atheism and relativism.

Author: keithprosser

Posts

Total: 322
#211
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne

Without reading the thread, I find myself wondering what is the logical connection between atheism/relativism and prophecy.
Atheists claim there is no evidence. Prophecy is such evidence.
If prophecy is reasonable and logical it gives another reason to trust the biblical claims that there is an objective source to make sense of things. 
Atheism, unless it can prove an absolute, objective, unchanging source of reference is subjective and relative. 


#212
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne

I can't help but think the interpretation of prophecy is a form of cultural (denominational) relativism.
Whether that is true or not the point is there is a correct interpretation of Scripture. You have to determine the authors meaning or you have not understood the author. You have to determine who the audience of address is and the timeframe. This is not done with Dispensationalism or any "futuristic" interpretation of Scripture. 

#213
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser


Well, different denominations may well interpret prophesies differently, but the laws of physics are the same for everyone so the possibiity that actual prophecies exist is not relative.   i.e they aren't possible!
I think Dispensationalism has been the main view held across the most denominational lines from the 1800's forward. 

The rest of your statement is jargon since I do not understand what you are getting at. How do the laws of physics relate to prophecy and its correct interpretation? Are you saying you can verify the one but not the other?

 
#214
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Two things:
1) the prophecy fulfillments you reference are built on interpretation. Ie. The prophecies themselves are vague and the specifics you read into them come strictly from the reader(s). 

2). An absolute, objective, unchanging source is not a necessary foundation for morality.

(as an aside) if it were, the god of the bible does not meet this standard anyway. 

Feel free to respond to my last reply - its feeling fairly neglected!

#215
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser

I don't suppose for a moment that PGA is a fraudster nor a propagandist but if he believes prophesies foretell future events he is the victim of fraudsters and propagandists!
That is the only position that justifies your worldview. You can't see it any other way. 


I'm not into debunking the bible per se.   I am interested in how the early church used tales of miracles and prophesies to grow - i'd say the 'memetics' of Christianity if I didn't dislike the word 'memetics'!

Debunking it is what you are doing. You immediately go to the default position - tales and myths.

Have you EVER considered that prophecy is true or do you look for every way to dismiss its truth claims without any deep introspection?


I think fraud and propaganda are more probable than the laws of physics being violated!
 
Again, you EQUATE biblical prophecy to fraud and propaganda.

#216
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser

It is reasonable and logical to believe prophecy and therefore God
Is it really "reasonable and logical" to throw the laws of physics in the bin to accomodate a shaky claim that a piece of text is prophetic?  

How are you relating laws of physics with prophecy? How do I throw these laws out the way to claim a text is prophetic?

#217
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser


How is that? How do you accept the reality of magic by accepting prophecy or God? I do not accept 'gods.' I accept God. 
I try to give avoid the impression that it is only 'God' I don't accept.   I do hope you aren't going to get boringly nit-picky over that!
I'm not defending other gods. I'll be right there with you in trashing them. I only relate to the biblical God. That is the God I am discussing.
#218
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser

If you accept that prophecy is audience specific and accurate to that audience

I don't know what that means.  What is descibed in a prophesy comes to pass (or its not exactly a prophesy, is it!).   How does 'audience specific accuracy' come into it?
What it means is that when the text says,

Matthew 24:2-3 (NASB)
2 And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.”
3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

It means Jesus is speaking to those disciples who had accompanied Him as the primary audience of address. It is not a generic disciple from any period of time. These people who come to Him on the mount are specific people as relayed in the other accounts of the Olivet Discourse.

Mark 13:3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew were questioning Him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled?” 5 And Jesus began to say to them, “See to it that no one misleads you.


The disciples Jesus references are Peter, James, John, and Andrew. He tells THEM what will happen in the future. It is not for our day. When you read the text that is the authors meaning and it is plain. What follows with the pronoun "you" indicates them, not us today.  

In the Olivet Discourse Jesus tells them what will be the events that lead to the destruction of the city and temple. He tells them what they can expect. He tells them that they will see the signs of His coming when those signs happen. He tells them that the completion will be the end of the age. Jesus only refers to two ages in the gospels, this age and the one to come. What did this age mean to them? It meant an Old Covenant age of temple worship. Jesus tells the woman at the well that a time (age) is coming and now is that the true worshipers of God will worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24).

Matthew 5:17-18 tells the reader that not one jot will pass from the law and prophets until everything is fulfilled. The fulfillment came with the judgment in AD 70. Lukes account of the Olivet Discourse discloses this truth:

Luke 21:20-24 (NASB)
20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. 23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

This is the time of wrath spoken of the prophets in the OT for their disobedience. You can't escape all the warnings God gave to these people while in covenant with them because of their disobedience. Deuteronomy 28 laid down two rules or laws - the law of blessing for obedience and the law of curses for disobedience.

The curses apply to a Mosaic Covenant people. That is who the Messiah was sent to. 

So the fulfillment is for a specific people at a specific time in history. It revolves around the end of the Mosaic economy and worship system. That already happened. It happened in AD 70. That is the historic event the OT and NT look towards.





#219
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne

Two things: 
1) the prophecy fulfillments you reference are built on interpretation. Ie. The prophecies themselves are vague and the specifics you read into them come strictly from the reader(s). 

2). An absolute, objective, unchanging source is not a necessary foundation for morality.

(as an aside) if it were, the god of the bible does not meet this standard anyway. 

Feel free to respond to my last reply - its feeling fairly neglected!
1) Give me specifics. I have referred to the Olivet Discourse of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (i.e., Revelation). I also referred to Daniel 9:24-27 and Daniel 12 as relating to the same time frame - that is the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Are you suggesting there is not a correct interpretation, or that the correct interpretation cannot be known? I disagree with both. When you have the correct interpretation it clears up all the fog of prophecy speculation. It is logical and reasonable. 

2) Why should I believe your subjective opinion? As Francis Schaeffer said, and I quote,

"So, Humanism is the absolute certain result, if we choose this other final reality and say that is what it is. You must realize that when we speak of man being the measure of all things under the Humanist label, the first thing is that man has only knowledge from himself. That he, being finite, limited, very faulty in his observation of many things, yet nevertheless, has no possible source of knowledge except what man, beginning from himself, can find out from his own observation. Specifically, in this view, there is no place for any knowledge from God.
But it is not only that man must start from himself in the area of knowledge and learning, but any value system must come arbitrarily from man himself by arbitrary choice. More frightening still, in our country, at our own moment of history, is the fact that any basis of law then becomes arbitrary -- merely certain people making decisions as to what is for the good of society at the given moment.
Now this is the real reason for the breakdown in morals in our country. It's the real reason for the breakdown in values in our country, and it is the reason that our Supreme Court now functions so thoroughly upon the fact of arbitrary law. They have no basis for law that is fixed, therefore, like the young person who decides to live hedonistically upon their own chosen arbitrary values, society is now doing the same thing legally. Certain few people come together and decide what they arbitrarily believe is for the good of society at the given moment, and that becomes law."

"We must understand what we are talking about when we use the word Humanism. Humanism means that the man is the measure of all things. Man is the measure of all things. If this other final reality of material or energy shaped by pure chance is the final reality, it gives no meaning to life. It gives no value system. It gives no basis for law, and therefore, in this case, man must be the measure of all things. So, Humanism properly defined, in contrast, let us say, to the humanities or humanitarianism, (which is something entirely different and which Christians should be in favor of) being the measure of all things, comes naturally, mathematically, inevitably, certainly. If indeed the final reality is silent about these values, then man must generate them from himself." [1]

 In other words, why should I  trust anything you are selling?

#220
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
The opinion I was referring to is that man is made in the image of god. 

The biblical God described exhibits many of the same traits that human beings do but animals lack, but to a greater degree. We can conceptualize, unlike any animal can. We can communicate like no animal, expressing complex ideas. We can use logic to solve problems that animals cannot. We experience life differently from animals. We can know abstract things to a greater degree, unlike animals. We can know and speculate on the good and evil of what is done.

