Print

Author Topic: Your F Score?  (Read 49395 times)

Turtlekid1

  • Tortuga
« Reply #45 on: April 02, 2011, 04:26:30 PM »
I'm pretty sure that an invisible blueberry muffin exists on Jupiter. Does that give my claim that homosexuality should be criminalized any weight?
If there's evidence of its existing, and if it's the omnipotent creator of all things, and it says that sodomy is a sin, then I would say "yes."

That's highly debatable. God kills a whole bunch of people in the Bible.
Uh.  He's God.  He has every right to.  And again, there's a difference between killing and murder.
"It'll say life is sacred and so is death
but death is life and so we move on"

Black Mage

  • HP 1018 MP 685
« Reply #46 on: April 02, 2011, 04:26:38 PM »
But it's irrelevant, anyway, since any "god" who advocates murder isn't God.

You mean he isn't your God. Who are you to say whose God is real and whose isn't? How is that any different than any one saying your God isn't real?

« Reply #47 on: April 02, 2011, 04:32:08 PM »
If there's evidence of its existing

Only there isn't.

Uh.  He's God.  He has every right to.

-_____-
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

Turtlekid1

  • Tortuga
« Reply #48 on: April 02, 2011, 04:35:55 PM »
Only there isn't.
I think a gigantic historical chronicle that tells about the muffin and its laws in excruciating detail counts as evidence.

Also, you can prove whether there is or isn't a muffin on Jupiter.  You can't prove there isn't a God.

-_____-
?
"It'll say life is sacred and so is death
but death is life and so we move on"

« Reply #49 on: April 02, 2011, 04:44:18 PM »
I think a gigantic historical chronicle that tells about the muffin and its laws in excruciating detail counts as evidence.

I assume you're talking about the Bible. And it's a very poorly written thing.

Also, you can prove whether there is or isn't a muffin on Jupiter.  You can't prove there isn't a God.

No, you can't prove or disprove the existence of either. Based on the evidence or lack thereof you either believe or you don't. I wouldn't believe in flying muffins in space just as I wouldn't believe in God.
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

Turtlekid1

  • Tortuga
« Reply #50 on: April 02, 2011, 04:46:50 PM »
I assume you're talking about the Bible. And it's a very poorly written thing.
Uh... no?

No, you can't prove or disprove the existence of either. Based on the evidence or lack thereof you either believe or you don't. I wouldn't believe in flying muffins in space just as I wouldn't believe in God.
Wouldn't it be a relatively simple matter to observe the planet Jupiter and find the muffin if it's there?
"It'll say life is sacred and so is death
but death is life and so we move on"

« Reply #51 on: April 02, 2011, 04:49:26 PM »
Wouldn't it be a relatively simple matter to observe the planet Jupiter and find the muffin if it's there?

Not if it's invisible. Like God. And God should be highly observable, considering that he "created" the universe.
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

Turtlekid1

  • Tortuga
« Reply #52 on: April 02, 2011, 04:53:13 PM »
Ah.  I guess I missed the "invisible" part.  But my point was that the muffin would be detectable with the instruments we have at our disposal.
"It'll say life is sacred and so is death
but death is life and so we move on"

A

« Reply #53 on: April 02, 2011, 07:14:47 PM »
And God should be highly observable, considering that he "created" the universe.
How do you know you're not seeing God everywhere? What do you have to compare it to? If everything in existence was created by God, then you've never seen anything not created by God, so how could you know the difference?
"I was going to post and say "I have one of those!" because I recognized the hair immediately, but then the rest of the pic loaded and I nearly spit my drink out."
1-800-COLLECT: SAVE A BUCK OR TWO!!

« Reply #54 on: April 02, 2011, 07:20:51 PM »
How do you know that you are?
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

Insane Steve

  • Professional Cynic
« Reply #55 on: April 02, 2011, 07:36:15 PM »
When did I ever say that I'm picking and choosing which laws I want to follow?  The New Testament makes clear that ceremonial law is no longer necessary, since the need for sacrifice was fulfilled by Christ for good.  Moral laws, regarding sin, are still very relevant, and still condemned in the New Testament just as much as in the Old.

So my interpretation of the Bible is not the same as yours, then. Fair enough.

But that's not like 99.9% of abortion cases.  It's not a matter of taking a life, it's a matter of saving a life.  Life of the mother cases are the only ones in which there's ever even a tiny shadow of a doubt.  But again, they're the exception, not the rule.

That was the point -- I was going for the logical extreme case here. That said, shouldn't these cases be handled separately, instead of just being all "Oops, too bad, see you in Hell because other people have non-procreational sex"?

If you want a system of law, then you're going to control elements of peoples' lives, no matter what.  Do you think that, say, theft (because murder has been used as an example a lot lately) should be permissible as long as it's done in private?

