This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

The thing about "historical criticism" of the bible.

#121OrangeWizard(Topic Creator)Posted 7/26/2013 9:20:45 AM
JonWood007 posted...

Have fun in fantasy land then.

So in contrast to me talking about a hypothetical God, you're talking about the God of the bible? You mean the one that is defined as perfect? The one where your assumptions disprove your argument?

Okay then.

I've provided examples already.

And I've refuted them. "being always right" is not in the definition of a scientist, unlike God, so it's no big surprise that a scientist is not always right.

I'm defining myself as perfect.

That's nice. I don't have to take your definition seriously, though.

You, however, are required to take the definition of my God seriously if you wish to discuss him with me.

Well, because if you make and follow rules, you enhance your own life. You live longer, happier, more prosperously, whatever.

Can you prove that?

And can you prove that living "longer, happier, more prosperously, whatever" is an objectively good thing?

Pot calling the kettle black.

So, Tu Quoque then?
Okay, I'll add that to your list of admitted fallacies.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#122OrangeWizard(Topic Creator)Posted 7/26/2013 9:21:02 AM

No, you claim your standards are somehow different or better, PROVE IT.


When did I claim that? Can you quote me on that?
No, you can't, because I never did.

So you still have that burden of proof...

More mutually beneficial outcome for all parties involved. This isn't hard to understand.

Beneficial how? And how does "more mutually beneficial" = "better"?

I. DID.


Quote yourself, then. Shouldn't be too hard to point out where you prove that God acted in a less than perfect manner.

You're using circular reasoning


Answering the question of "Did Billy do a good thing" with "Yes" is not circular reasoning.
You clearly don't know what the term even means.

I've already explained MANY FREAKING TIMES why arbitrarily defining perfection as what a being does is faulty


I'm not "defining perfection as what a being does", so I don't know what you're on about.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#123OrangeWizard(Topic Creator)Posted 7/26/2013 9:22:42 AM
Seeing how morality's goal is to enhance human well being


Can you prove that this is the goal of morality?

Or are you seriously going to argue there's nothing inherently wrong with murder now?


Who's talking about murder?

Wanna know what else is impossible? An omnibenevolent and omnipotent being committing genocide. It's as nonsensical as a married bachelor


Prove it.
No wait, I'll walk us through that one:

"It's impossible because an omnibenevolent and omnipotent being could never commit genocide!"
"Why?"
"Genocide is bad!"
"Prove it"
"Um... people die!"
"How is that bad"
"...b..because morality is for making people live longer"
"Prove that"
"...SHUT UP! I'M PUTTING YOU ON MY IGNORE LIST! LOGICAL FALLACIES! SHOVING LOGIC DOWN MY THROAT! INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST!"

That's how it would go down.


what I mean is the events in the Bible happened with no supernatural elements


Still a impossibility, because explicitly supernatural elements are among the events in the bible.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#124Polish_CrusaderPosted 7/26/2013 9:35:13 AM
Orange Wizard... can i give you a hug? We have been on so many bad terms this past year. Want to be friends?

|--:)--|
---
Proverbs 14:12
#125OrangeWizard(Topic Creator)Posted 7/26/2013 9:38:43 AM
We've never stopped being friends.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#126Polish_CrusaderPosted 7/26/2013 10:14:43 AM
oh wow, thats great.

Huggees? or no? >_>
---
Proverbs 14:12
#127OrangeWizard(Topic Creator)Posted 7/26/2013 10:34:12 AM
No thanks. I prefer Target's generic brand diapers.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#128JonWood007Posted 7/26/2013 10:46:11 AM
So in contrast to me talking about a hypothetical God, you're talking about the God of the bible? You mean the one that is defined as perfect? The one where your assumptions disprove your argument?


The one whose descriptions are based on faulty reasoning? I reject the assertions around it for many reasons. I explained them to you. You're just repeating yourself and trying to shove your crappy "logic" down my throat.

And I've refuted them. "being always right" is not in the definition of a scientist, unlike God, so it's no big surprise that a scientist is not always right.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning


That's nice. I don't have to take your definition seriously, though.


And I don't have to take yours either.

You, however, are required to take the definition of my God seriously if you wish to discuss him with me.


I was hoping you were so close to getting it, but then you said this. I don't have to assume crap. Especially when it's built on faulty reasoning.

When did I claim that? Can you quote me on that?
No, you can't, because I never did.

So you still have that burden of proof...


Could you possibly be more intellectually dishonest? It's quite apparent what you're claiming. Just because you don't explicitly say it doesn't mean it's not a very strong assumption in how you argue. The question still stands: is your system any better?


Beneficial how? And how does "more mutually beneficial" = "better"?


beneficial as in, the israelites get their land, and the canaanites do too. And they live. If you can't understand how this is better I fear for you. I hope you never lose your faith because it sounds like your faith is the only thing stoping you from being a psychopath.

Quote yourself, then. Shouldn't be too hard to point out where you prove that God acted in a less than perfect manner.

You're just trying to get me to waste time. Look at my entire list of alternate explanations.

Answering the question of "Did Billy do a good thing" with "Yes" is not circular reasoning.
You clearly don't know what the term even means.


Assuming your premise in your conclusion. God is defined as good. God does an action. God's action is good because he's defined as good. That's circular.


I'm not "defining perfection as what a being does", so I don't know what you're on about.


You're defining God as perfect and going LALALALA CANT HEAR YOU whenever I try to explain any differently. Honestly, if you're that closed minded, then this debate is pointless, and you should shut the heck up and never whine about cherrypicking again. If you're literally not going to take my opinion seriously, then screw yours. To quote you: "no one cares what you think".


Can you prove that this is the goal of morality?


I did, it's the functional necessity of having morality to begin with. If a moral system does not look after your well being, there's no reason to follow it. It's arbitrary. Are you really this dense?!

That's how it would go down.

Pretty close to it, but yet I'm still not ignoring you. Lemme put it this way. It's this thing called empathy. Or in your own religion, following the golden rule. I assume you wouldnt want people, say, scientologists, breaking into your home and killing you so they can take it over, so, don't do it to others. Do you lack empathy? Are you a psychopath? You sure as heck sound like it.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#129JonWood007Posted 7/26/2013 10:55:46 AM(edited)
Still a impossibility, because explicitly supernatural elements are among the events in the bible.

And books are never embellished, m i rite?

Also, if I explain morality to you without God, would you listen? Or will you just ignore what I say, call it subjective, and then go on about how no one cares what I think? I mean, let's face it, your assumptions are circular. So we need to start over from scratch if we're going to come to any agreement about reality. This discussion will go nowhere if you stubbornly cling to such faulty logic, saying I'm the illogical one, and ignoring everything I say because according to your screwed up system, its wrong. I can give you tons of political and moral theories, starting from the bare basics and building up from there. But if you're going to cling to "well it's not what the bible says and therefore it's wrong", then we're never going to get anywhere, as you basically defined your explanation as the correct one and all others wrong.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#130OrangeWizard(Topic Creator)Posted 7/26/2013 9:09:04 PM
I reject the assertions around it for many reasons. I explained them to you.

And I refuted your explanations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallagher_(comedian)

See, I can post random links too!


And I don't have to take yours either.


You do if you want to discuss my God.

Oh look, I already said that in post 121.

Oh look. You even quote it!

I don't have to assume crap.


Then I take it that you aren't going to discuss my God with me?

Is that correct? If you don't want to do discuss my God, as defined by both the dictionary and the bible, then we have nothing to discuss. I'm not interested in discussing your version of God.

It's quite apparent what you're claiming

But you can't prove it?

So what, do you just have faith that your interpretation of my words is correct? Pshh, faith isn't proof. You being an atheist should know this.

I'll just put you down for "Yes, my standards are subjective, and therefore, I cannot say that one action is objectively any better than another action, and I sheepishly tried to distract from the point by reversing the burden of proof"
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive