Religions > Atheism > Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jim Spaza" |
| Date: |
10 Jun 2005 04:20:04 PM |
| Object: |
Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
www.answersingenesis.com ???
Please be courteous and specific.
.
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
18 Aug 2005 12:29:55 AM |
|
|
On 17 Aug 2005 16:53:52 -0700, in talk.origins , in
<1124322832.959416.140890@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Alan Morgan wrote:
In article <p2m6g15t7u7b7cp9g0dl1dgu00ina6blqe@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 17 Aug 2005 08:20:57 -0700, in talk.origins , "Cyde Weys"
<cyde@umd.edu> in
<1124292057.689120.52810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 17 Aug 2005 07:56:22 -0700, in talk.origins , "Cyde Weys"
<cyde@umd.edu> in
"Genocide is used sparingly by God in only extreme circumstances."
-Jim Spaza
As long as we are on the issue of morality and genocide I have a few
questions, particularly for 655321. What have you done to try to stop
the genocide in the Sudan or the mass starvation in Niger? And what is
your blood donor status?
Oh, charming. I isolate what I consider to be a whopper of a quote --
essentially *celebrating* divine genocide
I don't see any celebrating.
-- and my own acts or
omissions regarding genocide and blood donorship (?!) are called into
question.
Yep. If you are going to pretend to care about such things then your
general concerns matter.
An all-powerful deity chooses to act in a way that is fairly
universally considered immoral (except by those who commit it, I
suppose), and because it is "He" who does it, the act is not only
moral, but to be celebrated.
If you are going to talk about the morality of genocide then your
actions regarding genocide are relevant.
All hail "God," the mass-murderer, shouts Spaza. I share this bit from
him with others, and this inspires one to whip out one's blood donor
card (or "God"'s) for purposes of measurement against mine?
Oy.
Well I can't speak for 655321 but I can speak for me. Guess what I've
done? Nothing. I can't solve all of the problems in this world. It's
hard enough just solving personal problems; no way in hell am I going
to try to tackle problems of genocide on another continent. If that's
selfish, then guess what, I'm selfish.
Then from my perspective you are grossly hypocritical any time you
discuss the morality of others.
But this is "God" we're talking about.
No, I am talking about you and Cyde and Jim.
The measuring stick by which
morality is to be measured in the mind of the believer. Humans have
weaknesses. Forgiving humans of genocidal acts is, as I see it, more
easy to do than forgiving creator-master-gods of the same.
You are judging Jim, not God.
To judge Jim for forgiving God's genocide
Who's judging Spaza?
You and 655321.
[snip]
while you sit by an allow Man's is hypocritical.
"allow"? Whether I can affect the tide of genocide on this planet such
as it exists is clearly questionable. Can I alleviate a small amount
of pain through donations? Sure. Can I write letters to leaders about
the problem and the need to address it? Sure.
Have you?
The relevance of any of this is not clear to me, though.
It is a mote and beam thing. If you are going to complain that Jim
does not condemn God then it is interesting to see what you are doing
about real current problems.
[snip]
How much does one have to do before one can criticize this? I have donated
money to Doctors Without Boarders, the United Way, and a few other
charities whose names escape me. How much would one have to do before
one *can* take the moral high ground? I can always donate more. I vote,
but is that enough to make me "involved"? Should I contribute money to
the candidates? More money? Should I work for their campaigns? Should
I run for local office. There is always more that I can do.
I think you might have earned the right to make fun of Spaza... but
don't ask me. I haven't done nearly enough, apparently. I'm a bad man
for going after Spaza. I need to go to the Sudan myself and throw
myself between the killers and their intended victims to make certain
people who post here happy.
Anyone want to name that fallacy? Strawman for start.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
And now our bodies are oh so close and tight
It never felt so good, it never felt so right
And we're glowing like the metal on the edge of a knife
C'mon! Hold on tight!
C'mon! Hold on tight!
Though it's cold and lonley in the deep dark night
I can see paradise by the dashboard light
Paradise by the dashboard light
Jim Steinman
.
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
18 Aug 2005 10:27:50 AM |
|
|
On 2005-08-17 22:29:55 -0700, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> said:
On 17 Aug 2005 16:53:52 -0700, in talk.origins , in
<1124322832.959416.140890@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Alan Morgan wrote:
In article <p2m6g15t7u7b7cp9g0dl1dgu00ina6blqe@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 17 Aug 2005 08:20:57 -0700, in talk.origins , "Cyde Weys"
<cyde@umd.edu> in
<1124292057.689120.52810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 17 Aug 2005 07:56:22 -0700, in talk.origins , "Cyde Weys"
<cyde@umd.edu> in
"Genocide is used sparingly by God in only extreme circumstances."
-Jim Spaza
As long as we are on the issue of morality and genocide I have a few
questions, particularly for 655321. What have you done to try to stop
the genocide in the Sudan or the mass starvation in Niger? And what is
your blood donor status?
Oh, charming. I isolate what I consider to be a whopper of a quote --
essentially *celebrating* divine genocide
I don't see any celebrating.
Then you don't see how Spaza celebrates his god, the genocidal megalomaniac.
-- and my own acts or
omissions regarding genocide and blood donorship (?!) are called into
question.
Yep. If you are going to pretend to care about such things then your
general concerns matter.
That's a crock. It's irrelevant.
An all-powerful deity chooses to act in a way that is fairly
universally considered immoral (except by those who commit it, I
suppose), and because it is "He" who does it, the act is not only
moral, but to be celebrated.
If you are going to talk about the morality of genocide then your
actions regarding genocide are relevant.
They really aren't in the context of my discussion with Spaza.
All hail "God," the mass-murderer, shouts Spaza. I share this bit from
him with others, and this inspires one to whip out one's blood donor
card (or "God"'s) for purposes of measurement against mine?
Oy.
Again: Oy.
Well I can't speak for 655321 but I can speak for me. Guess what I've
done? Nothing. I can't solve all of the problems in this world. It's
hard enough just solving personal problems; no way in hell am I going
to try to tackle problems of genocide on another continent. If that's
selfish, then guess what, I'm selfish.
Then from my perspective you are grossly hypocritical any time you
discuss the morality of others.
But this is "God" we're talking about.
No, I am talking about you and Cyde and Jim.
I wasn't talking about the acts of any human, so you're way off base.
The measuring stick by which
morality is to be measured in the mind of the believer. Humans have
weaknesses. Forgiving humans of genocidal acts is, as I see it, more
easy to do than forgiving creator-master-gods of the same.
You are judging Jim, not God.
I was making fun of the degree to which he has to twist his brain to
revere a genocidal god.
To judge Jim for forgiving God's genocide
Who's judging Spaza?
You and 655321.
Naw, just making fun of the chap.
[snip]
while you sit by an allow Man's is hypocritical.
"allow"? Whether I can affect the tide of genocide on this planet such
as it exists is clearly questionable. Can I alleviate a small amount
of pain through donations? Sure. Can I write letters to leaders about
the problem and the need to address it? Sure.
Have you?
Do I have to tell you? You can take that response as a "no"; I don't care.
The relevance of any of this is not clear to me, though.
It is a mote and beam thing. If you are going to complain that Jim
does not condemn God then it is interesting to see what you are doing
about real current problems.
[snip]
Actually that is absolutely incorrect.
How much does one have to do before one can criticize this? I have donated
money to Doctors Without Boarders, the United Way, and a few other
charities whose names escape me. How much would one have to do before
one *can* take the moral high ground? I can always donate more. I vote,
but is that enough to make me "involved"? Should I contribute money to
the candidates? More money? Should I work for their campaigns? Should
I run for local office. There is always more that I can do.
I think you might have earned the right to make fun of Spaza... but
don't ask me. I haven't done nearly enough, apparently. I'm a bad man
for going after Spaza. I need to go to the Sudan myself and throw
myself between the killers and their intended victims to make certain
people who post here happy.
Anyone want to name that fallacy? Strawman for start.
[snip]
You started it with the "What have you done?" red herring.
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 --
"Genocide is used sparingly by God in only extreme circumstances." -Jim Spaza
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Aug 2005 05:16:49 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:55:08 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins ,
amorgan@xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) in
<de087c$bm7$1@xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
In article <p2m6g15t7u7b7cp9g0dl1dgu00ina6blqe@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 17 Aug 2005 08:20:57 -0700, in talk.origins , "Cyde Weys"
<cyde@umd.edu> in
<1124292057.689120.52810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 17 Aug 2005 07:56:22 -0700, in talk.origins , "Cyde Weys"
<cyde@umd.edu> in
"Genocide is used sparingly by God in only extreme circumstances." -Jim Spaza
As long as we are on the issue of morality and genocide I have a few
questions, particularly for 655321. What have you done to try to stop
the genocide in the Sudan or the mass starvation in Niger? And what is
your blood donor status?
Well I can't speak for 655321 but I can speak for me. Guess what I've
done? Nothing. I can't solve all of the problems in this world. It's
hard enough just solving personal problems; no way in hell am I going
to try to tackle problems of genocide on another continent. If that's
selfish, then guess what, I'm selfish.
Then from my perspective you are grossly hypocritical any time you
discuss the morality of others. To judge Jim for forgiving God's
genocide while you sit by an allow Man's is hypocritical. There is
nothing your or Jim or anyone else can do about any supposed genocides
committed by God in the past, we can do something about Sudan and
Niger.
