Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JPD · 12-05-2006, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The Bible says that homosexuality is sin and that people who participate in such things will be denied entry into heaven. The Bible instructs Israel (or any other society) to punish a variety of acts and specifies death as the punishment for some of these. A society is free to choose how to govern itself just as individuals are free to determine what they will do. I think society ought to make sure that people understand what happens to them after death and should use many methods (including using its penal system) to teach people what is coming.

This is hilarious. Hey gays, you're going to spend eternity in hell but while you're alive we're going to kill you too. That way you can get there quicker. That's because Biblegod is good. Great argument rhutchin as ever! Quite what lesson this is supposed to be teaching I'm not absolutely clear on - if you are gay lie to yourself and to everyone else to avoid capital punishment now but you're going to hell in any case? What would be the point exactly? This is teaching people to LIE about how they are to avoid punishment now.

JPD · 12-05-2006, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Such is your opinion. People are free to choose. Some may agree with you; some may not.

Great generalisations of the 21st century - we're all people - we can think - some agree and some don't - great stuff - so enlightening for everyone!

Johnny Skeptic · 12-05-2006, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

People are free to choose. Some may agree with you; some may not.

Decent people ARE NOT free to choose whether or not to reject a God who has committed numerous atrocities against mankind, some of which oppose HIS OWN rules. If you believed that God told lies, you WOULD NOT be free to choose whether or not you would be able to love him. God has committed numerous atrocities against mankind that are much worse than lying is. You recently said "Let's look at the evidence", but you always conveniently refuse to discuss the evidence that I post. You would never be able to love any being other than God who committed the atrocities that God sometimes commits. Why have you abandoned your principles and morals in God's case?

JPD · 12-05-2006, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

So, what’s the point. We have a free society that votes in a democratic process for the system under which it will be governed. Under that system, I can be an advocate for rule according to Biblical principles. If you don’t want that, then vote. Recently, some states have been defining marriage to exclude gay marriage. I am an advocate for that action. I suspect you are not. You probably find these laws chilling and hateful. I win some states; you win some states. We both then live under the system that rules.

You don't WANT a free society - you want to control what people think and what they do in the privacy of their own homes. This is - as it does not affect you personally if you really think about it - not right and you can't see why it isn't right. You want to interfere in people's lives and then claim your take on Bibegod as your justification.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

You would probably move to a state that supports homosexual marriage if you didn’t already live in one because of your strong beliefs on this issue.

The quality of your arguments hasn't really improved has it? Let's see...hmmm - I personally believe that homosexual marriage should be permitted but I don't believe that it should be called 'marriage.' A different word should be penned but the people in the partnership should have afforded to them all the legal rights afforded to people in heterosexual marriages.

But you seem to think that the answer is to divide people up into camps (excuse the pun!) - no-one is infringing on your rights to practice your religion yet you think it quite okay to kill people because of their sexual orientation.

Why should people who you don't like have to move? Perhaps you should move instead. Have you considered that everyone has a right to continue to exist - unless they are endangering your existence (or that of those close to you) - wherever they are? Obviously not. I have several churches near where I live - I abhor religion in all its forms yet I recognise that people have absolute freedom of association. People can say what they want, sing what they want, believe what they want, and do what they want if they are consenting adults. You are allowing them to affect you because of what you believe at this stage in your life.

As Epictetus said, ‘People are disturbed not by things, but by views they take of them’

rhutchin · 12-05-2006, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu

rhutchin
Of course. I suspect that you also agree. The person who murders, steals, lies should be punished, should he not? The issue here seems to be what to punish and not whether to punish.

Angra Mainyu
Lies?
No, I don’t think there should be a punishment for lying, in general, though in some specific cases (e.g., lying in court), there should be (and there is) a punishment.

However, I don’t think either of those actions is a sin. I don’t believe in sin, thus nor in punishing “sinners”. My point was a reply to your argument that you don’t try to impose religion. In other words, the punishments you advocate are based on religion.

Yep. So, the issue is whether God is real and the religion accurately transmits information about that God.

We agree that lying is wrong and should be punished in certain instances (probably where harm is intended). God can have a higher standard. You do not have to believe in God, so no whining and crying when you stand before Him.

The punishments I advocate are based on my beliefs (which can be identified with my religion). The punishments you advocate are based on your beliefs (which can be identified with your religion encompassing nonbelief in God).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu

rhutchin
If society were seeking to be ruled by God, it would investigate the Bible thoroughly to determine exactly what it said. There would not be Calvinists or universalists etc. There would be Bible believers and blasphemers. Calvinist doctrines (relating to salvation) have never suffered when compared to the teachings of the Bible.

Angra Mainyu
So, either you’re a Bible believer or a blasphemer… what was the punishment for blasphemers?

rhutchin
The death penalty.

Angra Mainyu
That’s my point exactly. You advocate the execution of those who don’t believe in the Bible.
In the society you advocate, it’s “believe or die”. As if that weren’t bad enough, it’s not possible to choose to believe, under the threat of death. So, the threat seems to be “lie or die”. But then again, you also want to punish liars.

Not really. A person does not have to believe the Bible. There is nothing wrong with that and nothing punishable. Blasphemy is telling people that the Bible says something that it does not and thereby misleads a person to believe a lie. It would be like telling a person that the Bible says there is nothing wrong with sex outside marriage leading a person to believe that he can engage in such things without consequence. A person may engage in sex outside marriage all he wants. The problem comes when he tries to convert others to the position that his actions are not wrong according to the Bible. In a society not governed by the Bible, people can have laws against murder. If someone said that there was nothing wrong with murder and was an advocate of, and encouraging people, to murder, then I suspect that society would have a problem with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu

rhutchin
I have not really been defending the Wager; I have been trying to explain it.

