SEG wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:32 pm
Og3 wrote: ↑
Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:19 am
Ridicule is not refutation.
Rubbish is subjective. My rubbish to you is different from your rubbish to me.
SEG wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:32 pm
Notice that our society is getting more compassionate the more our morals evolve?
In the last week, a man with a gun shot dozens of people to death in a mosque in New Zealand.
Was that an act of compassion, or is NZ outside "our society?"
That's a terrible thing to say! Where's your "Christian" compassion for the victims? I hate to say this, but it was an extremely rare event, it's usually Muslims attacking Christians on a worldwide scale. It's also rare that New Zealand have mass killings, the last one of over 10 people was back in 1990 and the next mass killing several decades before that. As it was so rare, it became worldwide news.
shall I link to violent antipodean crimes? In Melbourne,
For the period of 2016-17, there were 391,153 victims of crime recorded by the Victoria Police,
Telling porkies OG? Of 391,153 crimes, these were the major numbers:
Property and deception offences = 243,787
Drug offences = 15,084
Public order and security offences = 24,408
Justice procedures offences = 45,492
Crimes against the person = 61,547
There were 145 victims of Homicide and related offences recorded in Victoria during 2017
Victorian population 6.359 million Californian population 39.4 million
In California 2016 Crime (Actual Data) Incidents
Aggravated Assault 104,375
Larceny and Theft 637,010
Motor Vehicle Theft 176,756
Murder and Manslaughter 1,930
Crime Rate (Total Incidents) 1,176,866
Property Crime 1,002,070
Violent Crime 174,796
still got a ways to go in that evolution, eh, mate?
Our state of Victoria compared to Californian mass killings? Our last mass killing of over 10 people in Vic wasn't even in the 20th century, it was in 1834.
In June 2017, a terrorist took a female hostage in a serviced apartment and murdered an attendant/desk officer. Police subsequently responded and fatally shot the terrorist in what is believed to have been a “lone wolf” style attack. Three of the responding police were wounded.
But the murder and the wounding were done "compassionately." The female hostage was taken "compassionately." Seriously, Mate? that's the position you're going to take?
No, that's not my position at all, where did that come from? Was it a sick joke of yours?
If you're going on the theory that people are basically good, and that things are getting better, your one big problem is that people AREN'T getting better. People are sick. If you don't believe it, you don't know many people.
Talking about sickness, it looks like you don't know your own Bible, see below:
Look back to the time of your Jesus when it was ok to belt your slave with a stick, crush his head until his eyes popped. As long as he lived over 3 days, no problemo! Yes, that is in your Bible, your rule book. Don't suffer a witch to live. There are dozens of these stupid, cruel laws that have been scrapped from our legal system because we have become a better society without them. You know all of these horrible, God given rules. So did Jesus, your so called God of love. Did he try and purge our society of these insane and cruel laws? Nope, he recommended that we keep them, every single one. Here's what your lamb said,
King James Bible
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
He wasn't about evolution, he was about stagnation:
Matthew 5:18 For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
This is what happens when you have absolute god driven laws - a father crushing his son's arm for stealing bread:
I've noticed that you are doing poorly at attempting to rebut my points in this thread OG, you don't address them individually anymore. I don't blame you, you don't have much to work with, eh? I would hate to be on your side of the fence!
The fact is, SEG, I've got limited time on my lunch break, and I still have to eat. In the evenings I often have other things to do -- can't spend every single evening playing "Smite the Infidel," you know.
Not to mention that, when you're cornered, you simply deny everything and go back to your basic assumptions. "Morality is subjective, but it applies objectively;" and when I show you that's rubbish, you dance around and complain that we're not moving on.
I wasn't rushing you, I was pointing out that you are avoiding my points.
Just now I pointed out that you've written yourself into another corner:
No one says, "We are incapable of composing a system of ethics, and we have no empathy, therefore we need a god, so let's invent one."
No-one says that, but that's exactly what you are doing
No one says, "We are incapable of composing a system of ethics, and we have no empathy, therefore we need a god."
Correct, no-one says that either, so why do you say you need a god to have morals? Where is this mysterious link?
The problem is that even though we are CAPABLE of creating systems of ethics, and following them (somewhat), we don't do it.
But even IF we have a god, we do it anyway!
We make a rule that we should not steal, but hey, the insurance company was stealing from me anyway, right? The tax man was stealing from me anyway, right? That guy shouldn't have left his stuff in his garden if he really wanted it. Hey, what are you doing in my garden? Put that stuff down!
God driven laws don't any better, in fact a lot of the "timeless" and "universal" ones today are just crazy.
New International Version
Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.
Which Christians obey that one, or even know that it exists? ...and the one that heaps of Christians ignore:
New International Version
"'Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.
If it was common sense not to do wrong, then shows like COPS or Highway Patrol or Border Security would be boring as heck. But what we really do is this: We normalize our own behavior, and so we reach the conclusion that what we do is right, an what everyone else does is wrong.
Now if it were simply true that there is no god, then it would just be a matter of us all agreeing to one set of rules, and sticking to it.
But you guys don't obey his rules anyway and never have!
But we keep changing the rules. We can easily point out things that are considered wrong in our society, and then project those backwards 200 years or 1000 years and shake our heads at historical figures over it. I mean, if Marcus Aurelius were such a good Philosopher-King, why didn't he free all the slaves in Rome, huh? Huh? And so forth. If Socrates was so wise, why didn't he know that E=MC^2? Huh? Huh?
Of course you're saying, well, the context in which they lived, that's why.
And that makes my point. If the context in which we live is forever changing, and if the rules are just something we all agreed on, then the rules are always going to be changing. In 1000 years, slavery may be an accepted and "moral" practice by the standards of 3019. Stealing may be an accepted moral practice, just as selected instances of murder by stealth (so long as you weren't caught) were accepted moral practice in Classical Sparta. In fact, a Spartan who had never killed a Heliot would be exiled. &c.
There are no countries in the world, even the MOST religious that don't break the laws of their gods. What is worse, the more religious a country is, the more violent it gets.
But you want to believe that there is no god.
No I don't, I don't find any part of your religion convincing.
To believe this, you must believe that good things, such as morality, are either naturally occurring or occur through the efforts of mankind.
No, it could be both.
You see how one premise demands the next, right? and thus you must believe that humans, in order to conceive and to attempt such a good morality, must therefore be essentially good.
No humans all make up their own sense of morality. Unless you believe that a serial killer in Texas has the same morals as a pacifist vegetarian living in SoCal.
From this, you must believe that those humans who are not essentially good -- the Stalins, the Hitlers, the Pol Pots, the person who shot up the mosque in NZ this week -- are one-offs, and the exception: Lunatics, broken people. But does your observation of the world around you truly permit you to believe that? that the evil are the exceptions, not the good?
It depends on your version of what is right and what is wrong. I've told you my versions, what are yours?
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.