Questions and Statements about ? ...
Options
Comments
-
I can not speak for others but I do not contend ? has been disproven or can not exist. Instead I find that the evidence for ? is equivalent to that of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Without evidence I do not accept conclusions.
I would think killing anyone is wrong right now. I would continue to think the exact same thing if a loved one died. ? does say all kinds of things are right that are wrong.
Joshua 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
Invading someones home, taking their stuff and then murdering them is WRONG. ? 's cool with it. This is the most dangerous part about externalizing your morality. Someone with suffient religious credibility can come along and make you violate your own conscience. Like Abrahman when he was ready to sacrifice Isacc religion allows to do loopy things.
I believe gential multiation is wrong. ? 's down with it.
Joshua 5:2 At that time the LORD said unto Joshua, Make thee sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time.
? sucks ? as a moral arbitor. I am sure I could find passages support ? in so far as taking female prisoner and forcing them into marriages counts as ? to me.
Your conscience is a damn good guide. Do not abandon it for some outside source.
1. Oh Jeez the FSM argument.
2. You would think it is but according to your world view nothing in actuality is wrong with it. Nothing really makes a ? right or wrong its just simply your feeling.
3. ? says things that ARE right and wrong? What standard are you basing right and wrong on? To say something IS wrong is to contradict your initial point that right and wrong are relative. Which in itself is a contradictory statement because you are still making definate claims when you believe all is relative.
4. Few things wrong with this
1. ? ordering a city destroyed is the exception not the rule.
2. ? ordering Israel to destory cities was just that, an order to Israel because that was Gods judgment that He pronounced on those people.
3. ? ordering Israel to destroy a city doesn't justify killing now , when ? orders people to be killed it was for a reason that ? deemed necessary.
5. Since ? created everything is your idea of right and wrong the standard or is Gods?
6. Who gave you your conscience? ? doesn't suck as a moral aritor but when people take things out of context and interpret them in a vaccum, yes things will look bad. This is why you have to read the whole thing and actually understand. Simply picking and choosing verses is sloppy scholarship. -
yeah i rap so don't ask wrote: »It would be a waste of time to go back and fourth with anything when YOU have no proof...you might call me crazy but Unicorns do not exist either...how about you tell me about the First Council of Nicaea which basically gave your ? the modern (since it has been translated many times) version of the bible. Tell me why your beliefs are right while others are wrong. the Star Trek comment is lol. Ohh yeah science gave you the internet not a make believe character. Go pray or something and stop using what science gave you idiot.
OK first dude the Council of Nicea didn't give us the bible. The bible had been around long before that time. You can look up the Moritorian fragment which was a biblical cannon and it dates to 170AD. Second the council of nicea was to hear a man called ? on his doctrine that Jesus was not divine. They said he was wrong and that was about it. You need to get off the Dan Brown and actually read a book. And so what if the bible has been translated many times? There are still greek and hebrew copies in existance today. So what is your point? All of the 47,000 copies in existance today are the same as the bible we have today. Again read a book and get off the Dan Brown and Zietgiest. -
i think you need to check up what theory means in science before you open your mouth playboy.
if you make that assumption then you assume ? isn't created of matter. he's created by some supernatural force that we can't see detect or prove so the argument leaves the realm of science and goes into philosophy since science doesn't work in the supernatural.
there's studies on the origin of life (living from non living) it's called abiogeneis. There's tons of books, scientific theories, models, and empirical evidence about it. ? the building blocks of life is found in the remains of exploded stars (non living material). But what evidence is there that a supernatural entity exists and set in motion everything outside of a book that says ? created the universe in 5 days and spent an entire day just creating man alone, the earth is 6000 years old, and a worldwide flood destroyed the earth and every animal alive today was on that boat?
IRT to abiogenesis/evolution I can read about it. I can study it. I can do experiments to prove or disprove it. But ? ? I just have to believe it, not question it, and take it as 100% fact despite what evidence to the contrary says.
Give me 1 example of LIFE being made from non-life............Im waiting. -
My brother in Christ blue falcon! Whats up my friend? Good to see you kicking knowledge on the IC again.
-
Nothing much brother how you been?
-
blue falcon wrote: »Nothing much brother how you been?
I've been good. Im enjoying my winter break from State. But school starts on the 20th so I only got 2 weeks left of freedom. How bout you? -
Here's why I take the religion out of debates like this....
If I'm ? , why would I care whether or not humans (not my first creation) have morals, or religion? That's man-made. I'm ? , I created man, universe, etc. Why should I care about wrong and right? Thats a contribution to humanity, something I'm too important to be a part of.
Theoretically, all things must die. We all die. The planet will die, our sun, our universe, one day. Doesn't the same apply to everything inside/outside our universe, including ? , consciousness, and energy? Or is it impossible? -
blue falcon wrote: »1. Oh Jeez the FSM argument.
2. You would think it is but according to your world view nothing in actuality is wrong with it. Nothing really makes a ? right or wrong its just simply your feeling.
3. ? says things that ARE right and wrong? What standard are you basing right and wrong on? To say something IS wrong is to contradict your initial point that right and wrong are relative. Which in itself is a contradictory statement because you are still making definate claims when you believe all is relative.
4. Few things wrong with this
1. ? ordering a city destroyed is the exception not the rule.
2. ? ordering Israel to destory cities was just that, an order to Israel because that was Gods judgment that He pronounced on those people.
3. ? ordering Israel to destroy a city doesn't justify killing now , when ? orders people to be killed it was for a reason that ? deemed necessary.
5. Since ? created everything is your idea of right and wrong the standard or is Gods?
6. Who gave you your conscience? ? doesn't suck as a moral aritor but when people take things out of context and interpret them in a vaccum, yes things will look bad. This is why you have to read the whole thing and actually understand. Simply picking and choosing verses is sloppy scholarship.
1. No evidence No conclusion is the arguement. If you prefer purple Teapots circling Jupiter, Pink Unicorns, or the Easter Bunny I will use those in the future.
2. What is it with religious folks and 'world view'. They love that term. According to my world view a host of things are including murder, ? , stealing, the designated hitter, and indoor stadiums. Of course the degree of 'wrongness' varies. Now when my sense of right and wrong come into conflict with another we resolve this conflict according to our society's terms. In modern society this is primarily legal means. The term justice is often described as the righting of a wrong.
3 - 6 I base right and wrong on reason and rationalism. I start with very simple things mostly defined as 'rights'. Such as ...
All people have a right to their life.
From this principle most of my rights and wrongs are built. I do not 'blend' opposing views of right or wrong. If someone thinks it is right to murder and ? someone while I feel that is wrong I do not reach some logical crisis. I feel my sense of morals is sound and adhere to them. As I stated before any conflict that arises society develops ways to address.
How does ? ordering Israel to murder women and children make it right? This implies that if ? returns and order you to murder women and children you would think yourself in the right. How is that not a dangerous way to structure your moral compass? -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »Give me 1 example of LIFE being made from non-life............Im waiting.
If we extend your lineage long enough ... you. -
Define Life. What makes something alive?
-
whatever:(
-
You're making the mistake of comparing concepts to deities. Concepts and ideas do not exist without humans to label them, deities however are claimed to exist without humans to label them.
The concept of "? ", and what "? " is claimed to be, are different. -
dumb argument i've heard before and as usual, whar67 ethred it immediately
-
1. No evidence No conclusion is the arguement. If you prefer purple Teapots circling Jupiter, Pink Unicorns, or the Easter Bunny I will use those in the future.
2. What is it with religious folks and 'world view'. They love that term. According to my world view a host of things are including murder, ? , stealing, the designated hitter, and indoor stadiums. Of course the degree of 'wrongness' varies. Now when my sense of right and wrong come into conflict with another we resolve this conflict according to our society's terms. In modern society this is primarily legal means. The term justice is often described as the righting of a wrong.
3 - 6 I base right and wrong on reason and rationalism. I start with very simple things mostly defined as 'rights'. Such as ...
All people have a right to their life.
From this principle most of my rights and wrongs are built. I do not 'blend' opposing views of right or wrong. If someone thinks it is right to murder and ? someone while I feel that is wrong I do not reach some logical crisis. I feel my sense of morals is sound and adhere to them. As I stated before any conflict that arises society develops ways to address.
How does ? ordering Israel to murder women and children make it right? This implies that if ? returns and order you to murder women and children you would think yourself in the right. How is that not a dangerous way to structure your moral compass?
2. But nothing can be wrong in your wold view as you've already stated. Things such as ? aren't acutally wrong but you just feel they are. Society deems what is right or wrong. So since that is the case nothing acutally made ? wrong because society said mass murder was fine. Lets not pretend there aren't corrupt legal systems that judge right and wrong with a rubber ruler and it doesn't hurt if you line the judges pocket a little too.
3. But again you cannot prove reason and logic imerpcally there fore it doesn't exist in the impericist world view.
4. Says who?
5. So basically so long as society condones it that makes it right and when it doesn't that makes it wrong? What a wicked way of thinking.
6. Because ? ordered it and it was to fulfill His judgement on those people for the wickedness they were doing.
7. ? only gave such orders to Israel because He was directly in control. The first and only real theocracy. ? can choose how he will deliver his judgment. Wether it be by natural disaster (The world flood, ? and Gamorrah), plauges (Egypt), raising Israel up to ? them (Midianites and Amalekites) or being taken into slavery (the Israelites after their many transgressions against ? ). However we must remember that ? audibly told theIsraelites to do what they did. ? didn't order single people to go in and do whatever. Also the teachings of the OT and NT both teach love, compassion and caring for one another. ? in the bible isn't a wanton killer but when ? feels that a people or nation has reporbated themselves and aren't capable of turning from their wickedness He will do what He has to. One example that people never talk about is Ninveah where ? sent a prophet to tell them to repent and flee Gods wrath and they did and He did. The bible being the moral compass by following the teachings of Jesus Christ is prefect because there is no glossy grey area where we can manuver or any room for relativism. It says what it says and that is final. -
fiat_money wrote: »You're making the mistake of comparing concepts to deities. Concepts and ideas do not exist without humans to label them, deities however are claimed to exist without humans to label them.
The concept of "? ", and what "? " is claimed to be, are different.
No I'm not. The atheist argument is that they do believe in ? because there is either no proof of ? or that ? cannot be scientifically proven. In response to that assertion I stand by my OP. -
The mistake I'm referring to is here:blue falcon wrote: »No I'm not. The atheist argument is that they do believe in ? because there is either no proof of ? or that ? cannot be scientifically proven. In response to that assertion I stand by my OP.
"Right and wrong", logic, ideas, and science are all concepts; meaning they are purely products of human thought. "? ", however, is supposedly a being/entity which exists entirely separate from human thought; therefore it is not comparable to human-created concepts.blue falcon wrote: »"If You Don't Believe In ? Because There Is No "Proof" For Him" Then logically you also cannot believe in these following things either... -
Wait, ? is a human-created concept. And the reason atheists don't believe in it is because it doesn't hold water. Ethics (the smart way of saying right and wrong), logic, and science all have two important things that the idea of ? does not. Explanations and utility.
-
fiat_money wrote: »The mistake I'm referring to is here:"Right and wrong", logic, ideas, and science are all concepts; meaning they are purely products of human thought. "? ", however, is supposedly a being/entity which exists entirely separate from human thought; therefore it is not comparable to human-created concepts.
on the contrary they are all things we know exist but cannot imperically prove. We know when something is right or wrong. We all understand logic and how to apply it. But we cannot prove those things exist imperically. Likewise we know ? exist (wether or not we allow ourselves to accept that reality or not) but we cannot imperically prove Him. Logic, ideas, morality, ? are all abstract concepts that cannot be "proven" but we know exist. -
BOSS KTULU wrote: »Wait, ? is a human-created concept. And the reason atheists don't believe in it is because it doesn't hold water. Ethics (the smart way of saying right and wrong), logic, and science all have two important things that the idea of ? does not. Explanations and utility.
Prove ? is a human created concept.
Doesn't hold water how?
Ethics is situational and relative.
? has an explaination and utility. Without ? logic and science would be null and void. What standard are you judging logic by you? Well who was the standard before you? And as I stated before science is based on the uniformity of nature which cannot be proven. You assume that because you test something enough times and it yields the same results that it will continue to work the same way in the future and has always worked that same way in the past which is impossible to know. You are relying on nature to work in some sort of law like fashion but do not want to give credit to the law giver. -
People are really putting too much weight on science for everything. I believe there is more to the claims of ? not existing than just, "Oh well, science can't prove it so ? doesn't exist."
-
Real-time use of the senses, conscious, breath, and heartbeat.perspective@100 wrote: »Define Life. What makes something alive? -
alissowack wrote: »People are really putting too much weight on science for everything. I believe there is more to the claims of ? not existing than just, "Oh well, science can't prove it so ? doesn't exist."
Yes there are argumens which pose as logic that try to refute the existance of ? but 99.9% of the time I street preach or talk to atheist online the science argument pops up. -
geechee slim wrote: »Here's why I take the religion out of debates like this....
If I'm ? , why would I care whether or not humans (not my first creation) have morals, or religion? That's man-made. I'm ? , I created man, universe, etc. Why should I care about wrong and right? Thats a contribution to humanity, something I'm too important to be a part of.
Theoretically, all things must die. We all die. The planet will die, our sun, our universe, one day. Doesn't the same apply to everything inside/outside our universe, including ? , consciousness, and energy? Or is it impossible?
? has no beginning and thus He has no end, so yes it is impossible for ? to die. He is the source of all things my brother. -
If we extend your lineage long enough ... you.
Your wrong Whar 67. All of our lineages can be traced back to 2 people, Adam and Eve. Adam was formed from the dust of the ground by ? and Eve was formed from Adams rib. All of mankind has sprung forth from them. Life brings forth life my friend. And the source of all life can be traced back to the Father in Heaven, who is the beginning and the end. Now can you provide your evidence of life sprouting forth from non-life.......im waiting..... -
perspective@100 wrote: »Define Life. What makes something alive?
When ? breathes the breath of life into man, he becomes a living being. Life comes from ? . He is the way, the truth, and the life.
