Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

#877
#877
Orange_Crush said:
That's not what I said. We are trying to define whether you believe in objective morality. Id baby murder objectively wrong? If so, as an atheist, why?
Click to expand...

Answer my question first. Was it wrong for your god to kill David's unborn child to prove a point to David? Or to order Joshua to slaughter countless children.
 
#879
#879
Vol8188 said:
You're entire defense for why god murdered David's innocent child and countless other babies in the New Testament is that right and wrong can only be defined, in your opinion, through a divine source.

If that's not a diversion, I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

This is not my defense of that. There are far greater discussions to be had on that matter. But we need to know if you can have those discussions. You claimed God is evil. I need to know where you get your basis to call him evil. Because as an atheist, you either need to admit a relative morality-- which invalidates the question, or tell me the source of the objective morality by which you are judging Him.

I mean, I couldn't really haul you into court, call you a lawbreaker, and then not be able to point to the set of laws you broke, now could I? You'd call me an idiot and a hypocrite!

Before you can accuse someone, you need to establish what law they broke, and where it came from. You need to establish the sovereignty of the code you are judging by.

That is what we are doing right now. You made an accusation, so we're finding the code, and establishing its sovereignty.

So far, you've given an opinion, which holds no water for accusation. And you've claimed we have evolved a non-objective need not to kill babies. You've offered no objective morality that says baby killing is wrong, nor that negatively effecting our species is wrong.

Please state the code and its sovereignty.
 
#881
#881
Orange_Crush said:
This is not my defense of that. There are far greater discussions to be had on that matter. But we need to know if you can have those discussions. You claimed God is evil. I need to know where you get your basis to call him evil. Because as an atheist, you either need to admit a relative morality-- which invalidates the question, or tell me the source of the objective morality by which you are judging Him.

I mean, I couldn't really haul you into court, call you a lawbreaker, and then not be able to point to the set of laws you broke, now could I? You'd call me an idiot and a hypocrite!

Before you can accuse someone, you need to establish what law they broke, and where it came from. You need to establish the sovereignty of the code you are judging by.

That is what we are doing right now. You made an accusation, so we're finding the code, and establishing its sovereignty.

So far, you've given an opinion, which holds no water for accusation. And you've claimed we have evolved a non-objective need not to kill babies. You've offered no objective morality that says baby killing is wrong, nor that negatively effecting our species is wrong.

Please state the code and its sovereignty.
Click to expand...

Did I call your god "evil", where?
 
#882
#882
MercyPercy said:
If the Christian god exists as you believe he does, then he is responsible for everything.

Sometimes he/it can be a bit of a douche.
Click to expand...

Ok if he is responsible for everything then he is responsible for all of the great things as well. Feel stupid now? You should.
 
#885
#885
Vol8188 said:
Answer my question first. Was it wrong for your god to kill David's unborn child to prove a point to David? Or to order Joshua to slaughter countless children.
Click to expand...

Still stuck in the OT times I see.....no progress from you. Let me know when you finally get to the New Testament.
 
#886
#886
Orange_Crush said:
This is not my defense of that. There are far greater discussions to be had on that matter. But we need to know if you can have those discussions. You claimed God is evil. I need to know where you get your basis to call him evil. Because as an atheist, you either need to admit a relative morality-- which invalidates the question, or tell me the source of the objective morality by which you are judging Him.

I mean, I couldn't really haul you into court, call you a lawbreaker, and then not be able to point to the set of laws you broke, now could I? You'd call me an idiot and a hypocrite!

Before you can accuse someone, you need to establish what law they broke, and where it came from. You need to establish the sovereignty of the code you are judging by.

That is what we are doing right now. You made an accusation, so we're finding the code, and establishing its sovereignty.

So far, you've given an opinion, which holds no water for accusation. And you've claimed we have evolved a non-objective need not to kill babies. You've offered no objective morality that says baby killing is wrong, nor that negatively effecting our species is wrong.

Please state the code and its sovereignty.
Click to expand...

:) It's like talking to a tree in the forest w/this guy. :loco:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#891
#891
Vol8188 said:
I'm pretty sure we started with me talking about how illogical or morally wrong one of your gods stances were. Which you then redirected with a question of your own about what determines morality. Although I could be thinking of someone else.
Click to expand...

Vol8188 said:
Did I call your god "evil", where?
Click to expand...

OK... You got me... "Morally wrong..."


We need to establish the law that you are accusing him by, and that law's sovereignty. So far, you have listed opinion and some relative evolutionary trait that He would not have developed, because He didn't evolve. Anything else?
 
