Total Posts:213|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

WLC and genocide.

Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 8:51:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Does it disturb anyone else that William Lane Craig provides justification for genocide commanded by Yahweh?

"I would say that God has the right to give and take life as he sees fit. Children die all the time! If you believe in the salvation, as I do, of children, who die, what that meant is that the death of these children meant their salvation. People look at this [genocide] and think life ends at the grave but in fact this was the salvation of these children, who were far better dead"than being raised in this Canaanite culture. "

https://www.youtube.com...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 8:58:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's typical of Abrahamic moral schizophrenia where the Abrahamic god is nice here and cruel there, same as the believers following this man-made construct of a god.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 9:03:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't agree with Craig's insinuation that genocide could be justified on the basis of it being mercy killing, but I do agree with him that God has the right to take life whenever he sees fit. That doesn't bother me at all. It seems perfectly appropriate. We sometimes object to people "playing God" when it comes to end of life issues because we think it's inappropriate for people to play God, but surely it's perfectly appropriate for God to play God.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 9:20:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 8:51:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Does it disturb anyone else that William Lane Craig provides justification for genocide commanded by Yahweh?

"I would say that God has the right to give and take life as he sees fit. Children die all the time! If you believe in the salvation, as I do, of children, who die, what that meant is that the death of these children meant their salvation. People look at this [genocide] and think life ends at the grave but in fact this was the salvation of these children, who were far better dead"than being raised in this Canaanite culture. "

https://www.youtube.com...

Nope. Not me.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 9:34:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 9:20:52 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/10/2014 8:51:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Does it disturb anyone else that William Lane Craig provides justification for genocide commanded by Yahweh?

"I would say that God has the right to give and take life as he sees fit. Children die all the time! If you believe in the salvation, as I do, of children, who die, what that meant is that the death of these children meant their salvation. People look at this [genocide] and think life ends at the grave but in fact this was the salvation of these children, who were far better dead"than being raised in this Canaanite culture. "

https://www.youtube.com...

Nope. Not me.

Meaning you agree with him?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 9:35:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 9:34:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:20:52 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/10/2014 8:51:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Does it disturb anyone else that William Lane Craig provides justification for genocide commanded by Yahweh?

"I would say that God has the right to give and take life as he sees fit. Children die all the time! If you believe in the salvation, as I do, of children, who die, what that meant is that the death of these children meant their salvation. People look at this [genocide] and think life ends at the grave but in fact this was the salvation of these children, who were far better dead"than being raised in this Canaanite culture. "

https://www.youtube.com...

Nope. Not me.

Meaning you agree with him?

Yes.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 9:44:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 9:35:22 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:34:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:20:52 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/10/2014 8:51:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Does it disturb anyone else that William Lane Craig provides justification for genocide commanded by Yahweh?

"I would say that God has the right to give and take life as he sees fit. Children die all the time! If you believe in the salvation, as I do, of children, who die, what that meant is that the death of these children meant their salvation. People look at this [genocide] and think life ends at the grave but in fact this was the salvation of these children, who were far better dead"than being raised in this Canaanite culture. "

https://www.youtube.com...

Nope. Not me.

Meaning you agree with him?

Yes.

With all due respect, (it doesn't require any) that is completely psychopathic reasoning that can be used to justify killing of your family, coworkers, and/or random people. Should we be watching for you on the news?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 9:48:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 9:05:48 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
Just a question: Why do you Atheist think that genocide is wrong?

More importantly, (assuming you agree with Craig) why does it bother you that I find it wrong?!
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 9:51:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 9:44:25 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:35:22 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:34:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:20:52 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/10/2014 8:51:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Does it disturb anyone else that William Lane Craig provides justification for genocide commanded by Yahweh?

"I would say that God has the right to give and take life as he sees fit. Children die all the time! If you believe in the salvation, as I do, of children, who die, what that meant is that the death of these children meant their salvation. People look at this [genocide] and think life ends at the grave but in fact this was the salvation of these children, who were far better dead"than being raised in this Canaanite culture. "

https://www.youtube.com...

Nope. Not me.

Meaning you agree with him?

Yes.

With all due respect, (it doesn't require any) that is completely psychopathic reasoning that can be used to justify killing of your family, coworkers, and/or random people. Should we be watching for you on the news?

