Well maybe not you but I'm almost certain. You had a minecraft pig face as your avatar in February 2013? And you speak spanish?

No, and yes. Lol I doubt it was me. I changed my username a couple times, so maybe it was someone else, I have too much love in my heart to say such things :rolleyes:

Welcome back anyway.

Btw do people still use the IRC? I went on now and there was only 4 people logged including myself and Jeff. So really just 2.

Thanks, dude :) Idk, last time I logged in it was the same... only a few people

Quote from Index

@jutsu

your post doesn't address the main points of the video at all (like 9:38 or 12:41)

i am not interested in nitpicking through contexts and different translations to figure out whether or not the particular examples he used are completely accurate in the way he presented them. the fact that you lumped "4:27 and beyond" together and addressed all of it with critiques he addresses later in the video leads me to question whether or not you actually watched the whole thing.

"But it's also been taken out of extreme context here as there's plenty of examples where the man gets stoned to death too."

ah i see, that sounds fair! that makes throwing rocks at human beings until they're dead okay, because of the context.

the point is that if there are atrocious acts that become okay in certain contexts or when ordered by God rather than Man, then how can that be a good standard for objective morality?

So you don't care that the video is predicated on false statements and what you would call "nitpicking through contexts and translations?" Which is exactly what the uploader was doing himself if you didn't notice. Which is also exactly what you're doing with his video, right now. If you don't want to spend the time to learn the history of the scripture then don't debate the subjects in it, obviously.
It's just as absurd when atheists interpret the scripture to mean what they want it to as it is when religious zealots do it.

If you're so suspicious of me not finishing the video, then let me elucidate my suspicions that you seem to have not really read the bible yourself. An ignorance I'm exceedingly tolerant of.

You can rest assured that I would have gone into even more lengthy detail on the video if I thought you would've reacted better. I don't really want to get into another shambling argument where I do all the research and the receiving party only contributes adversarial back chatter until they just call me an idiot and stomp off.

Also, I am under no obligation to defend "god" to you. After all, I'm not even religious.

P.S: Sorry if I'm being a douche nozzle, I've just had this conversation before I feel like and I've actually done a fair amount of research.

once again, the video i posted showcased that scripture *with the anticipation that Christians would object to its contextual and semantic accuracy* in order to make his point about "objective" mortality versus a morality where any act can be deemed just under certain circumstances, or scrutinized from a standpoint outside of its framework (how do you decide whether one interpretation of God's word is more correct than another?). you stated yourself that the Bible does in fact order human beings to be stoned to death in many cases (and there's not really a way to argue otherwise). but stoning people to death is considered a violation of human rights in the Western world. the reason for that, i would say, is that the concept of "human rights" is based upon more of an "objective morality"--where things are *absolutely* wrong, and there are ideological and philosophical axioms--than the Bible is, where the only axiom is very shaky.

Quote from Index

once again, the video i posted showcased that scripture *with the anticipation that Christians would object to its contextual and semantic accuracy* in order to make his point about "objective" mortality versus a morality where any act can be deemed just under certain circumstances, or scrutinized from a standpoint outside of its framework (how do you decide whether one interpretation of God's word is more correct than another?). you stated yourself that the Bible does in fact order human beings to be stoned to death in many cases (and there's not really a way to argue otherwise). but stoning people to death is considered a violation of human rights in the Western world. the reason for that, i would say, is that the concept of "human rights" is based upon more of an "objective morality"--where things are *absolutely* wrong, and there are ideological and philosophical axioms--than the Bible is, where the only axiom is very shaky.

You don't see the paradox in a man trying to prove a thought process is illogical by adopting said illogical thought process? It was an entertaining proposition at first until you realize his intentions.
And see, my personal starting point is that the idea that objective morality may be an illusion. So you're not even in the ball park of understanding my real stance on that subject. I don't really remember weighing in on objective morality itself anyways.

I actually like you and I wish you would post more, honestly. But there's so much you aren't considering and it's because of your not wanting to learn the scripture or attempt to understand it at all. The bible is an old book and it has been translated many times, that's what it is.

You don't consider how it's the literal same ignorance when an atheist takes choice verses from the book and boldly states "this is the word of god" and you just accept that fact. As when the church does that to the masses and they follow blindly. Then to jump to the sudden conclusion that this is what all Christians must believe. You didn't bother to look it up at all.

You don't consider how Christians might not adhere to all the rules established in the book, by civilizations that existed prior to the birth of or for the love of god killed their messiah. For example, the Jewish also read the bible but what they take away is different isn't it?

You aren't considering that many of these alleged laws in the scripture that are being blown out of proportion to be the literal words of god may have come from civilizations prior to Jesus's sacrifice, to die for our sins. Christs very existence was in contradiction with much of what is in the bible and the established rules of his society at large. They didn't crucify him for being so darn agreeable.

