-->
@Lemming
Why even include the Old Testament, if it has no bearing on Christianity?
yep
Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?
Posts
Total:
1,638
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Well, 'I don't view it your way either,
'Might be I know even less of Christianity than I think,
But I 'already rate my knowledge of it pretty low,
So, personally I 'don't think it's that I know less than I think,
But to each their own view, I suppose.
-->
@Lemming
Then don't I really don't give a s*** but there isn't anything about priesthood in the New Testament. And if you can find a Christian pastor that is following the recommendations from the Old Testament priesthood or are following how the rabbis live then good on you because you're not going to find it in most modern Christian churches.
And if you can find a Christian pastor that is following the recommendations from the Old Testament priesthood
well, you can find plenty of christian pastors who teach moral lessons based on the old testament text
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not saying you can't use the Old Testament for teaching lessons but you certainly should not be using the Old Testament to tell Christians how they should be practicing.
Picture if you will a ummm,
A well below average scripture translator messing up a few scriptures and having it effect their morals.
It may effect their morals negatively or positively.
Let me guess.
Having trouble picturing a poor scripture decipherer ?
To have another guess.
We've currently got approximately two and a half billion thiests whom are in the ( TOP 1000 OF ALLLLLLLL TIME ) script trans
We've a billion theists whom are currently in the ( TOP 10 OF ALLLLLLLL TIME ) they have a special " querky way " of translating making them spot on.
Hi 5.
Being in the top 10 is short for. = ( NUMBER ONE BESTEST THAT WILL EVER BE. )
And we've currently ten maybe twenty max, theists, whom are not very good at translating scriptures.
What i am trying to ask is.
Do you reckon a theist would say that they are not very good at translating scriptures?
Ha.
Ha.
I bet every theist on this site belives they are in the current ( TOP 1000 )
Who's not ?
Who's bad at it?
But back to the question.
Morality? Is atheism more reasonable?
Yeah ummmm. Yes.
Yes it is.
Unlesssssssssss.
You are a ( jewish christian Muslim. ) and believed in allllllll the holy books and took only the " good " out of all the books.
Thus making one M E G A M O R A L DUDE .
I like picturing
Your walking down the road and on the other side of the road is a lady pushing a pram with a kid in it , you glimps at her and think. " i want to have sex with her " so you cross over and you are just about to rape her but you quickly stop because you remembered a scripture that says you shouldn't do that.
And your like fewwwww . Lucky i just remembered that one.
morals, shmorals, florals.
Denounce your religion today.
Then go to bed that night .
Thus waking up the next day with not a drop of moral in ya.
What a trip.
Denounce your religion today.
Thus waking the next day and not being phased by boys kissing boys.
One day you find god.
Then go to bed that night .
Thus waking the next day disgusted about homosexuality.
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Whether scripture or reality,
People are going to have to make evaluations of it,
Live their lives as they think is right.
When I say reality, I mean I'd imagine you could apply your argument of,
"A well below average scripture translator messing up a few scriptures and having it effect their morals.
It may effect their morals negatively or positively. "
To people's experiences with life,
Maybe the knowledge that humans are fallible is reason to be cautious in our conclusions,
But it's not a reason for people not to write, or use writings in interpreting life, to my way of thinking?
-->
@3RU7AL
Absolutely. But Jesus came and fulfilled that law and created new law. He replaced the law of Moses with a higher system of ethics. We should always respect the Old Law..but we live by the new Law because Jesus is the final authority. To be clear however...the New Law does not deminish or cancel out the Old Law. Read the sermon on the Mount if you want an example or Matthew 5.
-->
@imdancin
One can read anything one wants and conclude anything one wants.
But if the precept is a specific religious bias, then the precept is a specific religious bias.
Imaonlydancintotheonetune, as it were.
Turns out that even old Moses was a stupid c***.
So what about old Abe, was that all BS too.
Then along came Muhammad and an even newer Law.
Ideologically, I currently subscribed to the Laws of Zed.
* You might have been offended if I had actually written the word clot.
10 days later
-->
@PGA2.0
PGA2.0 428 to 3RU7ALFirst, it is not based on me. I appeal to a source of revelation outside myself, a necessary personal knowing and revealing Being. What are you appealing to with your statements?Amoranemix 911[a] 3RU7AL is appealing to his preference and you are appealing to your preference. [b] You are blaming atheists for having only their preferences, but you have nothing more. [c] All would you have extra, if your god were to exist, would be an additional option to prefer : You could prefer your god's morality, [d] while atheists can't. [e] Polytheistic religions have an even bigger advantage though.PGA2.0 1119[a] If God did not exist or if I failed to interpret His moral laws correctly, yes, it would be just another preference, but that is my whole argument, isn't it?[657] I argue that the biblical God is God and that He has revealed and given evidence in His revelation, also by the created order. I argue the implausibility and even the contrary's impossibility, all the while asking atheists to give their evidence. For instance, I continually ask you why your moral preference is any better than any other moral preference and how you determine this?[658] To this query, I get many people playing tiddlywinks instead of playing the game before us - Go.[b] Again, providing you can prove the biblical God is not God or is not necessary.[659] You have not done that. All you have done is assert that the biblical God is an invention.[c] This is not true to a God who has revealed the truth about right and wrong. With such a God, I have an objective (universal and according to what is the case) standard and appeal.[d] The atheist is wrong in such a case. Again, why should I prefer your moral preference? It is based on nothing concrete and fixed.[e] Polytheists hold many contrary views since their gods hold different views. Thus, only one god, if any, can be the true view. That one God, Christians argue, is the Christian God and with good reason.
[a, 657] No, that is not your argument.
[658] Indeed, you argue. Arguing something does not demonstrate it. Flat-earthers argue that the earth is flat.
You continue to ask fallacious questions. You ASSUME that my moral preference is better than yours without having given good reason to believe so. A predilection for fallacies is an indication of a fallacious worldview.
[b, 659] You are mistaken, for that is not a provision. Even if your god were to exist, your fallacious arguments do not demonstrate he is necessary for morality.
[c] If that objective universal, objective standard were to exist (something you have so far been unable to prove), it would be your preference. You cannot even demonstrate your preference is better than my preference, let alone that your preference is true, let alone that your preference is not a preference.
[d] Please support your claim. Demonstrate the atheist is wrong if he can't prefer your god's morality.
[e] You are mistaken. You believe in many humans with inconsistent views. Does that make you wrong ?
You can't even demonstrate that a true view is possible, let alone that your God holds it.
PGA2.0 431 to 3RU7ALSome people cannot be convinced because it runs contrary to what they want to believe.[105]There is proof available in and for the Christian worldview that is most reasonable.[106] It comes from what is necessary for there to be morality. How is yours anything other than opinion?Amoranemix 911[105] as everyone who has debated Christians, you in particular, knows well.[106] [a] Says who ? [b] You ? Why should skeptics believe you, [c] a fallacy king who cannot support his claims ?PGA2.0 1119I am willing to reason with you and, in fact, have been.[660] For instance, with morality, please provide me with a suitable and necessary alternative that is more than your preference or group preference. Show me why it is the actual case or more reasonable to believe.[661][106] [a] The argument is based on evidence from the Bible, history, logic, and philosophy via what is necessary for morality, a necessary Being. You are not that being. The subject of this thread addresses which worldview is more compelling, more reasonable.[b] Because what I believe is more reasonable and plausible to believe.Morality requires intelligent beings.Morality requires a fixed, objective, universally applicable revealed source for the right to be known.[662][c] Better than the fanciful emperor who has no clothes.
[660] You have mainly been arguing against me. If I present something you check whether God is in there somewhere and whether you expect him in there. If the answers are no, respectively yes, then you decimate your intelligence and attempt to create confusion with fallacious arguments and silly questions.
[661] If you doubt the existence of nature, then you should not debate morality with those who believe nature suffices for morality. Or you should at least explain what makes you doubt nature's existence. It is unreasonable to expect people to give evidence for nature's existence in a debate on morality.
I have already explained how one can define morality as an emergent property from nature in post 1076.
Here is a an article on the appearance of the neocortex and thus intelligence in mammals : science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6411/190.full
Sophisticated morality requires intelligence. So the article contributes to the explanation of the emergence of morality. I doubt we will ever see a similar explanation based on God.
[a] You have not provided any evidence from the Bible. You have merely presented claims from the Bible.
[b] Any lunatic can claim that their beliefs are reasonable and plausible to believe. That does not imply believing them is the rational thing to do, nor that their beliefs are true.
[662] You seem to think that repeating an assertion enough times makes it true. Alas, that is not the case.
[c] There are alternatives over believing you or a naked emperor. Better still is to believe expert scientists, who draw conclusions about reality based on reason and evidence.
PGA2.0 431The evidence is convincing and justifiable.[107] Christianity has what is necessary. I can make sense of morality. Show me your belief can too.Amoranemix 911[107] See [106].PGA2.0 1119Again, you avoid showing me you have what is necessary for morality.[662] It again avoided showing me it is capable of making sense of morality.[663]
[662] You are mistaken. You fallaciously equate 'not doing' with 'avoiding'. I don't show you my sailing yacht either. However, that does not imply I avoid showing it to you. You had not even asked me.
[663] What are you talking about ?
Again, you failed to provide a good reason to believe you.
PGA2.0 431 to 3RU7ALYou are evading the question, trying to turn it back on me to escape explanation. It is a ploy I have witnessed for those who have nothing to offer use.Amoranemix 911I know the feeling. On debate.org I have debated a guy who forgot to answer hundreds of questions. ;)I did not forget. I got to the point where I saw answering your posts was a futile process, the workload required too much (a barrage of detailed posts with complex explanations), and I felt it an unfairly one-sided discussion.[664] You have a habit of not justifying your own position but mainly challenging mine, a one-sided dialogue where I am required to do all the leg work and where you get to evade questions or justification.[665] Do you think that is fair? IMO, your main purpose seems like that of some other atheists I have encountered who have an agenda - make Christians look bad.[666]
[664] I agree that basing one's worldview on reason and evidence does give one an advantage, but it is not an unfair one. Any participant can base their worldview on whatever they want. Basing your worldview on God or the Bible is a handicap you gave yourself. Hence, it is not an unfair one.
A different hypothesis for you failing to even address questions is that you recognize them as embarassing to you beliefs. You don't evade questions because you have nothing to offer, but because you are too embarrassed by what you have to offer. You then make the judgement that ignoring the questions will be less damaging than answering them.
[665] You have a habit of making blanket accusations. What is typical for our debates is the following :
We demonstrate with examples that you fail to answer questions. Then I accuse you of that failure.
We demonstrate with examples that you fail to demonstrate your claims. Then I accuse you of that failure.
We demonstrate with examples that you commit fallacies. Then I accuse you of committing fallacies.
You accuse me of evading questions and not justifying my beliefs. Then I ask you to demonstrate that accusation. Then … well … nothing.
[666] Your main purpose seems to be like that of other Christians that I have encountered who have an agenda : bamboozle people into God-belief.
PGA2.0 431Argumentum ad populum. Truth is not true just because the majority think so.[108] What is good is so whether you believe so or not.[109]Amoranemix 911[108] Your fallacy of choice : the straw man. 3RU7AL did not rely on that erroneous principle. Whether everyone is an Orthodox Jew does in fact depend on the popularity of certain beliefs.[109] Your god on the other hand seems to think something is good because he believes it. I suggest you tell him the error of his ways.PGA2.0 1120"If, and only if, everyone agrees" is an appeal to popularity.[667] He reasons that everyone has to agree for something, such as biblical morality, to be true. Then he says that we would all be Orthodox Jews in that situation, which is another fallacy, a haste generalization.[ . . . ][109] No, He knows something is good because goodness is one of His attributes, part of His nature. He knows all things, which is another attribute of His nature.
[667] No, it is not. An appeal is a call or request to do or believe something, which 3RU7AL did not do.
Litterally, he did not say or do what you want him to and I did not understand it that way and is unlikely he believes what you want, although your uncharitable interpretation seems possible.
In order to have a constructive discussion, it is better to do a charitable interpretation of your opponent's claims, i.e. the interpretation that most favours his position. It is how Christians tend it interpret the Bible. Of course, you don't want a constructive discussion; you want to promote God-belief. So it is understandable you do the opposite.
I'll leave it to 3RU7AL to clarify what he meant.
[109] You are missing the point. A Kim Jong-Un fan could say something similar : “Our Great Leader knows something is good because goodness is one if His attributes, part of His nature. He does not know all things, which is another attribute of his nature.”
@ Polystyrene
Polytheist-Witch, wrote: There is no priest rules in the Bible. #1463
Then you haven't read the BIBLE have you? Just like all other bible dunces here, you make claims about what is and isn't written in the BIBLE without reading it for yourself and cannot ever produce a single piece of evidence or support to support your unfounded claims.... and neither can the dickhead that voted up your claim in said post.#1463
Here, I will go out of my way for you:
Rules for Priests
Leviticus 21
The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: ‘A priest must not make himself ceremonially unclean for any of his people who die, 2 except for a close relative, such as his mother or father, his son or daughter, his brother, 3 or an unmarried sister who is dependent on him since she has no husband—for her he may make himself unclean. 4 He must not make himself unclean for people related to him by marriage, and so defile himself.
5 “‘Priests must not shave their heads or shave off the edges of their beards or cut their bodies. 6 They must be holy to their God and must not profane the name of their God. Because they present the food offerings to the Lord, the food of their God, they are to be holy.
7 “‘They must not marry women defiled by prostitution or divorced from their husbands, because priests are holy to their God. 8 Regard them as holy, because they offer up the food of your God. Consider them holy, because I the Lord am holy—I who make you holy.
9 “‘If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.
10 “‘The high priest, the one among his brothers who has had the anointing oil poured on his head and who has been ordained to wear the priestly garments, must not let his hair become unkempt or tear his clothes. 11 He must not enter a place where there is a dead body. He must not make himself unclean, even for his father or mother, 12 nor leave the sanctuary of his God or desecrate it, because he has been dedicated by the anointing oil of his God. I am the Lord.
13 “‘The woman he marries must be a virgin. 14 He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people, 15 so that he will not defile his offspring among his people. I am the Lord, who makes him holy.’”
16 The Lord said to Moses, 17 “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. 18 No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a crippled foot or hand, 20 or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. 22 He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; 23 yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the Lord, who makes them holy.’”
24 So Moses told this to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites.
Exodus 19:22Even the priests, who approach the LORD, must consecrate themselves, or the LORD will break out against them.”
-->
@Stephen
Best known as 'The Jim and Tammy show' the 1974 TV show 'The P.T.L. Club' was a Christian program hosted by a religious couple; its name stood for "Praise the Lord." Luckily, viewers quickly discovered this show had nothing to do with God and everything to do with scams and money.
the answer to "is atheism more reasonable than theism?" is:
No
atheism is inherently illogical because a universe does not pop out of absolute nothing for no reason.
-->
@Conservallectual
It's not nothing it's a program run by a something that was created by nothing.
-->
@Conservallectual
atheism is inherently illogical because a universe does not pop out of absolute nothing for no reason.
nobody has made such a claim
certainly there is some "first cause"
this fact is not in dispute
-->
@FLRW
Best known as 'The Jim and Tammy show' the 1974 TV show 'The P.T.L. Club' was a Christian program hosted by a religious couple; its name stood for "Praise the Lord." Luckily, viewers quickly discovered this show had nothing to do with God and everything to do with scams and money.
You must understand, FLRW, they were taking care of "gods money". As that disciple of Jesus Judas did. John 12:5–6 that Judas spoke fine words about giving money to the poor, but the reality was "not that he cared for the poor, but [that] he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it."
Marvelous I think that these modern day Pastors and Priests seem to have taken a very large page from Judas' book.
-->
@Stephen
@3RU7AL
@Conservallectual
Of course:
Atheism is actually, more reasonable than theism.
And morality is a variable assumption.
And if a universe couldn't POP,
Then a GOD couldn't POP.
60 pages and still no further forwards then.
Though maybe a universe went BOOM BANGA BANG.
And a GOD POPPED into someone's head a few billion years later.
Now this sounds reasonable to me.
-->
@zedvictor4
This is unreasonable
And if a universe couldn't POP,Then a GOD couldn't POP.
No, God has always existed. The universe did not. If the universe where to appear then God would exist because the universe needs a creator. Mindless substances don't make any information
Though maybe a universe went BOOM BANGA BANG.And a GOD POPPED into someone's head a few billion years later.
For the universe to appear as "BOOM BANGA BANG" it would definitely need a cause for it's existence.
Everything that begins to exist needs a cause for it's beginning.
Also your comments read like a nutjob from R/atheism.
-->
@Conservallectual
No, God has always existed.
So you can unequivocally prove this then?
Everything that begins to exist needs a cause for it's beginning.
Ooops......All except a GOD.....Your GOD that is....Very convenient.
Which I'm assuming is the Christian GOD.....That began only 2000 and a bit years ago.......A few billion years after the Universe began.
Ummmm.....Something doesn't quite add up there, does it?
Sounds like the same old same old, non-sensical, fundamentalist Christian argument. The one that refuses to accept, that science trumps folk tales when it comes to explaining Universal history.
Not that anyone can satisfactorily explain a Universal beginning.
It was a GOD what did it......Well, we can refer to a moment of creation as anything I suppose....Call it BOOM or call it GOD or call it ALAN or call it KYLIE.
You choose.
Just how long is this thread. I am baffled. Most threads I create have less posts than this one has pages.
Is this perhaps the longest thread in Dart History as of now? Sure, the arguers and the ranters will just expand this topic and ignore me, but yeah, I am baffled by this topic alone without reading anything.
-->
@Intelligence_06
I won't ignore you.
Good morning Intel.
When the forum gets a bit quiet, where better to offload some mental energy, other than here .
Long may it last.
Let's see if we can get to a 100 pages.
-->
@Conservallectual
No, God has always existed. The universe did not.
Could you explain why the universe needs a creator but a god does not? Cause it sounds almost likes you're making up a rule and applying it to everyone else's claims but yours.
-->
@zedvictor4
No, God has always existed.So you can unequivocally prove this then?
there is a logical necessity for some "first-cause"
some call this "god"
but which "god(s) and or goddess(es)"
the logical necessity for some "first-cause" does NOT draw a straight line to "YHWH" (or any other specific "intelligent" "entity")
in all likelihood, the logically necessary "first-cause" is about as "intelligent" as the sun (or gravity)
Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?
Tim Berners-Lee is a software engineer who invented the Internet (or the World Wide Web) in 1989 while at CERN, the European Particle Physics Laboratory.
Unlike some inventors however he didn't become a billionaire from his creation despite its impact on society – because he gave it to the world for free, with no patent and no royalties due. What could be more moral than that.
Now lets find out about his religion.
Berners-Lee was raised as an Anglican, but he turned away from religion in his youth. After he became a parent, he became a Unitarian Universalist (UU). When asked whether he believes in God, he stated: "Not in the sense of most people, I'm atheist and Unitarian Universalist."
-->
@3RU7AL
A Zedku for 3RU7AL
For sure.
First cause is,
Magic.
But nonetheless,
Rules out,
Infinite existence.
Catch 22.
71 days later
-->
@PGA2.0
Atheism is more reasonable than Theism.
Harikrish argued his case well.
From the Scriptures and the actions and words of Jesus we can conclude Jesus was an Atheist.
Atheist definition: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Jesus mocked the religious leaders of his time. He called them vipers and scums just like Atheist mocked the believers today.
Matthew 23:33 "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?
Jesus called his body a temple and drove people out of the real temple of worship.
John 2:19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."
Matthew 21:12 Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves.
Jesus claimed he had all authority over his alien Kingdom and earth. Yet he stood idly by as the Romans destroyed the holy city and sanctuary.
He believed anybody who ate his flesh and drank his blood would have eternal life. Who needs a God if Jewish meat is kosher and gets you eternal life in the hereafter.
John 6:54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
Jesus said he was from an alien world.
John 8:23 I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
John 18:36 Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."
Jesus was despised like most atheists were during his time. He comforted them.
Isaiah 53:3 He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
Luke 6:22 Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.
Jesus on the cross mocked the God of the Bible.
Matthew 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").
Were those last words of Jesus that motivated the Pope to declare Jesus was a failure of the cross?
Pope declared:"And if at times our efforts and works seem to fail and not produce fruit, we need to remember that we are followers of Jesus Christ and his life, humanly speaking, ended in failure, the failure of the cross."
Jesus called God his father throughout his life. By doing this he reduced God to a rapist and the cause of his illegitimate bastard status.
He even blamed God for his alcoholism like God willed him to drink the water he turned into alcohol.
Matthew 26:39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."
He was not directing people to God, he was forcing believers to chose between family or him.
Matthew 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
35 For I have come to turn ""a man against his father, a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law"
36 a man"s enemies will be the members of his own household."[c]
37 "Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
But if Jesus was an atheist as scriptures suggests who went against the religious leaders of his time by denouncing their beliefs. Then why do Christians worship an atheist Jesus?
By worshipping the atheist Jesus they believe they are turning him into God by their exhaltation.
If the Pope did not remind Christians that Jesus was a failure of the cross we would be swamped by Christians on DDO. But we find DDO is full of happy atheists who take delight in the fact that Jesus was an atheist......Harikrish.
See link.
13 days later
-->
@PGA2.0
Your decalogue is indistinguishable from a (really old) personal preference or opinion.PGA2.0 432Your assertion, not mine. Back it up.Amoranemix 911Can you provide/support such distinction with more than bald assertions ?PGA2.0 11203RU7AL made a claim. It was his statement, not mine. It is his onus to back it up as anything more than an assertion.Can you prove "it" (his statement of it - the Decalogue - being indistinguishable from other older personal preferences) is not the case with anything other than bald assertions? How does he back that up? Is he going to appeal to the Code of Hammurabi or another god? Please give me some proof that those codes or accounts did not borrow from the biblical account or that such gods are more reasonable to believe in by the evidence for them.[668]I am appealing to logic and what would philosophically have to be the case. If you disagree, then provide another justifiable reason or argument (set of premises).[669][ . . . ]
You 'forgot' to answer my question, presumably because the answer is : No, you cannot provide or support a difference between the decalogue and personal opinion.
[668] Your fallacy is requiring proof of non-existence. Non-existence can in general not be demonstrated. For example, it cannot be disproven that Marie-Antoinette has said (in the original French) “Let them eat cake”, however, in absense of evidence that she said that, it is reasonable to assume that she has not. Many conspiracy theories also cannot be disproven. However, that does not imply they should be taken seriously. In the case of 3RU7AL’s claim it is reasonable to assume, in absense to evidence to the contrary, that no such difference exists. If the believers of such differences know one, they should be able to present it.
Thus, it is unplausible that such distinction exists. At best it would be an open question, in which case it can also be considered an open question whether 3RU7AL's claims differ from personal preference.
[669] A problem with logic is that it does not come to your aid just because you appeal to it.
Amoranemix 911[a] So you chose God and his morality. [i] A choice, assuming free will, is subjective.[b]That your god is necessary for morality is something you have yet to prove. My worldview allows me to explain why you haven't done so yet, because I base it on reality.So, you choose according to what you believe meets you preference and your preference is the moral standard of someone who has what is necessary for morality. But what if Kim Jong Un or Bashar Al Assad has a different preference ?PGA2.0 1120[a] He first chose me to be born again in Christ. It begins with Him. Morality makes sense with God. It is reasonable to believe that morality comes from mindful beings, and a necessary being who is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, and eternal meets the requirements.[i] A choice for humans is subjective. We do not know everything. Thus we make a judgment. But if God has revealed, we can know what is objective provided; we correctly interpret His revelation.[b] There is an objective standard of appeal, provided the biblical God exists. It is not subjective if such a God exists, has revealed, and I correctly interpret His revelation. Agree or disagree?keep asking you questions that you fail to answer.[670] Be honest with yourself and others and stop hiding what you believe. I am not the only one giving an account here. Do you realize that?[671] It requires two of us to test each other's worldviews. Here are some more questions concerning this very subpoint.Is a mind necessary for morality? If so, is that mind your mind? Yes or no?[672]If you did not exist, would morality still be possible? If so, why is your mind the necessary mind for morality's existence, or can you say it is?[673]For you to know with certainty, would omniscience provide the answer? Yes or no?[674]For morality to exist, does the law of logic, the law of identity apply? (A=A) If not, whose idea of the moral right is actually true to what is the case, or is there no actual case and how do you know?[675]If there is no fixed, unchanging standard - a best - then what do you use to compare goodness or rightness to?[676]If morality is not eternally true (truth is always the case), then how can you say something is morally right or wrong? If it is not always the case that something is right, then it can change and what was once true is now false regarding the same principle.[677] That begs why is the "now" better than the "then"? How do you get better in such a case? Who gets to determine that?[678]Again, if moral values are not eternal, unchanging, they are inconsistent with logic. They fail the law of contradiction, the law of identity, and the law of excluded middles.[679]
[a] The problem is that those are just your beliefs. You cannot prove any of them.
[i] Even if we were to blindly accept your claim about God's revelation, your choice would still be subjective, by virtue of being a free choice.
[b] Objective standards are easy to invent.
What do you mean with 'such a God' ? If you define God as being necessary for morality, then you commit the definist fallacy. If indeed God exists and is omniscient and omnipotent, then it is not subjective that such God exists. If God has revealed stuff, then it is not subjective that God has revealed stuff. If we add on top of that the assumption that everything he revealed is true, that would make little difference if we can't identify what he has revealed. If on top of that you correctly interpret God's revelation, then it is not subjective that you do that.
You gave the impression that you were preparing for backing up your claim, but experience has shown that is usually dupery.
[670] You keep asking me fallacious questions. You also keep changing the subject. We were talking about whether your standard is subjective and before that issue is resolved, you start asking questions about my worldview. That creates confusion (the skeptic's enemy).
[671] Yes. I realize that I too am defending my position, despite the burden of proof resting mostly on your shoulders.
[672] Yes and no. As I have explained, two minds are necessary, but no two in particular.
[673] Yes and your fallacy of choice is the loaded question, for you have so far been unable to demonstrate my mind is the necessary mind for morality's existence.
[674] To know what with certainty ? I remind you : omniscience does not mean knowing everything. It means knowing everything true.
[675] I don't see the relevance of the law of identity, but of course morality does not violate it. There are many actual cases with lots of different opinions.
[676] I don't compare goodness or rightness. What do you compare beauty or arrogance to ?
[677] Again. Truth changes. Pluto was once a planet. Now it is merely a dwarf planet.
[678] There are many possibilities and if you have processed what I have explained you, you can find some of those yourself.
[679] So you baldly assert again. Honour your burden of proof!
