(July 10, 2013 at 11:55 am)Rationalman Wrote: How do you know that it does not occur in humans but is not incredibly rare? The fact that it occurs naturally in other animals suggests that it is possible (no matter how improbable) that parthenogenesis can occur in humans.

Well, given that human beings don't have an inbuilt mechanism for replenishing an embryos chromosomes to a diploid state... yeah, I feel pretty good about saying it's impossible in humans without scientific intervention.

But all that is secondary anyway; you know what you'd need for anyone to consider the possibility that a human could do it? Evidence of it. You got any? Or is this just another "anything's possible!" handwave to justify nonsense?

(July 10, 2013 at 1:12 pm)Maelstrom Wrote:

(July 10, 2013 at 12:35 pm)Consilius Wrote: What is immoral is that a wrongdoer never gets punishment by any means.

Life is unfair. Justice is not perfect. Sometimes bad people get away without punishment. Sometimes good people are punished for acts they did not commit. It comforts theists to believe that all bad people will suffer after death if they escape punishment during life, but the fact of the matter is that the universe simply does not care about humanity. There is no retribution after death, and for some illogical reason that fact frightens theists more than the sociopathic glee they experience thinking souls suffer at the hands of a tyrant deity.

Totally agree, justice is a human invention, none of that in the wild

---

(July 10, 2013 at 1:19 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Well, given that human beings don't have an inbuilt mechanism for replenishing an embryos chromosomes to a diploid state... yeah, I feel pretty good about saying it's impossible in humans without scientific intervention.

But all that is secondary anyway; you know what you'd need for anyone to consider the possibility that a human could do it? Evidence of it. You got any? Or is this just another "anything's possible!" handwave to justify nonsense?

I think what with genetic mutations and stuff like that, it would be a bit bold to say it is impossible thats all. I'm not trying to prove it can happen or that it has happened, i'm just thinking aloud. Its kind of like an argument from ignorance except that i'm not really arguing anything. We don't know everything about the human body, i just think it would be better to keep an open mind rather than say things are impossible.

(July 10, 2013 at 12:35 pm)Consilius Wrote: Punishment for disobedience is simply invoking discipline, like a schoolteacher. Those who don't take correction do not want to be part of the system, and are expelled from it. The naughty kid is expelled from school, and loses everything that came from the schoolteacher that he refused to obey. You respect someone who you owe money, or else his money will be taken back. If you owe God your life and you refuse to respect him, then you refuse to be with him. Your life is taken from you and you a granted an eternity without him, that being hell.

And you think a god that does that, gives the death penalty for disrespecting him and creates a place of eternal torment, is love?

(July 10, 2013 at 12:35 pm)Consilius Wrote: I did not say God's existence was dependent on us.

Good, because I never said you did.

(July 10, 2013 at 12:35 pm)Consilius Wrote: I said that God fulfilled his personal objective by making us to love.

No, you didn't. You said god gave his existence purpose by creating us.

But let's go with this anyway. Why would a god have a personal objective and the desire to fulfill it?

(July 10, 2013 at 1:04 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote:

(July 10, 2013 at 12:35 pm)Consilius Wrote: If the Bible was immoral, you would be wrong in calling it so since you believe there is no objective standard for morality.

I may be wrong in their world view, but in mine I'm right. But it's not about right or wrong, is it? Rather, it's about justification for my views. Calling the Bible immoral is completely justified on my part if my morality dictates it to be. Anyone associating with the immoral aspects of the Bible is also immoral to me.

(July 10, 2013 at 12:35 pm)Consilius Wrote: You'd be discriminating against the ancient Jews because they believed what they did is moral, and since BELIEVING something is moral is all it takes for a moral to exist, they apparently placed themselves within their own moral standards.

Okay...so I can't call it a bad book now because they didn't think it was then? That simply doesn't follow, and the argument holds absolutely no water. Hitler thought killing the Jews was a good idea, and, at the time, so did many of his followers. They regretted it dearly afterwards.

(July 10, 2013 at 12:35 pm)Consilius Wrote: Luckily, this is not true. This argument shouldn't be used to defend the Bible. The Torah says not to kill and steal, just like the laws do today.

Yeah, and it contradicts itself earlier and later. The Bible is unreliable, just like those courtroom witness testimonies that Judge Consilius loves so much.

You're only partially right that the argument shouldn't be used to defend the Bible. Let's take that a step further and say what we're all thinking: nothing should be used to defend the Bible.

(July 10, 2013 at 12:35 pm)Consilius Wrote: Jesus proved he was God and the Messiah through his life. His actions were more powerful than his words. He showed the world that he was God and had them tell others about it. Christ made himself God to others. Others did not make Christ God.

He showed a few people in Palestine, or so they say. That is not showing the world anything. He didn't prove anything if he never existed in the first place, and the only evidence of his life is through religious texts, not history books.

Here's a little nugget for ya. How come when the Book of Acts opens up no one seems to remember this Christ fellow, or his crucifiction, or anything that he did? In fact, it's the Apostles going out and preaching to people that have never heard of him before. All this proves is that they talked about him, not that he existed.

Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, says he translated an ancient text written on Gold Plates into what is known as the Book of Mormon. It contains the history and writings of Jews from 600 B.C. that settled the Americas and became the ancestors of the Native Americans.

It's documented in a book...but is it true? The Bible falls under the exact same scrutiny. Proof that the Bible exists and says stuff is not proof that it's true.

(July 10, 2013 at 12:35 pm)Consilius Wrote: Love can exist as a concept, but it is also a force because it has physical effects on the world.

Are you saying that because love can also be demonstrated as a force, that it necessarily is attributed to god? Love as a force can be independant of god, just as cheese can be independant of a sandwich.

What you are suggesting is that there is no objective moral standard, but the entire world is subject to your views, which can be different from anyone else's. We are left with is a society where people are subject to their own standards alone. If lying is OK to me, there is no reason for me to believe that is wrong, and you are wrong to criticize me, because I am being judged according to your moral standards while and my moral standards are equally as acceptable as yours. Too bad the laws don't agree with us. If I lie to the government, I am judged by their moral standard simply because they are more powerful. My personal moral standards are not acknowledged in a court of law because the world doesn't have to respect anyone's personal moral code, rather every human being is subject to morals that exist outside of him or her.
Hitler was condemned by pretty much everyone else outside the Nazi party because he was wrong. Antisemitism was never right and never will be. He deviated from an ultimate moral standard and was opposed by a world mostly in touch with this standard.
Christ died a criminal. His own disciples left him. Until Pentecost, he was simply a good story. Famous singers stop performing and we forget about them and move on, in the same way Christ was uninteresting to a people that didn't hear him speak or perform miracles anymore. Nobody had any motive to take serious action in his name. Not to mention that most of those who were in Jerusalem at the time of Pentecost were foreigners from outside Palestine, hence the speaking in tongues.

---

(July 10, 2013 at 1:12 pm)Maelstrom Wrote:

(July 10, 2013 at 12:35 pm)Consilius Wrote: What is immoral is that a wrongdoer never gets punishment by any means.

Life is unfair. Justice is not perfect. Sometimes bad people get away without punishment. Sometimes good people are punished for acts they did not commit. It comforts theists to believe that all bad people will suffer after death if they escape punishment during life, but the fact of the matter is that the universe simply does not care about humanity. There is no retribution after death, and for some illogical reason that fact frightens theists more than the sociopathic glee they experience thinking souls suffer at the hands of a tyrant deity.

Mainstream Christianity has never placed any specific person in hell. We do not imagine people in hell to satisfy ourselves. The decision of what happens to souls when they die is up to God, and we don't claim to have any knowledge of what that decision will be. Who are we to claim to know the morals and motives of even the likes of Adolf Hitler? All humanity has the authority to say is that what he physically brought to the world was bad. What were your motives of posting that about Christians?