After all, much of the original text is in hebrew or aramiac. So it's not like the Christian religion, which happened after the death of Christ, would even make that major of a contribution to the text. Yet you would presume that an ancient passage taken out of context depicting rules prior to Christs existence, is an objective "This is the word of god and you just have to accept that, because false dichotomy."
Do you not see the flagrant hypocrisy?

You didn't exert enough effort to learn the subject material before jumping into it. You didn't realize that from just a biblical stand point the mans entire video begins falling apart. And you wouldn't have had the ability to really debate these topics with me, because you didn't put in the effort to learn any of the darn material.

You'll never change opinions like that but I think you know and don't care. It makes me wonder what your intentions for posting this even was, I suspect they're similar to the intentions of the video owner himself.

Sorry for not wanting to go into super hardcore logical debate mode with you on this subject and break down every little thing. That's a lot of effort when none is being reciprocated. I hope I have provided enough to at least convince you to not to take the splenetic pretensions of the video maker at face value.
I would encourage you to read the bible yourself, if I didn't know you would go into it full of bias.

Quote from Vorpal

You don't see the paradox in a man trying to prove a thought process is illogical by adopting said illogical thought process? It was an entertaining proposition at first until you realize his intentions.

the argument he was making was that the idea of deriving objective morality from something that is exceedingly subjective/circumstantial in both interpretation and creation is illogical. i don't understand what other thought processes you're referring to.

Quote from Vorpal

And see, my personal starting point is that the idea that objective morality may be an illusion. So you're not even in the ball park of understanding my real stance on that subject. I don't really remember weighing in on objective morality itself anyways.

except that's literally what the discussion was about.

it's actually insane that you later go on to say "It makes me wonder what your intentions for posting this even was, I suspect they're similar to the intentions of the video owner himself" when you're clearly not even interested in a discussion about objective morality and how it relates to Christianity, while i am. like, i actually think you need to go back to my post with that video and then click one page prior. what are people discussing? is this all a misunderstanding because you didn't see that?

if you think i randomly posted the video and wasn't responding to anyone, i hope we can just end this exchange now.

you're clearly more interested in framing a new discussion about things you continuously feel the need to remind everyone you're so well-read on. except all of that may or may not be relevant to what the discussion was actually about, which is deriving objective morality from Christianity, NOT finer points of theology.

if you don't have actual disagreements that are relevant to this subject and are more interested in roasting this guy's video, i don't know why i'm even replying.

Quote from Vorpal

I actually like you and I wish you would post more, honestly. But there's so much you aren't considering and it's because of your not wanting to learn the scripture or attempt to understand it at all.

not relevant to the discussion and not an argument. i may or may not have read the entire bible. i can tell you i have read hundreds of pages, but that's really not relevant to anything i'm actually saying, which is all from a very core philosophical perspective.

Quote from Vorpal

The bible is an old book and it has been translated many times, that's what it is. You don't consider how it's the literal same ignorance when an atheist takes choice verses from the book and boldly states "this is the word of god" and you just accept that fact. As when the church does that to the masses and they follow blindly. Then to jump to the sudden conclusion that this is what all Christians must believe. You didn't bother to look it up at all.

this is a strawman, because no one did that. quote where i accepted any specific interpretation or reading of the Bible as "fact" and said it was the word of God. what i have actually posted is quite the opposite, because i did not defend the quality of whatever translation nonstampcollector chose nor his intentions behind doing so, but simply questioned what his ability to do so, or anyone else's, says about deriving your objective moral axioms from such a source.

Quote from Vorpal

You don't consider how Christians might not adhere to all the rules established in the book, by civilizations that existed prior to the birth of or for the love of god killed their messiah. For example, the Jewish also read the bible but what they take away is different isn't it?

yes, exactly. and that's relevant when you're going to claim that scripture is something to derive universal, unquestionable, definitive truths from.

Quote from Vorpal

You aren't considering that many of these alleged laws in the scripture that are being blown out of proportion to be the literal words of god may have come from civilizations prior to Jesus's sacrifice, to die for our sins. Christs very existence was in contradiction with much of what is in the bible and the established rules of his society at large. They didn't crucify him for being so darn agreeable.

After all, much of the original text is in hebrew or aramiac. So it's not like the Christian religion, which happened after the death of Christ, would even make that major of a contribution to the text. Yet you would presume that an ancient passage taken out of context depicting rules prior to Christs existence, is an objective "This is the word of god and you just have to accept that, because false dichotomy."

again, claiming that the real truths and meanings behind certain scripture are muddled and impossible to truly know works for the argument i'm making rather than against it. you also can't just disregard the Old Testament when it makes up the majority of the Bible. the video i posted also anticipates this claim and respond to it.

