TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality.

---

Christian theists should behave in accordance with divinely revealed morality. Understand that I am a Christian despite not particularly liking Christianity. Left to my own devices, I would probably be a better Muslim or atheist. Left to my own devices I would hoard my wealth and not give a dime in charity to my "inferiors". Left to my own devices, well what kind of idiot turns the other cheek?

Which is precisely why I need to follow Christ. Left to my own devices, I become a self-damning proposition who is going to reach for the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil myself. That is something not everyone is honest enough to look in the mirror and admit. But those who are love and follow Christ because he saves us from ourselves...and this is true regardless of who ate what produce in the past.

---

I used to believe that line of thought, but it doesn't hold up to critical reasoninng. First there is no evidence of there being any such thing as divinely revealed morality. Second, Christian morality is all over the place, and Christians pick and chose what they want to believe about morality, how they should conduct themselves, how they interpret what they claim is divine revelation, and ignore the rest. There is no evidence that Christians are any more moral than atheists, or other theists. In fact the Bible Belt has the highest violent crime rate per capita in the country.

So you're saying that if not for your religious road blocks, you would run a path of unbridled immorality?

---

Do you know anything about the demographics of the Bible Belt? It has the highest demogrpahic of those who commit the most violent crimes.

---

Are you saying that Bible Belt Christianity influences, or has no influence on that demographic?

---

Probably should start another thread for topics related to the Black community in America but needless to say it's an interesting topic.

Thomas sowell for instance makes the argument that Black Americans dysfunctional social traits came from copying the Scots-Irish in the South

[Black Rednecks and White Liberals is a collection of six essays by Thomas Sowell. The collection, published in 2005, explores various aspects of race and culture, both in the United States and abroad. The first essay, the book's namesake, traces the origins of the "ghetto" African-American culture to the culture of Scotch-Irish Americans in the Antebellum South.]

Interesting to say the least

---

There are a lot of factors that have impacted the black community in America, but slavery itself, and the dysfunctional effects arising out of slavery, and the American Christian culture that enslaved them, no doubt had a lasting negative impact upon their families and culture.

---

Again we probably should move discussion like that to another thread.

But Sowell talks about that as well.


When Europeans arrived in West Africa they found slavery already well established with a long history in the area.

West Africans didn't learn slavery in the American south…they had already practiced it for thousands of years in their homeland.

---

Which indicates European Christian morality is no better than the morality of tribal culture, and the tribal cheiftans who participated in the trade and trafficking of human beings for profit.

---

It indicates that both are great cultures and that it is a shame that slavery was abolished at all.

---

I wager you'd think it immoral and an infringement upon your person if you were sold into slavery. Be glad you live in a country with a constitution that vests you with certain rights and protects you from good Christians and others who believe it is a shame slavery was abolished at all.

---

Of course I would see it as an infringement on my person if I was sold into slavery , but I believe that I have value as an individual because I am created by God and that God has set my value at an level so incredibly high that He sent his Son to die for me. I have a very good case against slavery based on that Yahweh whom you mock and on his Word which you despise.

If you get sold into slavery, you really don't have much of a case against it.

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality.

---

Christian theists should behave in accordance with divinely revealed morality. Understand that I am a Christian despite not particularly liking Christianity. Left to my own devices, I would probably be a better Muslim or atheist. Left to my own devices I would hoard my wealth and not give a dime in charity to my "inferiors". Left to my own devices, well what kind of idiot turns the other cheek?

Which is precisely why I need to follow Christ. Left to my own devices, I become a self-damning proposition who is going to reach for the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil myself. That is something not everyone is honest enough to look in the mirror and admit. But those who are love and follow Christ because he saves us from ourselves...and this is true regardless of who ate what produce in the past.

---

I used to believe that line of thought, but it doesn't hold up to critical reasoninng. First there is no evidence of there being any such thing as divinely revealed morality. Second, Christian morality is all over the place, and Christians pick and chose what they want to believe about morality, how they should conduct themselves, how they interpret what they claim is divine revelation, and ignore the rest. There is no evidence that Christians are any more moral than atheists, or other theists. In fact the Bible Belt has the highest violent crime rate per capita in the country.

So you're saying that if not for your religious road blocks, you would run a path of unbridled immorality?

---

Do you know anything about the demographics of the Bible Belt? It has the highest demogrpahic of those who commit the most violent crimes.

---

Are you saying that Bible Belt Christianity influences, or has no influence on that demographic?

---

Probably should start another thread for topics related to the Black community in America but needless to say it's an interesting topic.

Thomas sowell for instance makes the argument that Black Americans dysfunctional social traits came from copying the Scots-Irish in the South

[Black Rednecks and White Liberals is a collection of six essays by Thomas Sowell. The collection, published in 2005, explores various aspects of race and culture, both in the United States and abroad. The first essay, the book's namesake, traces the origins of the "ghetto" African-American culture to the culture of Scotch-Irish Americans in the Antebellum South.]

Interesting to say the least

---

There are a lot of factors that have impacted the black community in America, but slavery itself, and the dysfunctional effects arising out of slavery, and the American Christian culture that enslaved them, no doubt had a lasting negative impact upon their families and culture.

---

Again we probably should move discussion like that to another thread.

But Sowell talks about that as well.


When Europeans arrived in West Africa they found slavery already well established with a long history in the area.

West Africans didn't learn slavery in the American south…they had already practiced it for thousands of years in their homeland.

---

Which indicates European Christian morality is no better than the morality of tribal culture, and the tribal cheiftans who participated in the trade and trafficking of human beings for profit.

---

It indicates that both are great cultures and that it is a shame that slavery was abolished at all.

---

I wager you'd think it immoral and an infringement upon your person if you were sold into slavery. Be glad you live in a country with a constitution that vests you with certain rights and protects you from good Christians and others who believe it is a shame slavery was abolished at all.

---

Of course I would see it as an infringement on my person if I was sold into slavery , but I believe that I have value as an individual because I am created by God and that God has set my value at an level so incredibly high that He sent his Son to die for me. I have a very good case against slavery based on that Yahweh whom you mock and on his Word which you despise.

If you get sold into slavery, you really don't have much of a case against it.

---

"If you get sold into slavery, you really don't have much of a case against it."

Survival of the fittest says it's all good.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.

---

Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.

---

Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.

---

Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.

It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.

---

Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.

Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objecitve evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?

---

Why not?

---

Said Yahweh.

---

Answer the question.
Why not?

---

But, obviously the patriarchal early canaanite jewish sect believed women are chattel to be bartered - justified it by clergy claiming it is the law of their mythical Yahweh.

---

Not really, but they were what we would call second-class citizens. The same or worse was true throughout the ancient world. A violated woman did not have good prospects in terms of marriage or long-term security. The importance of this Hebrew law was that it held the man accountable for the woman's well-being. It was a remedy for the victim, not a punishment. Of course you might prefer that they'd adopted our modern views on sexual liberation and that every woman had the freedom to marry for love or not marry at all. In that case there would have been no Israel, no Western civilization, and no internet debates about the finer points of women's rights.

---

Not really, but they were what we would call second-class citizens.
Yes really. Second class citizens, yes. An item with a predetermined value to their owner, as compensation for damaged goods.

The same or worse was true throughout the ancient world. A violated woman did not have good prospects in terms of marriage or long-term security. And why do you think that was? Because women, daughters, were viewed as something to be traded in marriage for value given to the father. A few shekels for soiled goods. What to you think the fate of a woman in that circumstance?

The importance of this Hebrew law was that it held the man accountable for the woman's well-being. It was a remedy for the victim, not a punishment. Preposterous. It was a justification for rape and a remedy for the loss to the father, for whom such a primitive, archaic, theocratic system viewed him as the victim - not the woman. What kind of 'just' god comes up with this law?

Of course you might prefer that they'd adopted our modern views on sexual liberation and that every woman had the freedom to marry for love or not marry at all. That's the point. Their primitive views reveal the impositions and abuses of a theocracy, where the law is based in the archaic, misogynistic, patriarchal religious beliefs of primitive iron age (possibly Bronze Age or before) people. The values of their gods reflect the values of primitive men.

In that case there would have been no Israel, no Western civilization, and no internet debates about the finer points of women's rights. That's a rather far fetched stretch. You don't know that. The world may even have evolved and advanced at a much faster pace toward equality and a humane world, if not constrained by centuries of religious dogma. Possibly, something better than what we have now.

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.

---

Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.

---

Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.

---

Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.

It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.

---

Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.

Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objecitve evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?

---

Why not?

---

Said Yahweh.

---

Answer the question.
Why not?

---

I answered what I thought was a rhetorical question with a rhetoical answer. But, obviously the patriarchal early canaanite jewish sect believed women are chattel to be bartered - justified it by clergy claiming it is the law of their mythical Yahweh. I think we all know rape is harmful to a woman, and is harmful to social order. That's why it is illegal in most modern cultures - notwithstanding patriarchal religous views.

---

Why? If we are nothing but matter and energy and there is no God, how can we even speak of harm? Easy. The same as if there were a god. Morality is a cultural phenomena, that arises out of a need for stability and order. A humanistic approach of rational and equitable ways to solve human problems, with least harm, is far better than a theocratic approach, of enforcing primitive values on the basis of primitive and whimsical religious beliefs.

If some random culture decides that what you and I call "rape" or, to make the point more clearly, if a culture decides that human sacrifice is just fine, who are we to judge them? On the basis of the need for humane treatment and social order. The same basis/premise on which our country was founded, an individuals inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

(As an aside you have fairly sophomoric understanding of the Bible, but that's not overly important in discussing your views of morality). The Bible is sophomoric. It's sophomoric to think there is anything more to it.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.

---

Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.

---

Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.

---

Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.

It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.

---

Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.

Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objecitve evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?

---

Why not?

---

Said Yahweh.

---

Answer the question.
Why not?

---

But, obviously the patriarchal early canaanite jewish sect believed women are chattel to be bartered - justified it by clergy claiming it is the law of their mythical Yahweh.

---

Not really, but they were what we would call second-class citizens. The same or worse was true throughout the ancient world. A violated woman did not have good prospects in terms of marriage or long-term security. The importance of this Hebrew law was that it held the man accountable for the woman's well-being. It was a remedy for the victim, not a punishment. Of course you might prefer that they'd adopted our modern views on sexual liberation and that every woman had the freedom to marry for love or not marry at all. In that case there would have been no Israel, no Western civilization, and no internet debates about the finer points of women's rights.

---

Not really, but they were what we would call second-class citizens.
Yes really. Second class citizens, yes. An item with a predetermined value to their owner, as compensation for damaged goods.

The same or worse was true throughout the ancient world. A violated woman did not have good prospects in terms of marriage or long-term security. And why do you think that was? Because women, daughters, were viewed as something to be traded in marriage for value given to the father. A few shekels for soiled goods. What to you think the fate of a woman in that circumstance?

The importance of this Hebrew law was that it held the man accountable for the woman's well-being. It was a remedy for the victim, not a punishment. Preposterous. It was a justification for rape and a remedy for the loss to the father, for whom such a primitive, archaic, theocratic system viewed him as the victim - not the woman. What kind of 'just' god comes up with this law?

Of course you might prefer that they'd adopted our modern views on sexual liberation and that every woman had the freedom to marry for love or not marry at all. That's the point. Their primitive views reveal the impositions and abuses of a theocracy, where the law is based in the archaic, misogynistic, patriarchal religious beliefs of primitive iron age (possibly Bronze Age or before) people. The values of their gods reflect the values of primitive men.

In that case there would have been no Israel, no Western civilization, and no internet debates about the finer points of women's rights. That's a rather far fetched stretch. You don't know that. The world may even have evolved and advanced at a much faster pace toward equality and a humane world, if not constrained by centuries of religious dogma. Possibly, something better than what we have now.

---

Fathers were entitled to a dowry regardless of the circumstances. They also had a right of refusal to the marriage, as did the women. The rapist or seducer had to pay either way. More important, he could never divorce the woman. That protection was far more significant than any compensation received by the father. Its purpose was to hold the man accountable. Compare this with modern society, in which men can impregnate multiple women with little or no consequences. Which is more backward?

Recall your admonition that morals should be based on the "objective evidence of reality." The reality was that marriage was a practical necessity for most women. Their relative lack of choices was a function of the times and the need for survival. Raising daughters was not exactly a road to quick and easy profit, as you seem to suggest.

You can speculate about how society might have evolved in the absence of religion, but no such thing has ever happened. Modern attempts to create purely secular societies, for example various forms of Marxism, have been as brutal as they were disastrous. You might want to ponder why that is.

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.

---

Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.

---

Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.

---

Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.

It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.

---

Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.

Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objecitve evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?

---

Why not?

---

Said Yahweh.

---

Answer the question.
Why not?

---

I answered what I thought was a rhetorical question with a rhetoical answer. But, obviously the patriarchal early canaanite jewish sect believed women are chattel to be bartered - justified it by clergy claiming it is the law of their mythical Yahweh. I think we all know rape is harmful to a woman, and is harmful to social order. That's why it is illegal in most modern cultures - notwithstanding patriarchal religous views.

---

Why? If we are nothing but matter and energy and there is no God, how can we even speak of harm? Easy. The same as if there were a god. Morality is a cultural phenomena, that arises out of a need for stability and order. A humanistic approach of rational and equitable ways to solve human problems, with least harm, is far better than a theocratic approach, of enforcing primitive values on the basis of primitive and whimsical religious beliefs.

If some random culture decides that what you and I call "rape" or, to make the point more clearly, if a culture decides that human sacrifice is just fine, who are we to judge them? On the basis of the need for humane treatment and social order. The same basis/premise on which our country was founded, an individuals inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

(As an aside you have fairly sophomoric understanding of the Bible, but that's not overly important in discussing your views of morality). The Bible is sophomoric. It's sophomoric to think there is anything more to it.

---

---

You haven't shown a basis for the concept of a"need." There is no need for "humane treatment" in your logic. We can raise people for food if we want to.

You can't show that anything at all is good or bad because all you have to go on is that something is good or bad because some people think so and were strong enough to make it stick.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.

---

Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.

---

Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.

---

Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.

It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.

---

Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.

Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objecitve evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?

---

Having the rapist executed, as prescribed in Deut. 22:25, is certainly a moral solution.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.

---

Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.

---

Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.

---

Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.

It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.

---

Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.

Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?

---

You avoided the salient points and are resorting to blather to hide that fact:

1) Morality, the sense of that which is right vs. wrong, must be based on ultimate truth, otherwise it is merely arbitrary and therefore ultimately meaningless. And how do you thinks we know ultimate truth? Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made. Adopting moral tenets from primitive men's religious delusions is what is ultimately arbitrary and meaningless.

2) If Jesus' resurrection did in fact actually happen, then that would put a stamp upon his authority to define that standard of truth. In which case it would be Christians who are basing their morality on reality, while those who deny that history, like atheists, would be going against reality. The problem with that, is there is no objective credible evidence for mysticism. Mysticism flies in the face of the evidence of reality. If that were the case, why hasn't he clearly defined that authority and standard of truth. There is no Christian standard of truth.

You really have no understanding of Christianity or the bible. The Old Testament laws for the Israeli people were not intended to be moral "solutions". Sure they were. They were temporary placeholders of justice for the sake of moral and social order. Nothing in the OT says that. That's a later revisionist view by some Christians.

There was still to be a final judgement of all people in the afterlife, for everything that they did. Not all Jews believed in a judgement or afterlife. Some Jewish sects believed there was no afterlife. The extent of those beliefs varied in Jewish history.

However, incredibly, in an act of pure love and grace, God allows people to avoid that judgement they deserve, and have it placed on someone else instead. That someone else is the Messiah, the final moral "solution" for all those who believe. That's an understanding and invention that came after Jesus demise - formed later out of followers need to rationalize what happened and find new meaning in their beliefs. There's no Christian uniformity in those beliefs, and the concept is deeply flawed and internally inconsistent.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.

---

Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.

---

Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.

---

Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.

It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.

---

Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.

Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?

---

Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made.

---

---

This is circular reasoning. You can't test for truth unless you have a standard of truth by which to test.

I anticipate a reply that you use the standard of "objective reality," but this too is circular. Note that judging objective reality is the stated goal of your test and cannot be accomplished without it, according to you.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.

---

Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.

---

Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.

---

Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.

It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.

---

Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.

Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objecitve evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?

---

Why not?

---

Said Yahweh.

---

Answer the question.
Why not?

---

But, obviously the patriarchal early canaanite jewish sect believed women are chattel to be bartered - justified it by clergy claiming it is the law of their mythical Yahweh.

---

Not really, but they were what we would call second-class citizens. The same or worse was true throughout the ancient world. A violated woman did not have good prospects in terms of marriage or long-term security. The importance of this Hebrew law was that it held the man accountable for the woman's well-being. It was a remedy for the victim, not a punishment. Of course you might prefer that they'd adopted our modern views on sexual liberation and that every woman had the freedom to marry for love or not marry at all. In that case there would have been no Israel, no Western civilization, and no internet debates about the finer points of women's rights.

---

Not really, but they were what we would call second-class citizens.
Yes really. Second class citizens, yes. An item with a predetermined value to their owner, as compensation for damaged goods.

The same or worse was true throughout the ancient world. A violated woman did not have good prospects in terms of marriage or long-term security. And why do you think that was? Because women, daughters, were viewed as something to be traded in marriage for value given to the father. A few shekels for soiled goods. What to you think the fate of a woman in that circumstance?

The importance of this Hebrew law was that it held the man accountable for the woman's well-being. It was a remedy for the victim, not a punishment. Preposterous. It was a justification for rape and a remedy for the loss to the father, for whom such a primitive, archaic, theocratic system viewed him as the victim - not the woman. What kind of 'just' god comes up with this law?

Of course you might prefer that they'd adopted our modern views on sexual liberation and that every woman had the freedom to marry for love or not marry at all. That's the point. Their primitive views reveal the impositions and abuses of a theocracy, where the law is based in the archaic, misogynistic, patriarchal religious beliefs of primitive iron age (possibly Bronze Age or before) people. The values of their gods reflect the values of primitive men.

In that case there would have been no Israel, no Western civilization, and no internet debates about the finer points of women's rights. That's a rather far fetched stretch. You don't know that. The world may even have evolved and advanced at a much faster pace toward equality and a humane world, if not constrained by centuries of religious dogma. Possibly, something better than what we have now.

---

Fathers were entitled to a dowry regardless of the circumstances. They also had a right of refusal to the marriage, as did the women. The rapist or seducer had to pay either way. More important, he could never divorce the woman. That protection was far more significant than any compensation received by the father. Its purpose was to hold the man accountable. Compare this with modern society, in which men can impregnate multiple women with little or no consequences. Which is more backward? At best you're speculating about how the law was applied, and what do you think it would be like for the woman to live with a man who was stuck with a woman that was given up to him for a few shekels. For all of the faults with our western system, I think most women would prefer it to the analogous patriarchal system of Islam or even orthodox judaism today. You can rationalize it all you want, but patriarchy only preserves men's dominance over women, it doesn't help them, and is only beneficial to men. It is no more beneficial to women, than Ron DeSantis' belief that slavery was beneficial to acquiring work skills. Women living under such a system who have even a modicum of education find it repressive and abusive. Look no further than the plight of women in Afghanistan.

Recall your admonition that morals should be based on the "objective evidence of reality." The reality was that marriage was a practical necessity for most women. Their relative lack of choices was a function of the times and the need for survival. Raising daughters was not exactly a road to quick and easy profit, as you seem to suggest. The necessity of marriage doesn't excuse repression and abuse. Their relative lack of choices was a function of the repressive and abusive religious patriarchy. Women were held captive in a system, where as you said they were second class citizens.

You can speculate about how society might have evolved in the absence of religion, but no such thing has ever happened. Modern attempts to create purely secular societies, for example various forms of Marxism, have been as brutal as they were disastrous. You might want to ponder why that is. Secular societies are not the issue. Marxism is nothing more than following the ideology and teachings of Karl Marx, not much different than Christianity. How much more brutal would the Crusades have been, if they had benefit of modern weaponry and technology. The same for the Inquisition. Ideoligical control over people, be it political or religious is dangerous.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.

---

Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.

---

Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.

---

Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.

It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.

---

Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.

Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objecitve evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?

---

Why not?

---

Said Yahweh.

---

Answer the question.
Why not?

---

But, obviously the patriarchal early canaanite jewish sect believed women are chattel to be bartered - justified it by clergy claiming it is the law of their mythical Yahweh.

---

Not really, but they were what we would call second-class citizens. The same or worse was true throughout the ancient world. A violated woman did not have good prospects in terms of marriage or long-term security. The importance of this Hebrew law was that it held the man accountable for the woman's well-being. It was a remedy for the victim, not a punishment. Of course you might prefer that they'd adopted our modern views on sexual liberation and that every woman had the freedom to marry for love or not marry at all. In that case there would have been no Israel, no Western civilization, and no internet debates about the finer points of women's rights.

---

Not really, but they were what we would call second-class citizens.
Yes really. Second class citizens, yes. An item with a predetermined value to their owner, as compensation for damaged goods.

The same or worse was true throughout the ancient world. A violated woman did not have good prospects in terms of marriage or long-term security. And why do you think that was? Because women, daughters, were viewed as something to be traded in marriage for value given to the father. A few shekels for soiled goods. What to you think the fate of a woman in that circumstance?

The importance of this Hebrew law was that it held the man accountable for the woman's well-being. It was a remedy for the victim, not a punishment. Preposterous. It was a justification for rape and a remedy for the loss to the father, for whom such a primitive, archaic, theocratic system viewed him as the victim - not the woman. What kind of 'just' god comes up with this law?

Of course you might prefer that they'd adopted our modern views on sexual liberation and that every woman had the freedom to marry for love or not marry at all. That's the point. Their primitive views reveal the impositions and abuses of a theocracy, where the law is based in the archaic, misogynistic, patriarchal religious beliefs of primitive iron age (possibly Bronze Age or before) people. The values of their gods reflect the values of primitive men.

In that case there would have been no Israel, no Western civilization, and no internet debates about the finer points of women's rights. That's a rather far fetched stretch. You don't know that. The world may even have evolved and advanced at a much faster pace toward equality and a humane world, if not constrained by centuries of religious dogma. Possibly, something better than what we have now.

---

Fathers were entitled to a dowry regardless of the circumstances. They also had a right of refusal to the marriage, as did the women. The rapist or seducer had to pay either way. More important, he could never divorce the woman. That protection was far more significant than any compensation received by the father. Its purpose was to hold the man accountable. Compare this with modern society, in which men can impregnate multiple women with little or no consequences. Which is more backward? At best you're speculating about how the law was applied, and what do you think it would be like for the woman to live with a man who was stuck with a woman that was given up to him for a few shekels. For all of the faults with our western system, I think most women would prefer it to the analogous patriarchal system of Islam or even orthodox judaism today. You can rationalize it all you want, but patriarchy only preserves men's dominance over women, it doesn't help them, and is only beneficial to men. It is no more beneficial to women, than Ron DeSantis' belief that slavery was beneficial to acquiring work skills. Women living under such a system who have even a modicum of education find it repressive and abusive. Look no further than the plight of women in Afghanistan.

Recall your admonition that morals should be based on the "objective evidence of reality." The reality was that marriage was a practical necessity for most women. Their relative lack of choices was a function of the times and the need for survival. Raising daughters was not exactly a road to quick and easy profit, as you seem to suggest. The necessity of marriage doesn't excuse repression and abuse. Their relative lack of choices was a function of the repressive and abusive religious patriarchy. Women were held captive in a system, where as you said they were second class citizens.

You can speculate about how society might have evolved in the absence of religion, but no such thing has ever happened. Modern attempts to create purely secular societies, for example various forms of Marxism, have been as brutal as they were disastrous. You might want to ponder why that is. Secular societies are not the issue. Marxism is nothing more than following the ideology and teachings of Karl Marx, not much different than Christianity. How much more brutal would the Crusades have been, if they had benefit of modern weaponry and technology. The same for the Inquisition. Ideoligical control over people, be it political or religious is dangerous.

---

---

You talk about things being "repressive" and "abusive", but you still haven't provided a reason why we can't raise people for food.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.

---

Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.

---

Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.

---

Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.

It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.

---

Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.

Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?

---

Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made.

---

---

This is circular reasoning. You can't test for truth unless you have a standard of truth by which to test.

I anticipate a reply that you use the standard of "objective reality," but this too is circular. Note that judging objective reality is the stated goal of your test and cannot be accomplished without it, according to you.

---

What I've described is how we learn about what is true, or in accordance with fact or reality. We pose rational questions or ideas, and objectively test those for consistent truths about reality. Primitive religious myths are poor standards, because religion presumes to know the truth, before the question is even asked.

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.

---

Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.

---

Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.

---

Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.

It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.

---

Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.

Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objecitve evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?

---

Why not?

---

Said Yahweh.

---

Answer the question.
Why not?

---

But, obviously the patriarchal early canaanite jewish sect believed women are chattel to be bartered - justified it by clergy claiming it is the law of their mythical Yahweh.

---

Not really, but they were what we would call second-class citizens. The same or worse was true throughout the ancient world. A violated woman did not have good prospects in terms of marriage or long-term security. The importance of this Hebrew law was that it held the man accountable for the woman's well-being. It was a remedy for the victim, not a punishment. Of course you might prefer that they'd adopted our modern views on sexual liberation and that every woman had the freedom to marry for love or not marry at all. In that case there would have been no Israel, no Western civilization, and no internet debates about the finer points of women's rights.

---

Not really, but they were what we would call second-class citizens.
Yes really. Second class citizens, yes. An item with a predetermined value to their owner, as compensation for damaged goods.

The same or worse was true throughout the ancient world. A violated woman did not have good prospects in terms of marriage or long-term security. And why do you think that was? Because women, daughters, were viewed as something to be traded in marriage for value given to the father. A few shekels for soiled goods. What to you think the fate of a woman in that circumstance?

The importance of this Hebrew law was that it held the man accountable for the woman's well-being. It was a remedy for the victim, not a punishment. Preposterous. It was a justification for rape and a remedy for the loss to the father, for whom such a primitive, archaic, theocratic system viewed him as the victim - not the woman. What kind of 'just' god comes up with this law?

Of course you might prefer that they'd adopted our modern views on sexual liberation and that every woman had the freedom to marry for love or not marry at all. That's the point. Their primitive views reveal the impositions and abuses of a theocracy, where the law is based in the archaic, misogynistic, patriarchal religious beliefs of primitive iron age (possibly Bronze Age or before) people. The values of their gods reflect the values of primitive men.

In that case there would have been no Israel, no Western civilization, and no internet debates about the finer points of women's rights. That's a rather far fetched stretch. You don't know that. The world may even have evolved and advanced at a much faster pace toward equality and a humane world, if not constrained by centuries of religious dogma. Possibly, something better than what we have now.

---

Fathers were entitled to a dowry regardless of the circumstances. They also had a right of refusal to the marriage, as did the women. The rapist or seducer had to pay either way. More important, he could never divorce the woman. That protection was far more significant than any compensation received by the father. Its purpose was to hold the man accountable. Compare this with modern society, in which men can impregnate multiple women with little or no consequences. Which is more backward? At best you're speculating about how the law was applied, and what do you think it would be like for the woman to live with a man who was stuck with a woman that was given up to him for a few shekels. For all of the faults with our western system, I think most women would prefer it to the analogous patriarchal system of Islam or even orthodox judaism today. You can rationalize it all you want, but patriarchy only preserves men's dominance over women, it doesn't help them, and is only beneficial to men. It is no more beneficial to women, than Ron DeSantis' belief that slavery was beneficial to acquiring work skills. Women living under such a system who have even a modicum of education find it repressive and abusive. Look no further than the plight of women in Afghanistan.

Recall your admonition that morals should be based on the "objective evidence of reality." The reality was that marriage was a practical necessity for most women. Their relative lack of choices was a function of the times and the need for survival. Raising daughters was not exactly a road to quick and easy profit, as you seem to suggest. The necessity of marriage doesn't excuse repression and abuse. Their relative lack of choices was a function of the repressive and abusive religious patriarchy. Women were held captive in a system, where as you said they were second class citizens.

You can speculate about how society might have evolved in the absence of religion, but no such thing has ever happened. Modern attempts to create purely secular societies, for example various forms of Marxism, have been as brutal as they were disastrous. You might want to ponder why that is. Secular societies are not the issue. Marxism is nothing more than following the ideology and teachings of Karl Marx, not much different than Christianity. How much more brutal would the Crusades have been, if they had benefit of modern weaponry and technology. The same for the Inquisition. Ideoligical control over people, be it political or religious is dangerous.

---

---

You talk about things being "repressive" and "abusive", but you still haven't provided a reason why we can't raise people for food.

---

You can but you shouldn't, because the evidence of reality, and objective rational reasoning tells us it causes irreparable harm in multiple ways. It's more satifactory, than concluding its ok to raise people for food, because someone told you god said so.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.

---

Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.

---

Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.

---

Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.

It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.

---

Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.

Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?

---

Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made.

---

---

This is circular reasoning. You can't test for truth unless you have a standard of truth by which to test.

I anticipate a reply that you use the standard of "objective reality," but this too is circular. Note that judging objective reality is the stated goal of your test and cannot be accomplished without it, according to you.

---

What I've described is how we learn about what is true, or in accordance with fact or reality. We pose rational questions or ideas, and objectively test those for consistent truths about reality. Primitive religious myths are poor standards, because religion presumes to know the truth, before the question is even asked.

---

You can't "learn about what is true" about morality if what is "true" is simply what people with the power to make it stick say it is. There's nothing for anyone to learn.

If a society decided to kill off half the human population to make more space for elephants, your explanation of what makes something moral really wouldn't have an argument against it.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.

---

Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.

---

Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.

---

Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.

It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.

---

Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.

Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?

---

You avoided the salient points and are resorting to blather to hide that fact:

1) Morality, the sense of that which is right vs. wrong, must be based on ultimate truth, otherwise it is merely arbitrary and therefore ultimately meaningless. And how do you thinks we know ultimate truth? Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made. Adopting moral tenets from primitive men's religious delusions is what is ultimately arbitrary and meaningless.

2) If Jesus' resurrection did in fact actually happen, then that would put a stamp upon his authority to define that standard of truth. In which case it would be Christians who are basing their morality on reality, while those who deny that history, like atheists, would be going against reality. The problem with that, is there is no objective credible evidence for mysticism. Mysticism flies in the face of the evidence of reality. If that were the case, why hasn't he clearly defined that authority and standard of truth. There is no Christian standard of truth.

You really have no understanding of Christianity or the bible. The Old Testament laws for the Israeli people were not intended to be moral "solutions". Sure they were. They were temporary placeholders of justice for the sake of moral and social order. Nothing in the OT says that. That's a later revisionist view by some Christians.

There was still to be a final judgement of all people in the afterlife, for everything that they did. Not all Jews believed in a judgement or afterlife. Some Jewish sects believed there was no afterlife. The extent of those beliefs varied in Jewish history.

However, incredibly, in an act of pure love and grace, God allows people to avoid that judgement they deserve, and have it placed on someone else instead. That someone else is the Messiah, the final moral "solution" for all those who believe. That's an understanding and invention that came after Jesus demise - formed later out of followers need to rationalize what happened and find new meaning in their beliefs. There's no Christian uniformity in those beliefs, and the concept is deeply flawed and internally inconsistent.

---

---

Predictably, you continue to fail to grasp the concept despite the many times in previous threads it's been explained to you. Instead, you just double down on failed logic. As Sam Lowry correctly pointed out, your argument is circular. When you "ask questions" and "test" them, you are only testing them against arbitrary endpoints of your choosing. What you have NOT done, is establish that your chosen endpoints are "right" in of themselves. Another person can prefer endpoints opposite to those of yours, and the only basis upon which you can claim theirs are "wrong" while yours are "right" is merely arbitrary, absent a standard of truth.

Your other dilemma is this: you have never falsified the history of the resurrection of Jesus, despite your many flawed attempts. Calling it "mysticism" doesn't disprove it. The "internal inconsistencies" and "non-uniformity" based on your very flawed and heavily biased perceptions doesn't disprove it either, sorry. Therefore the fact remains, that since you can not falsify the history, and history is reality, you have no basis on which to claim that you are in line with reality while Christians are not. Moreover, if the history is true, then not only is Jesus the standard of truth, but so is the God of the Hebrew scriptures, since Jesus affirmed every jot and tittle of it.

The idea of judgement in the afterlife was not a revisionist view of later Christians. Daniel 12:2 - "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." Whether or not all Jewish sects believed it or not is irrelevant. The correct view of the OT is what matters, not incorrect ones.

Realitybites said:

---

"But then, due to spiritual impoverishment and the influence of liberal ideas, the man ceased to be recognized as a patriarch. As a result, a modern woman rarely fulfills what the apostle has commanded not to teach, but to learn from her husband at home (1 Timothy 2:12; 1 Corinthians 14:35). There is no one to learn from now, and worldly wisdom is not enough. The soul of the woman remains hungry, and thus a kind of madness begins. She desires to seize power in the family. The child is often used as an excuse."

"And thus there is a restructuring of the entire family. The child becomes the head of the family, who is served by the mother. The child becomes an idol, the woman becomes his priestess, and the man becomes an economic appendage. As a result, the entire family structure is destroyed, and the man leaves the family to find a place where he feels more comfortable. Thus the family falls apart.'

---

Are you married?

muddybrazos said:

---

Do you know anything about the demographics of the Bible Belt? It has the highest demogrpahic of those who commit the most violent crimes.

---

I live in the Bible belt. You know how the BLS has gotten into the habit of "adjusting" its numbers to come up with favorable results? What happens to felony numbers in the Bible belt if you exclude crime committed by illegal aliens, the LGBT crowd, and one other group that shall remain nameless? You know what happens.

Also, there is a lot less Bible in that belt than there was a half century ago due to migration, the destabilizing effect that the public school and university system has had over that time, and the failure of churches to do and say what must be said.

...and yes, I am married to a fantastic SAHM.

I'm not speculating. That is how the law was applied according to the halakha.

Comparing Hebrew women to chattel slaves is a gross distortion of scripture and history.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.

---

Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.

---

Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.

---

Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.

It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.

---

Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.

Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?

---

Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made.

---

---

This is circular reasoning. You can't test for truth unless you have a standard of truth by which to test.

I anticipate a reply that you use the standard of "objective reality," but this too is circular. Note that judging objective reality is the stated goal of your test and cannot be accomplished without it, according to you.

---

What I've described is how we learn about what is true, or in accordance with fact or reality. We pose rational questions or ideas, and objectively test those for consistent truths about reality. Primitive religious myths are poor standards, because religion presumes to know the truth, before the question is even asked.

---

What you've described is basically the scientific method, which is how we learn about physical reality. Trouble is that science has no way of testing for things like right and wrong. You make all kinds of philosophical and metaphysical claims without seeming to realize it, in other words, you quite literally "presume to know the truth before the question is even asked."

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.

---

Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.

---

Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.

---

Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.

It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.

---

Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.

Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objecitve evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?

---

History shows Atheism uses the position of humans as the highest power to be the driving factor of everything from morality to government to social structure in the most tragic of outcomes. The most dangerous god is the the god of self. People have used the god of self to manipulate various religions to bad results. Unfortunately for atheism, it is its defining attribute.

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.

---

Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.

---

Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.

---

Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.

It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.

---

Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.

Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?

---

Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made.

---

---

This is circular reasoning. You can't test for truth unless you have a standard of truth by which to test.

I anticipate a reply that you use the standard of "objective reality," but this too is circular. Note that judging objective reality is the stated goal of your test and cannot be accomplished without it, according to you.

---

What I've described is how we learn about what is true, or in accordance with fact or reality. We pose rational questions or ideas, and objectively test those for consistent truths about reality. Primitive religious myths are poor standards, because religion presumes to know the truth, before the question is even asked.

---

You can't "learn about what is true" about morality if what is "true" is simply what people with the power to make it stick say it is. There's nothing for anyone to learn.

If a society decided to kill off half the human population to make more space for elephants, your explanation of what makes something moral really wouldn't have an argument against it.

---

Not if you take a humanistic approach, founding moral values upon reason, science, and our common humanity.

If you think god tells you to go kill not half, but all of the Canaanites, men, women (except virgins), children and animals to make room for you to live, you would think that moral, wouldn't you? In fact, I bet you believe that actually happened and is all aok.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.

---

Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.

---

Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.

---

Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.

It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.

---

Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.

Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?

---

Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made.

---

---

This is circular reasoning. You can't test for truth unless you have a standard of truth by which to test.

I anticipate a reply that you use the standard of "objective reality," but this too is circular. Note that judging objective reality is the stated goal of your test and cannot be accomplished without it, according to you.

---

What I've described is how we learn about what is true, or in accordance with fact or reality. We pose rational questions or ideas, and objectively test those for consistent truths about reality. Primitive religious myths are poor standards, because religion presumes to know the truth, before the question is even asked.

---

What you've described can be used to justify mass murder and genocide too. Of course, you'd disagree with it because you've based your system on a paradigm of "benefit" vs. "harm". But you didn't determine that by testing. You just believe your paradigm is true. It's as if you presume to know the truth, before the question is even asked.

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.

---

Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.

---

Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.

---

Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.

It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.

---

Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.

Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?

---

Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made.

---

---

This is circular reasoning. You can't test for truth unless you have a standard of truth by which to test.

I anticipate a reply that you use the standard of "objective reality," but this too is circular. Note that judging objective reality is the stated goal of your test and cannot be accomplished without it, according to you.

---

What I've described is how we learn about what is true, or in accordance with fact or reality. We pose rational questions or ideas, and objectively test those for consistent truths about reality. Primitive religious myths are poor standards, because religion presumes to know the truth, before the question is even asked.

---

You can't "learn about what is true" about morality if what is "true" is simply what people with the power to make it stick say it is. There's nothing for anyone to learn.

If a society decided to kill off half the human population to make more space for elephants, your explanation of what makes something moral really wouldn't have an argument against it.

---

Not if you take a humanistic approach, founding moral values upon reason, science, and our common humanity.

If you think god tells you to go kill not half, but all of the Canaanites, men, women (except virgins), children and animals to make room for you to live, you would think that moral, wouldn't you? In fact, I bet you believe that actually happened and is all aok.

---

A "humanistic approach?"
What do you mean by that?

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.

---

Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.

---

Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.

---

Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.

It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.

---

Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.

Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?

---

Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made.

---

---

This is circular reasoning. You can't test for truth unless you have a standard of truth by which to test.

I anticipate a reply that you use the standard of "objective reality," but this too is circular. Note that judging objective reality is the stated goal of your test and cannot be accomplished without it, according to you.

---

What I've described is how we learn about what is true, or in accordance with fact or reality. We pose rational questions or ideas, and objectively test those for consistent truths about reality. Primitive religious myths are poor standards, because religion presumes to know the truth, before the question is even asked.

---

You can't "learn about what is true" about morality if what is "true" is simply what people with the power to make it stick say it is. There's nothing for anyone to learn.

If a society decided to kill off half the human population to make more space for elephants, your explanation of what makes something moral really wouldn't have an argument against it.

---

Not if you take a humanistic approach, founding moral values upon reason, science, and our common humanity.

---

These sentiments are a quaint relic of the Enlightenment. And when humanism fails to provide a coherent basis for morality, as you've failed to do here, what you're left with is raw power. Rational people need to understand that the irrational is part of our nature. If it's not harnessed by religion, it will surface in some other way. That's the increasing tendency in the post-modern world. Jesus is still a far more benign "cult" leader than any of the other candidates.

Christ or Antichrist? Pick your poison…but choose wisely.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.

---

Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.

---

Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.

---

Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.

It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.

---

Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.

Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?

---

You avoided the salient points and are resorting to blather to hide that fact:

1) Morality, the sense of that which is right vs. wrong, must be based on ultimate truth, otherwise it is merely arbitrary and therefore ultimately meaningless. And how do you thinks we know ultimate truth? Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made. Adopting moral tenets from primitive men's religious delusions is what is ultimately arbitrary and meaningless.

2) If Jesus' resurrection did in fact actually happen, then that would put a stamp upon his authority to define that standard of truth. In which case it would be Christians who are basing their morality on reality, while those who deny that history, like atheists, would be going against reality. The problem with that, is there is no objective credible evidence for mysticism. Mysticism flies in the face of the evidence of reality. If that were the case, why hasn't he clearly defined that authority and standard of truth. There is no Christian standard of truth.

You really have no understanding of Christianity or the bible. The Old Testament laws for the Israeli people were not intended to be moral "solutions". Sure they were. They were temporary placeholders of justice for the sake of moral and social order. Nothing in the OT says that. That's a later revisionist view by some Christians.

There was still to be a final judgement of all people in the afterlife, for everything that they did. Not all Jews believed in a judgement or afterlife. Some Jewish sects believed there was no afterlife. The extent of those beliefs varied in Jewish history.

However, incredibly, in an act of pure love and grace, God allows people to avoid that judgement they deserve, and have it placed on someone else instead. That someone else is the Messiah, the final moral "solution" for all those who believe. That's an understanding and invention that came after Jesus demise - formed later out of followers need to rationalize what happened and find new meaning in their beliefs. There's no Christian uniformity in those beliefs, and the concept is deeply flawed and internally inconsistent.

---

---

Predictably, you continue to fail to grasp the concept despite the many times in previous threads it's been explained to you. Instead, you just double down on failed logic. As Sam Lowry correctly pointed out, your argument is circular. When you "ask questions" and "test" them, you are only testing them against arbitrary endpoints of your choosing. What you have NOT done, is establish that your chosen endpoints are "right" in of themselves. Another person can prefer endpoints opposite to those of yours, and the only basis upon which you can claim theirs are "wrong" while yours are "right" is merely arbitrary, absent a standard of truth.

Your other dilemma is this: you have never falsified the history of the resurrection of Jesus, despite your many flawed attempts. Calling it "mysticism" doesn't disprove it. The "internal inconsistencies" and "non-uniformity" based on your very flawed and heavily biased perceptions doesn't disprove it either, sorry. Therefore the fact remains, that since you can not falsify the history, and history is reality, you have no basis on which to claim that you are in line with reality while Christians are not. Moreover, if the history is true, then not only is Jesus the standard of truth, but so is the God of the Hebrew scriptures, since Jesus affirmed every jot and tittle of it.

The idea of judgement in the afterlife was not a revisionist view of later Christians. Daniel 12:2 - "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." Whether or not all Jewish sects believed it or not is irrelevant. The correct view of the OT is what matters, not incorrect ones.

---

I'm talking about applying the scientific method to acquire knowledge or truths. I don't think you know what you are talking about.

I'm not trying to falsify the resurrection. You can't prove the resurrection. What I can say is there is no empirical objective evidence for a resurrection ever having occurred. On that basis, it is far more likely than to have occurred. You're conflating primitive historical lore with historical fact. They're not the same. Do you believe Romulus ascended to heaven and was divine?

What is a correct view of the OT? What you say it is? The OT doesn't project a viewpoint. It is a compilation of religious law, and religious lore about the history of Jews.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.

---

Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.

---

Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.

---

Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.

It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.

---

Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.

Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?

---

Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made.

---

---

This is circular reasoning. You can't test for truth unless you have a standard of truth by which to test.

I anticipate a reply that you use the standard of "objective reality," but this too is circular. Note that judging objective reality is the stated goal of your test and cannot be accomplished without it, according to you.

---

What I've described is how we learn about what is true, or in accordance with fact or reality. We pose rational questions or ideas, and objectively test those for consistent truths about reality. Primitive religious myths are poor standards, because religion presumes to know the truth, before the question is even asked.

---

What you've described can be used to justify mass murder and genocide too. Of course, you'd disagree with it because you've based your system on a paradigm of "benefit" vs. "harm". But you didn't determine that by testing. You just believe your paradigm is true. It's as if you presume to know the truth, before the question is even asked.

---

You can test for benefit and harm, and make a moral conclusion about mass murder and genocide. It's immoral to justify mass murder and genocide of Canaanites on the grounds of religious permission.

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.

---

Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.

---

Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.

---

Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.

It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.

---

Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.

Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?

---

Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made.

---

---

This is circular reasoning. You can't test for truth unless you have a standard of truth by which to test.

I anticipate a reply that you use the standard of "objective reality," but this too is circular. Note that judging objective reality is the stated goal of your test and cannot be accomplished without it, according to you.

---

What I've described is how we learn about what is true, or in accordance with fact or reality. We pose rational questions or ideas, and objectively test those for consistent truths about reality. Primitive religious myths are poor standards, because religion presumes to know the truth, before the question is even asked.

---

You can't "learn about what is true" about morality if what is "true" is simply what people with the power to make it stick say it is. There's nothing for anyone to learn.

If a society decided to kill off half the human population to make more space for elephants, your explanation of what makes something moral really wouldn't have an argument against it.

---

Not if you take a humanistic approach, founding moral values upon reason, science, and our common humanity.

If you think god tells you to go kill not half, but all of the Canaanites, men, women (except virgins), children and animals to make room for you to live, you would think that moral, wouldn't you? In fact, I bet you believe that actually happened and is all aok.

---

A "humanistic approach?"
What do you mean by that?

---

What I wrote. Read it again.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.

---

Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.

---

Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.

---

Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.

It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.

---

Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.

Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?

---

Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made.

---

---

This is circular reasoning. You can't test for truth unless you have a standard of truth by which to test.

I anticipate a reply that you use the standard of "objective reality," but this too is circular. Note that judging objective reality is the stated goal of your test and cannot be accomplished without it, according to you.

---

What I've described is how we learn about what is true, or in accordance with fact or reality. We pose rational questions or ideas, and objectively test those for consistent truths about reality. Primitive religious myths are poor standards, because religion presumes to know the truth, before the question is even asked.

---

What you've described can be used to justify mass murder and genocide too. Of course, you'd disagree with it because you've based your system on a paradigm of "benefit" vs. "harm". But you didn't determine that by testing. You just believe your paradigm is true. It's as if you presume to know the truth, before the question is even asked.

---

You can test for benefit and harm, and make a moral conclusion about mass murder and genocide. It's immoral to justify mass murder and genocide of Canaanites on the grounds of religious permission.

---

So explain to me how this works. If Israelites benefit and Canaanites are harmed, does your moral litmus paper turn red or blue?

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.

---

Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.

---

Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.

---

Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.

It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.

---

Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.

Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?

---

Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made.

---

---

This is circular reasoning. You can't test for truth unless you have a standard of truth by which to test.

I anticipate a reply that you use the standard of "objective reality," but this too is circular. Note that judging objective reality is the stated goal of your test and cannot be accomplished without it, according to you.

---

What I've described is how we learn about what is true, or in accordance with fact or reality. We pose rational questions or ideas, and objectively test those for consistent truths about reality. Primitive religious myths are poor standards, because religion presumes to know the truth, before the question is even asked.

---

You can't "learn about what is true" about morality if what is "true" is simply what people with the power to make it stick say it is. There's nothing for anyone to learn.

If a society decided to kill off half the human population to make more space for elephants, your explanation of what makes something moral really wouldn't have an argument against it.

---

Not if you take a humanistic approach, founding moral values upon reason, science, and our common humanity.

---

These sentiments are a quaint relic of the Enlightenment. And when humanism fails to provide a coherent basis for morality, as you've failed to do here, what you're left with is raw power. Rational people need to understand that the irrational is part of our nature. If it's not harnessed by religion, it will surface in some other way. That's the increasing tendency in the post-modern world. Jesus is still a far more benign "cult" leader than any of the other candidates.

Christ or Antichrist? Pick your poison…but choose wisely.

---

Did you really say that? The morality of the OT and NT is a monument of incoherent and irrational moral ideas and beliefs. Humanism is based on coherent rational thought and reason.

Much better to follow rational thought and reason for moral conclusions than the lore of a benign "cult" leader of questionable morals.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.

---

Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.

---

Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.

---

Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.

It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.

---

Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.

Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?

---

Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made.

---

---

This is circular reasoning. You can't test for truth unless you have a standard of truth by which to test.

I anticipate a reply that you use the standard of "objective reality," but this too is circular. Note that judging objective reality is the stated goal of your test and cannot be accomplished without it, according to you.

---

What I've described is how we learn about what is true, or in accordance with fact or reality. We pose rational questions or ideas, and objectively test those for consistent truths about reality. Primitive religious myths are poor standards, because religion presumes to know the truth, before the question is even asked.

---

You can't "learn about what is true" about morality if what is "true" is simply what people with the power to make it stick say it is. There's nothing for anyone to learn.

If a society decided to kill off half the human population to make more space for elephants, your explanation of what makes something moral really wouldn't have an argument against it.

---

Not if you take a humanistic approach, founding moral values upon reason, science, and our common humanity.

---

These sentiments are a quaint relic of the Enlightenment. And when humanism fails to provide a coherent basis for morality, as you've failed to do here, what you're left with is raw power. Rational people need to understand that the irrational is part of our nature. If it's not harnessed by religion, it will surface in some other way. That's the increasing tendency in the post-modern world. Jesus is still a far more benign "cult" leader than any of the other candidates.

Christ or Antichrist? Pick your poison…but choose wisely.

---

Did you really say that? The morality of the OT and NT is a monument of incoherent and irrational moral ideas and beliefs. Humanism is based on coherent rational thought and reason.

Much better to follow rational thought and reason for moral conclusions than the lore of a benign "cult" leader of questionable morals.

---

Then prove it. Does not rationality demand as much?

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.

---

Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.

---

Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.

---

Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.

It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.

---

Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.

Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objecitve evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?

---

Why not?

---

Said Yahweh.

---

Answer the question.
Why not?

---

But, obviously the patriarchal early canaanite jewish sect believed women are chattel to be bartered - justified it by clergy claiming it is the law of their mythical Yahweh.

---

Not really, but they were what we would call second-class citizens. The same or worse was true throughout the ancient world. A violated woman did not have good prospects in terms of marriage or long-term security. The importance of this Hebrew law was that it held the man accountable for the woman's well-being. It was a remedy for the victim, not a punishment. Of course you might prefer that they'd adopted our modern views on sexual liberation and that every woman had the freedom to marry for love or not marry at all. In that case there would have been no Israel, no Western civilization, and no internet debates about the finer points of women's rights.

---

Not really, but they were what we would call second-class citizens.
Yes really. Second class citizens, yes. An item with a predetermined value to their owner, as compensation for damaged goods.

The same or worse was true throughout the ancient world. A violated woman did not have good prospects in terms of marriage or long-term security. And why do you think that was? Because women, daughters, were viewed as something to be traded in marriage for value given to the father. A few shekels for soiled goods. What to you think the fate of a woman in that circumstance?

The importance of this Hebrew law was that it held the man accountable for the woman's well-being. It was a remedy for the victim, not a punishment. Preposterous. It was a justification for rape and a remedy for the loss to the father, for whom such a primitive, archaic, theocratic system viewed him as the victim - not the woman. What kind of 'just' god comes up with this law?

Of course you might prefer that they'd adopted our modern views on sexual liberation and that every woman had the freedom to marry for love or not marry at all. That's the point. Their primitive views reveal the impositions and abuses of a theocracy, where the law is based in the archaic, misogynistic, patriarchal religious beliefs of primitive iron age (possibly Bronze Age or before) people. The values of their gods reflect the values of primitive men.

In that case there would have been no Israel, no Western civilization, and no internet debates about the finer points of women's rights. That's a rather far fetched stretch. You don't know that. The world may even have evolved and advanced at a much faster pace toward equality and a humane world, if not constrained by centuries of religious dogma. Possibly, something better than what we have now.

---

Don't you realize religion is borderline built into us? Why pick on Christianity? It was always one of the better ones. Because it's big? Have you looked into all the other religions?

Everywhere there has ever been humanity, there has been religion. Not sure how you can imagine an ancient world without religion.

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.

---

Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.

---

Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.

---

Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.

It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.

---

Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.

Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?

---

Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made.

---

---

This is circular reasoning. You can't test for truth unless you have a standard of truth by which to test.

I anticipate a reply that you use the standard of "objective reality," but this too is circular. Note that judging objective reality is the stated goal of your test and cannot be accomplished without it, according to you.

---

What I've described is how we learn about what is true, or in accordance with fact or reality. We pose rational questions or ideas, and objectively test those for consistent truths about reality. Primitive religious myths are poor standards, because religion presumes to know the truth, before the question is even asked.

---

You can't "learn about what is true" about morality if what is "true" is simply what people with the power to make it stick say it is. There's nothing for anyone to learn.

If a society decided to kill off half the human population to make more space for elephants, your explanation of what makes something moral really wouldn't have an argument against it.

---

Not if you take a humanistic approach, founding moral values upon reason, science, and our common humanity.

If you think god tells you to go kill not half, but all of the Canaanites, men, women (except virgins), children and animals to make room for you to live, you would think that moral, wouldn't you? In fact, I bet you believe that actually happened and is all aok.

---

A "humanistic approach?"
What do you mean by that?

---

What I wrote. Read it again.

---

I did read it. At least twice.
You didn't define humanism.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.

---

Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.

---

Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.

---

Christians base their beliefs on actual history. History is reality and rationality.

It is atheists who deny this reality. Therefore, it is atheists who are constructing their own morality code on a purely arbitrary basis. "Psychological sense" and "notions of morality" to an atheist can mean nothing more than the inevitable result of the cold, undirected physics of the universe that led to the state of their brain as it is. A person with the "psychological sense" and "notion of morality" of a murderer can be no more blamed than a leaf blowing in the wind.

---

Christians insert their beliefs into known history in an attempt to legitimize those beliefs.

Most atheists base their beliefs on the rational, reasoned, and objective analysis of the evidence of reality. Biblical morality is immoral by most definitions of morality. That particular moral code, internally inconsistent as it is, is nothing more than selective interpretation of what primitive people concocted from ancient sources. It arose from their religious, cultural and social objectives. That is the evidence of reality. We're much better off, if morality is based upon rational analysis of what causes harm, and is most beneficial to individuals, and society, without inserting some ancient unfounded primitive beliefs. In the final analysis, it is cultures that determine what is moral, be they religious, secular, or a combination. Moral beliefs should be founded on the the objective evidence of reality, and not on selective cherry picking primitive mythical beliefs and laws. Do you really believe if your daughter is raped, turning her over to the rapist for a few shekels is a moral solution?

---

You avoided the salient points and are resorting to blather to hide that fact:

1) Morality, the sense of that which is right vs. wrong, must be based on ultimate truth, otherwise it is merely arbitrary and therefore ultimately meaningless. And how do you thinks we know ultimate truth? Truth can only be found by asking questions, and testing those questions for truth. Only then can rational moral judgments about what is objectively right and wrong be made. Adopting moral tenets from primitive men's religious delusions is what is ultimately arbitrary and meaningless.

2) If Jesus' resurrection did in fact actually happen, then that would put a stamp upon his authority to define that standard of truth. In which case it would be Christians who are basing their morality on reality, while those who deny that history, like atheists, would be going against reality. The problem with that, is there is no objective credible evidence for mysticism. Mysticism flies in the face of the evidence of reality. If that were the case, why hasn't he clearly defined that authority and standard of truth. There is no Christian standard of truth.

You really have no understanding of Christianity or the bible. The Old Testament laws for the Israeli people were not intended to be moral "solutions". Sure they were. They were temporary placeholders of justice for the sake of moral and social order. Nothing in the OT says that. That's a later revisionist view by some Christians.

There was still to be a final judgement of all people in the afterlife, for everything that they did. Not all Jews believed in a judgement or afterlife. Some Jewish sects believed there was no afterlife. The extent of those beliefs varied in Jewish history.

However, incredibly, in an act of pure love and grace, God allows people to avoid that judgement they deserve, and have it placed on someone else instead. That someone else is the Messiah, the final moral "solution" for all those who believe. That's an understanding and invention that came after Jesus demise - formed later out of followers need to rationalize what happened and find new meaning in their beliefs. There's no Christian uniformity in those beliefs, and the concept is deeply flawed and internally inconsistent.

---

---

Predictably, you continue to fail to grasp the concept despite the many times in previous threads it's been explained to you. Instead, you just double down on failed logic. As Sam Lowry correctly pointed out, your argument is circular. When you "ask questions" and "test" them, you are only testing them against arbitrary endpoints of your choosing. What you have NOT done, is establish that your chosen endpoints are "right" in of themselves. Another person can prefer endpoints opposite to those of yours, and the only basis upon which you can claim theirs are "wrong" while yours are "right" is merely arbitrary, absent a standard of truth.

Your other dilemma is this: you have never falsified the history of the resurrection of Jesus, despite your many flawed attempts. Calling it "mysticism" doesn't disprove it. The "internal inconsistencies" and "non-uniformity" based on your very flawed and heavily biased perceptions doesn't disprove it either, sorry. Therefore the fact remains, that since you can not falsify the history, and history is reality, you have no basis on which to claim that you are in line with reality while Christians are not. Moreover, if the history is true, then not only is Jesus the standard of truth, but so is the God of the Hebrew scriptures, since Jesus affirmed every jot and tittle of it.

The idea of judgement in the afterlife was not a revisionist view of later Christians. Daniel 12:2 - "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." Whether or not all Jewish sects believed it or not is irrelevant. The correct view of the OT is what matters, not incorrect ones.

---

I'm talking about applying the scientifici method to acquire knowledge or truths. I don't think you know what you are talking about.

I'm not trying to falsify the reserrection. You can't prove the resurrection. What I can say is there is no empirical objective evidence for a resurrection ever having occured. On that basis, it is far more likely than to have occured. You're conflating primitive historical lore with historical fact. They're not the same. Do you believe Romulus ascended to heaven and was divine?

What is a correct view of the OT? What you say it is? The OT doesn't project a viewpoint. It is a compilation of religious law, and religious lore about the history of Jews.

---

You are the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. The scientific method can't be applied to determine moral truths. Rather, you've already decided a priori what those truths are. You're merely "testing" against your predetermined truths. You didn't arrive at those truths through the scientific method - e.g. based on what scientific method did you determine that benefit is "right" and harm is "wrong"?

Multiple historical attestations of an event is empirical objective evidence that a historical event happened. And that evidence is weighted even further by the fact these testators persisted despite facing great peril and heavy persecution, even to the point where it cost them their lives. But regardless of whether or not you believe their testimony, the main point is this: since you admit you can't falsify the resurrection, ultimately you can not claim that Christian morality is not consistent with the "evidence of reality". It could be, actually, your own atheist system or morality which denies that history that is against reality.

The correct view of the OT would be, for starters, being true to what the OT actually says. The view that there is no mention of judgement in the afterlife in the OT is incorrect, because it is directly falsified by the example I gave in Daniel 12:2. Ultimately, the correct view of the OT is the view that Jesus had. His resurrection validates him as the authority. And Jesus affirms there will be a judgement in the afterlife, just as Daniel 12:2 says.