quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

---

One was written ~ 1800 BCE and the other sometime after late first century CE.

---

One changed the world, the other was largely ignored in its own country of origin.

---

Hammurabi influenced the world during and beyond his time. Religion has changed the world. Islam is changing the world.

---

Agreed about Islam. There's no evidence Hammurabi changed the lives of ordinary people or how they lived.

And I'd suggest that not all religions have the same effect, purpose, or consequence.

---

Historians would disagree with you about the effect of the earliest known code of justice. So would the people who benefited.

All religions share a supernatural component.

---

First, historians as a group disagree on a great many things. Name the ones who support your claim and we can discuss it but no, you don't get to pretend they all say what you say.

As for your second claim, Buddhism for example does not have a supernatural component per se, nor does Jainism nor Scientology. I have varying degrees of respect/interest in those, but they are definitely religions and do not have a supernatural component.

---

That's not right. Buddhists believe in spirits and they believe Buddha had supernatural powers.

---

My wife's family is Buddhist. You are wrong on both claims in terms of the structure and nature of Buddhism.

Try again without the assumptions.

---

Reincarnation is a supernatural belief.

---

That's your assumption.

---

There is no valid evidence of reincarnation. That is a conclusion, not an assumption.

---

What happens to the person when they die? Any specific answer is an assumption, but speculation about what happens to the person is rational and not necessarily supernatural.

Just because you don't understand the mechanics of the soul, does not make what happens to it supernatural.

quash said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Quote:

---

Oh yes, Christianity does. And don't forget when we gave you a chance to take your atheistic morality for a spin, you directly avoided the specific questions that put your morality idea to the test. Who is to say your system wouldn't cause greater harm in the long run and is thus inferior?

---

Quote:

---

I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. The others depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.

---

My point was that Christianity and God do take harm of others into account. Christianity raised the value of women in society and also brought protection to those who were oppressed. Its teachings encouraged the creation of charities and services for them whether it be almshouses, women's shelters, hospitals, schools, universities, orphanages, etc. And this was all done based on the morality set out by God in the bible. So you can't make the claim that God isn't taking the harm of others into account. In fact, God's prohibitions are designed to protect people and keep them from harm in much the same way a parent might put a curfew on their teenage son. That is technically a restriction of their freedom but it is done to keep them out of harm's way by keeping them out of some potentially bad situations.

Also, it is interesting that you are claiming it is a benefit that your worldview is morally flexible and can change with the time and culture. This implies that there are not absolute rights and wrongs. It would be interesting to hear you try to justify why rape is sometimes ok or the torturing of small children for fun could be ok. I think your worldview with such flexible morality will invariably lead to abuse and harm because there is nothing preventing it. Your worldview eventually creates an apathy in its people where nobody is able to criticize anyone else because morality becomes subjective. It will lead to chaos instead of order.

---

Humanistic morality is not absolute (yay) but it does have values that help in determining right from wrong. YOu choose two odd examples given that TS has already said that harm reduction is key. Humanism would have no problem saying that rape and child torture is wrong. FTR.

---

You say that but I could spin some narrative about how the rapist had to rape because he had a sexual emergency and it would have been harmful to him to not allow it. And who knows, maybe it would be ok to torture some children because they were misbehaving and needed to be made an example of for the rest of the children so they wouldn't do more harm to society. From your worldview, you would have trouble saying I was wrong because my examples also would arguably reduce harm.

And remember, I also gave a couple of earlier examples where he choose not to address head on.

1. What happens when you have competing values and agencies of human beings? Who wins out and why? For example, let's say a mother decides she needs money and wants to kill her toddler to sell her parts and organs so the mother can enjoy more of her value and agency. Does her value and agency trump the toddler's?

2. If a religious person and a humanist have a dispute, does the humanist always win out because they are supposedly not dogmatic or superstitious? What about the value and agency of the religious person?

The issue will still be that you will have to pick winners on what harm trumps the other. And you will run into the issue of short term versus long term harm. You could well be making choices that bring greater long term harm. Since he was making the claim his secular morality is better, he would need to show how these obstacles would be avoided. But you are welcome to take up the cause and show us how these issues would be resolved. I am genuinely curious because I see these aspects as very challenging to your position.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

---

One was written ~ 1800 BCE and the other sometime after late first century CE.

---

One changed the world, the other was largely ignored in its own country of origin.

---

Hammurabi influenced the world during and beyond his time. Religion has changed the world. Islam is changing the world.

---

Agreed about Islam. There's no evidence Hammurabi changed the lives of ordinary people or how they lived.

And I'd suggest that not all religions have the same effect, purpose, or consequence.

---

Historians would disagree with you about the effect of the earliest known code of justice. So would the people who benefited.

All religions share a supernatural component.

---

First, historians as a group disagree on a great many things. Name the ones who support your claim and we can discuss it but no, you don't get to pretend they all say what you say.

As for your second claim, Buddhism for example does not have a supernatural component per se, nor does Jainism nor Scientology. I have varying degrees of respect/interest in those, but they are definitely religions and do not have a supernatural component.

---

That's not right. Buddhists believe in spirits and they believe Buddha had supernatural powers.

---

My wife's family is Buddhist. You are wrong on both claims in terms of the structure and nature of Buddhism.

Try again without the assumptions.

---

Reincarnation is a supernatural belief.

---

That's your assumption.

---

There is no valid evidence of reincarnation. That is a conclusion, not an assumption.

---

What happens to the person when they die? Any specific answer is an assumption, but speculation about what happens to the person is rational and not necessarily supernatural.

Just because you don't understand the mechanics of the soul, does not make what happens to it supernatural.

---

Death is the end. That's not an assumption, it is a conclusion based on the scarcity of evidence as to a post-death existence. I would like to live forever but I see no compelling evidence that is happens. It is not in my eternal interest to hold this view, but I hold this conclusion nonetheless. Your thinking that I would throw away eternity over an assumption is simply wrong. These are high stakes.

There is no quantifiable proof of the mechanics of the soul. There are supernatural explanations that I find lack sufficient proof.

So you're doubling down on your assumptions.

"Death is the end"

Prove it, don't think your claim stands as evidence, mister.

"That's not an assumption"

Of course it is.

"it is a conclusion based on the scarcity of evidence as to a post-death existence"

More assumption. Consider that you did not exist as we know you before you were born. Possibilities include that your person came here from somewhere else, or existed here before in a different appearance. Without proof, all contentions are valid to some degree, but we can surmise on available information.

We know that mass is conserved, as well as energy. So whatever makes up a person (information?) is most likely also conserved. Just because we do not recognize the person does not mean they do not exist, and just because they are not here does not mean they could not still exist in a form we cannot perceive with our senses.

"I would like to live forever but I see no compelling evidence that is happens. It is not in my eternal interest to hold this view, but I hold this conclusion nonetheless"

You hold that conclusion as an opinion, not based on evidence. Consider that we still do not understand self-awareness to the point that we could incorporate it into a machine. That's not believing in the supernatural, but plain sense, The questions of what we were before and will become are eminently reasonable, and we must accept that we cannot prove any claim using the tools of our limited existence.


" Your thinking that I would throw away eternity over an assumption is simply wrong. These are high stakes."

You have indeed based your opinion on assumption. It's simply that you refuse to seriously consider the alternatives, that you deny what is plainly obvious.

quash said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Quote:

---

Oh yes, Christianity does. And don't forget when we gave you a chance to take your atheistic morality for a spin, you directly avoided the specific questions that put your morality idea to the test. Who is to say your system wouldn't cause greater harm in the long run and is thus inferior?