Perhaps you should, lol (not actually laughing out loud).
But anyhow, if God exists (an assumption that makes this discussion possible), then Heaven exists and Hell exists. Life on Earth is temporary, and if death on Earth (you're gonna die eventually anyway) results in eternal life in Heaven, then it's a worthwhile bargain.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 9:51:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 9:45:14 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
A tad hypocritical if you believe that all morality is subjective.

Not at all. Is this your "objective" moral source?! Don't talk to me about hypocritical.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 9:57:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 9:51:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:45:14 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
A tad hypocritical if you believe that all morality is subjective.

Not at all. Is this your "objective" moral source?! Don't talk to me about hypocritical.

No, because I never claimed objective morality was dependent on the Judeo-Christian God nor the Bible. I guess if you don't want to be hypocritical, you'd agree that it's your meritless opinion that genocide is wrong. Anyone believing genocide is acceptable is just as correct as you are saying it isn't.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 10:17:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 9:51:07 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:44:25 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:35:22 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:34:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:20:52 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/10/2014 8:51:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Does it disturb anyone else that William Lane Craig provides justification for genocide commanded by Yahweh?

"I would say that God has the right to give and take life as he sees fit. Children die all the time! If you believe in the salvation, as I do, of children, who die, what that meant is that the death of these children meant their salvation. People look at this [genocide] and think life ends at the grave but in fact this was the salvation of these children, who were far better dead"than being raised in this Canaanite culture. "

https://www.youtube.com...

Nope. Not me.

Meaning you agree with him?

Yes.

With all due respect, (it doesn't require any) that is completely psychopathic reasoning that can be used to justify killing of your family, coworkers, and/or random people. Should we be watching for you on the news?

Perhaps you should, lol (not actually laughing out loud).
But anyhow, if God exists (an assumption that makes this discussion possible), then Heaven exists and Hell exists. Life on Earth is temporary, and if death on Earth (you're gonna die eventually anyway) results in eternal life in Heaven, then it's a worthwhile bargain.

...and you guys say atheism is dismal. You celebrate death as though it is the whole point of your existence. Life is the point of life, not death. So taking someone's life (let alone all of a race) because you (or god) decides their purpose, in spite of claims to freely choose or deny god, is reprehensibly wrong according to your own god's rules!

If that is the Christian god, he is a schizophrenic, psychopathic Jekyll and Hyde not worthy of being worshipped.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 10:27:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 9:57:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:51:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:45:14 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
A tad hypocritical if you believe that all morality is subjective.

Not at all. Is this your "objective" moral source?! Don't talk to me about hypocritical.

No, because I never claimed objective morality was dependent on the Judeo-Christian God nor the Bible. I guess if you don't want to be hypocritical, you'd agree that it's your meritless opinion that genocide is wrong. Anyone believing genocide is acceptable is just as correct as you are saying it isn't.

Ahh, playing your source close to the vest, eh? I bet I can establish your source is subjective. There is no objective source. We can look back through history and establish that fairly easily. We can look at the modern era as well.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 10:35:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 10:27:18 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:57:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:51:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:45:14 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
A tad hypocritical if you believe that all morality is subjective.

Not at all. Is this your "objective" moral source?! Don't talk to me about hypocritical.

No, because I never claimed objective morality was dependent on the Judeo-Christian God nor the Bible. I guess if you don't want to be hypocritical, you'd agree that it's your meritless opinion that genocide is wrong. Anyone believing genocide is acceptable is just as correct as you are saying it isn't.

Ahh, playing your source close to the vest, eh? I bet I can establish your source is subjective. There is no objective source. We can look back through history and establish that fairly easily. We can look at the modern era as well.

Then you agree that your own opinion on genocide is subjective and meritless. Just as the opinion that genocide is acceptable is.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 10:37:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 10:17:37 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:51:07 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:44:25 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:35:22 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:34:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:20:52 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/10/2014 8:51:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Does it disturb anyone else that William Lane Craig provides justification for genocide commanded by Yahweh?

"I would say that God has the right to give and take life as he sees fit. Children die all the time! If you believe in the salvation, as I do, of children, who die, what that meant is that the death of these children meant their salvation. People look at this [genocide] and think life ends at the grave but in fact this was the salvation of these children, who were far better dead"than being raised in this Canaanite culture. "

https://www.youtube.com...

Nope. Not me.

Meaning you agree with him?

Yes.

With all due respect, (it doesn't require any) that is completely psychopathic reasoning that can be used to justify killing of your family, coworkers, and/or random people. Should we be watching for you on the news?