Angra Mainyu
Despite the fact that many posters have explained why the Wager doesn’t work, you continue to argue that it does, and try to make arguments in support of that position. That is to defend the wager, as far as I could tell.

Still, whatever you call it, my point is the same.

No one has explained why the Wager does not work. All have given excuses for ignoring the logical argument presented by the Wager.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu

rhutchin
If you want to use the Wager, then you would first evaluate belief in Biblegod, Qurangod, Zeus, OR Shiva etc. each separately against nonbelief. Among those that are determined to be preferable to nonbelief, you could then compare any two and go through the analysis of the Wager. That would tell which god one should believe as a result of a logical analysis. However, that process would not determine which of the gods is the true God, so a person runs the risk of believing in a false god. The Wager can elimnate nonbelief as a rational alternative, but it cannot identify the god a person should believe.

Angra Mainyu
I disagree with your assessment of the evidence, but I don’t want to repeat myself, and I may not attack creationism here, anyway, so I’ll leave that aside.

The fact remains that the wager doesn’t work. I can't say "belief is less risky than nonbelief, so I will believe". First, I don't think belief is in any way less risky.

But that's beside the point: let's consider a society in which nonbelief is riskier than belief - for instance, a society in which people who don't believe in Biblegod are executed. The fact is still the same: If I don't believe, I cannot choose to believe, so I would still not believe, despite the death threat imposed by society on me. Of course, I'd very likely lie and claim that I believe, as I'm not interested in martyrdom. But again, that wouldn't make me believe.

According to the Wager, whether belief or non-belief is less risky depends on the consequences of those positions. Whether you actually decide to believe is a different issue than that addressed in the Wager.

Johnny Skeptic · 12-05-2006, 04:53 AM

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2...h_on_gay_r.php

The Maryland Court of Appeals is hearing arguments today in the case of Conaway v. Deane, a suit claiming a right to gay marriage. Jim Burroway emailed me with a link to his analysis of a brief filed by the Family Research Council. Jim does a terrific job of analyzing how the FRC cherry picks and distorts social science research on gay relationships. He points out their shameless misuse of various studies.

JPD · 12-05-2006, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

No one has explained why the Wager does not work. All have given excuses for ignoring the logical argument presented by the Wager.

Yes we have - repeatedly. The stuffing is starting to come out. Everyone can see quite clearly that the mere possibility that an infinite number of Gods could exist (and, let's face it, believers haven't exactly overwhelmed us with the quality of "evidence" in support of the one that they believe in) renders it lost. You're constantly trying to convince us that the logic can be applied. Okay then, let's watch you - right here, right now, apply the wager to all the Gods that might or might not exist - you'd better get started because running an infinity through a process may take some time.....

...and while you're at it employ the tactic of arguing from the Biblical angle only - that should reduce the infinity to just a handful from your perspective. It won't deal with the potential for an unknown God to impact deleteriously on your life after you die but then that probably isn't in your reckoning unless its Biblegod making the claims.

rhutchin · 12-05-2006, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPD

rhutchin
So, what’s the point. We have a free society that votes in a democratic process for the system under which it will be governed. Under that system, I can be an advocate for rule according to Biblical principles. If you don’t want that, then vote. Recently, some states have been defining marriage to exclude gay marriage. I am an advocate for that action. I suspect you are not. You probably find these laws chilling and hateful. I win some states; you win some states. We both then live under the system that rules.

JPD
You don't WANT a free society - you want to control what people think and what they do in the privacy of their own homes. This is - as it does not affect you personally if you really think about it - not right and you can't see why it isn't right. You want to interfere in people's lives and then claim your take on Bibegod as your justification.

I have no problem with a free, democratic society except that people tend to make bad decisions. Nonetheless, God allows people to make bad decisions. I want people to make good decisions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPD

rhutchin
You would probably move to a state that supports homosexual marriage if you didn’t already live in one because of your strong beliefs on this issue.

JPD
The quality of your arguments hasn't really improved has it?

We can't all be as smart as you.

Johnny Skeptic · 12-05-2006, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

People are free to choose. Some may agree with you; some may not.

Decent people ARE NOT free to choose whether or not to reject a God who has committed numerous atrocities against mankind, some of which oppose HIS OWN rules. If you believed that God told lies, you WOULD NOT be free to choose whether or not you would be able to love him. God has committed numerous atrocities against mankind that are much worse than lying is. You recently said "Let's look at the evidence", but you always conveniently refuse to discuss the evidence that I post. You would never be able to love any being other than God who committed the atrocities that God sometimes commits. Why have you abandoned your principles and morals in God's case?

JPD · 12-05-2006, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I have no problem with a free, democratic society except that people tend to make bad decisions. Nonetheless, God allows people to make bad decisions. I want people to make good decisions.

Biblegod allows people to make bad decisions or biblegod is unable to stop people
making bad decisions? Please explain how the distinction between allowance and inability is supported by reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

We can't all be as smart as you.

True.

12-05-2006, 04:53 AM	#516
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Christianity and Homosexuality http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2...h_on_gay_r.php The Maryland Court of Appeals is hearing arguments today in the case of Conaway v. Deane, a suit claiming a right to gay marriage. Jim Burroway emailed me with a link to his analysis of a brief filed by the Family Research Council. Jim does a terrific job of analyzing how the FRC cherry picks and distorts social science research on gay relationships. He points out their shameless misuse of various studies.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.