---

Quote:

---

I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. The others depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.

---

My point was that Christianity and God do take harm of others into account. Christianity raised the value of women in society and also brought protection to those who were oppressed. Its teachings encouraged the creation of charities and services for them whether it be almshouses, women's shelters, hospitals, schools, universities, orphanages, etc. And this was all done based on the morality set out by God in the bible. So you can't make the claim that God isn't taking the harm of others into account. In fact, God's prohibitions are designed to protect people and keep them from harm in much the same way a parent might put a curfew on their teenage son. That is technically a restriction of their freedom but it is done to keep them out of harm's way by keeping them out of some potentially bad situations.

Also, it is interesting that you are claiming it is a benefit that your worldview is morally flexible and can change with the time and culture. This implies that there are not absolute rights and wrongs. It would be interesting to hear you try to justify why rape is sometimes ok or the torturing of small children for fun could be ok. I think your worldview with such flexible morality will invariably lead to abuse and harm because there is nothing preventing it. Your worldview eventually creates an apathy in its people where nobody is able to criticize anyone else because morality becomes subjective. It will lead to chaos instead of order.

---

Humanistic morality is not absolute (yay) but it does have values that help in determining right from wrong. YOu choose two odd examples given that TS has already said that harm reduction is key. Humanism would have no problem saying that rape and child torture is wrong. FTR.

---

It seems to me you have faith of a sort that humanistic morality has values that help in determining right from wrong. I've always thought that agnosticism was the only intellectually honest position aside from religious faith or belief. Atheism requires belief in something that cannot be proven. Don't know how you self-identify, but blessings for your journey.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

---

One was written ~ 1800 BCE and the other sometime after late first century CE.

---

One changed the world, the other was largely ignored in its own country of origin.

---

Hammurabi influenced the world during and beyond his time. Religion has changed the world. Islam is changing the world.

---

Agreed about Islam. There's no evidence Hammurabi changed the lives of ordinary people or how they lived.

And I'd suggest that not all religions have the same effect, purpose, or consequence.

---

Historians would disagree with you about the effect of the earliest known code of justice. So would the people who benefited.

All religions share a supernatural component.

---

First, historians as a group disagree on a great many things. Name the ones who support your claim and we can discuss it but no, you don't get to pretend they all say what you say.

As for your second claim, Buddhism for example does not have a supernatural component per se, nor does Jainism nor Scientology. I have varying degrees of respect/interest in those, but they are definitely religions and do not have a supernatural component.

---

That's not right. Buddhists believe in spirits and they believe Buddha had supernatural powers.

---

My wife's family is Buddhist. You are wrong on both claims in terms of the structure and nature of Buddhism.

Try again without the assumptions.

---

Why are there Buddhist houses for spirits in Thailand? Didn't Buddha supposedly walk on water etc.?

---

You are conflating those who misuse a faith to advance superstition with the actual tenets of that faith.

There are, for example, people who handle snakes because they misunderstand the scripture, and try to use it for personal gain rather than to walk closer to God. This happens in all groups.

You may recall that Thomas Beddoes and Humphrey Davy, for example, had parties using nitrous oxide for recreation in 1799-1800. That does not mean that Science in general is just looking for ways to get high.


So too it is invalid to judge Religion in general by those who use it for personal purposes rather than in following its tenets.

---

Quote:

---

You are conflating those who misuse a faith to advance superstition with the actual tenets of that faith.

There are, for example, people who handle snakes because they misunderstand the scripture, and try to use it for personal gain rather than to walk closer to God. This happens in all groups.

---

So, you mean like the difference between Protestants and Catholics? One is legit and the other isn't?

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

---

One was written ~ 1800 BCE and the other sometime after late first century CE.

---

One changed the world, the other was largely ignored in its own country of origin.

---

Hammurabi influenced the world during and beyond his time. Religion has changed the world. Islam is changing the world.

---

Agreed about Islam. There's no evidence Hammurabi changed the lives of ordinary people or how they lived.

And I'd suggest that not all religions have the same effect, purpose, or consequence.

---

Historians would disagree with you about the effect of the earliest known code of justice. So would the people who benefited.

All religions share a supernatural component.

---

First, historians as a group disagree on a great many things. Name the ones who support your claim and we can discuss it but no, you don't get to pretend they all say what you say.

As for your second claim, Buddhism for example does not have a supernatural component per se, nor does Jainism nor Scientology. I have varying degrees of respect/interest in those, but they are definitely religions and do not have a supernatural component.

---

That's not right. Buddhists believe in spirits and they believe Buddha had supernatural powers.

---

My wife's family is Buddhist. You are wrong on both claims in terms of the structure and nature of Buddhism.

Try again without the assumptions.

---

Why are there Buddhist houses for spirits in Thailand? Didn't Buddha supposedly walk on water etc.?

---

You are conflating those who misuse a faith to advance superstition with the actual tenets of that faith.

There are, for example, people who handle snakes because they misunderstand the scripture, and try to use it for personal gain rather than to walk closer to God. This happens in all groups.

You may recall that Thomas Beddoes and Humphrey Davy, for example, had parties using nitrous oxide for recreation in 1799-1800. That does not mean that Science in general is just looking for ways to get high.


So too it is invalid to judge Religion in general by those who use it for personal purposes rather than in following its tenets.

---

Quote:

---

You are conflating those who misuse a faith to advance superstition with the actual tenets of that faith.

There are, for example, people who handle snakes because they misunderstand the scripture, and try to use it for personal gain rather than to walk closer to God. This happens in all groups.

---

So, you mean like the difference between Protestants and Catholics? One is legit and the other isn't?

---

This is why Scripture matters. Those who live as Christ taught tend to end up better than those who live as their personal preferred leader tells them to do.

Oldbear83 said:

---

So you're doubling down on your assumptions.

"Death is the end"

Prove it, don't think your claim stands as evidence, mister.

"That's not an assumption"

Of course it is.

"it is a conclusion based on the scarcity of evidence as to a post-death existence"

More assumption. Consider that you did not exist as we know you before you were born. Possibilities include that your person came here from somewhere else, or existed here before in a different appearance. Without proof, all contentions are valid to some degree, but we can surmise on available information.

We know that mass is conserved, as well as energy. So whatever makes up a person (information?) is most likely also conserved. Just because we do not recognize the person does not mean they do not exist, and just because they are not here does not mean they could not still exist in a form we cannot perceive with our senses.

"I would like to live forever but I see no compelling evidence that is happens. It is not in my eternal interest to hold this view, but I hold this conclusion nonetheless"

You hold that conclusion as an opinion, not based on evidence. Consider that we still do not understand self-awareness to the point that we could incorporate it into a machine. That's not believing in the supernatural, but plain sense, The questions of what we were before and will become are eminently reasonable, and we must accept that we cannot prove any claim using the tools of our limited existence.


" Your thinking that I would throw away eternity over an assumption is simply wrong. These are high stakes."

You have indeed based your opinion on assumption. It's simply that you refuse to seriously consider the alternatives, that you deny what is plainly obvious.

---

Anything that does not exist in a form we cannot perceive with our senses is inherently supernatural. We haven't found the right method for detecting dark matter or dark energy but we hypothesize it is out there, out here. Until we find a way to detect it with our senses (via some gadget) it is still hypothetical.

The difference is that dark matter hypotheses are based on observable phenomena. Reincarnated souls are not. There is nothing in a our natural world that fails to make sense absent a soul hypothesis.

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Quote:

---

Oh yes, Christianity does. And don't forget when we gave you a chance to take your atheistic morality for a spin, you directly avoided the specific questions that put your morality idea to the test. Who is to say your system wouldn't cause greater harm in the long run and is thus inferior?

---

Quote:

---

I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. The others depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.

---

My point was that Christianity and God do take harm of others into account. Christianity raised the value of women in society and also brought protection to those who were oppressed. Its teachings encouraged the creation of charities and services for them whether it be almshouses, women's shelters, hospitals, schools, universities, orphanages, etc. And this was all done based on the morality set out by God in the bible. So you can't make the claim that God isn't taking the harm of others into account. In fact, God's prohibitions are designed to protect people and keep them from harm in much the same way a parent might put a curfew on their teenage son. That is technically a restriction of their freedom but it is done to keep them out of harm's way by keeping them out of some potentially bad situations.

Also, it is interesting that you are claiming it is a benefit that your worldview is morally flexible and can change with the time and culture. This implies that there are not absolute rights and wrongs. It would be interesting to hear you try to justify why rape is sometimes ok or the torturing of small children for fun could be ok. I think your worldview with such flexible morality will invariably lead to abuse and harm because there is nothing preventing it. Your worldview eventually creates an apathy in its people where nobody is able to criticize anyone else because morality becomes subjective. It will lead to chaos instead of order.

---

Humanistic morality is not absolute (yay) but it does have values that help in determining right from wrong. YOu choose two odd examples given that TS has already said that harm reduction is key. Humanism would have no problem saying that rape and child torture is wrong. FTR.

---

It seems to me you have faith of a sort that humanistic morality has values that help in determining right from wrong. I've always thought that agnosticism was the only intellectually honest position aside from religious faith or belief. Atheism requires belief in something that cannot be proven. Don't know how you self-identify, but blessings for your journey.

---

Do you have faith in math?

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Quote:

---

Oh yes, Christianity does. And don't forget when we gave you a chance to take your atheistic morality for a spin, you directly avoided the specific questions that put your morality idea to the test. Who is to say your system wouldn't cause greater harm in the long run and is thus inferior?

---

Quote:

---

I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. The others depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.

---

My point was that Christianity and God do take harm of others into account. Christianity raised the value of women in society and also brought protection to those who were oppressed. Its teachings encouraged the creation of charities and services for them whether it be almshouses, women's shelters, hospitals, schools, universities, orphanages, etc. And this was all done based on the morality set out by God in the bible. So you can't make the claim that God isn't taking the harm of others into account. In fact, God's prohibitions are designed to protect people and keep them from harm in much the same way a parent might put a curfew on their teenage son. That is technically a restriction of their freedom but it is done to keep them out of harm's way by keeping them out of some potentially bad situations.

Also, it is interesting that you are claiming it is a benefit that your worldview is morally flexible and can change with the time and culture. This implies that there are not absolute rights and wrongs. It would be interesting to hear you try to justify why rape is sometimes ok or the torturing of small children for fun could be ok. I think your worldview with such flexible morality will invariably lead to abuse and harm because there is nothing preventing it. Your worldview eventually creates an apathy in its people where nobody is able to criticize anyone else because morality becomes subjective. It will lead to chaos instead of order.

---

Humanistic morality is not absolute (yay) but it does have values that help in determining right from wrong. YOu choose two odd examples given that TS has already said that harm reduction is key. Humanism would have no problem saying that rape and child torture is wrong. FTR.

---

It seems to me you have faith of a sort that humanistic morality has values that help in determining right from wrong. I've always thought that agnosticism was the only intellectually honest position aside from religious faith or belief. Atheism requires belief in something that cannot be proven. Don't know how you self-identify, but blessings for your journey.

---

Do you have faith in math?

---

Algebra kicked my butt in 8th grade... so, not my math.

quash: "Anything that does not exist in a form we cannot perceive with our senses is inherently supernatural. "

Aside from your garbled grammar, that statement is false. The whole subject of Quantum Mechanics, for example, would be "supernatural" by your definition.

It would be more honest and simple for you to simply say that you refuse to seriously consider religion in any sense but as a form of superstition. You would be rejecting a great deal of wisdom and history, but at least you would be more authentic in your position.

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Quote:

---

Oh yes, Christianity does. And don't forget when we gave you a chance to take your atheistic morality for a spin, you directly avoided the specific questions that put your morality idea to the test. Who is to say your system wouldn't cause greater harm in the long run and is thus inferior?

---

Quote:

---

I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. The others depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.

---

My point was that Christianity and God do take harm of others into account. Christianity raised the value of women in society and also brought protection to those who were oppressed. Its teachings encouraged the creation of charities and services for them whether it be almshouses, women's shelters, hospitals, schools, universities, orphanages, etc. And this was all done based on the morality set out by God in the bible. So you can't make the claim that God isn't taking the harm of others into account. In fact, God's prohibitions are designed to protect people and keep them from harm in much the same way a parent might put a curfew on their teenage son. That is technically a restriction of their freedom but it is done to keep them out of harm's way by keeping them out of some potentially bad situations.

Also, it is interesting that you are claiming it is a benefit that your worldview is morally flexible and can change with the time and culture. This implies that there are not absolute rights and wrongs. It would be interesting to hear you try to justify why rape is sometimes ok or the torturing of small children for fun could be ok. I think your worldview with such flexible morality will invariably lead to abuse and harm because there is nothing preventing it. Your worldview eventually creates an apathy in its people where nobody is able to criticize anyone else because morality becomes subjective. It will lead to chaos instead of order.

---

Humanistic morality is not absolute (yay) but it does have values that help in determining right from wrong. YOu choose two odd examples given that TS has already said that harm reduction is key. Humanism would have no problem saying that rape and child torture is wrong. FTR.

---

It seems to me you have faith of a sort that humanistic morality has values that help in determining right from wrong. I've always thought that agnosticism was the only intellectually honest position aside from religious faith or belief. Atheism requires belief in something that cannot be proven. Don't know how you self-identify, but blessings for your journey.

---

Do you have faith in math?

---

Algebra kicked my butt in 8th grade... so, not my math.

---

But you acknowledge that done correctly math solves problems. Ergo...

"Do you have faith in math?"

Interesting question, because math actually does require a kind of faith.

"2+2=4" for example, is taught to children early in life, so much so that we often take it as always true, but what we are really learning in that matter is to accept symbols and apply a specific operational rule to them. It's useful for common parlance, but as we progress in math the rules and conditions sometimes begin to change and shape our minds. A lot of people have trouble with Algebra, for example, because we move from discrete values to applying formulas to all values of a certain type. When we move on to Calculus, we abandon specific values altogether in favor of ranges of answers, and so on.

It really does take a kind of faith, after all, to speak of imaginary numbers and irrational numbers in practical and rational discussions.

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Do you have faith in math?"

Interesting question, because math actually does require a kind of faith.

"2+2=4" for example, is taught to children early in life, so much so that we often take it as always true, but what we are really learning in that matter is to accept symbols and apply a specific operational rule to them. It's useful for common parlance, but as we progress in math the rules and conditions sometimes begin to change and shape our minds. A lot of people have trouble with Algebra, for example, because we move from discrete values to applying formulas to all values of a certain type. When we move on to Calculus, we abandon specific values altogether in favor of ranges of answers, and so on.

It really does take a kind of faith, after all, to speak of imaginary numbers and irrational numbers in practical and rational discussions.

---

Did someone say "disingenuous"?

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Do you have faith in math?"

Interesting question, because math actually does require a kind of faith.

"2+2=4" for example, is taught to children early in life, so much so that we often take it as always true, but what we are really learning in that matter is to accept symbols and apply a specific operational rule to them. It's useful for common parlance, but as we progress in math the rules and conditions sometimes begin to change and shape our minds. A lot of people have trouble with Algebra, for example, because we move from discrete values to applying formulas to all values of a certain type. When we move on to Calculus, we abandon specific values altogether in favor of ranges of answers, and so on.

It really does take a kind of faith, after all, to speak of imaginary numbers and irrational numbers in practical and rational discussions.

---

Did someone say "disingenuous"?

---

Yes, and that does still describe you, quash.

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Quote:

---

Oh yes, Christianity does. And don't forget when we gave you a chance to take your atheistic morality for a spin, you directly avoided the specific questions that put your morality idea to the test. Who is to say your system wouldn't cause greater harm in the long run and is thus inferior?

---

Quote:

---

I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. The others depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.

---

My point was that Christianity and God do take harm of others into account. Christianity raised the value of women in society and also brought protection to those who were oppressed. Its teachings encouraged the creation of charities and services for them whether it be almshouses, women's shelters, hospitals, schools, universities, orphanages, etc. And this was all done based on the morality set out by God in the bible. So you can't make the claim that God isn't taking the harm of others into account. In fact, God's prohibitions are designed to protect people and keep them from harm in much the same way a parent might put a curfew on their teenage son. That is technically a restriction of their freedom but it is done to keep them out of harm's way by keeping them out of some potentially bad situations.

Also, it is interesting that you are claiming it is a benefit that your worldview is morally flexible and can change with the time and culture. This implies that there are not absolute rights and wrongs. It would be interesting to hear you try to justify why rape is sometimes ok or the torturing of small children for fun could be ok. I think your worldview with such flexible morality will invariably lead to abuse and harm because there is nothing preventing it. Your worldview eventually creates an apathy in its people where nobody is able to criticize anyone else because morality becomes subjective. It will lead to chaos instead of order.

---

Humanistic morality is not absolute (yay) but it does have values that help in determining right from wrong. YOu choose two odd examples given that TS has already said that harm reduction is key. Humanism would have no problem saying that rape and child torture is wrong. FTR.

---

It seems to me you have faith of a sort that humanistic morality has values that help in determining right from wrong. I've always thought that agnosticism was the only intellectually honest position aside from religious faith or belief. Atheism requires belief in something that cannot be proven. Don't know how you self-identify, but blessings for your journey.

---

Do you have faith in math?

---

Algebra kicked my butt in 8th grade... so, not my math.

---

But you acknowledge that done correctly math solves problems. Ergo...

---

Not sure exactly what you mean by "solves problems", but agree that math has many useful applications that help quantify things. OTOH, I've struggled for decades with trying to wrap my mind around the type of topics contemplated by physicists. I find John Polkinghorne's work both edifying and challenging, for instance:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/261305.Faith_of_a_Physicist?from_search=true&qid=eq7glqUu1e&rank=13

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Quote:

---

Oh yes, Christianity does. And don't forget when we gave you a chance to take your atheistic morality for a spin, you directly avoided the specific questions that put your morality idea to the test. Who is to say your system wouldn't cause greater harm in the long run and is thus inferior?

---

Quote:

---

I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. The others depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.

---

My point was that Christianity and God do take harm of others into account. Christianity raised the value of women in society and also brought protection to those who were oppressed. Its teachings encouraged the creation of charities and services for them whether it be almshouses, women's shelters, hospitals, schools, universities, orphanages, etc. And this was all done based on the morality set out by God in the bible. So you can't make the claim that God isn't taking the harm of others into account. In fact, God's prohibitions are designed to protect people and keep them from harm in much the same way a parent might put a curfew on their teenage son. That is technically a restriction of their freedom but it is done to keep them out of harm's way by keeping them out of some potentially bad situations.

Also, it is interesting that you are claiming it is a benefit that your worldview is morally flexible and can change with the time and culture. This implies that there are not absolute rights and wrongs. It would be interesting to hear you try to justify why rape is sometimes ok or the torturing of small children for fun could be ok. I think your worldview with such flexible morality will invariably lead to abuse and harm because there is nothing preventing it. Your worldview eventually creates an apathy in its people where nobody is able to criticize anyone else because morality becomes subjective. It will lead to chaos instead of order.

---

Christianity may have raised the value of women in the NT above the value of women in the OT, but that's not saying a whole lot. The NT may imply that you shouldn't stone women, but it still leaves them subservient to men, they cannot teach men, etc. Which of God' prohibitions are you referring to? The ones in the OT or the NT? There are some pretty bad things advocated in the OT. Do you simply cherry pick the one's you like?

Everyone's morals are subjective, flexible and can change with time and culture. Christianity is no different. What is acceptable has changed with time. The practice of stoning is a good example. U. S. Christians embracing of Donald Trump is another. Evidence based morality, taking into consideration harm and the well being of others, leaves you in the position to improve with better knowledge. There would be a lot less chaos in the Middle East if they embraced evidence based humanistic beliefs.

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Oh yes, Christianity does. And don't forget when we gave you a chance to take your atheistic morality for a spin, you directly avoided the specific questions that put your morality idea to the test. Who is to say your system wouldn't cause greater harm in the long run and is thus inferior?

---

I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. Tho other depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.

---

Seems to me your use of "evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark" is fundamentally no different in kind than using a system dependent "upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings". Both positions could be said to be arbitrary and circular.

---

That's not how evidence based decision making works. And it never shrugs off bad outcomes with "mysterious ways". It seeks to illuminate mysteries with facts.

---

Not my point. Sorry if that isn't clear. What makes "harm to others" a preferred criterion over other possibilities?

---

The need to provide viable cooperation and order to facilitate interaction in large groups of people. It's an evolutionary survival trait.

---

You cannot demonstrate/prove that facilitating evolutionary survival is "good" apart from some sort of derived value system. If everything that exists (as I think you believe) is the product of time and chance, then there is no basis for such concepts as right or wrong. Again, you arbitrarily assume survival as a good. Thereby assigning it a value which is no different in method from your view of the behavior of religious clerics.

You often refer to a "moral benchmark". Based on what? You might say, "harm to others". Again, based on what? Your opinion?

---

Religion arbitrarily determines "right" and "wrong" based upon a clerics declaration. The difference is that the moral benchmark to make this determination is based upon empirical evidence of harm and well being of others - not base upon my opinion, as in the case of religious clergy, but based upon empirical evidence.

TexasScientist said:

---

Christianity may have raised the value of women in the NT above the value of women in the OT, but that's not saying a whole lot.

---

It meant a lot to those women. You are showing recency bias. This is like belittling the invention of the wheel because we now have the car. The wheel and Christianity's elevation of women's status are very important.

TexasScientist said:

---

The NT may imply that you shouldn't stone women, but it still leaves them subservient to men, they cannot teach men, etc. Which of God' prohibitions are you referring to? The ones in the OT or the NT? There are some pretty bad things advocated in the OT. Do you simply cherry pick the one's you like?

---

God's morality does not change but that doesn't mean he had the same rules for all people. The OT laws were given specifically to the Israelites as they lived under a Jewish Theocracy. Gentiles were under no obligation to follow these laws except those that were reaffirmed by Jesus. This is why we don't have animal sacrifices and worship on Saturday or worry about eating shellfish.

It is also interesting to see you talk in the next paragraph about how things change with each culture yet don't consider this possibility when looking at laws in the OT. For example, the Israelites didn't have prison system like we have today. In such a setting, a stoning as a form of punishment makes sense. Who is to say our system of lethal injection or confinement in a jail cell for life with limited privileges is better especially given your subjective moral standards?

TexasScientist said:

---

Everyone's morals are subjective, flexible and can change with time and culture. Christianity is no different. What is acceptable has changed with time. The practice of stoning is a good example. U. S. Christians embracing of Donald Trump is another. Evidence based morality, taking into consideration harm and the well being of others, leaves you in the position to improve with better knowledge. There would be a lot less chaos in the Middle East if they embraced evidence based humanistic beliefs.

---

The punishment may change but the morality does not. Adultery is still wrong regardless of the punishment given out. Now, you may subjectively say that you think adultery is ok but if there is a God who has laid out his absolute morality which includes a prohibition against adultery, your personal tolerance or acceptance of adultery doesn't matter. Absolute/objective morality trumps your subjective standards.

And the fact that we can agree that chattel slavery is wrong, rape is wrong or torturing small children for fun is wrong strongly suggests that objective morality exists. And if objective morality exists; then, it follows that there had to be an ultimate lawgiver or God.

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Oh yes, Christianity does. And don't forget when we gave you a chance to take your atheistic morality for a spin, you directly avoided the specific questions that put your morality idea to the test. Who is to say your system wouldn't cause greater harm in the long run and is thus inferior?

---

I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. Tho other depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.

---

Seems to me your use of "evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark" is fundamentally no different in kind than using a system dependent "upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings". Both positions could be said to be arbitrary and circular.

---

That's not how evidence based decision making works. And it never shrugs off bad outcomes with "mysterious ways". It seeks to illuminate mysteries with facts.

---

Not my point. Sorry if that isn't clear. What makes "harm to others" a preferred criterion over other possibilities?

---

The need to provide viable cooperation and order to facilitate interaction in large groups of people. It's an evolutionary survival trait.

---

You cannot demonstrate/prove that facilitating evolutionary survival is "good" apart from some sort of derived value system. If everything that exists (as I think you believe) is the product of time and chance, then there is no basis for such concepts as right or wrong. Again, you arbitrarily assume survival as a good. Thereby assigning it a value which is no different in method from your view of the behavior of religious clerics.

You often refer to a "moral benchmark". Based on what? You might say, "harm to others". Again, based on what? Your opinion?

---

Religion arbitrarily determines "right" and "wrong" based upon a clerics declaration. The difference is that the moral benchmark to make this determination is based upon empirical evidence of harm and well being of others - not base upon my opinion, as in the case of religious clergy, but based upon empirical evidence.

---

And yet you claim your "empirical evidence" based system changes, yes?

"Everyone's morals are subjective, flexible and can change with time and culture."

Hmmm....

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. Tho other depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.

---

Seems to me your use of "evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark" is fundamentally no different in kind than using a system dependent "upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings". Both positions could be said to be arbitrary and circular.

---

That's not how evidence based decision making works. And it never shrugs off bad outcomes with "mysterious ways". It seeks to illuminate mysteries with facts.

---

Not my point. Sorry if that isn't clear. What makes "harm to others" a preferred criterion over other possibilities?

---

The need to provide viable cooperation and order to facilitate interaction in large groups of people. It's an evolutionary survival trait.

---

You cannot demonstrate/prove that facilitating evolutionary survival is "good" apart from some sort of derived value system. If everything that exists (as I think you believe) is the product of time and chance, then there is no basis for such concepts as right or wrong. Again, you arbitrarily assume survival as a good. Thereby assigning it a value which is no different in method from your view of the behavior of religious clerics.

You often refer to a "moral benchmark". Based on what? You might say, "harm to others". Again, based on what? Your opinion?

---

Religion arbitrarily determines "right" and "wrong" based upon a clerics declaration. The difference is that the moral benchmark to make this determination is based upon empirical evidence of harm and well being of others - not base upon my opinion, as in the case of religious clergy, but based upon empirical evidence.

---

And yet you claim your "empirical evidence" based system changes, yes?

"Everyone's morals are subjective, flexible and can change with time and culture."

Hmmm....

---

What do you value more: inflexibility or improvement?

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. Tho other depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.

---

Seems to me your use of "evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark" is fundamentally no different in kind than using a system dependent "upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings". Both positions could be said to be arbitrary and circular.

---

That's not how evidence based decision making works. And it never shrugs off bad outcomes with "mysterious ways". It seeks to illuminate mysteries with facts.

---

Not my point. Sorry if that isn't clear. What makes "harm to others" a preferred criterion over other possibilities?

---

The need to provide viable cooperation and order to facilitate interaction in large groups of people. It's an evolutionary survival trait.

---

You cannot demonstrate/prove that facilitating evolutionary survival is "good" apart from some sort of derived value system. If everything that exists (as I think you believe) is the product of time and chance, then there is no basis for such concepts as right or wrong. Again, you arbitrarily assume survival as a good. Thereby assigning it a value which is no different in method from your view of the behavior of religious clerics.

You often refer to a "moral benchmark". Based on what? You might say, "harm to others". Again, based on what? Your opinion?

---

Religion arbitrarily determines "right" and "wrong" based upon a clerics declaration. The difference is that the moral benchmark to make this determination is based upon empirical evidence of harm and well being of others - not base upon my opinion, as in the case of religious clergy, but based upon empirical evidence.

---

And yet you claim your "empirical evidence" based system changes, yes?

"Everyone's morals are subjective, flexible and can change with time and culture."

Hmmm....

---

What do you value more: inflexibility or improvement?

---

Depends.

BaylorFTW said:

---

quash said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Quote:

---

Oh yes, Christianity does. And don't forget when we gave you a chance to take your atheistic morality for a spin, you directly avoided the specific questions that put your morality idea to the test. Who is to say your system wouldn't cause greater harm in the long run and is thus inferior?

---

Quote:

---

I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. The others depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.

---

My point was that Christianity and God do take harm of others into account. Christianity raised the value of women in society and also brought protection to those who were oppressed. Its teachings encouraged the creation of charities and services for them whether it be almshouses, women's shelters, hospitals, schools, universities, orphanages, etc. And this was all done based on the morality set out by God in the bible. So you can't make the claim that God isn't taking the harm of others into account. In fact, God's prohibitions are designed to protect people and keep them from harm in much the same way a parent might put a curfew on their teenage son. That is technically a restriction of their freedom but it is done to keep them out of harm's way by keeping them out of some potentially bad situations.

Also, it is interesting that you are claiming it is a benefit that your worldview is morally flexible and can change with the time and culture. This implies that there are not absolute rights and wrongs. It would be interesting to hear you try to justify why rape is sometimes ok or the torturing of small children for fun could be ok. I think your worldview with such flexible morality will invariably lead to abuse and harm because there is nothing preventing it. Your worldview eventually creates an apathy in its people where nobody is able to criticize anyone else because morality becomes subjective. It will lead to chaos instead of order.

