communicable disease?
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2728
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1084 on: March 31, 2014, 10:46:12 PM »
not sure yr point - i personally don't think Pi is a whole number,

The Bible doesn't really say that pi is 3. It doesn't have a section on maths, where it says pi = 3. It does have a description of a bird bath, and some pacings.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1650
  • Darwins +63/-32
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1085 on: April 01, 2014, 12:45:38 AM »

The Bible doesn't really say that pi is 3. [/quote]


(1 Kings 7:23, KJV)

"And he made the Sea of cast bronze, ten cubits from one brim to the other; it was completely round. Its height was five cubits, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference."

Circum = PiX Diam


Circimf = 30qubits

diam = 10 cubits

Pi = C/D


                                                                                    30/10=3.0 = Pi


but Pi does not equal three  = bible is errant and fallible
Signature goes here...

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1086 on: April 01, 2014, 01:07:45 AM »

Your definition of what is "immoral" is completely out of whack and that is the problem. So too, no one is forcing you to take your children outside.

Awesome argument.
Thanks. I know it is b/c it's true.

Quote
If you choose to believe that sex is "evil"

Where have I said that?

Do you not believe that sex outside of marriage is a "sin" and therefore evil? This is the context we've been talking about. Have you not been paying attention?

Quote
or that human physiology has some "satanic", "spiritual", "dark" mumbo jumbo attached to it (which is just nonsense anyways)

Where have I said that?

Is humanity, for you, not "fallen", "sinful", and therefore against God? Is this not what you believe?


I'm not sorry the truth inconveniences you.  Perhaps if you had children you love, you'd have cause to think on these things and how it affects them.

You haven't spoken any "truth". All you're doing here (like everyone else in the world does) is expressing your own personal subjective option of what "immoral" means. That is leagues from actually showing that an act, thought, or intention by a person (or persons) is actually "objectively" immoral.

Quote
Who ever said anything about "promoting sex"? Now you are just being dishonest (lying for Jesus) and misrepresenting my position.

Where did I accuse you of promoting sex?

My apologize. I misread your prior statement. The question still remains as to how you can correlate advertising with people's decisions to do harm. And what exactly is the "promoting sex" you keeping talking about? Are you talking about Las Vegas hookers? Billboard ads with bikinis? Where exactly is this harm being done, and to whom? Btw, you didn't deal with the logical fallacy I noted in your previous argument.

Quote
We live in a free society.

Quote
no one is forcing you to take your children outside.

Something is wrong with these two statements.  You mean you want to live in a free society and to hell with how I feel?  Do you somehow benefit if sex is plastered everywhere in society?  If it is moral then show me the benefit to society.

A few things here. First, you are just factually incorrect. This assertion of sex being "plastered everywhere" is just your illusion. I'm looking outside my window right now. NOPE! No sex there. EDIT: I just drove an hour down the freeway and back, near my home here in southern California. NOPE! No sexual billboards. Sorry, it's not "everywhere". Second, what exactly is being called "sex" here, and how exactly are you attempting to argue that it's harmful to people in general?

Quote
Eating hamburgers can cause heart decease, cancer, childhood obesity, and lots more.

No.  Eating too many of them can.  So would you say eating too many of them is beneficial or detrimental to society?  Moral or immoral?

Neither, eating too many 'whatevers' is a personal choice that one must take responsibility for. But even if it were the case that (somehow) eating too many whatevers was harmful to a person, it is still their choice to harm themselves and therefore the consequences are upon them.

So now let's replace hamburger (or whatevers) with sex. How much is "too much" and (more importantly) how can you demonstrate it? By what rational method can you actually demonstrate that sex between adults is "immoral"?

Quote
Driving cars causes carbon monoxide in the air (which is cancerous), and cars are dangerous. People use them as weapons all the time. Are you looking to ban those now too?

I've not suggested anything be banned.

But that is irrelevant to the point being made. You brought up exceptional cases where specific unfavorable results have derived from people having sex (implying that sex outside of marriage is "immoral" and that society shouldn't be aloud to promote/"plaster" it on the billboards, as it were - and this in similar fashion to the mere possibility of any-body using any-thing to harm any-one else). And my response was that people INSIDE of marriage can logically have the same results. So by your own reasoning, ALL sex is immoral because it can lead to people doing harmful things to each other (regardless of whether it is IN marriage or not). So then, the question of sexual morality or immorality has nothing to do with marriage. Agreed?

