Author Topic: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge  (Read 19273 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1593
  • Darwins +60/-31
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1102 on: April 01, 2014, 11:54:16 PM »
kidding right jstweb, do i need to post scripture about killing and stoning naughty children and wives - what morality you referring to specifically the 10 commandments??
Signature goes here...

Online Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2720
  • Darwins +221/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1103 on: April 02, 2014, 01:04:13 AM »
did the greeks (Pythagorus, Euclid, Zeno et al) pre-date OT?

Difficult to say, because first you have to define what the Old Testament is, then you have to make judgements about the content. King David was supposed to have lived 1000BC, but there is no evidence that he really existed, so when was he invented? Solomon, and his bird bath (1Kings7) was 950BC, so he probably never existed either. Jeremiah is supposed have written Kings, along with all the other rubbish, around 580BC. That's typically the date when people think the whole lots was magicked out of nowhere.

Then there is the problem of trying to figure out what the Old Testament is, because the only stable bit was the first 5 books, known as the Torah. The Sadducees kept that relatively pure, and it was translated into Greek around 280BC, for Jews in Egypt. However the rest of the OT canon could have been changed by anyone at any time, and we would be none the wiser. Origenes, around 240AD, is rumoured to have written a phenomenal work, called the Hexapla, where he compared all the existing Greek Septuagint texts, to figure out what sort of mess it was. He assumed that the Hebrew official text was an original, but some of the Greek Torah Septuagint copies showed that the Jews had mucked around with that, since 280BC. He fudged the Greek texts to match the one he thought was authentic. The Rabbinic Jews canonised only 22 texts, (inc Kings), so they believed the rest was inauthentic.  It follows that since the Bible was constructed around 350AD, then the books we consider to be authentic were drawn from whatever was available at that time. This would have been numerous Greek variant copies, and the Rabbinic Jewish stuff, decided in 90AD at the council of Jamnia.

Christians pat themselves on the back, because fragments at Qumran, held by the Essene sect and various Syriac translations seem to match the current Old Testment. However, if our surviving texts were derived from the Essenes, and the Essenes held copies that suited their sect, then we would be none the wiser, if everything outside the 5 Torah books had large modifications.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1593
  • Darwins +60/-31
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1104 on: April 02, 2014, 01:51:25 AM »
^ well what a f'ing mess, how could a Christian claim to know anything at all.

to me the bible is an under-determined equation where any number of solutions fit, just take yr pick.

like defining a line then having an infinite number of planes intersecting it, really theists can get an answer to anything for free, but not because anything is true but the bible is so under-determined in the mathematical sense that pretty much you can get anything you want to get out of it like any plane you pick is correct as long as it goes thru the defined line which is an infinite number.

by saying so much it actually says nothing at all - to worship god is akin to doing nothing at all, you are worshipping nothing, there is no god that is listening, watching, judging, loving, hating, caring or not caring...god of true believers is an hallucination caused by an overpowering fear of death and personal extinction coupled with a desire for an eternal afterlife in heaven - religion is nothing more than a selfish wish for immortality and eternal bliss.

I want to try it, just not have any accountability and just blame all good things on god and bad things on demons and answer people that have actually used their brain and studied shit by saying "oh well that's not in the bible so you must be wrong" the lure of being so shallow and such an air head does have an appeal don't y'al think?
Signature goes here...

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2501
  • Darwins +109/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1105 on: April 02, 2014, 03:29:26 AM »
To follow on from Add Homonym.

Yes the Greek translation of the Ot was the Septuagint(LXX), produced actually around 200 BCE. It has extended versions of a number of books together with some that the Rabbis did not include in the final Hebrew text. The missed out bits appear in Catholic bibles in the text but in Protestant bibles as the Apocrypha.

Now we may well wonder why there are large differences in the size of some of the texts - Jeremiah is something like a third longer in the LXX - and the answer lies at Qumran. There there were found a large number of scrolls o OT texts. What was found showed that the books were, in effect, being actively redacted well past the point that they were supposed to have been written. Scrolls of the books turned up that match the Hebrew text and also that match the LXX text. So we can surmise that the text was fluid at that time and that there was no problem modifying texts to suit.