Perhaps you should, lol (not actually laughing out loud).
But anyhow, if God exists (an assumption that makes this discussion possible), then Heaven exists and Hell exists. Life on Earth is temporary, and if death on Earth (you're gonna die eventually anyway) results in eternal life in Heaven, then it's a worthwhile bargain.

...and you guys say atheism is dismal. You celebrate death as though it is the whole point of your existence. Life is the point of life, not death. So taking someone's life (let alone all of a race) because you (or god) decides their purpose, in spite of claims to freely choose or deny god, is reprehensibly wrong according to your own god's rules!

If that is the Christian god, he is a schizophrenic, psychopathic Jekyll and Hyde not worthy of being worshipped.

Indeed, life is the point of life, whatever that means. But this life is not the only life that there is. If we all died utterly painful deaths here, it's be only temporary because of the life to come in Heaven (or Hell).
The babies who would've grown up under the Canaanites would be so entrenched in their immoral culture and indoctrinated by their culture that they wouldn't really have that much of a choice to accept God. The lure of sin in those cultures would've been too strong to resist, meaning that they wouldn't really have a choice in the matter.
Doubtless you will find a way to reason around this. But the Bible says that God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts. We cannot possibly understand what He is thinking; unless God explicitly tells us, we can only speculate.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 11:17:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 10:37:47 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/10/2014 10:17:37 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:51:07 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:44:25 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:35:22 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:34:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:20:52 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/10/2014 8:51:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Does it disturb anyone else that William Lane Craig provides justification for genocide commanded by Yahweh?

"I would say that God has the right to give and take life as he sees fit. Children die all the time! If you believe in the salvation, as I do, of children, who die, what that meant is that the death of these children meant their salvation. People look at this [genocide] and think life ends at the grave but in fact this was the salvation of these children, who were far better dead"than being raised in this Canaanite culture. "

https://www.youtube.com...

Nope. Not me.

Meaning you agree with him?

Yes.

With all due respect, (it doesn't require any) that is completely psychopathic reasoning that can be used to justify killing of your family, coworkers, and/or random people. Should we be watching for you on the news?

Perhaps you should, lol (not actually laughing out loud).
But anyhow, if God exists (an assumption that makes this discussion possible), then Heaven exists and Hell exists. Life on Earth is temporary, and if death on Earth (you're gonna die eventually anyway) results in eternal life in Heaven, then it's a worthwhile bargain.

...and you guys say atheism is dismal. You celebrate death as though it is the whole point of your existence. Life is the point of life, not death. So taking someone's life (let alone all of a race) because you (or god) decides their purpose, in spite of claims to freely choose or deny god, is reprehensibly wrong according to your own god's rules!

If that is the Christian god, he is a schizophrenic, psychopathic Jekyll and Hyde not worthy of being worshipped.

Indeed, life is the point of life, whatever that means. But this life is not the only life that there is. If we all died utterly painful deaths here, it's be only temporary because of the life to come in Heaven (or Hell).
The babies who would've grown up under the Canaanites would be so entrenched in their immoral culture and indoctrinated by their culture that they wouldn't really have that much of a choice to accept God. The lure of sin in those cultures would've been too strong to resist, meaning that they wouldn't really have a choice in the matter.
Doubtless you will find a way to reason around this. But the Bible says that God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts. We cannot possibly understand what He is thinking; unless God explicitly tells us, we can only speculate.

The reason your god gives for his genocides is that they wouldn't worship him, so he throws a hissy fit and orders his almost loyal barbarians to destroy them.

Read through this forum and tell me again that you can't know what god's thinking, in fact just read your posts.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 11:22:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 10:35:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/10/2014 10:27:18 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:57:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:51:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:45:14 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
A tad hypocritical if you believe that all morality is subjective.

Not at all. Is this your "objective" moral source?! Don't talk to me about hypocritical.

No, because I never claimed objective morality was dependent on the Judeo-Christian God nor the Bible. I guess if you don't want to be hypocritical, you'd agree that it's your meritless opinion that genocide is wrong. Anyone believing genocide is acceptable is just as correct as you are saying it isn't.

Ahh, playing your source close to the vest, eh? I bet I can establish your source is subjective. There is no objective source. We can look back through history and establish that fairly easily. We can look at the modern era as well.

Then you agree that your own opinion on genocide is subjective and meritless. Just as the opinion that genocide is acceptable is.