---

(July 10, 2013 at 1:15 pm)Rationalman Wrote:

(July 10, 2013 at 12:35 pm)Consilius Wrote: It hasn't been proven to have occurred in a human before. Don't you think that a single incident of parthenogenesis in 2000 years is just a little bit TOO rare?

---

It hasn't been proven to have occured in humans, but we have shown that the theory works and that it is possible.
As for it not happening in the last 2000 years, where did that come from? Its only been in the past century that we've known about its existence. We've only had 100 years at best to look for it. Even then, the probability of it being documented in humans is incredibly small. It could have happened in isolated places like countries in Africa or parts of Russia and we would never have known about it. Considering that we are discovering new things about the human body every day, does it seem so much of a stretch to think that parthenogenesis could occur in humans?

Also there are plenty of incredibly rare diseases and mutations out there, you just have to search on google and find them. There are probably plenty more unknown diseases and conditions out there waiting to be discovered and documented.

Well, that's all fine and well. When "virgin births" was originally posted by BadWriterSparty, it was to show how impossible the event was. Now we know that parthenogenesis CAN occur, so this means that it has become more likely that there WAS a virgin birth as described in the Bible, contradictory to what BWS had tried to say before. I think we're done here.

---

(July 10, 2013 at 2:47 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(July 10, 2013 at 12:35 pm)Consilius Wrote: Punishment for disobedience is simply invoking discipline, like a schoolteacher. Those who don't take correction do not want to be part of the system, and are expelled from it. The naughty kid is expelled from school, and loses everything that came from the schoolteacher that he refused to obey. You respect someone who you owe money, or else his money will be taken back. If you owe God your life and you refuse to respect him, then you refuse to be with him. Your life is taken from you and you a granted an eternity without him, that being hell.

And you think a god that does that, gives the death penalty for disrespecting him and creates a place of eternal torment, is love?

(July 10, 2013 at 12:35 pm)Consilius Wrote: I did not say God's existence was dependent on us.

Good, because I never said you did.

(July 10, 2013 at 12:35 pm)Consilius Wrote: I said that God fulfilled his personal objective by making us to love.

No, you didn't. You said god gave his existence purpose by creating us.

But let's go with this anyway. Why would a god have a personal objective and the desire to fulfill it?

Again we get the traditional notion of hell. Hell is only punishment to those that avoid it, because hell is a place where God's presence cannot be felt. Those who willingly reject God spend eternity without him. Flames and worms are extraneous and there is no reason to believe they are there.
God has always had objectives. His prime objective is to draw people closer to him. We exist so we can be drawn closer to him. God is a force. A force needs a body to act upon. This not an urgent need, as this force can exist independent of any body, being eternal and self-sufficient. God selflessly made us so he could provide for us. He desires not to only sustain himself but to sustain others. Because God is the force of love.

(July 11, 2013 at 12:20 am)Consilius Wrote: Well, that's all fine and well. When "virgin births" was originally posted by BadWriterSparty, it was to show how impossible the event was. Now we know that parthenogenesis CAN occur, so this means that it has become more likely that there WAS a virgin birth as described in the Bible, contradictory to what BWS had tried to say before. I think we're done here.

It makes it no more likely as the virgin birth as described in the bible was done by magic and not natural causes

(July 10, 2013 at 11:11 am)Consilius Wrote: Yeah, we can perform miracles too. All we need is a lab, a team of scientists, a Petri dish, and a few weeks.
God did it without any of these before they or the concept of a virgin birth either existed. Other accounts involve the god having sex with the woman.

So, in a nutshell, god is super good at playing ping pong drunk and we're just not. Would it matter if the god did have sex with the woman?

