Harm is to cause damage or injure physically or mentally. If someone runs over you in a car, the resulting damage can be measured and quantified by medical professionals. The damage/harm caused is not subjective. Doctors wouldn't subjectively say they feel like you may have been injured. They would know you were injured from objectively determined evidence.
Atheists Sounds Alarm on Decline of Christianity
54,074 Views |
723 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by Osodecentx
See my post above, already answered.TexasScientist said:
Harm is to cause damage or injure physically or mentally. If someone runs over you in a car, the resulting damage can be measured and quantified by medical professionals. The damage/harm caused is not subjective. Doctors wouldn't subjectively say they feel like you may have been injured. They would know you were injured from objectively determined evidence.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
A car is an object. Everything else...TexasScientist said:
Harm is to cause damage or injure physically or mentally. If someone runs over you in a car, the resulting damage can be measured and quantified by medical professionals. The damage/harm caused is not subjective. Doctors wouldn't subjectively say they feel like you may have been injured. They would know you were injured from objectively determined evidence.
TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Tex said:
Sorry - I've been off the board for the last couple of days with work.John 8:7 - Clearly Jesus is saying it is wrong to stone the woman. Otherwise, Christians would be stoning people to death today.Quote:
Where in the NT is stoning, or any capital punishment for that matter, declared not OK?
What standard of the Jewish law says that Yahweh ordering killing is immoral?
Thou shalt not kill is the standard, which is contradictory to Jewish folk lore regarding the Canaanites.This is where an objective rational humanistic science of morality approach would allow you to consider and evaluate the correct moral determination in terms of others well-being. On the other hand, religion doesn't give a clear answer in these circumstances. And, which religion would you rely upon?Quote:
Regarding your last point - should stoning always be considered immoral? What if a person is about to shoot into a crowd with an automatic weapon, and the people pick up rocks and throw it at him to stop him, ultimately incapacitating him or even killing him? In effect, they "stoned" him. Is what they did immoral?First of all, you presume there is a god with an eternal perspective without any objective evidence to support that belief. Second, which god's perspective would you even begin to consider, considering there are numerous supernatural versions of god claimed by the religious faithful?Quote:
And lastly, regarding the humanistic objective science perspective on morality: as I've pointed out above, this perspective is limited in understanding and time frame. In God's eternal perspective, he saw that bringing a perfect Savior was necessary, or all of mankind would suffer eternally. Your scientific, objective, and humanistic approach would be totally incapable of seeing that. Therefore, how do you ultimately judge "morality" if you don't know the whole picture, as God does?
It makes no sense for a god such as the Christian god, to create mankind and the world in its present state with the need for any savior. Only a sadistic immoral god would have purposefully created and allowed life to endure the pain and sufferings of life. My approach judges morality with an empirical objective approach considering harm and well being and other ethical considerations. Your approach is totally subjective, and subject to changing religious culture and beliefs as advocated by religious leaders.
You wrote:Clearly you don't know what "clearly" means. Jesus was not saying the law of Moses was wrong to order the stoning of the adulteress; he was pointing out that all the men accusing her were guilty of the very same sin, and by the same law, were required to be stoned as well; therefore they couldn't be the ones to stone her. He was exposing their hypocrisy. After each of them had left, Jesus was the only one there with the adulteress, being the only one without sin and therefore having the right to stone her. But he chose not to. What was his reason? Because the whole time they had the law of Moses, this part of the law was immoral and wrong? No, he did not say that. He chose not to because he was going to take the punishment of sin on himself, and was bringing a new covenant of God's forgiveness and mercy through himself.Quote:
John 8:7 - Clearly Jesus is saying it is wrong to stone the woman. Otherwise, Christians would be stoning people to death today.
Christians aren't stoning people today, because that law wasn't given to them, but to the Israelites. Plus, for all the reasons I've already told you. However, Christians ARE still conducting capital punishment today. Is that wrong?Quote:
Thou shalt not kill is the standard, which is contradictory to Jewish folk lore regarding the Canaanites.
The Hebrew word for "kill" in that law means "murder". It did NOT apply to the killing that happens in war, especially if God himself ordered it. It is not immoral for God to give life, and to end it as he chooses, especially since we don't know the ultimate reasons for doing so, as God does.Quote:
This is where an objective rational humanistic science of morality approach would allow you to consider and evaluate the correct moral determination in terms of others well-being. On the other hand, religion doesn't give a clear answer in these circumstances. And, which religion would you rely upon?
You avoided answering the question: you said some things should always be immoral. Should stoning be? I was using your own rational humanistic morality approach to show that you contradict yourself.Quote:
First of all, you presume there is a god with an eternal perspective without any objective evidence to support that belief. Second, which god's perspective would you even begin to consider, considering there are numerous supernatural versions of god claimed by the religious faithful?
This is an odd statement. You HAVE to presume a God, without objective evidence, in order to even be having a discussion on the morality of this God in the first place! You've been presuming his existence for the sake of criticizing his morals!Quote:
It makes no sense for a god such as the Christian god, to create mankind and the world in its present state with the need for any savior. Only a sadistic immoral god would have purposefully created and allowed life to endure the pain and sufferings of life.
It makes no sense that a human being created by God, with limited understanding, knowledge, and intelligence, can adequately judge the morality of an infinite, all-knowing being. If you could not see and understand the need for stoning in order to bring a Savior, isn't it possible that you can't see the ultimate reasons God allows pain and suffering in this life, and that those reasons may in fact be eternally good?Quote:
My approach judges morality with an empirical objective approach considering harm and well being and other ethical considerations. Your approach is totally subjective, and subject to changing religious culture and beliefs as advocated by religious leaders
Your approach to defining morality, as others have already explained so well, is based on the subjective and arbitrary determinations of "harm", "well-being", and "other ethical considerations" to begin with. Your empirical, objective approach... is only empirical and objective (as far as you know!) in confirming whether or not something meets that arbitrary objective. Nothing more.John 8:7 "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." There is no reference to it being the same sin. This concept would apply to any sin worthy of stoning under Yahweh's law. Either it was always wrong, or Yahweh changed his mind in this case, which means Yahweh is morally inconsistent. The verse doesn't say why he did not stone her himself, so you don't really know why. Besides, he wasn't crucified yet, so there was no atonement as a basis for forgiveness. morally inconsistent. Mathew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Christians and Jews don't stone today, because they believe it immoral. Somewhere morals changed.Quote:Clearly you don't know what "clearly" means. Jesus was not saying the law of Moses was wrong to order the stoning of the adulteress; he was pointing out that all the men accusing her were guilty of the very same sin, and by the same law, were required to be stoned as well; therefore they couldn't be the ones to stone her. He was exposing their hypocrisy. After each of them had left, Jesus was the only one there with the adulteress, being the only one without sin and therefore having the right to stone her. But he chose not to. What was his reason? Because the whole time they had the law of Moses, this part of the law was immoral and wrong? No, he did not say that. He chose not to because he was going to take the punishment of sin on himself, and was bringing a new covenant of God's forgiveness and mercy through himself.Quote:
John 8:7 - Clearly Jesus is saying it is wrong to stone the woman. Otherwise, Christians would be stoning people to death today.
Christians aren't stoning people today, because that law wasn't given to them, but to the Israelites. Plus, for all the reasons I've already told you. However, Christians ARE still conducting capital punishment today. Is that wrong?Killing innocent women and children is effectively murder. It makes no difference to them if it is "murder" or "killing." An OT/NT god that orders killing is morally inconsistent with other parts of the OT/NT. Especially, since being all powerful, he would have the power to resolve the issue without killing women, children or anyone. I would submit that it is immoral for a god to give life, subject it to sufferings of the world, and take take all on a whim to satisfy his own vanity.Quote:Quote:
Thou shalt not kill is the standard, which is contradictory to Jewish folk lore regarding the Canaanites.
The Hebrew word for "kill" in that law means "murder". It did NOT apply to the killing that happens in war, especially if God himself ordered it. It is not immoral for God to give life, and to end it as he chooses, especially since we don't know the ultimate reasons for doing so, as God does.You made presumptive statements about the existence characteristics of a god. I just pointed out there is no objective evidence to support that belief. I don't have to presume his existence to point out the flaws in someone else's beliefs about the existence of a deity.Quote:
This is an odd statement. You HAVE to presume a God, without objective evidence, in order to even be having a discussion on the morality of this God in the first place! You've been presuming his existence for the sake of criticizing his morals!It's far more likely that no such god exists, except in the minds and written scrolls of primitive men. Your statement at one time may have made sense to some primitive, superstitious people, of limited understanding. Today we have enough knowledge of the universe to understand such religious reasoning is flawed and internally inconsistent with its own beliefs and teachings. You should be able to see that the OT/NT god could have created the same conditions of the hereafter, with all his people in the same condition a presently believed, dispensing the need for all of the suffering, "sinning', and eternal punishments. Why would any god do that, unless that god is mean-spirited, and psychopathic. And what about all the other gods and religions out there. No one religion has as superior claim over others. They're all equally flawed, and largely believed through accident of birth locality.Quote:
It makes no sense that a human being created by God, with limited understanding, knowledge, and intelligence, can adequately judge the morality of an infinite, all-knowing being. If you could not see and understand the need for stoning in order to bring a Savior, isn't it possible that you can't see the ultimate reasons God allows pain and suffering in this life, and that those reasons may in fact be eternally good?Moral determinations based upon objective empirical evidence in terms of harm and well-being of others are objectively made determinations by definition. Objectively based morality. Moral determinations without objective empirical evidence are subjective by definition. Foregoing data driven evidence in favor of religious beliefs, faith in the supernatural, without objective empirical evidence, is subjective by definition. Subjectively based morality. Nothing more.Quote:
Your approach to defining morality, as others have already explained so well, is based on the subjective and arbitrary determinations of "harm", "well-being", and "other ethical considerations" to begin with. Your empirical, objective approach... is only empirical and objective (as far as you know!) in confirming whether or not something meets that arbitrary objective. Nothing more.
1. You still haven't shown that Jesus believed that stoning according to the law of Moses was wrong. Yet you base your charge that God's morals changed on this. You are still failing in the argument.
2. As terrible as killing innocent women and children is, if it is mandated by God, it is not murder, according to their law given to them. God can give life and end life as He so chooses. The Canaanites were very evil in the eyes of God, and He did not want the Israelites to be tainted by them, for the reasons of bringing a Savior to the world. You, in your finite mind of limited understanding, judge God's way of dealing with this as "evil" and "immoral" but you don't know what He knows, so you cannot rule out that His chosen way in the fullness of time will end up being "good". As for killing those women and children, have you considered it an act of mercy by God? Perhaps by not letting those children grow up in that evil culture, they wouldn't be tainted, and so they would get to be in heaven with God for eternity, instead of being lost forever in hell.
3. If you are making an argument against the morality of the God of Israel, the God of the bible, then the characteristics of this God (omniscience) has to be assumed as well. It is illogical for you to assume the God of the Bible's existence without objective proof in order to blast his morals, then criticize someone's claim of one of God's characteristics, saying it needs objective proof.
4. You continue to recite your mantra of "it's far more likely that" or "it's clear that" <insert anti-christian claim here>, yet you continue to have no argument, other than just stating your belief as fact. And here again, you, of a finite mind and understanding, are trying to judge the "morals" of an infinite, ominiscient being.
5.
Quote:
Moral determinations based upon objective empirical evidence in terms of harm and well-being of others are objectively made determinations by definition
They are objectively made determinations, yes - towards arbitrarily determined end points. This is what is being hammered on to you, yet you continue to play dumb and not acknowledge it.
Something for you to consider: if, at the end, Jesus does return and those who had faith in him are greatly rewarded with an eternity of good things and utter joy, and those who didn't suffer an eternal separation from all things good - wouldn't the objective, empirical approach at that time distinctly show that following the God of the Bible's "morality" ultimately leads to "well-being" and avoidance of "harm"?
In other words, your objective, humanistic, empirically-based approach to determining "well-being' and "harm" is limited in terms of time scale. It can not see how "well-being" and "harm" might be affected into the (distant, perhaps) future, a future which only God knows, or will Himself bring about. This is where faith comes in, and where science fails.
Your reasoning is still totally circular and you can never escape it. By faith or subjective opinion you have unilaterally declared well-being of others as a criterion upon which to base morality. That is and will always be totally subjective as a basis.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Tex said:
Sorry - I've been off the board for the last couple of days with work.John 8:7 - Clearly Jesus is saying it is wrong to stone the woman. Otherwise, Christians would be stoning people to death today.Quote:
Where in the NT is stoning, or any capital punishment for that matter, declared not OK?
What standard of the Jewish law says that Yahweh ordering killing is immoral?
Thou shalt not kill is the standard, which is contradictory to Jewish folk lore regarding the Canaanites.This is where an objective rational humanistic science of morality approach would allow you to consider and evaluate the correct moral determination in terms of others well-being. On the other hand, religion doesn't give a clear answer in these circumstances. And, which religion would you rely upon?Quote:
Regarding your last point - should stoning always be considered immoral? What if a person is about to shoot into a crowd with an automatic weapon, and the people pick up rocks and throw it at him to stop him, ultimately incapacitating him or even killing him? In effect, they "stoned" him. Is what they did immoral?First of all, you presume there is a god with an eternal perspective without any objective evidence to support that belief. Second, which god's perspective would you even begin to consider, considering there are numerous supernatural versions of god claimed by the religious faithful?Quote:
And lastly, regarding the humanistic objective science perspective on morality: as I've pointed out above, this perspective is limited in understanding and time frame. In God's eternal perspective, he saw that bringing a perfect Savior was necessary, or all of mankind would suffer eternally. Your scientific, objective, and humanistic approach would be totally incapable of seeing that. Therefore, how do you ultimately judge "morality" if you don't know the whole picture, as God does?
It makes no sense for a god such as the Christian god, to create mankind and the world in its present state with the need for any savior. Only a sadistic immoral god would have purposefully created and allowed life to endure the pain and sufferings of life. My approach judges morality with an empirical objective approach considering harm and well being and other ethical considerations. Your approach is totally subjective, and subject to changing religious culture and beliefs as advocated by religious leaders.
You wrote:Clearly you don't know what "clearly" means. Jesus was not saying the law of Moses was wrong to order the stoning of the adulteress; he was pointing out that all the men accusing her were guilty of the very same sin, and by the same law, were required to be stoned as well; therefore they couldn't be the ones to stone her. He was exposing their hypocrisy. After each of them had left, Jesus was the only one there with the adulteress, being the only one without sin and therefore having the right to stone her. But he chose not to. What was his reason? Because the whole time they had the law of Moses, this part of the law was immoral and wrong? No, he did not say that. He chose not to because he was going to take the punishment of sin on himself, and was bringing a new covenant of God's forgiveness and mercy through himself.Quote:
John 8:7 - Clearly Jesus is saying it is wrong to stone the woman. Otherwise, Christians would be stoning people to death today.
Christians aren't stoning people today, because that law wasn't given to them, but to the Israelites. Plus, for all the reasons I've already told you. However, Christians ARE still conducting capital punishment today. Is that wrong?Quote:
Thou shalt not kill is the standard, which is contradictory to Jewish folk lore regarding the Canaanites.
The Hebrew word for "kill" in that law means "murder". It did NOT apply to the killing that happens in war, especially if God himself ordered it. It is not immoral for God to give life, and to end it as he chooses, especially since we don't know the ultimate reasons for doing so, as God does.Quote:
This is where an objective rational humanistic science of morality approach would allow you to consider and evaluate the correct moral determination in terms of others well-being. On the other hand, religion doesn't give a clear answer in these circumstances. And, which religion would you rely upon?
You avoided answering the question: you said some things should always be immoral. Should stoning be? I was using your own rational humanistic morality approach to show that you contradict yourself.Quote:
First of all, you presume there is a god with an eternal perspective without any objective evidence to support that belief. Second, which god's perspective would you even begin to consider, considering there are numerous supernatural versions of god claimed by the religious faithful?
