The Moral Argument

[Oncedeceived]

Right, that's the one I quoted here:



So if you want answers to every single one of the things you said, here they are.

I feel if someone has spent time to post something it is only polite to try to respond to each posting. That's just me.

Yes. That they are identified as targets because they belong to said group, but that the motivation for deciding to commit the act of genocide is not simply the fact that they are part of that group.

That wasn't my question. You said that pertinent and necessary element for genocide to be genocide is that every single member of that culture is targeted to kill.

Now because I have shown that not every single member of that culture was targeted, you are moving the goalposts and "adding" to the definition that it doesn't mean the entire culture but just a city in that culture. The definition that you said was definite and the only one we could use was: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. Where in this definition does it say the deliberate and systematic destruction of a part of a racial, political or cultural group?

Yes. If the Native Americans were powerful enough to defeat us, then morally they should have stopped after killing the able-bodied men and soldiers.

I agree they should have but does that mean they would have committed genocide?

He didn't pick them at random. He set out to kill them because of the reasons I gave. He identified who to kill based on the fact that they were Jewish, but it wasn't because they were Jews. I don't know how to explain that distinction better. To me it sounds like someone saying, "The KKK hates blacks because of the color of their skin" when really they hate them because of the perceived association of that skin color with negative traits.

But the really pertinent part is my question to you:

If God commands an entire society, or nation, or culture to be destroyed, regardless of motive, does it fit the real definition of "genocide" (not your definition of genocide)?

You said: They were told to kill every single member of a culture. That is the only pertinent information necessary to deem it as genocide. Nothing else you said here has a bearing on whether it was or was not genocide. Nothing you said here is a qualifier for the definition of the word genocide.

That they were not told to kill every single member of a culture and it is the only pertinent information necessary to deem it as genocide, the act was not genocide by your very own criteria.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You may think Arche's verse is what I'm talking about, and although it is plenty impressive, it isn't the verse in mind. So please tell me, if God commands an entire society, or nation, or culture to be destroyed, regardless of motive, does it fit the real definition of "genocide" (not your definition of genocide)?

It does not. I will remind you that you claimed that every single member of a culture being a target to kill is genocide. We know that not every single member of the culture was a target.

 

[Davian]

I never said there was no way to tell.

And you failed to provide any means of testing.

I emphasized that so long as I am looking at others, I cannot examine myself to see whether or not I pass the test.

The teachings of Christ and the apostles are not vague or ambiguous. They are there in black and white for me to see. I can either will to conform to them or I can will to have them conform to me.

Adultery, fornication, sexual impurity, pride, arrogance, gossip, homosexual relations,

Would that not be "being homosexual"? And what's wrong with that?

cheating, stealing, lying, not doing what I know is right and doing what I know is wrong.

All of these and more are there in black and white.

Indeed. Anything goes, as long as you believe. Even the homosexuality, in your case?

The fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, self-control.

These serve as a mirror. If I look into these things and find myself, my conscience either accuses or excuses me.

What does your conscience say about lying for Jesus?

Not at all. I am fallible human being who follows the infallible Son of God, Jesus Christ.

That is not what I read earlier.

Infallible

• Davian
• Apr 8, 2016
• infallible

No, just plainly stating that I have lived the easy way. I have walked by sight so to speak. I have been there and done that. I have lived the life of a cowardly, self-centered, egotistical, self-sufficient, "I am only going to go by what my two eyeballs see", "I am going to do me regardless" type of person.

It's easy to live like that. Anyone can do it. Many do it.

As opposed to the security blanket of religion, the confidence that you cannot be wrong, the comfort that you will not really die, that those you loved are not really gone, and as long as you believe, all will be forgiven, and that the universe is not really a cold, indifferent wasteland.

Tell me again, which is the easy path?

