-->
@secularmerlin
we is humans and evil is immoral
Evidence in a religious forum
Posts
Total:
338
-->
@Dr.Franklin
we is humans and evil is immoral
And what is our standard for morality? Without an agreed upon subjective standard we cannot make objective statements about morality.
-->
@secularmerlin
And what is our standard for morality? Without an agreed upon subjective standard we cannot make objective statements about morality.
Says who? It sounds like you are making an objective statement? Or is that really just a subjective statement you are making? If it is the first, then what is objective standard you are basing it on. And if the latter, then aren't you really just giving people permission to abuse other people?
-->
@Tradesecret
And what is our standard for morality? Without an agreed upon subjective standard we cannot make objective statements about morality.Says who? It sounds like you are making an objective statement? Or is that really just a subjective statement you are making? If it is the first, then what is objective standard you are basing it on. And if the latter, then aren't you really just giving people permission to abuse other people?
It is objectively true that without some standard we agree upon then no objective statements about morality are possible. It is also objectively true that some god(s) existing does not necessitate any objective standard unless the standards of said god could be the demonstrated to be more than subjective opinion.
-->
@secularmerlin
It is objectively true that without some standard we agree upon then no objective statements about morality are possible.
Respectfully, how can anything be objectively true until we have agreed to an objective standard? Even this statement of yours is a moral statement.
It is also objectively true that some god(s) existing does not necessitate any objective standard unless the standards of said god could be the demonstrated to be more than subjective opinion.
I can't say I agree with you here, not fully anyway. I would agree with you to the extent that you use the word "god(s)". Yet the Biblical GOD is of a different nature. Yet if the Biblical God exists - as the creator of everything then that ipso facto I would opine entitles his subject opinion - to be the benchmark of objectivity for everything else.
-->
@Tradesecret
Respectfully, how can anything be objectively true until we have agreed to an objective standard?
We cannot. That is precisely the point. We must agree to a standard if we are to have any meaningful discussion.
if the Biblical God exists
Immaterial unless the Yahweh can be demonstrated through testable, repeatable and reliable methods. Preferably in such a way that it was confirmed by multiple examples of evidence by independent parties.
-->
@secularmerlin
God..
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Any god(s) whatever would need to meet their burden of proof before I would be able to maintain a belief. Your god conception, whatever it is, is no different and in any case I'd like to know what differentiates the god you believe in from the Yahweh as described in the bible sufficiently to justify your hair splitting.
-->
@secularmerlin
Immaterial unless the Yahweh can be demonstrated through testable, repeatable and reliable methods. Preferably in such a way that it was confirmed by multiple examples of evidence by independent parties.
Another subjective statement by you. I accept that is your preferred way to confirm anything. Yet it is not everyone's.
And besides if the Bible God existed he would refuse to be put under a microscope just to satisfy your preferences..
and to be honest, if he chose to put himself under such a microscope I would reject him as God.
-->
@Tradesecret
Another subjective statement by you. I accept that is your preferred way to confirm anything. Yet it is not everyone's.And besides if the Bible God existed he would refuse to be put under a microscope just to satisfy your preferences..and to be honest, if he chose to put himself under such a microscope I would reject him as God.
You have constructed an unfalsifiable premise. Such premises deserve to be dismissed out of hand.
-->
@secularmerlin
Another subjective statement by you. I accept that is your preferred way to confirm anything. Yet it is not everyone's.And besides if the Bible God existed he would refuse to be put under a microscope just to satisfy your preferences..and to be honest, if he chose to put himself under such a microscope I would reject him as God.You have constructed an unfalsifiable premise. Such premises deserve to be dismissed out of hand.
Dismiss it if you like. But it is an absurdity to suggest that GOD can be put under a microscope. And demonstrates that you have no idea what you are suggesting.
-->
@Tradesecret
Dismiss it if you like. But it is an absurdity to suggest that GOD can be put under a microscope. And demonstrates that you have no idea what you are suggesting.
(IF) whatever god(s) you are suggesting cannot be investigated (THEN) any statements made about whatever god(s) you are suggesting becomes necessarily an argument from ignorance.
-->
@secularmerlin
Dismiss it if you like. But it is an absurdity to suggest that GOD can be put under a microscope. And demonstrates that you have no idea what you are suggesting.(IF) whatever god(s) you are suggesting cannot be investigated (THEN) any statements made about whatever god(s) you are suggesting becomes necessarily an argument from ignorance.
LOL@ you. I am not suggesting that people should not attempt to explore god or gods or whatever - I am suggesting that you cannot put God under a microscope. Big difference.
There are more ways to discover and explore things than from a scientific methodology - especially one which implicitly denies God's existence within its premises.
Labeling it as ignorant to not use the scientific method lifts the scientific method from the realm of reality into a supernatural realm. It is as laughable as it is contradictory.
-->
@Tradesecret
What alternative method to the scientific method would you like to suggest? Does it have the same track record for arriving at truth and observably improving the human condition that scientific theory does?
-->
@secularmerlin
Gee I don't know - what about the ordinary sense of witness testimony or the way historians check their material or the way courts come to a finding truth.
The scientific method is useful for a very small amount of fact finding in the world. Economists - study numbers and variables all of the time. Yet they rely much on intuition and their own theories in the first place.
Lawyers - use logic and reasoning - deduction and induction - but not like a scientist sitting in a room studying under a microscope. Archeologists - and historians - study books - and form conclusions from all sorts of places -
There are lots of way of coming to the truth about things. Are you a parent? Do you have kids? When they have a fight? Do you arrive at the truth by scientific method or do you use your own experience as a means to understanding what might go on.
Child Protection Services - arrive at what they think is the truth by relying on their interpretation of past events - in order to predict future events.
And very often their track record - as a scientific method - fails over and over again.
If you were to use the same expectations you have for those you want to prove to God, to do everything else in your life - you would never get anywhere? Is it true I should get out of bed in the morning? Let me test that first? Repeatable, observable - ??? What should I have for breakfast? What is the scientific test I will conduct before I make that decision. Or perhaps I might trust my mum. Or what should I wear today? Or what school should I go to? Or what career path? Or who I marry? Gee imagine if every person conducted a scientific test before they married anyone?
How do people research things? Everyone does it differently. Even scientists - conducting similar experiments do things differently. If I was in Bangladesh or if I was in Europe the way I went about doing things in my research - would be different. This is life - life is varied and complex. We cannot possibly conduct scientific experiments on everything - or indeed on much at all. It is impractical and I think mostly it is an excuse used by skeptics not as a desire for truth.
-->
@Tradesecret
Different claims would require different levels of evidence. That some human was guilty of wrongdoing is not going to require the same evidence to convince me as some supernatural claim because I know humans exist and that they are sometimes guilty of wrongdoing. You don't have to first demonstrate that humans and wrongdoing are even non fictitious. The more extraordinary a claim the less believable it just be considered.
-->
@secularmerlin
Different claims would require different levels of evidence. That some human was guilty of wrongdoing is not going to require the same evidence to convince me as some supernatural claim because I know humans exist and that they are sometimes guilty of wrongdoing. You don't have to first demonstrate that humans and wrongdoing are even non fictitious. The more extraordinary a claim the less believable it just be considered.
I agree with your first sentence and that is my point. Yet you just jump to an illogical test in respect of attempting to prove the divine exists. What is the point of seeking a level of evidence you know is incompatible with the very subject you are wanting to test? It looks to me like you really don't want an answer.
-->
@Tradesecret
You are missing the point. Some biblical claims can be investigated scientifically and those if they happened somehow managed to leave not a shred of evidence for (in the case of the arc story) the huge landscape changing event it describes. Those that cannot I really don't know a way to investigate. All religions make faith based claims of revealed knowledge. I'm not sure how you would ever demonstrate any god(s) but in order to prove yours was any different than all the other proposed gods whom we agree are most likely not real you would have to first show a different kind of evidence than faith based claims, anecdotal evidence, an old book, logically flawed arguments and arguments with unsupportable premises because lots of religions have those and you haven't explained why I shouldn't believe in some non Christian religion.
I'm prepared to embrace the worst case scenario. Pastafarianism. Yes a joke religion that even its followers admit are not to be taken as truth. Nevertheless can you conclusively prove in any way that some pasta monster of some kind did not reach out its noodily appendages and inspire the authors of the religion to present the actual truth of the universe and its creator just for fun?
This sounds easier than it actually is. The standard you have set is that you must have faith in order to have the truth come into you and that your answer is sufficient to explain reality. Can you say you have tried sincerely to seek the pasta monster? And if not how can you say he isn't real? His noodly appendage quivers for you and only a powerful timeless spaceless eternal being could have made the universe. The fsm checks off all those boxes by definition. Do you see how absurd this all sounds?
-->
@secularmerlin
@Tradesecret
I would like to cut in here. Hope you don't mind Tradesecret.