This is an odd statement. You HAVE to presume a God, without objective evidence, in order to even be having a discussion on the morality of this God in the first place! You've been presuming his existence for the sake of criticizing his morals!Quote:
It makes no sense for a god such as the Christian god, to create mankind and the world in its present state with the need for any savior. Only a sadistic immoral god would have purposefully created and allowed life to endure the pain and sufferings of life.
It makes no sense that a human being created by God, with limited understanding, knowledge, and intelligence, can adequately judge the morality of an infinite, all-knowing being. If you could not see and understand the need for stoning in order to bring a Savior, isn't it possible that you can't see the ultimate reasons God allows pain and suffering in this life, and that those reasons may in fact be eternally good?Quote:
My approach judges morality with an empirical objective approach considering harm and well being and other ethical considerations. Your approach is totally subjective, and subject to changing religious culture and beliefs as advocated by religious leaders
Your approach to defining morality, as others have already explained so well, is based on the subjective and arbitrary determinations of "harm", "well-being", and "other ethical considerations" to begin with. Your empirical, objective approach... is only empirical and objective (as far as you know!) in confirming whether or not something meets that arbitrary objective. Nothing more.John 8:7 "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." There is no reference to it being the same sin. This concept would apply to any sin worthy of stoning under Yahweh's law. Either it was always wrong, or Yahweh changed his mind in this case, which means Yahweh is morally inconsistent. The verse doesn't say why he did not stone her himself, so you don't really know why. Besides, he wasn't crucified yet, so there was no atonement as a basis for forgiveness. morally inconsistent. Mathew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Christians and Jews don't stone today, because they believe it immoral. Somewhere morals changed.Quote:Clearly you don't know what "clearly" means. Jesus was not saying the law of Moses was wrong to order the stoning of the adulteress; he was pointing out that all the men accusing her were guilty of the very same sin, and by the same law, were required to be stoned as well; therefore they couldn't be the ones to stone her. He was exposing their hypocrisy. After each of them had left, Jesus was the only one there with the adulteress, being the only one without sin and therefore having the right to stone her. But he chose not to. What was his reason? Because the whole time they had the law of Moses, this part of the law was immoral and wrong? No, he did not say that. He chose not to because he was going to take the punishment of sin on himself, and was bringing a new covenant of God's forgiveness and mercy through himself.Quote:
John 8:7 - Clearly Jesus is saying it is wrong to stone the woman. Otherwise, Christians would be stoning people to death today.
Christians aren't stoning people today, because that law wasn't given to them, but to the Israelites. Plus, for all the reasons I've already told you. However, Christians ARE still conducting capital punishment today. Is that wrong?Killing innocent women and children is effectively murder. It makes no difference to them if it is "murder" or "killing." An OT/NT god that orders killing is morally inconsistent with other parts of the OT/NT. Especially, since being all powerful, he would have the power to resolve the issue without killing women, children or anyone. I would submit that it is immoral for a god to give life, subject it to sufferings of the world, and take take all on a whim to satisfy his own vanity.Quote:Quote:
Thou shalt not kill is the standard, which is contradictory to Jewish folk lore regarding the Canaanites.
The Hebrew word for "kill" in that law means "murder". It did NOT apply to the killing that happens in war, especially if God himself ordered it. It is not immoral for God to give life, and to end it as he chooses, especially since we don't know the ultimate reasons for doing so, as God does.You made presumptive statements about the existence characteristics of a god. I just pointed out there is no objective evidence to support that belief. I don't have to presume his existence to point out the flaws in someone else's beliefs about the existence of a deity.Quote:
This is an odd statement. You HAVE to presume a God, without objective evidence, in order to even be having a discussion on the morality of this God in the first place! You've been presuming his existence for the sake of criticizing his morals!It's far more likely that no such god exists, except in the minds and written scrolls of primitive men. Your statement at one time may have made sense to some primitive, superstitious people, of limited understanding. Today we have enough knowledge of the universe to understand such religious reasoning is flawed and internally inconsistent with its own beliefs and teachings. You should be able to see that the OT/NT god could have created the same conditions of the hereafter, with all his people in the same condition a presently believed, dispensing the need for all of the suffering, "sinning', and eternal punishments. Why would any god do that, unless that god is mean-spirited, and psychopathic. And what about all the other gods and religions out there. No one religion has as superior claim over others. They're all equally flawed, and largely believed through accident of birth locality.Quote:
It makes no sense that a human being created by God, with limited understanding, knowledge, and intelligence, can adequately judge the morality of an infinite, all-knowing being. If you could not see and understand the need for stoning in order to bring a Savior, isn't it possible that you can't see the ultimate reasons God allows pain and suffering in this life, and that those reasons may in fact be eternally good?Moral determinations based upon objective empirical evidence in terms of harm and well-being of others are objectively made determinations by definition. Objectively based morality. Moral determinations without objective empirical evidence are subjective by definition. Foregoing data driven evidence in favor of religious beliefs, faith in the supernatural, without objective empirical evidence, is subjective by definition. Subjectively based morality. Nothing more.Quote:
Your approach to defining morality, as others have already explained so well, is based on the subjective and arbitrary determinations of "harm", "well-being", and "other ethical considerations" to begin with. Your empirical, objective approach... is only empirical and objective (as far as you know!) in confirming whether or not something meets that arbitrary objective. Nothing more.
I read a fascinating, yet profoundly sad essay some time ago written by a then octogenarian atheist for an atheistic web site. The gist of it was he struggled for decades trying to justify having a sense of purpose and finding a basis for his version of moral living. Ultimately, he came to understand that there could be no purpose and no morality in his view of a totally materialist universe, and that it was up to him to embrace that "reality". He offered encouragement for other atheists to basically man up and admit it. Of course, I don't agree with him, but I admire his intellectual honesty.
1. You still haven't shown that Jesus believed that stoning according to the law of Moses was wrong. Yet you base your charge that God's morals changed on this. You are still failing in the argument.
2. As terrible as killing innocent women and children is, if it is mandated by God, it is not murder, according to their law given to them. God can give life and end life as He so chooses. The Canaanites were very evil in the eyes of God, and He did not want the Israelites to be tainted by them, for the reasons of bringing a Savior to the world. You, in your finite mind of limited understanding, judge God's way of dealing with this as "evil" and "immoral" but you don't know what He knows, so you cannot rule out that His chosen way in the fullness of timewill end up being "good". As for killing those women and children, have you considered it an act of mercy by God? Perhaps by not letting those children grow up in that evil culture, they wouldn't be tainted, and so they would get to be in heaven with God for eternity, instead of being lost forever in hell.
3. If you are making an argument against the morality of the God of Israel, the God of the bible, then the characteristics of this God (omniscience) has to be assumed as well. It is illogical for you to assume the God of the Bible's existence without objective proof in order to blast his morals, then criticize someone's claim of one of God's characteristics, saying it needs objective proof.
4. You continue to recite your mantra of "it's far more likely that" or "it's clear that" <insert anti-christian claim here>, yet you continue to have no argument, other than just stating your belief as fact. And here again, you, of a finite mind and understanding, are trying to judge the "morals" of an infinite, ominiscient being.
5.
Quote:
Quote:
Moral determinations based upon objective empirical evidence in terms of harm and well-being of others are objectively made determinations by definition
They are objectively made determinations, yes - towards arbitrarily determined end points. This is what is being hammered on to you, yet you continue to play dumb and not acknowledge it.
Something for you to consider: if, at the end, Jesus does return and those who had faith in him are greatly rewarded with an eternity of good things and utter joy, and those who didn't suffer an eternal separation from all things good - wouldn't the objective, empirical approach at that time distinctly show that following the God of the Bible's "morality" ultimately leads to "well-being" and avoidance of "harm"?
In other words, your objective, humanistic, empirically-based approach to determining "well-being' and "harm" is limited in terms of time scale. It can not see how "well-being" and "harm" might be affected into the (distant, perhaps) future, a future which only God knows, or will Himself bring about. This is where faith comes in, and where science fails.
1. Logic tells you that Jesus considered it wrong to stone the woman, or else he would have done it himself as you have said. If it is not wrong, Christians and Jews should be stoning today.Quote:
1. You still haven't shown that Jesus believed that stoning according to the law of Moses was wrong. Yet you base your charge that God's morals changed on this. You are still failing in the argument.
2. The fact that you have to undertake such a convoluted path of reasoning for justification is reason to not believe In religious myth. How do you know anything is mandated by god. If a Rabbi, or a Pope claims a divine order from god tomorrow to nuke all of the men women in Syria, or China, would you agree with it? Where in the Jewish law does it say if god orders the killing of innocent women and children it is not murder? If the Canaanites were so evil, why wouldn't a loving god send Jesus to them, or miraculously and supernaturally intervene and set them on the right path? It's not believable. What you are describing is an evil, malicious, and psychopathic god. If he is supernatural, then what he omnisciently knows is irrelevant to a loving supernatural gods ability to save everyone and set them on the right path. Why play around with killing and torturing the Canaanites and presumably sending them to hell? Why order or let the Jews pillage, plunder, and apparently rape their women? He is internally inconsistent in the Bible. Is "mercy killing" really justified by any measure? What is the age of "tainting" so that those younger would be spared hell by mercy killing. Why would god send the older "tainted" children to hell when he doesn't have to? A merciful all powerful god would just forgive them. What happens if a self proclaimed prophet claims all abortion is mercy killing as revealed by god? There isn't even agreement among those claiming to be Christians on who gets into heaven. Catholics believe, according to Sam, that most everyone goes to Purgatory for an appropriate amount of time, depending upon your degree of sin, and the you go to heaven. Surely, if one objectively thinks about it, they'll see religion for the nonsense that it is.Quote:
2. As terrible as killing innocent women and children is, if it is mandated by God, it is not murder, according to their law given to them. God can give life and end life as He so chooses. The Canaanites were very evil in the eyes of God, and He did not want the Israelites to be tainted by them, for the reasons of bringing a Savior to the world. You, in your finite mind of limited understanding, judge God's way of dealing with this as "evil" and "immoral" but you don't know what He knows, so you cannot rule out that His chosen way in the fullness of timewill end up being "good". As for killing those women and children, have you considered it an act of mercy by God? Perhaps by not letting those children grow up in that evil culture, they wouldn't be tainted, and so they would get to be in heaven with God for eternity, instead of being lost forever in hell.
I personally don't have to assume a god's existence, omniscient or not, to point out the inconsistency and illogical beliefs of adherents to a religious idea. I can point out the fallacies of belief in such a god without being illogical or needing objective proof. There is no objective proof of any god. However, there is abundant objective proof of illogical human belief in god/gods.Quote:
3. If you are making an argument against the morality of the God of Israel, the God of the bible, then the characteristics of this God (omniscience) has to be assumed as well. It is illogical for you to assume the God of the Bible's existence without objective proof in order to blast his morals, then criticize someone's claim of one of God's characteristics, saying it needs objective proof.
The evidence of reality points to the fallacy of religious beliefs. There is no evidence for the existence of an infinite, omniscient being, other than as a figment of human imaginations. In reality god is created in the image and minds of men.Quote:
4. You continue to recite your mantra of "it's far more likely that" or "it's clear that" <insert anti-christian claim here>, yet you continue to have no argument, other than just stating your belief as fact. And here again, you, of a finite mind and understanding, are trying to judge the "morals" of an infinite, ominiscient being.
What I am saying is objectively made determinations of morality are better in terms of everyone's well-being.Quote:
5.Quote:
Quote:
Moral determinations based upon objective empirical evidence in terms of harm and well-being of others are objectively made determinations by definition
They are objectively made determinations, yes - towards arbitrarily determined end points. This is what is being hammered on to you, yet you continue to play dumb and not acknowledge it.
Something for you to consider: if, at the end, Jesus does return and those who had faith in him are greatly rewarded with an eternity of good things and utter joy, and those who didn't suffer an eternal separation from all things good - wouldn't the objective, empirical approach at that time distinctly show that following the God of the Bible's "morality" ultimately leads to "well-being" and avoidance of "harm"?
In other words, your objective, humanistic, empirically-based approach to determining "well-being' and "harm" is limited in terms of time scale. It can not see how "well-being" and "harm" might be affected into the (distant, perhaps) future, a future which only God knows, or will Himself bring about. This is where faith comes in, and where science fails.
What you are projecting is hypothetical without any objective evidence to support that belief. There is considerable disagreement within the Christian community on this subject of heaven, if there is a hell, and who goes there. If God knows the future as you say, it begs the question why would he even put people through the present and even hell when he doesn't have to. If he is all powerful, all loving, and willing to forgive, he could just forgive everyone, a concept preached every Sunday or Saturday from the pulpit, and set everyone up in a utopian heaven right now. No one would have to suffer. This is where faith is folly, and science is a tool for us to navigate reality.
I would much rather base morality on harm and well-being, and the ability to flourish - in contrast to irrational arbitrary rules espoused by a religious person who purportedly believes "vengeance is mine" falls within the purview of his imagined god.curtpenn said:Your reasoning is still totally circular and you can never escape it. By faith or subjective opinion you have unilaterally declared well-being of others as a criterion upon which to base morality. That is and will always be totally subjective as a basis.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Tex said:
Sorry - I've been off the board for the last couple of days with work.John 8:7 - Clearly Jesus is saying it is wrong to stone the woman. Otherwise, Christians would be stoning people to death today.Quote:
Where in the NT is stoning, or any capital punishment for that matter, declared not OK?
What standard of the Jewish law says that Yahweh ordering killing is immoral?
Thou shalt not kill is the standard, which is contradictory to Jewish folk lore regarding the Canaanites.This is where an objective rational humanistic science of morality approach would allow you to consider and evaluate the correct moral determination in terms of others well-being. On the other hand, religion doesn't give a clear answer in these circumstances. And, which religion would you rely upon?Quote:
Regarding your last point - should stoning always be considered immoral? What if a person is about to shoot into a crowd with an automatic weapon, and the people pick up rocks and throw it at him to stop him, ultimately incapacitating him or even killing him? In effect, they "stoned" him. Is what they did immoral?First of all, you presume there is a god with an eternal perspective without any objective evidence to support that belief. Second, which god's perspective would you even begin to consider, considering there are numerous supernatural versions of god claimed by the religious faithful?Quote:
And lastly, regarding the humanistic objective science perspective on morality: as I've pointed out above, this perspective is limited in understanding and time frame. In God's eternal perspective, he saw that bringing a perfect Savior was necessary, or all of mankind would suffer eternally. Your scientific, objective, and humanistic approach would be totally incapable of seeing that. Therefore, how do you ultimately judge "morality" if you don't know the whole picture, as God does?
It makes no sense for a god such as the Christian god, to create mankind and the world in its present state with the need for any savior. Only a sadistic immoral god would have purposefully created and allowed life to endure the pain and sufferings of life. My approach judges morality with an empirical objective approach considering harm and well being and other ethical considerations. Your approach is totally subjective, and subject to changing religious culture and beliefs as advocated by religious leaders.
You wrote:Clearly you don't know what "clearly" means. Jesus was not saying the law of Moses was wrong to order the stoning of the adulteress; he was pointing out that all the men accusing her were guilty of the very same sin, and by the same law, were required to be stoned as well; therefore they couldn't be the ones to stone her. He was exposing their hypocrisy. After each of them had left, Jesus was the only one there with the adulteress, being the only one without sin and therefore having the right to stone her. But he chose not to. What was his reason? Because the whole time they had the law of Moses, this part of the law was immoral and wrong? No, he did not say that. He chose not to because he was going to take the punishment of sin on himself, and was bringing a new covenant of God's forgiveness and mercy through himself.Quote:
John 8:7 - Clearly Jesus is saying it is wrong to stone the woman. Otherwise, Christians would be stoning people to death today.
Christians aren't stoning people today, because that law wasn't given to them, but to the Israelites. Plus, for all the reasons I've already told you. However, Christians ARE still conducting capital punishment today. Is that wrong?Quote:
Thou shalt not kill is the standard, which is contradictory to Jewish folk lore regarding the Canaanites.
