Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

Author: PGA2.0

Posts

Total: 1,638
Topic's author
#811
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you really and truly strive to "love thine enemy" as Jesus instructed?
I do, yet I fall short like everyone other than Jesus. I realize I can never measure up to the perfect Messiah.
In light of this specific teaching, do you support your nation's military?
What are you getting at and what does this have to do with the topic?

Reminder: Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?
Topic's author
#812
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
1). This doesn't address my argument. I explained why my needs have no impact on your control over your own body. You aren't addressing that.
What argument? What is the context?

2). This is not an argument, but an assertion. Fwiw, pregnancy is not a symbiotic relationship either.
What are you speaking about not being an argument? Again, you provided no context for anyone. 

Pregnancy is an interaction between the woman and her biological offspring. The following article lists the three types of symbiotic relationships and lists some of the benefits the woman shares from the unborn.


3). False equivalence. There is no requirement a newborn live off the body of a particular individual - there are many paths to survival.
The equivalence is not false. While in the USA, there are usually other avenues open for the newborn, in third world countries, in rural areas of the USA, in poverty situations, or through lack of education are reasons why the newborn may be dependent completely on the woman. Next, it is a duty or obligation of the parents to look after their children, whether born or unborn. We live in this cancel culture that denies basic human rights to the most helpless. 

Even barring those examples, your bodily autonomy does not grant you the right to kill another human being who is doing you no intentional harm.    

4). Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy anymore than participating in social activities is consent to contracting Covid-19.
Consent to sex carries with it the possibility of pregnancy. If that happens, there is a moral obligation to protect the human life that you and other pro-choicers deny because you and pro-choicers mistreat the unborn, using dehumanizing and discriminatory language as an excuse to do what ought not to be done. Justice Blackmun did not even understand whether or not it was a person and personal being. 

5). Abortion is not killing someone anymore than you refusing to donate a kidney is killing someone else in need of one. (I think you missed the point of the analogy).
There is a moral obligation for parents to protect their children from harm. The Judith Thomson analogy is hypothetical, but a person wakes up to find they are hooked up to a stranger without their consent. The analogy fails here. Christopher Kaczor, The Ethics of Abortion, p. 158, also points out that being unplugged from the violinist does not do anything to the violinist's bodily integrity.  His bodily parts are not in direct contact with yours. Here again, the analogy fails. And, again, the missing part in your rebuttal is the bodily integrity of the unborn. What about that? It seems not to count to you or pro-choicers because you are myopic in your thought process and devaluation of the unborn. You strip it of its most fundamental natural right, the right to life, and your language is seeded with dehumanization. Meanwhile, the unborn are hacked to pieces, butchered with suction, poisoned, or chemically burned inside the womb. What other human beings would you treat like this?

6). An 'eye for an eye' leaves the world blind (and without kidneys). 
If you intentionally and maliciously kill someone, what would be equal justice? They no longer live, but you do. 

7). Abortion is not terminating an "innocent human life" - it is terminating pregnancy. Again, if you refuse your kidney to someone who needs it, you are not killing them or denying them a right to life.
First of all, it is living. Do you deny that?

Second, it is a human being, no different in its DNA (23 pairs/46 chromosomes = human) than any other human being. IT CAN'T BE ANY OTHER BEING but human. Do you deny that?

Third, at the moment of conception, it is uniquely different from the father or mother in its genetic makeup, sharing 23 chromosomes from each. Do you deny that?

Fourth, it is not there of its own accord in that it did not place itself there. It has done nothing wrong because it has not developed intentions yet. Thus it is not the guilt of wrongdoing. Do you deny that?  

***

Again (and you did this in your debates too), you dehumanize the unborn, making it a bunch of or clump of cells rather than what it is, a complete human being, a separate entity from the woman, a unique, complete organism that directs its own grow from within. The analogy again fails since you compare apples to oranges, a kidney (an organ) with an unborn (a complete individual human being with its own kidneys and organs forming and growing).

There is a difference in moral obligation between a family member and a stranger.  