This answer is out of context and does not address the double standard you've been charged with. If you think morality to be objectively based, then your opinion ('man was made in the image of god') has no place as a foundation of morality. 
First, it is not my opinion alone and it does not come from me alone. 
Second, the God described would have what is necessary for morality. He is described as objective, omniscient, eternal, unchanging, and benevolent. For morality to have a fixed address He fits the bill.



There is not "should", only what is, and this is easily explained by natural selection. Fairness contributes to the individual (and the population) being more fit for a broader range of environments and more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass on successful traits including fairness (or a proto-fairness).
Exactly, so you don't get an ought from an is. 
You do get an is from an is though!  It's not a matter of mankind ought to be concerned for itself, rather mankind is concerned for itself.


Is 'is' what we ought to do? Why SHOULD mankind be concerned for itself? What meaning does the universe hold from an atheist perspective? Why SHOULD I accept your arbitrary contingent meaning?


Fairness in whose mind? The Nazi mind? Kim Jong-un's mind? Your mind? Why is surviving, passing on traits, reproducing 'good' in a universe oblivious to goodness?
This is not a fair representation of what I've been advocating.  We are either going to have an honest conversation, Peter, or we are not going to have one.
What makes your mind BETTER than theirs? 

I'm being as honest as possible. If you don't like it that is not my problem, SkepticalOne.


I don't consider this a valid point. We're not talking about extremes, but your average persons. Even still, I think you can find such people have a concern for other persons, but that that concern is stunted or the in-group is very limited.
Extremes? They're not extremes to large portions of the world's population. They are the norms. 
You're switching from individuals to populations.  The individuals you referenced ARE extremes as they are not typical.

I could apply it to either. The problem is with both scenarios.



Topic's author
#221
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
Why is surviving, passing on traits, reproducing 'good' in a universe oblivious to goodness?
Why?  Because things don't have to be good to exist or happen.  The universe is indeed 'oblivious to goodness' - ebola and smallpox germs thrive not because they are "morally good" but because they reproduce efficiently.   Efficiency is all the universe 'cares about', with 'cares about' very much scare-quotes because caring is what the universe does not do!

The universe doesn't care, but people do.   Not long ago some people thought slavery was ok, other people thought slavery slavery was not ok.    The universe doen't care either way - it just provides the stage for all the action to take place on.  There is no slavery now is not because slavery is bad but because anti-slavers won the american civil war.

If the south had won the war would that make slavery good?  Wrong question!  There is no such thing as good or bad as far as the universe is concerned.   There are only pro-slavers (who think slavery is good) and anti- slavers (who think slavery is bad).  Whose preference prevail is the result of a battle of wills between them.
  
If there is slavery in your land are you obliged to accept it as good if you personally hate slavery?   Of course not - but your options are limited to accepting the situation or trying to impose your will instead.   






#222
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Are you suggesting there is not a correct interpretation, or that the correct interpretation cannot be known? 
Theres no suggestion. Your understanding of fulfilled Biblical prophesy is an interpretation, and I see no reason to accept such a dubious method of revelation as the product of an all knowing, all powerful being much less that your interpretation is better or worse than anyone else claiming to have found the truth in it. It's a Biblical Rorshach.
2). An absolute, objective, unchanging source is not a necessary foundation for morality.
In other words, why should I  trust anything you are selling?
My reply was not a sales pitch, but a rejection of yours.

Morality is like chess. There is no absolute, objective, unchanging source for the basis of good chess. Yet, provided winning is the goal, we can objectively evaluate moves as good or bad. 

#223
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
First, it is not my opinion alone and it does not come from me alone. 

But you admit it is an opinion. If we are to play by your rules, opinion has no place at the foundation of morality, and all the rhetoric you spout against relativism might just as easily apply to your view.