You are missing the point. Some biblical claims can be investigated scientifically and those if they happened somehow managed to leave not a shred of evidence for (in the case of the arc story) the huge landscape changing event it describes.
Even with the Flood, there is evidence that is reasonable. There are billions of fossils buried in rock layers throughout the world. Fossils in such numbers need catastrophic events for this to happen. If you think not, explain how millions of animals, vast numbers, die off and are encased and preserved gradually over weeks, months, and years. Is that what we find. If an animal drops in the plains, do we find it slowly, gradually, encased and preserved?
Those that cannot I really don't know a way to investigate. All religions make faith based claims of revealed knowledge.
Any worldview does. So what? Do you think your worldview, devoid of God is more reasonable? If so, justify beginnings by random chance happenstance.
I'm not sure how you would ever demonstrate any god(s) but in order to prove yours was any different than all the other proposed gods whom we agree are most likely not real you would have to first show a different kind of evidence than faith based claims, anecdotal evidence, an old book, logically flawed arguments and arguments with unsupportable premises because lots of religions have those and you haven't explained why I shouldn't believe in some non Christian religion.
It is your view that Christianity has no greater or more reasonable evidence than any other religious view. I argue that this is not the case. For instance, what other religious view has so much prophecy involved, much of which can be logically and reasonably demonstrated as taking place as prophesied in history?
I'm prepared to embrace the worst case scenario. Pastafarianism.
Good luck! That is a foolish belief. Christinity is not.
Yes a joke religion that even its followers admit are not to be taken as truth. Nevertheless can you conclusively prove in any way that some pasta monster of some kind did not reach out its noodily appendages and inspire the authors of the religion to present the actual truth of the universe and its creator just for fun?
Again, what is reasonable about such a belief - Pastafarianism? Atheism is an unreasonable belief too. It starts with a naturalistic view of origins that has no mind, no intent, no purpose, no meaning to it, yet every atheist acts against such beginnings by living as though there is some meaning, purpose, and value derived from such beginnings.
This sounds easier than it actually is. The standard you have set is that you must have faith in order to have the truth come into you and that your answer is sufficient to explain reality. Can you say you have tried sincerely to seek the pasta monster? And if not how can you say he isn't real? His noodly appendage quivers for you and only a powerful timeless spaceless eternal being could have made the universe. The fsm checks off all those boxes by definition. Do you see how absurd this all sounds?
You must have faith too, the question is what kind of faith. Is it reasonable faith, blind faith, or irrational faith? I say if it is Pastafariainism it is blind and irrational.
-->
@PGA2.0
There are billions of fossils buried in rock layers throughout the world.
Yes and they are in layers with the old es st rocks containing the oldest fossils and more complex life appearing in younger rocks and younger fossils exactly as we would expect to find if they had been laid down gradually over hundreds of millions of years. You are clearly not a geologist or a paleontologist and it shows. Please if you wish to offer an expert opinion look at the work of actual experts
Do you think your worldview, devoid of God is more reasonable?
What is actually more reasonable is to make no claim that is insufficiently demonstrated and to exercise skepticism in the face of claims which are insufficiently demonstrated. I am not making a positive or negative claim I am merely not prepared to accept yours without far better arguments to support them than I have ever heard in regards t ol any supernatural claim. No god claim has met its burden of proof and many would appear to be logically inconsistent or scientifically inaccurate. Also evolution is entirely unconnected with the existence or non existence of some god(s). They are entirely separate issues.
For instance, what other religious view has so much prophecy involved,
We have discussed this before and even if I grant that the bible makes prophecies that are too accurate for any naturalistic explanation like coincidence and the use of Barnum statements you would still have to establish the source of these prophecies and it is as likely to be flying spaghetti monster inspired as god inspired unless there is some way other than the claims of humans to determine the difference between the two possible sources. And that is only if we accept the false dichotomy of the Yahweh or the pasta monster only.
what is reasonable about such a belief - Pastafarianism?
Christianity is only more widely accepted not more reasonable. Reason in a claim is a matter of observably true premises that support the conclusion. If you lack either the same your argument is logically flawed even if you do arrive by chance at the truth.
I say if it is Pastafariainism it is blind and irrational.
I agree. Now demonstrate how your religios claims differ in this regard.
-->
@secularmerlin
I agree 100% with the Bible, but don't believe a homosexual should be put to death.These two statements are in fundamental conflict.
Do you think a homosexual would be any different than the woman caught in adultery? Do you think I would qualify to cast the first stone?