Additionally, I don't accept the notion of 'higher rights'.
So you are saying that the right to life is no higher a right than the right to bodily autonomy, the right to kill an innocent human being (which is what the unborn is no matter how much you want to deny it). 

Rights are meant to make life the best it can be and claiming any one is more important than the others misses the point. In other words, your right to life doesn't outweigh any of my rights and vice versa. Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins...your right to live ends where my body begins.
Do swinging fists result in a lesser sentence than killing you? Cutting off your finger results in a greater penalty than killing you. Both of those tamper with your bodily rights (in some societies), but killing you ends your bodily rights forever on this earth, yet you see bodily rights as greater???? 


Topic's author
#813
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
How do you define moral relativism? 
The short or long version?
Clear and concise would be nice.
No universal, absolute moral values, but everything is open to interpretation and subjectivism. 'Good' means whatever a person, a group, a society decides it means. 

A good move is one that gives you the tempo and puts your opponent on the defensive by applying pressure and exploiting weaknesses. 
In regards to morality, you said right could not be determined without an "objective moral standard". By that reasoning, the absence of an 'objective chess standard' would leave us unable to objectively determine 'right' chess moves. Do you have an 'objective chess standard'?
Again, you are equivocating and comparing apples to oranges. 

If not, could it be you've fallen into some sort of chess relativism and you have no basis to say any move is better than another without this fixed reference point? ...Or could it be there is a third option?
In any given situation, there is the best response and then all the others. Finding the best move is always troublesome and requires a lot of thought, even with the pros. Since our minds are limited, we may never find the best response on a chessboard since we have to look ahead in our minds to a number of moves. The question with moral VALUES is what is the best the good is compared with? If there are no best values, it becomes arbitrary and can mean whatever the person or group wants to make it mean because it shifts.  

For our finite minds, it depends on the opening. Some openings have a standard reply that leads to a checkmate (Fools Mate, two moves each) in a limited number of moves.
...why should we avoid checkmate? 

It is not desirable for our egos. It ends the game and we lose.

I prefer the game of Go. 
#814
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
...why should we avoid checkmate? 

It is not desirable for our egos. It ends the game and we lose.
It is interesting to me that you acknowledge the subjectivity of chess and still look for a 'best' move. Aren't you the same person that claims there can be no 'best' without a fixed (absolute, universal) reference point? You are contradicting yourself.
Topic's author
#815
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
8). You have the analogy backward. The person needing the kidney is analogous to the unborn. 
The person needing the kidney is usually a stranger, not related in any way. The unborn is the woman's biological offspring. The person is not violating the kidney recipient's bodily autonomy; rather, the Judith Thomson example is the opposite. The violinist or his doctors violate the donor's bodily autonomy by touching it and hooking up tubes without consent. The donor does not touch the recipient's body directly with his/her body, so the analogy fails here. With the woman and the unborn, they share a natural connection by design. It is what every unborn child shares with their mother. You want to make it a choice by the woman whether she will allow this natural process to take place and ignore the unborn's most basic bodily autonomy and natural right, the right to life. 

Without that right, we can have no other rights.  


9). Sex is not consent to pregnancy - addressed above.
It is for it is indirectly understood that pregnancy may result. 

10). You are arguing consent and rights in general are non existent when they cannot be understood?
I'm not sure the context once again, so I will take a stab at it. You are arguing the non-existence part. I am arguing for the existence of the unborn. What is hard about that to understand? 

Can someone without the ability to understand right from wrong do whatever they like?
That someone can if they have the mental ability to do right and wrong, but they will suffer the consequences of the wrongs from those who enforce the laws. 

Laws are applicable to everyone.
Laws are only as good as those making them. Hitler's laws concerning Jews were dehumanizing, as are abortion laws regarding the unborn. The problem is that you cannot admit these abortion laws are wrong because your extreme bias is not open to what is being killed. You continually degrade the unborn human being to a lesser status, as do your lawmakers.

