Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Queen of Swords · 07-19-2003, 02:18 AM

Originally posted by Keith :
No.

So when I discuss Scientology, does that mean I really (deep down inside) believe in Xenu?

And if I talk about Hinduism, does that mean I know there is a Brahma and I shudder?

Or does this apply only to your particular god - i.e. no matter which religion one discusses, one really believes in Keith's god?

And I don't believe that anyone can really be an atheist.

Why not? I don't believe in a god. That makes me an atheist. Refute my statement if you can.

I once called myself an atheist too, but what one calls themself is not always accurate.

Perhaps, since I'd have called you something far less complimentary if you had told me to my face that you knew better than I did what I thought.

Keith · 07-19-2003, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth

"Name me a case where it's not, according to the moral standard you adhere to?"

Self defence, or in the OT days, when the Israelites were commanded by God to to it.

Keith · 07-19-2003, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth

"You contradict yourself. Under Christianity as you define it, if God commanded you to commit an act of terrorism, then you would know that it was morally right to do it, just like the 9/11 terrorists claim.

Further, you claimed earlier that Abraham did not commit a moral wrong by having sex with Hagar because he did not know it was morally wrong. And I assume (and with your system it seems a valid assumption, but correct me if I'm wrong) you would also argue that the Israelites committed the acts they are portrayed as having committed in the OT against the Canaanites not "knowing" that what they were doing was morally wrong. God commanded them to, after all."

Moral right and wrong are not defined by human beings. Moral right is something that comes from God's own nature. So, if God commanded the Israelites to kill the Canaanites, it couldn't be morally wrong for them to do so, and it would have been morally wrong NOT to do so. God can't command people to commit acts of terrorism because God is Holy. He can't be associated with sin.

Keith · 07-19-2003, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pain Paien

"So you're saying god feels it necessary to justify himself to humanity? Doesn't sound like the actions of a supreme being. If the goal in doing this was actually demonstration of his power, why wouldn't he be making such demonstations today, to make himself clear? Obviously he would know that I find ancient fairy tails insufficient. Also, why is it only clear to you, and not all Christians, that the passages in Leviticus are not meant to be morally relavent to them? One would think god could do a better job."

God has made himself clear, and you assume, without explanation, that you are THE STANDARD of what constitutes clear and sufficient evidence.

The reason that Christians differ in their interpretation of numerous parts of the bible is because of human failings; not because God failed.

Keith · 07-19-2003, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pain Paien

"If you disagree with this analogy, you have to provide evidence that Israel warranted these special laws that, by our standards, would be morally reprehensible."

Why do I have to provide evidence that the Israelites warranted special laws? Did God provide special dietary laws to them also? If God deemed it necessary, why is that not good enough for you?

Keith · 07-19-2003, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pain Paien

"Nope, I'm afraid you haven't done any such thing. That example was successfully disputed when you first used it. How is the practical (and subjective) consensus by a society or group of societies that terrorism is wrong because they would would not want to be the target of it any less useful than an "objective" one? All this has been answered already. We don't need a mythical god to tell us terrorism is wrong because we know on our own that we wouldn't wish to have it happen to us, and as such have the right to work to stop it. All this is simple pragmatism, and you've failed to provide any reason why these rules have to be written in the sky for them to work."

Simple pragmatism? Well, for Hitler it seemed pragmatic to gas millions of Jews. Is there any sane person that thinks that Hitler's "pragmatism" justified his actions? The fact is, what you want/don't want done to you is not the slightest bit relevant to whether mass murdering Jews is/isn't morally wrong.

Keith · 07-19-2003, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe V.

"Who says your god has sovereign authority over any of us??? Why are you the one making this claim and not your god? Why are you his apparent representative on this world, and why should we listen to your claims?

Tell me, please, why doesn't the United States Constitution recognize your god's authority? I don't regard your god or your precious Bible as a legitimate source of morals because the United States government does not recognize them as such."

Because of the fact that our Supreme Court has "discovered" a woman's right to abortion in the U.S. constitution, it is now the case that in America today, a parent can kill her own child for less reason (or no reason) than the Israelites did when following God's command in Leviticus 20:9. Is this your idea of what is morally right?

Keith · 07-19-2003, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean

"And yet the terrorists all claim god is ordering them to do it. They shout his praises as they kill thousands of innocent people.

How can you claim that an order-to anyone-to kill their own child is a moral act? How can you read the OT and claim its god isn't immoral?"

Yes, they claim that God told them to do it. Does that mean its true?

How can I claim that an order to kill one's child is morally right? Well, first tell me something...do you think a parent is ever morally justified in taking the life of their own child?

Joe V. · 07-19-2003, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
Because of the fact that our Supreme Court has "discovered" a woman's right to abortion in the U.S. constitution, it is now the case that in America today, a parent can kill her own child for less reason (or no reason) than the Israelites did when following God's command in Leviticus 20:9. Is this your idea of what is morally right?

Abortion is a very touchy issue, and as such I don't get involved in discussions about it. Aside from that, although I'm not particularly well-versed in the formalities of debates, I think this is a red herring anyway. You didn't attempt to answer even one of my questions, which means you can't or you won't.

- Joe

Biff the unclean · 07-19-2003, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
How can I claim that an order to kill one's child is morally right? Well, first tell me something...do you think a parent is ever morally justified in taking the life of their own child?

Are you now making the arguement that yuor mythical god is in favor of abortions? Because that's the only logical course this arguement can take. Not that you seem to care that much about logic

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

07-19-2003, 02:18 AM	#371
Queen of Swords Contributor Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Canada. Finally. Posts: 10,155	Originally posted by Keith : No. So when I discuss Scientology, does that mean I really (deep down inside) believe in Xenu? And if I talk about Hinduism, does that mean I know there is a Brahma and I shudder? Or does this apply only to your particular god - i.e. no matter which religion one discusses, one really believes in Keith's god? And I don't believe that anyone can really be an atheist. Why not? I don't believe in a god. That makes me an atheist. Refute my statement if you can. I once called myself an atheist too, but what one calls themself is not always accurate. Perhaps, since I'd have called you something far less complimentary if you had told me to my face that you knew better than I did what I thought.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.