Why should I care what you consider a sin? I'm not talking about sin I'm talking about morality and I don't see any moral issues in and of itself with consenting adults engaging in sexual activity.
I know. I just mentioned it for clarification if necessary.
Do you feel that 2 consenting adults committing adultery is moral?
I'm sorry is it the holy spirit or the concordance that you are using to interpret the bible? I'm not necessarily saying you are moving the goal posts rather than simply not having thought of the concordance when I initially asked the question but it does bring up an important point. What if a well meaning Christian who is not a biblical scholar reads this passage and takes it that the "holy spirit", which you still have not demonstrated and do could be imaginary, wants them to take it at face value? would that not result in terrible consequences? It seems like an all powerful god (if he were more than a fiction) would be more careful about how his book ends up being translated?
The concordance is a tool, just like the printed bible. What's the discrepancy?
As far as your question about someone taking the bible at face value resulting in terrible consequences, I've never felt once that at face value the bible commands us to carry out judgment. Even in my most earliest, immature, knowledge limited years.
Maybe you can tell me what you think. What if?
Well that is something we agree on but it doesn't address that the bible seems to imply that a woman's value can be measured in silver which is a detestable idea.
If I understand you correctly, what they're talking about applies strictly to this situation, which is not rape.
These two statements are in fundamental conflict.You also seem to be implying that god could not simply put an injunction against owning people because owning people was such a popular and wide spread practice even though he was able to put injunctions on other activities that were popular and widespread that are not as clearly immoral like eating shellfish or making statues to represent some god(s).
Let me ask you then. I know you don't like questions, but here goes.
Let's say you met a very wealthy person from a third world nation who invites you into his home in his native land. He introduces you to his house servant who lives with him. He tells you that he purchased him from a slave market in a neighboring country with severe human rights issues. The servant has no family, and is settled in his position, and content. The host explains to you that if he didn't purchase this person's service, he probably would have suffered in his
homeland as slave abuse was the norm.
What would you say to this person?
Perhaps I am misunderstanding.are you not arguing that the Yahweh is morally perfect by nature and if he does something that appears immoral to us there must by necessity be a good moral reason for the apparent flaw? That our understanding is the problem not the Yahweh?
You seem to be assuming that I've read something that appeared to be immoral.
I am merely explaining the difference between an "atheist regime" (which is a nonsensical term) and a regime that happens to promote atheism because you brought up atheist regimes. The fundamental difference between a regime that promotes atheism and a theocracy is that nothing is being done in the name of atheism. Atheism itself is not informing actions the political ends of the nation do and they must be justified on their own merits even in those cases where horrific injustices are committed the reasoning is never "well there's no god(s) so we may as well". In a theocracy(or even any political ideology that is strongly tied to a monarchy such as the spanish monarchy in the 1600s) bycontrast things are done "in the name of god(s)" with no further justification (although it may or may not be the case that the political leaders involved actually believed that they were acting in the name of some god(s)).
This is what I would absolutely love.
1. Some quotes from theocrats that shows what you mean.
2. Tell me how you know that out of all the communists that ever existed, none of them ever said, whether vocally or in their mind, "well there's no god(s) so we may as well".
If you can recognize the difference and if you are of the opinion that some of the world's many many religions (presumably you consider every religion but one to be false and likely consider many denominations of your own religion to be false) then we can discuss whether the holding of false religions can be harmful and if we are in agreement that false religions are harmful then you should by logical extension understand my concern about belief in christianityunless it can somehow meet some reasonable burden of proof. Especially if it would inform your behavior in ways that would limit the liberties of others. For example if someone voted against gay marriage because they considered it a "sin" or voting for an observable less moral political candidate in order to avoid voting for someone who has a different spiritual ideology (or indeed none at all).
For one, no, I don't think many denominations within Christianity are false. It's not about religion anyway. It's about aligning with the real creator of the universe. I've got nothing to do with who the real creator is. I've got absolutely no say. When we die, and should we all come face to face with the creator
(which I of course believe will happen), it's just going to be Him and us. There won't be any Christians to question, debate, pass blame, etc.
As far as voting, I would vote for who I thought to be the best candidate. The one who will do the best job. I don't care about their sexual preference as long as there's no related agenda that I would consider immoral, or a violation of freedom.
As far as voting against gay marriage. Well, if it's on the ballot, it's not a religious issue. None of our laws are based on religion. Not even the Blue Laws. Therefore, any voter has the absolute right to check whatever box they wish.....in private.