How much does one have to do before one can criticize this? I have donated
money to Doctors Without Boarders, the United Way, and a few other
charities whose names escape me. How much would one have to do before
one *can* take the moral high ground? I can always donate more. I vote,
but is that enough to make me "involved"? Should I contribute money to
the candidates? More money? Should I work for their campaigns? Should
I run for local office. There is always more that I can do.
Are you trying to play a Sorities Heap game with me? Yeah, there is no
sharp dividing line, what a surprise. Do you have a different argument
to make?
I can't donate blood any more, as it happens, although I used to do so
fairly regularly.
Which is a sufficient answer for me. Or that you never did and can't
for medical reasons. I will even accept that you don't because your
religion says don't. But "gee, I should get paid" or "it hurts" is not
sufficient.
Further, I don't see anything wrong with judging God and Mankind by
different standards.
I gather I was not clear. I am objecting to Cyde judging Jim, not God.
It is that he complains about Jim's morality while not exhibiting any
moral acts of his own in the relevant area.
It reminds me of those who were criticized for
criticizing our actions in Abu Ghraib prison. Yes, Saddam Hussein
did worse. A lot worse. We are, however, supposed to be better than
him. A *lot* better. God is supposed to be... well, God. If I
can't hold him to a higher standard then what is the point?
Now turn that around. Cyde is one who is refusing to criticize Abu
Ghraib, the on-going problem, but objecting to Jim's refusal to
criticize Saddam, the actions in the past.
--
Matt Silberstein
And now our bodies are oh so close and tight
It never felt so good, it never felt so right
And we're glowing like the metal on the edge of a knife
C'mon! Hold on tight!
C'mon! Hold on tight!
Though it's cold and lonley in the deep dark night
I can see paradise by the dashboard light
Paradise by the dashboard light
Jim Steinman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Morgan" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Aug 2005 06:06:18 PM |
|
|
In article <uad7g1t3molfquu8fcj29mbf31hne5s6i2@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:55:08 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins ,
amorgan@xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) in
<de087c$bm7$1@xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
In article <p2m6g15t7u7b7cp9g0dl1dgu00ina6blqe@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 17 Aug 2005 08:20:57 -0700, in talk.origins , "Cyde Weys"
<cyde@umd.edu> in
<1124292057.689120.52810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 17 Aug 2005 07:56:22 -0700, in talk.origins , "Cyde Weys"
<cyde@umd.edu> in
"Genocide is used sparingly by God in only extreme circumstances." -Jim Spaza
As long as we are on the issue of morality and genocide I have a few
questions, particularly for 655321. What have you done to try to stop
the genocide in the Sudan or the mass starvation in Niger? And what is
your blood donor status?
Well I can't speak for 655321 but I can speak for me. Guess what I've
done? Nothing. I can't solve all of the problems in this world. It's
hard enough just solving personal problems; no way in hell am I going
to try to tackle problems of genocide on another continent. If that's
selfish, then guess what, I'm selfish.
Then from my perspective you are grossly hypocritical any time you
discuss the morality of others. To judge Jim for forgiving God's
genocide while you sit by an allow Man's is hypocritical. There is
nothing your or Jim or anyone else can do about any supposed genocides
committed by God in the past, we can do something about Sudan and
Niger.
How much does one have to do before one can criticize this? I have donated
money to Doctors Without Boarders, the United Way, and a few other
charities whose names escape me. How much would one have to do before
one *can* take the moral high ground? I can always donate more. I vote,
but is that enough to make me "involved"? Should I contribute money to
the candidates? More money? Should I work for their campaigns? Should
I run for local office. There is always more that I can do.
Are you trying to play a Sorities Heap game with me? Yeah, there is no
sharp dividing line, what a surprise. Do you have a different argument
to make?
No, that was pretty much it.
I don't think it is a bogus argument, frankly. If somepne formulates
the argument as "What have you done about X" I will always lose. No
matter what I've done they can always say "You should have done Y". I
don't like getting involved in those arguments. I don't think that
you were going to be that dishonest, but that doesn't mean I find the
rhetorical technique any nicer.
I can't donate blood any more, as it happens, although I used to do so
fairly regularly.
Which is a sufficient answer for me. Or that you never did and can't
for medical reasons. I will even accept that you don't because your
religion says don't. But "gee, I should get paid" or "it hurts" is not
sufficient.
Well, yeah. But there are plenty of things that I could do that I'm
not doing that for similarly bogus reasons (I keep coming back to that
point).
Further, I don't see anything wrong with judging God and Mankind by
different standards.
I gather I was not clear. I am objecting to Cyde judging Jim, not God.
It is that he complains about Jim's morality while not exhibiting any
moral acts of his own in the relevant area.
I *still* think that it is a little tacky to be so forgiving towards
a being (God) who really shouldn't require any forgiveness (being God,
and all), but I take your point.