There is a VERY critical difference between regulating what people do to other people non-consensually, what other people do with each other consensually, and what one does with themselves, in private. Murder, by definition, is an act where one party is non-consenting. In my mind, laws should only exist to protect against those.  "Victimless crime" really should be an oxymoron, and not something people actually go to jail for. Of course where abortion gets weird. I see is as a breach against what one does with themself, because I don't think the fetus is alive until and unless it is viable. You think life starts at conception, so it's in the first case.

That said, if life begins at conception, shouldn't a woman who has a miscarriage be charged with manslaughter?

Also, no one has explained to me yet why being a sociopath is bad.

See, here's where I should describe what I mean by a sociopath. A sociopath only cares about themselves -- the thoughts and ideas of others bear no role in their decision. In some cases this is not bad, but if you take this to the logical extreme (e.g., killing people because you don't believe in God), it's very bad, indeed. By itself it's not bad, but it can lead to Very Bad Things in many situations.

Of course, my girlfriend argues that a formally defined sociopath also feels no emotion and can't be religious, but I'm not sure of either of those.

That was just a joke.  I just think reality TV is pox on the entertainment industry because it's a quick and lazy substitute for actual creativity, and because there are only so many time-slots, the genuinely good shows are the ones that get canceled because they don't make money as quickly.  But there's nothing morally wrong with it, per se, and to discuss it in-depth is probably for a different thread (but who am I kidding, all NatDT discussions end up debating the morality of homosexuality eventually).

Yea, figured. And threads only delve into homosexuality if people bring them up, though it appears I'm the one guilty of that in this thread.

EDIT: About a God who kills not being a real god, didn't God murder a bunch of people in the Bible? Some, for no real reason at all (e.g., Lot's wife)?
« Last Edit: April 02, 2011, 07:40:02 PM by Insane Steve »
~I.S.~

A

« Reply #56 on: April 02, 2011, 07:44:00 PM »
How do you know that you are?
I never said I was. But you can't prove you're not.
"I was going to post and say "I have one of those!" because I recognized the hair immediately, but then the rest of the pic loaded and I nearly spit my drink out."
1-800-COLLECT: SAVE A BUCK OR TWO!!

Insane Steve

  • Professional Cynic
« Reply #57 on: April 02, 2011, 07:45:39 PM »
You're the one making the assertion, so the onus of proof is on you. "I'm right because you can't prove I'm wrong" is incredibly fallacious. And, very common in religious debates.
~I.S.~

« Reply #58 on: April 02, 2011, 07:48:31 PM »
You're the one making the assertion, so the onus of proof is on you.

I was just about to say that. You're awesome.

"I'm right because you can't prove I'm wrong"

Yeah, that's the appeal to ignorance fallacy in case you guys were wondering.

I never said I was. But you can't prove you're not.

You're right, I can't. I don't believe it though, and that's based on the evidence or lack thereof.

EDIT: Does everyone in this thread know the difference between a belief and a claim? I just want to make sure.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2011, 07:58:02 PM by PaperLuigi »
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

Turtlekid1

  • Tortuga
« Reply #59 on: April 02, 2011, 07:57:45 PM »
There is a VERY critical difference between regulating what people do to other people non-consensually, what other people do with each other consensually, and what one does with themselves, in private. Murder, by definition, is an act where one party is non-consenting. In my mind, laws should only exist to protect against those.
Murder can still be committed against a person with a death wish, though.  There are a few examples of consensual crimes, the most infamous being statutory rape.

That said, if life begins at conception, shouldn't a woman who has a miscarriage be charged with manslaughter?
But in manslaughter cases, the killer still has control over his actions even if it's involuntary.  When a woman miscarries, it's not a result of any particular action on her part.

See, here's where I should describe what I mean by a sociopath. A sociopath only cares about themselves -- the thoughts and ideas of others bear no role in their decision. In some cases this is not bad, but if you take this to the logical extreme (e.g., killing people because you don't believe in God), it's very bad, indeed. By itself it's not bad, but it can lead to Very Bad Things in many situations.
What bad things does it lead to, and why are they bad?

About a God who kills not being a real god, didn't God murder a bunch of people in the Bible? Some, for no real reason at all (e.g., Lot's wife)?
God never murdered anyone.  He killed people, but it was never for no reason.  Lot's wife disobeyed him in "looking back at the city," where "looking back" doesn't mean she just glanced back, but that she wanted to go back.

You're the one making the assertion, so the onus of proof is on you.
I didn't think anyone needed proof to make claims anymore, what with Darwinism being taught as absolute fact in public schools.
"It'll say life is sacred and so is death
but death is life and so we move on"

Print