I Can't Shake It! Wtf Is Wrong With Me?

[Justin]

So, in conclusion, I don't think that you have credibly debunked any of these sources, thus they stand as relevent witnesses.

 

LNC, your reply to AM in no way refutes what he said in his post.

[chefranden]

I am glad that you are consistent with your worldview; however, I wonder if you really are. When you speak of emergence, I wonder whether you are referring to weak emergence or strong emergence, or both. Weak emergence is likely, and sounds like what you are referring to; however, we cannot be said to simply be the result of weak emergence since we have freedom to act contrary to our genetics. Yet, some would compare the concept of strong emergence to magic. Since emergence is such a slippery term, maybe you could define what you mean by the term.

 

I wouldn't compare strong emergence to magic.

 

I would say that I'm talking about medium emergence at present. For example I would say that psychology is not applied biology, but nevertheless psychology that doesn't take biology and evolution into account is barking up a tree with no coon in it. (see Lakoff and Johnson) It could be that neuroscience and or cognitive science may be able to supply a description of the physical state that produces the experience of red. That is human behavior may not be irreducible, but I don't know at the moment.

[chefranden]

Interesting. Why would a materialist even care about morality since right and wrong are immaterial concepts and thus really don't exist. Thoughts, ideas, numbers, concepts, don't exist. You cannot measure these things scientifically, therefore, they are meaningless.

 

I would beg to differ. You can measure these scientifically these days though the measurements are still rather crude.

 

Morals are behaviors directly linked to physical emotions that inhibit or encourage certain behaviors in social mammals. (see DeWaal) No social mammals (which are physical things) means no morals. As concepts morals appear* to be immaterial, however the behaviors cannot be separated from physical existence. A moral man such as the famous Phineas Gage may become immoral via brain injury. Even the metaphors that describe morals (uprightness) are taken from the physical condition of man. (see Lakoff and Johnson)

 

*I use appear because science may yet be able to describe the physical state of concept. But then again maybe not.

[shantonu]

OK, the ball is in your court, as it were. Please explain how you can have a worldview that includes more than just the material world without the existence of God/gods.

 

Don't rush. Take your time. If you can explain why it was okay for God to order the killing of babies in 1 Samuel 15, I'd be much indebted to you.

 

You are an impatient person aren't you.

 

Post 1 - Yesterday, 07:58 PM

Post 2 - Yesterday, 08:23 PM

Post 3 - Yesterday, 08:40 PM

This post - Yesterday, 08:45 PM

 

You're stalling again. Maybe Jesus will come in a cloud and save you from having to answer a straightforward question, which I've repeated several times: Did God "do the right thing" when He ordered the killing of babes and sucklings in 1 Samuel?

 

I've been waiting for quite a while. And you've used all sorts of excuses about why you can't answer. At this point, I'm wondering if you're just a sophist who drops names and uses big words to muddy the waters, thinking that by making the waters opaque they will seem deep. I guess only time will tell whether you have any genuine insight or whether you will be revealed as a charlatan and a fraud.

[Snafutopia]

Historical evidence would confirm that you simply cannot deny what is true, that Jesus did exist and is real.

 

Hi. I can totally recommend a book called "Gospel Truth" written by Russell Shorto. It's a summary of the findings of the various Historical Jesus projects, and even though I'm unable to agree with many of the author's conclusions, the book is absolutely fascinating. If you or anyone else has read it, I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter.

[chefranden]

It sounds to me like a completely normal response. Historical evidence would confirm that you simply cannot deny what is true, that Jesus did exist and is real. So, you may want to go back and reexamine that evidence and follow it where it leads. If you don't want to start with the Bible, go to sources outside of the Bible, most of whom were not even Christians: Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, the Jewish Talmud, and Lucian would give you a good start.

 

You know that this is a crock of shit, but I'm not going to argue with you because I'm tired of rehashing the same old shit every time a new Christian know-it-all stops by. Perhaps some of the younger members will have fun refuting some of your solid hearsay evidence.

 

I wouldn't bother writing this, except that you seem to be an unusually smart Christian, and maybe you could pull something new and interesting out of your ass. That would be more fun, and maybe even advance your cause.

[shantonu]

It sounds to me like a completely normal response. Historical evidence would confirm that you simply cannot deny what is true, that Jesus did exist and is real. So, you may want to go back and reexamine that evidence and follow it where it leads. If you don't want to start with the Bible, go to sources outside of the Bible, most of whom were not even Christians: Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, the Jewish Talmud, and Lucian would give you a good start.

 

You know that this is a crock of shit, but I'm not going to argue with you because I'm tired of rehashing the same old shit every time a new Christian know-it-all stops by. Perhaps some of the younger members will have fun refuting some of your solid hearsay evidence.

 

I wouldn't bother writing this, except that you seem to be an unusually smart Christian, and maybe you could pull something new and interesting out of your ass. That would be more fun, and maybe even advance your cause.

 

Not to brag, but I have to say that I totally pwned LNC and he knows it. He could talk all this b.s. about Lucian and Pliny the Younger but he could not answer a straight question about killing babies. He probably just looked a bunch of stuff up on the internet, and when the answers couldn't be readily wikied or googled, he gave up. What a poseur.

[MathGeek]

Not to brag, but I have to say that I totally pwned LNC and he knows it. He could talk all this b.s. about Lucian and Pliny the Younger but he could not answer a straight question about killing babies. He probably just looked a bunch of stuff up on the internet, and when the answers couldn't be readily wikied or googled, he gave up. What a poseur.

 

I may be eating my words here, but I think everybody here owned him. To be honest, I'd like to see what he has to say about Christianity being parasitic with Greek philosophy since atheists are apparently parasitic to the Christian worldview.

[shantonu]

Not to brag, but I have to say that I totally pwned LNC and he knows it. He could talk all this b.s. about Lucian and Pliny the Younger but he could not answer a straight question about killing babies. He probably just looked a bunch of stuff up on the internet, and when the answers couldn't be readily wikied or googled, he gave up. What a poseur.

 

I may be eating my words here, but I think everybody here owned him. To be honest, I'd like to see what he has to say about Christianity being parasitic with Greek philosophy since atheists are apparently parasitic to the Christian worldview.

 

That's true. However, with due respect to parasitic Greek philosophy, I feel my ownage was more betterer because it was based on a one-line argument. I put him to flight with one line from his own Book! Surely it is I that deserves the x-christian bonus points for delivering the final smackdown.

[freeday]

It sounds to me like a completely normal response. Historical evidence would confirm that you simply cannot deny what is true, that Jesus did exist and is real. So, you may want to go back and reexamine that evidence and follow it where it leads. If you don't want to start with the Bible, go to sources outside of the Bible, most of whom were not even Christians: Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, the Jewish Talmud, and Lucian would give you a good start.

 

You know that this is a crock of shit, but I'm not going to argue with you because I'm tired of rehashing the same old shit every time a new Christian know-it-all stops by. Perhaps some of the younger members will have fun refuting some of your solid hearsay evidence.

 

I wouldn't bother writing this, except that you seem to be an unusually smart Christian, and maybe you could pull something new and interesting out of your ass. That would be more fun, and maybe even advance your cause.

 

Not to brag, but I have to say that I totally pwned LNC and he knows it. He could talk all this b.s. about Lucian and Pliny the Younger but he could not answer a straight question about killing babies. He probably just looked a bunch of stuff up on the internet, and when the answers couldn't be readily wikied or googled, he gave up. What a poseur.

 

If I remember right, he asked you a question which you did not to answer. Although you heavily scrutinize his ethical framework, you are unwilling to discuss your normative ethics. I feel sure I could pick apart your ethical beliefs just as you do ours. Then what have we gained... nothing at all? No ethical system is without its flaws, just as christianity purposes some ethical dilemmas.

 

I could discuss the issue of cherem if you like, but I feel this would be a complete waste of time and it has been exhaustively posted on already. This would not change your mind, nor would you want to see my point of view.

[shantonu]

It sounds to me like a completely normal response. Historical evidence would confirm that you simply cannot deny what is true, that Jesus did exist and is real. So, you may want to go back and reexamine that evidence and follow it where it leads. If you don't want to start with the Bible, go to sources outside of the Bible, most of whom were not even Christians: Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, the Jewish Talmud, and Lucian would give you a good start.

 

You know that this is a crock of shit, but I'm not going to argue with you because I'm tired of rehashing the same old shit every time a new Christian know-it-all stops by. Perhaps some of the younger members will have fun refuting some of your solid hearsay evidence.

 

I wouldn't bother writing this, except that you seem to be an unusually smart Christian, and maybe you could pull something new and interesting out of your ass. That would be more fun, and maybe even advance your cause.

 

Not to brag, but I have to say that I totally pwned LNC and he knows it. He could talk all this b.s. about Lucian and Pliny the Younger but he could not answer a straight question about killing babies. He probably just looked a bunch of stuff up on the internet, and when the answers couldn't be readily wikied or googled, he gave up. What a poseur.

 

If I remember right, he asked you a question which you did not to answer. Although you heavily scrutinize his ethical framework, you are unwilling to discuss your normative ethics. I feel sure I could pick apart your ethical beliefs just as you do ours. Then what have we gained... nothing at all? No ethical system is without its flaws, just as christianity purposes some ethical dilemmas.

 

I could discuss the issue of cherem if you like, but I feel this would be a complete waste of time and it has been exhaustively posted on already. This would not change your mind, nor would you want to see my point of view.

 

Do I have to pwn you too? Just say the word.

[LNC]

But that which elicited the teardrop -- in one person's eye, but not that of another person -- is currently sort of ineffable, and maybe someday will be known.

 

That is a faith statement, just to be clear.

 

All that is contained within mere material existence is capable of eliciting human responses which are not supernatural, but which are supra-material: joy, sorrow, outrage, humility, love, fury, jealousy, gratitude... all of the responses attributed to the fictional character, God... maybe except for the humility thing.

 

Can you define supra-material as it relates to the material world? How does this supra-material existence relate to the material world? It seems that this is a jump beyond the idea that all that exists is matter. If you have supra-material, why not super-natural? How do the two concepts differ?

 

And the more exalted of these feelings are usually recognized by theists as being a human spiritual response to the awareness of god. The baser ones aren't. Yet I postulate that all human conscious responses are always brought about by some aspect of the material world, and that christian religious leaders have, conveniently for their cause, riven these responses to manufacture false categories of what is spiritual and what is venal.

 

In this way, a human is separated from his/her normal perceptions of, and reactions to, the material world; divided against him/herself; and made ready to become dependent upon myth in order to have any sense at all of being grounded in "reality."

 

It's a fabulous trick.

 

In this way, you and I both experience existence with consciousness born of physical-causal-necessity, but your convictions require you, I suppose, to label my conclusions materialistic and yours spiritual.

 

I don't care that much about the labels, though, because I continue to interact just fine with material existence -- with All That Is, And Only All That Is -- and I require no polyester divine embroidery around the edges of it.

 

Why should it be a given that "all human conscious responses are always brought about by some aspect of the material world"?" How do you arrive at such a conclusion? How is this not question begging?

[shantonu]

But that which elicited the teardrop -- in one person's eye, but not that of another person -- is currently sort of ineffable, and maybe someday will be known.

 

That is a faith statement, just to be clear.

 

All that is contained within mere material existence is capable of eliciting human responses which are not supernatural, but which are supra-material: joy, sorrow, outrage, humility, love, fury, jealousy, gratitude... all of the responses attributed to the fictional character, God... maybe except for the humility thing.

 

Can you define supra-material as it relates to the material world? How does this supra-material existence relate to the material world? It seems that this is a jump beyond the idea that all that exists is matter. If you have supra-material, why not super-natural? How do the two concepts differ?

 

And the more exalted of these feelings are usually recognized by theists as being a human spiritual response to the awareness of god. The baser ones aren't. Yet I postulate that all human conscious responses are always brought about by some aspect of the material world, and that christian religious leaders have, conveniently for their cause, riven these responses to manufacture false categories of what is spiritual and what is venal.

 

In this way, a human is separated from his/her normal perceptions of, and reactions to, the material world; divided against him/herself; and made ready to become dependent upon myth in order to have any sense at all of being grounded in "reality."

