A couple of stupid Myths

[ScreamingEagle]

The rationality to the argument was weak. The entire premise of the argument is that theological tradition holds more weight to it than logical intuition. Killing children is wrong. I don't care if God did it or not you simply can not justify it and attempting to do so in such an idiotic round about manner as they did is simply sick.

Weak in what way? In the example I gave you, the logic was stronger than anything you've come up with to prove it wrong, which you haven't.

If you can conceive that there may be exceptions where a person might kill a child rather than have it suffer a worse fate, then you open the possibility that God may have had His own reasons.

Could you perhaps imagine that maybe God had the children killed because to leave them stranded to die by themselves in a hot dangerous desert would be far worse than having them immediately come to heaven where they would be a million times happier?

If you will look again at the example in Post#35 with the 7 steps of possible reasoning, you will see that there is a contradiction between step 1 and step 7. This is how many people "reason" that there is no God and why they deny His existence.

However, as Miller points out, the whole thing stands or falls on the accuracy of the personal moral intuition in Step 3. So, unless you can prove otherwise, your personal assertion that God does not exist or that God is sick and horrible is false. Can you prove that there is absolutely NO EXCEPTION to what you see as the rule to not kill children?

 

[Powerman]

Weak in what way? In the example I gave you, the logic was stronger than anything you've come up with to prove it wrong, which you haven't.

If you can conceive that there may be exceptions where a person might kill a child rather than have it suffer a worse fate, then you open the possibility that God may have had His own reasons.

Could you perhaps imagine that maybe God had the children killed because to leave them stranded to die by themselves in a hot dangerous desert would be far worse than having them immediately come to heaven where they would be a million times happier?

If you will look again at the example in Post#35 with the 7 steps of possible reasoning, you will see that there is a contradiction between step 1 and step 7. This is how many people "reason" that there is no God and why they deny His existence.

However, as Miller points out, the whole thing stands or falls on the accuracy of the personal moral intuition in Step 3. So, unless you can prove otherwise, your personal assertion that God does not exist or that God is sick and horrible is false. Can you prove that there is absolutely NO EXCEPTION to what you see as the rule to not kill children?

Somehow I doubt that God is planning on sending the children that he called for to be murdered to go directly to heaven. Do you have any idea how stupid you are making yourself look by defending genocide? I suppose not. As long as your stupid retrograde God does it then I suppose it is ok. If this story was in the Koran you would not dare defend it. But since it complies with your absurd beliefs you will use any type of backwards logic to defend it. Just think about what you are defending again. Infant genocide....it's fucking sick that you aren't even willing to bend an inch on the issue. You should be appalled that you worship a God that commands massive genocide and actually punishes the person in which he ordered to commit the genocide becuase he left one person alive. What kind of sick retrograte fuck do you have to be to defend such immoral nonsense.?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Somehow I doubt that God is planning on sending the children that he called for to be murdered to go directly to heaven. Do you have any idea how stupid you are making yourself look by defending genocide? I suppose not. As long as your stupid retrograde God does it then I suppose it is ok. If this story was in the Koran you would not dare defend it. But since it complies with your absurd beliefs you will use any type of backwards logic to defend it. Just think about what you are defending again. Infant genocide....it's fucking sick that you aren't even willing to bend an inch on the issue. You should be appalled that you worship a God that commands massive genocide and actually punishes the person in which he ordered to commit the genocide becuase he left one person alive. What kind of sick retrograte fuck do you have to be to defend such immoral nonsense.?

You're a pathetic tool.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I've never understood how gays are forcing their lifestyles on people. And the whole condom s at school thing isn't a bad idea. Not giving out condoms isn't going to stop people from having sex. I'd rather them use condoms if they are going to do it.

In one breath you say you dont understand "forcing" values....then you say its better to give out condoms at school.

Whether its better or not is irrlevant, fact is, its forcing a lifestyle on some.

When you present abstinence you wind up with somewhat of a divide. There are some who would practice it who wouldnt have if given a condom. Those kids are now put at a possible risk if they use the condom.

