DP is a vegan?!

Learn something new every day

(June 19, 2013 at 2:39 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: DP is a vegan?!

No way. DP has tiger blood, as evidenced by his frequent proclamations that he's winning, and so must be somewhat of a carnivore.

ETA:

(June 19, 2013 at 2:34 pm)John V Wrote: No need for self-awareness, and feeling in this context is sensory, as opposed to emotional feelings such as happiness.

You omitted the first definition, which does specify awareness.

Quote:The second one specifies that thinking and self-awareness aren't necessary.

But the first one does.

Quote:Again, the first doesn't require self awareness etc.

Yes, it does. It specifies it, actually.

Quote:If sentience is the cutoff, your morality would be sentiocentric. The basic idea is that creatures that can suffer have rights, regardless of whether they have thoughts, happiness, or self-awareness.

How can a being "suffer" when it has no self-awareness?

(June 19, 2013 at 2:17 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: What a fantastic imagination you have. Still.... you fail to come up with any proof. Perhaps you possess supernatural abilities which is how you can make these unsupported claims.

Still waiting.

I quoted you chapter and verse of your own scripture. What else do you want?

(June 19, 2013 at 3:18 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: You omitted the first definition, which does specify awareness.

But the first one does.

So what? My assertion was (emphasis added): "Sentience does not necessarily imply feelings or self-awareness." To support that claim, all I need to do is show some definitions which do not require self-awareness. You did that for me, and I added to it with links to more in-depth discussions which you ignored.

Quote:How can a being "suffer" when it has no self-awareness?

By undergoing pain:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/suffer?s=t

Quote:suffer
verb (used without object)
1.
to undergo or feel pain or distress

Not sure why you ask, though. I doubt you really want to argue that your morality only pertains to self-aware beings and denies that others beings can suffer.

---

(June 19, 2013 at 3:19 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: I quoted you chapter and verse of your own scripture. What else do you want?

I haven't seen chapter and verse of god ordering rape.

(June 19, 2013 at 3:19 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(June 19, 2013 at 2:17 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: What a fantastic imagination you have. Still.... you fail to come up with any proof. Perhaps you possess supernatural abilities which is how you can make these unsupported claims.

Still waiting.

I quoted you chapter and verse of your own scripture. What else do you want?

You quoted numerous excerpts that prove that there is no substance to your claim that God is doing anything bad. That's what we're all sitting on the edge of our seats waiting to hear from you!

Still waiting!

1 Samuel 15:2-

This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

I would like a Christian to explain to me how this direct order from your God is an example of him "not doing anything bad". This requires a justification for the mass slaughter of women, infants, children, and every man who had no involvement whatsoever with the 'crime' God cites as his reason for dooming them all, other than having the bad luck to be a citizen of the Amalekite kingdom. Please note that your God is all-knowing and all-powerful, meaning he could have, literally, solved this problem in any imaginable way, so his choice to massacre the entire civilization (or, indeed, to harm a single individual) was in no way necessary.

I anxiously await responses. And don't bore me by resorting to arguments of moral relativism you don't even accept yourself. Justify your morals and explain why you believe that the above passage is an example of righteous good rather than sheer malice and bloodlust.

(June 19, 2013 at 3:31 pm)John V Wrote: By undergoing pain:

And you can experience the feeling of pain without self-awareness how?

Quote:I haven't seen chapter and verse of god ordering rape.

Numerous times. Here's one example where Moses speaks on your god's behalf and is never corrected by your god:

Quote:Numbers 31:17-18 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

And then there's the regulations on how to rape your sex slaves (remember that regulation = tacit approval).

Quote:Deut 21:10-14 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

In English:
If you capture a hot babe in your war with your enemies and you want to ravish her, you have to give her a full month to mourn her family which you put to the sword (see Deut 20:13-14). After that point, you can rape her. We'll slap a "marriage" label on it to try to sanitize the rape but since her consent isn't requested or required, it's still rape. If you don't enjoy raping her, you have to let her go. You can't sell her.

I suppose that was considered "progressive" back in that day and age but as divine wisdom from a god who should have known better, I'm not impressed.

What you quoted Ryan repeats everything every one of your fellow dissenters has already said.

There is no proof there that bad happened. That justice wasn't served. You do not know, because you don't have the ability to know everything. The point the author is making is that justice is served. Justice is good.

As you're claiming that the text you quote proves that it's saying the opposite of what the bible intends. You haven't shown how you make that leap, yet you expect people to contend the point you haven't made.

First make a challenge, then ask for opposition.