Go Back   AFA Forums > Religion, Unreason and Similar Tropes > Belief Central

Belief Central A place for the discussion of belief or a colony for repeated logical fallacies or misrepresentations.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #1221  
Old 15th March 2017, 07:00 PM
ptutt ptutt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 240
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
Stubby said View Post
Not by reading your comments in this thread, you don’t.



Yeah I know you argue that. But you haven’t proved it yet.



Repeating over and over and over again doesn’t make it true.



That’s at least the 2nd time you have promised to address this misunderstanding and yet here we are and you still haven’t.



Of course morality has improved – at the very least we as a species now accept that the whole planet shouldn’t be killed off for not following arbitrary rules. Careful of what?



You are splitting hairs here. You were trying to justify the drowning of all animal life except for the magically not eating each other 2x2 on the ark when you made the claim, by cheapening the suffering of all those animals, so you could give your god a free pass:

Extracted from post 1086.



Nope. Really not up to me to prove it. You yourself have admitted that you wouldn’t want to commit unnecessary suffering, which proves you wrong yet again in that the folks around at the time of the bible thought it was quite ok to carve up animals as sacrifices etc.



You are the one who claims that god is real. You are really grasping at straws here.



FFS. You brought up the question about whether animals feel pain as an attempt to explain away your god’s actions. You have now conceded that you wouldn’t want to cause unnecessary pain. See now how morals have evolved?



This does not even begin to prove your assertion. There is zero evidence that your allegation is true. On the contrary, we may take notice of the fact that every human death has been caused by lack of oxygen to the brain. This fact alone is enough to dismiss your fanciful idea that god has caused every human death. As for the morality of your idea, good on him for making all the little kids that die of hunger each day go through so much suffering first.

Or don’t starving foreigners feel pain either?
To suggest that morality today is better than before you would need to provide some measure used to determine what is moral. What measure do you use? Is it objective? If not, aren't you really saying "it feels to you like morality is better today than before"?

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
  #1222  
Old 15th March 2017, 07:16 PM
Stubby's Avatar
Stubby Stubby is online now
Omu'sata
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 2,184
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
ptutt said View Post
To suggest that morality today is better than before you would need to provide some measure used to determine what is moral.
Yep and that standard is what humanity knows to be moral based on all available information at the time.

Quote:
ptutt said View Post
What measure do you use?
The collective wisdom of tens of thousands of years of information and understanding.

Quote:
ptutt said View Post
Is it objective?
Nope.

Quote:
ptutt said View Post
If not, aren't you really saying "it feels to you like morality is better today than before"?
Nope.

I am saying precisely what I said. Which is that morality evolves as we learn stuff. This is not difficult, ptutt.
__________________
"Send me money, send me green, heaven you will meet. Make your contribution and you'll get a better seat" - Metallica, Leper Messiah
  #1223  
Old 15th March 2017, 07:22 PM
wolty's Avatar
wolty wolty is offline
See you at the snow....
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 23,996
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
Darwinsbulldog said View Post

No, you just let the arse gravy pour out of what passes, in your case, for a "brain". Worse, where is your heart? You disgust me.
Mod Note: DB is having a little holiday for this.

__________________
.
.
.


The Nizkor Project- Logical Fallacies

Atheist: n; A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
  #1224  
Old 15th March 2017, 07:30 PM
bruce1937's Avatar
bruce1937 bruce1937 is online now
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Kilmore
Posts: 2,526
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
wolty said View Post
Quote:
Darwinsbulldog said View Post

No, you just let the arse gravy pour out of what passes, in your case, for a "brain". Worse, where is your heart? You disgust me.
Mod Note: DB is having a little holiday for this.


DB may have received a slap on the wrist for his post but what he has said is what many are thinking, it is way beyond time for ptutt to be consigned to the waste bin for his continued obfuscation and general lack of integrity.
__________________
The meaning of your life, is what you choose to make it.
  #1225  
Old 15th March 2017, 07:35 PM
Svadifari's Avatar
Svadifari Svadifari is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 415
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
ptutt said View Post
Nothing I said suggests I am an anti-vaxer so your rant is unwarranted.

So you are willing to support actions causing millions of innocent babies to suffer by being poked with needles. You justify this by saying the suffering is temporary and the result is for the greater good. Is that correct?