 

It's a fabulous trick.

 

In this way, you and I both experience existence with consciousness born of physical-causal-necessity, but your convictions require you, I suppose, to label my conclusions materialistic and yours spiritual.

 

I don't care that much about the labels, though, because I continue to interact just fine with material existence -- with All That Is, And Only All That Is -- and I require no polyester divine embroidery around the edges of it.

 

Why should it be a given that "all human conscious responses are always brought about by some aspect of the material world"?" How do you arrive at such a conclusion? How is this not question begging?

 

You're scared to cross swords with me, aren't you? Just admit it. It's okay to be afraid. If I were a fraud that just copied stuff off wikipedia I'd be scared too. All that "physical-causal-necessity" doesn't work on me. What a joke.

[shantonu]

Can you define supra-material as it relates to the material world? How does this supra-material existence relate to the material world? It seems that this is a jump beyond the idea that all that exists is matter. If you have supra-material, why not super-natural? How do the two concepts differ?

 

Still can't figure out the genocide question huh? Still looking it up. Still investigating it. I'm not going to let you off the hook until you give me a straight answer. Why should I worship an immoral god? How do you know you're not worshiping a demon? He ordered killing babies didn't he? That sounds like a demon to me.

 

You don't get to spout off at the mouth about "supra-material" whosiswatis hocus pocus. I will teach you plain English. I will teach you to use simple Anglo-Saxon declarative phrases if it's the last thing I do.

[Kuroikaze]

Still can't figure out the genocide question huh? Still looking it up. Still investigating it. I'm not going to let you off the hook until you give me a straight answer. Why should I worship an immoral god? How do you know you're not worshiping a demon? He ordered killing babies didn't he? That sounds like a demon to me.

 

You don't get to spout off at the mouth about "supra-material" whosiswatis hocus pocus. I will teach you plain English. I will teach you to use simple Anglo-Saxon declarative phrases if it's the last thing I do.

 

Ha, good luck with that. Some people aren't worth debating in my opinion. Apologists are well trained in NOT giving straight answers.

People who believe in young earth creationism or divine command morality are two of them. That kind of stupid is just not worth bothering with.

 

I'd rather punch myself in the neck repeatedly than debate someone who thinks that the only way we can understand right from wrong is to be told "God says ....."

[LNC]

Lol, the cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.

 

Since you clearly miss my point I'll make it clearly. I am also not the slightest bit frightened of your version of hell for the SAME REASON

 

OK, I will await your proofs that hell doesn't exist and that God doesn't exist.

 

How do you deal with this? Quite easily. The claim that objective grounding requires god to exist is a bald assertion, and I reject it outright. Morality and ethics do not derive their meaning from supernatural beings. It isn't even a sensible claim if one thinks about it. It honestly amazes me that Christians keep using the claim when it is just so stupid.

 

You can't define god into existence and you can't and you can't claim he exists through an affirmation of the consequence.

 

I'm not going to bother trying to educate you on any of the secular models for moral grounding. Do you own homework. I have no need to justify my life or my choices to you.

I didn't say that objective morality derives its meaning from supernatural beings. I said that objective morality cannot even exist apart from a transcendent and personal source. Now, if you are confident that they can exist apart from a transcendent and personal source, please explain.

 

wait, wait, wait, the existence of objective morals and the existence of an objective grounding for morality are two different claims. I would accept the second one as existing (reality makes a much better objective grounding for morality than god anyway) but I reject the first claim, at least in the sense fundamentalists use the term "objective morals."

 

In any case, there is nothing in the existence of either which necessarily leads to the existence of any sort of god.

 

Anyway, your argument is still circular, sorry you can't see that.

 

Objective morality must be grounded in an objective reality beyond that moral system. Again, if you disagree, please explain how you arrive at your conclusion.

 

If you don't believe that there is anything in existence that necessitates the existence of God, then either you deny objective morality or accept objective morality but can explain its existence in some other way, please explain.

 

You keep claiming circular reasoning, yet have not explained in what way the reasoning is circular. Please explain.

 

Uh....no.

 

I don't really care.

