fayfreethinkers.com

This web sight answered all my questions...well... actually I couldn't seem to get through the damn thing...I kept arriving at forced dichotomies. At any rate be careful...have some excedrin ready before you go here.

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

So stupid it hurts.

Darrel wrote:So stupid it hurts.

I think actually its a quit smart page. What do you feel is stupid about it ?

Step four says, "Rape, and child molestation, are two examples of absolute moral wrongs." Naturally I agree with that they are morally wrong. The button, however, says "Absolute Moral Law". Historically many cultures have accepted ideas like kidnapping women and "marrying" them. I find this morally abhorrent. Of course, their culture said otherwise. I suspect the members of said cultures differed on this, but that changes nothing. So, does this stand up to the standard of "Absolute Law" obviously not. So I click on that. I now am asked if molesting children for fun is absolutely wrong or not. Saying it's wrong brings me back to the previous question.
So, if I follow, I call my personal and cultural beliefs "absolute moral laws" or I think molesting children for fun is ok. Really, WTF?
That is not an honest nor a decent approach. It really is saying you can agree with the premise or you personally support child molestation. I don't call that stupid. I call that loathsome.

I kept getting stuck on the first question...I always answer "Absolute Truth Exist" but of course I was not think of morality or social constructs...I was thinking as a mathematician. Then it ask me if this is ABSOLUTELY TRUE!...well...yes....now we are talking about proving the existence of god based upon this...er...WTF! I spent the better part of an hour selecting different answers. I have heard more coherent arguments for the existence of a god from third grade sunday schoolers. A better question would be, "What part of it WASN"T stupid!!!". Still, how did you FIND this post! I think I came across this over a year ago after my masochistic side forced me to watch an eric hovid clip which pointed to this as "absolutely solid proof of the existence of god".

Whit wrote:So, if I follow, I call my personal and cultural beliefs "absolute moral laws" or I think molesting children for fun is ok. Really, WTF?
That is not an honest nor a decent approach. It really is saying you can agree with the premise or you personally support child molestation. I don't call that stupid. I call that loathsome.

And then, when the site kicks you off for not agreeing (including its (mis)characterization of your "approval" of child rape), it sends you to the Disney website.

This sort of thing -- directing "child molesters" to the Disney site, where they can make a plan to hang out amongst thousands of kids in an environment where they are very easily "lost" -- that would enrage rabid religionists. It's probably a coincidence. Probably.

Whit wrote: Historically many cultures have accepted ideas like kidnapping women and "marrying" them. I find this morally abhorrent. Of course, their culture said otherwise. I suspect the members of said cultures differed on this, but that changes nothing. So, does this stand up to the standard of "Absolute Law" obviously not.

DAR
This certainly true of the Bible culture. As Thomas Paine once put it:

"Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)." –Thomas Paine

What verses could he have been talking about? Let's look.

NU 31:18, 35, JG 21:12 Young virgins are considered a spoil of war and can be taken for the use of the victors.

JG 21:10-12 "... Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword and; also the women and little ones.... every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall utterly destroy."
They do so and find four hundred young virgins whom they bring back for their own use.

DT 20:13-14 "When the Lord delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the males .... As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves."

[Num 31:14-18] 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army-- the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds-- who returned from the battle. 15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. (NIV)

Rape of Female Captives (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."

Rape and the Spoils of War (Judges 5:30 NAB)
They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30 NAB)

More here.

Darrel wrote:What verses could he have been talking about? Let's look...

Yes, anyone with decent, modern morals must reject the morals of the Bible.

We fought a war to eliminate slavery, and the Bible is pro-slavery throughout, both Old Testament and New.

LONDON (Reuters) – God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.[underline added]

In "The Grand Design," co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant, according to the Times newspaper which published extracts on Thursday.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

See here.