Amoranemix 911 to SkepticalOneSo a good script for evasion seems to be:1. Miss the point with a nonsensical response.2. When confronted, admit your mistake.3. Accept the congratulations!PGA2.0 1120I've lost the greater context, so I will respond to what is available.Point three - Thank you! I realize you are the only one who can't be wrong or misunderstand something!!!All communication requires that we get the meaning the other person is conveying to understand them correctly. Misapplying a term or not understanding it can result in a misunderstanding. You seem to think I am not allowed that benefit. Are you so perfect, or is this your way of beating up on me?
You are still missing the point and I am not interested in following this sidetrack.
Amoranemix 911[a] Although you have failed to answer his [3RU7AL] question, [b] you suggest that something that has what is necessary for morality, is moral (benevolent). [c] Why would that be so ?[d] You also claim that a fixed foundation is required for morality. Can you prove that ? (Repeating how bad it is without such foundation and repeating fallacious questions do not constitute proof.)[e] You also seem to be under the impression that asking something gives the recipient of your request the duty to fulfill it. However, that is not so according to the [f] moral standard of most of your recipients.PGA2.0 1120[a] I have answered how I know many times before, till I am blue in the face. I find the evidence in the Bible is reasonable and compelling to believe, and in an example like prophecy, it is confirmed on many accounts by external historical evidence. I have also argued philosophically, ontologically, metaphysically, morally, and epistemological for my case.[b] In the biblical case, yes.[c] As I have said before, I don't argue about other gods, so my theistic argument is about a specific God I deem meets the requirements of what is necessary, as explained in the biblical revelation/writings.[d] If something does not have a fixed identity, how can you say it is what it is? I think it is self-evident. Do you believe that some things are self-evident?[e] I am under the impression that you cannot fulfill my questions or requests, so you avoid them.[670] It, to me, shows the moral and epistemological bankruptcy of your atheistic position. It can't make sense of itself with anything other than assertions and calling the kettle black.[f] What moral standard? Are you speaking about your preferences? How are they moral? Justify them as moral. Do you think that just because you can make something up, that means it is moral?
[a] OK. So the revelation is supposed to be moral because the Bible says so. It is unclear to me what arguments those other adverbs are supposed to refer to, but I don't recall you presenting any good ones.
[b] Adding that stipulation does not clarify.
[c] If I understand correctly, there is no causal connection, contrary to what you suggested. What is necessary for morality could als well be immoral, but in your worldview that happens not to be the case, for no reason.
[d] I asked whether you can support your claim. Your response : two questions and a belief. None of those do anything to answer the question or support your claim. It would be hard to imagine you could expect rational people to take you seriously.
Yes, I believe some things are self-evident, but morality requiring a fixed foundation isn't one of them.
So, the answer is : No you can't prove your claim. What a surprise.
[e, 670] So what ? Do you think it is difficult to make unfulfillable requests ? Give me 10 million dollars! Demonstrate the earth is flat! Explain to me why God is maximally evil! I suspect you won't be able to fulfill my requests and will therefore avoid them. That, to me, shows the moral and epistemological bankruptcy of your christian position. It can't make sense of itself with anything other than assertions and calling the kettle black.
That is typical for swindlers. They make a claim that is totally irrelevant. The non-attentative audience then assumes : “Surely, he wouldn't be saying something totally irrelevant? It must be related to the topic somehow. So he must mean X.” <X being relevant> People being inclined to believe what they (think they are) told and X being false, they are thus deceived.
In that case the misleading suggestion was that your requests I didnt' answer were ones that I would have fulfilled if my position was a defensible one. I suspect you are often even deceiving yourself. Your stratagem is to confuse people, including yourself, into God-belief.
[f] You are changing the subject again. We are already having too many instances of discussions on that subject.
PGA2.0 1130 to FLRW[About the age of the universe]Who should I trust? You? Your data? The language above is unsure.
“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” – Bertrand Russel
-->
@Amoranemix
I feel like You have been working on this response post for close to four month now..
But you got it out.
Nice post man.