I want to be very clear I am not accusing you of anything I have mentioned above but I have observed arguments from Christians trying to justify christian beliefs informing actions. That coupled with manifest Destiny being A) observably an immoral idea and B) that it was not a true biblical command but was justified by the white Christian belief that white Christians should by divine providence own the world. The long and the short of it it almost doesn't matter what the bible says or if it is fiction or not. It has observably caused harm in reality. You could claim that this was not the will of the Yahweh but the fault of human immorality and I would agree. What we would disagree on is whether or not anything at all is the will of any god(s).
And once Darwinian evolution came on the scene, a number of white bigots saw this as scientific proofthat whites are superior to other races.
-->
@RoderickSpode
Do you think a homosexual would be any different than the woman caught in adultery?
Yes because adultery is a separate issue. Two homosexuals engaged in a monogamous relationship are not guilty of adultery so even if you can say what they are guilty of you are falsely conflating something which does not cause harm with something that can (and for now at least we will forgo any discussion of open relationships and other forms of polyamory).
Do you feel that 2 consenting adults committing adultery is moral?
Adultery is like murder it is defenitionally wrong in that it involves betraying a partner who has trust in you. Unless you wish to include other activities under the umbrella of "adultery" (and for now at least we will forgo any discussion of open relationships and other forms of polyamory) then no I do not.
What would you say to this person?
I would say that the servants situation being preferable to some alternative aside they should free their servant and if he decides to remain on his own recognizance then he should be paid a living wage. On a separate note I do not mind questions but I am very careful how I answer them and also to be transparent about my ignorance if it is a question I do not have an answer to.
You seem to be assuming that I've read something that appeared to be immoral.
I have read something that appeared to me to be immoral (multiple genocides). Is your claim that I must by necessity be mistaken in regarding multiple genocides as immoral because god is morally correct by definition and by extension any genocide he committed must also be morally correct?
Some quotes from theocrats that shows what you mean.
How about just some events that would seem to fit the bill? Like the inquisition or the crusades or the genocide of the amalekites? Do you feel that these were not performed "in the name of god"? Or at the very least that this was not considered justification enough by the common members of the society in each example? If you disagree I welcome further discussion of exactly what you think the most common justification given actually was.
Tell me how you know that out of all the communists that ever existed, none of them ever said, whether vocally or in their mind, "well there's no god(s) so we may as well".
I suppose I can't be 100% certain in the same way I cannot be 100% certain that my senses reflect reality and not just some grand illusion or complicated simulation but I strongly suspect and I will tell you why. Because humans tend to do things for a reason not because some particular reason doesn't seem to be in evidence. I also doubt anyone said "there is no big foot so we may as well camp here". If however you can find some event quote or evidence to the contrary I will be happy to admit my fault I'm this regard.
For one, no, I don't think many denominations within Christianity are false.
Perhaps many is the wrong word but some. Also I think that some denominations consider all other denominations to be false and you disagree with them by default.
As far as voting, I would vote for who I thought to be the best candidate. The one who will do the best job. I don't care about their sexual preference as long as there's no related agenda that I would consider immoral, or a violation of freedom.
Are you saying you do not regard the rejection of jesus christ as a personal savior is immoral? Because otherwise you have drawn yourself quite a loophole.
As far as voting against gay marriage. Well, if it's on the ballot, it's not a religious issue. None of our laws are based on religion. Not even the Blue Laws. Therefore, any voter has the absolute right to check whatever box they wish.....in private.
I don't care if it is s religios issue if your vote is being informed by your religios beliefs.
And once Darwinian evolution came on the scene, a number of white bigots saw this as scientific proofthat whites are superior to other races.
Do you know what that made them? Wrong about what the science was actually claiming and could support. For one thing superior is a nonsensical term unless it applies to some goal and evolution guided by the process of natural selection doesn't actually have any specific goal. Even self replicating/survival is a consequence of the process not a goal.
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes because adultery is a separate issue. Two homosexuals engaged in a monogamous relationship are not guilty of adultery so even if you can say what they are guilty of you are falsely conflating something which does not cause harm with something that can (and for now at least we will forgo any discussion of open relationships and other forms of polyamory).
I'm not conflating the two.
I'm asking the question based on your challenge of not practicing, or thinking should be practiced still, the penalties for violations listed in the O.T. You think that since there was a death penalty for homosexuality in the OT, I should embrace that for today. Adultery had the same sentence.
So what's the difference?Adultery is like murder it is defenitionally wrong in that it involves betraying a partner who has trust in you. Unless you wish to include other activities under the umbrella of "adultery" (and for now at least we will forgo any discussion of open relationships and other forms of polyamory) then no I do not.
