User loginNavigation
RRS WebsitesInformation on the RRS Network Server fundraiser. This site is part of the Rational Response Squad network of sites. Your username/password will work at these sites: Other sites... |
Surprising graph
Posted on: Tue, 2007-07-03 19:19
  Offline
Surprising graph
I didn't know satan ever killed anyone. [Mod edit - corrected IMG coding] Bookmark/Search this post with:  Technorati Tags: Freethinkers Debate |
better with Firefox.    Who's onlineThere are currently 11 users and 83 guests online.
Online users
 You'll need an account with Stickam to get in! If you have problems logging in, go here, then look for "rationalsquad," type the password (sapient) and click the name of the room. Make sure your logged in to your stickam account first. |
| Freethinking Teens is hosted by The Rational Response Squad as a free service to the children of our future. |
Based on what I remember, Satan killed some of those 10 people on a bet with God, so God was kind of responsible for those too.
if god was real, he'd be an incredible dick.
No wonder a lot of Christians deconvert just from reading the buybull. And I remember Penn and Teller saying that reading it is the best way out of Xianity.
I'd be interested in finding out how whoever made this graph came to such a specific number of people being killed.
It was Steve Wells, from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible.
He didn't include the people that drowned in the flood, the people that died in Sodom and Gomorrah.
You can check it out here.
gotta love the hipocracy of christians.
"I swear by the bible... unless it has something in it that I don't like, then its wrong."
It was Steve Wells, from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible.
He didn't include the people that drowned in the flood, the people that died in Sodom and Gomorrah.
You can check it out here.
I think allah has yahew beat so ill go with him.
Link
You would. "Whatever makes me happier. Doesn't matter about truth."
This topic does beg a question, however...If God exists and created life, does he have the right as the creator to take it? Personally, I think so, but many, mostly non-believers, would probably disagree.
Hm. Looks like God has joined the asshole club. This includes the following:
1. Hitler
2. Stalin
3. Charles Manson
Here we have a category difference. While you and the baby's mother merely created your son from materials that already existed (you just combined the two), and while you are not in supreme authority over your child (ultimately, you have to answer to someone else if you did something wrong), God created us from nothing and he doesn't have to answer to everyone.
And that doesnt make it morally right. It just look like it goes with His all-loving way.
Which seems to ask the question, "Is taking someone's life as punishment a morally right or wrong thing to do?"
That's all God is doing here.
if someday, I recreate life in a laboratory, do I have the right to kill it?
That's all God is doing here.
Morality is not absolute.
And to assume that God knows best is foolish.
Ehh, I'd disagree on the morality part. I do believe in an "absolute" (depends on how you define it) morality based on self-ownership, values and the non-aggression principle. But oh well.
I'd have to agree that we cannot say for sure morality is not absolute. There's little we can say about morality at all for sure.
As for Go dknowing best. It is not an impossbile statement, but to assume it to show that god exists is a bit of a fallacy.
That depends. Do you have absolute authority in the universe?
Okay. So what you're telling me is that if someone murdered your daughter, you couldn't really condemn them, because to them, murder may be a good thing?
If morality isn't absolute, then it's also true that murdering an innocent girl, or torturing a child to death for fun, could just as easily be "good" things as they are "bad" things. Then again, why are we even calling something "good" or "bad?" It's not like what we say makes them any different from being morally neutral acts that we happen to like or dislike.
Why, exactly? Assuming God does exist and all.
If he created the universe, and is omniscient and can see all ends, then why is it not safe to assume that he knows that is best for us?
Of course under subjective morality, there is no such thing as innocence either.
Talk about a stupid fallacy. I am making no claims about atheism in this argument.
I am saying given the assumptions of christianity, you reach certain contradictions. While making that argument, I am staying in the assumptions of christianity. It is like if I assume that there are two 90 degrees in a triangle, to prove that it cannot happen in euclidean geometry. I then reach the conclusion that no triangle with two 90 degree angles can exist.
My assumptions: If triangles with two 90 degree angles exist, then the third angle must be 0 degrees, which runs contrary to Euclidean geometry, as there are already 3 lines, and they do not intersect.
Then you come along and say 'well, according to non-Euclidean geometry, there are no absolute angles anyways', you have not proven that my point about your point is wrong. You have introduced an irrelevant point about a completely differing viewpoint, which you assume I endorse.
My assumptions:
if God is real, he killed an innocent girl, which runs contrary to the idea of all loving and all just.
Your rebuttal: Subjective morality has no way to describe innocence.
You have in no way addressed the warrants of my argument, and your point means nothing.
You are basically pulling a bait-and-switch, pointing out what you consider a logical fallacy in what you consider to be my beliefs, and expecting that to hold up as an argument.
It would be like my saying 'under your beliefs, absolute morality being true requires a suspension of individual judgment'
and your responding
;well, subjective morality requires that individual judgment be weighed equally against other individual judgment.
You have not addressed my point, simply attacked another point to divert attention from the fact that I have just punctured a hole in yours.
It is as if I said that God said nudity was wrong, but was naked, and you came along and pointed out my hypocrisy. I then say 'you're naked too, and thus your point is invalid'. But that requires the assumption that you TOO think it is wrong