It has also been proposed that the'return' from Babylon was not so much a return as a 'rehousing' of another people, at least their leaders. (It hardly makes sense to remove the leaders from a land one conquers only to put them back later.) Thus when the 'return' took place, those who went to Israel set about collecting information from the locals about the religion they knew about and 'created' texts and a religion fro themselves. They also created the early parts of the OT, up to the part they could really tell properly, the 'return' and onwards, so that the slavery in Egypt and the escape are all based on the Babylonian experiences. This all comes from a book called 'In search of Ancient Israel'  by Philip Davies. if he is right, then it certainly explains why the texts of the Ot were quite fluid. 
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 Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3885
  • Darwins +258/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1106 on: April 02, 2014, 07:34:47 AM »
^ well what a f'ing mess, how could a Christian claim to know anything at all.

to me the bible is an under-determined equation where any number of solutions fit, just take yr pick.

like defining a line then having an infinite number of planes intersecting it, really theists can get an answer to anything for free, but not because anything is true but the bible is so under-determined in the mathematical sense that pretty much you can get anything you want to get out of it like any plane you pick is correct as long as it goes thru the defined line which is an infinite number.

The Nostradamus effect. You create enough portentous purple prose, people will take they want to believe, and find passages that can be interpreted to fit.
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.

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6680
  • Darwins +888/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1107 on: April 02, 2014, 04:29:30 PM »
That is how you can tell that humans wrote all the so-called sacred texts, not gods.

People trying to speak for god-beings will throw everything in that seems important at the time--heroic legends, recipes for magic potions, poetry, instructions for sacrifices, superstitions, rules, love songs, hallucinatory end-of-the-world visions, genealogies, commandments, moral tales.

A lot of it is incomprehensible, repetitive, easily proven wrong or has become irrelevant after only a few generations. But since people are told that the book came from a god, they can't question the validity of any of the stuff. They have to keep on trying to make sense out of nonsense. 

Nobody wants to admit that their ancestors were ignorant or foolish--or that they themselves are still ignorant and foolish enough to keep believing in stuff that makes no sense.

So, people start making their own interpretations, changing literal statements into metaphors and vice versa, having disputes over the meanings and forming different opposing factions.

On the other hand, if the work in question had really from a god, it would not have to be so long and confusing. It certainly would not have been contradictory. Wouldn't a real god know in advance that people will misunderstand anything too complicated?

And what's with all the need for translations into different languages? If a real god-person wanted to say something useful to humans it could automatically translate itself into whatever language the person could read. Or, better yet, since we are talking about a god here, the information would just be downloaded into the person's brain in their preferred language as soon as they needed it.

A book as long as the bible should be chock-full of basic helpful information that the people on earth did not know at the time.  How about for starters:
clear information about how germs cause disease;
a detailed description of what to expect when people land on the moon or on different planets;
a map showing where to find fossils of extinct animals;
a map showing where to find water, metals or other important resources;
a map showing where the other inhabited planets are located;
a list of the days large volcanoes will erupt so the people can get to safety in advance;
three ways to prevent famine;
ways to prevent all warfare;
the cure for cancer;
how to build a solar-powered fusion reactor for endless energy.

Anything like that in the bible, or any other ancient sacred book? No. Instead we get lots of begats, retread mythology, reasons to kill people we don't like, meandering parables, 600 commandments that nobody follows because they don't make sense, and weird superstitious sh!t about menstruating women.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1588
  • Darwins +28/-109
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1108 on: April 02, 2014, 06:01:52 PM »
I have fallen very far behind in this thread.  I will step out unless there are any points anyone has made that they wish to press me on.  I am glad so many have replied to me but it's hard for me to answer everything.  I would prefer a narrowed topic if anyone has any they would like to pursue with me.
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 Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1109 on: April 02, 2014, 06:45:55 PM »
I have fallen very far behind in this thread.  I will step out unless there are any points anyone has made that they wish to press me on.  I am glad so many have replied to me but it's hard for me to answer everything.  I would prefer a narrowed topic if anyone has any they would like to pursue with me.