(July 11, 2013 at 12:20 am)Consilius Wrote: Again we get the traditional notion of hell. Hell is only punishment to those that avoid it, because hell is a place where God's presence cannot be felt. Those who willingly reject God spend eternity without him. Flames and worms are extraneous and there is no reason to believe they are there.

Your god is everything good, yes? Spending eternity apart from everything good would be torment, no? Sugarcoat it all you want. Your god unnecessarily created a place of eternal unpleasantness. That is love?

(July 11, 2013 at 12:20 am)Consilius Wrote: God has always had objectives. His prime objective is to draw people closer to him. We exist so we can be drawn closer to him. God is a force. A force needs a body to act upon. This not an urgent need, as this force can exist independent of any body, being eternal and self-sufficient. God selflessly made us so he could provide for us. He desires not to only sustain himself but to sustain others. Because God is the force of love.

You're just making vacuous assertions to try and explain your previous vacuous assertions. It's all platitudinous nonsense that only conveys sentiment and no substance. Unless you can provide something of meaning, I'd say this discussion has played itself out.

(July 11, 2013 at 12:20 am)Consilius Wrote: ...you are suggesting is that there is no objective moral standard, but the entire world is subject to your views...

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm saying this out loud. Yes to the first, no to the second. You see, I don't believe there will ever be an objective moral standard, but the entire world is certainly not subject to my views. That would be overly presumptuous of anyone, myself included. That's why God is an asshole if he thinks he can dictate morals to people.

(July 11, 2013 at 12:20 am)Consilius Wrote: If lying is OK to me, there is no reason for me to believe that is wrong, and you are wrong to criticize me, because I am being judged according to your moral standards while and my moral standards are equally as acceptable as yours.

I don't believe any one set of morals is equal, since morality is defined by people. The morals being presented will be judged by others as well, based on their worth.

Even if lying is okay to you, and I'm assuming it really isn't, I'm not wrong to criticize you, for being critical is a right that I have. However, if lying is deemed a better virtue, it doesn't matter if I criticize you, for only I will agree with myself.

What's great is when we both agree on a set of morals, when we set the standard together, working towards what we deem the common good, would you agree? For instance, I brought up Hitler. I think it's safe to say that both you and I would condemn his actions.

Now, using the same reasoning that would bring someone to the conclusion that Hitler is a bad guy because of his atrocities, why not god too? Why does the god of the bible get a pass on his atrocities?

If the Quran sets up a standard for morals just like the Bible does, why then, do the Muslims not get a pass for their atrocities? Aren't they following the guidelines of their holy book just like you are? What makes that any different from you?

(July 11, 2013 at 12:20 am)Consilius Wrote: Hitler was condemned by pretty much everyone else outside the Nazi party because he was wrong. Antisemitism was never right and never will be. He deviated from an ultimate moral standard and was opposed by a world mostly in touch with this standard.

So then why was slavery okay? Why was oppression of the blacks okay? Was that also always wrong? How is that any different from the antisemetism of the Nazi party?

(July 11, 2013 at 12:20 am)Consilius Wrote: Christ died a criminal. His own disciples left him. Until Pentecost, he was simply a good story. Famous singers stop performing and we forget about them and move on, in the same way Christ was uninteresting to a people that didn't hear him speak or perform miracles anymore. Nobody had any motive to take serious action in his name. Not to mention that most of those who were in Jerusalem at the time of Pentecost were foreigners from outside Palestine, hence the speaking in tongues.

That's an interesting way to look at the Pentecost scene, but it doesn't change what I said. It actually supports it. What are you getting at here? Are we just exchanging interesting Bible stories now, or do you have a point? If it's the former, then we should start a new thread for that.

(July 11, 2013 at 12:20 am)Consilius Wrote:

(July 10, 2013 at 1:12 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: Life is unfair. Justice is not perfect. Sometimes bad people get away without punishment. Sometimes good people are punished for acts they did not commit. It comforts theists to believe that all bad people will suffer after death if they escape punishment during life, but the fact of the matter is that the universe simply does not care about humanity. There is no retribution after death, and for some illogical reason that fact frightens theists more than the sociopathic glee they experience thinking souls suffer at the hands of a tyrant deity.