#224
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Because prophecy deals with an audience specific text and it is reasonable to believe that what is prophesied comes about. I listed one OT prophetic text (Daniel 9:24-27) and one NT text (the Olivet Discourse as laid out in the gospels and Revelation). These texts are most definitely audience specific and you could not demonstrate otherwise by going to the texts in question. I challenge you to do so if you think otherwise. What usually happens when I make these challenges is that the person moves on to another line of discourse. That is the problem with the atheist worldview. It never addresses the central issues. It always skirts them with much bravado. 

Ok let's assume for a moment that there are accurate prophecies in the bible and that they are "audience specific" (which technically has nothing to do with their accuracy the thing either comes true or it doesn't)

Now if we accept these propositions then logically all we know is that the bible has some accurate prophecy (which is I guess only accurate for a specific audience) it still doesn't tell us the source of this prophecy. 

What about this scenario qualifies as evidence for any god(s)? Many religions have prophecy and the theologians of these religions will be happy to explain to you how these prophecies are fulfilled. Are you prepared to read every one of those texts and prove them wrong or do you simply dismiss them as undeminstrable? How is your claim in any way different?

 I'm asking how you will believe God if you don't believe He exists.
And I am asking why I should believe in anything that has not been demonstrated?
Topic's author
#225
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
And I am asking why I should believe in anything that has not been demonstrated?
It's possible to be over-sceptical!


#226
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser

Why is surviving, passing on traits, reproducing 'good' in a universe oblivious to goodness?
Why?  Because things don't have to be good to exist or happen.  The universe is indeed 'oblivious to goodness' - ebola and smallpox germs thrive not because they are "morally good" but because they reproduce efficiently.   Efficiency is all the universe 'cares about', with 'cares about' very much scare-quotes because caring is what the universe does not do!

At least you are honest with what takes place from a world devoid of God! Whatever happens, happens for no reason, yet you find all kinds of reasons.


The universe doesn't care, but people do.   Not long ago some people thought slavery was ok, other people thought slavery slavery was not ok.    The universe doen't care either way - it just provides the stage for all the action to take place on.  There is no slavery now is not because slavery is bad but because anti-slavers won the american civil war.
So what you are saying is whoever wins sets the rules. That means Hitler's Germany is no "better" than any other system of morality. Killing Jews and undesirables was "good" for that society and you can't say it was not, according to such a relative standard. If you live in that society you are wrong for opposing it. You can live by Hitler's standard as long as you are not a Jew or undesirable and are on the receiving end of what is labeled 'good.'
 
What you are saying is that slavery was "good" (ok) for those who like slavery. On such grounds, nothing is really wrong, unjust, evil, or good. It is all a matter of preference and torturing children for fun is okay for those who like to do it. Your system of morality is EVIL, revolting. 

Your system of justice is unlivable as long as you are the slave and on the receiving end of such practices or you are the abused child. Then there is such a thing as better and evil. Then you don't question that moral values are objective.

This is the problem of moral relativism. It doesn't work since you cannot object to such practices from others if that is their preference. Where the contradiction comes in is in the practice. All these people fleeing to the USA in caravans know that some systems of governance are better than others. There is no question in their minds. They have been persecuted. Of course, those in power love exploiting those under them. Big government (like what the Democrat's offer) wins out. 



If the south had won the war would that make slavery good?  Wrong question!  There is no such thing as good or bad as far as the universe is concerned.   There are only pro-slavers (who think slavery is good) and anti- slavers (who think slavery is bad).  Whose preference prevail is the result of a battle of wills between them.

If there is slavery in your land are you obliged to accept it as good if you personally hate slavery?   Of course not - but your options are limited to accepting the situation or trying to impose your will instead.       
No, I am not obliged to accept it, ever. I know better and deep down you know it is absolutely wrong, don't you? Do you??? Do you really know it is wrong to torture children for fun, or is that just a personal opinion? Your position is bankrupt. 

You can't have a social reformed because a social reform goes against what is deemed good. He is evil as defined by the system. When he proposes that torturing children for fun is wrong when the society he lives in believes it is fun and good, then he is evil. How can torturing children for fun ever be good? Can you say it is?