If you do not agree, then please demonstrate how exactly "sex" (in the way you are attempting to describe it) is somehow "immoral" or harmful to others in a way that is NOT potentially harmful in EVERY context of sexuality. The implications of what you are suggesting is that because anybody can hurt anyone with just about anything, we shouldn't have billboards at all. Are you willing to bite that bullet?

Quote
Now, STDs (including AIDS) can effect married people too.

I never said it didnt.

Great. Then I'm sure you won't mind admitting that what is moral or immoral, pertaining to sexuality, has nothing to do with marriage.

Quote
I guess sex, as a whole, is just immoral then (according to your twisted logic) right?!

I've never said that.

You may not have said it, but that is the logical conclusion of your argument.

Quote
Unwanted pregnancies aren't directly "harming" anyone either (and married people have them too!).

So then as long as it's not direct then it's okay?

This depends upon what you mean by "okay". The application of moral principles are often complicated and require a consideration of all the relevant facts. Since you haven't really presented any actual facts as to how putting sexy ladies on billboards directly causes unwanted pregnancies I guess I'll wait for you to produce that evidence. This should be interesting.

Quote
They may be an inconvenience but most people deal with it and either have the child and do their best or allow for adoption. Again, your attempt here fails because it applies to married couples as well.

So then because it happens to married couples everything else goes too?  Is this beneficial or detrimental?

It greatly depends upon the situation. Not all of them are the same and if you are attempting to reduce down every case to some simpleton blanket terms then I'm not buying it. Just because a woman gets pregnant unexpectedly does not in any way mean the action was immoral. Is this what you are implying?

Quote
Regarding abortion, married couples have them too!

And that makes sexual immorality okay?

You keep using this term without actually defining it in the manner in which you are using it. Are you really that dense to not know that we do not agree on what is sexually "immoral"? If not, then please stop making statements like this and define your terms better.


Consenting adult can do whatever they want.  I don't like seeing sex plastered everywhere.  Can you understand the difference?

Do you like smog coming from your own tailpipe? How about the trash that you send out each week which winds up polluting the oceans? Is it immoral or necessary? There aren't any 'absolute' answers to these questions because morality is defined by human beings each, and although definitions are ultimately arbitrary (and agreed upon by people) they also can be meaningful/non-meaningful, rational/irrational.

Quote
It's too bad your religion has caused you to think this way.

My beliefs protect me from Aids, STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and abortions.  That's freedom.

Well great, but you've just gone off into a red herring (and question begging) because you haven't established that STDs, unwanted pregnancies, or abortions are (in and of themselves) "immoral". You've just claimed it without evidence.

My children looking at hamburgers, water, or anything of that nature does not offend me.  While I think the over commercialism of fast food is bad, I am not offended by a picture of a hamburger.

Oh so, what is "immoral" then for you is only about what offends you? It doesn't have anything to do with actual evidence or sound reasoning? If so please present the actual evidence and not just what offends you personally. I thought we already dealt with this when you agreed that morality has do with what is (unnecessarily) harmful or beneficial.

Quote
I'd like to see you prove the case that people having sex, in and of itself, is "detrimental" or harmful to others.

I never said that.

Then what are you complaining about, billboards? Is it the billboards themselves that you are complaining about, or the "sex outside of marriage" (which you think the billboards causes) that you are coming against? If it's the latter, then again, please demonstrate the causation between the two. You do know that correlation does not equal causation, don't you?

Quote
Again, do you want to ban the use of motor vehicles? Because those can be "detrimental" as well. How about banning kitchen knives? They cut people a lot!

I haven't suggested banning anything.

This sounds like double think. First you say you are against the billboards (implying that you want them taken down and/or not allowed - which is the equivalent of a ban), and now you're saying you do not want to stop the billboards?? Make up your mind dude.

Quote
You are attempting another logical fallacy (called the converse accident fallacy) - trying to take exceptional cases and apply them to the whole. That is irrational.

"The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and pay the penalty."  (Proverbs 27:12)  There is no fallacy there.

Just quoting me a bible verse and then CLAIMING that your previous fallacious argument is not a fallacious argument doesn't in anyway change the fact that it is a fallacious argument. You attempted to use exceptional cases and make them apply to the general whole. That is fallacious reasoning.