The Hebrew word for "kill" in that law means "murder". It did NOT apply to the killing that happens in war, especially if God himself ordered it. It is not immoral for God to give life, and to end it as he chooses, especially since we don't know the ultimate reasons for doing so, as God does.Quote:
This is where an objective rational humanistic science of morality approach would allow you to consider and evaluate the correct moral determination in terms of others well-being. On the other hand, religion doesn't give a clear answer in these circumstances. And, which religion would you rely upon?
You avoided answering the question: you said some things should always be immoral. Should stoning be? I was using your own rational humanistic morality approach to show that you contradict yourself.Quote:
First of all, you presume there is a god with an eternal perspective without any objective evidence to support that belief. Second, which god's perspective would you even begin to consider, considering there are numerous supernatural versions of god claimed by the religious faithful?
This is an odd statement. You HAVE to presume a God, without objective evidence, in order to even be having a discussion on the morality of this God in the first place! You've been presuming his existence for the sake of criticizing his morals!Quote:
It makes no sense for a god such as the Christian god, to create mankind and the world in its present state with the need for any savior. Only a sadistic immoral god would have purposefully created and allowed life to endure the pain and sufferings of life.
It makes no sense that a human being created by God, with limited understanding, knowledge, and intelligence, can adequately judge the morality of an infinite, all-knowing being. If you could not see and understand the need for stoning in order to bring a Savior, isn't it possible that you can't see the ultimate reasons God allows pain and suffering in this life, and that those reasons may in fact be eternally good?Quote:
My approach judges morality with an empirical objective approach considering harm and well being and other ethical considerations. Your approach is totally subjective, and subject to changing religious culture and beliefs as advocated by religious leaders
Your approach to defining morality, as others have already explained so well, is based on the subjective and arbitrary determinations of "harm", "well-being", and "other ethical considerations" to begin with. Your empirical, objective approach... is only empirical and objective (as far as you know!) in confirming whether or not something meets that arbitrary objective. Nothing more.John 8:7 "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." There is no reference to it being the same sin. This concept would apply to any sin worthy of stoning under Yahweh's law. Either it was always wrong, or Yahweh changed his mind in this case, which means Yahweh is morally inconsistent. The verse doesn't say why he did not stone her himself, so you don't really know why. Besides, he wasn't crucified yet, so there was no atonement as a basis for forgiveness. morally inconsistent. Mathew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Christians and Jews don't stone today, because they believe it immoral. Somewhere morals changed.Quote:Clearly you don't know what "clearly" means. Jesus was not saying the law of Moses was wrong to order the stoning of the adulteress; he was pointing out that all the men accusing her were guilty of the very same sin, and by the same law, were required to be stoned as well; therefore they couldn't be the ones to stone her. He was exposing their hypocrisy. After each of them had left, Jesus was the only one there with the adulteress, being the only one without sin and therefore having the right to stone her. But he chose not to. What was his reason? Because the whole time they had the law of Moses, this part of the law was immoral and wrong? No, he did not say that. He chose not to because he was going to take the punishment of sin on himself, and was bringing a new covenant of God's forgiveness and mercy through himself.Quote:
John 8:7 - Clearly Jesus is saying it is wrong to stone the woman. Otherwise, Christians would be stoning people to death today.
Christians aren't stoning people today, because that law wasn't given to them, but to the Israelites. Plus, for all the reasons I've already told you. However, Christians ARE still conducting capital punishment today. Is that wrong?Killing innocent women and children is effectively murder. It makes no difference to them if it is "murder" or "killing." An OT/NT god that orders killing is morally inconsistent with other parts of the OT/NT. Especially, since being all powerful, he would have the power to resolve the issue without killing women, children or anyone. I would submit that it is immoral for a god to give life, subject it to sufferings of the world, and take take all on a whim to satisfy his own vanity.Quote:Quote:
Thou shalt not kill is the standard, which is contradictory to Jewish folk lore regarding the Canaanites.
The Hebrew word for "kill" in that law means "murder". It did NOT apply to the killing that happens in war, especially if God himself ordered it. It is not immoral for God to give life, and to end it as he chooses, especially since we don't know the ultimate reasons for doing so, as God does.You made presumptive statements about the existence characteristics of a god. I just pointed out there is no objective evidence to support that belief. I don't have to presume his existence to point out the flaws in someone else's beliefs about the existence of a deity.Quote:
This is an odd statement. You HAVE to presume a God, without objective evidence, in order to even be having a discussion on the morality of this God in the first place! You've been presuming his existence for the sake of criticizing his morals!It's far more likely that no such god exists, except in the minds and written scrolls of primitive men. Your statement at one time may have made sense to some primitive, superstitious people, of limited understanding. Today we have enough knowledge of the universe to understand such religious reasoning is flawed and internally inconsistent with its own beliefs and teachings. You should be able to see that the OT/NT god could have created the same conditions of the hereafter, with all his people in the same condition a presently believed, dispensing the need for all of the suffering, "sinning', and eternal punishments. Why would any god do that, unless that god is mean-spirited, and psychopathic. And what about all the other gods and religions out there. No one religion has as superior claim over others. They're all equally flawed, and largely believed through accident of birth locality.Quote:
It makes no sense that a human being created by God, with limited understanding, knowledge, and intelligence, can adequately judge the morality of an infinite, all-knowing being. If you could not see and understand the need for stoning in order to bring a Savior, isn't it possible that you can't see the ultimate reasons God allows pain and suffering in this life, and that those reasons may in fact be eternally good?Moral determinations based upon objective empirical evidence in terms of harm and well-being of others are objectively made determinations by definition. Objectively based morality. Moral determinations without objective empirical evidence are subjective by definition. Foregoing data driven evidence in favor of religious beliefs, faith in the supernatural, without objective empirical evidence, is subjective by definition. Subjectively based morality. Nothing more.Quote:
Your approach to defining morality, as others have already explained so well, is based on the subjective and arbitrary determinations of "harm", "well-being", and "other ethical considerations" to begin with. Your empirical, objective approach... is only empirical and objective (as far as you know!) in confirming whether or not something meets that arbitrary objective. Nothing more.
I read a fascinating, yet profoundly sad essay some time ago written by a then octogenarian atheist for an atheistic web site. The gist of it was he struggled for decades trying to justify having a sense of purpose and finding a basis for his version of moral living. Ultimately, he came to understand that there could be no purpose and no morality in his view of a totally materialist universe, and that it was up to him to embrace that "reality". He offered encouragement for other atheists to basically man up and admit it. Of course, I don't agree with him, but I admire his intellectual honesty.
I don't agree with his demoralized and fatalistic view. I don't know any atheist who believes that way. We find purpose and meaning within ourselves. Because the reality is our existence is limited, it makes all life all the more precious, and valuable because of its uniqueness. We can find purpose, beauty, and meaning in our ability to appreciate the very fact of our existence, and ability to appreciate, experience, and understand this amazing universe. This is where intellectual honesty should take you.
1. Or, Jesus didn't do it because he was bringing a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy. In other words, the situation changed, not the morals. Just like I explained earlier. Which you ignore and continue to repeat yourself. This is a pattern for you. Just like with the "christians should be stoning today" comment. It's already been explained why they don't. But with you it's wash, rinse, repeat.Quote:
1. Logic tells you that Jesus considered it wrong to stone the woman, or else he would have done it himself as you have said. If it is not wrong, Christians and Jews should be stoning today.
2. The fact that you have to undertake such a convoluted path of reasoning for justification is reason to not believe In religious myth. How do you know anything is mandated by god. If a Rabbi, or a Pope claims a divine order from god tomorrow to nuke all of the men women in Syria, or China, would you agree with it? Where in the Jewish law does it say if god orders the killing of innocent women and children it is not murder? If the Canaanites were so evil, why wouldn't a loving god send Jesus to them, or miraculously and supernaturally intervene and set them on the right path? It's not believable. What you are describing is an evil, malicious, and psychopathic god. If he is supernatural, then what he omnisciently knows is irrelevant to a loving supernatural gods ability to save everyone and set them on the right path. Why play around with killing and torturing the Canaanites and presumably sending them to hell? Why order or let the Jews pillage, plunder, and apparently rape their women? He is internally inconsistent in the Bible. Is "mercy killing" really justified by any measure? What is the age of "tainting" so that those younger would be spared hell by mercy killing. Why would god send the older "tainted" children to hell when he doesn't have to? A merciful all powerful god would just forgive them. What happens if a self proclaimed prophet claims all abortion is mercy killing as revealed by god? There isn't even agreement among those claiming to be Christians on who gets into heaven. Catholics believe, according to Sam, that most everyone goes to Purgatory for an appropriate amount of time, depending upon your degree of sin, and the you go to heaven. Surely, if one objectively thinks about it, they'll see religion for the nonsense that it is.
I personally don't have to assume a god's existence, omniscient or not, to point out the inconsistency and illogical beliefs of adherents to a religious idea. I can point out the fallacies of belief in such a god without being illogical or needing objective proof. There is no objective proof of any god. However, there is abundant objective proof of illogical human belief in god/gods.
The evidence of reality points to the fallacy of religious beliefs. There is no evidence for the existence of an infinite, omniscient being, other than as a figment of human imaginations. In reality god is created in the image and minds of men.
What I am saying is objectively made determinations of morality are better in terms of everyone's well-being.
What you are projecting is hypothetical without any objective evidence to support that belief. There is considerable disagreement within the Christian community on this subject of heaven, if there is a hell, and who goes there. If God knows the future as you say, it begs the question why would he even put people through the present and even hell when he doesn't have to. If he is all powerful, all loving, and willing to forgive, he could just forgive everyone, a concept preached every Sunday or Saturday from the pulpit, and set everyone up in a utopian heaven right now. No one would have to suffer. This is where faith is folly, and science is a tool for us to navigate reality.
2. In the end, it still remains that you are limited in knowledge and time frame, and God is not. Therefore you are inadequate to fairly judge God.
3. If you don't need objective proof to assume God's existence in order to show the ill-logic, then neither do I in order to show the logic isn't necessarily ill. Yet, that was your claim.
4. The evidence of reality points to an infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient being. Your statement that it does not, is just as much a statement of faith as mine.
5. Just answer the question, it's really simple: If Jesus does return, and those that believed have a perfect life for eternity, then wouldn't the objective, empirically-based approach show that their belief was ultimately the best for their "well-being"? Yes, no, maybe, I don't know? If "yes", then how could an objective, scientific, empirically-based approach TODAY determine that?
I think stoning is now legal in some states like Colorado and maybe some western states like California, Oregon, and Washington.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:1. Or, Jesus didn't do it because he was bringing a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy. In other words, the situation changed, not the morals. Just like I explained earlier. Which you ignore and continue to repeat yourself. This is a pattern for you. Just like with the "christians should be stoning today" comment. It's already been explained why they don't. But with you it's wash, rinse, repeat.Quote:
1. Logic tells you that Jesus considered it wrong to stone the woman, or else he would have done it himself as you have said. If it is not wrong, Christians and Jews should be stoning today.
2. The fact that you have to undertake such a convoluted path of reasoning for justification is reason to not believe In religious myth. How do you know anything is mandated by god. If a Rabbi, or a Pope claims a divine order from god tomorrow to nuke all of the men women in Syria, or China, would you agree with it? Where in the Jewish law does it say if god orders the killing of innocent women and children it is not murder? If the Canaanites were so evil, why wouldn't a loving god send Jesus to them, or miraculously and supernaturally intervene and set them on the right path? It's not believable. What you are describing is an evil, malicious, and psychopathic god. If he is supernatural, then what he omnisciently knows is irrelevant to a loving supernatural gods ability to save everyone and set them on the right path. Why play around with killing and torturing the Canaanites and presumably sending them to hell? Why order or let the Jews pillage, plunder, and apparently rape their women? He is internally inconsistent in the Bible. Is "mercy killing" really justified by any measure? What is the age of "tainting" so that those younger would be spared hell by mercy killing. Why would god send the older "tainted" children to hell when he doesn't have to? A merciful all powerful god would just forgive them. What happens if a self proclaimed prophet claims all abortion is mercy killing as revealed by god? There isn't even agreement among those claiming to be Christians on who gets into heaven. Catholics believe, according to Sam, that most everyone goes to Purgatory for an appropriate amount of time, depending upon your degree of sin, and the you go to heaven. Surely, if one objectively thinks about it, they'll see religion for the nonsense that it is.
I personally don't have to assume a god's existence, omniscient or not, to point out the inconsistency and illogical beliefs of adherents to a religious idea. I can point out the fallacies of belief in such a god without being illogical or needing objective proof. There is no objective proof of any god. However, there is abundant objective proof of illogical human belief in god/gods.
The evidence of reality points to the fallacy of religious beliefs. There is no evidence for the existence of an infinite, omniscient being, other than as a figment of human imaginations. In reality god is created in the image and minds of men.
What I am saying is objectively made determinations of morality are better in terms of everyone's well-being.
What you are projecting is hypothetical without any objective evidence to support that belief. There is considerable disagreement within the Christian community on this subject of heaven, if there is a hell, and who goes there. If God knows the future as you say, it begs the question why would he even put people through the present and even hell when he doesn't have to. If he is all powerful, all loving, and willing to forgive, he could just forgive everyone, a concept preached every Sunday or Saturday from the pulpit, and set everyone up in a utopian heaven right now. No one would have to suffer. This is where faith is folly, and science is a tool for us to navigate reality.
2. In the end, it still remains that you are limited in knowledge and time frame, and God is not. Therefore you are inadequate to fairly judge God.
3. If you don't need objective proof to assume God's existence in order to show the ill-logic, then neither do I in order to show the logic isn't necessarily ill. Yet, that was your claim.
4. The evidence of reality points to an infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient being. Your statement that it does not, is just as much a statement of faith as mine.
5. Just answer the question, it's really simple: If Jesus does return, and those that believed have a perfect life for eternity, then wouldn't the objective, empirically-based approach show that their belief was ultimately the best for their "well-being"? Yes, no, maybe, I don't know? If "yes", then how could an objective, scientific, empirically-based approach TODAY determine that?
Why would he need to bring a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy? He could simply forgive without all the confusion. Why would he wait until about 2,000 years ago? And why wouldn't he just start off with heaven in the first place? It only makes sense if you are emotionally vested from being raised in a Christian culture and culturally reinforced to believe.Quote:
1. Or, Jesus didn't do it because he was bringing a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy. In other words, the situation changed, not the morals. Just like I explained earlier. Which you ignore and continue to repeat yourself. This is a pattern for you. Just like with the "christians should be stoning today" comment. It's already been explained why they don't. But with you it's wash, rinse, repeat.
Quote:
2. In the end, it still remains that you are limited in knowledge and time frame, and God is not. Therefore you are inadequate to fairly judge God.
All humans are limited in knowledge and time. There is no credible empirical evidence to prove god exists. To say who are we to judge god is a cop out when inconsistencies in the Bible are raised. I'm not judging god, because I don't believe he exists. I'm pointing out mythological inconsistencies. These inconsistencies ad weight to the conclusion of god's nonexistence.
I said I don't need to believe in god to point out fallacies and inconsistencies in belief in that god. Existence of objective proof is irrelevant to pointing out inconsistencies and fallacies. However, there is not objective proof of any gods existence. If the Bible is god's inerrant word, then certainly that god does not exist because the Bible is full of errors, and there is no objective evidence to support any of the supernatural claims it contains.Quote:
3. If you don't need objective proof to assume God's existence in order to show the ill-logic, then neither do I in order to show the logic isn't necessarily ill. Yet, that was your claim.
There is nothing in the Universe that requires the existence of any god for explanation. We have plausible explanations for the present state of the Universe. There is no plausible explanation for the existence of any god, or objective evidence of any god.Quote:
4. The evidence of reality points to an infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient being. Your statement that it does not, is just as much a statement of faith as mine.