Prove that there is a god...
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: 1593
  • Darwins +60/-31
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1110 on: April 02, 2014, 06:53:38 PM »
and not from personal experience or from scripture.
Signature goes here...

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3885
  • Darwins +258/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1111 on: April 02, 2014, 07:30:59 PM »
and a type of proof that couldn't be used for any other god or a god of the gaps.
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 median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1112 on: April 02, 2014, 07:41:58 PM »
I have fallen very far behind in this thread.  I will step out unless there are any points anyone has made that they wish to press me on.  I am glad so many have replied to me but it's hard for me to answer everything.  I would prefer a narrowed topic if anyone has any they would like to pursue with me.

I spent quite a bit of time on my response to you in #1086. I would appreciate a response there.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2014, 07:43:56 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1593
  • Darwins +60/-31
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1113 on: April 02, 2014, 07:46:00 PM »
oh and be great if you could not use the line that science can't prove X or there is doubt about the validity of science theory Y therefore god exists.

a proof of gods existence not discussion of evrything else.
Signature goes here...

Online Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2720
  • Darwins +221/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1114 on: April 02, 2014, 08:09:55 PM »
Yes the Greek translation of the Ot was the Septuagint(LXX), produced actually around 200 BCE.

As far as I can work out, the LXX was as fluid in non-Torah books, as the Hebrew texts. The is no single LXX.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3885
  • Darwins +258/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1115 on: April 02, 2014, 08:33:48 PM »
oh and be great if you could not use the line that science can't prove X or there is doubt about the validity of science theory Y therefore god exists.

a proof of gods existence not discussion of evrything else.

Yeah, underwear gnome theology is so annoying.
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 Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1588
  • Darwins +28/-109
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1116 on: April 02, 2014, 10:29:35 PM »
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?

Yes, but this is irrelevant.  I don't care what people do as long as it doesn't affect me or my family.   

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

I believe all humans sin.  However, this is also irrelevant.

Quote
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.

Why does it have to be "objectively" immoral?  Murder is not objectively immoral yet we do not practice it.  It only a matter of common sense.

Quote
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.

Promoting sex would be advertising it.  If you advertise burgers people will buy more burgers.  If you advertise sex, albeit indirectly, people will have more sex.

Quote
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?

How about underdressed men and/or women?

Quote
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.

Sure, but if you didn't want your child to be an alcoholic would you want the world to look like a bar?

Quote
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"?

It is too much when it infringes on someone elses freedom.

Quote
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).

Here are some good places to learn some actual facts

http://www.bestfriendsfoundation.org/
http://www.choosingthebest.com/
http://firstthings.org/
http://freeteensusa.org/

Quote
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.

Yes I would mind.  As the above sites show abstinance outside of marriage is superior, therefore more moral.

Quote
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.

For my complaint it is defined as unrestrained sex. 

Quote
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.

It is only logical that abstinance outside of marriage is the optimal way to fight unplanned pregnancies, STDs, and abortions.  The above sites, and many others, prove this.

Quote
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.

It is easy to determine.  You are what you eat.  Teens that take in sex from every direction are much more likely to have sex.  The more likely they are to have sex the more likely they are to get harmful things.  You reap what you sow.  If you sow sex you're going to reap teen pregnancy, STDs, and abortions.  All it takes is a little common sense.

Quote
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?

Here is a fact.  Advertising works.  That is the causation between the two.

Quote
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.

No.  I want demand for such things to diminish. 

And from your outlook, you probably don't have children.  I personally do not know anyone with children that is not offended at how sex has infiltrated everything from M&M commercials to children's cartoons.  Two blocks from my house there is a billboard for a used car dealership with a picture of a woman with large breasts and her nipples almost showing the cleavage is cut so low.  And there are several others in the area just like it.  Children should not have to see all this stuff.

At any rate, I am done debating.  Obviously you don't care what children see, how it affects them, or how it affects those around them.


 
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

Online Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2720
  • Darwins +221/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1117 on: April 02, 2014, 10:55:59 PM »
Murder is not objectively immoral yet we do not practice it.  It only a matter of common sense.

Exactly. It's objective, because going around killing everyone, wipes out your society in an objective way.

What is deceptive about it, is that the moral that you should kill a murderer, is perhaps the only death penalty which is fair, so this makes it harder to understand the "morality" in killing someone for having sex with his mama. It exposes the weakness in the "moral" system: that it's really a bunch of statutes, imposed by kings, to regulate their society. They have few tools at their disposal, because prison is expensive. Therefore the 'morality' is black and white, and morality can't be black and white. Laws can, though.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1588
  • Darwins +28/-109
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1118 on: April 02, 2014, 11:10:57 PM »
Murder is not objectively immoral yet we do not practice it.  It only a matter of common sense.

Exactly. It's objective, because going around killing everyone, wipes out your society in an objective way.

What is deceptive about it, is that the moral that you should kill a murderer, is perhaps the only death penalty which is fair, so this makes it harder to understand the "morality" in killing someone for having sex with his mama. It exposes the weakness in the "moral" system: that it's really a bunch of statutes, imposed by kings, to regulate their society. They have few tools at their disposal, because prison is expensive. Therefore the 'morality' is black and white, and morality can't be black and white. Laws can, though.

The Greek scriptures highlight your so called "weakness" in that law cannot regulate morality.  The law was not given to regulate morality.   The law was given to keep the Jewish nation alive long enough to produce the promised seed.  Jesus came to teach morality.
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

Online Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2720
  • Darwins +221/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1119 on: April 02, 2014, 11:58:29 PM »
Murder is not objectively immoral yet we do not practice it.  It only a matter of common sense.

Exactly. It's objective, because going around killing everyone, wipes out your society in an objective way.

What is deceptive about it, is that the moral that you should kill a murderer, is perhaps the only death penalty which is fair, so this makes it harder to understand the "morality" in killing someone for having sex with his mama. It exposes the weakness in the "moral" system: that it's really a bunch of statutes, imposed by kings, to regulate their society. They have few tools at their disposal, because prison is expensive. Therefore the 'morality' is black and white, and morality can't be black and white. Laws can, though.

The Greek scriptures highlight your so called "weakness" in that law cannot regulate morality.  The law was not given to regulate morality.   The law was given to keep the Jewish nation alive long enough to produce the promised seed.  Jesus came to teach morality.

I made a fux pas in the above statement.  Morality is seen differently from an individual's perspective. A ruler who dispenses law has a societal objective, however, individuals perceive morality differently. An example of this is an episode of Star Trek, where a utopian society had the death penalty for everything, if you were accidentally caught. This worked really well, but Wesley and the crew rejected the idea that he should be executed for walking on the grass. This is because he saw the situation from the PoV of an individual, and the way an individual perceives morality and fairness. This highlights that modern law is always attempting to bring penalties closer to what individuals think is fair. However, the religious right think we are getting too slack, when we let kids and assorted criminals get away with whatever.

Since morality is defined by the ruler, imposed on a group, an individual may not have the right to define morality.

Quote
Jesus came to teach morality.

Why doesn't the NT say that? I can see where you are coming from, but anyone else sees it as an extension of Jewish thought, in an effort to rectify a problem with people's adherence to the literal law, by inventing heaven and hell, and using thought and guilt control.

Well, if Jesus came to teach morality, he was a bit late. The Jews were saying it well before him, and so were the Buddhist and Taoists and everyone else.

We have too many arguments around here, from Christians who think that only God can come up with morality, and atheists can only make up arbitrary morality, since there are no "objective" ways of doing it (in their humble opinion). They will usually defend Jewish Law as part of that morality, and so do the Jews. You are a pioneer in mentioning this non-scriptural distinction.