In fact, all are born with that mentality, that carnal disposition. It comes natural to us. Oh sure, men may get educated and may refine their more base passions, but they are still carnal at heart. They may graduate from driving a Ford or a Dodge, to a Ferrari or a Porsche, but the man stays the same. He may graduate from wearing sneakers to wing-tips, from wearing t-shirts to tuxedos, but he's no different underneath all the superfluous externalities. The carnal, natural man may sit under the most learned white haired professors at the most distinguished universities, but the knowledge stays floating around up in his head. It never makes it to his heart.

I have seen the end of carnality, the end of the natural, fleshly life. It is corruption.

Perhaps you should not project your experiences on to others.

Years ago, I was in your position.

While maybe not the pinnacle, this is one of the higher points of outright arrogance I have seen you display in these forums. How do you know me, and my position in life?

Totally totally totally at odds with and fully against Christianity because it seemed a very peculiar thing.

No, I think of religion as a very ordinary thing. There is prehistoric evidence for religion, and I believe it will be with us for as long as humans exist as a species.

The difference between you and I is that I have been on both sides of the fence. You have been on only one and you judge the side I am on now from where you stand. So I expect you to speak as you do. I would be shocked if you spoke in any other way.

Again with the arrogance. You have no idea of the tears of joy I have wept at the birth of a child, the dark place I go when they are sick, or the abysses that I have stared into and come to grips with. You do not know of the delusions I have found myself under (although I have mentioned them in these forums), the epiphanies that I have had, and the hours that I have put into educating myself on those subjects discussed in these forums.

How about that time I met Santa? I still get goosebumps.

The just shall live by his faith.

Catchy phrase.

In your theology, you have a god that presides as judge over its own interests, forgiving of rape and serial killings, while holding others responsible for things beyond their control. In this context, "just" means "unethical and morally bankrupt".

When your attempts to demonstrate the existence of this god flounder, you pull the faith card that - in shunning any methodology that might allow for independent verification of your beliefs - amounts to an argument for gullibility.

Is this the "sound doctrine" you were alluding to in post #1310?

 

[bhsmte]

And you failed to provide any means of testing.

Would that not be "being homosexual"? And what's wrong with that?

Indeed. Anything goes, as long as you believe. Even the homosexuality, in your case?

What does your conscience say about lying for Jesus?

That is not what I read earlier.

Infallible

• Davian
• Apr 8, 2016
• infallible

As opposed to the security blanket of religion, the confidence that you cannot be wrong, the comfort that you will not really die, that those you loved are not really gone, and as long as you believe, all will be forgiven, and that the universe is not really a cold, indifferent wasteland.

Tell me again, which is the easy path?

Perhaps you should not project your experiences on to others.

While maybe not the pinnacle, this is one of the higher points of outright arrogance I have seen you display in these forums. How do you know me, and my position in life?

No, I think of religion as a very ordinary thing. There is prehistoric evidence for religion, and I believe it will be with us for as long as humans exist as a species.

Again with the arrogance. You have no idea of the tears of joy I have wept at the birth of a child, the dark place I go when they are sick, or the abysses that I have stared into and come to grips with. You do not know of the delusions I have found myself under (although I have mentioned them in these forums), the epiphanies that I have had, and the hours that I have put into educating myself on those subjects discussed in these forums.

How about that time I met Santa? I still get goosebumps.

Catchy phrase.

In your theology, you have a god that presides as judge over its own interests, forgiving of rape and serial killings, while holding others responsible for things beyond their control. In this context, "just" means "unethical and morally bankrupt".

When your attempts to demonstrate the existence of this god flounder, you pull the faith card that - in shunning any methodology that might allow for independent verification of your beliefs - amounts to an argument for gullibility.

Is this the "sound doctrine" you were alluding to in post #1310?

Let him talk enough and the contradictions, come pouring out.

 

[Davian]

To Davian,

Quote function still broken? Before you complain, using the quote function helps others, like myself, to know and find the posts that are being responded to, particularly when the board is busy.

instead of answering the question I asked,

...responding to yet another derail...

you shifted the topic to the moral argument,

..asking if you were on topic...

something you showed no interest in talking about up until the point I asked the question.