I'm sure you're aware that numerous married male Hollywood celebrities practiced homosexuality on the side. Like Rock Hudson. If a married man (to a woman) has sexual relations with another man, is that adultery?
In other words, if someone is bi-sexual, shouldn't they be allowed to enjoy a love/marriage relationship, and have a same sex friend with benefits? Can they help it if they're bi?
I would say that the servants situation being preferable to some alternative aside they should free their servant and if he decides to remain on his own recognizance then he should be paid a living wage. On a separate note I do not mind questions but I am very careful how I answer them and also to be transparent about my ignorance if it is a question I do not have an answer to.
In the scenario we're assuming being set free would mean homelessness.
Do you think this scenario is different than the biblical text in question?
I have read something that appeared to me to be immoral (multiple genocides). Is your claim that I must by necessity be mistaken in regarding multiple genocides as immoral because god is morally correct by definition and by extension any genocide he committed must also be morally correct?
Are you aware that the nations God commanded the Israelites to destroy were set on wiping the Israelites off the face of the earth?
If Guernsey Island attacked the UK, and it was evident that everyone on the island was bent on the destruction of the UK, what should No.10 do? They can either attack Guernsey Island which unfortunately would require it's mass destruction and save the lives of everyone in Britain, or spare GI saving their lives and sacrificing the lives of everyone in the UK.
How about just some events that would seem to fit the bill? Like the inquisition or the crusades or the genocide of the amalekites? Do you feel that these were not performed "in the name of god"? Or at the very least that this was not considered justification enough by the common members of the society in each example? If you disagree I welcome further discussion of exactly what you think the most common justification given actually was.
Until you provide a quote, you're just speculating.
And your quote:
"although it may or may not be the case that the political leaders involved actually believed that they were acting in the name of some god(s)."
Yes. And this is no different than committing atrocities for the benefit of the State, just like the communists. If they didn't believe, they couldn't
be acting on behalf of a god.
I suppose I can't be 100% certain in the same way I cannot be 100% certain that my senses reflect reality and not just some grand illusion or complicated simulation but I strongly suspect and I will tell you why. Because humans tend to do things for a reason not because some particular reason doesn't seem to be in evidence. I also doubt anyone said "there is no big foot so we may as well camp here". If however youcan find some event quote or evidence to the contrary I will be happy to admit my fault I'm this regard.
I'm sorry, I may need clarification here. Are you asking me to provide quotes now?
Perhaps many is the wrong word but some. Also I think that some denominations consider all other denominations to be false and you disagree with them by default.
Denominations who think all other denominations are wrong I would disagree with on that particular note.
Are you saying you do not regard the rejection of jesus christ as a personal savior is immoral? Because otherwise you have drawn yourself quite a loophole.
Maybe I should clarify.
What they do outside of their job I don't care about. They can be as immoral as they like on their own time. What I meant by them having no related agenda that I would consider immoral, simply means they don't interject their immorality into their work. Like if they tried to close all churches down. I know that's very unlikely, but just using that as an example as extreme as it is.
I don't care if it is s religios issue if your vote is being informed by your religios beliefs.
Whatever reason that person has is their business. It doesn't matter if they vote for religious reasons or not.
Do you believe in religious freedom? Do you believe in a pluralistic society?
Do you know what that made them? Wrong about what the science was actually claiming and could support. For one thing superior is a nonsensical term unless it applies to some goal and evolution guided by the process of natural selection doesn't actually have any specific goal. Even self replicating/survival is a consequence of the process not a goal.
I assure you, you don't have to defend Darwin/natural evolution.
I'll give you an explanation on my view, and then see how it compares with yours.
When Darwin's Origin Of Species came out, men who were already racist attempted to exploit the theory by claiming white superiority. (Yes, the term is nonsensical as the proponents of white supremacy). Evolution (the theory of) doesn't support racism. Atheism doesn't lead to communism. Men who have racism in their heart, will use whatever means to support their racist sentiment.
Same holds true with the Bible, Christians, religious, etc. They don't support racism, but people who were naturally racist tried to use the bible/Christianity/religion to support
their view. Same exact thing.
I think you'll agree with the first part. The second one....I have my doubts.
From what it sounds like, you feel the bible could make an otherwise moral person immoral. That I might one day, after an evening's reading of scripture, just snap and become racist, a witch hunter, homophobe, etc.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
-->
@RoderickSpode
You think that since there was a death penalty for homosexuality in the OT, I should embrace that for today. Adultery had the same sentence.