The way we define morality means that there is no difference between a lot of what Jesus taught, and what God taught through Moses. It's law, but Jesus' "morality" is punished by hell or lack of heaven, instead of death and taxes. Also, it is more concerned with the individual, which means that it may not even be morality. Giving away all your money will not help society, if you cannot regulate labour. It's a spiritual ideal, from monks - to progress your own spiritual agenda. I don't think that works as morality, even though it superficially looks like it. Part of his morality is telling people to hold to Jewish law, better than the scribes. So, if you want mention what Jesus taught, you have to differentiate what Paul concocted.

When I look what he says, it's all about attempting to bring about a Kingdom of utopia, which is the same objective as any ruler-imposed law-morality, which his still is, because of all the threats and bribes. However, rulers have typically left enough room for people to have the freedom to think evil thoughts. I think we are getting a bit control freaky, when your evil thoughts are punishable by hell. (Which of course, you don't believe in.) Another difference with what Jesus taught, is an attempt to convert, and spread the morality; globalise his brand of it.

I'd say Jesus was teaching ethics, if there were no threats. But I think any working definition of morality is that it's imposed on a group, by a consensus or ruler, who decides what is optimal for that society. This is what both God and Jesus said they did.   I haven't studied alternate moralities which are pulled out of people's arses.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Online Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2720
  • Darwins +221/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1120 on: April 03, 2014, 12:02:57 AM »
Ah, and when you attempt to spread your morality beyond the scope of a ruler, you have to have a higher ruler who dishes out the punishments. The is the mechanism by which Christianity escapes the Jewish rule. You have to BYO punishment and guilt.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

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 #1121 on: April 03, 2014, 01:05:26 AM »
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?

Yes, but this is irrelevant.  I don't care what people do as long as it doesn't affect me or my family.

Do you think that you live in a vacuum?? That somehow the actions of others should never effect you because you somehow think that you are "separate"? You aren't separate. We are all connected by actions and you haven't shown that billboards are somehow doing actual harm to you. It's just an assertion without evidence. If all you're appealing to is that your personal feelings are being hurt, well too bad. That isn't a demonstration of actual harm being done. Just as you have a right to drive your car down the highway (even it offends me), companies and private parties have the right to place advertisements on their property. There's nothing immoral there, sorry.

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

I believe all humans sin.  However, this is also irrelevant.

Oh stop this bullshit. It is very relevant because earlier you said (implied) that you do not think that these actions are "evil" by asking "Where did I say that?" Nice try slick. Stop pretending and playing games. You're bringing your religious baggage to the table and wanting to force everyone else into that mold (i.e. - trying to force people to take their advertisements down because you personally are offended). Well, once again the fact that your feelings are getting hurt is not a sufficient demonstration of actual harm.

Quote
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.

Why does it have to be "objectively" immoral?  Murder is not objectively immoral yet we do not practice it.  It only a matter of common sense.

By claiming that you have "the truth" you are implying that somehow YOU are the objectively "right" one and all else are wrong (or, secretly, that your personal theology is the right one and all else are wrong, and that we should all be coerced by your bible interpretation). But if you don't think there is an objective morality please do say so.


Promoting sex would be advertising it.  If you advertise burgers people will buy more burgers.  If you advertise sex, albeit indirectly, people will have more sex.

And what does it matter if people are having more sex? By your logic, we should stop knife advertisers for knife billboards because people might buy more and then cut themselves on accident! This reasoning just doesn't follow. Again, you are presenting the converse accident fallacy.

Quote
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?

How about underdressed men and/or women?


Are you that disingenuous to actually ignore almost my entire response here? Try again.

Quote
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.

Sure, but if you didn't want your child to be an alcoholic would you want the world to look like a bar?

You seem to be implying that the cause of the problem is the alcohol (or in this case the sex), rather than the people themselves. That is your problem, your life is governed by religious fear based psychology. Again, correlation does not equal causation. You need to actually demonstrate that the alcohol itself is causing the people to do harm, and not just the people themselves making irresponsible choices. This is the same thing with sex. You are attempting to conflate two things which are separate (an action in itself, and the harmful/irresponsible use of that action). They are not the same. Sorry.

