(December 14, 2024 at 12:56 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(December 14, 2024 at 11:26 am)Sheldon Wrote: Another false equivalence, since a) we are able to objectively verify the laws of the land, and in this instance the "judge" is objectively real. We have no such evidence for any deity. One could also point out that people are damned for who they are in the bible, gay people for example, don't choose to be gay but were born that way, or you would say created. 

This is not a failure to understand Christian doctrine, it is a valid criticism of it. In that (hypothetically) if a deity existed, and created everything, it could not reasonably be excused all culpability for the result. Even leaving aside the question of how much autonomy humans really have, they demonstrably would have less than this hypothetical deity. Thus it would have to be more culpable for the result than the "pets" it's created in this hypothetical experiment.

No, it's not a valid criticism of it because you have misrepresented the bible.  The bible states that the act of homosexual sex is wrong, not being homosexual.  Most authorities agree that the concept of sexual orientation was somewhat problematic for the people of the time, which might explain why some passages in antiquity refer to same-sex behavior as acts typified by a specific gender or sex, rather than something related to an enduring sexual attraction.  They basically had no words to refer to someone as having a specific sexual orientation, and so they didn't.  Thus they were limited to hating the sin, and loving the sinner in this specific case.

I never represented the bible at all, that was a straw man you made up. However until you remove that long stick from your arse, I see little point in trying to engage in honest debate with anyone so wilfully dishonest.

Quote:No, I wouldn't - I would be a proponent of divine objectivism. Just because the human mind is incapable of understanding a concept does not make the concept inherently incapable to be understood, and with the right perspective we would gain that ability as well.

But yes, otherwise it is a nice place to be in - one that keeps me open to new information rather than closing it off if it clashes with my pre-conceived notions and keeps my mind engaged and thinking rather than stagnant and eroding.

Can't complain all in all.

Fantasy super powers 

(December 14, 2024 at 12:14 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(December 14, 2024 at 3:26 am)TheWhiteMarten Wrote: No, I wouldn't - I would be a proponent of divine objectivism. Just because the human mind is incapable of understanding a concept does not make the concept inherently incapable to be understood, and with the right perspective we would gain that ability as well.

But yes, otherwise it is a nice place to be in - one that keeps me open to new information rather than closing it off if it clashes with my pre-conceived notions and keeps my mind engaged and thinking rather than stagnant and eroding.

Can't complain all in all.

Divine objectivity is an oxymoron.  Things are either objective or not.  If a gods opinions are the truthmaker rather than facts of a matter we're dealing with subjectivity or relativity.  If facts of the matter are the truthmaker then a gods opinions and existence are irrelevant to the same.  See what I mean about your compulsion to immediately reject objectivity?

In the first sentence highlighted you argue against god's opinions, but in the latter you add in that his existence, too, is irrelevant. Is God's existence itself not one of your so-called facts of the matter? And if not, why not? I'll note in passing that we have in this thread a person arguing that God holds ultimate moral responsibility for the existence that he created. Is it not possible then that the nature or being of God is also the ultimate fact of the matter?

Quote:An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God; just like a man is someone with a penis and XY chromosomes.

Nope he's a man who lacks belief in the theistic claim of god like a man saying he own a three headed invisible dog and friend replying he doesn't by his story 

Quote:Now we can begin to extrapolate certain things from there - most men, for example, are into sports or video games and most atheists are extremely prone to thinking reading the Bible (or worse, 5 sentences picked and chosen) makes them theological masterminds despite an almost constant display of failure to comprehend the subject - case in point, the statement that God dooms people to hell rather than it being a result of their choices. That is entirely of our making.

Well everything in the sentence is nonesense so I won't even bother

(December 14, 2024 at 1:01 pm)Sheldon Wrote:

(December 14, 2024 at 12:56 pm)Angrboda Wrote: No, it's not a valid criticism of it because you have misrepresented the bible.  The bible states that the act of homosexual sex is wrong, not being homosexual.  Most authorities agree that the concept of sexual orientation was somewhat problematic for the people of the time, which might explain why some passages in antiquity refer to same-sex behavior as acts typified by a specific gender or sex, rather than something related to an enduring sexual attraction.  They basically had no words to refer to someone as having a specific sexual orientation, and so they didn't.  Thus they were limited to hating the sin, and loving the sinner in this specific case.

I never represented the bible at all, that was a straw man you made up. However until you remove that long stick from your arse, I see little point in trying to engage in honest debate with anyone so wilfully dishonest.

Oh bollocks, you clearly stated that people are condemned for who they are in the bible, and used gay people as an example. The bible doesn't condemn gay people for who they are.

I will, however, apologize for the insults and demeaning and aim to do better. I've let my frustration with your repeated falsehoods spill over into my argument. I apologize.

Quote:Not at all; rather it would be more akin to those who choose to violate the legal codes of their country, insult and disrespect their family until they are disowned and disinherited, and continues to blame everyone else for their consequences of their behavior

Nah, it's more of a mob boss demanding your obedience and servitude, and you're saying no so he has you beaten. But it's worse because the mob boss set you up so you got beaten also the mob boss is all powerful so he could have easily chosen a scenario where this didn't occur. The man being beaten is not responsible for his beating.

Quote:My apologies, mostly just skim - no, no more than I can provide objective evidence that plate tectonics is an accurate model to describe the process of how our Earth has come to geologically be figured the way it is.

Plate Tectonics is still how the is being configured even now and we have plenty of  empirical evidence it occurs 

Quote:We can use logical deduction, but like many things we can never objectively prove it to be the truth. Just not something worth getting hung up over to me.

Actually we can use all the direct current evidence we have (Because it's still happening today) also that is objective and not even close to mumbo jumbo you claim is the case.

(December 14, 2024 at 1:18 pm)The Architect Of Fate Wrote:

Quote:My apologies, mostly just skim - no, no more than I can provide objective evidence that plate tectonics is an accurate model to describe the process of how our Earth has come to geologically be figured the way it is.

Plate Tectonics is still how the is being configured even now and we have plenty of  empirical evidence it occurs 

It's turtles all the way down.

(December 14, 2024 at 1:20 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(December 14, 2024 at 1:18 pm)The Architect Of Fate Wrote: Plate Tectonics is still how the is being configured even now and we have plenty of  empirical evidence it occurs 

It's turtles all the way down.

Not sure about that

(December 14, 2024 at 1:09 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(December 14, 2024 at 1:01 pm)Sheldon Wrote: I never represented the bible at all, that was a straw man you made up. However until you remove that long stick from your arse, I see little point in trying to engage in honest debate with anyone so wilfully dishonest.

Oh bollocks, you clearly stated that people are condemned for who they are in the bible, and used gay people as an example.  The bible doesn't condemn gay people for who they are.

I will, however, apologize for the insults and demeaning and aim to do better.  I've let my frustration with your repeated falsehoods spill over into my argument.  I apologize.

Apology not accepted, maybe if you hadn't tried to falsely blame me for your outburst, and weren't doubling down on your lies, but life's too short.