 

Atheism, at least for me, isn't about trying to argue FOR something anyway. Pointing out that your claims are not very reasonable is not the same as claiming that I am always right.

 

Anyway, we have been discussing things, and if you reject non-theism on such flimsy reasoning as you give here, I'm not terribly impressed with your knowledge on the subject.

 

You are mistaken, you are arguing for objective morality apart from the existence God. You have other questions that need to be addressed as well if God doesn't exist. So, you can't tell me that you aren't arguing for something by simply saying that you don't have enough faith to believe in God, if that is your definition of atheism (at least that seems to be the popular one these days.) I am not here to impress you with my knowledge, I am here to exchange ideas so that we arrive at the truth.

 

The fine tuning argument is full of holes. There are lots of alternative explanations for the "fine tuning" of the universe. I don't particularly like that term as it is rather imprecise for such a conversation, but for the sake of argument.

 

You just attempt to explain this away by inserting god, but by doing so you create a paradox.

 

The argument is generally stated like this

 

P1: The universe is finely tuned

P2: Finely tuned things must be created

C: The universe must have had a creator.

 

The problem? God is, by the Christian estimation, finely tuned, infinite and so on. By this argument god must therefore have a creator. You, also, must admit that P2 is false, that something "finely tuned can and DOES exist without being created by something else." You want to assume that it must be other than the universe, but I can find no reason to do so beyond personal preference.

 

Actually, that is not my argument for fine tuning, so I won't address your particular version. However, here is the one that I use.

 

P1: The fine tuning of the universe is due either to chance, necessity, or design.

P2: It is not due to chance or necessity, therefore,

C: It is due to design.

 

BTW, your argument that God requires a creator is a category error. God is not a physical entity and therefore requires no fine-tuning. Only physical entities require fine-tuning. IOW, there is nothing physical about God that requires tuning. Otherwise, I won't comment on your argument as I think it is a straw-man argument.

 

No, we are evolved to recognize patterns. I use the term "awe inspiring" merely as deference to the fact that the universe is much bigger than me, and doesn't much care about me at all. It makes one feel small and insignificant, but hardly suggests a divine hand.

 

Your suggestion that we are just "biological machines" without god, is one I've heard from theists enough to make me want to puke. It is a straw man, such a conclusion is NOT necessary in non-theism. You act as if nihilism is the default without god, but it requires you to ignore several thousands years of philosophical thinkers who dispute this by building moral and ethical philosophies without relying on divine command theory.

 

Suffering IS a brute fact, but that hardly means we should just get used to it. It is part of the nature of living beings to change their environment to suit them. I see no need to philosophically justify my desire to not suffer. I choose too, that is enough reason for me.

 

You must explain why we should see patterns if the universe is the result of chance processes - you cannot just assume this point. That is the weakness of the anthropic argument, it assumes that which requires explanation.

 

Please explain how man can be anything more than a biological machine from your worldview. You assert this, but fail to explain why. Why shouldn't nihilism be the default? Why is nihilism any worse than optimism from your worldview?

 

If suffering is just a brute fact, then why are people getting so worked up about it on this thread? Brute facts cannot be changed, they just are. However, apparently, some of your friends on this site disagree with this premise as they want to see it changed. They, in fact, want to blame a God, whom they claim not to believe in for this suffering. If suffering is a brute fact, we must get used to it since we cannot change it. In essence, what you are asking for is the equivalent of changing logical laws, which are also brute facts - to that I say "good luck." Maybe you can start with by changing the law of non-contradiction and then work your way up to suffering.

 

I don't really have anything to say here, since this represents such poor critical thinking skills my brain starts to hurt when I even try to think of where to begin.

 

You don't seem to want to explain yourself when you make these sweeping assertions. For that reason, I don't take them at all seriously.

[LNC]

And once again, Tab, the mad deist pulls out his broken record.

 

Lnc, never mind all the contradictions in the bible, never mind Josephus and Tacitus, let's just look at it with a bit of common sense.

 

Christians say that God is omnipotent. He can do anything. There is nothing impossible for him. I believe you can agree on this point.