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
Getting a jab is suffering?
You have absolutely no idea what the word means.
Suffering is not an event, it's a state of being. Much like ignorance.
__________________
Almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so. – Robert A. Heinlein
Like two dogs liked this post
  #1226  
Old 15th March 2017, 07:37 PM
The Irreverent Mr Black's Avatar
The Irreverent Mr Black The Irreverent Mr Black is offline
Caf-fiend
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Toontown
Posts: 2,885
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
bruce1937 said View Post
DB may have received a slap on the wrist for his post but what he has said is what many are thinking, it is way beyond time for ptutt to be consigned to the waste bin for his continued obfuscation and general lack of integrity.
I was with Sir Pup right up to the personal abuse.

Then, I went back through this thread. I am not a young man, and I deeply regret wasting a portion of my remaining time on what was, for the most part, a fairly tasteless waffle.

What I would really like to see, if ptutt and others are agreeable, is a short, non-poetic, exchange of arguments in "pretend this is Twitter" pithy, dot-point form.

I am convinced some fine projectiles have been lost in the pervasive smoke.
__________________

If you take something apart and put it back together enough times,
eventually you will have two of them - Matt Roberds

Like lulu liked this post
  #1227  
Old 15th March 2017, 08:22 PM
Goldenmane's Avatar
Goldenmane Goldenmane is offline
Cuss-tard
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 7,137
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
ptutt said View Post
If the God as described in the bible exists, then He is sovereign and all things (including life and death) are under His control.
Not really.

There really isn't such a thing as "the God [...] described in the Bible". There's no coherent throughline to the character, no consistency. Is YHVH a mountain god carried around in a box, or the creator of everything? Is he one of a pantheon who acknowledges the existence of other gods, or is he the only god? Is he a vicious simpering pustule content to actively extend the suffering of his chosen people in slavery just so he can do more fucking magic tricks, or is he the ultimate dispenser of compassion? Is he the maker and fount of both good and evil, or is he subject to them?

The Biblical accounts of this celestial figment don't paint anything like a coherent picture. That's why theologians have wasted untold millions of hours attempting to concoct excuses for the contradictory bullshit inherited from ignorant goatfuckers, and it's why ptutt has signally failed to present anything approaching an intelligible defence of the claim for the motherfucker's existence.

See, you can't use the Bible to defend the modern conception of the ineffable all-powerful multi-omni peeping Tom, because almost nothing in the fucking Bible goes any way toward describing such a beast, and the vast preponderance of Biblical blithering describes something both far more impressive and far more obviously the product of human confabulation.

I'd even go so far as to say that you can't really start at the Bible and arrive at the thing most modern, semi-sophisticated Christians mean when they refer to their God. Which is hardly surprising, considering how few of them have actually studied their supposedly holy texts.
__________________
-Geoff Rogers

@Goldenmane3

Like The Irreverent Mr Black liked this post
  #1228  
Old 15th March 2017, 08:27 PM
pipbarber's Avatar
pipbarber pipbarber is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

i"ve eaten so much popcorn reading this thread i feel sick. I dont really want to enter this thread because its kind of silly now but i've made some terrible life decisions and i dont reckon this will rate that high, so what the hell!

I'll venture a question if i may. What event or occurrence in the world would convince you, Ptutt, that the Christian worldview and its associated moral objectivity, is myth?
  #1229  
Old 15th March 2017, 11:08 PM
ptutt ptutt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 240
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
Stubby said View Post
Yep and that standard is what humanity knows to be moral based on all available information at the time.



The collective wisdom of tens of thousands of years of information and understanding.



Nope.



Nope.

I am saying precisely what I said. Which is that morality evolves as we learn stuff. This is not difficult, ptutt.
No, you didn't say that morality has evolved, you said improved. The difference being is improvement implies movement towards a goal, whereas evolve just implies change. So are you moving away from saying morality has improved?

How do you use "wisdom" to measure moral actions?
  #1230  
Old 15th March 2017, 11:46 PM
ptutt ptutt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 240
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
pipbarber said View Post
i"ve eaten so much popcorn reading this thread i feel sick. I dont really want to enter this thread because its kind of silly now but i've made some terrible life decisions and i dont reckon this will rate that high, so what the hell!

I'll venture a question if i may. What event or occurrence in the world would convince you, Ptutt, that the Christian worldview and its associated moral objectivity, is myth?
Possibly if receive a diagnosis that I have a mental illness and cannot determine reality. This could explain and counter my personal experience and perception of the world and God's presence.

I think primarily the basis for belief in God is within.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 12:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.