(May 8, 2014 at 5:21 am)Godschild Wrote: I do not worry about what others think of me, there are to many important things in life that need my attention.

GC

Then why don't you fuck off and go do them.

(May 8, 2014 at 9:09 am)Chas Wrote:

(May 8, 2014 at 5:21 am)Godschild Wrote: I do not worry about what others think of me, there are to many important things in life that need my attention.

GC

Then why don't you fuck off and go do them.

He doesn't care what others think about him, but he does care if those other people are or aren't pissed off, and he's got a mission to accomplish, dammit! It's in the Bible. Something about fishing for guys or Internet trolling, or something. He's doing the Lord's good work, here, and it shows.

(May 5, 2014 at 9:51 am)RobbyPants Wrote: Yes it is. your magical third option is that God magically made it/waited so that there were no babies so no babies were killed, thus absolving your god from having killed babies.

To clarify, my third option is simply for the expressed purpose of showing the either-or fallacy. It is in no way addressing whether or not God would require absolution from killing babies.

(May 5, 2014 at 9:51 am)RobbyPants Wrote: I admitted that it is a possible third option. I'll agree it was an either or fallacy if you admit your third option is one you're making up with no evidence to paint a prettier picture.

I would hope you would admit the either-or fallacy for the sake of your own logical integrity rather than to get something from me.

(May 5, 2014 at 9:51 am)RobbyPants Wrote: The point is, you accept your apologetics based on not understanding another's point of view. You don't question the morality of your god and choose to blame "the wicked".

1. How do you know I've never questioned the morality of my God?
2. What is the other point of view and how am I not understanding it?
3. Out of curiosity, if you catch your child doing something wrong do you punish yourself and absolve your child?

(May 5, 2014 at 9:51 am)RobbyPants Wrote: No. There's no evidence he's real. It's also a non sequitur. Jesus wasn't mentioned in the flood story.

On the contrary the flood story was written about Him. 18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

(May 5, 2014 at 9:51 am)RobbyPants Wrote: The difference here is I don't believe the hypothetical analogy I set up. You either do believe that demographics were different (so God wouldn't kill babies), or you don't believe that, and you're just submitting it as a hypothetical to be pedantic.

You've created a false dichotomy and a complex question. Perhaps I believe that either are possibilities, neither are conclusive. But if I don't believe the demographics were different but propose it anyway, that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm submitting it as a hypothetical to be pedantic. I could also believe that while I cannot know for sure, I do believe it is possible because the account does not contradict my conclusion. Perhaps I'm proposing it to be intellectually honest.

(May 5, 2014 at 9:51 am)RobbyPants Wrote: The point is, that's how you sound when you posit a "maybe it was really this way even though I don't have any reason to believe it" argument.

Just one more time, I do have reason to believe it, but that is completely irrelevant to the topic of conversation. The statement was made to address the either-or fallacy.

(May 5, 2014 at 9:51 am)RobbyPants Wrote: I never said the Bible said there were children.

So we can agree there's no Biblical evidence that contradicts my conclusion.

(May 5, 2014 at 9:51 am)RobbyPants Wrote: The point is: you are making the assertion there were no children to absolve your god.

Previously addressed.

(May 5, 2014 at 9:51 am)RobbyPants Wrote: It is reasonable to assume there were children because that's the normal state of being for human populations.

But not a requirement. So while possible, not proof. Humanity could stop having children for 30 years, start again, and humanity would continue. In that instance there would be no one under the age of 10 for 20 years.

(May 5, 2014 at 9:51 am)RobbyPants Wrote: The flood story didn't mention gravity, the sun rising in the east, or that people needed to breath oxygen and couldn't breath under water. Why aren't you arguing against those things?

Because those topics are not relevant to the premises of the argument, namely why didn't God use 'magic' to save the children.


Back to the original post, just rephrase your argument in such a way as to eliminate the either-or fallacy and lets move on.

Secondly I do not accept some of the presuppositions to your argument. Prove the following:

1. There were children at the time of the flood.
2. God didn't use "magic" to save them.

(May 7, 2014 at 2:47 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Food for thought for those that cling to belief in the Noah's Ark myth:

The stated reason for the flood was to rid the world of wickedness, evil, violence and corruption (Gen 6). This is the Almighty creator of the Universe's plan for ridding his creation of wickedness.

