The MI6 Community Religion and Faith Discussion Space (for members of all faiths - and none!)

1102103104105107

Comments

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    But I didn't ask you about the morality of the belief but whether or not they were justified or at least plausible.

    I find the idea of a Hell where unbelievers are sent for all eternity to suffer immoral and repugnant. But that's not why the claim is unjustified.

    I don't think it could be justified, speaking solely from the Christian perspective. It's not very plausible either. A Muslim would no doubt you s different answer, of course, but that's their issue.

    So you admit it is not plausible... but Christian beliefs are? How? What's the difference? I'm afraid it's special pleading.

    Christianity doesn't have this killing innocents for a remarkable reward in heaven though. That is the difference, in my view. That is why I find it morally repugnant.
    Christ this is painful.

    So, by your logic (I’m using that for want of a better word as it bears no relation to the dictionary definition) if the invisible dragon at the bottom of the garden says ‘If you worship and believe in me I will reward you and you will go to heaven’ and the Flying Spaghetti Monster says ‘If you kill some people in my name I will reward you and you will go to heaven’ that makes believing in the invisible dragon credible and the FSM ridiculous?

    Basically, yes, as killing in the name of religion cannot be a Christian or Godly thing to do.
    Ok then I believe there’s an invisible dragon at the bottom of my garden and he says if I am good and believe in him I will be rewarded and live in heaven with him when I die.

    That’s a rational and credible belief is it?

    I'd say it is if you're actually the Yorkshire Ripper and you kill in the name of said dragon. There is no evidence for said dragon but if you can believe in it without breaking the law or harming anyone, I see little to condemn. It's when you kill others based on your belief that I (and society more generally) would start to have a problem with it.
    To repeat @Ludovico somewhat - we never asked what you do or don’t have a moral objection to we asked how you assess the veracity of someone’s claims?

    If you’re saying that the criteria you use is that if you @Dragonpol think something is not moral then you don’t believe in it then I think we might finally have an answer, laughable though that is to any thinking mind.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    But I didn't ask you about the morality of the belief but whether or not they were justified or at least plausible.

    I find the idea of a Hell where unbelievers are sent for all eternity to suffer immoral and repugnant. But that's not why the claim is unjustified.

    I don't think it could be justified, speaking solely from the Christian perspective. It's not very plausible either. A Muslim would no doubt you s different answer, of course, but that's their issue.

    So you admit it is not plausible... but Christian beliefs are? How? What's the difference? I'm afraid it's special pleading.

    Christianity doesn't have this killing innocents for a remarkable reward in heaven though. That is the difference, in my view. That is why I find it morally repugnant.
    Christ this is painful.

    So, by your logic (I’m using that for want of a better word as it bears no relation to the dictionary definition) if the invisible dragon at the bottom of the garden says ‘If you worship and believe in me I will reward you and you will go to heaven’ and the Flying Spaghetti Monster says ‘If you kill some people in my name I will reward you and you will go to heaven’ that makes believing in the invisible dragon credible and the FSM ridiculous?

    Basically, yes, as killing in the name of religion cannot be a Christian or Godly thing to do.
    Ok then I believe there’s an invisible dragon at the bottom of my garden and he says if I am good and believe in him I will be rewarded and live in heaven with him when I die.

    That’s a rational and credible belief is it?

    I'd say it is if you're actually the Yorkshire Ripper and you kill in the name of said dragon. There is no evidence for said dragon but if you can believe in it without breaking the law or harming anyone, I see little to condemn. It's when you kill others based on your belief that I (and society more generally) would start to have a problem with it.
    To repeat @Ludovico somewhat - we never asked what you do or don’t have a moral objection to we asked how you assess the veracity of someone’s claims?

    If you’re saying that the criteria you use is that if you @Dragonpol think something is not moral then you don’t believe in it then I think we might finally have an answer, laughable though that is to any thinking mind.

    I think I've given my reasons clearly enough. Take from my answers what you will and move on to the next sticking point. At least I have answered the question. You may not like the answer, but there it is.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited June 2018 Posts: 9,117
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    But I didn't ask you about the morality of the belief but whether or not they were justified or at least plausible.

    I find the idea of a Hell where unbelievers are sent for all eternity to suffer immoral and repugnant. But that's not why the claim is unjustified.

    I don't think it could be justified, speaking solely from the Christian perspective. It's not very plausible either. A Muslim would no doubt you s different answer, of course, but that's their issue.