No. Because there is no objective empirical evidence upon which to make a judgement of Jesus existence as a god, or that he is coming back to life, or back to Earth. Speculation about Jesus' return is not different than any other religion's speculations about the future. There are, all be they smaller, doomsday cults which speculate on their god's return or arrival.Quote:
5. Just answer the question, it's really simple: If Jesus does return, and those that believed have a perfect life for eternity, then wouldn't the objective, empirically-based approach show that their belief was ultimately the best for their "well-being"? Yes, no, maybe, I don't know? If "yes", then how could an objective, scientific, empirically-based approach TODAY determine that?
TS has a god. The mythical being he calls "objective morality".
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Ha ha. I don't believe in any god. However, there is objective evidence for objective based morality.Oldbear83 said:
TS has a god. The mythical being he calls "objective morality".
Call it what you want, your myth stated above is your god.TexasScientist said:Ha ha. I don't believe in any god. However, there is objective evidence for objective based morality.Oldbear83 said:
TS has a god. The mythical being he calls "objective morality".
You two have fun.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
I want to thank you again for giving me something worthwhile to ponder anew. I've struggled to find a way to positively respond at times, and for that I am truly sorry. I'm now struggling to boil this conversation down to a manageable number of thoughts to which I can do justice. Thanks for bearing with me.TexasScientist said:Ha ha. I don't believe in any god. However, there is objective evidence for objective based morality.Oldbear83 said:
TS has a god. The mythical being he calls "objective morality".
As to all the back and forth regarding your interpretation of Holy Scripture and your assertions as to supposed error and inconsistency, I am convinced that much (most?) of what you claim falls into the category of red herring fallacy in the sense that it wouldn't matter to you whether or not it was without error and/or was consistent. Perhaps I am mistaken in this assumption? Further, without taking the time to comb through all the posts in this thread, I'm fairly sure there's a lot of straw man arguments mixed in for good measure where you misinterpret/misrepresent others' positions. Regardless, inerrancy is a packed concept that has launched volumes and volumes of work with which I assume you are at least somewhat familiar. I am certain there are very well reasoned counter arguments for each and every objection you can possible mount, and most of them can be easily found in this day and age thanks to Google. Of course, it's up to you to engage those and choose to respond however you may. As for me, I spent many years heavily involved in apologetics and have been down that path far enough. I am now at peace to simply affirm Article 6 of the 39 Articles of Religion as put forth by the Church of England:
VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
Trying to tie things back to the original post, were I you, I would be concerned that the majority of my fellow humans would not behave well in a universe unfettered from moral constraints as embodied in most of the world's religions. I can find no objective basis or evidence for any system of morality whatsoever in your completely materialist universe. On the contrary, it seems logical to me that humans are indistinguishable from cockroaches or coconuts if everything that is, is just the accidental byproduct of time and space. I examine my own thoughts and life and wonder what acts I might be capable of if I didn't see at least a glimmer of the Divine in my fellow man. Might we not all trend to some William Golding/Darwinian state? My examination of the historical record leads me to conclude that this is most likely true and would render your idealized state of "well-being" unreachable. Just something to consider.
Upholding you and your family in prayer this Christmas season, and hoping you find some time and peace to ponder the possibilities.
"Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost." Romans 15:13
Every time you say you'd rather base morality on so-called objective evidence, you are speaking subjectively. "I'd rather" is a textbook example of a subjective statement.TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:Most evolutionary psychologists would say we've outgrown the need for religion as a basis for morals. Of course that's pure conjecture on their part, but it doesn't stop them from saying it. They could just as easily say we've outgrown the idea of human well-being as a basis (which is essentially what the murderous scientistic regimes of the last century did say).TexasScientist said:It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.TexasScientist said:
If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.
Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.
Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".
And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.
In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?
The fatal flaws of utilitarianism are equally present in your argument. There's no real way to define "the well-being of others" given the reality that people have conflicting interests and different ideas of well-being. It's an illusory concept subject to exploitation by any and every ideology that happens to seize upon it.Evolutionary psychologists rely upon objective scientific evidence in forming opinions. Religion is where conjecture and subjectivity comes into play because it requires faith and belief without objective evidence. Under your scenario it would no longer be objectively based humanistic science of morality. Instead, it would be some other devised system, such as those of the state regimes you allude. Historically, people are subject to being led down immoral paths by leaders of state, by there religious leaders or both. Cultures and societies determine what is moral. Morality should be based upon a system of values predicated upon harm, well-being, and the ability to flourish of others as determined by empirical, objective scientific evidence - as opposed to a system of subjective religious beliefs,Quote:
Most evolutionary psychologists would say we've outgrown the need for religion as a basis for morals. Of course that's pure conjecture on their part, but it doesn't stop them from saying it. They could just as easily say we've outgrown the idea of human well-being as a basis (which is essentially what the murderous scientistic regimes of the last century did say).Sure there is, because it is evidence based. Well-being can certainly be defined through analysis of objective empirical evidence through application of the scientific method. Religion is the illusory concept, and it has been exploited by the conflicting interests and different ideas and ideologies of religious people.Quote:
There's no real way to define "the well-being of others" given the reality that people have conflicting interests and different ideas of well-being. It's an illusory concept subject to exploitation by any and every ideology that happens to seize upon it.
Most of y'all are not listening to what I've been saying. Morality should be based upon a humanistic science of morality approach, taking into consideration objective empirical evidence of harm in terms of human, well-being and flourishing, as opposed belief in a religious leaders subjective pronouncements.Sam Lowry said:Every time you say you'd rather base morality on so-called objective evidence, you are speaking subjectively. "I'd rather" is a textbook example of a subjective statement.TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:Most evolutionary psychologists would say we've outgrown the need for religion as a basis for morals. Of course that's pure conjecture on their part, but it doesn't stop them from saying it. They could just as easily say we've outgrown the idea of human well-being as a basis (which is essentially what the murderous scientistic regimes of the last century did say).TexasScientist said:It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.TexasScientist said:
If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.
Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.
Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".
And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.
In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?
The fatal flaws of utilitarianism are equally present in your argument. There's no real way to define "the well-being of others" given the reality that people have conflicting interests and different ideas of well-being. It's an illusory concept subject to exploitation by any and every ideology that happens to seize upon it.Evolutionary psychologists rely upon objective scientific evidence in forming opinions. Religion is where conjecture and subjectivity comes into play because it requires faith and belief without objective evidence. Under your scenario it would no longer be objectively based humanistic science of morality. Instead, it would be some other devised system, such as those of the state regimes you allude. Historically, people are subject to being led down immoral paths by leaders of state, by there religious leaders or both. Cultures and societies determine what is moral. Morality should be based upon a system of values predicated upon harm, well-being, and the ability to flourish of others as determined by empirical, objective scientific evidence - as opposed to a system of subjective religious beliefs,Quote:
Most evolutionary psychologists would say we've outgrown the need for religion as a basis for morals. Of course that's pure conjecture on their part, but it doesn't stop them from saying it. They could just as easily say we've outgrown the idea of human well-being as a basis (which is essentially what the murderous scientistic regimes of the last century did say).Sure there is, because it is evidence based. Well-being can certainly be defined through analysis of objective empirical evidence through application of the scientific method. Religion is the illusory concept, and it has been exploited by the conflicting interests and different ideas and ideologies of religious people.Quote:
There's no real way to define "the well-being of others" given the reality that people have conflicting interests and different ideas of well-being. It's an illusory concept subject to exploitation by any and every ideology that happens to seize upon it.
This approach anchors morality in a rational empirical consideration of reality as evidenced by the natural world, as opposed to subjective belief in the supernatural world. Consideration is given to what is best, and will maximize the thriving of individuals, all societies and cultures, and other conscious beings. Cultures or societies can use this approach in providing answers to questions of morality as foundational fundamental premises for objective, secular, philosophical discussion or moral problems.
Individuals collectively determine cultural morals from whatever they base as their source. The philosophical debate between objective and subjective morality has been longstanding and won't be resolved here, and is somewhat irrelevant to my point of where morality should be sourced. If you want to say an individual's determination for a source of morality has a subjective and even emotional component, I won't argue with you. I am saying and arguing that morals should be based upon the objective evidence of reality, and not upon subjective religious pronouncements from those claiming divine enlightenment.
I appreciate the discussion and interaction with you. I don't believe you or most reasonably normal people would spiral into morally depraved states, unable to resist our most primitive impulses, anymore than we're inclined to do that around the world today. See my most recent comments to Sam for clarifying what I've been trying to say. I do believe that this idealized state is within reach, and is necessary as our interactions with other cultures and people increasingly become a global interaction requiring global cooperation.curtpenn said:I want to thank you again for giving me something worthwhile to ponder anew. I've struggled to find a way to positively respond at times, and for that I am truly sorry. I'm now struggling to boil this conversation down to a manageable number of thoughts to which I can do justice. Thanks for bearing with me.TexasScientist said:Ha ha. I don't believe in any god. However, there is objective evidence for objective based morality.Oldbear83 said:
TS has a god. The mythical being he calls "objective morality".
As to all the back and forth regarding your interpretation of Holy Scripture and your assertions as to supposed error and inconsistency, I am convinced that much (most?) of what you claim falls into the category of red herring fallacy in the sense that it wouldn't matter to you whether or not it was without error and/or was consistent. Perhaps I am mistaken in this assumption? Further, without taking the time to comb through all the posts in this thread, I'm fairly sure there's a lot of straw man arguments mixed in for good measure where you misinterpret/misrepresent others' positions. Regardless, inerrancy is a packed concept that has launched volumes and volumes of work with which I assume you are at least somewhat familiar. I am certain there are very well reasoned counter arguments for each and every objection you can possible mount, and most of them can be easily found in this day and age thanks to Google. Of course, it's up to you to engage those and choose to respond however you may. As for me, I spent many years heavily involved in apologetics and have been down that path far enough. I am now at peace to simply affirm Article 6 of the 39 Articles of Religion as put forth by the Church of England:
VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
Trying to tie things back to the original post, were I you, I would be concerned that the majority of my fellow humans would not behave well in a universe unfettered from moral constraints as embodied in most of the world's religions. I can find no objective basis or evidence for any system of morality whatsoever in your completely materialist universe. On the contrary, it seems logical to me that humans are indistinguishable from cockroaches or coconuts if everything that is, is just the accidental byproduct of time and space. I examine my own thoughts and life and wonder what acts I might be capable of if I didn't see at least a glimmer of the Divine in my fellow man. Might we not all trend to some William Golding/Darwinian state? My examination of the historical record leads me to conclude that this is most likely true and would render your idealized state of "well-being" unreachable. Just something to consider.
Upholding you and your family in prayer this Christmas season, and hoping you find some time and peace to ponder the possibilities.
"Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost." Romans 15:13
TS: "I don't believe you or most reasonably normal people would spiral into morally depraved states"
I don't think many people spiral into moral decadence. It's a far more gradual process.
Consider lying. We are all brought up to value honesty and to tell the truth, and for the most part I think we all regard ourselves as basically honest. That is, none of us sees ourselves as someone who would deceive someone else or deliberately trick anyone, yet we all lie. After all, haven't we all exaggerated a story to make it more funny? And by the time we are teenagers, we all have denied doing something when asked by a parent or teacher, when we knew we would be punished if we admitted doing it. We expect salesmen and politicians to lie to us, because it's so normal. We have even reached the point where we reject certain new stations because we do not trust their spin on reporting.
Or consider stealing. My daughter found a twenty-dollar bill on the floor of her high school once and turned it in, and was laughed at by other students for doing so. My daughter's explanation was she knew it was not hers, and maybe someone would have trouble for losing that much money. Stealing starts with small things, and by the time we are adults we have to watch out not only for robbers but bosses and co-workers who steal credit for our work, neighbors who steal fruit from our trees or - as one of my neighbors discovered - his super-sized trash can.
Evil is gradual. It starts with how you think about things, and what kind of conduct you are willing to excuse for yourself.
I don't think many people spiral into moral decadence. It's a far more gradual process.
Consider lying. We are all brought up to value honesty and to tell the truth, and for the most part I think we all regard ourselves as basically honest. That is, none of us sees ourselves as someone who would deceive someone else or deliberately trick anyone, yet we all lie. After all, haven't we all exaggerated a story to make it more funny? And by the time we are teenagers, we all have denied doing something when asked by a parent or teacher, when we knew we would be punished if we admitted doing it. We expect salesmen and politicians to lie to us, because it's so normal. We have even reached the point where we reject certain new stations because we do not trust their spin on reporting.
Or consider stealing. My daughter found a twenty-dollar bill on the floor of her high school once and turned it in, and was laughed at by other students for doing so. My daughter's explanation was she knew it was not hers, and maybe someone would have trouble for losing that much money. Stealing starts with small things, and by the time we are adults we have to watch out not only for robbers but bosses and co-workers who steal credit for our work, neighbors who steal fruit from our trees or - as one of my neighbors discovered - his super-sized trash can.
Evil is gradual. It starts with how you think about things, and what kind of conduct you are willing to excuse for yourself.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Why aren't you able to answer a simple question based on a hypothetical? It's irrelevant whether the hypothetical is plausible to you or not. The question isn't requiring you to believe the premise. It's just asking about the logic.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:1. Or, Jesus didn't do it because he was bringing a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy. In other words, the situation changed, not the morals. Just like I explained earlier. Which you ignore and continue to repeat yourself. This is a pattern for you. Just like with the "christians should be stoning today" comment. It's already been explained why they don't. But with you it's wash, rinse, repeat.Quote:
1. Logic tells you that Jesus considered it wrong to stone the woman, or else he would have done it himself as you have said. If it is not wrong, Christians and Jews should be stoning today.
2. The fact that you have to undertake such a convoluted path of reasoning for justification is reason to not believe In religious myth. How do you know anything is mandated by god. If a Rabbi, or a Pope claims a divine order from god tomorrow to nuke all of the men women in Syria, or China, would you agree with it? Where in the Jewish law does it say if god orders the killing of innocent women and children it is not murder? If the Canaanites were so evil, why wouldn't a loving god send Jesus to them, or miraculously and supernaturally intervene and set them on the right path? It's not believable. What you are describing is an evil, malicious, and psychopathic god. If he is supernatural, then what he omnisciently knows is irrelevant to a loving supernatural gods ability to save everyone and set them on the right path. Why play around with killing and torturing the Canaanites and presumably sending them to hell? Why order or let the Jews pillage, plunder, and apparently rape their women? He is internally inconsistent in the Bible. Is "mercy killing" really justified by any measure? What is the age of "tainting" so that those younger would be spared hell by mercy killing. Why would god send the older "tainted" children to hell when he doesn't have to? A merciful all powerful god would just forgive them. What happens if a self proclaimed prophet claims all abortion is mercy killing as revealed by god? There isn't even agreement among those claiming to be Christians on who gets into heaven. Catholics believe, according to Sam, that most everyone goes to Purgatory for an appropriate amount of time, depending upon your degree of sin, and the you go to heaven. Surely, if one objectively thinks about it, they'll see religion for the nonsense that it is.
I personally don't have to assume a god's existence, omniscient or not, to point out the inconsistency and illogical beliefs of adherents to a religious idea. I can point out the fallacies of belief in such a god without being illogical or needing objective proof. There is no objective proof of any god. However, there is abundant objective proof of illogical human belief in god/gods.
The evidence of reality points to the fallacy of religious beliefs. There is no evidence for the existence of an infinite, omniscient being, other than as a figment of human imaginations. In reality god is created in the image and minds of men.
What I am saying is objectively made determinations of morality are better in terms of everyone's well-being.
What you are projecting is hypothetical without any objective evidence to support that belief. There is considerable disagreement within the Christian community on this subject of heaven, if there is a hell, and who goes there. If God knows the future as you say, it begs the question why would he even put people through the present and even hell when he doesn't have to. If he is all powerful, all loving, and willing to forgive, he could just forgive everyone, a concept preached every Sunday or Saturday from the pulpit, and set everyone up in a utopian heaven right now. No one would have to suffer. This is where faith is folly, and science is a tool for us to navigate reality.
2. In the end, it still remains that you are limited in knowledge and time frame, and God is not. Therefore you are inadequate to fairly judge God.
3. If you don't need objective proof to assume God's existence in order to show the ill-logic, then neither do I in order to show the logic isn't necessarily ill. Yet, that was your claim.