Quote from Vorpal

You didn't exert enough effort to learn the subject material before jumping into it. You didn't realize that from just a biblical stand point the mans entire video begins falling apart. And you wouldn't have had the ability to really debate these topics with me, because you didn't put in the effort to learn any of the darn material.

not an argument and obviously pulled out of thin air. i don't really understand why you think it's relevant to post things like this.

Quote from Vorpal

Sorry for not wanting to go into super hardcore logical debate mode with you on this subject and break down every little thing.

lol?

i want to
- discuss objective morality as it relates to the Judeo-Christian Bible (which is what the discussion actually was)
- argue from a basic level of philosophy, belief systems, and how meaning is derived
- NOT "break down every little thing" about scripture, because that is not relevant

i did not post that video to discuss how premarital sex should actually be translated as adultery... because that doesn't even matter.

i would rather discuss whether or not stoning people to death is morally repugnant or not, and how we are supposed to justify our answer.

Quote from Index

the argument he was making was that the idea of deriving objective morality from something that is exceedingly subjective/circumstantial in both interpretation and creation is illogical. i don't understand what other thought processes you're referring to.


except that's literally what the discussion was about.

it's actually insane that you later go on to say "It makes me wonder what your intentions for posting this even was, I suspect they're similar to the intentions of the video owner himself" when you're clearly not even interested in a discussion about objective morality and how it relates to Christianity, while i am. like, i actually think you need to go back to my post with that video and then click one page prior. what are people discussing? is this all a misunderstanding because you didn't see that?

if you think i randomly posted the video and wasn't responding to anyone, i hope we can just end this exchange now.

you're clearly more interested in framing a new discussion about things you continuously feel the need to remind everyone you're so well-read on. except all of that may or may not be relevant to what the discussion was actually about, which is deriving objective morality from Christianity, NOT finer points of theology.

if you don't have actual disagreements that are relevant to this subject and are more interested in roasting this guy's video, i don't know why i'm even replying.

not relevant to the discussion and not an argument. i may or may not have read the entire bible. i can tell you i have read hundreds of pages, but that's really not relevant to anything i'm actually saying, which is all from a very core philosophical perspective.

this is a strawman, because no one did that. quote where i accepted any specific interpretation or reading of the Bible as "fact" and said it was the word of God. what i have actually posted is quite the opposite, because i did not defend the quality of whatever translation nonstampcollector chose nor his intentions behind doing so, but simply questioned what his ability to do so, or anyone else's, says about deriving your objective moral axioms from such a source.


yes, exactly. and that's relevant when you're going to claim that scripture is something to derive universal, unquestionable, definitive truths from.

again, claiming that the real truths and meanings behind certain scripture are muddled and impossible to truly know works for the argument i'm making rather than against it. you also can't just disregard the Old Testament when it makes up the majority of the Bible. the video i posted also anticipates this claim and respond to it.

not an argument and obviously pulled out of thin air. i don't really understand why you think it's relevant to post things like this.

lol?

i want to
- discuss objective morality as it relates to the Judeo-Christian Bible (which is what the discussion actually was)
- argue from a basic level of philosophy, belief systems, and logic
- NOT "break down every little thing" about scripture, because that is not relevant

i did not post that video to discuss how premarital sex should actually be translated as adultery... because that doesn't even matter.

i would rather discuss whether or not stoning people to death is morally repugnant or not, and how we are supposed to justify our answer.

Literally why are you doing this? You're freaking out right now and I feel like I've been more than patient.

There were only two posts the page before that lead to your post, I guess has a subject header I didn't discuss that thoroughly. But hey I made it clear I thought the premise of the video was flawed. Mind you, this is the chat thread not the "you have to only talk about things the way index wants" thread.

You provided me with a link to a video and nothing else in that post, so I thought my response was honestly more than it deserved.
Sorry you had a bad chat. Next time? D=

well, someone else's video is definitely not a good lead-in to an actual debate, because i obviously don't care to defend the way he sourced support for his arguments or put together the video when it doesn't really have an effect on its conclusions. but i do agree with his main points (as noted earlier), which are concerned with the morality question and are what i'd actually care to discuss as well. i'm not freaking out, we are just clearly having a tug of war over what we're actually supposed to be debating.

Quote from Index

well, someone else's video is definitely not a good lead-in to an actual debate, because i obviously don't care to defend the way he constructed his arguments. but i do agree with his main points (as noted earlier), which are concerned with the morality question and are what i'd actually care to discuss as well. i'm not freaking out, we are just clearly having a tug of war over what we're actually supposed to be debating.