I don't define morality as that which an unknown source says is good. So if you want to have this conversation, share your source and show it exists. Otherwise, you're blindly following for no good reason, and it is arrogant for you to suggest you have a superior source of morals.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 11:35:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 11:22:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 10:35:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/10/2014 10:27:18 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:57:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:51:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:45:14 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
A tad hypocritical if you believe that all morality is subjective.

Not at all. Is this your "objective" moral source?! Don't talk to me about hypocritical.

No, because I never claimed objective morality was dependent on the Judeo-Christian God nor the Bible. I guess if you don't want to be hypocritical, you'd agree that it's your meritless opinion that genocide is wrong. Anyone believing genocide is acceptable is just as correct as you are saying it isn't.

Ahh, playing your source close to the vest, eh? I bet I can establish your source is subjective. There is no objective source. We can look back through history and establish that fairly easily. We can look at the modern era as well.

Then you agree that your own opinion on genocide is subjective and meritless. Just as the opinion that genocide is acceptable is.


I don't define morality as that which an unknown source says is good. So if you want to have this conversation, share your source and show it exists. Otherwise, you're blindly following for no good reason, and it is arrogant for you to suggest you have a superior source of morals.

I wasn't making a claim regarding the morality of genocide. You were. Under your own philosophy, all morality is subjective. That means your opinion of morality is subjective and has no merit. Arguing against WLC and his support for genocide is like attacking him for liking chocolate ice cream because you prefer vanilla. It's hypocritical to suggest that your opinion of morality is somehow superior to his in any objective sense.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2014 12:01:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 8:51:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Does it disturb anyone else that William Lane Craig provides justification for genocide commanded by Yahweh?

"I would say that God has the right to give and take life as he sees fit. Children die all the time! If you believe in the salvation, as I do, of children, who die, what that meant is that the death of these children meant their salvation. People look at this [genocide] and think life ends at the grave but in fact this was the salvation of these children, who were far better dead"than being raised in this Canaanite culture. "

https://www.youtube.com...

The on;y thing more horrifying than this, is that he receives support from so many Christians.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2014 12:03:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/11/2014 12:01:25 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/10/2014 8:51:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Does it disturb anyone else that William Lane Craig provides justification for genocide commanded by Yahweh?

"I would say that God has the right to give and take life as he sees fit. Children die all the time! If you believe in the salvation, as I do, of children, who die, what that meant is that the death of these children meant their salvation. People look at this [genocide] and think life ends at the grave but in fact this was the salvation of these children, who were far better dead"than being raised in this Canaanite culture. "

https://www.youtube.com...

The on;y thing more horrifying than this, is that he receives support from so many Christians.

Isn't it ironic to say that in any meaningful sense if all morality is subjective?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2014 12:05:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 9:03:28 PM, philochristos wrote:
I don't agree with Craig's insinuation that genocide could be justified on the basis of it being mercy killing, but I do agree with him that God has the right to take life whenever he sees fit. That doesn't bother me at all. It seems perfectly appropriate. We sometimes object to people "playing God" when it comes to end of life issues because we think it's inappropriate for people to play God, but surely it's perfectly appropriate for God to play God.

So if you learned that the human race was an experiment conducted by an alien race, and that race decided to terminate the experiment, you would have no problem with that?

Life is always the property of the living. You can't give life, yet retain the right to revoke that life. Once given, it is no longer yours to take.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2014 12:08:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/11/2014 12:05:34 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:03:28 PM, philochristos wrote:
I don't agree with Craig's insinuation that genocide could be justified on the basis of it being mercy killing, but I do agree with him that God has the right to take life whenever he sees fit. That doesn't bother me at all. It seems perfectly appropriate. We sometimes object to people "playing God" when it comes to end of life issues because we think it's inappropriate for people to play God, but surely it's perfectly appropriate for God to play God.

So if you learned that the human race was an experiment conducted by an alien race, and that race decided to terminate the experiment, you would have no problem with that?

Life is always the property of the living. You can't give life, yet retain the right to revoke that life. Once given, it is no longer yours to take.

So are you pro-abortion? And are you implying that's a known standard?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2014 12:11:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 9:45:14 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
A tad hypocritical if you believe that all morality is subjective.

Show me ANY example where the unity of a society was strengthened through genocide. Genocide isn't a means to strengthen societal bonds. It's a way to destroy a portion of society. For an act to be moral, it needs to be beneficial to societal welfare.