It reminds me of those who were criticized for
criticizing our actions in Abu Ghraib prison. Yes, Saddam Hussein
did worse. A lot worse. We are, however, supposed to be better than
him. A *lot* better. God is supposed to be... well, God. If I
can't hold him to a higher standard then what is the point?
Now turn that around. Cyde is one who is refusing to criticize Abu
Ghraib, the on-going problem, but objecting to Jim's refusal to
criticize Saddam, the actions in the past.
To continue with this analogy, I believe you criticized Cyde for not
*doing* anything about Abu Ghraib but objecting to Jim's refusal
to criticize Saddam.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Aug 2005 11:08:59 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:06:18 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins ,
amorgan@xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) in
<de0fta$30o$1@xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
In article <uad7g1t3molfquu8fcj29mbf31hne5s6i2@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:55:08 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins ,
amorgan@xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) in
<de087c$bm7$1@xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
In article <p2m6g15t7u7b7cp9g0dl1dgu00ina6blqe@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 17 Aug 2005 08:20:57 -0700, in talk.origins , "Cyde Weys"
<cyde@umd.edu> in
<1124292057.689120.52810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 17 Aug 2005 07:56:22 -0700, in talk.origins , "Cyde Weys"
<cyde@umd.edu> in
"Genocide is used sparingly by God in only extreme circumstances." -Jim Spaza
As long as we are on the issue of morality and genocide I have a few
questions, particularly for 655321. What have you done to try to stop
the genocide in the Sudan or the mass starvation in Niger? And what is
your blood donor status?
Well I can't speak for 655321 but I can speak for me. Guess what I've
done? Nothing. I can't solve all of the problems in this world. It's
hard enough just solving personal problems; no way in hell am I going
to try to tackle problems of genocide on another continent. If that's
selfish, then guess what, I'm selfish.
Then from my perspective you are grossly hypocritical any time you
discuss the morality of others. To judge Jim for forgiving God's
genocide while you sit by an allow Man's is hypocritical. There is
nothing your or Jim or anyone else can do about any supposed genocides
committed by God in the past, we can do something about Sudan and
Niger.
How much does one have to do before one can criticize this? I have donated
money to Doctors Without Boarders, the United Way, and a few other
charities whose names escape me. How much would one have to do before
one *can* take the moral high ground? I can always donate more. I vote,
but is that enough to make me "involved"? Should I contribute money to
the candidates? More money? Should I work for their campaigns? Should
I run for local office. There is always more that I can do.
Are you trying to play a Sorities Heap game with me? Yeah, there is no
sharp dividing line, what a surprise. Do you have a different argument
to make?
No, that was pretty much it.
I don't think it is a bogus argument, frankly.
Too bad, it is. The inability to quantify precisely where we can find
a dividing line does not mean there is no distinction. How about you
quantify exactly where two populations speciate.
If somepne formulates
the argument as "What have you done about X" I will always lose. No
matter what I've done they can always say "You should have done Y".
That there could be a bogus response does not mean that all responses
are bogus. You pointed out that you have donated money to try to deal
with some of these problems. That certainly gives you more standing
than Cyde's "I am to busy with my own problems". There are other acts
which could suffice, writing letters to politicians, working on
community projects instead, etc. You have set up a strawman that I
somehow demand absolute perfection. What I demand is that if Cyde is
going to criticize Jim for not complaining about something in the
past, then he ought to do something about the same kind of issue in
the present. *Something*, not everything.
I
don't like getting involved in those arguments.
And, yet, you did. Go figure.
I don't think that
you were going to be that dishonest, but that doesn't mean I find the
rhetorical technique any nicer.
Please show where I was dishonest. I see you putting up an invalid
argument, you followed that with a strawman, and now you top it with
an ad hominem.
I can't donate blood any more, as it happens, although I used to do so
fairly regularly.
Which is a sufficient answer for me. Or that you never did and can't
for medical reasons. I will even accept that you don't because your
religion says don't. But "gee, I should get paid" or "it hurts" is not
sufficient.
Well, yeah. But there are plenty of things that I could do that I'm
not doing that for similarly bogus reasons (I keep coming back to that
point).
It is your strawman so why not. I did not demand that any particular
set of things be done or, as you suggest, that all things be done,
just that something be done. Why in the world should I care what Cyde
thinks about Jim's morality when Cyde is satisfied to sit back and let
genocide happen right now?
Further, I don't see anything wrong with judging God and Mankind by
different standards.
I gather I was not clear. I am objecting to Cyde judging Jim, not God.
It is that he complains about Jim's morality while not exhibiting any
moral acts of his own in the relevant area.
I *still* think that it is a little tacky to be so forgiving towards
a being (God) who really shouldn't require any forgiveness (being God,
and all), but I take your point.
