- Jan 28, 2003
- 9,969
- 2,521
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If Hitler kills millions of people it matters to me.Yes but that is just your subjective opinion. Ultimately, one tiny bag of fluids destroying millions of little bags of fluids on a tiny rock in a giant universe means nothing if there is no God.
Uh huh, and did you use your brain to figure out that the creator told us what is best for us?dm: I use my brain.
Ed: So did Mengele.
Our creator has told us what is best for us.
But you fail to answer the crux of the issue. Why is harming people wrong? People are just another animal like a rat or a cockroach, there is nothing special about humans as far as evolution is concerned. So why should they be treated any differently from rats?See my response at The Holocaust was Wrong .In this thread I am going to argue for the thesis that the Holocaust was wrong.
It feels odd to need to make this thread. I think the overwhelming majority here agree with me: The Holocaust was wrong. Case closed.
Nevertheless, in another thread where I mentioned that Hitler was wrong, another member insisted that I needed to make the case to support my claim. Why? Don't we all just agree that what he did was wrong? For some reason, this member insisted that I needed to make the case.
In this thread I will limit my argument to the Holocaust. If I can show that the Holocaust was wrong, then I think I have made the case that Hitler was wrong.
The Holocaust was wrong. Six million Jews lost their lives. Imagine that. They were ordinary people going about their lives. Their lives were ended prematurely. All their hopes and dreams and ambitions were gone. Who among us would want to live in a world where something like this is considered normal? Who among us would want to live in a world where rulers could snuff out our lives simply because they wanted to?
Not only were they killed, but they suffered horribly. They were put into concentration camps where they were starved. This caused immense suffering. Again, who among us would want to live in a world where rulers could do this to people?
And think of all their loved ones who never got to enjoy life with their friends and relatives that were killed. Think of all those who had depended on their relatives, and now had to go though life without their loved ones that were locked up or killed. Again, who would want to live in a world where something like this is normal?
So based on these reasons, I conclude that the Holocaust was harmful to people. I would never want to live in a world where humans were treated that way. It is my hope that none of us ever see anything as horrible as the Holocaust.
No, you missed the point. My point is that according to atheistic evolution both you Hitler have the same source for your morality (a brain created by amoral random processes) even though your morality is very different from his and you seem to think your morality is superior to his. So what is the objectively rational basis for this belief? How can your morality be better if they both are the outcome of the same process?Let me summarize what I have been hearing from you in this thread:
1) Hitler used his brain.
2) Hitler was evil.
3) Therefore, everybody who uses their brain is evil and cannot be trusted.
The problem is, you used your brain to state that syllogism. If your syllogism is true, then you have proved that you cannot be trusted.
You have cut off the branch you are sitting on. Have a nice fall.
I am not claiming I can prove with certainty He exists, but that it is rational to believe that He does based on the origin and characteristics of this universe. Actually many cosmologists have come to the conclusion by studying the origin of this universe that He probably does exist, like Paul Davies, Hugh Ross, and Arno Penzias among others.ed: It is relatively easy and simple using causality and the BB theory as well as the characteristics of the universe.
ia: Relatively easy and simple to prove that God exists? Cool. Do it then. Not on a forum where you can say anything you like without consequence. After all, talk is cheap.
You say it's easy to prove God exists? Then go and publish a paper in a peer-reviewed journal. Then you can collect a few Nobel prizes, and disprove all the other world religions, and come back and tell me all about it.
Of course, no Christian can do any such thing.
I will take that as that you are unable to provide an example of something impersonal producing a purpose. So my argument stands unrefuted on this issue.ed: If you can find a non personal source of purpose, I am all ears. And you cant use living things as an example because that assumes what you are trying to prove.
ia: I think you really need to drop this now. Living things have purpose because they can feel and think. It's really that simple. The fact that living things with purpose exist in no way implies the existence of a purposeful being creating the universe. Your argument just doesn't make sense.