Continuing to demonstrate such a complete misunderstanding of subjective morality after all of the times it has been explained to you must require great effort on your part. And I don't think you're that lacking in cognitive ability. I suspect this reflects a deliberate attempt to misunderstand.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2014 12:13:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/11/2014 12:01:25 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/10/2014 8:51:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Does it disturb anyone else that William Lane Craig provides justification for genocide commanded by Yahweh?

"I would say that God has the right to give and take life as he sees fit. Children die all the time! If you believe in the salvation, as I do, of children, who die, what that meant is that the death of these children meant their salvation. People look at this [genocide] and think life ends at the grave but in fact this was the salvation of these children, who were far better dead"than being raised in this Canaanite culture. "

https://www.youtube.com...

The on;y thing more horrifying than this, is that he receives support from so many Christians.

I haven't seen it yet, but I heard he actually got applause for this at the "chair of Dawkins" debate. When I see things like this, I can seriously understand where anti-theists are coming from.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2014 12:18:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/11/2014 12:11:11 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:45:14 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
A tad hypocritical if you believe that all morality is subjective.

Show me ANY example where the unity of a society was strengthened through genocide. Genocide isn't a means to strengthen societal bonds. It's a way to destroy a portion of society. For an act to be moral, it needs to be beneficial to societal welfare.

Continuing to demonstrate such a complete misunderstanding of subjective morality after all of the times it has been explained to you must require great effort on your part. And I don't think you're that lacking in cognitive ability. I suspect this reflects a deliberate attempt to misunderstand.

If societal welfare is always the objective of morality, then morality isn't subjective. There'd just be subjective ways of reaching the objective. I try to have discussions on morality but nobody taking the stance that all morality is subjective has ever stayed to answer my questions when they arise.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2014 12:18:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 11:35:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:22:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 10:35:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/10/2014 10:27:18 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:57:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:51:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:45:14 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
A tad hypocritical if you believe that all morality is subjective.

Not at all. Is this your "objective" moral source?! Don't talk to me about hypocritical.

No, because I never claimed objective morality was dependent on the Judeo-Christian God nor the Bible. I guess if you don't want to be hypocritical, you'd agree that it's your meritless opinion that genocide is wrong. Anyone believing genocide is acceptable is just as correct as you are saying it isn't.

Ahh, playing your source close to the vest, eh? I bet I can establish your source is subjective. There is no objective source. We can look back through history and establish that fairly easily. We can look at the modern era as well.

Then you agree that your own opinion on genocide is subjective and meritless. Just as the opinion that genocide is acceptable is.


I don't define morality as that which an unknown source says is good. So if you want to have this conversation, share your source and show it exists. Otherwise, you're blindly following for no good reason, and it is arrogant for you to suggest you have a superior source of morals.

I wasn't making a claim regarding the morality of genocide. You were. Under your own philosophy, all morality is subjective. That means your opinion of morality is subjective and has no merit. Arguing against WLC and his support for genocide is like attacking him for liking chocolate ice cream because you prefer vanilla. It's hypocritical to suggest that your opinion of morality is somehow superior to his in any objective sense.

Well, actually you brought up the subject of subjective/objective morality because, apparently, you agreed with my interpretation that genocide was bad. I said I bet I can establish your source as subjective, and there is no [divine] objective source. I never said all morality is subjective. Unless you're prepared to argue genocide is moral, I don't see that my opinion which agrees with yours is pertinent to this thread (especially if you claim objective morals guided by a divine source).

It is disturbing to me that WLC is basically saying whatever god arbitrarily decides is good. If your objective source says kill your family in their sleep, blow up a school, or any other depraved act, - because it comes from god, that makes it ok? I can't agree with that. Morality should be dependent on intentions which cause the least unnecessary suffering and misery. I find it hard to swallow anyone finds genocide fits that definition. Obviously, any society which randomly decides 'murder is good' will have more more suffering and misery than a society that does not. So humans can objectively determine whether consequences will meet this criteria of morality without the need for the mysterious objective source that might nut out and "objectively" decide to "kill 'em all!!"

Now did you have anything to add to the OP, or is this just a drive by. (you're obviously not willing to share) If you're not willing to be open about your beliefs, then don't expect any further response from me.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2014 12:33:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/11/2014 12:18:18 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:35:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:22:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 10:35:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/10/2014 10:27:18 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:57:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:51:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:45:14 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
A tad hypocritical if you believe that all morality is subjective.