Quote
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"?

It is too much when it infringes on someone elses freedom.

Please make a demonstrable case that your freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are being violated by billboard advertising.

Quote
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).

Here are some good places to learn some actual facts

http://www.bestfriendsfoundation.org/
http://www.choosingthebest.com/
http://firstthings.org/
http://freeteensusa.org/

Please present and link to the actual facts, data, or statistics you are referencing (direct articles, not just websites for your convenience). Try this on for size:

http://www.statejournal.com/story/17334114/report-evidence-shows-abstinence-programs-dont-work

Sorry, these abstinence programs you are attempting to reference aren't effective (namely b/c they are unscientific and dismissive of the facts). They are in fact more harmful in the long run because they attempt to deny what is natural to human kind - just as eating food and drinking water is. You aren't helping your case by trying to send me off on goose chases with these vague website URLs.

Btw, once again you didn't deal with my response directly. Pointing to cases where people have harmed each other as a result of irresponsible thinking is not sufficient to demonstrate that an actual act is "immoral". You should know that. Again, people can hurt each other with almost anything. It doesn't make the thing or action in itself immoral. Come back to critical thinking basics!

Quote
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.

Yes I would mind.  As the above sites show abstinance outside of marriage is superior, therefore more moral.

NOPE. These sites do NOT show that. In fact, the scientific studies on the case show that these abstinence only programs do nothing to hinder students from sex (and absolutely NONE of it shows that having sex outside of marriage is immoral - that is just your religious based assertion). Have you even bothered to do any honest research into the opposing position? Have you even bothered to do some studies on condom use, family planning, or any of the other answers to your assumed theological assumptions about what's moral? If so, where exactly?

http://news.uga.edu/releases/article/abstinence-only-education-does-not-lead-to-abstinent-behavior/

"Our analysis adds to the overwhelming evidence indicating that abstinence-only education does not reduce teen pregnancy rates,"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/04/14/us-sex-abstinence-idUSN1423677120070414http://www.chicagonow.com/feminist-christian/2013/05/why-christians-should-give-up-abstinence-only-sex-education/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html

Quote
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.


For my complaint it is defined as unrestrained sex.



Huh? What the heck does that even mean? You are just being uber vague again with your terms. What does "unrestrained sex" mean? Are you talking about sex without a condom? Sex in public? What? What specifically does this term refer to?

If you are (in a round about way) trying to refer to any sex that is outside marriage than all you're doing is trying to smuggle in the very thing you need to demonstrate (that sex outside of marriage, any sex, is somehow "immoral"). Sorry, pointing to cases where people have sex irresponsibly isn't enough to show it's immoral (just like showing exceptional cases of people hurting each other with knives isn't enough to show that knife use is immoral). Your logic is completely fallacious here. 

Quote
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.


It is only logical that abstinance outside of marriage is the optimal way to fight unplanned pregnancies, STDs, and abortions.  The above sites, and many others, prove this.


No, they don't prove that whatsoever. And neither do they prove unplanned pregnancies, STDs, or abortions (in and of themselves) are actually "immoral". A child being born isn't necessarily harmful. Not all STDs are incurable or harmful to anyone except he/she involved (personal responsibility), and the abortion issue is a highly debated one (which I would be glad to take you to task on). You are practicing confirmation bias here b/c one could point to all of the cases where teens (for example) have had sex and nothing demonstrably harmful happened (just like all of the cases where people drove cars and didn't hurt others in doing so). Again, this is your confirmation bias attempting to skew the evidence. It's called leading the evidence instead of following it.

Quote
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.


It is easy to determine.  You are what you eat.  Teens that take in sex from every direction are much more likely to have sex.  The more likely they are to have sex the more likely they are to get harmful things.  You reap what you sow.  If you sow sex you're going to reap teen pregnancy, STDs, and abortions.  All it takes is a little common sense.


A pure likelihood of harm does not indicate an immoral act (as I noted early with other examples). Your "common sense" is nonsense and irrational b/c it is based in your religious presuppositions, and attempts at reductionism, in the face of evidence to the contrary. These things are NOT easy to determine and neither are they simple problems (as you simpleton religious folk want to make them). That is the problem with making blanket religious assumptions based in dogma.

Again, there are car advertisements everywhere. So according to your fallacious reasoning we should stop people from using them because so many people get hurt every year. "Holy shit! We're all gonna die! Stop everything! Get me the duct tape and plastic sheeting! Board up all the windows and doors!"

So far, your line of reasoning has been logically fallacious and fear based.

Quote
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?


Here is a fact.  Advertising works.  That is the causation between the two.


I challenged you to demonstrate (directly) how advertising actually causes harm, and you didn't do it. All you did was post some vague websites without reference to any actual articles are science. FAIL! It's quite clear that you don't really care whether or not your beliefs are true. You just want to make yourself feel comfortable.

The fact that advertising works is completely irrelevant to the question of whether sex outside marriage is immoral (and you still haven't shown that it is - you've just asserted it). An advertisement with a girl in a bikini could get someone to buy a hamburger. THIS-PROVES-NONE-OF-YOUR-CASE. Sorry.

Quote
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.


No.  I want demand for such things to diminish. 


You want demand for cars, burgers, and soda to go down? You just avoided the question I put to you and answered some other question that I didn't ask. Try again. What it seems like here is that you are willing to allow your personal feelings to get in the way of the actual facts. Please answer the question I asked you.


And from your outlook, you probably don't have children.  I personally do not know anyone with children that is not offended at how sex has infiltrated everything from M&M commercials to children's cartoons.  Two blocks from my house there is a billboard for a used car dealership with a picture of a woman with large breasts and her nipples almost showing the cleavage is cut so low.  And there are several others in the area just like it.  Children should not have to see all this stuff.

At any rate, I am done debating.  Obviously you don't care what children see, how it affects them, or how it affects those around them.


I'll take this as an admission of your defeat, since all you have are irrational arguments and nothing to back them - and now you are backing out when you're about to get put in the hot seat. Once again, you've made assumptions about me (just like you have done with your religion). If you don't want your kids to see boobs then don't let them, but absolutely ZERO of your personal preferences demonstrates that a billboard of a woman is actually doing any real harm to a child, or anything immoral for that matter (especially since the woman is not nude - but even if she was, has your child not breast fed!). You could put your kids in the back of the car, tint the windows, drive a different way, etc (all that sheltering will only make it worse in the end b/c you don't have a realistic outlook on sexuality). Ever do any studies on kids whose parents shelter them? All you've basically talked about here is your personal offense, not what is actually harmful.

http://www.science20.com/rogue_neuron/dont_shelter_your_children_coping_stress_child_develops_resilience_and_emotion_regulation_adult
http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/22/hover-no-more-helicopter-parents-may-breed-depression-and-incompetence-in-their-children/
http://www.thestar.com/life/parent/2013/04/29/overprotective_parenting_among_negative_child_rearing_styles_linked_to_bullying_study_shows.html
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/02/13/study-overprotective-parenting-could-make-college-students-more-depressed/
http://gmwilliams.hubpages.com/hub/Children-of-Overprotective-Parents-Are-Slated-For-Failure
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline eye over you

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 79
  • Darwins +7/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1122 on: April 03, 2014, 01:52:01 AM »

At any rate, I am done debating.  Obviously you don't care what children see, how it affects them, or how it affects those around them.

I don't know whether he has kids or not...But I'll bet he wouldn't deny them a life saving blood transfusion.
Don't let your mouth write checks that your ass can't cash.