Btw, your vague Proverbs passage doesn't say anything specific about this case, nor does it justify your logically fallacious argument. And even if it did, why are you siting it? Is it just because your personal interpretation (oh wait no, I mean the Watchtowers interpretation which you bought into) is that it applies here? Well, it's been mentioned before here. Your theological assumptions are not sufficient here (just like a Mormon or Muslims theological assumptions would not be accepted by you). The fact that you would just jump to bible thumping is very telling of your confirmation bias toward the theology that you assumed from the outset. It's still hypocrisy.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2014, 01:26:10 AM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2728
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1087 on: April 01, 2014, 02:16:41 AM »
but Pi does not equal three  = bible is errant and fallible

How do you know it's not rounding error? If the brim measurement was 9.7, then the circumference would be 30.47. People of that era had no maths skills, or decimal representation.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3894
  • Darwins +258/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1088 on: April 01, 2014, 07:48:39 AM »
but Pi does not equal three  = bible is errant and fallible

How do you know it's not rounding error? If the brim measurement was 9.7, then the circumference would be 30.47. People of that era had no maths skills, or decimal representation.

Demonstrating Pi is higher than three is acheivable with a tool no more complicated than string. While I couldn't be super accurate, I can get it to about 3 and 1/8th or 3 and 1/6th depending on the thickness of the string and how careful I am.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2728
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1089 on: April 01, 2014, 08:07:39 AM »
Demonstrating Pi is higher than three is acheivable with a tool no more complicated than string. While I couldn't be super accurate, I can get it to about 3 and 1/8th or 3 and 1/6th depending on the thickness of the string and how careful I am.

That's the reason that the 1 Kings 7:23 calculation of Pi is not terribly useful as a tool to deprogram Christians; any fool can figure it, just as any fool can count the legs on insects. Perhaps they just thought that insects had 2 arms and 4 legs.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Online wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2533
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1090 on: April 01, 2014, 08:28:55 AM »
To be honest, I rather think that all the stories, historical or not, are legends and are not to be taken literally - where fundamentalist get thing drastically wrong. the question of Pi is not significant to the bible writers who are merely giving sizes of an object which they probably never saw. On paper it sounds about right. Whoever was writing this down was trying to recount on paper a legend that he had heard and did a fairly good job of it. Writers of fiction and legends mostly don't write to give scientific facts from the text. Rather they are telling a story.

For this reason I don't think Pi is a useful think to throw at theists. In fact, I think that any calculations, based on a text largely comprised of legends and myths that were redacted into the OT we know it, is ever going to be much use. After all, the redactors of Genesis, which is a concatenation of various sources into one continuous text and I doubt the the redactor thought about making sure that there were all the generations so that a later society could work out the earth is only 6,000 years old! This was not the intention of writing and redacting.

However, I do think that those who claim the text in infallible or inerrant do run the risk of being shown to be plain wrong - for example anything to do with the flood, a legend, is likely to be demonstrably wrong. The biblical texts has numerous errors - not least because of the number of writers and redactors so we can easily put down and bible inerrantist.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1091 on: April 01, 2014, 09:16:58 AM »
I love it when they try to say the bible is "infallible", and then when you bring up blatant errors or clear contradictions they say "Well, it's not meant to be a science book!" as if that somehow does anything to make the errors or contradictions acceptable; therefore somehow saving it from refutation and keeping it "infallible". LOL. Which is it? Does the bible make testable claims, which you somehow have tested and found to be infallible, or is it "not a science book" and therefore not testable (like every myth book) and therefore you can't know that it's infallible?

I guess their definition of infallible is "I will assume it's perfect regardless of the evidence."

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Online wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2533
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1092 on: April 01, 2014, 09:26:00 AM »
I thin the line is that as god 'dictated' it it has to be perfect and it is only that we poor imperfect souls here don't understand everything!  ;D
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1793
  • Darwins +191/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1093 on: April 01, 2014, 03:35:37 PM »
You've just neatly circumvented free will if your god is omni-anything, or made him much less powerful and really manipulative if he's not (to say nothing of him also being a big fat liar too).

To not circumvent free will he generally does not interfere for good nor for ill.  This is why he does not heal.  He only interferes with man's rulership of himself to the extent to ensuring that those that prefer his rulership will get their desires. 