    So you admit it is not plausible... but Christian beliefs are? How? What's the difference? I'm afraid it's special pleading.

    Christianity doesn't have this killing innocents for a remarkable reward in heaven though. That is the difference, in my view. That is why I find it morally repugnant.
    Christ this is painful.

    So, by your logic (I’m using that for want of a better word as it bears no relation to the dictionary definition) if the invisible dragon at the bottom of the garden says ‘If you worship and believe in me I will reward you and you will go to heaven’ and the Flying Spaghetti Monster says ‘If you kill some people in my name I will reward you and you will go to heaven’ that makes believing in the invisible dragon credible and the FSM ridiculous?

    Basically, yes, as killing in the name of religion cannot be a Christian or Godly thing to do.
    Ok then I believe there’s an invisible dragon at the bottom of my garden and he says if I am good and believe in him I will be rewarded and live in heaven with him when I die.

    That’s a rational and credible belief is it?

    I'd say it is if you're actually the Yorkshire Ripper and you kill in the name of said dragon. There is no evidence for said dragon but if you can believe in it without breaking the law or harming anyone, I see little to condemn. It's when you kill others based on your belief that I (and society more generally) would start to have a problem with it.
    To repeat @Ludovico somewhat - we never asked what you do or don’t have a moral objection to we asked how you assess the veracity of someone’s claims?

    If you’re saying that the criteria you use is that if you @Dragonpol think something is not moral then you don’t believe in it then I think we might finally have an answer, laughable though that is to any thinking mind.

    I think I've given my reasons clearly enough. Take from my answers what you will and move on to the next sticking point. At least I have answered the question. You may not like the answer, but there it is.
    Well it barely qualifies as an answer I suppose but I guess you think if you say it is it means you can maybe stop us asking the question.

    You’d better hope Draggers is not on the jury though if you end up falsely charged with murder folks. Because your cast iron alibi is irrelevant if he finds what you were doing at the time immoral.

    Surely you can see the inherent ludicrousness of that position?

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited June 2018 Posts: 18,281
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    But I didn't ask you about the morality of the belief but whether or not they were justified or at least plausible.

    I find the idea of a Hell where unbelievers are sent for all eternity to suffer immoral and repugnant. But that's not why the claim is unjustified.

    I don't think it could be justified, speaking solely from the Christian perspective. It's not very plausible either. A Muslim would no doubt you s different answer, of course, but that's their issue.

    So you admit it is not plausible... but Christian beliefs are? How? What's the difference? I'm afraid it's special pleading.

    Christianity doesn't have this killing innocents for a remarkable reward in heaven though. That is the difference, in my view. That is why I find it morally repugnant.
    Christ this is painful.

    So, by your logic (I’m using that for want of a better word as it bears no relation to the dictionary definition) if the invisible dragon at the bottom of the garden says ‘If you worship and believe in me I will reward you and you will go to heaven’ and the Flying Spaghetti Monster says ‘If you kill some people in my name I will reward you and you will go to heaven’ that makes believing in the invisible dragon credible and the FSM ridiculous?

    Basically, yes, as killing in the name of religion cannot be a Christian or Godly thing to do.
    Ok then I believe there’s an invisible dragon at the bottom of my garden and he says if I am good and believe in him I will be rewarded and live in heaven with him when I die.

    That’s a rational and credible belief is it?

    I'd say it is if you're actually the Yorkshire Ripper and you kill in the name of said dragon. There is no evidence for said dragon but if you can believe in it without breaking the law or harming anyone, I see little to condemn. It's when you kill others based on your belief that I (and society more generally) would start to have a problem with it.
    To repeat @Ludovico somewhat - we never asked what you do or don’t have a moral objection to we asked how you assess the veracity of someone’s claims?

    If you’re saying that the criteria you use is that if you @Dragonpol think something is not moral then you don’t believe in it then I think we might finally have an answer, laughable though that is to any thinking mind.

    I think I've given my reasons clearly enough. Take from my answers what you will and move on to the next sticking point. At least I have answered the question. You may not like the answer, but there it is.
    You’d better hope Draggers is not on the jury if you end up falsely charged with murder folks. Because your cast iron alibi is irrelevant if he finds what you were doing at the time immoral.

    Surely you can see the inherent ludicrousness of that position?