 

So then,should it be necessary for an Omnipotent God to reconcile himself to humans, having all power, he could come up with a much, much better way than the blood soaked sacrificial system of the Old Testament and the equally horrific human sacrifice which was supposedly God sacrificing himself to himself just so he could change a rule and forgive us.

 

Better yet, why tempt Adam and Eve with the Tree of Knowledge in the first place? And even if this was neccessary, isn't he big enough to forgive two of his creations who had the minds of children?

 

If there is a God, and it's omnipotent, it's name is neither Yahweh, Jesus or Allah, because none of them can redeem anything without bloodshed.

 

That is a fallacious definition of omnipotence and one that Christians and theists never use. You forget that God has more than one attribute, just as we have more than one attribute. God is also just and, therefore, cannot just look the other way when rebellion has occurred. No sovereign would allow his subjects to rebel without consequences. Why should God allow his creation to rebel without consequences?

 

Regarding the temptation of Adam and Eve, it was not much of a temptation. If you think about the fact that there were thousands of fruit bearing trees in the garden, then one little tree should not be much of a temptation. Yet, that being said, given the fact that they had free will, they would have been tempted by something at some point anyway, even if it weren't the fruit of this tree. Do you have children? Did you know that they would do things that would require punishment before you had them? Why did you have them anyway? Just as we don't stop ourselves from having children just because we know that they will disappoint us at points during their lives, we knew we had a greater reason for having them. Just the same is the case with God. If he didn't provide a way for them to be reconciled from their sin, he would be evil. But, he made the greatest sacrifice to reconcile them to himself.

[shantonu]

Still can't figure out the genocide question huh? Still looking it up. Still investigating it. I'm not going to let you off the hook until you give me a straight answer. Why should I worship an immoral god? How do you know you're not worshiping a demon? He ordered killing babies didn't he? That sounds like a demon to me.

 

You don't get to spout off at the mouth about "supra-material" whosiswatis hocus pocus. I will teach you plain English. I will teach you to use simple Anglo-Saxon declarative phrases if it's the last thing I do.

 

Ha, good luck with that. Some people aren't worth debating in my opinion. Apologists are well trained in NOT giving straight answers.

People who believe in young earth creationism or divine command morality are two of them. That kind of stupid is just not worth bothering with.

 

I'd rather punch myself in the neck repeatedly than debate someone who thinks that the only way we can understand right from wrong is to be told "God says ....."

 

Oh, I don't think that I'm going to get a straight answer. But I want to expose him for a fraud. I don't think you get to talk all that shite unless you really know what you're talking about. And he doesn't.

 

The internet allows ignorant people to mystify others because so much information is at your fingertips. However, you can usually tell who has thought stuff through and who is merely posing or trolling.

 

That's why he runs and hides and doesn't answer directly but answers questions with questions always delaying the inevitable schooling that I have in store for him. "The wicked man flees though no one pursues, but the righteous are as bold as a lion." Proverbs 28:1.

[shantonu]

And once again, Tab, the mad deist pulls out his broken record.

 

Lnc, never mind all the contradictions in the bible, never mind Josephus and Tacitus, let's just look at it with a bit of common sense.

 

Christians say that God is omnipotent. He can do anything. There is nothing impossible for him. I believe you can agree on this point.

 

So then,should it be necessary for an Omnipotent God to reconcile himself to humans, having all power, he could come up with a much, much better way than the blood soaked sacrificial system of the Old Testament and the equally horrific human sacrifice which was supposedly God sacrificing himself to himself just so he could change a rule and forgive us.

 

Better yet, why tempt Adam and Eve with the Tree of Knowledge in the first place? And even if this was neccessary, isn't he big enough to forgive two of his creations who had the minds of children?

 

If there is a God, and it's omnipotent, it's name is neither Yahweh, Jesus or Allah, because none of them can redeem anything without bloodshed.

 

That is a fallacious definition of omnipotence and one that Christians and theists never use. You forget that God has more than one attribute, just as we have more than one attribute. God is also just and, therefore, cannot just look the other way when rebellion has occurred. No sovereign would allow his subjects to rebel without consequences. Why should God allow his creation to rebel without consequences?