It reminds me of those who were criticized for
criticizing our actions in Abu Ghraib prison. Yes, Saddam Hussein
did worse. A lot worse. We are, however, supposed to be better than
him. A *lot* better. God is supposed to be... well, God. If I
can't hold him to a higher standard then what is the point?
Now turn that around. Cyde is one who is refusing to criticize Abu
Ghraib, the on-going problem, but objecting to Jim's refusal to
criticize Saddam, the actions in the past.
To continue with this analogy, I believe you criticized Cyde for not
*doing* anything about Abu Ghraib but objecting to Jim's refusal
to criticize Saddam.
Yep. Criticism is just words, it does not really matter either way.
Actions have some value.
--
Matt Silberstein
And now our bodies are oh so close and tight
It never felt so good, it never felt so right
And we're glowing like the metal on the edge of a knife
C'mon! Hold on tight!
C'mon! Hold on tight!
Though it's cold and lonley in the deep dark night
I can see paradise by the dashboard light
Paradise by the dashboard light
Jim Steinman
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Last Conformist" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
18 Aug 2005 06:01:21 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:06:18 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins ,
amorgan@xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) in
<de0fta$30o$1@xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
In article <uad7g1t3molfquu8fcj29mbf31hne5s6i2@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:55:08 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins ,
amorgan@xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) in
<de087c$bm7$1@xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
In article <p2m6g15t7u7b7cp9g0dl1dgu00ina6blqe@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 17 Aug 2005 08:20:57 -0700, in talk.origins , "Cyde Weys"
<cyde@umd.edu> in
<1124292057.689120.52810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 17 Aug 2005 07:56:22 -0700, in talk.origins , "Cyde Weys"
<cyde@umd.edu> in
"Genocide is used sparingly by God in only extreme circumstances." -Jim Spaza
As long as we are on the issue of morality and genocide I have a few
questions, particularly for 655321. What have you done to try to stop
the genocide in the Sudan or the mass starvation in Niger? And what is
your blood donor status?
Well I can't speak for 655321 but I can speak for me. Guess what I've
done? Nothing. I can't solve all of the problems in this world. It's
hard enough just solving personal problems; no way in hell am I going
to try to tackle problems of genocide on another continent. If that's
selfish, then guess what, I'm selfish.
Then from my perspective you are grossly hypocritical any time you
discuss the morality of others. To judge Jim for forgiving God's
genocide while you sit by an allow Man's is hypocritical. There is
nothing your or Jim or anyone else can do about any supposed genocides
committed by God in the past, we can do something about Sudan and
Niger.
How much does one have to do before one can criticize this? I have donated
money to Doctors Without Boarders, the United Way, and a few other
charities whose names escape me. How much would one have to do before
one *can* take the moral high ground? I can always donate more. I vote,
but is that enough to make me "involved"? Should I contribute money to
the candidates? More money? Should I work for their campaigns? Should
I run for local office. There is always more that I can do.
Are you trying to play a Sorities Heap game with me? Yeah, there is no
sharp dividing line, what a surprise. Do you have a different argument
to make?
No, that was pretty much it.
I don't think it is a bogus argument, frankly.
Too bad, it is. The inability to quantify precisely where we can find
a dividing line does not mean there is no distinction. How about you
quantify exactly where two populations speciate.
If somepne formulates
the argument as "What have you done about X" I will always lose. No
matter what I've done they can always say "You should have done Y".
That there could be a bogus response does not mean that all responses
are bogus. You pointed out that you have donated money to try to deal
with some of these problems. That certainly gives you more standing
than Cyde's "I am to busy with my own problems".
So, in your world, the fact I used to donate blood (can't these days
since I'm on medication) gives me greater right to condemn genocide?
Frankly, your moral standards seem quite weird.
(Note: I don't actually *care* whether you think you have a right to
condemn genocide - I'm in this discussion because I try to understand
the logic, if any, of your position.)
There are other acts
which could suffice, writing letters to politicians, working on
community projects instead, etc. You have set up a strawman that I
somehow demand absolute perfection. What I demand is that if Cyde is
going to criticize Jim for not complaining about something in the
past, then he ought to do something about the same kind of issue in
the present. *Something*, not everything.
I don't go around complaining about the genocidal practices of the
Assyrians. But, then, I don't worship the Assyrians.
I
don't like getting involved in those arguments.
And, yet, you did. Go figure.
I don't think that
you were going to be that dishonest, but that doesn't mean I find the
rhetorical technique any nicer.
Please show where I was dishonest. I see you putting up an invalid
argument, you followed that with a strawman, and now you top it with
an ad hominem.
I can't donate blood any more, as it happens, although I used to do so
fairly regularly.
Which is a sufficient answer for me. Or that you never did and can't
for medical reasons. I will even accept that you don't because your
religion says don't. But "gee, I should get paid" or "it hurts" is not
sufficient.
Well, yeah. But there are plenty of things that I could do that I'm
not doing that for similarly bogus reasons (I keep coming back to that
point).