    You seem to misunderstand. I was referring to God and religion, as that was what I was asked about. I wasn't asked for my thoughts on jury trials and I resent you constantly putting words in my mouth.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    But I didn't ask you about the morality of the belief but whether or not they were justified or at least plausible.

    I find the idea of a Hell where unbelievers are sent for all eternity to suffer immoral and repugnant. But that's not why the claim is unjustified.

    I don't think it could be justified, speaking solely from the Christian perspective. It's not very plausible either. A Muslim would no doubt you s different answer, of course, but that's their issue.

    So you admit it is not plausible... but Christian beliefs are? How? What's the difference? I'm afraid it's special pleading.

    Christianity doesn't have this killing innocents for a remarkable reward in heaven though. That is the difference, in my view. That is why I find it morally repugnant.
    Christ this is painful.

    So, by your logic (I’m using that for want of a better word as it bears no relation to the dictionary definition) if the invisible dragon at the bottom of the garden says ‘If you worship and believe in me I will reward you and you will go to heaven’ and the Flying Spaghetti Monster says ‘If you kill some people in my name I will reward you and you will go to heaven’ that makes believing in the invisible dragon credible and the FSM ridiculous?

    Basically, yes, as killing in the name of religion cannot be a Christian or Godly thing to do.
    Ok then I believe there’s an invisible dragon at the bottom of my garden and he says if I am good and believe in him I will be rewarded and live in heaven with him when I die.

    That’s a rational and credible belief is it?

    I'd say it is if you're actually the Yorkshire Ripper and you kill in the name of said dragon. There is no evidence for said dragon but if you can believe in it without breaking the law or harming anyone, I see little to condemn. It's when you kill others based on your belief that I (and society more generally) would start to have a problem with it.
    To repeat @Ludovico somewhat - we never asked what you do or don’t have a moral objection to we asked how you assess the veracity of someone’s claims?

    If you’re saying that the criteria you use is that if you @Dragonpol think something is not moral then you don’t believe in it then I think we might finally have an answer, laughable though that is to any thinking mind.

    I think I've given my reasons clearly enough. Take from my answers what you will and move on to the next sticking point. At least I have answered the question. You may not like the answer, but there it is.
    You’d better hope Draggers is not on the jury if you end up falsely charged with murder folks. Because your cast iron alibi is irrelevant if he finds what you were doing at the time immoral.

    Surely you can see the inherent ludicrousness of that position?

    You seem to misunderstand. I was referring to God and religion, as that was what I was asked about. I wasn't asked for my thoughts on jury trials and I resent you constantly putting words in my mouth.
    You are talking about believing something based not on evidence but on moral judgement, unless I missed something and the invisible dragon has become a religion in the last half an hour?

    What it is you believe in - religion, tooth fairy, Santa, England winning the World Cup - is largely irrelevant. It’s your reasons for coming to your decision that we are asking about.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    But I didn't ask you about the morality of the belief but whether or not they were justified or at least plausible.

    I find the idea of a Hell where unbelievers are sent for all eternity to suffer immoral and repugnant. But that's not why the claim is unjustified.

    I don't think it could be justified, speaking solely from the Christian perspective. It's not very plausible either. A Muslim would no doubt you s different answer, of course, but that's their issue.

    So you admit it is not plausible... but Christian beliefs are? How? What's the difference? I'm afraid it's special pleading.

    Christianity doesn't have this killing innocents for a remarkable reward in heaven though. That is the difference, in my view. That is why I find it morally repugnant.
    Christ this is painful.

    So, by your logic (I’m using that for want of a better word as it bears no relation to the dictionary definition) if the invisible dragon at the bottom of the garden says ‘If you worship and believe in me I will reward you and you will go to heaven’ and the Flying Spaghetti Monster says ‘If you kill some people in my name I will reward you and you will go to heaven’ that makes believing in the invisible dragon credible and the FSM ridiculous?

    Basically, yes, as killing in the name of religion cannot be a Christian or Godly thing to do.
    Ok then I believe there’s an invisible dragon at the bottom of my garden and he says if I am good and believe in him I will be rewarded and live in heaven with him when I die.

    That’s a rational and credible belief is it?

    I'd say it is if you're actually the Yorkshire Ripper and you kill in the name of said dragon. There is no evidence for said dragon but if you can believe in it without breaking the law or harming anyone, I see little to condemn. It's when you kill others based on your belief that I (and society more generally) would start to have a problem with it.
    To repeat @Ludovico somewhat - we never asked what you do or don’t have a moral objection to we asked how you assess the veracity of someone’s claims?