4. The evidence of reality points to an infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient being. Your statement that it does not, is just as much a statement of faith as mine.
5. Just answer the question, it's really simple: If Jesus does return, and those that believed have a perfect life for eternity, then wouldn't the objective, empirically-based approach show that their belief was ultimately the best for their "well-being"? Yes, no, maybe, I don't know? If "yes", then how could an objective, scientific, empirically-based approach TODAY determine that?Why would he need to bring a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy? He could simply forgive without all the confusion. Why would he wait until about 2,000 years ago? And why wouldn't he just start off with heaven in the first place? It only makes sense if you are emotionally vested from being raised in a Christian culture and culturally reinforced to believe.Quote:
1. Or, Jesus didn't do it because he was bringing a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy. In other words, the situation changed, not the morals. Just like I explained earlier. Which you ignore and continue to repeat yourself. This is a pattern for you. Just like with the "christians should be stoning today" comment. It's already been explained why they don't. But with you it's wash, rinse, repeat.Quote:
2. In the end, it still remains that you are limited in knowledge and time frame, and God is not. Therefore you are inadequate to fairly judge God.
All humans are limited in knowledge and time. There is no credible empirical evidence to prove god exists. To say who are we to judge god is a cop out when inconsistencies in the Bible are raised. I'm not judging god, because I don't believe he exists. I'm pointing out mythological inconsistencies. These inconsistencies ad weight to the conclusion of god's nonexistence.I said I don't need to believe in god to point out fallacies and inconsistencies in belief in that god. Existence of objective proof is irrelevant to pointing out inconsistencies and fallacies. However, there is not objective proof of any gods existence. If the Bible is god's inerrant word, then certainly that god does not exist because the Bible is full of errors, and there is no objective evidence to support any of the supernatural claims it contains.Quote:
3. If you don't need objective proof to assume God's existence in order to show the ill-logic, then neither do I in order to show the logic isn't necessarily ill. Yet, that was your claim.There is nothing in the Universe that requires the existence of any god for explanation. We have plausible explanations for the present state of the Universe. There is no plausible explanation for the existence of any god, or objective evidence of any god.Quote:
4. The evidence of reality points to an infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient being. Your statement that it does not, is just as much a statement of faith as mine.No. Because there is no objective empirical evidence upon which to make a judgement of Jesus existence as a god, or that he is coming back to life, or back to Earth. Speculation about Jesus' return is not different than any other religion's speculations about the future. There are, all be they smaller, doomsday cults which speculate on their god's return or arrival.Quote:
5. Just answer the question, it's really simple: If Jesus does return, and those that believed have a perfect life for eternity, then wouldn't the objective, empirically-based approach show that their belief was ultimately the best for their "well-being"? Yes, no, maybe, I don't know? If "yes", then how could an objective, scientific, empirically-based approach TODAY determine that?
It would be similar for you to answer a question like this one: if someone kills a unicorn and eats the meat, and it causes cancer and he dies, would an objective, empirically-based assessment after the fact show that eating unicorn was not good for his "well-being"? Certainly, you could answer that hypothetical question, couldn't you?
I believe I did answer. But let's say someone eats a heavy meat centric diet and dies from a heart attack. An objective, empirically based assessment after the fact would show that a heavy meat centric diet is not good for that person's well being.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Why aren't you able to answer a simple question based on a hypothetical? It's irrelevant whether the hypothetical is plausible to you or not. The question isn't requiring you to believe the premise. It's just asking about the logic.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:1. Or, Jesus didn't do it because he was bringing a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy. In other words, the situation changed, not the morals. Just like I explained earlier. Which you ignore and continue to repeat yourself. This is a pattern for you. Just like with the "christians should be stoning today" comment. It's already been explained why they don't. But with you it's wash, rinse, repeat.Quote:
1. Logic tells you that Jesus considered it wrong to stone the woman, or else he would have done it himself as you have said. If it is not wrong, Christians and Jews should be stoning today.
2. The fact that you have to undertake such a convoluted path of reasoning for justification is reason to not believe In religious myth. How do you know anything is mandated by god. If a Rabbi, or a Pope claims a divine order from god tomorrow to nuke all of the men women in Syria, or China, would you agree with it? Where in the Jewish law does it say if god orders the killing of innocent women and children it is not murder? If the Canaanites were so evil, why wouldn't a loving god send Jesus to them, or miraculously and supernaturally intervene and set them on the right path? It's not believable. What you are describing is an evil, malicious, and psychopathic god. If he is supernatural, then what he omnisciently knows is irrelevant to a loving supernatural gods ability to save everyone and set them on the right path. Why play around with killing and torturing the Canaanites and presumably sending them to hell? Why order or let the Jews pillage, plunder, and apparently rape their women? He is internally inconsistent in the Bible. Is "mercy killing" really justified by any measure? What is the age of "tainting" so that those younger would be spared hell by mercy killing. Why would god send the older "tainted" children to hell when he doesn't have to? A merciful all powerful god would just forgive them. What happens if a self proclaimed prophet claims all abortion is mercy killing as revealed by god? There isn't even agreement among those claiming to be Christians on who gets into heaven. Catholics believe, according to Sam, that most everyone goes to Purgatory for an appropriate amount of time, depending upon your degree of sin, and the you go to heaven. Surely, if one objectively thinks about it, they'll see religion for the nonsense that it is.
I personally don't have to assume a god's existence, omniscient or not, to point out the inconsistency and illogical beliefs of adherents to a religious idea. I can point out the fallacies of belief in such a god without being illogical or needing objective proof. There is no objective proof of any god. However, there is abundant objective proof of illogical human belief in god/gods.
The evidence of reality points to the fallacy of religious beliefs. There is no evidence for the existence of an infinite, omniscient being, other than as a figment of human imaginations. In reality god is created in the image and minds of men.
What I am saying is objectively made determinations of morality are better in terms of everyone's well-being.
What you are projecting is hypothetical without any objective evidence to support that belief. There is considerable disagreement within the Christian community on this subject of heaven, if there is a hell, and who goes there. If God knows the future as you say, it begs the question why would he even put people through the present and even hell when he doesn't have to. If he is all powerful, all loving, and willing to forgive, he could just forgive everyone, a concept preached every Sunday or Saturday from the pulpit, and set everyone up in a utopian heaven right now. No one would have to suffer. This is where faith is folly, and science is a tool for us to navigate reality.
2. In the end, it still remains that you are limited in knowledge and time frame, and God is not. Therefore you are inadequate to fairly judge God.
3. If you don't need objective proof to assume God's existence in order to show the ill-logic, then neither do I in order to show the logic isn't necessarily ill. Yet, that was your claim.
4. The evidence of reality points to an infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient being. Your statement that it does not, is just as much a statement of faith as mine.
5. Just answer the question, it's really simple: If Jesus does return, and those that believed have a perfect life for eternity, then wouldn't the objective, empirically-based approach show that their belief was ultimately the best for their "well-being"? Yes, no, maybe, I don't know? If "yes", then how could an objective, scientific, empirically-based approach TODAY determine that?Why would he need to bring a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy? He could simply forgive without all the confusion. Why would he wait until about 2,000 years ago? And why wouldn't he just start off with heaven in the first place? It only makes sense if you are emotionally vested from being raised in a Christian culture and culturally reinforced to believe.Quote:
1. Or, Jesus didn't do it because he was bringing a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy. In other words, the situation changed, not the morals. Just like I explained earlier. Which you ignore and continue to repeat yourself. This is a pattern for you. Just like with the "christians should be stoning today" comment. It's already been explained why they don't. But with you it's wash, rinse, repeat.Quote:
2. In the end, it still remains that you are limited in knowledge and time frame, and God is not. Therefore you are inadequate to fairly judge God.
All humans are limited in knowledge and time. There is no credible empirical evidence to prove god exists. To say who are we to judge god is a cop out when inconsistencies in the Bible are raised. I'm not judging god, because I don't believe he exists. I'm pointing out mythological inconsistencies. These inconsistencies ad weight to the conclusion of god's nonexistence.I said I don't need to believe in god to point out fallacies and inconsistencies in belief in that god. Existence of objective proof is irrelevant to pointing out inconsistencies and fallacies. However, there is not objective proof of any gods existence. If the Bible is god's inerrant word, then certainly that god does not exist because the Bible is full of errors, and there is no objective evidence to support any of the supernatural claims it contains.Quote:
3. If you don't need objective proof to assume God's existence in order to show the ill-logic, then neither do I in order to show the logic isn't necessarily ill. Yet, that was your claim.There is nothing in the Universe that requires the existence of any god for explanation. We have plausible explanations for the present state of the Universe. There is no plausible explanation for the existence of any god, or objective evidence of any god.Quote:
4. The evidence of reality points to an infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient being. Your statement that it does not, is just as much a statement of faith as mine.No. Because there is no objective empirical evidence upon which to make a judgement of Jesus existence as a god, or that he is coming back to life, or back to Earth. Speculation about Jesus' return is not different than any other religion's speculations about the future. There are, all be they smaller, doomsday cults which speculate on their god's return or arrival.Quote:
5. Just answer the question, it's really simple: If Jesus does return, and those that believed have a perfect life for eternity, then wouldn't the objective, empirically-based approach show that their belief was ultimately the best for their "well-being"? Yes, no, maybe, I don't know? If "yes", then how could an objective, scientific, empirically-based approach TODAY determine that?
It would be similar for you to answer a question like this one: if someone kills a unicorn and eats the meat, and it causes cancer and he dies, would an objective, empirically-based assessment after the fact show that eating unicorn was not good for his "well-being"? Certainly, you could answer that hypothetical question, couldn't you?
TS: "But let's say someone eats a heavy meat centric diet and dies from a heart attack."
Or, what if a vegan dies from food poisoning at Chipotle because they did not wash the lettuce?
You need to find ways to step away from your biased assumptions.
Or, what if a vegan dies from food poisoning at Chipotle because they did not wash the lettuce?
You need to find ways to step away from your biased assumptions.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Well, no, you really didn't answer the question. You answered "no" because you didn't want to accept the premise. You really didn't answer the logic of the question, and we know why.TexasScientist said:I believe I did answer. But let's say someone eats a heavy meat centric diet and dies from a heart attack. An objective, empirically based assessment after the fact would show that a heavy meat centric diet is not good for that person's well being.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Why aren't you able to answer a simple question based on a hypothetical? It's irrelevant whether the hypothetical is plausible to you or not. The question isn't requiring you to believe the premise. It's just asking about the logic.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:1. Or, Jesus didn't do it because he was bringing a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy. In other words, the situation changed, not the morals. Just like I explained earlier. Which you ignore and continue to repeat yourself. This is a pattern for you. Just like with the "christians should be stoning today" comment. It's already been explained why they don't. But with you it's wash, rinse, repeat.Quote:
1. Logic tells you that Jesus considered it wrong to stone the woman, or else he would have done it himself as you have said. If it is not wrong, Christians and Jews should be stoning today.
2. The fact that you have to undertake such a convoluted path of reasoning for justification is reason to not believe In religious myth. How do you know anything is mandated by god. If a Rabbi, or a Pope claims a divine order from god tomorrow to nuke all of the men women in Syria, or China, would you agree with it? Where in the Jewish law does it say if god orders the killing of innocent women and children it is not murder? If the Canaanites were so evil, why wouldn't a loving god send Jesus to them, or miraculously and supernaturally intervene and set them on the right path? It's not believable. What you are describing is an evil, malicious, and psychopathic god. If he is supernatural, then what he omnisciently knows is irrelevant to a loving supernatural gods ability to save everyone and set them on the right path. Why play around with killing and torturing the Canaanites and presumably sending them to hell? Why order or let the Jews pillage, plunder, and apparently rape their women? He is internally inconsistent in the Bible. Is "mercy killing" really justified by any measure? What is the age of "tainting" so that those younger would be spared hell by mercy killing. Why would god send the older "tainted" children to hell when he doesn't have to? A merciful all powerful god would just forgive them. What happens if a self proclaimed prophet claims all abortion is mercy killing as revealed by god? There isn't even agreement among those claiming to be Christians on who gets into heaven. Catholics believe, according to Sam, that most everyone goes to Purgatory for an appropriate amount of time, depending upon your degree of sin, and the you go to heaven. Surely, if one objectively thinks about it, they'll see religion for the nonsense that it is.
I personally don't have to assume a god's existence, omniscient or not, to point out the inconsistency and illogical beliefs of adherents to a religious idea. I can point out the fallacies of belief in such a god without being illogical or needing objective proof. There is no objective proof of any god. However, there is abundant objective proof of illogical human belief in god/gods.
The evidence of reality points to the fallacy of religious beliefs. There is no evidence for the existence of an infinite, omniscient being, other than as a figment of human imaginations. In reality god is created in the image and minds of men.
What I am saying is objectively made determinations of morality are better in terms of everyone's well-being.
What you are projecting is hypothetical without any objective evidence to support that belief. There is considerable disagreement within the Christian community on this subject of heaven, if there is a hell, and who goes there. If God knows the future as you say, it begs the question why would he even put people through the present and even hell when he doesn't have to. If he is all powerful, all loving, and willing to forgive, he could just forgive everyone, a concept preached every Sunday or Saturday from the pulpit, and set everyone up in a utopian heaven right now. No one would have to suffer. This is where faith is folly, and science is a tool for us to navigate reality.
2. In the end, it still remains that you are limited in knowledge and time frame, and God is not. Therefore you are inadequate to fairly judge God.
3. If you don't need objective proof to assume God's existence in order to show the ill-logic, then neither do I in order to show the logic isn't necessarily ill. Yet, that was your claim.
4. The evidence of reality points to an infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient being. Your statement that it does not, is just as much a statement of faith as mine.
5. Just answer the question, it's really simple: If Jesus does return, and those that believed have a perfect life for eternity, then wouldn't the objective, empirically-based approach show that their belief was ultimately the best for their "well-being"? Yes, no, maybe, I don't know? If "yes", then how could an objective, scientific, empirically-based approach TODAY determine that?Why would he need to bring a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy? He could simply forgive without all the confusion. Why would he wait until about 2,000 years ago? And why wouldn't he just start off with heaven in the first place? It only makes sense if you are emotionally vested from being raised in a Christian culture and culturally reinforced to believe.Quote:
1. Or, Jesus didn't do it because he was bringing a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy. In other words, the situation changed, not the morals. Just like I explained earlier. Which you ignore and continue to repeat yourself. This is a pattern for you. Just like with the "christians should be stoning today" comment. It's already been explained why they don't. But with you it's wash, rinse, repeat.Quote:
2. In the end, it still remains that you are limited in knowledge and time frame, and God is not. Therefore you are inadequate to fairly judge God.
All humans are limited in knowledge and time. There is no credible empirical evidence to prove god exists. To say who are we to judge god is a cop out when inconsistencies in the Bible are raised. I'm not judging god, because I don't believe he exists. I'm pointing out mythological inconsistencies. These inconsistencies ad weight to the conclusion of god's nonexistence.I said I don't need to believe in god to point out fallacies and inconsistencies in belief in that god. Existence of objective proof is irrelevant to pointing out inconsistencies and fallacies. However, there is not objective proof of any gods existence. If the Bible is god's inerrant word, then certainly that god does not exist because the Bible is full of errors, and there is no objective evidence to support any of the supernatural claims it contains.Quote:
3. If you don't need objective proof to assume God's existence in order to show the ill-logic, then neither do I in order to show the logic isn't necessarily ill. Yet, that was your claim.There is nothing in the Universe that requires the existence of any god for explanation. We have plausible explanations for the present state of the Universe. There is no plausible explanation for the existence of any god, or objective evidence of any god.Quote:
4. The evidence of reality points to an infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient being. Your statement that it does not, is just as much a statement of faith as mine.No. Because there is no objective empirical evidence upon which to make a judgement of Jesus existence as a god, or that he is coming back to life, or back to Earth. Speculation about Jesus' return is not different than any other religion's speculations about the future. There are, all be they smaller, doomsday cults which speculate on their god's return or arrival.Quote:
5. Just answer the question, it's really simple: If Jesus does return, and those that believed have a perfect life for eternity, then wouldn't the objective, empirically-based approach show that their belief was ultimately the best for their "well-being"? Yes, no, maybe, I don't know? If "yes", then how could an objective, scientific, empirically-based approach TODAY determine that?