While it is true that God destroyed the world because man was these things (Genesis 6:6-7), that doesn't necessarily mean that it was done as a 'solution' for them. For Cthulhu Dreaming, Crossless1, Faith No More, Minimalist, and Tonus, what is the Biblical support for your statement that the 'reason for the flood was to rid the world of wickedness, evil, violence, and corruption?'

(May 13, 2014 at 12:22 am)orangebox21 Wrote: While it is true that God destroyed the world because man was these things (Genesis 6:6-7), that doesn't necessarily mean that it was done as a 'solution' for them. For Cthulhu Dreaming, Crossless1, Faith No More, Minimalist, and Tonus, what is the Biblical support for your statement that the 'reason for the flood was to rid the world of wickedness, evil, violence, and corruption?'

Well if it's not going to fix the problem then what the fuck is with the genocide? Even fucking Hitler thought his pogrom was going to resolve an issue, and you're telling me that god just did it for shits and fucking giggles?

(May 13, 2014 at 12:22 am)orangebox21 Wrote: While it is true that God destroyed the world because man was these things (Genesis 6:6-7), that doesn't necessarily mean that it was done as a 'solution' for them. For Cthulhu Dreaming, Crossless1, Faith No More, Minimalist, and Tonus, what is the Biblical support for your statement that the 'reason for the flood was to rid the world of wickedness, evil, violence, and corruption?'

Errr... because that is exactly what the verses say:

Genesis 6:6-7 Wrote:The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

God proposed to bring the flood to wipe out humanity because it had become so wicked. That would have certainly rid the world of wickedness, evil, violence, and corruption. And if god hadn't second-guessed himself, his solution would have worked.

(May 13, 2014 at 5:49 am)Tonus Wrote:

(May 13, 2014 at 12:22 am)orangebox21 Wrote: While it is true that God destroyed the world because man was these things (Genesis 6:6-7), that doesn't necessarily mean that it was done as a 'solution' for them. For Cthulhu Dreaming, Crossless1, Faith No More, Minimalist, and Tonus, what is the Biblical support for your statement that the 'reason for the flood was to rid the world of wickedness, evil, violence, and corruption?'

Errr... because that is exactly what the verses say:

Genesis 6:6-7 Wrote:The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

God proposed to bring the flood to wipe out humanity because it had become so wicked. That would have certainly rid the world of wickedness, evil, violence, and corruption. And if god hadn't second-guessed himself, his solution would have worked.

An omnipotent and omniscient being having "regrets?"

I'm not entirely sure those words belong in the same sentence.

(May 13, 2014 at 12:22 am)orangebox21 Wrote:

(May 5, 2014 at 9:51 am)RobbyPants Wrote: I admitted that it is a possible third option. I'll agree it was an either or fallacy if you admit your third option is one you're making up with no evidence to paint a prettier picture.

I would hope you would admit the either-or fallacy for the sake of your own logical integrity rather than to get something from me.

Well, I did admit it. Do you admit that there is no evidence for your alternate claim?

In order to posit a third way to show my false dichotomy, you had to make a baseless claim and say that it's possible because I can't prove it wrong. It's getting dangerously close to an argument from ignorance.

(May 13, 2014 at 12:22 am)orangebox21 Wrote: 2. What is the other point of view and how am I not understanding it?

You said "I've never understood the 'blame God for my/peoples actions' argument.".

I responded "I've never understood this "God kills children for their parent's mistakes" argument.".

You're choosing to look at this as a notion of me (or others?) thinking that we blame God for people being bad and that you don't understand that. I'm saying that I don't understand the aspect of apologists condoning God punishing children for their parent's mistakes. That doesn't appear moral to me. If you can dismiss the basis of what I'm saying based on "not understanding it", I'm illustrating how I can similarly dismiss your counters.

The point is you do something, and when I flip it to show you why it's not valid, you say "no fair" when I do it.

(May 13, 2014 at 12:22 am)orangebox21 Wrote: 3. Out of curiosity, if you catch your child doing something wrong do you punish yourself and absolve your child?

No. I also lack some of the traits that Almighty God allegedly has, so I'm not sure the point of the question.