Offline voodoo child

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1823
  • Darwins +10/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1123 on: April 03, 2014, 01:56:00 AM »
Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on Today at 07:29:35 PM

Quote
And from your outlook, you probably don't have children.  I personally do not know anyone with children that is not offended at how sex has infiltrated everything from M&M commercials to children's cartoons.  Two blocks from my house there is a billboard for a used car dealership with a picture of a woman with large breasts and her nipples almost showing the cleavage is cut so low.  And there are several others in the area just like it.  Children should not have to see all this stuff.

At any rate, I am done debating.  Obviously you don't care what children see, how it affects them, or how it affects those around them.

 
The first thing a child sees is BOOBS! 
The classical man is just a bundle of routine, ideas and tradition. If you follow the classical pattern, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow, you are not understanding yourself. Truth has no path. Truth is living and therefore changing. Bruce lee

Online Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2720
  • Darwins +221/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1124 on: April 03, 2014, 02:41:37 AM »
And from your outlook, you probably don't have children.  I personally do not know anyone with children that is not offended at how sex has infiltrated everything from M&M commercials to children's cartoons.  Two blocks from my house there is a billboard for a used car dealership with a picture of a woman with large breasts and her nipples almost showing the cleavage is cut so low.  And there are several others in the area just like it.  Children should not have to see all this stuff.

At any rate, I am done debating.  Obviously you don't care what children see, how it affects them, or how it affects those around them.

If it makes you feel any better, I don't think it's because sexual immorality has pervaded our society. I think it's because advertisers are flat out trying to get people to look at adverts. I think it's a problem with the advertising paradigm. Adverts basically don't work. I certainly don't look at them unless there is a woman in them.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1438
  • Darwins +97/-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 #1125 on: April 03, 2014, 08:50:15 AM »

How about underdressed men and/or women?

And from your outlook, you probably don't have children.  I personally do not know anyone with children that is not offended at how sex has infiltrated everything from M&M commercials to children's cartoons.  Two blocks from my house there is a billboard for a used car dealership with a picture of a woman with large breasts and her nipples almost showing the cleavage is cut so low.

Isn't it terrible that humans evolved in primitive societies where everyone was naked and lived together? They must have been totally immoral not to have clothes, private houses, and cars.
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 Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3885
  • Darwins +258/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1126 on: April 03, 2014, 08:56:06 AM »
Just like the logical fallacy "red herring" has many common sub fallacies, I think the fallacy "appeal to emotion" needs a name for the very common sub fallacy, "Just think of the Children"
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 Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1299
  • Darwins +96/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1127 on: April 03, 2014, 08:56:50 AM »

How about underdressed men and/or women?

And from your outlook, you probably don't have children.  I personally do not know anyone with children that is not offended at how sex has infiltrated everything from M&M commercials to children's cartoons.  Two blocks from my house there is a billboard for a used car dealership with a picture of a woman with large breasts and her nipples almost showing the cleavage is cut so low.

Isn't it terrible that humans evolved in primitive societies where everyone was naked and lived together? They must have been totally immoral not to have clothes, private houses, and cars.

wait wait...gawd created A&E without clothes--WITH ALL THEIR NAUGHTY BITS just hanging out!!  He *created* the naughty bits, dinnhe??  Taht is proof positive that Yaweh is immoral!!  I win.
* Religion: institutionalized superstition, period.

"Many of my ultra-conservative Republican friends...have trouble accepting the idea God is not a Republican. " ~OldChurchGuy

"We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it."  ~ParkingPlaces

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1438
  • Darwins +97/-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 #1128 on: April 03, 2014, 09:09:02 AM »
Jesus has returned.  He did so in 1914.

Which side did he fight for in the war?
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

Online Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2720
  • Darwins +221/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #1129 on: April 03, 2014, 09:37:34 AM »
Jesus has returned.  He did so in 1914.

Which side did he fight for in the war?

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

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1438
  • Darwins +97/-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 #1130 on: April 03, 2014, 10:06:36 AM »
Jesus has returned.  He did so in 1914.

Which side did he fight for in the war?

The side of good.

Everyone knows that side. It is called "my side". (And everyone else's gods are fake)
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