11). Most abortions occur by medication long before the ability to [1] feel pain or awareness has developed and [2] at least half of all conceptions end *naturally*-You're [3] attempting to poison the well with emotionality built on dishonesty and/or ignorance. 
[1] Perhaps. Even so, because a human being cannot feel pain, does that give you the right to kill them? You are giving the reason that the lack of pain gives human beings the right to kill other human beings. Society should be allowed to kill all congenital analgesia people (those who do not feel pain) on such thinking. 

Not only this, the goalposts of abortion keep shifting as to when it is permissible to kill the unborn, right up until birth in some states. The governor of West Virginia wants to make it permissible to abort even after birth. (a sick human being).

[2] There is a difference between what happens naturally and what happens by intent. The one we can't prevent, the other (intent to do harm) we can. 

[3] Anyone who can't get emotional and disgusted by such dehumanization, discrimination, and devaluation needs to examine their moral compass, IMO. If a person can't be outraged by moral injustice or can't recognize moral injustice, are they not ignorant and/or dishonest with themselves? Again, please be aware that you apply the same poisoning you criticize me. By labelling 'dishonest and/or ignorant,' you express your feelings on the issue and infuse and fuel more emotion and poison into the well. IMO, it is an attempt to shut down the discussion and win admiration by those who think similarly, and there are some things everyone should be emotionally angered by. 

The question is whether what I said is true and whether you should be morally outraged or not in determining whether I poisoned the well, instead of just the label and false charge (well prisoner) to persuade others the well has indeed been poisoned when the water is still fine to drink.  

12). Consenting to vaginal sex is not consent to use of spleen, liver, mind, or uterus.
Here you go again, dehumanizing the unborn by making light of what it is in comparing it to a liver, spleen or uterus. Those things are organs of the organism, the entity -  a human being. Livers, spleens, and uteruses make up the entity and are distinct from the complete organism.

Consenting to sex brings the possibility of a pregnancy, and if it happens the moral responsibility or obligation of both parents is to protect the new life.  

As said before, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy - it is consent to share one's body with another who exists at that moment.
That consent to share bodies may result in a pregnancy. If I consent to be a lumberjack, then I consent to the risks that may involve. It is up to me to be aware of the dangers involved. 

13). If you were using my body to live, I *do* get to disconnect you - even if that means you will die. My body is my domain.
The unborn's body is its domain. In our one debate, you continually thought of the unborn as a "part of the woman's body." It is not part of her body, it is a separate body. On this misconception, you build your argument. Yes, it uses her body for a period of around nine months as its natural home, the womb. Without this home, there would be no humanity.

Next, because someone is dependent upon you does not give you the right to kill them. Your newborn and toddlers are also dependent upon you. That does not give you the right to kill them either. The mother does not have the right to neglect the newborn, nor should she the unborn. She has an obligation to protect the newborn, but not the unborn UNLESS she wants to. How is that not discrimination and devaluation?    

14). The ability to experience life's beauty is what makes life valuable...and more of that experience does not devalue that life. Having the capacity to experience being alive is what makes life special. Lacking that capacity (and never having achieved it) is at best potential. Potential experience =/= experience. Potential life =/= life
The ability to experience the beauty that the woman wants to deny her living unborn. Killing the unborn is a devaluation of that life. It is expendable on the woman's whim. 

As for your "capacity" argument, you support the woman not allowing some growing human beings the experiences that make life special. The unborn do have the capacity. It has not been developed yet. Lots of people have the capacity but not yet the ability to do things. The potential is a certainty if the woman will let it live and grow. 