It would be similar for you to answer a question like this one: if someone kills a unicorn and eats the meat, and it causes cancer and he dies, would an objective, empirically-based assessment after the fact show that eating unicorn was not good for his "well-being"? Certainly, you could answer that hypothetical question, couldn't you?
But, let's just go ahead and take your example: suppose that an objective, empirically-based approach today shows that a heavy, meat-centric diet is bad for one's well being. Here is my question:
Assume you are able to go back decades in time and tell people about this, before there were any objective, empirically-based approaches to show it. Only you know about it, the world doesn't. Would those who followed your advice, simply on the basis of their belief in you, and not in any scientific approach, benefit in the future in terms of "well-being", in an objective, empirically-based way?
My assumptions are based on objective evidence. I follow the objective evidence. On the other hand, your assumption that a diet full of saturated fat and cholesterol does not lead to heart disease is based upon emotional bias.Oldbear83 said:
TS: "But let's say someone eats a heavy meat centric diet and dies from a heart attack."
Or, what if a vegan dies from food poisoning at Chipotle because they did not wash the lettuce?
You need to find ways to step away from your biased assumptions.
You keep saying 'objective' but your arguments are clearly subjective. You can't just slap "objective" on your opinion and pretend that makes it so.TexasScientist said:My assumptions are based on objective evidence. I follow the objective evidence. On the other hand, your assumption that a diet full of saturated fat and cholesterol does not lead to heart disease is based upon emotional bias.Oldbear83 said:
TS: "But let's say someone eats a heavy meat centric diet and dies from a heart attack."
Or, what if a vegan dies from food poisoning at Chipotle because they did not wash the lettuce?
You need to find ways to step away from your biased assumptions.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Unless you brought along and provided the scientific evidence to support the health benefits, any who followed in belief would make their decision subjectively.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Well, no, you really didn't answer the question. You answered "no" because you didn't want to accept the premise. You really didn't answer the logic of the question, and we know why.TexasScientist said:I believe I did answer. But let's say someone eats a heavy meat centric diet and dies from a heart attack. An objective, empirically based assessment after the fact would show that a heavy meat centric diet is not good for that person's well being.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Why aren't you able to answer a simple question based on a hypothetical? It's irrelevant whether the hypothetical is plausible to you or not. The question isn't requiring you to believe the premise. It's just asking about the logic.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:1. Or, Jesus didn't do it because he was bringing a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy. In other words, the situation changed, not the morals. Just like I explained earlier. Which you ignore and continue to repeat yourself. This is a pattern for you. Just like with the "christians should be stoning today" comment. It's already been explained why they don't. But with you it's wash, rinse, repeat.Quote:
1. Logic tells you that Jesus considered it wrong to stone the woman, or else he would have done it himself as you have said. If it is not wrong, Christians and Jews should be stoning today.
2. The fact that you have to undertake such a convoluted path of reasoning for justification is reason to not believe In religious myth. How do you know anything is mandated by god. If a Rabbi, or a Pope claims a divine order from god tomorrow to nuke all of the men women in Syria, or China, would you agree with it? Where in the Jewish law does it say if god orders the killing of innocent women and children it is not murder? If the Canaanites were so evil, why wouldn't a loving god send Jesus to them, or miraculously and supernaturally intervene and set them on the right path? It's not believable. What you are describing is an evil, malicious, and psychopathic god. If he is supernatural, then what he omnisciently knows is irrelevant to a loving supernatural gods ability to save everyone and set them on the right path. Why play around with killing and torturing the Canaanites and presumably sending them to hell? Why order or let the Jews pillage, plunder, and apparently rape their women? He is internally inconsistent in the Bible. Is "mercy killing" really justified by any measure? What is the age of "tainting" so that those younger would be spared hell by mercy killing. Why would god send the older "tainted" children to hell when he doesn't have to? A merciful all powerful god would just forgive them. What happens if a self proclaimed prophet claims all abortion is mercy killing as revealed by god? There isn't even agreement among those claiming to be Christians on who gets into heaven. Catholics believe, according to Sam, that most everyone goes to Purgatory for an appropriate amount of time, depending upon your degree of sin, and the you go to heaven. Surely, if one objectively thinks about it, they'll see religion for the nonsense that it is.
I personally don't have to assume a god's existence, omniscient or not, to point out the inconsistency and illogical beliefs of adherents to a religious idea. I can point out the fallacies of belief in such a god without being illogical or needing objective proof. There is no objective proof of any god. However, there is abundant objective proof of illogical human belief in god/gods.
The evidence of reality points to the fallacy of religious beliefs. There is no evidence for the existence of an infinite, omniscient being, other than as a figment of human imaginations. In reality god is created in the image and minds of men.
What I am saying is objectively made determinations of morality are better in terms of everyone's well-being.
What you are projecting is hypothetical without any objective evidence to support that belief. There is considerable disagreement within the Christian community on this subject of heaven, if there is a hell, and who goes there. If God knows the future as you say, it begs the question why would he even put people through the present and even hell when he doesn't have to. If he is all powerful, all loving, and willing to forgive, he could just forgive everyone, a concept preached every Sunday or Saturday from the pulpit, and set everyone up in a utopian heaven right now. No one would have to suffer. This is where faith is folly, and science is a tool for us to navigate reality.
2. In the end, it still remains that you are limited in knowledge and time frame, and God is not. Therefore you are inadequate to fairly judge God.
3. If you don't need objective proof to assume God's existence in order to show the ill-logic, then neither do I in order to show the logic isn't necessarily ill. Yet, that was your claim.
4. The evidence of reality points to an infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient being. Your statement that it does not, is just as much a statement of faith as mine.
5. Just answer the question, it's really simple: If Jesus does return, and those that believed have a perfect life for eternity, then wouldn't the objective, empirically-based approach show that their belief was ultimately the best for their "well-being"? Yes, no, maybe, I don't know? If "yes", then how could an objective, scientific, empirically-based approach TODAY determine that?Why would he need to bring a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy? He could simply forgive without all the confusion. Why would he wait until about 2,000 years ago? And why wouldn't he just start off with heaven in the first place? It only makes sense if you are emotionally vested from being raised in a Christian culture and culturally reinforced to believe.Quote:
1. Or, Jesus didn't do it because he was bringing a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy. In other words, the situation changed, not the morals. Just like I explained earlier. Which you ignore and continue to repeat yourself. This is a pattern for you. Just like with the "christians should be stoning today" comment. It's already been explained why they don't. But with you it's wash, rinse, repeat.Quote:
2. In the end, it still remains that you are limited in knowledge and time frame, and God is not. Therefore you are inadequate to fairly judge God.
All humans are limited in knowledge and time. There is no credible empirical evidence to prove god exists. To say who are we to judge god is a cop out when inconsistencies in the Bible are raised. I'm not judging god, because I don't believe he exists. I'm pointing out mythological inconsistencies. These inconsistencies ad weight to the conclusion of god's nonexistence.I said I don't need to believe in god to point out fallacies and inconsistencies in belief in that god. Existence of objective proof is irrelevant to pointing out inconsistencies and fallacies. However, there is not objective proof of any gods existence. If the Bible is god's inerrant word, then certainly that god does not exist because the Bible is full of errors, and there is no objective evidence to support any of the supernatural claims it contains.Quote:
3. If you don't need objective proof to assume God's existence in order to show the ill-logic, then neither do I in order to show the logic isn't necessarily ill. Yet, that was your claim.There is nothing in the Universe that requires the existence of any god for explanation. We have plausible explanations for the present state of the Universe. There is no plausible explanation for the existence of any god, or objective evidence of any god.Quote:
4. The evidence of reality points to an infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient being. Your statement that it does not, is just as much a statement of faith as mine.No. Because there is no objective empirical evidence upon which to make a judgement of Jesus existence as a god, or that he is coming back to life, or back to Earth. Speculation about Jesus' return is not different than any other religion's speculations about the future. There are, all be they smaller, doomsday cults which speculate on their god's return or arrival.Quote:
5. Just answer the question, it's really simple: If Jesus does return, and those that believed have a perfect life for eternity, then wouldn't the objective, empirically-based approach show that their belief was ultimately the best for their "well-being"? Yes, no, maybe, I don't know? If "yes", then how could an objective, scientific, empirically-based approach TODAY determine that?
It would be similar for you to answer a question like this one: if someone kills a unicorn and eats the meat, and it causes cancer and he dies, would an objective, empirically-based assessment after the fact show that eating unicorn was not good for his "well-being"? Certainly, you could answer that hypothetical question, couldn't you?
But, let's just go ahead and take your example: suppose that an objective, empirically-based approach today shows that a heavy, meat-centric diet is bad for one's well being. Here is my question:
Assume you are able to go back decades in time and tell people about this, before there were any objective, empirically-based approaches to show it. Only you know about it, the world doesn't. Would those who followed your advice, simply on the basis of their belief in you, and not in any scientific approach, benefit in the future in terms of "well-being", in an objective, empirically-based way?
But would their subjective decision lead to their future "well-being" objectively, as you define it?TexasScientist said:Unless you brought along and provided the scientific evidence to support the health benefits, any who followed in belief would make their decision subjectively.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Well, no, you really didn't answer the question. You answered "no" because you didn't want to accept the premise. You really didn't answer the logic of the question, and we know why.TexasScientist said:I believe I did answer. But let's say someone eats a heavy meat centric diet and dies from a heart attack. An objective, empirically based assessment after the fact would show that a heavy meat centric diet is not good for that person's well being.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Why aren't you able to answer a simple question based on a hypothetical? It's irrelevant whether the hypothetical is plausible to you or not. The question isn't requiring you to believe the premise. It's just asking about the logic.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:1. Or, Jesus didn't do it because he was bringing a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy. In other words, the situation changed, not the morals. Just like I explained earlier. Which you ignore and continue to repeat yourself. This is a pattern for you. Just like with the "christians should be stoning today" comment. It's already been explained why they don't. But with you it's wash, rinse, repeat.Quote:
1. Logic tells you that Jesus considered it wrong to stone the woman, or else he would have done it himself as you have said. If it is not wrong, Christians and Jews should be stoning today.
2. The fact that you have to undertake such a convoluted path of reasoning for justification is reason to not believe In religious myth. How do you know anything is mandated by god. If a Rabbi, or a Pope claims a divine order from god tomorrow to nuke all of the men women in Syria, or China, would you agree with it? Where in the Jewish law does it say if god orders the killing of innocent women and children it is not murder? If the Canaanites were so evil, why wouldn't a loving god send Jesus to them, or miraculously and supernaturally intervene and set them on the right path? It's not believable. What you are describing is an evil, malicious, and psychopathic god. If he is supernatural, then what he omnisciently knows is irrelevant to a loving supernatural gods ability to save everyone and set them on the right path. Why play around with killing and torturing the Canaanites and presumably sending them to hell? Why order or let the Jews pillage, plunder, and apparently rape their women? He is internally inconsistent in the Bible. Is "mercy killing" really justified by any measure? What is the age of "tainting" so that those younger would be spared hell by mercy killing. Why would god send the older "tainted" children to hell when he doesn't have to? A merciful all powerful god would just forgive them. What happens if a self proclaimed prophet claims all abortion is mercy killing as revealed by god? There isn't even agreement among those claiming to be Christians on who gets into heaven. Catholics believe, according to Sam, that most everyone goes to Purgatory for an appropriate amount of time, depending upon your degree of sin, and the you go to heaven. Surely, if one objectively thinks about it, they'll see religion for the nonsense that it is.
I personally don't have to assume a god's existence, omniscient or not, to point out the inconsistency and illogical beliefs of adherents to a religious idea. I can point out the fallacies of belief in such a god without being illogical or needing objective proof. There is no objective proof of any god. However, there is abundant objective proof of illogical human belief in god/gods.
The evidence of reality points to the fallacy of religious beliefs. There is no evidence for the existence of an infinite, omniscient being, other than as a figment of human imaginations. In reality god is created in the image and minds of men.
What I am saying is objectively made determinations of morality are better in terms of everyone's well-being.
What you are projecting is hypothetical without any objective evidence to support that belief. There is considerable disagreement within the Christian community on this subject of heaven, if there is a hell, and who goes there. If God knows the future as you say, it begs the question why would he even put people through the present and even hell when he doesn't have to. If he is all powerful, all loving, and willing to forgive, he could just forgive everyone, a concept preached every Sunday or Saturday from the pulpit, and set everyone up in a utopian heaven right now. No one would have to suffer. This is where faith is folly, and science is a tool for us to navigate reality.
2. In the end, it still remains that you are limited in knowledge and time frame, and God is not. Therefore you are inadequate to fairly judge God.
3. If you don't need objective proof to assume God's existence in order to show the ill-logic, then neither do I in order to show the logic isn't necessarily ill. Yet, that was your claim.
4. The evidence of reality points to an infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient being. Your statement that it does not, is just as much a statement of faith as mine.
5. Just answer the question, it's really simple: If Jesus does return, and those that believed have a perfect life for eternity, then wouldn't the objective, empirically-based approach show that their belief was ultimately the best for their "well-being"? Yes, no, maybe, I don't know? If "yes", then how could an objective, scientific, empirically-based approach TODAY determine that?Why would he need to bring a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy? He could simply forgive without all the confusion. Why would he wait until about 2,000 years ago? And why wouldn't he just start off with heaven in the first place? It only makes sense if you are emotionally vested from being raised in a Christian culture and culturally reinforced to believe.Quote:
1. Or, Jesus didn't do it because he was bringing a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy. In other words, the situation changed, not the morals. Just like I explained earlier. Which you ignore and continue to repeat yourself. This is a pattern for you. Just like with the "christians should be stoning today" comment. It's already been explained why they don't. But with you it's wash, rinse, repeat.Quote:
2. In the end, it still remains that you are limited in knowledge and time frame, and God is not. Therefore you are inadequate to fairly judge God.
All humans are limited in knowledge and time. There is no credible empirical evidence to prove god exists. To say who are we to judge god is a cop out when inconsistencies in the Bible are raised. I'm not judging god, because I don't believe he exists. I'm pointing out mythological inconsistencies. These inconsistencies ad weight to the conclusion of god's nonexistence.I said I don't need to believe in god to point out fallacies and inconsistencies in belief in that god. Existence of objective proof is irrelevant to pointing out inconsistencies and fallacies. However, there is not objective proof of any gods existence. If the Bible is god's inerrant word, then certainly that god does not exist because the Bible is full of errors, and there is no objective evidence to support any of the supernatural claims it contains.Quote:
3. If you don't need objective proof to assume God's existence in order to show the ill-logic, then neither do I in order to show the logic isn't necessarily ill. Yet, that was your claim.There is nothing in the Universe that requires the existence of any god for explanation. We have plausible explanations for the present state of the Universe. There is no plausible explanation for the existence of any god, or objective evidence of any god.Quote:
4. The evidence of reality points to an infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient being. Your statement that it does not, is just as much a statement of faith as mine.No. Because there is no objective empirical evidence upon which to make a judgement of Jesus existence as a god, or that he is coming back to life, or back to Earth. Speculation about Jesus' return is not different than any other religion's speculations about the future. There are, all be they smaller, doomsday cults which speculate on their god's return or arrival.Quote:
5. Just answer the question, it's really simple: If Jesus does return, and those that believed have a perfect life for eternity, then wouldn't the objective, empirically-based approach show that their belief was ultimately the best for their "well-being"? Yes, no, maybe, I don't know? If "yes", then how could an objective, scientific, empirically-based approach TODAY determine that?
It would be similar for you to answer a question like this one: if someone kills a unicorn and eats the meat, and it causes cancer and he dies, would an objective, empirically-based assessment after the fact show that eating unicorn was not good for his "well-being"? Certainly, you could answer that hypothetical question, couldn't you?