---

Humanistic morality is not absolute (yay) but it does have values that help in determining right from wrong. YOu choose two odd examples given that TS has already said that harm reduction is key. Humanism would have no problem saying that rape and child torture is wrong. FTR.

---

You say that but I could spin some narrative about how the rapist had to rape because he had a sexual emergency and it would have been harmful to him to not allow it. And who knows, maybe it would be ok to torture some children because they were misbehaving and needed to be made an example of for the rest of the children so they wouldn't do more harm to society. From your worldview, you would have trouble saying I was wrong because my examples also would arguably reduce harm.

And remember, I also gave a couple of earlier examples where he choose not to address head on.

1. What happens when you have competing values and agencies of human beings? Who wins out and why? For example, let's say a mother decides she needs money and wants to kill her toddler to sell her parts and organs so the mother can enjoy more of her value and agency. Does her value and agency trump the toddler's?

2. If a religious person and a humanist have a dispute, does the humanist always win out because they are supposedly not dogmatic or superstitious? What about the value and agency of the religious person?

The issue will still be that you will have to pick winners on what harm trumps the other. And you will run into the issue of short term versus long term harm. You could well be making choices that bring greater long term harm. Since he was making the claim his secular morality is better, he would need to show how these obstacles would be avoided. But you are welcome to take up the cause and show us how these issues would be resolved. I am genuinely curious because I see these aspects as very challenging to your position.

---

You're confusing utilitarianism with a humanistic science of morality system of morals. A scientific system of morals would make moral determinations upon empirical evidence of well being.The scenario you have put forward is more analogous to Yahweh's order to kill the men, women, children and animals for the benefit of the Jews. This would clearly be immoral in a humanistic scientific system of morality.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash: "Anything that does not exist in a form we cannot perceive with our senses is inherently supernatural. "

Aside from your garbled grammar, that statement is false. The whole subject of Quantum Mechanics, for example, would be "supernatural" by your definition.

It would be more honest and simple for you to simply say that you refuse to seriously consider religion in any sense but as a form of superstition. You would be rejecting a great deal of wisdom and history, but at least you would be more authentic in your position.

---

Quantum Mechanics is a theory of how the natural world works at the sub atomic level. There is nothing supernatural about it. Your idea that you or your soul existed before you were born, and will after you die has no empirical evidentiary basis. However, there is very good evidence that there is no soul. The things that you attribute to the identity of a soul are actually functions of the brain. One's identity is confined to the totality of a fully functioning brain. Individuals who have varying degrees of brain damage, or injury have varying degrees of identity loss, depending upon the extent of damage. An Alzheimer's patient at some point completely loses their identity. If your identity or being is actually your soul, you wouldn't lose your identity with Alzheimer's. The attributes you assign to a soul die with the brain. You have no memories before conception, because there was no developed brain. All of the attributes one has of self identity cease with the death of the brain.

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Christianity may have raised the value of women in the NT above the value of women in the OT, but that's not saying a whole lot.

---

It meant a lot to those women. You are showing recency bias. This is like belittling the invention of the wheel because we now have the car. The wheel and Christianity's elevation of women's status are very important.

TexasScientist said:

---

The NT may imply that you shouldn't stone women, but it still leaves them subservient to men, they cannot teach men, etc. Which of God' prohibitions are you referring to? The ones in the OT or the NT? There are some pretty bad things advocated in the OT. Do you simply cherry pick the one's you like?

---

God's morality does not change but that doesn't mean he had the same rules for all people. The OT laws were given specifically to the Israelites as they lived under a Jewish Theocracy. Gentiles were under no obligation to follow these laws except those that were reaffirmed by Jesus. This is why we don't have animal sacrifices and worship on Saturday or worry about eating shellfish.

Didn't Jesus begin his ministry and end his ministry preaching to the Israelites? The same ones to whom supposedly was given the laws of the OT? You don't have those sacrifices today in the Judeo-Christian traditions, except for some, because their moral views have changed concomitant with time and convenience.

It is also interesting to see you talk in the next paragraph about how things change with each culture yet don't consider this possibility when looking at laws in the OT. For example, the Israelites didn't have prison system like we have today. In such a setting, a stoning as a form of punishment makes sense. Who is to say our system of lethal injection or confinement in a jail cell for life with limited privileges is better especially given your subjective moral standards?

So what you're advocating is moral relativism. It's ok to stone one's child for disrespect, or a woman caught in adultery under God's law to the Jews, or it is implied by God that you shouldn't stone a woman unless you are without sin. It is right in one scenario, but may be wrong in another. In my view, it is immoral in either case. A consistently moral god would have never condoned stoning in the first place. What you are essentially advocating is for morals given and enforced by a theocracy.

TexasScientist said:

---

Everyone's morals are subjective, flexible and can change with time and culture. Christianity is no different. What is acceptable has changed with time. The practice of stoning is a good example. U. S. Christians embracing of Donald Trump is another. Evidence based morality, taking into consideration harm and the well being of others, leaves you in the position to improve with better knowledge. There would be a lot less chaos in the Middle East if they embraced evidence based humanistic beliefs.

---

The punishment may change but the morality does not. Adultery is still wrong regardless of the punishment given out. Now, you may subjectively say that you think adultery is ok but if there is a God who has laid out his absolute morality which includes a prohibition against adultery, your personal tolerance or acceptance of adultery doesn't matter. Absolute/objective morality trumps your subjective standards.

How is it moral to stone someone as punishment on the one hand, and immoral to stone them on the other? It is either immoral or not. Yahweh is morally inconsistent.

And the fact that we can agree that chattel slavery is wrong, rape is wrong or torturing small children for fun is wrong strongly suggests that objective morality exists. And if objective morality exists; then, it follows that there had to be an ultimate lawgiver or God.

Rather, you have determined slavery, and rape and torturing small children is wrong and have projected those morals onto Yahweh. When, in fact, the OT and NT both condone slavery. There is no biblical condemnation of slavery. In the OT Yahweh not only condones rape and torturing small children, but actually orders it. This is supposedly the same god. Today most Jews and Christians would consider these practices immoral. Did religion, god, or both change? Supposedly, the same god is the god of Islam, but I don't need to go there to make the point.

In no way does it follow that if objective morality exists, then there must be an ultimate lawgiver or god. They do not have to be related at all.

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. Tho other depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.

---

Seems to me your use of "evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark" is fundamentally no different in kind than using a system dependent "upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings". Both positions could be said to be arbitrary and circular.

---

That's not how evidence based decision making works. And it never shrugs off bad outcomes with "mysterious ways". It seeks to illuminate mysteries with facts.

---

Not my point. Sorry if that isn't clear. What makes "harm to others" a preferred criterion over other possibilities?

---

The need to provide viable cooperation and order to facilitate interaction in large groups of people. It's an evolutionary survival trait.

---

You cannot demonstrate/prove that facilitating evolutionary survival is "good" apart from some sort of derived value system. If everything that exists (as I think you believe) is the product of time and chance, then there is no basis for such concepts as right or wrong. Again, you arbitrarily assume survival as a good. Thereby assigning it a value which is no different in method from your view of the behavior of religious clerics.

You often refer to a "moral benchmark". Based on what? You might say, "harm to others". Again, based on what? Your opinion?

