cicerone imposter wrote:The sperm count of men are the highest sometime before age 20, and decreases with advancing age. By about 35, the sperms are much less healthy. The health of the father determines the ability of sperms to also be healthy. That's the reason why we hear of much older men fathering a child. Drinking can damage sperms, so it's a good idea to stay away from heavy drinking if you're working to have a child.
Or plan on driving. :wink:
It is true that a lack of faith does not make it untrue, as much as faith does not make it true.
But never did I say faith made things false. I said that faith is not necessarily true.
Your not requiring it is you making yourself gullible or credulous. You lose the ability to test things. You lose the ability to gain truth.
Whereas you are prepared for all sorts of practical tests: the more dogmatic and convinced you are, the more happy you are to risk.
The more faiths you abosorb, the more your risks fail to pay off. You make an expensive partner, but is it any worse than that?
Clifford, of course, tells us that it is. Your habit is dangerous. Your disrespect for caution, for evidence, for plausibility may lead you anywhere. 'Those who can make you believe absurdities,' said Voltaire, 'can make you commit atrocities.'
I keep seeing faith in God is superstition.
First off, superstition comes from satan. Faith in God cannot come from satan. That would be dividing his Kingdom. Also, God cannot come from satan since he created him.
So..either way you look at it...just doesn't add up.
But of course, this would only be for those who believes in the spirit world.
Quote:I keep seeing faith in God is superstition.
I'm using this definition:an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear
Any kind of faith at all is dangerous. And it doesn't necessarily apply to religion.
Phoenix32890 wrote:Beena- Welcome to the club! There were times that I wanted to leave, but for some reason, I was always drawn back!
You mean welcome back? Thanks Phoenix. By the way how do you guys have all these like 17, 000 posts? Oh! My God! If I were to write that much, even I would confound myself with all my ideas!
LOL beena! ME TOO!
Only 566 more posts till I can PM people!!
Whoooooo hoooooooooo
I'm the other one wrote:I keep seeing faith in God is superstition.
First off, superstition comes from satan. Faith in God cannot come from satan. That would be dividing his Kingdom. Also, God cannot come from satan since he created him.
So..either way you look at it...just doesn't add up.
But of course, this would only be for those who believes in the spirit world.
You're attempting to validate a fairy tale by quoting a fairy tale. Quaint.
aktorist wrote:Quote:I keep seeing faith in God is superstition.
I'm using this definition:an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear
Any kind of faith at all is dangerous. And it doesn't necessarily apply to religion.
Oh, ok...I wasn't trying to be mean or anything I meant to post this for another superstitious post but couldn't find it.
Excellent programme by Prof Richard Dawkins last night. He really gave religion both barrels. He interviewed some evangelical preacher in the US who came across as quite mad (and who threatened Dawkins and camera team in the car park later)...thoroughly unpleasant. Also found a secular Jew in Jerusalem now converted to militant Islam...completely bonkers. Islam is apparantly going to take over the whole world. Dawkins showed how myth and legent can become accepted dogma, e.g. Pope's pronouncement on the validity of Assumption of Mary.
Dawkins is clearly disappointed if not alarmed that the religious 'meme' shows no sign of dying out.
Fresco started a thread on that topic, Steve . . . i'll go get you a link . . .
Dawkins TV Programme: "The Root of All Evil" . . .
Of course, he misspelled program, but we expect and tolerate that from right-pondian members . . .
Actually, it is your argument that depends on this definition, Jason.
My argument doesn't depend on the explanation of "murder." You are the one who brought this up to refute my argument. So, the definition of "murder" is your argument. The definition of "murder" is there, you just have to understand it.
Exactly the point I was making - if a person kills within the law, then he is not guilty of murder. And so if you want to charge God with murder, you need to show that his killing was not lawful. You can't simply question his motivation; you have to actually show that it is against the law. This, of course, begs the question of which law you need to evaluate his actions against. Your task is not an easy one.