#892
#892
MercyPercy said:
I just answered your question within the context of your religion, bro. You sacrifice that goat yet?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter, even in your answer there lies stupidity. You cannot blame God for bad things that happen and:

1) Not give him credit for all of the great things in this world.

and

2) Most importantly not believe in him.

Thanks for playing. Animals like cattle and goat were put on this earth to feed humans bro. So I guess all the cattle we eat means we are sacrificing them all right? :eek:lol:
 
#893
#893
Orange_Crush said:
It doesn't sound like you can.
Click to expand...

So if your god raped babies for fun...

1. You would support him because your own morality is defined by god, and therefore he cannot be immoral.

2. Other religions could not question baby rape, because they don't worship the true god.

And finally
3. Atheists cannot question your gods baby raping either, because without a god you do not believe morality can be defined.


Thanks for wasting my time with your disturbing views, and goodnight.
 
#894
#894
Vol8188 said:
Lol so because your god doesn't kill babies in the NT, that makes it cool?

Did he forgive himself?
Click to expand...

You're still not making any logical sense for a good debate 8188. You are obsessed with god killing babies for some reason. Sounds like a mental problem there that you might want to get checked out with professional help.....just saying.
 
#895
#895
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
You're still not making any logical sense for a good debate 8188. You are obsessed with god killing babies for some reason. Sounds like a mental problem there that you might want to get checked out with professional help.....just saying.
Click to expand...

I would just like to know how a "perfect" god can order Joshua to slaughter children. And kill David's unborn child due to David's sin.

Does that sound like a god with following?
 
Last edited:
#896
#896
Vol8188 said:
Lol so because your god doesn't kill babies in the NT, that makes it cool?

Did he forgive himself?
Click to expand...

:loco: This dude is in need of help. Call an ambulance cause we have an emergency on our hands. Don't forget the straight jackets either....it could get rough.
 
Last edited:
#897
#897
Vol8188 said:
So if your god raped babies for fun...

1. You would support him because your own morality is defined by god, and therefore he cannot be immoral.

2. Other religions could not question baby rape, because they don't worship the true god.

And finally
3. Atheists cannot question your gods baby raping either, because without a god you do not believe morality can be defined.


Thanks for wasting my time with your disturbing views, and goodnight.
Click to expand...

None of that logically comes from my worldview or beliefs, so it's a whimpering red herring since I am not the one claiming God is immoral. Inventing more supposed crimes without a code of laws to judge against would only compound your problem.

We need to know what sets of laws you are using to judge Him by, and the sovereignty of that code. So far you have made the case for a relativistic group of opinions that have evolved through blind chance. Doesn't sound like much to present in our little court. You need to keep working. Got anything else?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#898
#898
Vol8188 said:
So if your god raped babies for fun...

1. You would support him because your own morality is defined by god, and therefore he cannot be immoral.

2. Other religions could not question baby rape, because they don't worship the true god.

And finally
3. Atheists cannot question your gods baby raping either, because without a god you do not believe morality can be defined.


Thanks for wasting my time with your disturbing views, and goodnight.
Click to expand...

What year of high-school did you drop out in? I'm curious.
 
#899
#899
Vol8188 said:
I would just like to know how a "perfect" god can order Joshua to slaughter children. And kill David's unborn child due to David's sin.

Does that sound like a god with following?
Click to expand...

What standard are we using to make the judgment?
 
#900
#900
Orange_Crush said:
Feel free to disagree. It's beside the point. Lots of people disagreed with Newton. That didn't make them float into space.

Now, note that I am not trying to make the Judeo-Christian Bible your American law standard. I am merely saying that I have an objective to point to. I can in good conscience call baby-rape objectively wrong. You can't. As far as you are concerned, it is vanilla ice cream.
Click to expand...

The point, which is still lost, is just because you can point to an "objective" doesn't mean it isn't still a matter of opinion. The "objective" you are pointing to still requires subjective deference to that objective. You are just adding a step and saying instead of saying it is my opinion that baby killing is wrong, I'm point to "this" to say it for me. Actually believing "this" to be the standard is still an opinion.

I can say my opinion is baby killing is wrong, I'm just using myself as the "objective" authority, no? That is exactly what you are doing, but just using a Christian Worldview as your basis of "objectivity. It's back to what PKT said, you are simply twisting the "objective" versus "subjective" terminology to show that Objective Morality must exist. Simply writing something down doesn't make it "objective", appeal to the legitimacy that wrote it down is still subjective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top