And how do you ever know what you live by is good, or better, since the system is constantly changing? There is no improvement, just change. Why should I believe anything you have to say about good or bad? It is just your opinion, after all. All the time those who oppose you in a relative world are thinking, "Where is my gun?"

Your relative system of ethics is what wars are fought over because people do not recognize the ultimate best.  

#227
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
PGA2.0, my hat off to you.

You have taken on 3 atheists and held them to dodges and semantics. Not one of your questions have been answered. (Keith tries but then inadvertantly supports your point. SecMer never answers questions). You though, have address every question they posed, in detail.

All they do is make claims, but can never show why. They reject your claims, but reject them based on preference and not logic. (Especially SecMer)

I've enjoyed the thread, and would vote you the clear winner if this was this a formal debate.

#228
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne

Are you suggesting there is not a correct interpretation, or that the correct interpretation cannot be known? 
Theres no suggestion. Your understanding of fulfilled Biblical prophesy is an interpretation, and I see no reason to accept such a dubious method of revelation as the product of an all knowing, all powerful being much less that your interpretation is better or worse than anyone else claiming to have found the truth in it. It's a Biblical Rorshach.
Well, you ARE and HAVE questioned whether what the text says is what I am interpreting. There is a suggestion. Whether you believe in God or not is not the question here. What is in question is whether there is a correct interpretation. I challenge you to prove it is not. My prophecy thread was built on the premise that prophecy is reasonable and logical to believe/trust.

I'm saying that IF you go to the text there is a plain understanding that comes from it that the reader can know if they use proper hermeneutics, whether or not they believe in God. 

If you are going to understand the text you have to understand the primary and relevant audience of address, the time frame of the prophecies, the meaning the culture understood by understanding the OT economy, and other principles of interpretation.

In our previous debate on the subject, I would have liked to expand on your claims, but there was only so much space (10,000 characters). This debate forum offers much more (30,000). After our abortion debate would you like to debate the subject of prophecy again? I think I can question your interpretative method (or the one you played the devil's advocate) much more thoroughly with the extra characters. 

2). An absolute, objective, unchanging source is not a necessary foundation for morality.
In other words, why should I  trust anything you are selling?
My reply was not a sales pitch, but a rejection of yours.

So what makes it RIGHT? Your subjective opinion on the subject matter? I reject yours as insufficient for determining good. Look around the world. What do you see? You see people in power pushing whatever they like off as good. 


Morality is like chess. There is no absolute, objective, unchanging source for the basis of good chess. Yet, provided winning is the goal, we can objectively evaluate moves as good or bad. 

If there is no absolute, objective, unchanging source then you can't say your opinion is objective or even good. All you can say is you like it. 

If winning is the goal, and Hitler won, you could not say killing Jews or whoever he deemed unfit (maybe you or a family member) was bad let alone evil if you lived in that society. All you could do is say what Hitler is doing is good but I don't like it.

What you do is confuse personal preference with moral right. What you are pushing is your opinions and likes to be the moral preference that everyone else must live by, or that you see as 'objective.' I reject your standard. 

You say that whoever wins determines good and bad as objective. If it was an objective standard it would be universally recognized by rational people. They do no such thing. They just enforce their likes and dislikes. 

What your system of thought does is it contradicts the laws of logic, specifically the laws of identity and the laws of non-contradiction. Therefore your system of thought is NOT logical. It is inconsistent because the term "good" can be any identity those who win make it be. It is utter nonsense. 

#229
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne

First, it is not my opinion alone and it does not come from me alone. 

But you admit it is an opinion. If we are to play by your rules, opinion has no place at the foundation of morality, and all the rhetoric you spout against relativism might just as easily apply to your view.
For your way of thinking my statements are nothing more than an opinion since you recognize no ultimate authority. I do, so if what I believe is true then it is not just my opinion but the truth. If what I believe is true then it is based on an ultimate, absolute, objective authority, not just my own. All you can produce is a subjective authority that is no higher than any other.

Until I establish my view is reasonable and logical and that you can't make sense of morality (or anything else ultimately) without first thinking of such a being we are in a gridlock. If I can't persuade you with logic and reason then either my system of thought is not reasonable and logical, I can't express it as such, or you are not a reasonable and logical person. 

