Atheist

[McBell]

You know what?

When I was typing that, I thought, they're going to tell you the Borg did not exist back then.

Hmm. Can I switch to a Super class Star Destroyer? Obviously a different universe, but I think around the same time, so can I?

Sure

 

[Little Dragon]

"Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather."

*Drool*

 

[Little Dragon]

Sure

I am uncertain though about what would be the outcome of a conflict between a Bird of Prey and an oversized Star Destroyer but I am sure someone somewhere has already tried to simulate the encounter, and he lives with his mum.

 

[McBell]

I am uncertain though about what would be the outcome of a conflict between a Bird of Prey and an oversized Star Destroyer but I am sure someone somewhere has already tried to simulate the encounter, and he lives with his mum.

With as large as the universe is, what are the chances we would not only run into each other, but be inclined to violence at first meeting?

 

[Dimi95]

"Humility is some form of courage to take a leap on beyond what you know, to be wrong.And it's the constant recognition that it would be better to make friends with what you don't know,rather than to insist on the friendship with what you know"

 

[Little Dragon]

With as large as the universe is, what are the chances we would not only run into each other, but be inclined to violence at first meeting?

Have you ever heard of the "Dark Forest" hypothesis? That alien civilizations are quiet and actively conceal their presence because they assume all other species they might encounter would be survival orientated, and so conclude that they would likely be hostile and therefore to pre-emptively destroy them on sight, might be considered the most logical course of action, from a survival point of view, on the balance of probabilities.
This hypothesis is cited to explain the lack of electromagnetic signals coming from other nearby civilizations, the Fermi Paradox. Aliens actively cloak their presence. While we chatter and babble like babies into the abyss.

As for us. I would not order an attack immediately. I would have shields raised though.

 

[vulcanlogician]

U just repeated what I said

I didn't just repeat what you said. I added sarcasm.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I’m going to stop. This thread comes off as judgmental. They are my personal feelings and I should keep them personal. I do apologize

I forget exactly what was in your post, but I don't remember it being judgmental or anything. It did seem like you wanted to have a debate... which is what the "debate" subforums are for. This is well worn territory, and people have their pitchforks ready when the topic is broached. But that's more the fault of like 1,000 other Christians who brought up the topic in a judgmental way than it is yours.

 

[McBell]

Have you ever heard of the "Dark Forest" hypothesis? That alien civilizations are quiet and actively conceal their presence because they assume all other species they might encounter would be survival orientated, and so conclude that they would likely be hostile and therefore to pre-emptively destroy them on sight, might be considered the most logical course of action, from a survival point of view, on the balance of probabilities.
This hypothesis is cited to explain the lack of electromagnetic signals coming from other nearby civilizations, the Fermi Paradox. Aliens actively cloak their presence. While we chatter and babble like babies into the abyss.

As for us. I would not order an attack immediately. I would have shields raised though.

You would not even know I was there until i showed myself.
And i would study you for a while before deciding whether to show myself.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Imo I think If an atheist says they believe the universe is greater than them selves and that they’re grateful for the universe I see that as believing in God. Of course they’re not gonna agree with me but that’s how I see it. a stone is always a stone. You can call it a rock but it doesn’t matter. Nothing exists without the universe. It’s greater than all. The atheist is grateful for the universe and even may think it’s greater than all. But they choose to call it the universe.

Nothing material exists without the hydrogen atom either.

So what?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Really? I don’t believe you.

Though luck.

Too bad you can't test it, ha?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If I could prove the universe was infinite would you believe it?

Personally, I would believe anything that you can prove.

Why wouldn't I?

It would be pretty irrational to refuse to believe things which can actually be proven, right?

 

[Little Dragon]

You would not even know I was there until i showed myself.
And i would study you for a while before deciding whether to show myself.

Well, that's assuming I don't have a Sith or Jedi on board to detect your craft's presence via the extra sensory powers bestowed by the force.
However your approach would be the wisest course of action. If I was in command of such a powerful warship, like an Imperial Star Destroyer, I would have to assume all such encounters have a strong possibility of hostile outcomes, for various reasons, including misunderstandings. I would have to prioritize immediate survival over making new friends and allies as well as learning about you and your kind, so extreme caution would be employed. Every precaution taken, to the very brink of attacking your ship on sight.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

They call it the universe. They say they’re grateful for the universe. They say the universe is greater than them. That’s all they say. Why not take the next step and call the universe God?

The more pertinent question in my mind is why, (if you are using the definition of the universe as; the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.) would you add the “next step and call the universe God?”

 

[Dao Hao Now]

God is also often used to show us grace , mercy and forgivness.

So if an abusive husband on occasion gives his wife a kiss and a hug…..
that makes the abuse OK?


#osgart said:

It seems God and favoritism go hand in hand a lot.

To which you answered:

When i put emotions aside and i read the story of The Bible , it is every oposite of what you said.

How would you account for
Exodus 21:2-11
and
Leviticus 25?

 

[Dimi95]

So if an abusive husband on occasion gives his wife a kiss and a hug…..
that makes the abuse OK?

Emotional argument
Which wife would let the husband abuse her and then "kiss and hug"?

#osgart said:
To which you answered:

How would you account for
Exodus 21:2-11
and
Leviticus 25?

It's tough to answer, knowing that society now and then have nothing in common.

We don't know enough to judge, neither me , neither anyone else.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Emotional argument
Which wife would let the husband abuse her and then "kiss and hug"?

In what way do you view this as an emotional argument?

@osgart stated

God is often used to justify tyranny, and oppression.

To which you replied

God is also often used to show us grace , mercy and forgivness.

