How do we approach a new proposition?

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1964
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:32 pm

Rubbish! Notice that our society is getting more compassionate the more our morals evolve? 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.
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!
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.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1964
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:49 pm

The entire point of Christianity is NOT that you're supposed to be a moral person: It's that you've failed in being a moral person, and thus God covers your shortcomings through His own sacrifice on your behalf. You are thus not under the law -- not expected to be morally perfect -- but are under grace, that is, covered by Christ's perfection.
This statement of yours sums up why your Christian viewpoint is so flawed. A guilty person should be punished for his or her crime as a deterrent. We don't allow innocent people to take the rap in our society because that is morally wrong and takes away the deterrent. Otherwise rich mafia bosses could buy saps to take their raps and our society would collapse. Hey that rhymes!
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.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:19 am

SEG wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:32 pm
Rubbish!
Ridicule is not refutation.
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?"

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,
still got a ways to go in that evolution, eh, mate?
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?

Both citations from https://www.osac.gov/pages/ContentRepor ... ?cid=24351

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.
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.
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. Just now I pointed out that you've written yourself into another corner:
Straw man.

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, "We are incapable of composing a system of ethics, and we have no empathy, therefore we need a god."

And in fact, the only people incapable of empathy are sociopaths, by reason of a mental defect.

The problem is that even though we are CAPABLE of creating systems of ethics, and following them (somewhat), we don't do it. 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!

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 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.
But instead of curing the straw man or addressing the facts (i.e. that Spartan morality would strike us as very crude, and our morality would strike them as effeminate and cowardly, which is ironic when you think about it) you instead dismiss it all as "Rubbish."

Very well. All actual history is "rubbish" and only your opinion of the facts counts. Except... Is that good logic? Sure, you believe that you're right; I'm certain of that. But how do you know that you're right?
Rene Descartes wrote:If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.
- Rene Descartes, cited in The Dawn, volume 1, by Debra Milligan, Samizdat, 2012

But you want to believe that there is no god. To believe this, you must believe that good things, such as morality, are either naturally occurring or occur through the efforts of mankind. 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.

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?
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:24 am

SEG wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:49 pm
The entire point of Christianity is NOT that you're supposed to be a moral person: It's that you've failed in being a moral person, and thus God covers your shortcomings through His own sacrifice on your behalf. You are thus not under the law -- not expected to be morally perfect -- but are under grace, that is, covered by Christ's perfection.
This statement of yours sums up why your Christian viewpoint is so flawed. A guilty person should be punished for his or her crime as a deterrent. We don't allow innocent people to take the rap in our society because that is morally wrong and takes away the deterrent. Otherwise rich mafia bosses could buy saps to take their raps and our society would collapse. Hey that rhymes!
Guilty of what, SEG? You believe that morals are subjective. For you to attempt to punish "the guilty" would essentially mean that it's wrong when they do it and right when you do it.

If morals are subjective, then there is no one so guilty that you can punish them. No one except yourself.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:03 am

So this is where we finally get to the stated subject of the thread: How we address a new proposition.

I was on the phone with someone last night who asked if I knew any data to confirm or deny the following proposition: "If a dog is bitten by a poisonous snake, and is immediately given a raw egg, the dog will not die."

Note that he was looking for information to confirm or deny this proposition. We discussed it, and neither of us saw a reason to accept the proposition as stated. We both agreed that if our own dogs were bitten, we would take them to the nearest veterinarian for anti-venom treatment. But at the same time, we could not state conclusively that the proposition is bunk.

It sounds stupid. It sounds like some crap an old mountain man made up to convince a ten-year-old that he was wise beyond wisdom. But strange things can be true, even when they seem very unlikely (as here).

So what would be the next step in investigating this? Well, step one would be to chat with real veterinarians. Questions to ask would be:
1. what is the normal course of treatment for the following snakebites?
2. Have you ever seen dogs treated with raw egg?
2a. If so, what was the mortality rate compare to dogs not given a raw egg?
2b. How many such dogs have you seen?

Those questions, asked of enough veterinarians, might give enough data to form a reasonable inference as to the truth value of the proposition.

Personally, I don't care enough to bother finding out. Also, my inference is that the proposition is baloney -- but that is, and I admit it, NOT a REASONABLE inference.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1964
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:16 am

Og3 wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:24 am
The entire point of Christianity is NOT that you're supposed to be a moral person: It's that you've failed in being a moral person, and thus God covers your shortcomings through His own sacrifice on your behalf. You are thus not under the law -- not expected to be morally perfect -- but are under grace, that is, covered by Christ's perfection.
SEG wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:49 pm
This statement of yours sums up why your Christian viewpoint is so flawed. A guilty person should be punished for his or her crime as a deterrent. We don't allow innocent people to take the rap in our society because that is morally wrong and takes away the deterrent. Otherwise rich mafia bosses could buy saps to take their raps and our society would collapse. Hey that rhymes!
Og3 wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:24 am
Guilty of what, SEG?
Crime, we have criminal and civic laws.
Og3 wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:24 am
You believe that morals are subjective. For you to attempt to punish "the guilty" would essentially mean that it's wrong when they do it and right when you do it.

If morals are subjective, then there is no one so guilty that you can punish them. No one except yourself.
Morality is a man-made concept. Breaking the law will bring you to court if you plead not guilty and you will get judged. If you plead guilty or get found guilty you get punished. There is no absolute "morality" across all societies and times.

Even murdering or killing humans is not an absolute. Killing in war is OK, and is ok in self defence if you are in fear of your life.
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.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1964
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Wed Mar 20, 2019 12:26 pm

SEG wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:32 pm
Rubbish!
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
Arson N/A
Burglary 188,304
Larceny and Theft 637,010
Motor Vehicle Theft 176,756
Murder and Manslaughter 1,930
Rape 13,702
Robbery 54,789
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:
iran-boy-crushed-arm.jpg
iran-boy-crushed-arm.jpg (28.59 KiB) Viewed 334 times
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:
Where?
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.
See:
Deuteronomy 22:11
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:
Leviticus 19:28
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.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1964
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Wed Mar 20, 2019 12:49 pm

Og3 wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:03 am
So this is where we finally get to the stated subject of the thread: How we address a new proposition.

I was on the phone with someone last night who asked if I knew any data to confirm or deny the following proposition: "If a dog is bitten by a poisonous snake, and is immediately given a raw egg, the dog will not die."

Note that he was looking for information to confirm or deny this proposition. We discussed it, and neither of us saw a reason to accept the proposition as stated. We both agreed that if our own dogs were bitten, we would take them to the nearest veterinarian for anti-venom treatment. But at the same time, we could not state conclusively that the proposition is bunk.

It sounds stupid. It sounds like some crap an old mountain man made up to convince a ten-year-old that he was wise beyond wisdom. But strange things can be true, even when they seem very unlikely (as here).

So what would be the next step in investigating this? Well, step one would be to chat with real veterinarians. Questions to ask would be:
1. what is the normal course of treatment for the following snakebites?
2. Have you ever seen dogs treated with raw egg?
2a. If so, what was the mortality rate compare to dogs not given a raw egg?
2b. How many such dogs have you seen?

Those questions, asked of enough veterinarians, might give enough data to form a reasonable inference as to the truth value of the proposition.

Personally, I don't care enough to bother finding out. Also, my inference is that the proposition is baloney -- but that is, and I admit it, NOT a REASONABLE inference.
That all seems fine and logical from what you have written OG, it's just when you start talking about God the wheels fall off.

What if there a blood stain on your kitchen floor, is it best for you to assume that someone cut themselves while cooking, or a serial killer murdered someone and dragged them away into your basement (whatever that is)?

You would need to look into the circumstances for each scenario then make up your mind which is more likely before you take action. Yes?

What if you think that "God placed blood on the floor just to fuck with me"? That's a completely unfalsifiable situation, there is no way you can prove that he did, or did not not cause it to happen.

Or that you lost your car keys rushing to get to work on time. You find them after thinking about your daughter telling you to place them on the hook in the kitchen. You find out that if you were on time to get to work, you would have been likely to be involved in a car smash with a truck that killed 15 people. Was it thinking of your daughter that saved you? Or your god, knowing that you love her? Or was it just your logical mind retracing your steps and conversation. See what I mean?
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.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Wed Mar 20, 2019 7:30 pm

SEG wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:16 am
Og3 wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:24 am
The entire point of Christianity is NOT that you're supposed to be a moral person: It's that you've failed in being a moral person, and thus God covers your shortcomings through His own sacrifice on your behalf. You are thus not under the law -- not expected to be morally perfect -- but are under grace, that is, covered by Christ's perfection.
SEG wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:49 pm
This statement of yours sums up why your Christian viewpoint is so flawed. A guilty person should be punished for his or her crime as a deterrent. We don't allow innocent people to take the rap in our society because that is morally wrong and takes away the deterrent. Otherwise rich mafia bosses could buy saps to take their raps and our society would collapse. Hey that rhymes!
Og3 wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:24 am
Guilty of what, SEG?
Crime, we have criminal and civic laws.
Og3 wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:24 am
You believe that morals are subjective. For you to attempt to punish "the guilty" would essentially mean that it's wrong when they do it and right when you do it.

If morals are subjective, then there is no one so guilty that you can punish them. No one except yourself.
Morality is a man-made concept. Breaking the law will bring you to court if you plead not guilty and you will get judged. If you plead guilty or get found guilty you get punished. There is no absolute "morality" across all societies and times.

Even murdering or killing humans is not an absolute. Killing in war is OK, and is ok in self defence if you are in fear of your life.
If morality is a man-made concept, then laws are merely extensions of that concept, and guilt is merely a construct we use to shame those whose concept is different from ours. It's very parochial, and even narrow of you to hold that someone could be guilty of a crime when you admit that even murder is not an absolute.

If you start with a bad premise, you have to accept the bad conclusion that follows.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Wed Mar 20, 2019 7:46 pm

SEG wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 12:26 pm
SEG wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:32 pm
Rubbish!
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.
I have compassion for the victims... But that's beside the point. You cannot claim that mankind is becoming more compassionate, and ignore a mass killing on your doorstep (relatively speaking).
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
I cited my source. No porkies involved.
Victorian population 6.359 million Californian population 39.4 million

In California 2016 Crime (Actual Data) Incidents
Aggravated Assault 104,375
Arson N/A
Burglary 188,304
Larceny and Theft 637,010
Motor Vehicle Theft 176,756
Murder and Manslaughter 1,930
Rape 13,702
Robbery 54,789
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.
Nonetheless, you can't maintain that mankind is getting more compassionate. Even in your small neck of the woods.
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?
You can't claim that mankind is becoming more compassionate and ignore violent crimes. Reality does not bear out your premise.

Whether the crimes are merely in California, or are in NZ, or are in VIC, or wherever in the world -- Mankind is NOT becoming more compassionate. That premise utterly fails. The question is whether you admit that it utterly fails.
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:
iran-boy-crushed-arm.jpg
That's what happens when humans are involved. You're not making the case that "humans are becoming more compassionate" when you show me a picture of cruelty.
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:
Where?
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!
Which is why we need more than merely a system of rules. We need Divine Grace.
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.
See:
Deuteronomy 22:11
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:
Leviticus 19:28
New International Version
"'Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.
Which is why, as you find in Galatians 3, the law was our schoolmaster, to show us that we were failing to follow the moral code of the law, and thus needed Divine Grace.
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.
Which proves that we need something better than laws, namely Grace.
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.
It could be a god? Are you softening your former position?
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.
So you see the paradox, and thus you try to break from the idea that good things come naturally and/or through human effort but not admitting to the corollary, that then mankind would have to be essentially good.

You're stuck here. The corollary from your position demands that mankind be essentially good, but you KNOW that mankind is NOT essentially good. So you're stuck. Which means that one of your premises is wrong.
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?
So are you saying that there is a circumstance in which shooting up a mosque at random might be a good thing? I wait to hear this sophistry.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Post Reply