But, let's just go ahead and take your example: suppose that an objective, empirically-based approach today shows that a heavy, meat-centric diet is bad for one's well being. Here is my question:
Assume you are able to go back decades in time and tell people about this, before there were any objective, empirically-based approaches to show it. Only you know about it, the world doesn't. Would those who followed your advice, simply on the basis of their belief in you, and not in any scientific approach, benefit in the future in terms of "well-being", in an objective, empirically-based way?
Depends on what the data show.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:But would their subjective decision lead to their future "well-being" objectively, as you define it?TexasScientist said:Unless you brought along and provided the scientific evidence to support the health benefits, any who followed in belief would make their decision subjectively.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Well, no, you really didn't answer the question. You answered "no" because you didn't want to accept the premise. You really didn't answer the logic of the question, and we know why.TexasScientist said:I believe I did answer. But let's say someone eats a heavy meat centric diet and dies from a heart attack. An objective, empirically based assessment after the fact would show that a heavy meat centric diet is not good for that person's well being.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Why aren't you able to answer a simple question based on a hypothetical? It's irrelevant whether the hypothetical is plausible to you or not. The question isn't requiring you to believe the premise. It's just asking about the logic.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:1. Or, Jesus didn't do it because he was bringing a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy. In other words, the situation changed, not the morals. Just like I explained earlier. Which you ignore and continue to repeat yourself. This is a pattern for you. Just like with the "christians should be stoning today" comment. It's already been explained why they don't. But with you it's wash, rinse, repeat.Quote:
1. Logic tells you that Jesus considered it wrong to stone the woman, or else he would have done it himself as you have said. If it is not wrong, Christians and Jews should be stoning today.
2. The fact that you have to undertake such a convoluted path of reasoning for justification is reason to not believe In religious myth. How do you know anything is mandated by god. If a Rabbi, or a Pope claims a divine order from god tomorrow to nuke all of the men women in Syria, or China, would you agree with it? Where in the Jewish law does it say if god orders the killing of innocent women and children it is not murder? If the Canaanites were so evil, why wouldn't a loving god send Jesus to them, or miraculously and supernaturally intervene and set them on the right path? It's not believable. What you are describing is an evil, malicious, and psychopathic god. If he is supernatural, then what he omnisciently knows is irrelevant to a loving supernatural gods ability to save everyone and set them on the right path. Why play around with killing and torturing the Canaanites and presumably sending them to hell? Why order or let the Jews pillage, plunder, and apparently rape their women? He is internally inconsistent in the Bible. Is "mercy killing" really justified by any measure? What is the age of "tainting" so that those younger would be spared hell by mercy killing. Why would god send the older "tainted" children to hell when he doesn't have to? A merciful all powerful god would just forgive them. What happens if a self proclaimed prophet claims all abortion is mercy killing as revealed by god? There isn't even agreement among those claiming to be Christians on who gets into heaven. Catholics believe, according to Sam, that most everyone goes to Purgatory for an appropriate amount of time, depending upon your degree of sin, and the you go to heaven. Surely, if one objectively thinks about it, they'll see religion for the nonsense that it is.
I personally don't have to assume a god's existence, omniscient or not, to point out the inconsistency and illogical beliefs of adherents to a religious idea. I can point out the fallacies of belief in such a god without being illogical or needing objective proof. There is no objective proof of any god. However, there is abundant objective proof of illogical human belief in god/gods.
The evidence of reality points to the fallacy of religious beliefs. There is no evidence for the existence of an infinite, omniscient being, other than as a figment of human imaginations. In reality god is created in the image and minds of men.
What I am saying is objectively made determinations of morality are better in terms of everyone's well-being.
What you are projecting is hypothetical without any objective evidence to support that belief. There is considerable disagreement within the Christian community on this subject of heaven, if there is a hell, and who goes there. If God knows the future as you say, it begs the question why would he even put people through the present and even hell when he doesn't have to. If he is all powerful, all loving, and willing to forgive, he could just forgive everyone, a concept preached every Sunday or Saturday from the pulpit, and set everyone up in a utopian heaven right now. No one would have to suffer. This is where faith is folly, and science is a tool for us to navigate reality.
2. In the end, it still remains that you are limited in knowledge and time frame, and God is not. Therefore you are inadequate to fairly judge God.
3. If you don't need objective proof to assume God's existence in order to show the ill-logic, then neither do I in order to show the logic isn't necessarily ill. Yet, that was your claim.
4. The evidence of reality points to an infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient being. Your statement that it does not, is just as much a statement of faith as mine.
5. Just answer the question, it's really simple: If Jesus does return, and those that believed have a perfect life for eternity, then wouldn't the objective, empirically-based approach show that their belief was ultimately the best for their "well-being"? Yes, no, maybe, I don't know? If "yes", then how could an objective, scientific, empirically-based approach TODAY determine that?Why would he need to bring a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy? He could simply forgive without all the confusion. Why would he wait until about 2,000 years ago? And why wouldn't he just start off with heaven in the first place? It only makes sense if you are emotionally vested from being raised in a Christian culture and culturally reinforced to believe.Quote:
1. Or, Jesus didn't do it because he was bringing a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy. In other words, the situation changed, not the morals. Just like I explained earlier. Which you ignore and continue to repeat yourself. This is a pattern for you. Just like with the "christians should be stoning today" comment. It's already been explained why they don't. But with you it's wash, rinse, repeat.Quote:
2. In the end, it still remains that you are limited in knowledge and time frame, and God is not. Therefore you are inadequate to fairly judge God.
All humans are limited in knowledge and time. There is no credible empirical evidence to prove god exists. To say who are we to judge god is a cop out when inconsistencies in the Bible are raised. I'm not judging god, because I don't believe he exists. I'm pointing out mythological inconsistencies. These inconsistencies ad weight to the conclusion of god's nonexistence.I said I don't need to believe in god to point out fallacies and inconsistencies in belief in that god. Existence of objective proof is irrelevant to pointing out inconsistencies and fallacies. However, there is not objective proof of any gods existence. If the Bible is god's inerrant word, then certainly that god does not exist because the Bible is full of errors, and there is no objective evidence to support any of the supernatural claims it contains.Quote:
3. If you don't need objective proof to assume God's existence in order to show the ill-logic, then neither do I in order to show the logic isn't necessarily ill. Yet, that was your claim.There is nothing in the Universe that requires the existence of any god for explanation. We have plausible explanations for the present state of the Universe. There is no plausible explanation for the existence of any god, or objective evidence of any god.Quote:
4. The evidence of reality points to an infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient being. Your statement that it does not, is just as much a statement of faith as mine.No. Because there is no objective empirical evidence upon which to make a judgement of Jesus existence as a god, or that he is coming back to life, or back to Earth. Speculation about Jesus' return is not different than any other religion's speculations about the future. There are, all be they smaller, doomsday cults which speculate on their god's return or arrival.Quote:
5. Just answer the question, it's really simple: If Jesus does return, and those that believed have a perfect life for eternity, then wouldn't the objective, empirically-based approach show that their belief was ultimately the best for their "well-being"? Yes, no, maybe, I don't know? If "yes", then how could an objective, scientific, empirically-based approach TODAY determine that?
It would be similar for you to answer a question like this one: if someone kills a unicorn and eats the meat, and it causes cancer and he dies, would an objective, empirically-based assessment after the fact show that eating unicorn was not good for his "well-being"? Certainly, you could answer that hypothetical question, couldn't you?
But, let's just go ahead and take your example: suppose that an objective, empirically-based approach today shows that a heavy, meat-centric diet is bad for one's well being. Here is my question:
Assume you are able to go back decades in time and tell people about this, before there were any objective, empirically-based approaches to show it. Only you know about it, the world doesn't. Would those who followed your advice, simply on the basis of their belief in you, and not in any scientific approach, benefit in the future in terms of "well-being", in an objective, empirically-based way?
What it shows is already being assumed. Please keep up if you want to chime in.quash said:Depends on what the data show.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:But would their subjective decision lead to their future "well-being" objectively, as you define it?TexasScientist said:Unless you brought along and provided the scientific evidence to support the health benefits, any who followed in belief would make their decision subjectively.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Well, no, you really didn't answer the question. You answered "no" because you didn't want to accept the premise. You really didn't answer the logic of the question, and we know why.TexasScientist said:I believe I did answer. But let's say someone eats a heavy meat centric diet and dies from a heart attack. An objective, empirically based assessment after the fact would show that a heavy meat centric diet is not good for that person's well being.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Why aren't you able to answer a simple question based on a hypothetical? It's irrelevant whether the hypothetical is plausible to you or not. The question isn't requiring you to believe the premise. It's just asking about the logic.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:1. Or, Jesus didn't do it because he was bringing a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy. In other words, the situation changed, not the morals. Just like I explained earlier. Which you ignore and continue to repeat yourself. This is a pattern for you. Just like with the "christians should be stoning today" comment. It's already been explained why they don't. But with you it's wash, rinse, repeat.Quote:
1. Logic tells you that Jesus considered it wrong to stone the woman, or else he would have done it himself as you have said. If it is not wrong, Christians and Jews should be stoning today.
2. The fact that you have to undertake such a convoluted path of reasoning for justification is reason to not believe In religious myth. How do you know anything is mandated by god. If a Rabbi, or a Pope claims a divine order from god tomorrow to nuke all of the men women in Syria, or China, would you agree with it? Where in the Jewish law does it say if god orders the killing of innocent women and children it is not murder? If the Canaanites were so evil, why wouldn't a loving god send Jesus to them, or miraculously and supernaturally intervene and set them on the right path? It's not believable. What you are describing is an evil, malicious, and psychopathic god. If he is supernatural, then what he omnisciently knows is irrelevant to a loving supernatural gods ability to save everyone and set them on the right path. Why play around with killing and torturing the Canaanites and presumably sending them to hell? Why order or let the Jews pillage, plunder, and apparently rape their women? He is internally inconsistent in the Bible. Is "mercy killing" really justified by any measure? What is the age of "tainting" so that those younger would be spared hell by mercy killing. Why would god send the older "tainted" children to hell when he doesn't have to? A merciful all powerful god would just forgive them. What happens if a self proclaimed prophet claims all abortion is mercy killing as revealed by god? There isn't even agreement among those claiming to be Christians on who gets into heaven. Catholics believe, according to Sam, that most everyone goes to Purgatory for an appropriate amount of time, depending upon your degree of sin, and the you go to heaven. Surely, if one objectively thinks about it, they'll see religion for the nonsense that it is.
I personally don't have to assume a god's existence, omniscient or not, to point out the inconsistency and illogical beliefs of adherents to a religious idea. I can point out the fallacies of belief in such a god without being illogical or needing objective proof. There is no objective proof of any god. However, there is abundant objective proof of illogical human belief in god/gods.
The evidence of reality points to the fallacy of religious beliefs. There is no evidence for the existence of an infinite, omniscient being, other than as a figment of human imaginations. In reality god is created in the image and minds of men.
What I am saying is objectively made determinations of morality are better in terms of everyone's well-being.
What you are projecting is hypothetical without any objective evidence to support that belief. There is considerable disagreement within the Christian community on this subject of heaven, if there is a hell, and who goes there. If God knows the future as you say, it begs the question why would he even put people through the present and even hell when he doesn't have to. If he is all powerful, all loving, and willing to forgive, he could just forgive everyone, a concept preached every Sunday or Saturday from the pulpit, and set everyone up in a utopian heaven right now. No one would have to suffer. This is where faith is folly, and science is a tool for us to navigate reality.
2. In the end, it still remains that you are limited in knowledge and time frame, and God is not. Therefore you are inadequate to fairly judge God.
3. If you don't need objective proof to assume God's existence in order to show the ill-logic, then neither do I in order to show the logic isn't necessarily ill. Yet, that was your claim.
4. The evidence of reality points to an infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient being. Your statement that it does not, is just as much a statement of faith as mine.
5. Just answer the question, it's really simple: If Jesus does return, and those that believed have a perfect life for eternity, then wouldn't the objective, empirically-based approach show that their belief was ultimately the best for their "well-being"? Yes, no, maybe, I don't know? If "yes", then how could an objective, scientific, empirically-based approach TODAY determine that?Why would he need to bring a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy? He could simply forgive without all the confusion. Why would he wait until about 2,000 years ago? And why wouldn't he just start off with heaven in the first place? It only makes sense if you are emotionally vested from being raised in a Christian culture and culturally reinforced to believe.Quote:
1. Or, Jesus didn't do it because he was bringing a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy. In other words, the situation changed, not the morals. Just like I explained earlier. Which you ignore and continue to repeat yourself. This is a pattern for you. Just like with the "christians should be stoning today" comment. It's already been explained why they don't. But with you it's wash, rinse, repeat.Quote:
2. In the end, it still remains that you are limited in knowledge and time frame, and God is not. Therefore you are inadequate to fairly judge God.
All humans are limited in knowledge and time. There is no credible empirical evidence to prove god exists. To say who are we to judge god is a cop out when inconsistencies in the Bible are raised. I'm not judging god, because I don't believe he exists. I'm pointing out mythological inconsistencies. These inconsistencies ad weight to the conclusion of god's nonexistence.I said I don't need to believe in god to point out fallacies and inconsistencies in belief in that god. Existence of objective proof is irrelevant to pointing out inconsistencies and fallacies. However, there is not objective proof of any gods existence. If the Bible is god's inerrant word, then certainly that god does not exist because the Bible is full of errors, and there is no objective evidence to support any of the supernatural claims it contains.Quote:
3. If you don't need objective proof to assume God's existence in order to show the ill-logic, then neither do I in order to show the logic isn't necessarily ill. Yet, that was your claim.There is nothing in the Universe that requires the existence of any god for explanation. We have plausible explanations for the present state of the Universe. There is no plausible explanation for the existence of any god, or objective evidence of any god.Quote:
4. The evidence of reality points to an infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient being. Your statement that it does not, is just as much a statement of faith as mine.No. Because there is no objective empirical evidence upon which to make a judgement of Jesus existence as a god, or that he is coming back to life, or back to Earth. Speculation about Jesus' return is not different than any other religion's speculations about the future. There are, all be they smaller, doomsday cults which speculate on their god's return or arrival.Quote:
5. Just answer the question, it's really simple: If Jesus does return, and those that believed have a perfect life for eternity, then wouldn't the objective, empirically-based approach show that their belief was ultimately the best for their "well-being"? Yes, no, maybe, I don't know? If "yes", then how could an objective, scientific, empirically-based approach TODAY determine that?
It would be similar for you to answer a question like this one: if someone kills a unicorn and eats the meat, and it causes cancer and he dies, would an objective, empirically-based assessment after the fact show that eating unicorn was not good for his "well-being"? Certainly, you could answer that hypothetical question, couldn't you?
But, let's just go ahead and take your example: suppose that an objective, empirically-based approach today shows that a heavy, meat-centric diet is bad for one's well being. Here is my question:
Assume you are able to go back decades in time and tell people about this, before there were any objective, empirically-based approaches to show it. Only you know about it, the world doesn't. Would those who followed your advice, simply on the basis of their belief in you, and not in any scientific approach, benefit in the future in terms of "well-being", in an objective, empirically-based way?
That's not how your question was phrased. A subjective decision could go either way as to their future well being. Analyze the data and you have an objective measure of whether their well being has improved or not.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What it shows is already being assumed. Please keep up if you want to chime in.quash said:Depends on what the data show.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:But would their subjective decision lead to their future "well-being" objectively, as you define it?TexasScientist said:Unless you brought along and provided the scientific evidence to support the health benefits, any who followed in belief would make their decision subjectively.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Well, no, you really didn't answer the question. You answered "no" because you didn't want to accept the premise. You really didn't answer the logic of the question, and we know why.TexasScientist said:I believe I did answer. But let's say someone eats a heavy meat centric diet and dies from a heart attack. An objective, empirically based assessment after the fact would show that a heavy meat centric diet is not good for that person's well being.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Why aren't you able to answer a simple question based on a hypothetical? It's irrelevant whether the hypothetical is plausible to you or not. The question isn't requiring you to believe the premise. It's just asking about the logic.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:1. Or, Jesus didn't do it because he was bringing a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy. In other words, the situation changed, not the morals. Just like I explained earlier. Which you ignore and continue to repeat yourself. This is a pattern for you. Just like with the "christians should be stoning today" comment. It's already been explained why they don't. But with you it's wash, rinse, repeat.Quote:
1. Logic tells you that Jesus considered it wrong to stone the woman, or else he would have done it himself as you have said. If it is not wrong, Christians and Jews should be stoning today.