What is "lawful" in making meaningless sacrifices? He doesn't provide any logical explanation for demanding sacrifices in His name. Should we accept the idea that God is not murdering because He is God? His action (according to the definition of humanity) contradict His nature as being loving. You don't seem to understand this. Don't you understand that the law of God has to make sense to humankind? God can't show His own definition of "lawful" because such definition has to fall into humanity's defintion of "lawful." And God seems to justify lots of things in the Bible that are regarded as loving, but they are contradicted when He does others things that are considered evil. The law that needs to be evaluated is God's law, because I'm a human being and think with human logic. Human logic is a law that can't be broken; it's how we humans do our own reasoning.
I am familiar with the definition of "manslaughter".
I'm glad that know the difference.
No, that is not entirely true, at least not as an analogy to killing a man. If I chose to kill a man to please a physical need, then I am committing murder, as it is against the law to kill another human for the purpose of eating them
at least in the US.
Is not entirely true? Are you for real, man? If you killed a man to please a physical need (hunger), this action is called "canivalism"( look it up)." You can only be called murder if you killed a man with maliscious purposes. Where is the good intention in killing something just for killing it? Doesn't that amount to murder? Of course it does
Excellent question
I think you have hit the nail on the head. What exactly would justify sacrifices taking place in God's name? Well, if God is the creator of everything, then it is he who decides what is just and what is not. It would by him that the very concept of justice existed in the first place. It would be by him that concepts like love, fairness, equity, etc. form their meaning. It would be by him that the logic that you and I use has its existence. If God really exists, then his command, in conjunction with who he is, would be sufficient justification. That's the heart of the matter in all arguments of this type.
What would make killing innocent animals in God's name not being called "murder"? So, you are telling me that if God is the creator of everything we survey, it means that His action (in making meaningless killings of animals) are not meant to be called murder, because He is the creator? This is absurd. His action falls into the definition of what murder is. Well, God can decide what is just and what is not (in His own way), but the human logic contradicts His own logic of "just,"believe it or not.
My argument has been to rebut your argument, to show you (specifically) that you have not met your burden of proof in naming God as a sadist and/or murderer. It matters not one whit that I don't prove he isn't one, what matters is that I have rebutted your every attempt to prove that he is. Until such time as you can present some evidence (other than personal speculation) that shows God kills unlawfully and/or kills just for the sake of the kill, your argument does not succeed. I think you know this, as you constantly attempt to shift the burden back to me to prove that he is not what you claim, but as you made the initial positive assertion here, the burden is all yours.
Why don't you go out right now and sacrifice a pair of sheeps in God's name? You'll see that it is unlawful (and will most likely end up in serious problems with the APA). You see how unlawful that is? And that action (no matter what you or God calls it) is called murder, here on the planet Earth, where you and I (and lots of people) live.
So because you personally (a limited, finite, fallible human being, at least according to the theory of the Bible) cannot find within yourself a reason as to why God wants a blood offering other than for the sake of blood, there isn't one? How absolutely arrogant of you. See, the problem here is that you won't let God be God even for the sake of argument. You won't let him be the sovereign creator and sustainer, if even for the sake of considering what the Bible says. What you do instead is to bring God down to the level of man so that you can try him in your court of law, according to standards that you have set up yourself. And this is why your argument fails miserably. You can't judge the creator of the universe according to standards intended for man, because God is not a man
he isn't even in the same category.
So, it is arrogant of me to show physical evidence (his own words) that show that He demands the display of blood from His sacrifices to be poured at His altar? How can you say such a thing? How arrogant am I? I'm showing evidence of such action. Am I missing anything? I let God be God, but the nature of His existence contradict the logic of mankind (that is for sure), even if His "logic" is something different from ours.
I'm not going to bother to reply to the remainder of your post. When you are ready to let God be God for the sake of argument, you let me know. Any other type of argument constitutes a straw man - I'm not going to argue against a God of your making.
I[/quote]
You are not required to answer anything that you don't want to answer. Anybody reading these arguments is free to refute them.
Holy crap I am about to agree with Implicator.
Dubya tee eff.
Anyway..
He is right, Jason. Go research Argumentum ad ignorantiam. You are defending an attack that doesn't exist, while missing the crucial point.
