Is it entirely unnecessary and insulting to inform people...

[William]

Is it entirely unnecessary and insulting to inform people...That they are evil in the sight of GOD and bound for hell?

As a human being, how is such theology acceptable and a good and reasonable thing to be stating or even implying of others, on a debate forum or even in day to day life?

Are people right to be able to take a stand against such theology and call it out for being dated, dark, based upon information from dark ages, based in ignorance and evil of intent?

What gives individuals the right to say such things about others?

Is it a form of abuse?

Should others have to take that kind of abuse about their persons without protesting it?

[Bust Nak]

You see, whenever an unbeliever goes on a tangent about what is good, bad..what is love, savagery, etc....all I have to ask is...about two questions..

At best you would demonstrate some sort of inconsistency on the challenger's part. That doesn't help you met the challenge one bit.

1. Where are you getting your moral standards from (by which you judge the God of the Bible, and the Bible, period).

I got them from myself.

2. How are you able to determine whether, in fact, your moral standards are the correct moral standards..and all other standards are false?

The question is incoherent given subjectivism, correctness implies objectivism. I test how good a particular moral standard is by seeing how close that standard matches mine, a test that my moral standard will trivially pass, as my standard matches my standard 100%.

Well, let me put it to you this way, marco; ultimately, when comparing theism to atheism/naturalism...we are comparing two ideas..

1. The idea that a painter created the painting (theism)

2. The idea that an explosion took place at a paint factory, and with all of that disorder/chaos at the factory, all of the paint fell from the sky and ultimately fell-in-to-place on a very large canvas on the ground, of which patterned itself to resemble the Sistine Chapel ceiling. (atheism, naturalism)

You tell me which one is senseless.

Both? I do wonder why you think the pattern resembles the Sistine Chapel ceiling though. It's more like the aurora borealis.

Appealing to emotions. Fallacious.

Pointing out that something is appalling isn't fallacious until it makes the jump from appalling to false, something that brunumb has not done.

Still don't know why killing is wrong on atheism/naturalism.

Why were you expecting there is some sort of why here, when neither atheism nor naturalism are ethics system?

When you go to a restaurant, do you test your food for poison before you eat it? No? Why not?

Is this supposed to be an example of faith, analogous to believing in the Bible?

[For_The_Kingdom]

At best you would demonstrate some sort of inconsistency on the challenger's part.

Works for me.

That doesn't help you met the challenge one bit.

It ain't much of a challenge if the entire challenge is based on a whole lot of subjectivity.

I got them from myself.

Of course, which is why your "opinion" doesn't really amount to much as it relates to the subject at hand.

The question is incoherent given subjectivism, correctness implies objectivism. I test how good a particular moral standard is by seeing how close that standard matches mine, a test that my moral standard will trivially pass, as my standard matches my standard 100%.

Right, presupposing that your standard is the standard...which you are unable to demonstrate the truth value of.

Both?

Yet, the concept of one of the two is actually correct. Can't be both.

I do wonder why you think the pattern resembles the Sistine Chapel ceiling though. It's more like the aurora borealis.

Because I wanted to give an example which reflects, you know, what actually occurred (complete chaos to specified complexity)..something of which the aurora borealis is lacking.

Pointing out that something is appalling isn't fallacious until it makes the jump from appalling to false, something that brunumb has not done.

That is what I got out of it..."it is appalling, therefore, it is false".

Why were you expecting there is some sort of why here, when neither atheism nor naturalism are ethics system?

True, so lets take atheism/naturalism out of the equation. So, the statement goes from "I still don't know why killing is wrong on atheism/naturalism", to "I still don't know why killing is wrong, if God is taken out of the equation".

The question still remains.

Is this supposed to be an example of faith, analogous to believing in the Bible?

Um, no...rather it highlights the obvious double standard here when it comes to what we exercise our faith in, and how much.

[ttruscott]

Quote:
1. Where are you getting your moral standards from (by which you judge the God of the Bible, and the Bible, period).

I got them from myself.

Really? Not John Stuart Mill's liberal Utilitarianism nor Sartre's existentialism nor any other utopian suggestion that the individual is to take the place of GOD?

[William]

[Replying to post 120 by Tired of the Nonsense]

All very well but this doesn't totally address the thread question and also - as said in other posts on this thread - just because some are not personally offended does not mean that it is not offensive. It is not just individuals who are being targeted, but groups of individuals as well. It is not about whether someone believes the foolishness or not which determines the offensiveness. It is about the type of expression itself.

Accepting the offensiveness as 'silly foolishness' doesn't make it any less offensive.

[Bust Nak]

It ain't much of a challenge if the entire challenge is based on a whole lot of subjectivity.

So go ahead and answer the challenge?

Of course, which is why your "opinion" doesn't really amount to much as it relates to the subject at hand.

Why not? Because you hold a different "opinion?"

Right, presupposing that your standard is the standard...which you are unable to demonstrate the truth value of.

I don't know why you'd think that. It is trivially true that my opinion matches 100% with my opinion. I doubt you would deny the truth of something as fundamental as the law of identity. Are you challenging the truth of subjectivism? If subjectivism is false, then there goes any wiggle room for dismissing the challenge because it is a "whole lot of subjectivity."

Yet, the concept of one of the two is actually correct. Can't be both.

Well, you didn't ask which is correct, you asked which is meaningless.

Because I wanted to give an example which reflects, you know, what actually occurred (complete chaos to specified complexity)..something of which the aurora borealis is lacking.

Well that depends entirely on what "specifically complex" means doesn't it? Aurora borealis doesn't appear to be random, and yet it's not strictly repetitive either.