Actually, I have participated fully in this thread, up to and beyond the point where one of your fellow religionists commented that the moral argument "horse" had been beat into hamburger. (#394)

Then all of a sudden you wanted to get back to the moral argument.

No, I asked if you intended to make a point regarding the OP, or to derail. Do not misrepresent what I wrote.

You can't test the veridicality of your senses. That was my point.

Sure I can. I did it today when I successfully drove my car on a two-hour round trip at freeway speeds. No crashing involved. I just don't extrapolate that into fields of scientific study where they may not provide accurate, independently verifiable results.

And yourself? If it is your position that you can't test the veridicality of your senses, why then do you consider them infallible?

Infallible

• Davian
• Apr 8, 2016
• infallible

 

[Davian]

...
Anything contrary to His nature for instance. Rape is contrary to God's nature, so we never have to worry about that.

What of standing by, doing nothing, while observing those in the process of getting raped? That is in God's nature, is it not? And, by your standards, this is "good"?

 

[Davian]

I can't help but sit back in my chair and roar with laughter when I see this stuff.

I know how you feel.

I love conversations like this because it does not take long at all to draw out people's true views.

Indeed.

DogmaHunter, bhsmte, Arch, and Nicholas, you guys sure do sound like people who think slavery and the killing of children is wrong, even if the Israelites thought it was right and that it would be wrong even if the Israelites were to succeed in becoming the majority.

But objective moral values and duties don't exist...

How is that list of yours coming along?

This is why I think the moral argument is powerful.

Not so powerful, for a theology that is unethical and morally bankrupt.

You all can't help but affirm objective moral values and duties.

Where?

 

[Davian]

...
Killing babies and toddlers is an act meant by God to be the best possible action for the greatest good for the future of mankind.

"There's no reason, in theory, why god's presence couldn't be measured or detected in some way. The only reason that believers claim that god "can't" be detected in this way is because god *isn't* detected, and so a vast and intricate rationale has to be devised to explain this vast, loving, eternal, all-powerful "something" which is, in every external, objective respect, indistinguishable from nothing." - NMS, on alt.atheism

 

[anonymous person]

And you failed to provide any means of testing.

Would that not be "being homosexual"? And what's wrong with that?

Indeed. Anything goes, as long as you believe. Even the homosexuality, in your case?

What does your conscience say about lying for Jesus?

That is not what I read earlier.

Infallible

• Davian
• Apr 8, 2016
• infallible

As opposed to the security blanket of religion, the confidence that you cannot be wrong, the comfort that you will not really die, that those you loved are not really gone, and as long as you believe, all will be forgiven, and that the universe is not really a cold, indifferent wasteland.

Tell me again, which is the easy path?

Perhaps you should not project your experiences on to others.

While maybe not the pinnacle, this is one of the higher points of outright arrogance I have seen you display in these forums. How do you know me, and my position in life?

No, I think of religion as a very ordinary thing. There is prehistoric evidence for religion, and I believe it will be with us for as long as humans exist as a species.

Again with the arrogance. You have no idea of the tears of joy I have wept at the birth of a child, the dark place I go when they are sick, or the abysses that I have stared into and come to grips with. You do not know of the delusions I have found myself under (although I have mentioned them in these forums), the epiphanies that I have had, and the hours that I have put into educating myself on those subjects discussed in these forums.

How about that time I met Santa? I still get goosebumps.

Catchy phrase.

In your theology, you have a god that presides as judge over its own interests, forgiving of rape and serial killings, while holding others responsible for things beyond their control. In this context, "just" means "unethical and morally bankrupt".

When your attempts to demonstrate the existence of this god flounder, you pull the faith card that - in shunning any methodology that might allow for independent verification of your beliefs - amounts to an argument for gullibility.

Is this the "sound doctrine" you were alluding to in post #1310?

You have never been born again. I have been an unbeliever.

Thus I have been on both sides of the fence. You still stand on the side that I used to stand on.

That is what I meant.

 

[anonymous person]

What of standing by, doing nothing, while observing those in the process of getting raped? That is in God's nature, is it not? And, by your standards, this is "good"?

