View Single Post
Old 15th February 2017, 11:17 PM
ptutt ptutt is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 240
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Stubby said View Post
Of course I do. But it wasn't inherent. I was taught it as I was raised. Like all humans. You claimed inherent knowledge. Prove it or retract it please.

Then you should have been able to answer the question, because you haven't. You have re-framed it to suit your purposes.

Re the bolded bit - no, everyone dies from lack of oxygen to the brain. please prove otherwise. Otherwise it is only your belief that everyone dies at the hand of god.

There has never been any actual reliable evidence that our lives are anything more than what we have here in the physical world. You are again re-framing the question and making massive, bigly claims without a skerrick of evidence.

And what, exactly is good about that? A murderer goes to prison for killing a child, but if god does it he gets a free fucking pass? Give me a break. You do realise you are making excuses for the execution for virtually all children on the planet, and that your excuse is nothing more than your own personal unsubstantiated belief don't you? It is amoral and you are amoral.

No I didn't, as it is irrelevant. How do you know there IS a better alternative? From reading the same book that says it was OK to murder all of the people on the planet?

Not in my argument. Of course, as you continue to practice wilful cognitive dissonance there is on your part.

And yet you do. Go figure.

This is just semantics. We ARE changing our views on what is moral because we ARE learning new stuff by the minute. Hence - not objective.

Then why did you bring it up? Wasn't my term. If you are now saying that you cannot prove there is a perfect being then please publicly acknowledge that such is the case.

Point spectacularly missed. The point is that at that time when the bible was written, it was considered moral for a god to kill everything. Now, educated people have more respect for all life. Clearly, you don't.

Firstly, regarding that last sentence, that was a spectacular failure then wasn't it? Just like all the other times this cosmic nitwit has fucked everything up.

Secondly, I sincerely hope you do not have pets.

1. Bow down in slavery. Yeah that was held to be moral in biblical times wasn't it? I forgot that. Silly me. I mean the fact that humanity has finally learned that humans should not own other humans since then can be ignored. /snark.
2. And yet it was forced on everyone who had not heard the bible words in the flood myth.
3. see 2.

You still haven't proved that morals are objective because you are deliberately seeing everything through god-coloured glasses. And your paragraph trying to justify cruelty to animals makes we want to go shower. Yes or no question: "Would you kick a puppy in the head"?
before I respond to this, could you please frame your line of reasoning?
You seem to be attacking the consistency of God's morality as depicted in the bible, but then you are not accepting reasoning based on the presumption that God exists? If you want to assess if his actions are moral you need to presume that he exists to make such an assessment. To be clear, this is not a proof of God's existence...but just an assessment on whether it could be accepted if his actions could possibly be moral if he existed.