Mainstream Christianity has never placed any specific person in hell. We do not imagine people in hell to satisfy ourselves. The decision of what happens to souls when they die is up to God, and we don't claim to have any knowledge of what that decision will be. Who are we to claim to know the morals and motives of even the likes of Adolf Hitler? All humanity has the authority to say is that what he physically brought to the world was bad. What were your motives of posting that about Christians?

So it wouldn't comfort you to think that a person that raped your daughter and got away with it was going to hell after this life?

I suppose it wouldn't matter anyway if he repented of his sins before he died. Heh, you could throw a big reunion in heaven with the former Rapist. I mean, him being there is a just thing in the eyes of Yahweh.

(July 11, 2013 at 12:20 am)Consilius Wrote: Now we know that parthenogenesis CAN occur, so this means that it has become more likely that there WAS a virgin birth as described in the Bible, contradictory to what BWS had tried to say before. I think we're done here.

That's called special pleading. You can use science to prove your presupposition of a virgin birth all you want. But if you try to explain it with parthenogenesis, you're forgetting that it takes the miracle out of the event, and replaces it with something that occurs naturally (however rare a case that may have been). You can be done here if you want, but I'm never done exposing bullshit excuses for a false book.

Contradiction my ass.

(July 11, 2013 at 12:20 am)Consilius Wrote: Again we get the traditional notion of hell. Hell is only punishment to those that avoid it, because hell is a place where God's presence cannot be felt. Those who willingly reject God spend eternity without him. Flames and worms are extraneous and there is no reason to believe they are there.

How do you know that?

(July 11, 2013 at 12:20 am)Consilius Wrote: God has always had objectives. His prime objective is to draw people closer to him. We exist so we can be drawn closer to him. God is a force. A force needs a body to act upon. This not an urgent need, as this force can exist independent of any body, being eternal and self-sufficient. God selflessly made us so he could provide for us. He desires not to only sustain himself but to sustain others. Because God is the force of love.

God doesn't love us if he has his son spouting bullshit like this:
Matthew 19:24
"..It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

So god loves everyone...unless you're rich. Or homosexual. Or a woman. Or a pagan.

I'm reminded of the verse that explains that god made certain people as vessels of wrath in order to juxtapose the good and the bad in the world. How thoughtful of him!

Romans 9:22
"What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:"

According to Romans, it's implied that he made such people on purpose. God is sometimes like a little imp from myth that enjoys making mischief in the world.

(July 11, 2013 at 9:59 am)Faith No More Wrote:

(July 11, 2013 at 12:20 am)Consilius Wrote: Again we get the traditional notion of hell. Hell is only punishment to those that avoid it, because hell is a place where God's presence cannot be felt. Those who willingly reject God spend eternity without him. Flames and worms are extraneous and there is no reason to believe they are there.

Your god is everything good, yes? Spending eternity apart from everything good would be torment, no? Sugarcoat it all you want. Your god unnecessarily created a place of eternal unpleasantness. That is love?

(July 11, 2013 at 12:20 am)Consilius Wrote: God has always had objectives. His prime objective is to draw people closer to him. We exist so we can be drawn closer to him. God is a force. A force needs a body to act upon. This not an urgent need, as this force can exist independent of any body, being eternal and self-sufficient. God selflessly made us so he could provide for us. He desires not to only sustain himself but to sustain others. Because God is the force of love.

You're just making vacuous assertions to try and explain your previous vacuous assertions. It's all platitudinous nonsense that only conveys sentiment and no substance. Unless you can provide something of meaning, I'd say this discussion has played itself out.

Those who embrace evil deliberately refuse God. They freely choose that God is not for them; that they don't want it.

Howsabout those of us who "freely choose good" ; which leads to our not wanting anything to do with your god?