Every one of your 14 responses is a weak, weak argumentation. 
Topic's author
#816
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
The study is implying what you're saying is moral behavior (reducing distress in our own species) is not in any way uniquely human, and it's not even the only study to demonstrate what we'd consider' morals' in animals. If it is not uniquely human, and rats don't give  a fig about Jesus or Vishnu, then morality is not contingent on any god.
You misunderstand. I am questioning how behaviour (what is descriptive) is how we derive morality (what should be, or the prescriptive). Do animals reason as we do about what is good rather than by instinct or the clan's protection mechanism? As you point out, they cannot reason and argue about Jesus or Vishnu as we can in whom was God. You don't find rat committees or forums on pointing out what is necessary for something to be morally good. 
Topic's author
#817
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
I would agree a possible reason was that the HUMAN had a trigger mechanism built into its design, so it instinctively responded, or that response became a habit based on experience. Survival.
Yes, you may agree. And what makes that right as opposed to someone thinking the opposite? If there is no fixed, universal, unchanging standard, it becomes a matter of opinion. 

"Built into its design = what is, not necessarily what ought to be. 

Not only that, you are describing what someone does, not what someone should do. If I have been beaten in the past and that beating starts by someone raising their hands in a particular manner, and I associate that behaviour as leading to a beating and respond by first beating them up, what is wrong with that? My triggered mechanism is preventing what I see as harmful. Does that mean my actions are good or JUSTIFIED?
Topic's author
#818
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Some label or call that framework moral conventions or moral norms. With such conventions or norms where two countries or two individuals oppose each other, then who is right? What then is the actual case?
THE BIBLE DOESN'T SOLVE THIS "PROBLEM".
Yes, it does, provided the biblical God exists and is who He is described as. It solves the problem in that it is a written testimony that gives a universal, ultimate, absolute, objective, unchanging, eternal, omniscient best or final measure and reference point to compare good and bad against. 

IF TWO PEOPLE THINK THE BIBLE SUPPORTS THEIR CLAIM, HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHO IS "CORRECT"?
God's word is the standard, so it should be appealed to on logical grounds as to what it says. 
Topic's author
#819
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Therefore, "morality" must be based on facts.
I agree. Now, who sets these moral facts in motion? It must be a necessary being. Morality is a mindful thing. 
Nobody "sets facts".
Moral facts are facts based on what is mindful. Morality is a mindful thing. And God, as Creator, would also determine how the physical universe functions. He set it into motion too. Thus, any quantitative fact is based on His knowledge and how He creates it to be. We are factual in regards to the physical world when we think God's thoughts after Him. He created the object and knows every single aspect of it and how it does and is meant to function. We do not in the case of origins and many other created things. In many cases, His word explains how things are.   

FACTS must be empirically demonstrable and or logically necessary.
Again, how do you demonstrate the laws of logic empirically? Until you can demonstrate the laws of logic are empirical and not abstract conceptual, your argument unravels on your claim that facts must be empirically demonstrated. 

This means they are always VERIFIABLE.
Only the ones we can verify. (^8

Many facts are not yet verifiable by human beings. The law of gravity was not verifiable until Newton demonstrated it. That does not mean it did not exist or was not operating. We did not know it. 

No "appeal to authority" needed.
"Appeal to authority" is different from an actual authority. You can appeal to anyone as an authority. Just doing that does not make them one. They have to show they understand and are an expert on the subject matter in question. 
Topic's author
#820
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
I gave you a reference to the Ten Commandments when you asked before for a chart.
#1, the "commandments" are not FACTS.  The "commandments" are statements of DOGMA.
So, it is not wrong to murder, steal, lie, covet, practice adultery, or disrespect your parents? If you do not believe these things are wrong why would I trust you? 

(People, lock up your valuables, don't believe 3BRUTAL, and watch out he does not stab you in the back)

#2, even (IFF) we accepted the "commandments" as 100% "true" (AND) we tried to follow them to the letter (THEN) we still end up with a ridiculous number of loop-holes and unanswered (perhaps unanswerable) legal (and moral) questions
What happens is we realize we cannot meet the standard because once we are guilty of breaking any commandment, we have wrongs not only our fellow human beings, beings who are also imperfect, but God who is morally good, pure, holy, and perfect. 
Topic's author
#821
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Not only this, I have offered to give you the reasons why the biblical God is reasonable to believe, whereas other belief systems are not.
Let's skip ahead.

GOD is a real-true-fact and The Bible is 100% real-true-fact, now what?

