ARCHIVE: God's mass-murder in the flood
- Thread starter smothers
- Start date
I would argue that evil is that which destroys life. The Christian God killed more people than abortion doctors, therefore God was MORE evil than abortion doctors.
I don't exactly see why God needed to kill people to save humanity, I would think that God would be able to figure out a less drastic measure.
I don't exactly see why God needed to kill people to save humanity, I would think that God would be able to figure out a less drastic measure.
Actually that isn't what you got at all! But you didn't pay close enough attention to the answers you were being given. Instead you plodded along as if we had all ignored you and then claimed we were not responding.
It is this behavior that has us all convinced that your just a :troll:.
LightSon
New member
I understand.
So you base a value on life based on ones ability to reason.
That is an interesting judgment, but an arbitary judgment nevertheless.
There are some posters here at TOL whose reasoning ability is impaired. Would you recommend they be harvested as dinner fodder? A little soylent green. You wouldn't see anything immorral there would you? How about people born mentally retarded. Would you argue that they get "recycled" immediately?
My first response would be.... why is preservation of life a worthy standard?
Where does the standard come from and what do we stand on when we talk to those that disagree with our standard?
So... is this standard the smothers standard? Is that what it is called? On what authority should I be compelled to think it has any validity?
Furthermore....
How would we apply such a vague standard?
For instance.... one group of people might justify murdering another group of people and use our standard against us i.e., "we really thought we needed to kill that other group to preserve our lives".
Can we determine if they were wrong or right? And if so... how?
Is there any compelling evidence to suggest your "standard" has any validity? If so.... please expand.
In other words....
Explain your standard as if you were explaining it to someone who has a different standard. For instance lets say your trying to convince someone of your standard over their own standard which is "survival of the fittest" or... "do whatever it takes to survive" even if it means eating other people for food.
Why is your standard any better than theirs?
Q: My first response would be.... why is preservation of life a worthy standard?
A: This should be self-evident or axiomatic. Life is good, death is bad, as it were.
Q: So... is this standard the smothers standard?
A: Actually it stems from Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy.
Q: On what authority should I be compelled to think it has any validity?
A: If it is axiomatic, then "authority" is not an issue.
Q: How would we apply such a vague standard?
A: Do things that preserve life, don't do things that harm life. For a fuller description read Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead."
Q: For instance.... one group of people might justify murdering another group of people and use our standard against us i.e., "we really thought we needed to kill that other group to preserve our lives".
Can we determine if they were wrong or right? And if so... how?
A: If they had a reasonable objective reason to think we were going to murder them first, (American tanks at their border, a decleration of war etc.) they would be justified in using this philosophy.
We can determine if they were right or wrong based on the circumstances.
A: This should be self-evident or axiomatic. Life is good, death is bad, as it were.
Q: So... is this standard the smothers standard?
A: Actually it stems from Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy.
Q: On what authority should I be compelled to think it has any validity?
A: If it is axiomatic, then "authority" is not an issue.
Q: How would we apply such a vague standard?
A: Do things that preserve life, don't do things that harm life. For a fuller description read Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead."
Q: For instance.... one group of people might justify murdering another group of people and use our standard against us i.e., "we really thought we needed to kill that other group to preserve our lives".
Can we determine if they were wrong or right? And if so... how?
A: If they had a reasonable objective reason to think we were going to murder them first, (American tanks at their border, a decleration of war etc.) they would be justified in using this philosophy.
We can determine if they were right or wrong based on the circumstances.
It may be self evident to you but WHY is it self evident to you? And further.... what makes you right and those that disagree with your standard wrong? We can all think of dozens of examples of those that thought your standard was in error. (Hitler etc.)
You continue...
OK... so what makes the Ayn Rand standard right and other standards wrong?
You continue...
Oh really?
You forget that what is "reasonable" to you is not necessarily "reasonable" to others. You need to produce an objective way to determine if this "standard" is being applied correctly.
So... who will make this determination? Me? You? Someone else? Who?
Q:It may be self evident to you but WHY is it self evident to you?
A: Most likely from the survival instinct.
Q: And further.... what makes you right and those that disagree with your standard wrong?
A: The quality of life of groups that adhere to the preservation of life is higher than those that don't. For example, Africa is in chaos as its policies are not in line with life-preservation, while the US has the highest standard of life as it does things that promote life.
Q: OK... so what makes the Ayn Rand standard right and other standards wrong?
A: I'm not sure how to answer this. I'm not prepared to provide a defence of Ayn Rand's standards. I am only defending my own.
Q; So... who will make this determination?
A: Me, you, society at large.
A: Most likely from the survival instinct.
Q: And further.... what makes you right and those that disagree with your standard wrong?
A: The quality of life of groups that adhere to the preservation of life is higher than those that don't. For example, Africa is in chaos as its policies are not in line with life-preservation, while the US has the highest standard of life as it does things that promote life.
Q: OK... so what makes the Ayn Rand standard right and other standards wrong?
A: I'm not sure how to answer this. I'm not prepared to provide a defence of Ayn Rand's standards. I am only defending my own.
Q; So... who will make this determination?
A: Me, you, society at large.
smothers do you see what you are doing here?
Preservation of life isn't your standard after all is it? As it turns out..... your preservation of life standard appeals to yet another standard of "quality of life". Quality of life is a pretty subjective standard wouldn't you agree?
My guess is your not going to find much agreement on what constitutes quality of life.
So... the obvious follow-up question is....
What makes your version of the "quality of life" standard correct and other versions of quality of life incorrect?
You continue...
But we may disagree. How shall we make a final determination if we disagree?