Not at all. Is this your "objective" moral source?! Don't talk to me about hypocritical.

No, because I never claimed objective morality was dependent on the Judeo-Christian God nor the Bible. I guess if you don't want to be hypocritical, you'd agree that it's your meritless opinion that genocide is wrong. Anyone believing genocide is acceptable is just as correct as you are saying it isn't.

Ahh, playing your source close to the vest, eh? I bet I can establish your source is subjective. There is no objective source. We can look back through history and establish that fairly easily. We can look at the modern era as well.

Then you agree that your own opinion on genocide is subjective and meritless. Just as the opinion that genocide is acceptable is.


I don't define morality as that which an unknown source says is good. So if you want to have this conversation, share your source and show it exists. Otherwise, you're blindly following for no good reason, and it is arrogant for you to suggest you have a superior source of morals.

I wasn't making a claim regarding the morality of genocide. You were. Under your own philosophy, all morality is subjective. That means your opinion of morality is subjective and has no merit. Arguing against WLC and his support for genocide is like attacking him for liking chocolate ice cream because you prefer vanilla. It's hypocritical to suggest that your opinion of morality is somehow superior to his in any objective sense.

Well, actually you brought up the subject of subjective/objective morality because, apparently, you agreed with my interpretation that genocide was bad. I said I bet I can establish your source as subjective, and there is no [divine] objective source. I never said all morality is subjective. Unless you're prepared to argue genocide is moral, I don't see that my opinion which agrees with yours is pertinent to this thread (especially if you claim objective morals guided by a divine source).

So do you believe that all morality is subjective? The topic is about the apparent immorality of WLC for supporting genocide, but base it on your opinion as if your opinion had any merit concerning superior standards of morality. My source of morality is my own moral sense. Apparently every society has shared moral sense about objective moral standards. Objective moral standards necessitate that atheism isn't true.

It is disturbing to me that WLC is basically saying whatever god arbitrarily decides is good. If your objective source says kill your family in their sleep, blow up a school, or any other depraved act, - because it comes from god, that makes it ok? I can't agree with that. Morality should be dependent on intentions which cause the least unnecessary suffering and misery. I find it hard to swallow anyone finds genocide fits that definition. Obviously, any society which randomly decides 'murder is good' will have more more suffering and misery than a society that does not. So humans can objectively determine whether consequences will meet this criteria of morality without the need for the mysterious objective source that might nut out and "objectively" decide to "kill 'em all!!"

If objective moral sense is true, whoever God is, instilled us with these objective standards. It wouldn't make sense for a perfect being of moral goodness, to be evil according to the moral code he instilled in us in the first place. What's absurd, is to suggest that genocide is as moral as giving to the poor. Atheism necessitates that all morality is completely indifferent to any purpose.

Now did you have anything to add to the OP, or is this just a drive by. (you're obviously not willing to share) If you're not willing to be open about your beliefs, then don't expect any further response from me.

I had to show you the irony in making a moral judgement without having any basis for claiming anything to be immoral other than your own meritless opinion.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2014 12:40:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/11/2014 12:18:05 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/11/2014 12:11:11 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:45:14 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
A tad hypocritical if you believe that all morality is subjective.

Show me ANY example where the unity of a society was strengthened through genocide. Genocide isn't a means to strengthen societal bonds. It's a way to destroy a portion of society. For an act to be moral, it needs to be beneficial to societal welfare.

Continuing to demonstrate such a complete misunderstanding of subjective morality after all of the times it has been explained to you must require great effort on your part. And I don't think you're that lacking in cognitive ability. I suspect this reflects a deliberate attempt to misunderstand.

If societal welfare is always the objective of morality, then morality isn't subjective. There'd just be subjective ways of reaching the objective. I try to have discussions on morality but nobody taking the stance that all morality is subjective has ever stayed to answer my questions when they arise.

I disagree. I've answered your questions to completion a number of times. Morality is subjective because what is most beneficial to one society, isn't necessarily what is most beneficial to another society. It can be viewed somewhat similarly to an organism and evolution. There may be a number of different beneficial mutations possible, in light of a given environmental challenge. What is most beneficial isn't objective, because it is dependent upon the particular organism, and the specific environment. The "best" mutation won't be the same mutation in each situation.

And in the same way, the most beneficial acts will not be the same acts from one society to the next. So morality is subjective, but must still serve to the benefit of the given society.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire