rhutchin

But you do not oppose laws in total do you? Do you favor some laws? Do you favor laws to which other people might object?

What justifies any law you might favor? If you do not like the laws that I would enact, then would you enact any law to which another person might object?

Johnny Skeptic

If the God of the Bible created the universe, and inspired the writing of the Bible, his character is in fact the main issue. God does not have good character. It is impossible for a man to love a God, or another human, based solely upon threats.

God is willing that some people starve to death even though he has food in abundance. In the Irish Potato Famine alone, one million people died of starvation, most of whom were Christians. It is probable that many if not most of those Christians desperately asked God to provide them with food, but to no avail. In the KJV, James says that if a man refuses to give food to a hungry person, he is vain, and his faith is dead. This makes God a hypocrite. Human effort alone could never feed all of the hungry people in the world. Lest you say that the Christians who died in the Irish Potato Famine may not have been righteous, I will tell you that James said that Christians should feed hungry people, not just righteous hungry people. What is your definition of a righteous man? Are you a righteous man? One of the best ways to get an unrighteous hungry man to become a righteous man is to give him food. It is a matter of how badly God wants to prevent people from starving to death.

How do you suggest that we prevent God’s killer hurricanes from seriously injuring and killing people, and destroying their property? Is it your position that God has made it possible for the world to become a Garden of Eden if everyone acted like they should act? If so, I find your position to be quite strange because ever since Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, somehow, whether through genetics or through some other means, God has ensured that everyone commit sins at least some of the time, meaning that it is impossible for anyone to always acts like they should act. Otherwise, some people would be perfect and would not need to be saved.

God injures and kills innocent animals.

Today, it appears that all tangible benefits are distributed entirely at random according to the laws of physics. This is to be expected if God does not exist. If he does exist, then he frequently distributes tangible benefits to those who are not in greatest need, and frequently withholds tangible benefits from those who are in greatest need, and with no regard for a person’s worldview. It is likely that the God who you worship exists only on paper. If God does not exist, the only benefits that anyone could ever ask him for and expect to receive would be subjective spiritual benefits. A loving God would be interested in consistently providing peoples' spiritual AND tangible needs, not just their spiritual needs.

Angra Mainyu

Yes, for example, I’d favor laws that equate sex-gender marriage with opposite-gender marriage. On the other hand, I'd oppose laws that would execute people because of their sexual orientation.

I base my preference on my moral views, which can only be justified to the extent of some basic principles. I could say that in the case of not killing gay people, that’s better for society, respectful of human rights, etc. But if you ask me why I think certain rights should be respected, etc., at some point of course I have some assumptions that cannot be justified.

I know that it’s a weakness in a moral system, but it’s an inevitable one. One of the key differences here is that I acknowledge that I’m making such assumptions.

You make assumptions too, but one of your assumptions is an assumption of existence that isn’t intuitively evidence (the existence of the Bible God), yet you try to prove it. If you simply said, for example, “gay people should be executed”, because you choose that as a basic principle, I’d disagree based on different principles, and there’d be no way we can go further.

However, I suspect fewer people would have principles that lead to such atrocities, and fewer people would want to execute people on the basis of their sexuality or their religious behavior (e.g., blasphemer) if they didn’t erroneously believe that there’s a deity behind those bad principles.

Julian

They already have, except each individual defines it differently. That is why it may be significant to each individual but of no account in the realm of science and measurable progress.
"Something" is unlike "nothing." "Nothing" is the absence of "something." Don't conflate the two terms. As far as we know, nothing happens after death and until you, or anyone, can provide evidence otherwise, that means that something does not happen.
There are no facts that demonstrate the existence of god. If you have any, please provide them. And I mean real facts in the scientific sense. Also, there is nothing after death that we know of so therefore we can conclude that you are just making stuff up, which is, of course, what religious faith is all about. So much fear.

Your whole line of arguments is absurd nonsense which, like I have said numerous times before, I do not care to argue against since since they are weak, puerile ramblings devoid of any understanding of even the most basic conclusions underlying useful reasoning.

Provide facts, draw reasonable conclusions, then maybe we will have something to talk about. Until then you are merely providing me with regular incredulous moments of forehead-slapping and head-shaking, which I am forced to endure since I have to read your posts, being a moderator.

You are not convincing anyone of anything, just providing cheap entertainment.

Julian

Julian

I like to measure things. I find philosophy to be too vague for any useful purposes other than personal fulfillment, which is all well and good, but should never be taken beyond that realm. Philosophy is about me and how I look at things. For you it may be entirely different, either way there is no way that one philosophical view is 'more correct' than another. Even if it were, you would be unable to prove it. That means that philosophical discussions become just so much banter. Some people like that. Fine. I don't care about it.

BTW, I think that Bertrand Russell was brilliant. I also consider myself a stoic and read 'Meditations' by Marcus Aurelius regularly. I appreciate philosophy for my own sake but since it is incapable of defining anything in the world, our place in it or assign a measurable, objective value on anything that exists, I see little reason in discussing the topic. I would never prevent other people from going at it, of course., knock yourself out. I simply have other priorities.

Julian

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Why do you believe that what the Bible says about homosexuality belongs in the Bible?

Mark 10:6-12 say "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." Matthew 19:8 says "He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." Matthew 5:32 says "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." 1 Corinthians 6:9 says "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind."

In the U.S., the divorce rate among Baptists is higher than it is among atheists. Regarding Baptists who get divorced where adultery is not present, it is your position that they will go to hell?

I do not believe that God tolerated divorce among Moses' group. If anything, the God who gave Moses many awful orders was tyrannical, authoritative, murderous, and dictatorial. That God most certainly would not have perverted the institution of marriage in deference to the stubborness of the Jews.

Jon Barleycorn

I think rutchin needs to meditate a little bit more on two other tenets of his supposed "faith" .... "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" & "judge not, lest you be judged" . I did mention them earlier - do these mean anything at all to you rutchin?

And, btw, if you truly believe that homosexuals are to suffer for all eternity anyway, it seems to me to be the height of pettyness, (& perhaps spite) to then advocate their execution ... why not just let them just be happy for the short time that they are here for? After all, in your mind, you are going to enjoy heaven for all eternity whilst they burn, & yet even so you seek to even speed their suffering - not exactly very "christian" of you, if you ask me!

Johnny Skeptic

Not only that, but how can you rehabilitate someone if you kill them? Of course, I am not suggesting that homosexuals need to be rehabilitated.

djrafikie

HAHAHA!! Good save JS ;p

I'm still waiting for Rutchins answer here, he has previously stated he would like to see me publicly stoned to death, leaving my little one motherless.

I take comfort in the fact that according to his own religion he will certainly be bound to burn in hell for wishing such an awful thing on an innocent baby.

Johnny Skeptic

Are there any practical reasons why God supposedly opposes homosexuality and divorce? None that I am aware of. There are practical reasons for opposing murder and theft, but not homosexuality and divorce. It is when the Bible is not practical that many people become suspicious, and with good reason.