I don't think anyone should embrace it. Thay does not change what the book says.
In the scenario we're assuming being set free would mean homelessness.
That is his prerogative.
Do you think this scenario is different than the biblical text in question?
Yes. The biblical text in question says owning people as property, buying and selling humans from other nations and in deuteronomy says that you can beat them so long as they don't die too quickly. That is what we are discussing. Not whatever community outreach program you are proposing in an attempt to excuse the bible for condoning owning people as property.
Are you aware that the nations God commanded the Israelites to destroy were set on wiping the Israelites off the face of the earth?
Are you aware that I don't think two wrongs make a right and that I am not necessarily of the opinion that the ends justify the means? The moral implications of armed combatants killing each other aside killing innocent civilians is not justified.
Until you provide a quote, you're just speculating.And your quote:"although it may or may not be the case that the political leaders involved actually believed that they were acting in the name of some god(s)."Yes. And this is no different than committing atrocities for the benefit of the State, just like the communists. If they didn't believe, they couldn'tbe acting on behalf of a god.
Torquemada the grand inquisitor of the Spanish inquisition claimed to believe in and be acting on behalf of god. I am inclined to take him at his word unless there is some way of reading the minds of long dead spaniards.
I'm sorry, I may need clarification here. Are you asking me to provide quotes now?
After softening my claim yes.
Denominations who think all other denominations are wrong I would disagree with on that particular note.
Many southern baptists claim that anyone who is not specifically southern baptist will be going to hell. Why should I believe you rather than them? What differentiates their faith based claim that we are both going to hell from your faith based claim that of the two of us only I am going to hell?
Maybe I should clarify.What they do outside of their job I don't care about. They can be as immoral as they like on their own time. What I meant by them having no related agenda that I would consider immoral, simply means they don't interject their immorality into their work. Like if they tried to close all churches down. I know that's very unlikely, but just using that as an example as extreme as it is.
So a candidate that was openly in support of gay marriage? I regard that as moral and you do not. Should you be able to prevent homosexuals from finding love and starting families indeed stop them from living their lives by their standards being true to their identities just because you read a book that poo poos on the idea?
Whatever reason that person has is their business. It doesn't matter if they vote for religious reasons or not.Do you believe in religious freedom? Do you believe in a pluralistic society?
What I believe is that beliefs cannot be litigated and should not be criminalized.
When Darwin's Origin Of Species came out, men who were already racist attempted to exploit the theory by claiming white superiority. (Yes, the term is nonsensical as the proponents of white supremacy). Evolution (the theory of) doesn't support racism. Atheism doesn't lead to communism. Men who have racism in their heart, will use whatever means to support their racist sentiment.Same holds true with the Bible, Christians, religious, etc. They don't support racism, but people who were naturally racist tried to use the bible/Christianity/religion to supporttheir view. Same exact thing.
Well stated. It is not that the bible makes men racist or sexist however it is that it was clearly written by racist and sexist men.
From what it sounds like, you feel the bible could make an otherwise moral person immoral. That I might one day, after an evening's reading of scripture, just snap and become racist, a witch hunter, homophobe, etc.
You seem like a reasonable and reasonably educated person. You are far from my greatest concern. I do worry about the ignorant, the stupid and the uneducated. An otherwise moral person who is gullible and convinced that the bible is the inerrant word of god might get up to all sorts of mischief and I am really not trying to single Christians out either. Do you believe that muslim belief might lead otherwise moral people to immoral behavior? And while we are on the subject I also am not trying to single out theists. I have the same problem with any secular belief system which endorses racism, sexism, homophobia and the like.
-->
@secularmerlin
nature vs non nature gods
-->
@Dr.Franklin
There's no way I could get you to quote what you are replying to is there? Because my post which prompted this answering post from you
nature vs non nature gods
Isn't even on the same page so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make without searching through the thread.
-->
@secularmerlin
There are billions of fossils buried in rock layers throughout the world.Yes and they are in layers with the old es st rocks containing the oldest fossils and more complex life appearing in younger rocks and younger fossils exactly as we would expect to find if they had been laid down gradually over hundreds of millions of years. You are clearly not a geologist or a paleontologist and it shows. Please if you wish to offer an expert opinion look at the work of actual experts
What do you base them 'as oldest' upon? Is it because they are found in that specific rock layer thus they are the oldest? Is it based on the amount of decay found in these specimens? Are you using the present as the key to determining the past?
How does "laying down a fossil" in hundreds of millions of years create a fossil? I can see catastrophism as giving a sufficient answer to billions of fossils.
Within a few hours preditors and micro-organisms are eating away the flesh and even the bones of the animal. Also, things can be fossilized very quickly (catastrophism), they do not need hundreds, millions, or billions of years.
How have so many died in such a small area of space and then how are they preserved by long ages, or alternatively, why is the area so vast with billions of fossils in such a layer? How do you explain this?
You are not an expert either, are you? So what? Why does it only show for me and not you? The work of 'actual experts' is funnelled through naturalism as its starting point. Why would I go there? The data is interpreted and that interpretation depends on where you start. You have been indoctrinated into such a system of thinking since early childhood. How well have you thought such a system through?
Do you think your worldview, devoid of God is more reasonable?What is actually more reasonable is to make no claim that is insufficiently demonstrated and to exercise skepticism in the face of claims which are insufficiently demonstrated.
Again, it is you who thinks my biblical worldview is not sufficiently demonstratable. I adamantly disagree. I can show you reasonable proof. That is all you can do with origins so we are in the same boat, except I do not think your reasoning is sufficient based on a starting point other than God.
I am not making a positive or negative claim I am merely not prepared to accept yours without far better arguments to support them than I have ever heard in regards t ol any supernatural claim. No god claim has met its burden of proof and many would appear to be logically inconsistent or scientifically inaccurate.
Why do you presuppose that science is the standard for accuracy of origins?
Why would God not be allowed to work outside of naturalism?
How do you think the universe came to be, if you believe it had a beginning?
Also evolution is entirely unconnected with the existence or non existence of some god(s). They are entirely separate issues.
Unconnected? That is your presupposition. I only believe in one true and living God. I will argue with you in opposition to any other god.
If they are unconnected then life arises from something nonliving. Please document how that is possible.
For instance, what other religious view has so much prophecy involved,We have discussed this before and even if I grant that the bible makes prophecies that are too accurate for any naturalistic explanation like coincidence and the use of Barnum statements you would still have to establish the source of these prophecies and it is as likely to be flying spaghetti monster inspired as god inspired unless there is some way other than the claims of humans to determine the difference between the two possible sources.
Whew. That was one long sentence.
Coincidence is unlikely.
The source of prophecy has been revealed as the God described in the Bible. It warns against other gods. That God does not describe Himself as a spaghetti monster. That god is monstrous. It is preposterous. Everything revealed about the flying spaghetti monster has been put forth in the last half-century. It comes from the thinking of one man who was satirizing religion, specifically Christianity. It is not something to be taken seriously. What prophecies have been revealed by the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Where does it claim to be the biblical God?
And that is only if we accept the false dichotomy of the Yahweh or the pasta monster only.
Why is Yahweh false? That is your projection of Him. Justify your claim if you can, or are you just spouting off?
what is reasonable about such a belief - Pastafarianism?Christianity is only more widely accepted not more reasonable.
Prove your assertion is true.
Reason in a claim is a matter of observably true premises that support the conclusion. If you lack either the same your argument is logically flawed even if you do arrive by chance at the truth.
There are many premises that support the conclusion.
What does the underlined mean?
Are you arguing that chance is reasonable for truth? How is chance capable of anything, let alone truth? Show me how it arrives at truth.
I say if it is Pastafariainism it is blind and irrational.I agree. Now demonstrate how your religios claims differ in this regard.
The biblical writings are laid out over a period of time before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. That is reasonable to believe. I believe I can show it is more reasonable than the alternative, after AD 70. The prophetic writings look to that point in history as the fulfillment of yet all unfulfilled prophecy, as of the time of writing. The writings provide unified themes throughout Scripture, the greatest of which are two themes, that of the Messiah, His coming, ministry, and the second of last day's judgment. Jesus said every part of the OT testifies to Him and a solid case from Scripture can be made of His claim. The biblical God is described in much detail. The biblical God is described as what is necessary for existence to have a sufficient reason. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a copy-cat god in the little that has been revealed from the subjective yet creative mind of Henderson as its source and verification.
-->
@PGA2.0
Ok well this has become quite the gish gallop Why don't you decide which of these many disparate and unconnected things you actually want to discuss first and we can start there.
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok well this has become quite the gish gallop Why don't you decide which of these many disparate and unconnected things you actually want to discuss first and we can start there.
In context to what? What are you relating this statement to?
-->
@PGA2.0
To your last post. The diverse issues we are discussing have grown to the point where the conversation has become unwieldy. Decide which of the many discussions we are having here you actually want to continue first and we can start there.