Being able to react and survive to threats to survival is not the same thing as truth recognition. A cockroach hides under a rock or a shoe not knowing which is which.ed: No, again you are assuming what you need to prove. You are assuming that natural selection can produce truth recognizing beings, ie humans, but how is that possible if natural selection only selects for survivability? A dog cannot determine if it is true that it has a finite lifespan or realize that if it loses a leg it will limp. And etc. Because none of those recognitions increase its survivability.
ia: Because being able to perceive the world around you and react to it is a vital necessity that evolution would certainly select for. If you can't sense the world - ie, see/feel/hear/smell/taste the real world around you, you won't be able to survive in it. Try walking around with a blindfold and earplugs on, and you'll see what I mean.
I don't think that people are just another animal like a rat or cockroach. People are animals but not like cockroaches or rats. This is obvious. I have a moral system because I choose to. The same is for you. You have chosen a moral system based on the bible, I have chosen a moral system based on empathy, logic and reason. We have both made a choice. Neither can provide sufficient evidence that our moral system is absolute. But we can both provide evidence that they are objective. So why not talk about moral actions to see which system is better?But you fail to answer the crux of the issue. Why is harming people wrong? People are just another animal like a rat or a cockroach, there is nothing special about humans as far as evolution is concerned. So why should they be treated any differently from rats?
Most cosmologists do not believe in a god. That is an irrelevant point.I am not claiming I can prove with certainty He exists, but that it is rational to believe that He does based on the origin and characteristics of this universe. Actually many cosmologists have come to the conclusion by studying the origin of this universe that He probably does exist, like Paul Davies, Hugh Ross, and Arno Penzias among others.
Humans are the example. We are the product of evolution and impersonal process. We create our own purpose.I will take that as that you are unable to provide an example of something impersonal producing a purpose. So my argument stands unrefuted on this issue.
According to the dictionary, "wrong" is defined as an unjust, dishonest, or immoral action.But you fail to answer the crux of the issue. Why is harming people wrong?
I disagree. I value the human mind more than I value cockroaches or rats.People are just another animal like a rat or a cockroach, there is nothing special about humans as far as evolution is concerned. So why should they be treated any differently from rats?
You, Hitler, and I all used thoughts.No, you missed the point. My point is that according to atheistic evolution both you Hitler have the same source for your morality (a brain created by amoral random processes) even though your morality is very different from his and you seem to think your morality is superior to his. So what is the objectively rational basis for this belief? How can your morality be better if they both are the outcome of the same process?
If all people that use their minds to make decisions are as bad as Hitler, then none of us can be trusted, including you.No, you missed the point. My point is that according to atheistic evolution both you Hitler have the same source for your morality (a brain created by amoral random processes) even though your morality is very different from his and you seem to think your morality is superior to his. So what is the objectively rational basis for this belief? How can your morality be better if they both are the outcome of the same process?
both you Hitler have the same source for your morality...How can your morality be better if they both are the outcome of the same process?
No, in both cases the government is forcing someone to violate their deeply held beliefs. And preventing one to exercise their religion which means not endorsing a behavior which they believe is wrong.ed: It is a plain violation of the free exercise clause. So you don't care about violations of the Constitution? Would you also force a jewish baker to bake a cake for a Neo Nazi celebrating Hitlers birthday?
ia: Um. The one is a hate crime, the other is a harmless expression of love.
Ed, can I suggest you rethink your arguments. Because, quite simply, none of them make any sense.
No, they were mixed in with protestors that were throwing rocks at the Secret Service guarding the White house. It would have been very difficult to separate them out.ed: Name one time.
ia: Name one time Donald Trump has violated the First Amendment? Okay. I think the worst incident was probably when he ordered police to attack a peaceable gathering of protestors. Please think about this seriously before you defend Trump. It was a gathering of innocent and peaceable protestors, and he ordered them cleared out of his path with gas and violent assaults so that he could walk across the street.
Evidence he tried to block people on Twitter? Actually he strongly endorsed the investigation by Congress of Big tech censoring conservatives on Google, Facebook and Twitter.ia: Also, there was that time Trump tried to block people on Twitter, and they took him to court and won, because the judges rules that he was violating the First Amendment.
And also, let's be honest: Donald Trump is quite obviously a person who doesn't care in the slightest for people's right to free speech.
You do know that one of the Nazis first actions against the jews was to confiscate their guns dont you? The fate of the jews might have been very different if the Nazis had not done thated: So you have no problems with violating the Second Amendment either? No wonder you like them. Doesn't surprise me coming from someone that admires Communist China.
ia: (shrug) So what? I just happen to agree with most civilised countries that its a very bad idea to allow your citizens to have unfettered access to any kinds of firearms they wish.