What does this mean to me in a real-life-practical-everyday scenario?

Don't worship other gods?  No problem.
Don't manufacture idols?  No problem.
Don't say "YHWH"?  No problem.
Don't work on Saturday?  Jesus canceled this one, we should actually make this "the 9 commandments".  No problem.
Honor thy parents?  No problem.
Don't murder?  No problem.
Don't adulterate?  No problem.
Don't steal?  No problem.
Don't perjure yourself?  No problem.
Don't desire stuff?  I already find it practical to focus on contentment, so, no problem.

What else?
Anything that relates to these laws/commandments, which Jesus summed up in two, to love God and to love other human beings. The point is that you will break some as an accountable human being. That means that you are guilty before God as well as hurting other human beings. Do you want to stand before God on your own merit or upon the merit of another who has met every righteous requirement of God? 
#822
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,613
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@PGA2.0
Read the research paper, Monkeys Reject Unequal Pay by Sarah F. Brosnan & Frans B. M. de Waal .
Abstract:
During the evolution of cooperation it may have become critical for individuals to compare their own efforts and pay-offs with those of others. Negative reactions may occur when expectations are violated. One theory proposes that aversion to inequity can explain human cooperation within the bounds of the rational choice model, and may in fact be more inclusive than previous explanations. Although there exists substantial cultural variation in its particulars, this ‘sense of fairness’ is probably a human universal that has been shown to prevail in a wide variety of circumstances. However, we are not the only cooperative animals, hence inequity aversion may not be uniquely human. Many highly cooperative nonhuman species seem guided by a set of expectations about the outcome of cooperation and the division of resources. Here we demonstrate that a nonhuman primate, the brown capuchin monkey (Cebus apella), responds negatively to unequal reward distribution in exchanges with a human experimenter. Monkeys refused to participate if they witnessed a conspecific obtain a more attractive reward for equal effort, an effect amplified if the partner received such a reward without any effort at all. These reactions support an early evolutionary origin of inequity aversion.

As you can see from above, morality is a product of evolution.

Topic's author
#823
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Theweakeredge
I don't know what caused the big bang, but do to the fact that no one has proven a god exists and there is evidence against a gods existence, then anything is more likely than a god causing the big bang. 
Actually, the contrary of what you say is more reasonable. A necessary being is a reasonable belief; chance happenstance or physical necessity is not. 

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 
2. The universe began to exist (per your Big Bang admission).
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. (you say you don't know the cause but dismiss God)

So, you have to have a cause that is sufficient for the universe to exist - God. Now, what is that cause without God? Let's you and me determine how reasonable it is.

#824
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,613
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Aren't miscarriages proof that God is pro-abortion? The Hebrew Bible doesn't mention miscarriage much — except for one particularly nasty part, when a husband believes his wife might have been running around on him. The trial to determine her faithfulness? She must drink a concoction of "bitter water" (presumably some kind of herbal production) and wait. If she then miscarried, she was unfaithful; if she didn't ,she was true. Miscarriage as punishment for infidelity? Now that's just mean.
#825
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 
So what caused god to exist?
Topic's author
#826
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Theweakeredge
The fact that several massive events almost killed all life on earth (and has several times) kinda disproves even the earth was made for life, in fact, you would have to prove it was made at all to get any implications from its being there. 
Fact or presupposition? You were not there. I agree that one event, the Flood, almost destroyed all life on earth. How does that event disprove the earth was made for life? Where else in the universe do you find the conditions NECESSARY for life? If the earth was not life-permitting, why is there life on it? The fact is that the earth is life-permitting, and you do find life here and so far nowhere else that we know of in the universe. Furthermore, if the conditions were not right, the universe would not even be here. If the natural laws were not precise, the universe would not exist. Regarding thermodynamics, why has it not died a heat death? 

As for the theory of everything, "God is the reason" is reasonable, for a reason is a mindful process. 

I am not assuming that god did not create the universe, that is not my burden to prove, but yours, and [1] whenever I said chance not having an agency was nonsense, I meant you saying it at all, clearly, it doesn't and if ou read my response honestly you would know that. Finally, [2] any god that did exist would be supernatural, literally impossible by the laws of physics
[1] What is "chance?"

Show me it has the ability to do anything.

[2] Any god that did not exist would not be God.

God, as a supernatural Being, is the Occam razor of explanations.
1. With Him, there is a reason for the universe.
2. God has what is necessary for the universe. He transcends time and space, so He is not of the physical realm, which began.
3. He is the simplest reason since the Big Bang can morph into many other scenarios, with black holes, wormholes, an expanding and contracting universe, a steady-state universe, multiverses, etc.
4. Experientially and observationally, every cause has an explanation, yet when you get to the Big Bang, you don't know? You trace the cause and effect back to a point in time, a singularity, then no further. With God, that is not the case. We can go beyond the universe.  
 
#827
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@PGA2.0
We don't know what the cause is, suggesting anything to be the cause is presumptious. Not to mention we have lots of philsophic and emperical reasons to believe god does not exist
Topic's author
#828
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@FLRW
You either accept one or the other. The question is which is more reasonable to believe? Do you think chance happenstance (no reason involved) is??
When [1] an intelligent person sees that the Universe is 13.8 billion years old, has 10 sextillion stars and 10^25 planets and the Earth has 8.7 million species and all life came from a single cell organism the lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago,, they realize  it is happenstance. That is why Einstein said, 'The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weakness'. 
[1] The implication is that only an intelligent person would see the universe how you have been funnelled to see it.

[2] Happenstance is not logical to believe. These beliefs are all presuppositions with lots of baggage with them. The age of the universe has changed with our knowledge and worldview models, and beliefs. The number of planets is assumed to be 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 by whom? All life comes from a single-celled organism is a Darwinian worldview presupposition with all kinds of difficulties, one of those being missing links.   

The fact is that Einstein also said that God does not play dice with the universe, and Einstein had a concept of God. 
Topic's author
#829
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you going to stand up for what is right is the question? 
What does The Bible prescribe for "defamation of character"?
Deuteronomy 19:17-19 (NASB)
17 then both people who have the dispute shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days. 18 And the judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has testified against his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him just as he had planned to do to his brother. So you shall eliminate the evil from among you.

Topic's author
#830
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
There is an invitation there, by God. Thus it is not a want of something that should not belong to us, but something designed for our good by God. God is for a better relationship with humanity, but it must be through His set means because that means is sufficient to meet God's standard - His righteousness. There is nothing wrong with restoring a broken relationship, but it is a two-way street. It must be the desire of both parties. 
So, it's "greed" to want some things, but not "greed" to want other things?  How do you know which is which?
If both parties do not want the same thing, it will not happen, at least not without resentment, yet we know it is good to love one another. God knows we NEED certain things, like food, love, shelter. When we want or desire things that hurt others, the law of coveting applies, whether that someone is ourselves, another, or both.
Topic's author
#831
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Words have the power of life and death. Some have a harmful effect on others. They can be used in destroying people through bullying them. They can tear down a positive image and replace it with a negative one. I believe in speaking my mind, but if someone is bullying, there is a point where enough is enough. Some things need to be said, but it should be gentleness and respect where possible. Directness is one of my faults.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

You fix this "problem" with ONE RULE, "NO AD HOMINEM ATTACKS".

And no "enforcement" mechanism is needed except for you to tell them, "NO AD HOMINEM ATTACKS".

It's shockingly effective.
It works whenever someone points the finger at someone else and is guilty of doing the same thing themselves (Darn, you did it again). (^8

Sometimes it is very sneakily done, or indirectly, and I do it with irony and sarcasm to make a point very often. 
#832
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,613
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@PGA2.0
[1] What is "chance?"
Show me it has the ability to do anything.
Let’s start by looking briefly at a few of the possible methods by which abiogenesis could occur by chance. There are a few basic theories by which abiogenesis could happen, and each one has some slightly different environmental requirements in order to occur.
Methane, water, hydrogen, and ammonia. These were the prominent elements that made up the early earth, and are thought to be one of the key requirements for abiogenesis. The Miller-Urey experiment reduced a controlled environment to these exclusive ingredients, then shot electric sparks through the mixture. The experiment is hailed for its results as it produced amino acids and other “organic” compounds. This essentially proved that in the right conditions, by chance alone, the building blocks for proteins could come into existence. While this experiment did not create life, it took a very unique set of environmental requirements and proved that components of life could naturally occur.
Hachimoji DNA is one of the latest examples of mankind creating DNA within a lab environment. This synthetic version of DNA is different from humanity’s DNA in that it has eight letters rather than a mere four, which is assumed to be a benefit in that it may allow for more efficient information storage. DNA is created and manipulated using a synthetic biology lifecycle method. This method allows researchers testing against a great number of variables to produce desired results. While these processes aren’t exactly “from scratch” and take certain conditions for granted, it goes without saying that this level of progress certainly indicates that it is possible for life to occur naturally.
Topic's author
#833
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
What you think deep down so often reflects and directs your actions. 
Now you're starting to sound like Napoleon Hill.

Don't know him or what that means. 
Topic's author
#834
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Because God is love. Injustice concerns Him.
I've seen Christians do this before, but I still can't figure it out,

LOVE =/= PUNISHMENT
A justice and righteous Judge would not be good and loving if He left a wrong unpunished. 

If you loved and wanted the best for someone would you let them do something that hurt others then say, "That's okay." If you see Antifa go into your neighbourhood and burn down your neighbour's house after they have robbed it and beating them up would the loving thing be to do nothing? Or would it be loving to seek justice for a wrong? 
Topic's author
#835
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@FLRW
Have they considered what atheism is doing to the mind in closing itself to Inana, a Sumerian goddess of fertility and war?
Who are they? If you mean Christians, they would agree that these false gods need to be shown for what they are. 
Topic's author
#836
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) you have a strong survival instinct (AND) hope for a better future (THEN) you will do anything in your power to protect yourself (AND) you will do anything in your power to protect your family and loved ones (as it serves priority #1) (AND) you will do anything in your power to protect your property (as it serves priorities #1 and #2) (AND) if you are convinced that priorities #1, #2, and #3 are secure, ONLY THEN are you capable of truly free COOPERATION with others (otherwise you are COERCED).
Where did you get those ideas from? Is it the norm??? Perhaps with the Christian framework?
Do you agree that this is a universal and unchanging moral framework?
What I mean is with the Christian framework you have what is necessary for determining right and wrong, what should be. 
Topic's author
#837
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
...ement. Because of one police officer's wrongful act, the whole police service was demonized, defunded in many locations, and the country had a huge price to pay. Mass violent mobs of anarchists descended on cities destroying private property and inflicting harm on these communities' resid...
When your neighbor's children run naked in the streets breaking things, who do you blame?
First, do you think these mobs are right in doing what they do and do you think it is okay to defund the police? 

Both parents and children should be accountable if the parents knowingly allow this behaviour.
Topic's author
#838
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
I have admitted the thought of being the only one is absurd.
Which Church flavor do you subscribe to?
I am non-denominational. I believe the body of Christ is not an organization or a building but those who believe in Jesus Christ and what He says and did. 
#839
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,613
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@PGA2.0
The fact is that Einstein also said that God does not play dice with the universe, and Einstein had a concept of God. 
You are not aware of the vast time difference between Einstein's comments on God.  Einstein said God does not play dice in 1926.  In 1954, one year before he died,
he wrote a letter that said,  “The word God is for me nothing but the expression of and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this.” This shows that you manipulate facts to support your claim. 
Topic's author
#840
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Hell is the absence of God's presence where any evil goes.
Wait.

What happened to "omnipresent"?
God chooses not to make His presence felt. When God's shekinah glory departed from the temple that does not mean God was no longer there, it means those who had a relationship with and access to Him no longer did. They can no longer be present with Him in a relationship.