(May 13, 2014 at 12:22 am)orangebox21 Wrote: Secondly I do not accept some of the presuppositions to your argument. Prove the following:

1. There were children at the time of the flood.
2. God didn't use "magic" to save them.

Well, neither case are in the story, nor is there any evidence that the story is even real, so to assert that it is the case is an argument from ignorance. If you're just going to backpeddle a bit and say "I'm not saying it's true, I'm just throwing it out there", then I'll throw out my unicorn theory:

A unicorn impaled all the children on its own volition before the flood, so there were no living children at the time of the flood, and God was not responsible for drowning them. Go ahead: prove it didn't happen. If you can't prove that it didn't happen, do you then have to take that claim seriously?

(May 13, 2014 at 1:17 am)Esquilax Wrote: Well if it's not going to fix the problem then what the fuck is with the genocide?

The flood did resolve an issue, just not the one some here are claiming it was meant to. God chose to fix the problem (rid the world of wickedness) at another time and in another way.

(May 13, 2014 at 1:17 am)Esquilax Wrote: Even fucking Hitler thought his pogrom was going to resolve an issue, and you're telling me that god just did it for shits and fucking giggles?

God's reasons are stated within the text, it was because of the wickedness of mankind.

(May 13, 2014 at 5:49 am)Tonus Wrote: God proposed to bring the flood to wipe out humanity because it had become so wicked.

Valid.

(May 13, 2014 at 5:49 am)Tonus Wrote: That would have certainly rid the world of wickedness, evil, violence, and corruption. And if god hadn't second-guessed himself, his solution would have worked.

Invalid conclusion. You're reading something into the text that isn't there. Here are the propositional statements of the text:

The Lord saw how great the wickedness of humankind on earth.
God saw that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.
God's heart was deeply troubled.
God regrets having made them (mankind).
So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created.
So the Lord said, "I will wipe from the face of the earth the animals."
So the Lord said, "I will wipe from the face of the earth the birds."
So the Lord said, "I will wipe from the face of the earth the creatures that move along the ground."

From these given propositions, you cannot logically infer that God wiped from the face of the earth all mankind to rid the world of wickedness.

(May 13, 2014 at 7:02 am)Hoopington Wrote: An omnipotent and omniscient being having "regrets?"

I'm not entirely sure those words belong in the same sentence.

Why not?

(May 13, 2014 at 9:22 am)RobbyPants Wrote: In order to posit a third way to show my false dichotomy, you had to make a baseless claim and say that it's possible because I can't prove it wrong. It's getting dangerously close to an argument from ignorance.

Not baseless. It is consistent with the account in question. Again, refer to burden of proof discussion and to previous discussion on evidence.

(May 13, 2014 at 9:22 am)RobbyPants Wrote: You're choosing to look at this as a notion of me (or others?) thinking that we blame God for people being bad and that you don't understand that. I'm saying that I don't understand the aspect of apologists condoning God punishing children for their parent's mistakes. That doesn't appear moral to me. If you can dismiss the basis of what I'm saying based on "not understanding it", I'm illustrating how I can similarly dismiss your counters.

The point is you do something, and when I flip it to show you why it's not valid, you say "no fair" when I do it.

My mistake. I think I understand you now. Let me rephrase so as to not appear to me making an argument from ignorance. People are accountable for their own actions. God is justified in holding people accountable for their actions. Therefore God is justified in punishing people for their actions. This is in opposition to the argument that God is wrong to judge/punish people.

(May 13, 2014 at 9:22 am)RobbyPants Wrote:

Quote:3. Out of curiosity, if you catch your child doing something wrong do you punish yourself and absolve your child?

No. I also lack some of the traits that Almighty God allegedly has, so I'm not sure the point of the question.

Sorry for the confusion, the point is that we recognize that people are responsible for their own actions.

(May 13, 2014 at 9:22 am)RobbyPants Wrote:

---

Quote:Secondly I do not accept some of the presuppositions to your argument. Prove the following:

1. There were children at the time of the flood.
2. God didn't use "magic" to save them.

Well, neither case are in the story, nor is there any evidence that the story is even real, so to assert that it is the case is an argument from ignorance. If you're just going to backpeddle a bit and say "I'm not saying it's true, I'm just throwing it out there",

then I'll throw out my unicorn theory:
A unicorn impaled all the children on its own volition before the flood, so there were no living children at the time of the flood, and God was not responsible for drowning them.
Go ahead: prove it didn't happen.
This is a statement that shifts the burden of proof.
If you can't prove that it didn't happen, do you then have to take that claim seriously?

---