It is your strawman so why not. I did not demand that any particular
set of things be done or, as you suggest, that all things be done,
just that something be done. Why in the world should I care what Cyde
thinks about Jim's morality when Cyde is satisfied to sit back and let
genocide happen right now?
Why should you care what Cyde thinks if he were leading a heroic
intervention to stop the Sudanese genocide?
The interesting question is, what do *you* think of Spaza's morality?
Do *you* see a problem with worshipping a genocidaire?
Further, I don't see anything wrong with judging God and Mankind by
different standards.
I gather I was not clear. I am objecting to Cyde judging Jim, not God.
It is that he complains about Jim's morality while not exhibiting any
moral acts of his own in the relevant area.
I *still* think that it is a little tacky to be so forgiving towards
a being (God) who really shouldn't require any forgiveness (being God,
and all), but I take your point.
It reminds me of those who were criticized for
criticizing our actions in Abu Ghraib prison. Yes, Saddam Hussein
did worse. A lot worse. We are, however, supposed to be better than
him. A *lot* better. God is supposed to be... well, God. If I
can't hold him to a higher standard then what is the point?
Now turn that around. Cyde is one who is refusing to criticize Abu
Ghraib, the on-going problem, but objecting to Jim's refusal to
criticize Saddam, the actions in the past.
To continue with this analogy, I believe you criticized Cyde for not
*doing* anything about Abu Ghraib but objecting to Jim's refusal
to criticize Saddam.
Yep. Criticism is just words, it does not really matter either way.
Actions have some value.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
18 Aug 2005 11:44:27 AM |
|
|
On 18 Aug 2005 04:01:21 -0700, in talk.origins , "The Last Conformist"
<andreasj@gmail.com> in
<1124362880.995438.273210@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:06:18 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins ,
amorgan@xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) in
<de0fta$30o$1@xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
In article <uad7g1t3molfquu8fcj29mbf31hne5s6i2@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:55:08 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins ,
amorgan@xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) in
<de087c$bm7$1@xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
In article <p2m6g15t7u7b7cp9g0dl1dgu00ina6blqe@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 17 Aug 2005 08:20:57 -0700, in talk.origins , "Cyde Weys"
<cyde@umd.edu> in
<1124292057.689120.52810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 17 Aug 2005 07:56:22 -0700, in talk.origins , "Cyde Weys"
<cyde@umd.edu> in
"Genocide is used sparingly by God in only extreme circumstances." -Jim Spaza
As long as we are on the issue of morality and genocide I have a few
questions, particularly for 655321. What have you done to try to stop
the genocide in the Sudan or the mass starvation in Niger? And what is
your blood donor status?
Well I can't speak for 655321 but I can speak for me. Guess what I've
done? Nothing. I can't solve all of the problems in this world. It's
hard enough just solving personal problems; no way in hell am I going
to try to tackle problems of genocide on another continent. If that's
selfish, then guess what, I'm selfish.
Then from my perspective you are grossly hypocritical any time you
discuss the morality of others. To judge Jim for forgiving God's
genocide while you sit by an allow Man's is hypocritical. There is
nothing your or Jim or anyone else can do about any supposed genocides
committed by God in the past, we can do something about Sudan and
Niger.
How much does one have to do before one can criticize this? I have donated
money to Doctors Without Boarders, the United Way, and a few other
charities whose names escape me. How much would one have to do before
one *can* take the moral high ground? I can always donate more. I vote,
but is that enough to make me "involved"? Should I contribute money to
the candidates? More money? Should I work for their campaigns? Should
I run for local office. There is always more that I can do.
Are you trying to play a Sorities Heap game with me? Yeah, there is no
sharp dividing line, what a surprise. Do you have a different argument
to make?
No, that was pretty much it.
I don't think it is a bogus argument, frankly.
Too bad, it is. The inability to quantify precisely where we can find
a dividing line does not mean there is no distinction. How about you
quantify exactly where two populations speciate.
If somepne formulates
the argument as "What have you done about X" I will always lose. No
matter what I've done they can always say "You should have done Y".
That there could be a bogus response does not mean that all responses
are bogus. You pointed out that you have donated money to try to deal
with some of these problems. That certainly gives you more standing
than Cyde's "I am to busy with my own problems".
So, in your world, the fact I used to donate blood (can't these days
since I'm on medication) gives me greater right to condemn genocide?
No so try again. Taking actions to solve problems give you standing
to complain about others who don't complain. Cyde thinks it is wrong
for Jim not to complains about some act in the past, but Cyde thinks
it is ok for Cyde to ignore those acts in the present. It is the
complaints about Jim that I am discussing. Giving blood is an example
of the kinds of things you can do to help the world, it was not the be
all and end all of actions. Someone could say I volunteer in a
homeless shelter or I raise money for Niger or I gave three years to
the Peace Corp or thousands of other things. Then you have a right to
say that others should do more. But saying you are too busy to help
stop genocide and you deserve money to give blood gives you no
standing to complain that others should condemn some genocide that may
have taken place 2,000+ years ago.