    If you’re saying that the criteria you use is that if you @Dragonpol think something is not moral then you don’t believe in it then I think we might finally have an answer, laughable though that is to any thinking mind.

    I think I've given my reasons clearly enough. Take from my answers what you will and move on to the next sticking point. At least I have answered the question. You may not like the answer, but there it is.
    You’d better hope Draggers is not on the jury if you end up falsely charged with murder folks. Because your cast iron alibi is irrelevant if he finds what you were doing at the time immoral.

    Surely you can see the inherent ludicrousness of that position?

    You seem to misunderstand. I was referring to God and religion, as that was what I was asked about. I wasn't asked for my thoughts on jury trials and I resent you constantly putting words in my mouth.

    You were asked how you assess the veracity of someone’s claims/beliefs.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited June 2018 Posts: 18,281
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    But I didn't ask you about the morality of the belief but whether or not they were justified or at least plausible.

    I find the idea of a Hell where unbelievers are sent for all eternity to suffer immoral and repugnant. But that's not why the claim is unjustified.

    I don't think it could be justified, speaking solely from the Christian perspective. It's not very plausible either. A Muslim would no doubt you s different answer, of course, but that's their issue.

    So you admit it is not plausible... but Christian beliefs are? How? What's the difference? I'm afraid it's special pleading.

    Christianity doesn't have this killing innocents for a remarkable reward in heaven though. That is the difference, in my view. That is why I find it morally repugnant.
    Christ this is painful.

    So, by your logic (I’m using that for want of a better word as it bears no relation to the dictionary definition) if the invisible dragon at the bottom of the garden says ‘If you worship and believe in me I will reward you and you will go to heaven’ and the Flying Spaghetti Monster says ‘If you kill some people in my name I will reward you and you will go to heaven’ that makes believing in the invisible dragon credible and the FSM ridiculous?

    Basically, yes, as killing in the name of religion cannot be a Christian or Godly thing to do.
    Ok then I believe there’s an invisible dragon at the bottom of my garden and he says if I am good and believe in him I will be rewarded and live in heaven with him when I die.

    That’s a rational and credible belief is it?

    I'd say it is if you're actually the Yorkshire Ripper and you kill in the name of said dragon. There is no evidence for said dragon but if you can believe in it without breaking the law or harming anyone, I see little to condemn. It's when you kill others based on your belief that I (and society more generally) would start to have a problem with it.
    To repeat @Ludovico somewhat - we never asked what you do or don’t have a moral objection to we asked how you assess the veracity of someone’s claims?

    If you’re saying that the criteria you use is that if you @Dragonpol think something is not moral then you don’t believe in it then I think we might finally have an answer, laughable though that is to any thinking mind.

    I think I've given my reasons clearly enough. Take from my answers what you will and move on to the next sticking point. At least I have answered the question. You may not like the answer, but there it is.
    You’d better hope Draggers is not on the jury if you end up falsely charged with murder folks. Because your cast iron alibi is irrelevant if he finds what you were doing at the time immoral.

    Surely you can see the inherent ludicrousness of that position?

    You seem to misunderstand. I was referring to God and religion, as that was what I was asked about. I wasn't asked for my thoughts on jury trials and I resent you constantly putting words in my mouth.
    You are talking about believing something based not on evidence but on moral judgement, unless I missed something and the invisible dragon has become a religion in the last half an hour?

    What it is you believe in - religion, tooth fairy, Santa, England winning the World Cup - is largely irrelevant. It’s your reasons for coming to your decision that we are asking about.

    I suppose it is factors outside of one's control, at least initially, that determines what you believe and why. That is the best answer I have and no doubt the only true answer there is.
  • Posts: 15,124
    So if I understand you @Dragonpol if X is moral then X is true, or at least likely or at the very least plausible? Never mind the validity of such statement for now is it what you mean and is what you consider moral the criteria you use to assess truth?
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited June 2018 Posts: 18,281
    Ludovico wrote: »
    So if I understand you @Dragonpol if X is moral then X is true, or at least likely or at the very least plausible? Never mind the validity of such statement for now is it what you mean and is what you consider moral the criteria you use to assess truth?