Topic's author
#230
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Your relative system of ethics is what wars are fought over because people do not recognize the ultimate best.  

I would not call what I posted relativism - it is 'moral nihilism'.    Moral nihilism is the stance that there is no such thing as 'morality'.   (Nihil is latin for 'nothing').   A moral nihilist says that if slavery seems bad to you then it because slavery seems bad to you - it is how your brain is wired up (by birth and experience) to judge slavery.   It is an error to ascribe that judgement to anything other than your own intrinsic nature -in reality you either have a pro-slavery or an anti-slavery brain.

That is not to say that is how it feels!   If you are anti-slavery it doesn't feel that you are wired-up to hate slavery; it feels like there is an actual thing - 'evil' - in the world and it feels like we are detecting its presence in slavery.    Evil does not  exist - we invent it to explain why we hate slavery.

Its a bit like 'heat'. Once people thought heat was 'stuff', a fluid that flowed.   it had a name - caloric. 
Evil is 'caloric' - something that seems to exist but turns out to be a myth on deeper examination.

Your relative system of ethics is what wars are fought over because people do not recognize the ultimate best.  
Wars are fought because the world does not care what moral rules are followed, if any.   Wars determine what rules are followed.  That doen't seem to be how you'd like things to be - its not how i'd like things to be either!   it would be great if there was a force in the world imposing the good, but look around - there is no such force.  If you hate slavery the only way to prevent it is to defeat the slavers.. there is nothing else.




  
#231
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin

Because prophecy deals with an audience specific text and it is reasonable to believe that what is prophesied comes about. I listed one OT prophetic text (Daniel 9:24-27) and one NT text (the Olivet Discourse as laid out in the gospels and Revelation). These texts are most definitely audience specific and you could not demonstrate otherwise by going to the texts in question. I challenge you to do so if you think otherwise. What usually happens when I make these challenges is that the person moves on to another line of discourse. That is the problem with the atheist worldview. It never addresses the central issues. It always skirts them with much bravado. 

Ok let's assume for a moment that there are accurate prophecies in the bible and that they are "audience specific" (which technically has nothing to do with their accuracy the thing either comes true or it doesn't)

The audience of address has everything to do with their accuracy. They are meant for a specific people at a specific time in history. For instance, did Jesus warn an Old Covenant people that judgment was coming upon them in their generation? 

Matthew 23:34-36, 38
34 “Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, 35 so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.36 Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation...38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!

The answer is either, yes He did, or no, He did not. Which is it? Is that interpretation accurate? 

Now, for the time frame. Did Jesus predict the destruction of the city and temple within their generation,
ACCORDING to the text?


Matthew 24:1-3 Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. 2 And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.”
3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

Luke 21:20-23 (NASB)
20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 
22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled.
 23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people;


Can you say from the text that Jesus did not predict the destruction of both the temple and the city? Can you say that the text is speaking to a 1st-century audience or any audience? To determine what the text says you have to identify the audience of address. Who are they? Who are 'this people' of Luke 21:23? Who are the personal pronouns 'you' referring to here in these two passages? Can you make the 'you' generic or audience-specific?

Does the text not say that everything that is written will be fulfilled? Either it does or it does not. What is the everything referring to? Is it reasonable to believe it is OT prophecy that to that point in time still had not been fulfilled? These Jews Jesus came to are Old Covenant people. They live by that covenant. Is that reasonable to believe from the text? 

Jerusalem WAS destroyed in AD 70. Is that reasonable and logic to believe? Yes, or no?

Find something I have said that you disagree with or do not find reasonable that we can discuss as to which position is the more reasonable and logical. I invite you to do this. 


#232
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin


Now if we accept these propositions then logically all we know is that the bible has some accurate prophecy (which is I guess only accurate for a specific audience) it still doesn't tell us the source of this prophecy. 
If the prophecy was accurate for them then when it refers to us we have reason to believe it is accurate for us also. If all these prophecies are accurate and happened, and it is reasonable and logical to believe, then why is it not reasonable to believe they are a revelation from God? Who else do you know who could predict with 100% accuracy things to come that actually come to pass as predicted?



What about this scenario qualifies as evidence for any god(s)? Many religions have prophecy and the theologians of these religions will be happy to explain to you how these prophecies are fulfilled. Are you prepared to read every one of those texts and prove them wrong or do you simply dismiss them as undeminstrable? How is your claim in any way different?
These prophecies are Judeo-Christian religion specific. If they come to pass with 100% accuracy where we can discern this since some history is not available to us, then believing in this specific God is reasonable and logical, unless you can reasonably show the same can be said for gods of other religions. What other religious views offer such detailed proofs that are relevant to history and from history we can go to show the reasonableness?


 I'm asking how you will believe God if you don't believe He exists.
And I am asking why I should believe in anything that has not been demonstrated?

If it is reasonable and logical why would you not believe it, except that it is uncomfortable for you, because then you would be accountable? Thus it would be more reassuring to pretend the evidence is not compelling. 


#233
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ethang5
PGA2.0, my hat off to you.

You have taken on 3 atheists and held them to dodges and semantics. Not one of your questions have been answered. (Keith tries but then inadvertantly supports your point. SecMer never answers questions). You though, have address every question they posed, in detail.

All they do is make claims, but can never show why. They reject your claims, but reject them based on preference and not logic. (Especially SecMer)

I've enjoyed the thread, and would vote you the clear winner if this was this a formal debate.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Ethang!

I have noticed that questions are mostly deflected too. To me, it shows the inconsistency or ignorance of a position when a person can't or won't answer a question. It shows either their understanding is insufficient or their position is unreasonable. 

I have struggled with some of their questions too in my past, but now I have One who has the answers to many! But to the questions that no one among us can answer we have to rely on faith, of some kind. For you and I, it is WHO we place that faith in that counts!

#234
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
After our abortion debate would you like to debate the subject of prophecy again?
I have no interest in playing devils advocate again. 

If there is no absolute, objective, unchanging source then you can't say your opinion is objective or even good. All you can say is you like it. 
 That's false. Within the context of chess and winning being a desirable goal, a move which contributes to a loss is bad. For instance, if the white king is checkmated two moves after the white queen is sacrificed for a pawn, then that exchange was objectively bad. Simple as.

You keep trying to saddle me with relativism while ignoring that I consider morality to be objective, or that moral actions can be objectively determined. In my view, one culture can judge actions of others because the building blocks or morality we got from evolution came long before any culture. Morality precedes culture.

I've provided examples from the animal kingdom (which have the same evolutionary substrate and no culture) which evidence this. You avoided this in your response. If you don't understand what I'm saying, or don't know what to make of it, that's fine (just say so), but when you avoid it altogether it makes me feel like you're being dishonest. 

I'm not interested in a debate of dogma, but a real conversation where you or I can be open to learning something new and meaningful.  If you're not open to changing your view based on new information, then this is a waste of time for both of us.

Also, given that morality implicitly endorses human rights, Hitler could not "win" while denying them. Clearly, Hitler had a distorted view of right and wrong and was not playing the same 'game' as everyone else.

One final thing, I've not suggested morality is determined by might. Is this an example of a flawed interpretation by the self-proclaimed infallible interpreter of prophecy?! Did you consider the audience of my post? I bet that threw you off! 😉 
#235
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
why is it not reasonable to believe they are a revelation from God?

What other religious views offer such detailed proofs that are relevant to history and from history we can go to show the reasonableness?

If it is reasonable and logical why would you not believe it

You do understand that it is not my responsibility to disprove any claim don't you? It is instead the responsibility of the claimant to prove their claim. 
Also reason and logic do not necessarily lead to truth unless accompanied by facts.

because then you would be accountable
I am accountable for my actions wether some god(s) exist or not and whether I am accountable for my actions or not has nothing to do with the truth value of any statement.
Topic's author
#236
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
If there is no absolute, objective, unchanging source then you can't say your opinion is objective or even good. All you can say is you like it. 
May be that's how it is.   Just because something sucks doesn't mean its not so, unfortunately.


#237
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
If I can't persuade you with logic and reason then either my system of thought is not reasonable and logical, I can't express it as such, or you are not a reasonable and logical person. 
I agree one of those options is likely.

#238
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser

Your relative system of ethics is what wars are fought over because people do not recognize the ultimate best.  

I would not call what I posted relativism - it is 'moral nihilism'.    Moral nihilism is the stance that there is no such thing as 'morality'.   (Nihil is latin for 'nothing').   A moral nihilist says that if slavery seems bad to you then it because slavery seems bad to you - it is how your brain is wired up (by birth and experience) to judge slavery.   It is an error to ascribe that judgement to anything other than your own intrinsic nature -in reality you either have a pro-slavery or an anti-slavery brain.

Regardless, it is a relative system of thought. What makes it right? And it is meaningless without morals, yet you continue to inject morality into it when you call something good or bad. This just shows how inconsistent the system is. On the one hand, you say there are no moral values then you use them in applying judgment. Something is wrong with such thinking. 

If something is bad then it must be bad. It can't be bad and not bad depending on who believes it (at the same time and in regards to the same thing). That is ILLOGICAL. Either your stance is wrong or the other person's is regarding what is bad. Now, if you want to be illogical then that is your choice. What is more, you can never say that something is wrong, just that it is 'bad' for you (which translates to, "I don't like it). 



That is not to say that is how it feels!   If you are anti-slavery it doesn't feel that you are wired-up to hate slavery; it feels like there is an actual thing - 'evil' - in the world and it feels like we are detecting its presence in slavery.    Evil does not  exist - we invent it to explain why we hate slavery.

Its a bit like 'heat'. Once people thought heat was 'stuff', a fluid that flowed.   it had a name - caloric. 
Evil is 'caloric' - something that seems to exist but turns out to be a myth on deeper examination. 
Living with that system means nothing is really bad, it's just what you make bad. Thus, torturing innocent children for fun is totally permissible and for some, it is a good thing. How can you ever condemn such practices for others? They are just doing what they like doing and you are doing what you like doing. Do you think that kind of world is livable? You can't even say that some things are just plain evil and if someone decided to torture someone in your family for fun all you can say is, "I don't like it." That is pitiful. You have no right to tell them something is wrong just because you don't like it UNLESS it is wrong. 

You confuse quantitative measure with qualitative measure when you use the 'heat' example. Because someone like their bath water hotter than yours (a measurement in degrees) does not make it wrong morally. If they like eating people for fun that makes it wrong morally. 


Your relative system of ethics is what wars are fought over because people do not recognize the ultimate best.  
Wars are fought because the world does not care what moral rules are followed, if any.   Wars determine what rules are followed.  That doen't seem to be how you'd like things to be - its not how i'd like things to be either!   it would be great if there was a force in the world imposing the good, but look around - there is no such force.  If you hate slavery the only way to prevent it is to defeat the slavers.. there is nothing else.
Oh, it cares (if you are speaking of the 'world' of people). It cares about its preferences being enacted if it has the might to impose them.
What you are saying is that if Hitler determines that killing a certain class of people is what he likes to do, and he likes to do so in the most painful way possible, then because he determines the rule there is nothing wrong with that rule. It is what it is because of how his brain functions. If you think differently then tough luck (frontal lobotomy!). Okay, you're next. How do you like it now? Nothing wrong with it. It just is! 
#239
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne

If I can't persuade you with logic and reason then either my system of thought is not reasonable and logical, I can't express it as such, or you are not a reasonable and logical person. 
I agree one of those options is likely.
Then let's see if we can determine which one it is, shall we? 

To do so you will have to answer my questions and I will have to answer yours, to the best of our abilities. Agreed?
#240
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
So long as you ask honest questions and attempt to understand my answers before you respond (I will do the same), we are in agreement. 

...and just so you know, our debate on abortion has priority, so this will take a back burner as needed.