Frankly, your moral standards seem quite weird.
No, your misunderstanding is weird.
[snip]
Well, yeah. But there are plenty of things that I could do that I'm
not doing that for similarly bogus reasons (I keep coming back to that
point).
It is your strawman so why not. I did not demand that any particular
set of things be done or, as you suggest, that all things be done,
just that something be done. Why in the world should I care what Cyde
thinks about Jim's morality when Cyde is satisfied to sit back and let
genocide happen right now?
Why should you care what Cyde thinks if he were leading a heroic
intervention to stop the Sudanese genocide?
If Cyde were taking some current actions his comments about others
words would have some weight. Other than that I only care to expose
the hypocrisy.
The interesting question is, what do *you* think of Spaza's morality?
Do *you* see a problem with worshipping a genocidaire?
Since I don't think the genocides took place I find the question
silly. If Jim took from those passages that he should commit genocide
then I would object. But that is not what happens. Personally I find
that everyone who demands a fundamentalist literal descriptive
interpretation of the Bible to be silly, whether they are atheists or
theists.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
And now our bodies are oh so close and tight
It never felt so good, it never felt so right
And we're glowing like the metal on the edge of a knife
C'mon! Hold on tight!
C'mon! Hold on tight!
Though it's cold and lonley in the deep dark night
I can see paradise by the dashboard light
Paradise by the dashboard light
Jim Steinman
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Last Conformist" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
18 Aug 2005 12:27:40 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 18 Aug 2005 04:01:21 -0700, in talk.origins , "The Last Conformist"
<andreasj@gmail.com> in
<1124362880.995438.273210@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:06:18 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins ,
amorgan@xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) in
<de0fta$30o$1@xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
In article <uad7g1t3molfquu8fcj29mbf31hne5s6i2@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:55:08 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins ,
amorgan@xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) in
<de087c$bm7$1@xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
In article <p2m6g15t7u7b7cp9g0dl1dgu00ina6blqe@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 17 Aug 2005 08:20:57 -0700, in talk.origins , "Cyde Weys"
<cyde@umd.edu> in
<1124292057.689120.52810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 17 Aug 2005 07:56:22 -0700, in talk.origins , "Cyde Weys"
<cyde@umd.edu> in
"Genocide is used sparingly by God in only extreme circumstances." -Jim Spaza
As long as we are on the issue of morality and genocide I have a few
questions, particularly for 655321. What have you done to try to stop
the genocide in the Sudan or the mass starvation in Niger? And what is
your blood donor status?
Well I can't speak for 655321 but I can speak for me. Guess what I've
done? Nothing. I can't solve all of the problems in this world. It's
hard enough just solving personal problems; no way in hell am I going
to try to tackle problems of genocide on another continent. If that's
selfish, then guess what, I'm selfish.
Then from my perspective you are grossly hypocritical any time you
discuss the morality of others. To judge Jim for forgiving God's
genocide while you sit by an allow Man's is hypocritical. There is
nothing your or Jim or anyone else can do about any supposed genocides
committed by God in the past, we can do something about Sudan and
Niger.
How much does one have to do before one can criticize this? I have donated
money to Doctors Without Boarders, the United Way, and a few other
charities whose names escape me. How much would one have to do before
one *can* take the moral high ground? I can always donate more. I vote,
but is that enough to make me "involved"? Should I contribute money to
the candidates? More money? Should I work for their campaigns? Should
I run for local office. There is always more that I can do.
Are you trying to play a Sorities Heap game with me? Yeah, there is no
sharp dividing line, what a surprise. Do you have a different argument
to make?
No, that was pretty much it.
I don't think it is a bogus argument, frankly.
Too bad, it is. The inability to quantify precisely where we can find
a dividing line does not mean there is no distinction. How about you
quantify exactly where two populations speciate.
If somepne formulates
the argument as "What have you done about X" I will always lose. No
matter what I've done they can always say "You should have done Y".
That there could be a bogus response does not mean that all responses
are bogus. You pointed out that you have donated money to try to deal
with some of these problems. That certainly gives you more standing
than Cyde's "I am to busy with my own problems".
So, in your world, the fact I used to donate blood (can't these days
since I'm on medication) gives me greater right to condemn genocide?
No so try again. Taking actions to solve problems give you standing
to complain about others who don't complain.
Um, OK. Since I donate blood while Cyde does not, I have more right to
complain about Spaza's morality?