---

Religion arbitrarily determines "right" and "wrong" based upon a clerics declaration. The difference is that the moral benchmark to make this determination is based upon empirical evidence of harm and well being of others - not base upon my opinion, as in the case of religious clergy, but based upon empirical evidence.

---

And yet you claim your "empirical evidence" based system changes, yes?

"Everyone's morals are subjective, flexible and can change with time and culture."

Hmmm....

---

What do you value more: inflexibility or improvement?

---

Quash is very binary.

"Quantum Mechanics is a theory of how the natural world works at the sub atomic level. There is nothing supernatural about it. "

Agreed, but your statement said anything beyond our sensory perception was supernatural.

Your words, now you are arguing with your own words.

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. Tho other depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.

---

Seems to me your use of "evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark" is fundamentally no different in kind than using a system dependent "upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings". Both positions could be said to be arbitrary and circular.

---

That's not how evidence based decision making works. And it never shrugs off bad outcomes with "mysterious ways". It seeks to illuminate mysteries with facts.

---

Not my point. Sorry if that isn't clear. What makes "harm to others" a preferred criterion over other possibilities?

---

The need to provide viable cooperation and order to facilitate interaction in large groups of people. It's an evolutionary survival trait.

---

You cannot demonstrate/prove that facilitating evolutionary survival is "good" apart from some sort of derived value system. If everything that exists (as I think you believe) is the product of time and chance, then there is no basis for such concepts as right or wrong. Again, you arbitrarily assume survival as a good. Thereby assigning it a value which is no different in method from your view of the behavior of religious clerics.

You often refer to a "moral benchmark". Based on what? You might say, "harm to others". Again, based on what? Your opinion?

---

Religion arbitrarily determines "right" and "wrong" based upon a clerics declaration. The difference is that the moral benchmark to make this determination is based upon empirical evidence of harm and well being of others - not base upon my opinion, as in the case of religious clergy, but based upon empirical evidence.

---

And yet you claim your "empirical evidence" based system changes, yes?

"Everyone's morals are subjective, flexible and can change with time and culture."

Hmmm....

---

What do you value more: inflexibility or improvement?

---

How do you measure improvement if the standard is flexible?

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

quash said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Quote:

---

Oh yes, Christianity does. And don't forget when we gave you a chance to take your atheistic morality for a spin, you directly avoided the specific questions that put your morality idea to the test. Who is to say your system wouldn't cause greater harm in the long run and is thus inferior?

---

Quote:

---

I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. The others depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.

---

My point was that Christianity and God do take harm of others into account. Christianity raised the value of women in society and also brought protection to those who were oppressed. Its teachings encouraged the creation of charities and services for them whether it be almshouses, women's shelters, hospitals, schools, universities, orphanages, etc. And this was all done based on the morality set out by God in the bible. So you can't make the claim that God isn't taking the harm of others into account. In fact, God's prohibitions are designed to protect people and keep them from harm in much the same way a parent might put a curfew on their teenage son. That is technically a restriction of their freedom but it is done to keep them out of harm's way by keeping them out of some potentially bad situations.

Also, it is interesting that you are claiming it is a benefit that your worldview is morally flexible and can change with the time and culture. This implies that there are not absolute rights and wrongs. It would be interesting to hear you try to justify why rape is sometimes ok or the torturing of small children for fun could be ok. I think your worldview with such flexible morality will invariably lead to abuse and harm because there is nothing preventing it. Your worldview eventually creates an apathy in its people where nobody is able to criticize anyone else because morality becomes subjective. It will lead to chaos instead of order.

---

Humanistic morality is not absolute (yay) but it does have values that help in determining right from wrong. YOu choose two odd examples given that TS has already said that harm reduction is key. Humanism would have no problem saying that rape and child torture is wrong. FTR.

---

You say that but I could spin some narrative about how the rapist had to rape because he had a sexual emergency and it would have been harmful to him to not allow it. And who knows, maybe it would be ok to torture some children because they were misbehaving and needed to be made an example of for the rest of the children so they wouldn't do more harm to society. From your worldview, you would have trouble saying I was wrong because my examples also would arguably reduce harm.

And remember, I also gave a couple of earlier examples where he choose not to address head on.

1. What happens when you have competing values and agencies of human beings? Who wins out and why? For example, let's say a mother decides she needs money and wants to kill her toddler to sell her parts and organs so the mother can enjoy more of her value and agency. Does her value and agency trump the toddler's?

2. If a religious person and a humanist have a dispute, does the humanist always win out because they are supposedly not dogmatic or superstitious? What about the value and agency of the religious person?

The issue will still be that you will have to pick winners on what harm trumps the other. And you will run into the issue of short term versus long term harm. You could well be making choices that bring greater long term harm. Since he was making the claim his secular morality is better, he would need to show how these obstacles would be avoided. But you are welcome to take up the cause and show us how these issues would be resolved. I am genuinely curious because I see these aspects as very challenging to your position.

---

You're confusing utilitarianism with a humanistic science of morality system of morals. A scientific system of morals would make moral determinations upon empirical evidence of well being.The scenario you have put forward is more analogous to Yahweh's order to kill the men, women, children and animals for the benefit of the Jews. This would clearly be immoral in a humanistic scientific system of morality.

---

Whose well-being? The well-being of "humanity?" How is that different from utilitarianism?

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Quantum Mechanics is a theory of how the natural world works at the sub atomic level. There is nothing supernatural about it. "

Agreed, but your statement said anything beyond our sensory perception was supernatural.

Your words, now you are arguing with your own words.

---

I don't believe I said anything beyond our sensory perception was supernatural. Show me the quote.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

quash said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Quote:

---

Oh yes, Christianity does. And don't forget when we gave you a chance to take your atheistic morality for a spin, you directly avoided the specific questions that put your morality idea to the test. Who is to say your system wouldn't cause greater harm in the long run and is thus inferior?

---

Quote:

---

I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. The others depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.

---

My point was that Christianity and God do take harm of others into account. Christianity raised the value of women in society and also brought protection to those who were oppressed. Its teachings encouraged the creation of charities and services for them whether it be almshouses, women's shelters, hospitals, schools, universities, orphanages, etc. And this was all done based on the morality set out by God in the bible. So you can't make the claim that God isn't taking the harm of others into account. In fact, God's prohibitions are designed to protect people and keep them from harm in much the same way a parent might put a curfew on their teenage son. That is technically a restriction of their freedom but it is done to keep them out of harm's way by keeping them out of some potentially bad situations.

Also, it is interesting that you are claiming it is a benefit that your worldview is morally flexible and can change with the time and culture. This implies that there are not absolute rights and wrongs. It would be interesting to hear you try to justify why rape is sometimes ok or the torturing of small children for fun could be ok. I think your worldview with such flexible morality will invariably lead to abuse and harm because there is nothing preventing it. Your worldview eventually creates an apathy in its people where nobody is able to criticize anyone else because morality becomes subjective. It will lead to chaos instead of order.

---

Humanistic morality is not absolute (yay) but it does have values that help in determining right from wrong. YOu choose two odd examples given that TS has already said that harm reduction is key. Humanism would have no problem saying that rape and child torture is wrong. FTR.

---

You say that but I could spin some narrative about how the rapist had to rape because he had a sexual emergency and it would have been harmful to him to not allow it. And who knows, maybe it would be ok to torture some children because they were misbehaving and needed to be made an example of for the rest of the children so they wouldn't do more harm to society. From your worldview, you would have trouble saying I was wrong because my examples also would arguably reduce harm.

And remember, I also gave a couple of earlier examples where he choose not to address head on.

1. What happens when you have competing values and agencies of human beings? Who wins out and why? For example, let's say a mother decides she needs money and wants to kill her toddler to sell her parts and organs so the mother can enjoy more of her value and agency. Does her value and agency trump the toddler's?

2. If a religious person and a humanist have a dispute, does the humanist always win out because they are supposedly not dogmatic or superstitious? What about the value and agency of the religious person?

The issue will still be that you will have to pick winners on what harm trumps the other. And you will run into the issue of short term versus long term harm. You could well be making choices that bring greater long term harm. Since he was making the claim his secular morality is better, he would need to show how these obstacles would be avoided. But you are welcome to take up the cause and show us how these issues would be resolved. I am genuinely curious because I see these aspects as very challenging to your position.

---

You're confusing utilitarianism with a humanistic science of morality system of morals. A scientific system of morals would make moral determinations upon empirical evidence of well being.The scenario you have put forward is more analogous to Yahweh's order to kill the men, women, children and animals for the benefit of the Jews. This would clearly be immoral in a humanistic scientific system of morality.

---

Whose well-being? The well-being of "humanity?" How is that different from utilitarianism?

---

Utilitarianism is a what's best for the majority concept. A humanistic science of morality approach considers empirical evidence for individuals and minorities also. This would give a much better outcome, than a theocratic cleric stating god said slaughter all the Canaanites for the benefit of the Jews. I would much rather society set moral standards of conduct based upon a humanistic science of morality, as opposed to setting those standards based upon a theocratic pronouncement and interpretation of what those morals should be.

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. Tho other depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.

---

Seems to me your use of "evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark" is fundamentally no different in kind than using a system dependent "upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings". Both positions could be said to be arbitrary and circular.

---

That's not how evidence based decision making works. And it never shrugs off bad outcomes with "mysterious ways". It seeks to illuminate mysteries with facts.

---

Not my point. Sorry if that isn't clear. What makes "harm to others" a preferred criterion over other possibilities?

---

The need to provide viable cooperation and order to facilitate interaction in large groups of people. It's an evolutionary survival trait.

---

You cannot demonstrate/prove that facilitating evolutionary survival is "good" apart from some sort of derived value system. If everything that exists (as I think you believe) is the product of time and chance, then there is no basis for such concepts as right or wrong. Again, you arbitrarily assume survival as a good. Thereby assigning it a value which is no different in method from your view of the behavior of religious clerics.

You often refer to a "moral benchmark". Based on what? You might say, "harm to others". Again, based on what? Your opinion?

---

Religion arbitrarily determines "right" and "wrong" based upon a clerics declaration. The difference is that the moral benchmark to make this determination is based upon empirical evidence of harm and well being of others - not base upon my opinion, as in the case of religious clergy, but based upon empirical evidence.

---

And yet you claim your "empirical evidence" based system changes, yes?

"Everyone's morals are subjective, flexible and can change with time and culture."

Hmmm....

---

What do you value more: inflexibility or improvement?

---

How do you measure improvement if the standard is flexible?

---

Gains in areas of value: freedom, justice, etc.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash: "Anything that does not exist in a form we cannot perceive with our senses is inherently supernatural. "

Aside from your garbled grammar, that statement is false. The whole subject of Quantum Mechanics, for example, would be "supernatural" by your definition.

It would be more honest and simple for you to simply say that you refuse to seriously consider religion in any sense but as a form of superstition. You would be rejecting a great deal of wisdom and history, but at least you would be more authentic in your position.

---

The grammar is fine.

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Christianity may have raised the value of women in the NT above the value of women in the OT, but that's not saying a whole lot.

---

It meant a lot to those women. You are showing recency bias. This is like belittling the invention of the wheel because we now have the car. The wheel and Christianity's elevation of women's status are very important.

TexasScientist said:

---

The NT may imply that you shouldn't stone women, but it still leaves them subservient to men, they cannot teach men, etc. Which of God' prohibitions are you referring to? The ones in the OT or the NT? There are some pretty bad things advocated in the OT. Do you simply cherry pick the one's you like?

---

God's morality does not change but that doesn't mean he had the same rules for all people. The OT laws were given specifically to the Israelites as they lived under a Jewish Theocracy. Gentiles were under no obligation to follow these laws except those that were reaffirmed by Jesus. This is why we don't have animal sacrifices and worship on Saturday or worry about eating shellfish.

Didn't Jesus begin his ministry and end his ministry preaching to the Israelites? The same ones to whom supposedly was given the laws of the OT? You don't have those sacrifices today in the Judeo-Christian traditions, except for some, because their moral views have changed concomitant with time and convenience.

It is also interesting to see you talk in the next paragraph about how things change with each culture yet don't consider this possibility when looking at laws in the OT. For example, the Israelites didn't have prison system like we have today. In such a setting, a stoning as a form of punishment makes sense. Who is to say our system of lethal injection or confinement in a jail cell for life with limited privileges is better especially given your subjective moral standards?

So what you're advocating is moral relativism. It's ok to stone one's child for disrespect, or a woman caught in adultery under God's law to the Jews, or it is implied by God that you shouldn't stone a woman unless you are without sin. It is right in one scenario, but may be wrong in another. In my view, it is immoral in either case. A consistently moral god would have never condoned stoning in the first place. What you are essentially advocating is for morals given and enforced by a theocracy.

TexasScientist said:

---

Everyone's morals are subjective, flexible and can change with time and culture. Christianity is no different. What is acceptable has changed with time. The practice of stoning is a good example. U. S. Christians embracing of Donald Trump is another. Evidence based morality, taking into consideration harm and the well being of others, leaves you in the position to improve with better knowledge. There would be a lot less chaos in the Middle East if they embraced evidence based humanistic beliefs.

---

The punishment may change but the morality does not. Adultery is still wrong regardless of the punishment given out. Now, you may subjectively say that you think adultery is ok but if there is a God who has laid out his absolute morality which includes a prohibition against adultery, your personal tolerance or acceptance of adultery doesn't matter. Absolute/objective morality trumps your subjective standards.

How is it moral to stone someone as punishment on the one hand, and immoral to stone them on the other? It is either immoral or not. Yahweh is morally inconsistent.

And the fact that we can agree that chattel slavery is wrong, rape is wrong or torturing small children for fun is wrong strongly suggests that objective morality exists. And if objective morality exists; then, it follows that there had to be an ultimate lawgiver or God.

Rather, you have determined slavery, and rape and torturing small children is wrong and have projected those morals onto Yahweh. When, in fact, the OT and NT both condone slavery. There is no biblical condemnation of slavery. In the OT Yahweh not only condones rape and torturing small children, but actually orders it. This is supposedly the same god. Today most Jews and Christians would consider these practices immoral. Did religion, god, or both change? Supposedly, the same god is the god of Islam, but I don't need to go there to make the point.

In no way does it follow that if objective morality exists, then there must be an ultimate lawgiver or god. They do not have to be related at all.

---

---

You show great faith that such a thing as "objective morality" exists. I don't think you can prove that it does. This is the root issue I have with much of the assertions you make here. In your unilateral claim, you are no different in kind from others who base their beliefs on anything else.

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.

Morals would decay and change rapidly.

Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.

---

Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.

---

Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.