That's what I've been saying the whole time. My comment was making a comment about right and wrong by saying how your discussion of fault had nothing to do with it. Therefore, by just saying you weren't making a comment about right or wrong how could you possibly claim to make the conclusion that fault has nothing to do with right or wrong without saying it!

No, you didn't telling me you weren't arguing about it, what you were telling me was that you had just argued that point I made in your post when you really did not.

Because I wasn't arguing it to begin with. You were arguing your point as if you were attacking my argument, so that was what I said in response. I wasn't saying that it has nothing to do with right or wrong, but I also wasn't saying that it was wrong either, so your assumption wasn't called for because you didn't inquire about it. You just went straight to the assumption that I was using "fault" with a negative connotation and proceeded to attack something I wasn't talking about.
No, I was telling you that you were attacking a point that I didn't believe in in the first place.

1. My answer: God commands what is good for us in the long run, and we know that it is good because God commands it.

2. Animals are not ONLY homosexual, if an animal meets another of a different sex it won't differentiate between the two, it's just too unintelligent to only go after one, they don't do it for the pleasure like humans do.


I read the King James version actually, and that quote comes from the Pearl of Great Price, basically like the Book of Mormon, as it is not in the Bible that most people read, but since you people don't believe any of them, it doesn't matter where I get it from, does it?

Perfect example of circular logic. Circulus in demonstrando.

It's pretty ironic that the example they give at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#circulus
relates to homosexuality as well.

1. Devilesk is right, read up on your propaganda types.
2. Bonobos.

No, because humans wouldn't know whether it was good or not unless God commanded it, and he knows that it is good, so he commands us, I don't see how that is circular, it just gives both answers.

No, humans and even other animals understand right from wrong even without religion, read about mirror neurons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Q: Why is what God commands "good"?
A: God commanded it, therefore it is good.
Q: Why did God command this "good"?
A: God knows it is good, therefore He commands it.
Q: Why is what God commands "good"?
A: God commanded it, therefore it is good.
Q: Why did God command this "good"?
A: God knows it is good, therefore He commands it.
Q: Why is what God commands "good"?
A: God commanded it, therefore it is good.
Q: Why did God command this "good"?
A: God knows it is good, therefore He commands it.

See the pattern?

One little problem - he said that it's how we know it's good, not that it's why it's good. The first Q in that chain's broken. If God can only command good, then it could be interpreted as that he won't command things that are bad, not that the things that he commands will become good.

So, you're telling me that my dog humped arms because it thought it was going to impregnate them? That non-human-animals that masturbate do so because they think that everything's a female of their species?
Wow, and I thought that they did it for essentially the same reason as humans masturbated. How funny of me.
...
I'll gladly shutup if someone here breaks this, but I've so far seen no one defend the claim that non-human animals don't have sex for pleasure.

Ok, seeing as how you STILL haven't answered my question with one option or the other, I'll have to go on inference. I think you are saying it is good because god commands it. If so, then... (and this is beside the points that you're using completely circular arguements)

"This scenario is essentially moral relativism writ large; it says that morality is determined solely by God's whims. So far, God has declared justice and mercy and other such things to be good. But tomorrow, he might change his mind and declare rape, torture and child sacrifice to be good, and from that point on, we would have to praise that choice and live with its repercussions. People who did such things would be welcomed into the bosoms of the angels, while those who refused would go to Hell. Can anyone, even the most conservative of fundamentalist believers, condone such a scenario?

Some believers might say that God would not command such things. But why would he not, under this view? If there is no external standard, then there is no reason why God would declare one thing good and not another. Whatever God willed would by definition be good. Under this scenario, theistic morality is completely arbitrary, and would have no objective basis.

There is another problem with the second solution to the Euthyphro dilemma: namely, it would make it a meaningless tautology to say that God is good. If goodness is defined as whatever God does, then to say "God is good" would reduce to "God does whatever he does", or more succinctly, "God is God". Under this view, to praise God for his goodness would just be a way of praising him for being the most powerful and doing whatever he wants - it is saying that might automatically makes right. To say that God is good and have that statement mean something - for that proposition to impart any additional information - there must be an independent standard, one not determined by God, against which God can be compared and contrasted, and we return to the first fork of the Euthyphro dilemma."

"If we choose the first option (god commands it because it is good), then we are saying that there is a moral standard external to God, and that is this standard, and not God himself, that determines what is good; God would simply be relaying this information to us. Needless to say, this presents problems for theists. What is this standard, where did it come from, and how does it get its power over God? If God is constrained by a standard external to himself, then he cannot be said to be omnipotent. And if such a standard exists, could not atheists bypass God and appeal to the standard directly?"

Those quotes can be found Here

You are quoting someone not of my faith, making what he believes and what I believe differently.

I said that the first option was the correct one, and the reason why WE know it is good is because God commands it.

I was not trying to say he was inherently right, I was just making a point (without typing it all out myself). You clearly tune out any opinions seperate from your own, no matter how logical. So I'll end this little side conversation now I suppose. As much as I'd like to make more points, I feel them pointless.

falkoner, is killing children ever good?

What is defined good and evil, the right and the wrong is by human values.

Guess who wrote the bible! People
Guess where it originates! People, nothing is perfect, there will always be a flaw.
We live in the modern age, we are the only species on earth that goes against natural selection or the basics of life.
We don't let the one's who can't adapt to our current way of life die, we have another way, aggression with ourselves. (wars, fighting... etc.)
Its a defect of our genes, that's a plus and a negative. Only the fittest shall live and move on.
Gay's in general are a defect of the product from "standard view" by nature or by simple choice. (Like how we prefer the flavors of ice cream or the many different colors, and etc.)

We will always have homosexuality, even in animals today. We had many from all the way from before the first pharaoh of Egypt.


I'm no homophobe, nor against. I personally accept them, and I would welcome them as friends of friends.
Things we learn, we should accept them even question them and ask why it is. We shouldn't be against them, and ensure we see it to its end because we can't unless it would be to the end of our kind, our species, and that we would be the last. Yet, it will still live on in the animals today.


Yes, but good for what? good for who? Do we see it as good? What if god sees it as good but we see it as a bad thing?


God commands it? did he tell you? who did he tell? what says it to be true by undeniable facts?
If you say from the bible, the bible is from man not god.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Sep 10 2007, 2:28 am by brutetal.

You really didn't need to post most of that, all you needed to say was that people wrote the Bible, and while people DID write it, the people that wrote it were prophets of God, and whether or not you believe it, I do.

How do you know they are prophets of god? Did god speak to you and tell you which translations of which books were the right ones?

"In nature there are neither punishments nor rewards, only consequences." Robert Ingersoll

Because it's FAITH and by definition he holds it to be true in his mind. You're really wasting your time trying to convince him.

I suggest an anti-virus update on your belief and definitions. xD
I think its outdated.

I know what you're saying minimoose, but it is a good point that wasn't touched on much before... not that Falkoner cares about anything that makes any sense when it comes to this.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 11 2007, 1:41 am by Dapperdan.