Do you understand what "circumvent" means? And while we're at it, you probably ought to explain your understanding of free will as well. According to what you've written, free will is a matter of convenience to your god.
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1650
  • Darwins +63/-32
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1094 on: April 01, 2014, 05:26:58 PM »
you guys are missing the point god can make a number a whole number and a non-recurring infinite decimal both at the same time ie

god can make a number both a rational number and an irrational number simultaneaously and if he wants he can swao them back and forth and unmake them so they never existed and then make them re-exist with all new numerical values.

you know why cos he is god and if you could do it you would be god but you can't so it proves yr not god and god is god.

QED
Signature goes here...

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1095 on: April 01, 2014, 06:32:30 PM »
you guys are missing the point god can make a number a whole number and a non-recurring infinite decimal both at the same time ie

god can make a number both a rational number and an irrational number simultaneaously and if he wants he can swao them back and forth and unmake them so they never existed and then make them re-exist with all new numerical values.

you know why cos he is god and if you could do it you would be god but you can't so it proves yr not god and god is god.

QED

None of this proves a "God". All you are appealing to here is nature (or the tool we have invented in language to aid us in life). Math is a language of representation - invented by humans. And besides that, what you've said is illogical. Ever heard of the law of non-contradiction? Something cannot be itself and not itself in the same time and in the same way. That applies to our experience of the world. There is no indication of a "God" (whatever the heck that word means) there.

Your other claims (god can do this/god can do that) are just empty. Prove it.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1096 on: April 01, 2014, 06:50:46 PM »
you guys are missing the point god can make a number a whole number and a non-recurring infinite decimal both at the same time ie

god can make a number both a rational number and an irrational number simultaneaously and if he wants he can swao them back and forth and unmake them so they never existed and then make them re-exist with all new numerical values.

you know why cos he is god and if you could do it you would be god but you can't so it proves yr not god and god is god.

QED

What in crikey fuck does this even mean?
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1650
  • Darwins +63/-32
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1097 on: April 01, 2014, 06:56:33 PM »
search me
Signature goes here...

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1098 on: April 01, 2014, 10:53:40 PM »
Then you shouldn't have posted it.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2685
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1099 on: April 01, 2014, 10:57:13 PM »
People of that era had no maths skills, or decimal representation.

Well that's simply not true.
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1650
  • Darwins +63/-32
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1100 on: April 01, 2014, 11:23:59 PM »
did the greeks (Pythagorus, Euclid, Zeno et al) pre-date OT?

actually irrlevant what people knew - the bible is the inspired word of god that presumably prophets wrote thru channeling/visions etc, god worked thru them to write scripture,.

unless of course the bible reflects the personal human knowledge of the authors eg bronze-age sheep herders as most everything in the bible that speaks of wordly things happen to be in walking distance of where it was written.......lol


Signature goes here...

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4617
  • Darwins +105/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1101 on: April 01, 2014, 11:26:09 PM »
  Biblical morality is not just pulled out of thin air.

If it was pulled out of thin air, it would be believable that it came from God, who lives in the thin air.

However, [nearly] all the morality in the Bible is designed to service a growing culture or civilization. The rules can be come to by observation, philosophy, and trial and error.

You can very easily make a case for sexual immorality, because you can see the detrimental health effects of indiscriminate sex. You listed them. Your mistake.  If there were no STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and jealousy, you would have to build your case on total woo. You would have to say something like the Indian cultures do; that orgasms bind people's auras together, and their auras become polluted.

Nearly all "morality" in the Bible is like that. There are some cryptic ones, like Sabbath on Saturday. Why not Wednesday? Guess where that one came from? Thin air. That one came from God, because it doesn't matter to anybody.

I'll repeat: your mistake is knowing how morality works. If you can explain it, then it didn't come from God.
not to mention if it was a bond with "god" then his(god) morality would be perfect and would not have been greatly ignored by his followers as the centuries pass. If you brought a Christian from 200,300,and 400 years in the past to the present day Christianity,would they accept or even recognize it? With each passing century since its inception Christianity is nowhere near as brutal,sexist or racist as it was. This is a good thing as the next few centuries pass we could see Christianity go the way of all religions before it....POOF gone
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)