 

Regarding the temptation of Adam and Eve, it was not much of a temptation. If you think about the fact that there were thousands of fruit bearing trees in the garden, then one little tree should not be much of a temptation. Yet, that being said, given the fact that they had free will, they would have been tempted by something at some point anyway, even if it weren't the fruit of this tree. Do you have children? Did you know that they would do things that would require punishment before you had them? Why did you have them anyway? Just as we don't stop ourselves from having children just because we know that they will disappoint us at points during their lives, we knew we had a greater reason for having them. Just the same is the case with God. If he didn't provide a way for them to be reconciled from their sin, he would be evil. But, he made the greatest sacrifice to reconcile them to himself.

 

Just admit it, you're cutting and pasting from some listserv somewhere. But they don't have the answer to my question. he he he.

 

[chefranden]

1. If I remember right, he asked you a question which you did not to answer. Although you heavily scrutinize his ethical framework, you are unwilling to discuss your normative ethics. I feel sure I could pick apart your ethical beliefs just as you do ours. Then what have we gained... nothing at all? No ethical system is without its flaws, just as christianity purposes some ethical dilemmas.

 

2 I could discuss the issue of cherem if you like, but I feel this would be a complete waste of time and it has been exhaustively posted on already. This would not change your mind, nor would you want to see my point of view.

 

1. I don't think an atheist would try to represent their ethic as without flaws, though one might try to make an it is better than case. The problem is of course that the Christian ethic being of a flawless God ought to be flawless. I have read and heard Christians arguing that this is the case. You may not agree with them for some yet unknown reason.

 

Anyway if it is not flawless, why should it be followed over any other?

 

2. What the hell has shunning got to do with this argument? Nice trick there by the way, showing off by dropping a Hebrew word that only a fool like me who wasted 4 years learning Hebrew might recognize. You showed the kid.

[shantonu]

You don't seem to want to explain yourself when you make these sweeping assertions. For that reason, I don't take them at all seriously.

 

Face it. I own you. And I am going to sell you like you were my daughter in Exodous 21:7

[shantonu]

1. If I remember right, he asked you a question which you did not to answer. Although you heavily scrutinize his ethical framework, you are unwilling to discuss your normative ethics. I feel sure I could pick apart your ethical beliefs just as you do ours. Then what have we gained... nothing at all? No ethical system is without its flaws, just as christianity purposes some ethical dilemmas.

 

2 I could discuss the issue of cherem if you like, but I feel this would be a complete waste of time and it has been exhaustively posted on already. This would not change your mind, nor would you want to see my point of view.

 

1. I don't think an atheist would try to represent their ethic as without flaws, though one might try to make an it is better than case. The problem is of course that the Christian ethic being of a flawless God ought to be flawless. I have read and heard Christians arguing that this is the case. You may not agree with them for some yet unknown reason.

 

Anyway if it is not flawless, why should it be followed over any other?

 

2. What the hell has shunning got to do with this argument? Nice trick there by the way, showing off by dropping a Hebrew word that only a fool like me who wasted 4 years learning Hebrew might recognize. You showed the kid.

 

Brother Chef, I understand what you're trying to do, but I completly own these fools. They are going serve me for six years like in Exodous 21:1.

[shantonu]

They can spout off as much Hebrew as they want, until they explain why I should worship a baby killer, I see no reason why any of us should be impressed.

[chefranden]

Not to brag, but I have to say that I totally pwned LNC and he knows it. He could talk all this b.s. about Lucian and Pliny the Younger but he could not answer a straight question about killing babies. He probably just looked a bunch of stuff up on the internet, and when the answers couldn't be readily wikied or googled, he gave up. What a poseur.

 

I beg to differ. A non-answer can't be judged in this fashion, primarily because the Christian poster on this site is usually swarmed by many Ex-cs spoiling for a fight. The Christian, possibly having a meat job and other interests, does not have the time to address everything. Just because he doesn't address you or a particular question of yours doesn't mean that he has conceded that he has no answer.

 

Of course that doesn't mean his answer would be substantial if it were addressed. But claiming a non-answer as a win is a hollow victory.

[shantonu]

Man I have to go soon and hang out with my Bollywood-hot Hindu girlfriend. I hope I get to put the pwn down a few more times.