His niece actually supports Trump. And Trump is trying to bring our nation back to Gods law which MLK strongly believed in, read A Letter from a Birmingham Jail.ed: I doubt seriously he would agree with you on much. He said mans law should be judged how well it accords with Gods law. It sounds like you have never read the letter. How would you determine whether it is immoral or not? As an atheist you dont believe in any objective moral law.
I think Martin Luther King and I would probably agree on a lot.
ia: And since you're a supporter of Donald Trump and I'm a vocal critic of him, I think Martin Luther King would be more on my side than yours.
ed: I didn't say person, I said being. A being can be the essence of something. And that being can also be a person. But beings can be the essence of many things, such as a raccoon contains the essence of being a raccoon.
ia: You said that God is three persons. Okay. Fine. I don't mind what you believe. But you repeating yourself and then claiming not to have repeated yourself is getting a little boring.
In what way?ed: All those things.
ia: A shame, since they contradict each other.
So are you saying your experience with your wife is nothing? Experience is plainly not nothing.ed: I am not claiming that it can be proven with absolute certainty. Only that it can be shown to be most likely to be good and sound by experience.
ia: Okay, then. So you have nothing.
ia: You say that Christianity provides a sound foundation for morality, but it can't "be proven with absolute certainty" but is just "most likely" because of your "experience."
From our moral creator.ed: We have built in goodar, ie moral conscience, our moral conscience recognizes what is good. So over time as we know and experience Him we discover He is good, just like you do with any other person.
ia: I see. And how did you get this "goodar"?
"Over time and experience" sounds like you develop a sense of morality naturally, which means you don't need God.
By our moral conscience.ed: From my experience with Him just like you know this about your wife.
ia: but we're not talking about how you can know that God is good or not. We're talking about how you can know what goodness itself is. And your arguments are hopelessly self-contradictory at this point.
Our conscience.ed: By doing good things for me, helping me in times of trouble and etc.
ia: And how do you know that doing good things for someone and helping them is a good thing to do?
He who created our moral conscience.ia:On what do you base your morality?
I can demonstrate that He most likely exists using logic and science. Then after that when you establish a relationship with Him you discover that He is the foundation of goodness.ed: Where did I say that? I said I could prove it to the same level that you can prove that your wife loves you.
ia: But I can't prove my wife loves me. And if you now agree that you can't prove that God is the foundation of goodness, then...golly, I guess that means I won the debate.
Faith based on the objective existence of God than can be demonstrated that most likely He does exist.ed: No, I never said I could prove it with absolute certainty. That is what faith is.
ia: Gotcha. You say that Christian morality is reliable and objective, since it is based on God's character. Just so long as you have faith.
I am not conceding defeat as far as the existence of His moral character which can be demonstrated to exist using logic and science.ia: Well, it's good of you to be so straightforward in conceding defeat. Next time, please could you do it on the first or second page, instead of the twenty-first or twenty-second? It save time.
He is forced to abide by His own character which is good.ed: If He is the good, then He cannot logically do evil. It would be logically impossible for Him to do evil.
ia: Except that if He did it, it would not be evil. Because, as we've already established, God Himself is the standard of goodness, and since there is nothing outside of Him that he can be measured by or be forced to abide by, He can declare that anything He wants is good - and you cannot object to it.
Possibly but it cannot be an evil part.ed: No, actually they dont. What appears to be out of character is probably just a part of their character that you had not seen yet.
ia: Fine. Maybe God just has a part of His character you haven't seen yet.
Evidence?ed: It is not proof but it is evidence that God is good since His people (Christians) generally only came up with inventions for the good of humanity like the medical sciences. Of course, that would only be considered good for those that value humans.
ia: Again, nonsense.
Yes, He is three in person, but only one in divine essence.ed: No, He is a person with a divine essence just like you are a person with a human essence.
ia: You said He was three people. So is it three or one?