As though this should excuse the tyranny and oppression God is often used to justify.
Correct?


I stated a parallel which I believed most people could understand; where tyranny and oppression (in the parallel case, a husband abusing a wife)
is not excused by, at times showing grace, mercy and forgiveness
(In the parallel case, giving his wife a kiss and hug)
Most people understand that the kiss and hug don’t make up for the abuse.
Therefore bringing into question whether occasional “grace, mercy, and forgiveness”
makes up for “tyranny and oppression”.

Which wife would let the husband abuse her and then "kiss and hug"?

Sadly, it happens far too frequently.
Apparently you’ve not heard of
Battered Woman Syndrome?

Additionally, repeated cycles of violence and reconciliation can result in the following beliefs and attitudes:

• The abused thinks that the violence was their fault.
• The abused has an inability to place the responsibility for the violence elsewhere.
• The abused fears for their life, and/or, the lives of loved ones whom the abuser might or has threatened to harm (e.g., children-in-common, close relatives, or friends).
• The abused has an irrational belief that the abuser is omnipresent and omniscient.

Battered woman syndrome - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

t's tough to answer, knowing that society now and then have nothing in common.

We don't know enough to judge, neither me , neither anyone else.

I feel I have enough knowledge to judge that:

1. Owning humans as property is never acceptable.

2. Declaring one class/group of people as being fair game for ownership as property,
and another class/group of people as being forbidden from being owned as property,
as God showing favoritism towards the 2nd group and against the 1st as @osgart stated.
Contrary to your assertion that it’s the opposite.

When you put emotions aside, you can’t see that to make that judgment?

 

[Dimi95]

In what way do you view this as an emotional argument?

Trying to give some kind of reason based on emotion to try to change the argument is emotional fallacy.

@osgart stated

To which you replied

As though this should excuse the tyranny and oppression God is often used to justify.
Correct?

Can you describe the society in which those people were leaving?
What kind of belief did they have ?
What was their way of understanding things?
Did those people had the same Moral and Ethics like now?
What did people did then with their lifes?

It is easier 5000 years later to judge, when our way of understanding things is different.
Its more likely that we can understand things better , we can assume that we are more advanced.

I think that we should ask more when such topics are been discussed.

I stated a parallel which I believed most people could understand; where tyranny and oppression (in the parallel case, a husband abusing a wife)
is not excused by, at times showing grace, mercy and forgiveness
(In the parallel case, giving his wife a kiss and hug)
Most people understand that the kiss and hug don’t make up for the abuse.
Therefore bringing into question whether occasional “grace, mercy, and forgiveness”
makes up for “tyranny and oppression”.


Sadly, it happens far too frequently.
Apparently you’ve not heard of
Battered Woman Syndrome?

Additionally, repeated cycles of violence and reconciliation can result in the following beliefs and attitudes:

• The abused thinks that the violence was their fault.
• The abused has an inability to place the responsibility for the violence elsewhere.
• The abused fears for their life, and/or, the lives of loved ones whom the abuser might or has threatened to harm (e.g., children-in-common, close relatives, or friends).
• The abused has an irrational belief that the abuser is omnipresent and omniscient.

Battered woman syndrome - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I feel I have enough knowledge to judge that:

1. Owning humans as property is never acceptable.

2. Declaring one class/group of people as being fair game for ownership as property,
and another class/group of people as being forbidden from being owned as property,
as God showing favoritism towards the 2nd group and against the 1st as @osgart stated.
Contrary to your assertion that it’s the opposite.

When you put emotions aside, you can’t see that to make that judgment?

Are we on a therapy session or?
Why all the lecture?

Again , we can only assume what kind of reletionship had people then.
For certain it's different now.

The thing that you want to invoke answer based on emotion tells everything.

Or you will go again to what i answered to the other member?

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Trying to give some kind of reason based on emotion to try to change the argument is emotional fallacy.

Again…
I stated a parallel which I believed most people could understand; where tyranny and oppression (in the parallel case, a husband abusing a wife)
is not excused by, at times showing grace, mercy and forgiveness
(In the parallel case, giving his wife a kiss and hug)
Most people understand that the kiss and hug don’t make up for the abuse.
Therefore bringing into question whether occasional “grace, mercy, and forgiveness”
makes up for “tyranny and oppression”.

Explain to me how you see that as “Trying to give some kind of reason based on emotion to try to change the argument”?

Did those people had the same Moral and Ethics like now?

We’re talking about your god here…..
Are you suggesting that his morals and ethics have changed over time?
Or is this a tacit admission that the bible as written was merely the opinions of men and there understanding at the time and not inspired/representative of a god.

It is easier 5000 years later to judge, when our way of understanding things is different.
Its more likely that we can understand things better , we can assume that we are more advanced.

Am I to understand that God’s way of understanding things is different than it was 5000 years ago, since the passages I asked you to explain are purportedly what “The Lord said to Moses at Mount Sinai”
(Bible Gateway passage: Leviticus 25 - New International Version)

And “And God spoke all these words:”
(Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 21 - New International Version)

Or are you saying:
“Its more likely that we can understand things better , we can assume that we are more advanced” than your god?

 

[Dimi95]

Again…

Again , you want to invoke answer based on emotion.

But for the sake of the discussion i will answer you with Scripture

Husband and wife
Ephesians 5:28-33
"In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself,for we are members of his body.'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' "

So your argument is dismissed

"Tyrant"
Romans
"For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad."

Or are you saying:
“Its more likely that we can understand things better , we can assume that we are more advanced” than your god?

This is red herring fallacy