Or standing by watching two men have sex.

Would you rather he struck such men dead during the very act?

I doubt you would be for that now would you?

The door swings both ways. Remember, the Bible speaks about many things that men should not do but are allowed to do for a time.

Sex outside of marriage, sex before marriage, drunkenness, unbelief, lusting in one's heart, looking at someone to lust after them...

I think it is good that men will get what is coming to them from God. They may not get it in this life, but in the next, they will.

Such rapists on your view, just die and cease to be.

So I don't really see why you think you have said something profound.

 

[quatona]

You have never been born again.

I have been born thrice.

 

[anonymous person]

I addressed this thought experiment to Nicholas earlier, but I think he is busy. In the meantime, I am interested in hearing people's response to this:

You can flip a switch to divert a speeding train from the track it is on to another track running parallel to it. If you don't flip the switch, two children that are playing on the track will die. If you do flip the switch, one child playing on the parallel track will die. What should be done?

 

[Davian]

You have never been born again.

I do not know what you mean by this, in the absence of a robust definition that might delineate it in some fashion from self-deception.

I have been an unbeliever.

I don't know what you mean by this. Recall my example of writing letters to Santa. As much as I would like free stuff, I cannot bring myself to write those letters.

Thus I have been on both sides of the fence. You still stand on the side that I used to stand on.

That is what I meant.

Yet you concede you have no test to show where this fence may lie, to demonstrate that I have not been there, that the mechanism in my brain that enabled my mind to create my encounter with Santa is not so dissimilar to that which you feel is infallible for you and your "god". Correct?

 

[anonymous person]

I have been born thrice.

I don't doubt that for one minute.

 

[anonymous person]

I do not know what you mean by this, in the absence of a robust definition that might delineate it in some fashion from self-deception.

I don't know what you mean by this. Recall my example of writing letters to Santa. As much as I would like free stuff, I cannot bring myself to write those letters.

Yet you concede you have no test to show where this fence may lie, to demonstrate that I have not been there, that the mechanism in my brain that enabled my mind to create my encounter with Santa is not so dissimilar to that which you feel is infallible for you and your "god". Correct?

And you conceded you cannot even provide a test for determining the veridicality of your five senses which you rely so very heavily and dogmatically on.

Please.

Until you can do that, you haven't a leg to stand on.

 

[anonymous person]

I have posed a thought experiment pertinent to the moral argument. Anyone care to address it?

 

[Davian]

Or standing by watching two men have sex.

Would you rather he struck such men dead during the very act?

What's wrong with two men having sex?

I doubt you would be for that now would you?

The subject matter at hand is your god and your morality, not me or mine.

The door swings both ways. Remember, the Bible speaks about many things that men should not do but are allowed to do for a time.

Sex outside of marriage, sex before marriage, drunkenness, unbelief, lusting in one's heart, looking at someone to lust after them...

I think it is good that men will get what is coming to them from God. They may not get it in this life, but in the next, they will.

What, exactly, will they 'get' in a morality system that is "anything goes, as long as you believe"?

Such rapists on your view, just die and cease to be.

That is not my view.

Another Unsuccessful Test

• Davian
• Feb 27, 2016

So I don't really see why you think you have said something profound.

I don't think it to be profound. I think it to be morally bankrupt. Better take that mind-reading apparatus in for its major service.

 

[Davian]

I have been born thrice.

Born right the first time.

 

[anonymous person]

What's wrong with two men having sex?

My my my...

This just about sums it up for me.

 

[Davian]

And you conceded you cannot even provide a test for determining the veridicality of your five senses

I did no such thing, and I provided that in #1449. Don't get ahead of yourself.

which you rely so very heavily and dogmatically on.

Please.

Until you can do that, you haven't a leg to stand on.

You will need to first establish that I rely heavily and dogmatically on my five senses (which five, I do wonder).

I suppose we will have to wait until your mind-reading apparatus comes back from the shop, unless you can find what you need in my posting history.