Muslims do not believe in human equality, at least the ones that follow the Koran. But yes other religions and philosophies do teach some of these principles but among the Founders they only respected Christianity and Unitarianism so they plainly got the principles from Christianity and the Bible.ed: So you deny that American has the principles and rights I mentioned above?
ia: I deny that these rights and principles are exclusively Christian, yes. I'd be happy to say that the USA is founded on principles shared by Christians, Jews, atheists, Muslims and quite a lot of people. If that's what you're arguing for, cool.
Not if they were concerned about numbers, many more would have converted by force. It is not just that verse, there is also the examples of Peter and Paul.ed: It comes from the actions of Christ and His disciples. They never used force to convert anyone. Jesus said if they reject your message just walk away.
ia: And that's it? You base a whole argument on a single sentence or two? Sounds like Jesus was just giving them sensible advice for spreading the gospel.
Even the Ten Commandments do not threaten any punishment for not worshiping God. It is just a command.ia: And what about the first of the Ten Commandments? They don't matter any more?
No, he wrote the philosophical foundation for our society, the DOI, upon which most of our laws are based as I demonstrated earlier how it is considered part of our legal code and was the basis for MLKs actions.ed: No, Jefferson said we get our rights from the Unitarian God which is basically identical to the Christian God, he just does not intervene supernaturally. And he gives us the same rights and moral laws.
ia: Sure, Jefferson may have said that. And then he decided to build a society in which God had nothing whatsoever to do with the law.
Yes, their representatives and judges, similar to our Congress.ed: See above about free speech and freedom of conscience. Gods ideal form of government was revealed to the hebrews when Jethro told Moses to have the people choose their leaders from among them, ie election, and also in the Book of Acts the apostles told the church members to choose their deacons and elders from among them, ie elect them.
ia: Fine. Their deacons and elders. Not their kings, lords, parliaments and presidents.
I did see above about equality and many parts of the Bill of Rights.ed: The first amendment is referring to a Federal church. That has nothing to do with not being founded on Christian principles. This is a straw man. John Adams wrote to Jefferson "The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were the only principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young gentlemen could unite. And what were these general principles? I would answer the general principles of Christianity...." And I could provide more.
ia: All you have to do is point out what these "Christian principles" are that the USA is supposed to be founded on. I'm still waiting to hear.
No, not just that sentence, read Romans 13. The government punishes societies evildoers but not the church. The church just punishes church members and only with excommunication.ed: Separation of Church and state was taught by Christ, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesars and unto God what is Gods". But He did not teach separation of God and State.
ia: That sounds like exactly what he was teaching - in the single sentence response you base your entire argument on. Come on - how can you expect me to take this seriously?
But no punishment was provided for not doing so and see my statements about Jesus and the disciples they never forced anyone to convert and often verbally debated with pagans about who was the true God, they could not have done that without allowing free speech.ed: I admit trial by jury is not a christian principle But freedom of speech and conscience is as I demonstrated in my previous post above.
ia: Of course it isn't. Have you forgotten? God gave rules to His people to follow. And the first one was, "Thou shalt have no God above me." Which is, of course, completely at odds with the US constitution.
ed: No, the First Amendment just meant that there could be no federal church and could not favor one Christian sect over others. Franklin recommended that public schools acknowledge a creator God and His moral laws and an afterlife where your deeds will be judged. Apparently he felt that a generic religion like that did not violate the First Amendment.
ia: The First Amendment means exactly what it says: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion. In other words, no religion in government. Not just "one Christian sect." No religion. A very sensible idea. If Franklin was inconsistent about this, or was occasionally hypocritical about it, well, he was a fallible human in the early days of one of the first secular countries in the world.
No, there are a few others that have this teaching like Judaism but the Founders only respected Christianity and Unitarianism so that is where they got it from. And atheism has no rational basis for believing in equality even if they may believe it.ed: Besides the principles I referred to above and in a previous email, one of the US most important principles is human equality which is also a Christian principle.
ia: First, highly debatable. Second, you have to prove it is an exclusively Christian principle, one that cannot be held by people of other religions or no religions.
No, in both cases the government is forcing someone to violate their deeply held beliefs. And preventing one to exercise their religion which means not endorsing a behavior which they believe is wrong.
Reference?Uh no, energy lost does not mean entropy increased. When it comes to heat transfer, you have it backwards. In classical thermodynamics, the change in entropy is defined as the flow of heat into a system divided by the absolute temperature. When heat flows in, the object increases in entropy. When heat flows out, entropy decreases.