That is what I got out of it..."it is appalling, therefore, it is false".

Well it wasn't what was stated. Are you sure you didn't just got that out of it because you were looking for an easy rebuttal?

True... "I still don't know why killing is wrong, if God is taken out of the equation".

The question still remains.

Does it? I told you why. It's wrong because moral is subjective and I think it is wrong.

Um, no...rather it highlights the obvious double standard here when it comes to what we exercise our faith in, and how much.

What you call an obvious double standard isn't so obvious to me. The amount of faith we exercise is proportionate to a) the amount of evidence provided and b) the seriousness of failure. (Granted with the except of some the metaphysically claims such as taking the accuracy of our senses for granted, just incase you felt like going for a quick gotcha.)

[Bust Nak]

Quote:
1. Where are you getting your moral standards from (by which you judge the God of the Bible, and the Bible, period).

I got them from myself.

Really? Not John Stuart Mill's liberal Utilitarianism nor Sartre's existentialism nor any other utopian suggestion that the individual is to take the place of GOD?

No, just me. I will take it as a complement that views of my own creation reminded you of these notable philosophers.

[For_The_Kingdom]

So go ahead and answer the challenge?

Ion remember any challenge.

Why not? Because you hold a different "opinion?"

No, because opinions are like..

I don't know why you'd think that. It is trivially true that my opinion matches 100% with my opinion.

Which makes it no less subjective.

I doubt you would deny the truth of something as fundamental as the law of identity. Are you challenging the truth of subjectivism? If subjectivism is false, then there goes any wiggle room for dismissing the challenge because it is a "whole lot of subjectivity."

I don't follow.

Well, you didn't ask which is correct, you asked which is meaningless.

The analogy was meant to show the valid/sound/correctness of my position, and the absurd/meaningless/incorrectness of your position.

Well that depends entirely on what "specifically complex" means doesn't it? Aurora borealis doesn't appear to be random, and yet it's not strictly repetitive either.

You've appeared to miss the entire point, amigo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified ... Criticisms

Well it wasn't what was stated.

That was the implication. If you feel otherwise, then I guess we simply disagree.

Are you sure you didn't just got that out of it because you were looking for an easy rebuttal?

Easy rebuttals for me on here come a dime a dozen. Come to think of it, some of those easy rebuttals are generated through my discussions with you.

Does it? I told you why. It's wrong because moral is subjective and I think it is wrong.

The king (God) does not concern himself with the opinion of a peasant. A lion doesn't concern itself with the opinions of sheep.

What you call an obvious double standard isn't so obvious to me. The amount of faith we exercise is proportionate to a) the amount of evidence provided and b) the seriousness of failure.

Ok, so when you go to a restaurant, do you check your food for poisoning? What amount of evidence to do have to make you conclude that the cook didn't poison your food? Because after all, the seriousness of you being wrong could be...grave.

(Granted with the except of some the metaphysically claims such as taking the accuracy of our senses for granted, just incase you felt like going for a quick gotcha.)

The gotcha moments are also generated through my discussions with you. Anything else we can add?

[Bust Nak]

Ion remember any challenge.

Defend the morality of human sacrifice.

No, because opinions are like..

Where are you going with that?

Which makes it no less subjective.

And you somehow surprised by that? I'd like to think I am the resident moral subjectivist here.

I don't follow.

In short, you can't appeal to moral subjectivism if you are not a moral subjectivist.

The analogy was meant to show the valid/sound/correctness of my position, and the absurd/meaningless/incorrectness of your position.

Well, at least you tried. What ever made you think that you could do that by pointing out that only one of the two options can be correct?

You've appeared to miss the entire point, amigo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified ... Criticisms

Surely the criticism part is better suited for your consumption? I wasn't the one who brought up Specified complexity.

That was the implication. If you feel otherwise, then I guess we simply disagree.

The least you can do is accept that it wasn't what was stated.

Easy rebuttals for me on here come a dime a dozen. Come to think of it, some of those easy rebuttals are generated through my discussions with you.

I really don't think "don't remember," "SMH" and "LOL" counts as rebuttals, easy as they might be, but I don't suppose I am asking too much for less banter and more substance from you?

The king (God) does not concern himself with the opinion of a peasant. A lion doesn't concern itself with the opinions of sheep.

Well the king (God) isn't here to defend his position. What do you think you adding to the debate with this?

Ok, so when you go to a restaurant, do you check your food for poisoning? What amount of evidence to do have to make you conclude that the cook didn't poison your food? Because after all, the seriousness of you being wrong could be...grave.

Sure, I live in a place where health inspection is a thing and the mere fact that a restaurant is licenced and certified is ample evidence that the food is safe, proportionate to the amount of faith I exercise.

The gotcha moments are also generated through my discussions with you. Anything else we can add?

My posts speaks for themselves, you add what you like, but as mentioned above, I prefer more substance than the banter I am seeing from you.

[ttruscott]

Defend the morality of human sacrifice.

There is no defence...

yet if someone lays down his life to save his family or friends from destruction, he is a hero, is he not?

[William]

[Replying to post 129 by ttruscott]

There is no defence...

yet if someone lays down his life to save his family or friends from destruction, he is a hero, is he not?

So is this human idea based on ones understanding that humans are evil demons temporarily incarnate in this universe and eventually bound for hell? Is this idea that human sacrifice to 'lay down one's life' and the 'hero's' such action produces, a manifestation of evil thinking?

One could compile a list of heroic actions which could well show that the tendency of human expression is not as evil as one wants others to believe.