Cyde thinks it is wrong
for Jim not to complains about some act in the past, but Cyde thinks
it is ok for Cyde to ignore those acts in the present. It is the
complaints about Jim that I am discussing. Giving blood is an example
of the kinds of things you can do to help the world, it was not the be
all and end all of actions. Someone could say I volunteer in a
homeless shelter or I raise money for Niger or I gave three years to
the Peace Corp or thousands of other things. Then you have a right to
say that others should do more.
Cyde isn't saying Spaza should do more, he's saying that praising a
genocidaire is bad. I've never done anything to prevent murder (well,
apart from refraining from it myself); does that mean I don't get to
say that murder, or the praise thereof, is bad?
But saying you are too busy to help
stop genocide and you deserve money to give blood gives you no
standing to complain that others should condemn some genocide that may
have taken place 2,000+ years ago.
Again, Spaza is not only not condemning it, but worshipping the alleged
instigator.
Frankly, your moral standards seem quite weird.
No, your misunderstanding is weird.
Well, apparently you're explaining yourself poorly, because your
position sure still seems weird.
[snip]
Well, yeah. But there are plenty of things that I could do that I'm
not doing that for similarly bogus reasons (I keep coming back to that
point).
It is your strawman so why not. I did not demand that any particular
set of things be done or, as you suggest, that all things be done,
just that something be done. Why in the world should I care what Cyde
thinks about Jim's morality when Cyde is satisfied to sit back and let
genocide happen right now?
Why should you care what Cyde thinks if he were leading a heroic
intervention to stop the Sudanese genocide?
If Cyde were taking some current actions his comments about others
words would have some weight. Other than that I only care to expose
the hypocrisy.
The interesting question is, what do *you* think of Spaza's morality?
Do *you* see a problem with worshipping a genocidaire?
Since I don't think the genocides took place I find the question
silly.
You *are* weird. *Spaza* thinks they took place, which ought be the
relevant point.
If Jim took from those passages that he should commit genocide
then I would object. But that is not what happens.
Certainly.
Personally I find
that everyone who demands a fundamentalist literal descriptive
interpretation of the Bible to be silly, whether they are atheists or
theists.
The relevance of this escapes me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
18 Aug 2005 02:06:20 PM |
|
|
On 18 Aug 2005 10:27:40 -0700, in talk.origins , "The Last Conformist"
<andreasj@gmail.com> in
<1124386060.261870.73720@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 18 Aug 2005 04:01:21 -0700, in talk.origins , "The Last Conformist"
<andreasj@gmail.com> in
<1124362880.995438.273210@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:06:18 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins ,
amorgan@xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) in
<de0fta$30o$1@xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
In article <uad7g1t3molfquu8fcj29mbf31hne5s6i2@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:55:08 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins ,
amorgan@xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) in
<de087c$bm7$1@xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
In article <p2m6g15t7u7b7cp9g0dl1dgu00ina6blqe@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 17 Aug 2005 08:20:57 -0700, in talk.origins , "Cyde Weys"
<cyde@umd.edu> in
<1124292057.689120.52810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 17 Aug 2005 07:56:22 -0700, in talk.origins , "Cyde Weys"
<cyde@umd.edu> in
"Genocide is used sparingly by God in only extreme circumstances." -Jim Spaza
As long as we are on the issue of morality and genocide I have a few
questions, particularly for 655321. What have you done to try to stop
the genocide in the Sudan or the mass starvation in Niger? And what is
your blood donor status?
Well I can't speak for 655321 but I can speak for me. Guess what I've
done? Nothing. I can't solve all of the problems in this world. It's
hard enough just solving personal problems; no way in hell am I going
to try to tackle problems of genocide on another continent. If that's
selfish, then guess what, I'm selfish.
Then from my perspective you are grossly hypocritical any time you
discuss the morality of others. To judge Jim for forgiving God's
genocide while you sit by an allow Man's is hypocritical. There is
nothing your or Jim or anyone else can do about any supposed genocides
committed by God in the past, we can do something about Sudan and
Niger.
How much does one have to do before one can criticize this? I have donated
money to Doctors Without Boarders, the United Way, and a few other
charities whose names escape me. How much would one have to do before
one *can* take the moral high ground? I can always donate more. I vote,
but is that enough to make me "involved"? Should I contribute money to
the candidates? More money? Should I work for their campaigns? Should
I run for local office. There is always more that I can do.
Are you trying to play a Sorities Heap game with me? Yeah, there is no
sharp dividing line, what a surprise. Do you have a different argument
to make?
No, that was pretty much it.
I don't think it is a bogus argument, frankly.
Too bad, it is. The inability to quantify precisely where we can find
a dividing line does not mean there is no distinction. How about you
quantify exactly where two populations speciate.
If somepne formulates
the argument as "What have you done about X" I will always lose. No
matter what I've done they can always say "You should have done Y".
That there could be a bogus response does not mean that all responses
are bogus. You pointed out | | | | | | | |