For the earth, an approximate equal amounts of energy radiate to the earth and away from the earth. The heat from the sun increases the earth's entropy. The heat radiated to space decreases the entropy. Since the heat radiated to space occurs at a lower temperature, it has a larger effect, so the net result of the two processes is a decrease in the earth's entropy. This creates hot and cold spots on earth that are able to do work. For instance, it enables water vapor to continually be lifted up into the mountains where it falls as snow to form glaciers.
Imagine how many pumps it would take to get all that snow up into the mountains. But nature does it continuously over many thousands of years, without intelligent intervention. No intervention is needed to cause this decrease in entropy.
dm: Ah yes, no matter the topic of the thread, we always end up talking about Hitler and the beginning of the universe. Sigh.
We don't know what forces caused our universe. Did those forces cause many universes, or just this one? Regardless, there is no contradiction in saying that these forces outside of our universe may operate from different laws from the way it works inside the universe.
Salah lived thirty years and became the ancestor of Eber. What is wrong with that? How do you know that was not the author's intention? We know that ancient genealogies are not exhaustive from studying ancient societies at the time, unlike modern genealogies. So that is an extremely likely translation of the phrase.I'm sorry, but that is simply not what it says. Here are the verses I quoted with your interpretation thrown in:
10 These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat [an ancestor of ] Arphaxad two years after the flood:
11And Shem lived after he begat [the ancestor of ] Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.
12And [many thousands of years later ] Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat [an ancestor of ] Salah:
13And Arphaxad lived after he begat [the ancestor of ] Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters.
14And [ many thousands of years later ] Salah lived thirty years, and begat [an ancestor of ] Eber:
Very creative interpretation, but surely this is not the author's intention.
In 2 million years most of it would have eroded away, so that it would look like multiple small floods.That is not true. The fossil record is full of records of past floods that were much smaller in nature than the flood of Noah. We know what flood debris looks like, and we find it buried down there. But we find nothing that looks like a worldwide flood.
Most of the evidence eroded away.dm: Absolutely, over many millions of years. But there is no layer at 2 million years of a global flood, which is what you predict.
It came from the atmosphere and under the earths crust thru hydraulic vents on the ocean floor. Probably God removed most of it supernaturally.dm: Wait, you believe there was water that covered the earth 2 million years ago? Where did that water come from? Where did it go?
That was the last major ice age and probably the largest, most likely due to the weight of the water causing greater perturbations than previous motions of the axis.dm: The earth's axis has been tilting regularly, causing ice ages to come and go. This has happened on a regular pattern. There was no sudden change 2 million years ago.
Regarding the laws of thermodynamics, see any high school physics textbook or Laws of thermodynamics - Wikipedia .Reference?
Not really. The known laws of physics break down at Plank Time, a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. Before that, we have no ability to really know what happened.We can make a logical deduction of what or who caused the universe.
The laws of logic, perhaps. But the laws of thermodynamics? We really don't know how that applies outside our universe.From the history of science it has always been a better assumption to assume that the laws of logic apply even in areas that humans have never been.
Salah lived thirty years and became the ancestor of Eber. What is wrong with that? How do you know that was not the author's intention? We know that ancient genealogies are not exhaustive from studying ancient societies at the time, unlike modern genealogies. So that is an extremely likely translation of the phrase.
Uh, no, that's not how it works. If all the earth's crust is eroding everywhere, where is it all going?In 2 million years most of it would have eroded away, so that it would look like multiple small floods.
Uh, no, if the atmosphere was completely saturated, it would only cover the earth with a few inches. And if vast amounts of water came up form the earth, it would leave huge caverns where it left. We see none of this. So how did there get to be enough of water to cover Mount Everest?It [the flood water] came from the atmosphere and under the earths crust thru hydraulic vents on the ocean floor. Probably God removed most of it supernaturally.
Uh, no, there was no unusual ice age 2 million years ago. The earth's axis has been regularly shifting, setting up ice age cycles for millions of years. I found the following chart, for instance:That was the last major ice age and probably the largest, most likely due to the weight of the water causing greater perturbations than previous motions of the axis.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?