I thought I made it clear that I wasn't trying to debate you though. You can't post a video and nothing else and ambush someone with what you perceive as a debate. Also you shouldn't take my criticisms of said video so personally unless they actually are your beliefs.

I get confused you see, because you say stuff like you're interested in discussing the topic of objective morals as it relates to the bible. But you tell me somehow the scripture is irrelevant, even though said scripture is also the basis of the videos anti biblical overtones.

your gripes with the video did nothing to argue against what the video was actually about though. the way its examples were sourced had very little to do with the conclusions that were made. the video even addressed multiple counterarguments you went on to make even after i accused you of not finishing it.

i didn't take any criticisms of the video personally... quite the opposite.

the concept of interpreting scripture is relevant. whatever specific scripture that may be is not.

Quote from Index

your gripes with the video did nothing to argue against what the video was actually about though. the way its examples were sourced had very little to do with the conclusions that were made. the video even addressed multiple counterarguments you went on to make even after i accused you of not finishing it.

i didn't take any criticisms of the video personally... quite the opposite.

And what conclusion did the video reach? That organized religion isn't necessarily a good basis for objective morals?
Good god, I figured that out when I was like ten. Just look at history.

You got all in a kerfuffle because that's the statement you wanted to make? You realize you're placing literally all the burden of this discussion on me and you just pointing at the video? Even when its so obvious the videos intention isn't to reach a logical conclusion about morality, but rather to trash on religion?

As stated before, it's a trivial matter to use logic to poke holes in religious moral code. Even for people who know diddly about religion.

Quote from Index

the concept of interpreting scripture is relevant. whatever specific scripture that may be is not.

Be honest, this part doesn't even compute.

Quote from Vorpal

And what conclusion did the video reach? That organized religion isn't necessarily a good basis for objective morals?
Good god, I figured that out when I was like ten. Just look at history.

You got all in a kerfuffle because that's the statement you wanted to make? You realize you're placing literally all the burden of this discussion on me and you just pointing at the video? Even when its so obvious the videos intention isn't to reach a logical conclusion about morality, but rather to trash on religion?

As stated before, it's a trivial matter to use logic to poke holes in religious moral code. Even for people who know diddly about religion.

Be honest, this part doesn't even compute.

what do you mean i'm just pointing at the video? i restated the points i wanted to pull from the video in my second post. after i made my second post, you pretty much ignored its content and continued on the issues you wanted to talk about. you know, the whole point about "atheists are ignorant and interpret the Bible poorly." this basically repeated itself, so i said the issues i wanted to talk about were more relevant because they were already being discussed before i posted the video (and are actually why i posted it).

essential points are that morality ceases to be objective when:

- you can invoke context.
- it is circumstantial or historical.
- it can be side-stepped or changed depending on who is doing it.
- it can be interpreted in different ways: there is no definitive conclusion.

the more "trashing on religion" portion of the video basically says that if you want to live in a world where it's moral to throw rocks at people until they're dead under ANY circumstances, maybe you should question the source of your morality.

Quote from Index

what do you mean i'm just pointing at the video? i restated the points i wanted to pull from the video in my second post. after i made my second post, you pretty much ignored its content and continued on the issues you wanted to talk about. this basically repeated itself, so i said the issues i wanted to talk about were more relevant because they were already being discussed before i posted the video.

essential points are that morality ceases to be objective when:

- you can invoke context.
- it is circumstantial or historical.
- it can be side-stepped or changed depending on who is doing it.
- it can be interpreted in different ways: there is no definitive conclusion.

the more "trashing on religion" portion of the video basically says that if you want to live in a world where it's moral to throw rocks at people until they're dead under ANY circumstances, maybe you should question the source of your morality.

The bible isn't my source of morality though, maybe stop forcing me into an adversarial position?

Let's really take a look at who ignored who first and it'll be pretty obvious that you shrugged off a great portion of a well thought out and sizable post, simply because you don't want to hear any of it. I mean really, look at your second post in response to my own.
Now you literally pretend the scripture isn't relevant, because you don't want to expend the effort to learn.
As if it's because I'm so well read and pretentious or something. Maybe I genuinely want to teach people about it?

Yet you've done the equivalent of covering your ears and going nah nah nah, this whole chat.

Also, please stop assuming I'm okay with people being stoned to death. It could also be a good idea to stop assuming Christians are okay with that as well. In fact, the only time you should need to ask if it's okay to stone people to death is if you have lost your mind.

I'm kinda disappointed, you really had nothing deep to say on the subject at all and here I thought you had some sort of big point that took some reflection. Nah it's all "religion is questionable morally" and "It seems archaic and wrong to stone people to death." You certainly huffed up like you had a big point.