    I suppose it must be at least one of the main criteria when it comes to choosing to follow or believe in a religion. There is always a leap of faith involved as well, obviously, as none of us have seen God.
  • Posts: 15,124
    Why should it be a criteria at all? "There are men who are cannibals", "one can rape if he so wishes", "murder is an effective way of getting rid of someone you don't like" are all valid statements regardless of the morality of their actions.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Why should it be a criteria at all? "There are men who are cannibals", "one can rape if he so wishes", "murder is an effective way of getting rid of someone you don't like" are all valid statements regardless of the morality of their actions.

    But the actions are not valid to any sane human being. That is what counts in religion.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    One man s God is another man s Devil.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited June 2018 Posts: 9,117
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Why should it be a criteria at all? "There are men who are cannibals", "one can rape if he so wishes", "murder is an effective way of getting rid of someone you don't like" are all valid statements regardless of the morality of their actions.

    But the actions are not valid to any sane human being. That is what counts in religion.
    I hope I’m not misrepresenting you again, but did you just state that what counts in religion is sanity?

    Well, failing Man Utd getting relegated, that’s the best laugh I’m going to have for the next decade.
    One man s God is another man s Devil.
    Look at the state of your punctuation sir! Are you Risible in disguise?
  • Posts: 15,124
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Why should it be a criteria at all? "There are men who are cannibals", "one can rape if he so wishes", "murder is an effective way of getting rid of someone you don't like" are all valid statements regardless of the morality of their actions.

    But the actions are not valid to any sane human being. That is what counts in religion.

    You can commit murder or rape and be perfectly sane. And actually cannibalism can be done for rational reasons. Being evil and being insane are two different things. And assessing there's a God has nothing to do with morality. Whether God is moral or not is a different question entirely.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Why should it be a criteria at all? "There are men who are cannibals", "one can rape if he so wishes", "murder is an effective way of getting rid of someone you don't like" are all valid statements regardless of the morality of their actions.

    But the actions are not valid to any sane human being. That is what counts in religion.

    You can commit murder or rape and be perfectly sane. And actually cannibalism can be done for rational reasons. Being evil and being insane are two different things. And assessing there's a God has nothing to do with morality. Whether God is moral or not is a different question entirely.

    You can have a loose definition of morality, certainly.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Why should it be a criteria at all? "There are men who are cannibals", "one can rape if he so wishes", "murder is an effective way of getting rid of someone you don't like" are all valid statements regardless of the morality of their actions.

    But the actions are not valid to any sane human being. That is what counts in religion.
    I hope I’m not misrepresenting you again, but did you just state that what counts in religion is sanity?

    Well, failing Man Utd getting relegated, that’s the best laugh I’m going to have for the next decade.
    One man s God is another man s Devil.
    Look at the state of your punctuation sir! Are you Risible in disguise?

    You are always misrepresenting myself and others of faith. That is your only stock in trade.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Why should it be a criteria at all? "There are men who are cannibals", "one can rape if he so wishes", "murder is an effective way of getting rid of someone you don't like" are all valid statements regardless of the morality of their actions.

    But the actions are not valid to any sane human being. That is what counts in religion.
    I hope I’m not misrepresenting you again, but did you just state that what counts in religion is sanity?

    Well, failing Man Utd getting relegated, that’s the best laugh I’m going to have for the next decade.
    One man s God is another man s Devil.
    Look at the state of your punctuation sir! Are you Risible in disguise?

    You are always misrepresenting myself and others of faith. That is your only stock in trade.
    You’ve gone on record as stating you believe in talking snakes. Nothing much else to be said is there?
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Why should it be a criteria at all? "There are men who are cannibals", "one can rape if he so wishes", "murder is an effective way of getting rid of someone you don't like" are all valid statements regardless of the morality of their actions.

    But the actions are not valid to any sane human being. That is what counts in religion.
    I hope I’m not misrepresenting you again, but did you just state that what counts in religion is sanity?

    Well, failing Man Utd getting relegated, that’s the best laugh I’m going to have for the next decade.
    One man s God is another man s Devil.
    Look at the state of your punctuation sir! Are you Risible in disguise?

    You are always misrepresenting myself and others of faith. That is your only stock in trade.
    You’ve gone on record as stating you believe in talking snakes. Nothing much else to be said is there?

    I already have my response to that by saying if God created snakes he could presumably give them a voice as well. Can you accept that? I know you don't believe in God of course, but why is this such a big issue with you?
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Why should it be a criteria at all? "There are men who are cannibals", "one can rape if he so wishes", "murder is an effective way of getting rid of someone you don't like" are all valid statements regardless of the morality of their actions.