Now you have those kids who if taught abstinence, would have sex anyways, without a condom. They become higher risk to get an STD.

So, the trade off is, a kid who could achieve the highest standard, is sacraficed for the good of the kid who isnt able to follow rules, if you teach condom usage.

But back to the original point, YOU are forcing your lifestyle by promoting condom use. Plain and simple, yet you asked when are some promoting their lifestyle?

Examples of lifestyle being pushed:
same sex marriage
In Calif. its a $100,000 fine if you tell a cross dresser HE cannot wear a dress and makeup
If you rent a property, they dont want you to be able to "discriminate" based on your sexuality, or marital status. Many older folk are offended by people who live "in sin" and are forced to rent their property to such people, or not rent it at all. Yet they designed their retirement on the rental income, and are now forced to accept these peoples "lifestyles"

the examples are quite endless.

You can argue that we are bigoted or whatever for not accepting these lifestyles, but you cannot argue they arent being or attempting to be forced on people.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I have nothing against people that love and worship God. I have a problem with the people who are idiots about it. i.e. the young earth creationists and homophobes

I have no problem with religion. I have a problem with people that are stupid.

Im not responding to your above quote, but Im wondering exactly what "rights" homosexuals are denied?

Funny thing about homosexuality, on one hand they claim they didnt and wouldnt choose it, yet they also claim there is nothing wrong with it. hmmm, if nothing is wrong with it, why wouldnt you possibly choose it then if given the choice?

Ok, ok, devils advocate, because homosexuals are so discriminated against. Ok, IF that is true, then fight to change that, do you think women wouldnt choose to be women based on that concept? They were greatly discriminated against.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Can atheists have morals?

Of course they can

But atheists are a danger to American society. I dont propose we stop them legally, but rather by educationing people about the dangers of atheism.

American society is built on the principle of our rights given to us by God. That is THE SINGLE cornerstone on which everything else is built. If atheism were to finish its attempted takeover, and all references to God were removed from our documents, the following line would dissappear:

"..We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights.."

It goes on to state that the people have a right to abolish an oppresive govt based on the above quote, without the quote, everything becomes man made, and hence, man giveth, man can take away, ANYTHING.

 

[MissileMan]

Can atheists have morals?

Of course they can

But atheists are a danger to American society. I dont propose we stop them legally, but rather by educationing people about the dangers of atheism.

Oh great...now I have to worry about Christian stormtroopers busting down my door and dragging me off to a conversion camp.
Get over yourself and get over your religion. Christians hold no monopoly on morals, and based on this post they certainly hold no monopoly on wisdom.

American society is built on the principle of our rights given to us by God.

Umm, American society is built on the principles of our rights given to us by our government. See how that works? Even atheists get rights. Your God had nothing to do with it.

 

[Powerman]

"..We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights.."

Yeah sounds great. Too bad there isn't anything true about the sentence. Even if we were created all men aren't created equal. Should they be given equal rights? Of course they should but not everyone is equal.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Oh great...now I have to worry about Christian stormtroopers busting down my door and dragging me off to a conversion camp.
Get over yourself and get over your religion. Christians hold no monopoly on morals, and based on this post they certainly hold no monopoly on wisdom.


Umm, American society is built on the principles of our rights given to us by our government. See how that works? Even atheists get rights. Your God had nothing to do with it.

Geeez dude, didnt you read the part where I said I oppose laws to force things.....????

I also never stated Christians hold any monopoly on morality, try reading my post again and quit arguing with yourself.

Uh, dude, read the Declaration of Independence, it says the rights are given to us by God, not the govt, you get over it. Thats the LAW OF THE LAND, like it or not, not get into that crate, we are shipping you off to the newest conversion lab.....

 

[LuvRPgrl]

"..We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights.."

Yeah sounds great. Too bad there isn't anything true about the sentence. Even if we were created all men aren't created equal. Should they be given equal rights? Of course they should but not everyone is equal.

The writers are speaking specifically about legal rights, we are all created equal.

 

[mattskramer]

The writers are speaking specifically about legal rights, we are all created equal.

"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights"

That quote can be debated and refuted from so many angles:

Were all men crated equal?
No. Some people are born mentally and physically retarded. Some people are born into wealthy and influential family while some people are born into very poor and dysfunctional families.

Did the authors mean that men are created with the same legal rights?
If so, why did the authors not make that clarification? Perhaps we should rewrite it for them and clarify it. Does this quote apply to women? Apparently not.

Okay. Let us interpret the quote and restrict it's meaning to equal legal rights for men. The authors did not practice what they preached. They reneged on treaties signed with the American Indians. They also owned slaves. I suppose that they did not consider male Indians and Blacks to be men. Perhaps there were ignorant about genetics of the male homo sapien.

At any rate, circumstances have changed and reasoning has improved thorough the years. Perhaps, as a historic document, it should remain as-is in a museum. For all practical purposes and modern usage, I think that it should be modified to reflect contemporary circumstances.

 

[MissileMan]

Geeez dude, didnt you read the part where I said I oppose laws to force things.....????

I was responding to your tirade about atheists being dangerous.

Uh, dude, read the Declaration of Independence, it says the rights are given to us by God, not the govt, you get over it. Thats the LAW OF THE LAND, like it or not, not get into that crate, we are shipping you off to the newest conversion lab.....

Umm, what's the proper term? Dudette? What are you, 14? Our government is based on the constitution, not the DoI. The LAW OF THE LAND doesn't mention God or creator.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Somehow I doubt that God is planning on sending the children that he called for to be murdered to go directly to heaven. Do you have any idea how stupid you are making yourself look by defending genocide? I suppose not. As long as your stupid retrograde God does it then I suppose it is ok. If this story was in the Koran you would not dare defend it. But since it complies with your absurd beliefs you will use any type of backwards logic to defend it. Just think about what you are defending again. Infant genocide....it's fucking sick that you aren't even willing to bend an inch on the issue. You should be appalled that you worship a God that commands massive genocide and actually punishes the person in which he ordered to commit the genocide becuase he left one person alive. What kind of sick retrograte fuck do you have to be to defend such immoral nonsense.?

You doubt? Does that mean you're not sure? You certainly haven't proved your assertion or even given a rational response to my posts. You failed a second time to counter my logical argument with anything other than an emotional response. So I suggest you stop with your false and unsubstantiated claims about God. Or are you just here to

One thing you might stop to consider is why God destroyed the parents of the children in the first place.

 

[Powerman]

You doubt? Does that mean you're not sure? You certainly haven't proved your assertion or even given a rational response to my posts. You failed a second time to counter my logical argument with anything other than an emotional response. So I suggest you stop with your false and unsubstantiated claims about God. Or are you just here to

One thing you might stop to consider is why God destroyed the parents of the children in the first place.

God destroyed the parents of the children because of a war that was over about 200 years before he decided it would be a good idea to commit mass genocide on them. Doesn't sound very rational to me.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights"

That quote can be debated and refuted from so many angles:

Were all men crated equal?
No. Some people are born mentally and physically retarded. Some people are born into wealthy and influential family while some people are born into very poor and dysfunctional families.

Did the authors mean that men are created with the same legal rights?
If so, why did the authors not make that clarification? Perhaps we should rewrite it for them and clarify it. Does this quote apply to women? Apparently not..

As I post already, it was referring to LEGAL rights. As for women and blacks not having equal legal rights at the time, those who wanted to create them did not have enough support at the time, the worldwide cultural norms wouldnt allow it. We have corrected those mistakes. Although we are all born with equal legal rights in Gods eyes, people do have the ability to remove them. IT IS WRONG to do so, which is what this document is declaring.

"Okay. Let us interpret the quote and restrict it's meaning to equal legal rights for men. The authors did not practice what they preached. They reneged on treaties signed with the American Indians. They also owned slaves. I suppose that they did not consider male Indians and Blacks to be men. Perhaps there were ignorant about genetics of the male homo sapien.

At any rate, circumstances have changed and reasoning has improved thorough the years. Perhaps, as a historic document, it should remain as-is in a museum. For all practical purposes and modern usage, I think that it should be modified to reflect contemporary circumstances.

No, lets not restrict it. Social change does not happen overnight. It took a long time, but we have arrived at equal rights. So what if SOME of the authors did not practice what they preached, it doesnt change the truth or power of the words.

A drug addict is near death and tells me, dont ever start. Because he is not practicing what he preaches, should I not listen to him?

IF those are your best arguements, might as well give it up now. Our country is doomed if it fails to continue following this document.

Besides, it is THIS DOCUMENT that led to the current situation, where all people do have equal rights, as much as is possible within an imperfect world because of the greed of people.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

If someone yanks down your pants and sticks their boner in your buns to illustrate how gays have sex, THAT would be forcing their lifestyle on you. Being taught that they exist and are human beings with the same rights as everyone else is not forcing their lifestyle on you.

In LAUSD, which may be the largest school district in the world, they have gay pride month. It certainly goes far beyond what you describe. They are forcing the gay lifestyle on kids and brainwashing them. Me, I would prefer a document that says Murder, Lying, Stealing, Adultery is bad.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I was responding to your tirade about atheists being dangerous.



Umm, what's the proper term? Dudette? What are you, 14? Our government is based on the constitution, not the DoI. The LAW OF THE LAND doesn't mention God or creator.

A simple sentence is a "tirade"???

no, actually Im 15.
The basis of the law of the land was laid out in the Declaration of Independence. It was the first legal document the country ever had.

"Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Year of our LORD, hmmmm

also, it states in Article 6, clause 4, I think, that the officials have to take an "oath" (which specifically refers to an oath to GOD on the Bible).

 

[Abbey Normal]

Yakety Yakety Yak. Atheists love to "debate" our faith. Which is absurd as a premise, since faith by definition is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

The bottom line is, if we (Christians) are wrong, we are naive people who tried to live a moral life, and go nowhere when we die.


If the Atheists are wrong, well, let's just say it was a very big mistake they will have forever to regret.

I guess that would make me pretty edgy too. I might try convincing others that Christianity is a sham, so I could feel better.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

God destroyed the parents of the children because of a war that was over about 200 years before he decided it would be a good idea to commit mass genocide on them. Doesn't sound very rational to me.

To quote about the destruction of the Amalekikes:

The revenge was in fact punishment from God on an unrepentant nation. As noted above, they were given ample time to change their ways. While it was the descendents of the original attackers who were punished, they led the same evil lifestyle that their ancestors had (and possibly one that was worse - in dealing with evil nations in the OT, God often withheld punishment until their wickedness reached a particularly high level).

What do you mean it doesn't sound rational? Is that just more of your emotional feeling that children and people shouldn't be killed in any sort of situation? Think about what happened. The Amalekikes turned away from God after plenty of time to change their ways. They didn't and were very evil, so God punished them. Their lineage was ended. The children were killed for that reason and because they could be taken immediately to heaven instead of remaining to suffer much before they slowly died alone by themselves.
Harsh, wasn't it? Take it as a lesson: God will punish the wicked.

 

[Powerman]

To quote about the destruction of the Amalekikes:



What do you mean it doesn't sound rational? Is that just more of your emotional feeling that children and people shouldn't be killed in any sort of situation? Think about what happened. The Amalekikes turned away from God after plenty of time to change their ways. They didn't and were very evil, so God punished them. Their lineage was ended. The children were killed for that reason and because they could be taken immediately to heaven instead of remaining to suffer much before they slowly died alone by themselves.
Harsh, wasn't it? Take it as a lesson: God will punish the wicked.

I don't buy into fear tactics. But it's nice to see that you do. There are plenty of wicked people right now and I don't see God doing anything about it. Wicked is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not exactly sure how you can just say "Oh those people were wicked so it's ok for God to ask Saul to commit genodice on them." You really lose a lot of credibility when you try to rationalize genocide. I'm glad the bible is fiction because if it were true God would have probably smited me already.