    But the actions are not valid to any sane human being. That is what counts in religion.
    I hope I’m not misrepresenting you again, but did you just state that what counts in religion is sanity?

    Well, failing Man Utd getting relegated, that’s the best laugh I’m going to have for the next decade.
    One man s God is another man s Devil.
    Look at the state of your punctuation sir! Are you Risible in disguise?

    You are always misrepresenting myself and others of faith. That is your only stock in trade.
    You’ve gone on record as stating you believe in talking snakes. Nothing much else to be said is there?

    I already have my response to that by saying if God created snakes he could presumably give them a voice as well. Can you accept that? I know you don't believe in God of course, but why is this such a big issue with you?
    Because it’s inherently ridiculous!!!
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited June 2018 Posts: 18,281
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Why should it be a criteria at all? "There are men who are cannibals", "one can rape if he so wishes", "murder is an effective way of getting rid of someone you don't like" are all valid statements regardless of the morality of their actions.

    But the actions are not valid to any sane human being. That is what counts in religion.
    I hope I’m not misrepresenting you again, but did you just state that what counts in religion is sanity?

    Well, failing Man Utd getting relegated, that’s the best laugh I’m going to have for the next decade.
    One man s God is another man s Devil.
    Look at the state of your punctuation sir! Are you Risible in disguise?

    You are always misrepresenting myself and others of faith. That is your only stock in trade.
    You’ve gone on record as stating you believe in talking snakes. Nothing much else to be said is there?

    I already have my response to that by saying if God created snakes he could presumably give them a voice as well. Can you accept that? I know you don't believe in God of course, but why is this such a big issue with you?
    Because it’s inherently ridiculous!!!

    If God created snakes, why is it so? He made a donkey rebuke someone too. As a non-believer, it is ridiculous to you, but nothing is impossible to the creator of snakes, surely? I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one though. I can't ever see a meeting of minds on it, short of you taking a brain haemorrhage.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited June 2018 Posts: 9,117
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Why should it be a criteria at all? "There are men who are cannibals", "one can rape if he so wishes", "murder is an effective way of getting rid of someone you don't like" are all valid statements regardless of the morality of their actions.

    But the actions are not valid to any sane human being. That is what counts in religion.
    I hope I’m not misrepresenting you again, but did you just state that what counts in religion is sanity?

    Well, failing Man Utd getting relegated, that’s the best laugh I’m going to have for the next decade.
    One man s God is another man s Devil.
    Look at the state of your punctuation sir! Are you Risible in disguise?

    You are always misrepresenting myself and others of faith. That is your only stock in trade.
    You’ve gone on record as stating you believe in talking snakes. Nothing much else to be said is there?

    I already have my response to that by saying if God created snakes he could presumably give them a voice as well. Can you accept that? I know you don't believe in God of course, but why is this such a big issue with you?
    Because it’s inherently ridiculous!!!

    If God created snakes, why is it so? He made a donkey rebuke someone too. As a non-believer, it is ridiculous to you, but nothing is impossible to the creator of snakes, surely? I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one though. I can't ever see a meeting of minds on it.
    So your whole argument for thinking talking snakes are real hangs on one monumentally large and unprovable if.

    But I agree once you’ve crossed the line and decided to buy into all this drivel then at least you understand that normal rules of logic and science are no longer applicable so everything is up for grabs? Why not a snake that can play Rachmaninoff’s piano concerto number 3 or that can play snooker? Anything must be possible in your world, which at the very least, must mean you lead a more interesting lifethan those of us boringly bound by the laws of the universe.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited June 2018 Posts: 18,281
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Why should it be a criteria at all? "There are men who are cannibals", "one can rape if he so wishes", "murder is an effective way of getting rid of someone you don't like" are all valid statements regardless of the morality of their actions.

    But the actions are not valid to any sane human being. That is what counts in religion.
    I hope I’m not misrepresenting you again, but did you just state that what counts in religion is sanity?

    Well, failing Man Utd getting relegated, that’s the best laugh I’m going to have for the next decade.
    One man s God is another man s Devil.
    Look at the state of your punctuation sir! Are you Risible in disguise?

    You are always misrepresenting myself and others of faith. That is your only stock in trade.
    You’ve gone on record as stating you believe in talking snakes. Nothing much else to be said is there?

    I already have my response to that by saying if God created snakes he could presumably give them a voice as well. Can you accept that? I know you don't believe in God of course, but why is this such a big issue with you?
    Because it’s inherently ridiculous!!!

    If God created snakes, why is it so? He made a donkey rebuke someone too. As a non-believer, it is ridiculous to you, but nothing is impossible to the creator of snakes, surely? I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one though. I can't ever see a meeting of minds on it.
    So your whole argument for thinking talking snakes are real hangs on one monumentally large and unprovable if.

    But I agree once you’ve crossed the line and decided to buy into all this drivel then at least you understand that normal rules of logic and science are no longer applicable so everything is up for grabs? Why not a snake that can play Rachmaninoff’s piano concerto number 3 or that can play snooker? Anything must be possible in your world, which at the very least, must mean you lead a more interesting lifethan those of us boringly bound by the laws of the universe.

    On the contrary, my life can't be very interesting at all if I can find time to waste by posting replies in this thread and thereby perpetuating. I must try harder to resist the temptation to ever post here again.
  • Posts: 15,124
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Why should it be a criteria at all? "There are men who are cannibals", "one can rape if he so wishes", "murder is an effective way of getting rid of someone you don't like" are all valid statements regardless of the morality of their actions.

    But the actions are not valid to any sane human being. That is what counts in religion.

    You can commit murder or rape and be perfectly sane. And actually cannibalism can be done for rational reasons. Being evil and being insane are two different things. And assessing there's a God has nothing to do with morality. Whether God is moral or not is a different question entirely.

    You can have a loose definition of morality, certainly.

    What do you mean?

    It's not about having a loose or a narrow definition of morality. The question of God's existence is irrelevant to his morality or lack of. And one can assess the morality of a God regardless of his existence or nonexistence, by judging the characteristics his worshipers claim he has.

    In other words: 1)you are not justified to believe in any Christian dogmas because you find them moral, 2)you cannot assess veracity of something according to its moral value, 3)God's existence would not make him moral.

    I'd add to this that the Christian God is an immoral and even an amoral one, and so are salvation, hell and other godly stuff.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    So to sum up is @Dragonpol only a Christian because he’s weighed them all up and the Christian God is more moral than Allah, Buddha etc?

    It’s strangely convenient that living in Northern Ireland after he evaluated everything he ended up a Christian rather than a Muslim. Just like 99.9% of everyone in Northern Ireland and 99.9% the other way in Saudi.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited June 2018 Posts: 18,281
    So to sum up is @Dragonpol only a Christian because he’s weighed them all up and the Christian God is more moral than Allah, Buddha etc?

    It’s strangely convenient that living in Northern Ireland after he evaluated everything he ended up a Christian rather than a Muslim. Just like 99.9% of everyone in Northern Ireland and 99.9% the other way in Saudi.

    I would very much doubt that 99.9% of people are Christians, even in Northern Ireland. There are plenty of athiests and members of other religions here too.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited June 2018 Posts: 9,117
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    So to sum up is @Dragonpol only a Christian because he’s weighed them all up and the Christian God is more moral than Allah, Buddha etc?

    It’s strangely convenient that living in Northern Ireland after he evaluated everything he ended up a Christian rather than a Muslim. Just like 99.9% of everyone in Northern Ireland and 99.9% the other way in Saudi.

    I would very much doubt that 99.9% of people are Christians, even in Northern Ireland. There are plenty of athiests and members of other religions here too.
    Fair point.

    I should have said 99.9% of the people who are content to take what they have been spoon fed from birth as fact and have no interest in thinking for themselves.

    Thank you for taking me to task there Draggers and giving me the opportunity to clarify that.
  • Posts: 9,847
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Why should it be a criteria at all? "There are men who are cannibals", "one can rape if he so wishes", "murder is an effective way of getting rid of someone you don't like" are all valid statements regardless of the morality of their actions.

    But the actions are not valid to any sane human being. That is what counts in religion.
    I hope I’m not misrepresenting you again, but did you just state that what counts in religion is sanity?

    Well, failing Man Utd getting relegated, that’s the best laugh I’m going to have for the next decade.
    One man s God is another man s Devil.
    Look at the state of your punctuation sir! Are you Risible in disguise?

    You are always misrepresenting myself and others of faith. That is your only stock in trade.
    You’ve gone on record as stating you believe in talking snakes. Nothing much else to be said is there?

    I already have my response to that by saying if God created snakes he could presumably give them a voice as well. Can you accept that? I know you don't believe in God of course, but why is this such a big issue with you?
    Because it’s inherently ridiculous!!!
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Why should it be a criteria at all? "There are men who are cannibals", "one can rape if he so wishes", "murder is an effective way of getting rid of someone you don't like" are all valid statements regardless of the morality of their actions.

    But the actions are not valid to any sane human being. That is what counts in religion.
    I hope I’m not misrepresenting you again, but did you just state that what counts in religion is sanity?

    Well, failing Man Utd getting relegated, that’s the best laugh I’m going to have for the next decade.
    One man s God is another man s Devil.
    Look at the state of your punctuation sir! Are you Risible in disguise?

    You are always misrepresenting myself and others of faith. That is your only stock in trade.
    You’ve gone on record as stating you believe in talking snakes. Nothing much else to be said is there?

    I already have my response to that by saying if God created snakes he could presumably give them a voice as well. Can you accept that? I know you don't believe in God of course, but why is this such a big issue with you?
    Because it’s inherently ridiculous!!!

    Yet botzam’s brain, spontaneous growth and macro evolution is perfectly plausible right?

    Btw it should be obvious that in a million years my posts now will have evolved to have perfect grammar
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Why should it be a criteria at all? "There are men who are cannibals", "one can rape if he so wishes", "murder is an effective way of getting rid of someone you don't like" are all valid statements regardless of the morality of their actions.

    But the actions are not valid to any sane human being. That is what counts in religion.
    I hope I’m not misrepresenting you again, but did you just state that what counts in religion is sanity?

    Well, failing Man Utd getting relegated, that’s the best laugh I’m going to have for the next decade.
    One man s God is another man s Devil.
    Look at the state of your punctuation sir! Are you Risible in disguise?

    You are always misrepresenting myself and others of faith. That is your only stock in trade.
    You’ve gone on record as stating you believe in talking snakes. Nothing much else to be said is there?

    I already have my response to that by saying if God created snakes he could presumably give them a voice as well. Can you accept that? I know you don't believe in God of course, but why is this such a big issue with you?
    Because it’s inherently ridiculous!!!
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Why should it be a criteria at all? "There are men who are cannibals", "one can rape if he so wishes", "murder is an effective way of getting rid of someone you don't like" are all valid statements regardless of the morality of their actions.

    But the actions are not valid to any sane human being. That is what counts in religion.
    I hope I’m not misrepresenting you again, but did you just state that what counts in religion is sanity?

    Well, failing Man Utd getting relegated, that’s the best laugh I’m going to have for the next decade.
    One man s God is another man s Devil.
    Look at the state of your punctuation sir! Are you Risible in disguise?

    You are always misrepresenting myself and others of faith. That is your only stock in trade.
    You’ve gone on record as stating you believe in talking snakes. Nothing much else to be said is there?

    I already have my response to that by saying if God created snakes he could presumably give them a voice as well. Can you accept that? I know you don't believe in God of course, but why is this such a big issue with you?
    Because it’s inherently ridiculous!!!

    Yet botzam’s brain, spontaneous growth and macro evolution is perfectly plausible right?

    Btw it should be obvious that in a million years my posts now will have evolved to have perfect grammar

    So funny...
  • Posts: 12,526
    Devil in the detail I guess with the US/NK summit yesterday? Like most I hope it truly works out.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Am in Cologne and just visited the Gestapo prison museum where numerous executions and torture of suspects took place.

    This from their website exposes Draggers’ Christian ‘morality’ argument as something of a sham:

    ‘Since 1998 the NS Documentation Centre has been housed in ‘EL-DE Haus’, the EL-DE building. Significantly this building was the headquarters of the Cologne Gestapo between December 1935 and March 1945. The name EL-DE is based on the phonetic pronunciation of the letters L and D and comes from the building’s developer, Leopold Dahmen, a Catholic businessman who rented the building to the Gestapo even while it was still under construction.

    I’m sure God looked favourably upon him for making a quick buck off the suffering of his fellow man. After all if they were Jewish they were non believers anyway so he was probably doing God’s work.

    Anyway off now to drink some beer and with a bit of luck find a dirty blonde or two. What a morally defunct life we heathens lead when compared to the example set by our Christian brethren.
This discussion has been closed.