2. The fact that you have to undertake such a convoluted path of reasoning for justification is reason to not believe In religious myth. How do you know anything is mandated by god. If a Rabbi, or a Pope claims a divine order from god tomorrow to nuke all of the men women in Syria, or China, would you agree with it? Where in the Jewish law does it say if god orders the killing of innocent women and children it is not murder? If the Canaanites were so evil, why wouldn't a loving god send Jesus to them, or miraculously and supernaturally intervene and set them on the right path? It's not believable. What you are describing is an evil, malicious, and psychopathic god. If he is supernatural, then what he omnisciently knows is irrelevant to a loving supernatural gods ability to save everyone and set them on the right path. Why play around with killing and torturing the Canaanites and presumably sending them to hell? Why order or let the Jews pillage, plunder, and apparently rape their women? He is internally inconsistent in the Bible. Is "mercy killing" really justified by any measure? What is the age of "tainting" so that those younger would be spared hell by mercy killing. Why would god send the older "tainted" children to hell when he doesn't have to? A merciful all powerful god would just forgive them. What happens if a self proclaimed prophet claims all abortion is mercy killing as revealed by god? There isn't even agreement among those claiming to be Christians on who gets into heaven. Catholics believe, according to Sam, that most everyone goes to Purgatory for an appropriate amount of time, depending upon your degree of sin, and the you go to heaven. Surely, if one objectively thinks about it, they'll see religion for the nonsense that it is.
I personally don't have to assume a god's existence, omniscient or not, to point out the inconsistency and illogical beliefs of adherents to a religious idea. I can point out the fallacies of belief in such a god without being illogical or needing objective proof. There is no objective proof of any god. However, there is abundant objective proof of illogical human belief in god/gods.
The evidence of reality points to the fallacy of religious beliefs. There is no evidence for the existence of an infinite, omniscient being, other than as a figment of human imaginations. In reality god is created in the image and minds of men.
What I am saying is objectively made determinations of morality are better in terms of everyone's well-being.
What you are projecting is hypothetical without any objective evidence to support that belief. There is considerable disagreement within the Christian community on this subject of heaven, if there is a hell, and who goes there. If God knows the future as you say, it begs the question why would he even put people through the present and even hell when he doesn't have to. If he is all powerful, all loving, and willing to forgive, he could just forgive everyone, a concept preached every Sunday or Saturday from the pulpit, and set everyone up in a utopian heaven right now. No one would have to suffer. This is where faith is folly, and science is a tool for us to navigate reality.
2. In the end, it still remains that you are limited in knowledge and time frame, and God is not. Therefore you are inadequate to fairly judge God.
3. If you don't need objective proof to assume God's existence in order to show the ill-logic, then neither do I in order to show the logic isn't necessarily ill. Yet, that was your claim.
4. The evidence of reality points to an infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient being. Your statement that it does not, is just as much a statement of faith as mine.
5. Just answer the question, it's really simple: If Jesus does return, and those that believed have a perfect life for eternity, then wouldn't the objective, empirically-based approach show that their belief was ultimately the best for their "well-being"? Yes, no, maybe, I don't know? If "yes", then how could an objective, scientific, empirically-based approach TODAY determine that?Why would he need to bring a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy? He could simply forgive without all the confusion. Why would he wait until about 2,000 years ago? And why wouldn't he just start off with heaven in the first place? It only makes sense if you are emotionally vested from being raised in a Christian culture and culturally reinforced to believe.Quote:
1. Or, Jesus didn't do it because he was bringing a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy. In other words, the situation changed, not the morals. Just like I explained earlier. Which you ignore and continue to repeat yourself. This is a pattern for you. Just like with the "christians should be stoning today" comment. It's already been explained why they don't. But with you it's wash, rinse, repeat.Quote:
2. In the end, it still remains that you are limited in knowledge and time frame, and God is not. Therefore you are inadequate to fairly judge God.
All humans are limited in knowledge and time. There is no credible empirical evidence to prove god exists. To say who are we to judge god is a cop out when inconsistencies in the Bible are raised. I'm not judging god, because I don't believe he exists. I'm pointing out mythological inconsistencies. These inconsistencies ad weight to the conclusion of god's nonexistence.I said I don't need to believe in god to point out fallacies and inconsistencies in belief in that god. Existence of objective proof is irrelevant to pointing out inconsistencies and fallacies. However, there is not objective proof of any gods existence. If the Bible is god's inerrant word, then certainly that god does not exist because the Bible is full of errors, and there is no objective evidence to support any of the supernatural claims it contains.Quote:
3. If you don't need objective proof to assume God's existence in order to show the ill-logic, then neither do I in order to show the logic isn't necessarily ill. Yet, that was your claim.There is nothing in the Universe that requires the existence of any god for explanation. We have plausible explanations for the present state of the Universe. There is no plausible explanation for the existence of any god, or objective evidence of any god.Quote:
4. The evidence of reality points to an infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient being. Your statement that it does not, is just as much a statement of faith as mine.No. Because there is no objective empirical evidence upon which to make a judgement of Jesus existence as a god, or that he is coming back to life, or back to Earth. Speculation about Jesus' return is not different than any other religion's speculations about the future. There are, all be they smaller, doomsday cults which speculate on their god's return or arrival.Quote:
5. Just answer the question, it's really simple: If Jesus does return, and those that believed have a perfect life for eternity, then wouldn't the objective, empirically-based approach show that their belief was ultimately the best for their "well-being"? Yes, no, maybe, I don't know? If "yes", then how could an objective, scientific, empirically-based approach TODAY determine that?
It would be similar for you to answer a question like this one: if someone kills a unicorn and eats the meat, and it causes cancer and he dies, would an objective, empirically-based assessment after the fact show that eating unicorn was not good for his "well-being"? Certainly, you could answer that hypothetical question, couldn't you?
But, let's just go ahead and take your example: suppose that an objective, empirically-based approach today shows that a heavy, meat-centric diet is bad for one's well being. Here is my question:
Assume you are able to go back decades in time and tell people about this, before there were any objective, empirically-based approaches to show it. Only you know about it, the world doesn't. Would those who followed your advice, simply on the basis of their belief in you, and not in any scientific approach, benefit in the future in terms of "well-being", in an objective, empirically-based way?
It's why HS football players get a baseline read before the season, so that any future concussion event can be objectively evaluated.
It is being assumed that eating a heavy, meat-centric diet being bad for your "well-being" has already been scientifically established. That's the scenario. Read the question in its context, please.quash said:That's not how your question was phrased. A subjective decision could go either way as to their future well being. Analyze the data and you have an objective measure of whether their well being has improved or not.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What it shows is already being assumed. Please keep up if you want to chime in.quash said:Depends on what the data show.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:But would their subjective decision lead to their future "well-being" objectively, as you define it?TexasScientist said:Unless you brought along and provided the scientific evidence to support the health benefits, any who followed in belief would make their decision subjectively.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Well, no, you really didn't answer the question. You answered "no" because you didn't want to accept the premise. You really didn't answer the logic of the question, and we know why.TexasScientist said:I believe I did answer. But let's say someone eats a heavy meat centric diet and dies from a heart attack. An objective, empirically based assessment after the fact would show that a heavy meat centric diet is not good for that person's well being.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Why aren't you able to answer a simple question based on a hypothetical? It's irrelevant whether the hypothetical is plausible to you or not. The question isn't requiring you to believe the premise. It's just asking about the logic.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:1. Or, Jesus didn't do it because he was bringing a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy. In other words, the situation changed, not the morals. Just like I explained earlier. Which you ignore and continue to repeat yourself. This is a pattern for you. Just like with the "christians should be stoning today" comment. It's already been explained why they don't. But with you it's wash, rinse, repeat.Quote:
1. Logic tells you that Jesus considered it wrong to stone the woman, or else he would have done it himself as you have said. If it is not wrong, Christians and Jews should be stoning today.
2. The fact that you have to undertake such a convoluted path of reasoning for justification is reason to not believe In religious myth. How do you know anything is mandated by god. If a Rabbi, or a Pope claims a divine order from god tomorrow to nuke all of the men women in Syria, or China, would you agree with it? Where in the Jewish law does it say if god orders the killing of innocent women and children it is not murder? If the Canaanites were so evil, why wouldn't a loving god send Jesus to them, or miraculously and supernaturally intervene and set them on the right path? It's not believable. What you are describing is an evil, malicious, and psychopathic god. If he is supernatural, then what he omnisciently knows is irrelevant to a loving supernatural gods ability to save everyone and set them on the right path. Why play around with killing and torturing the Canaanites and presumably sending them to hell? Why order or let the Jews pillage, plunder, and apparently rape their women? He is internally inconsistent in the Bible. Is "mercy killing" really justified by any measure? What is the age of "tainting" so that those younger would be spared hell by mercy killing. Why would god send the older "tainted" children to hell when he doesn't have to? A merciful all powerful god would just forgive them. What happens if a self proclaimed prophet claims all abortion is mercy killing as revealed by god? There isn't even agreement among those claiming to be Christians on who gets into heaven. Catholics believe, according to Sam, that most everyone goes to Purgatory for an appropriate amount of time, depending upon your degree of sin, and the you go to heaven. Surely, if one objectively thinks about it, they'll see religion for the nonsense that it is.
I personally don't have to assume a god's existence, omniscient or not, to point out the inconsistency and illogical beliefs of adherents to a religious idea. I can point out the fallacies of belief in such a god without being illogical or needing objective proof. There is no objective proof of any god. However, there is abundant objective proof of illogical human belief in god/gods.
The evidence of reality points to the fallacy of religious beliefs. There is no evidence for the existence of an infinite, omniscient being, other than as a figment of human imaginations. In reality god is created in the image and minds of men.
What I am saying is objectively made determinations of morality are better in terms of everyone's well-being.
What you are projecting is hypothetical without any objective evidence to support that belief. There is considerable disagreement within the Christian community on this subject of heaven, if there is a hell, and who goes there. If God knows the future as you say, it begs the question why would he even put people through the present and even hell when he doesn't have to. If he is all powerful, all loving, and willing to forgive, he could just forgive everyone, a concept preached every Sunday or Saturday from the pulpit, and set everyone up in a utopian heaven right now. No one would have to suffer. This is where faith is folly, and science is a tool for us to navigate reality.
2. In the end, it still remains that you are limited in knowledge and time frame, and God is not. Therefore you are inadequate to fairly judge God.
3. If you don't need objective proof to assume God's existence in order to show the ill-logic, then neither do I in order to show the logic isn't necessarily ill. Yet, that was your claim.
4. The evidence of reality points to an infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient being. Your statement that it does not, is just as much a statement of faith as mine.
5. Just answer the question, it's really simple: If Jesus does return, and those that believed have a perfect life for eternity, then wouldn't the objective, empirically-based approach show that their belief was ultimately the best for their "well-being"? Yes, no, maybe, I don't know? If "yes", then how could an objective, scientific, empirically-based approach TODAY determine that?Why would he need to bring a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy? He could simply forgive without all the confusion. Why would he wait until about 2,000 years ago? And why wouldn't he just start off with heaven in the first place? It only makes sense if you are emotionally vested from being raised in a Christian culture and culturally reinforced to believe.Quote:
1. Or, Jesus didn't do it because he was bringing a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy. In other words, the situation changed, not the morals. Just like I explained earlier. Which you ignore and continue to repeat yourself. This is a pattern for you. Just like with the "christians should be stoning today" comment. It's already been explained why they don't. But with you it's wash, rinse, repeat.Quote:
2. In the end, it still remains that you are limited in knowledge and time frame, and God is not. Therefore you are inadequate to fairly judge God.
All humans are limited in knowledge and time. There is no credible empirical evidence to prove god exists. To say who are we to judge god is a cop out when inconsistencies in the Bible are raised. I'm not judging god, because I don't believe he exists. I'm pointing out mythological inconsistencies. These inconsistencies ad weight to the conclusion of god's nonexistence.I said I don't need to believe in god to point out fallacies and inconsistencies in belief in that god. Existence of objective proof is irrelevant to pointing out inconsistencies and fallacies. However, there is not objective proof of any gods existence. If the Bible is god's inerrant word, then certainly that god does not exist because the Bible is full of errors, and there is no objective evidence to support any of the supernatural claims it contains.Quote:
3. If you don't need objective proof to assume God's existence in order to show the ill-logic, then neither do I in order to show the logic isn't necessarily ill. Yet, that was your claim.There is nothing in the Universe that requires the existence of any god for explanation. We have plausible explanations for the present state of the Universe. There is no plausible explanation for the existence of any god, or objective evidence of any god.Quote:
4. The evidence of reality points to an infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient being. Your statement that it does not, is just as much a statement of faith as mine.No. Because there is no objective empirical evidence upon which to make a judgement of Jesus existence as a god, or that he is coming back to life, or back to Earth. Speculation about Jesus' return is not different than any other religion's speculations about the future. There are, all be they smaller, doomsday cults which speculate on their god's return or arrival.Quote:
5. Just answer the question, it's really simple: If Jesus does return, and those that believed have a perfect life for eternity, then wouldn't the objective, empirically-based approach show that their belief was ultimately the best for their "well-being"? Yes, no, maybe, I don't know? If "yes", then how could an objective, scientific, empirically-based approach TODAY determine that?
It would be similar for you to answer a question like this one: if someone kills a unicorn and eats the meat, and it causes cancer and he dies, would an objective, empirically-based assessment after the fact show that eating unicorn was not good for his "well-being"? Certainly, you could answer that hypothetical question, couldn't you?
But, let's just go ahead and take your example: suppose that an objective, empirically-based approach today shows that a heavy, meat-centric diet is bad for one's well being. Here is my question:
Assume you are able to go back decades in time and tell people about this, before there were any objective, empirically-based approaches to show it. Only you know about it, the world doesn't. Would those who followed your advice, simply on the basis of their belief in you, and not in any scientific approach, benefit in the future in terms of "well-being", in an objective, empirically-based way?
It's why HS football players get a baseline read before the season, so that any future concussion event can be objectively evaluated.
Hey atheists....if there is no God, how did all of this get here?
Your original scenario was based on future data, not available in the present.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It is being assumed that eating a heavy, meat-centric diet being bad for your "well-being" has already been scientifically established. That's the scenario. Read the question in its context, please.quash said:That's not how your question was phrased. A subjective decision could go either way as to their future well being. Analyze the data and you have an objective measure of whether their well being has improved or not.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What it shows is already being assumed. Please keep up if you want to chime in.quash said:Depends on what the data show.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:But would their subjective decision lead to their future "well-being" objectively, as you define it?TexasScientist said:Unless you brought along and provided the scientific evidence to support the health benefits, any who followed in belief would make their decision subjectively.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Well, no, you really didn't answer the question. You answered "no" because you didn't want to accept the premise. You really didn't answer the logic of the question, and we know why.TexasScientist said:I believe I did answer. But let's say someone eats a heavy meat centric diet and dies from a heart attack. An objective, empirically based assessment after the fact would show that a heavy meat centric diet is not good for that person's well being.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Why aren't you able to answer a simple question based on a hypothetical? It's irrelevant whether the hypothetical is plausible to you or not. The question isn't requiring you to believe the premise. It's just asking about the logic.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:1. Or, Jesus didn't do it because he was bringing a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy. In other words, the situation changed, not the morals. Just like I explained earlier. Which you ignore and continue to repeat yourself. This is a pattern for you. Just like with the "christians should be stoning today" comment. It's already been explained why they don't. But with you it's wash, rinse, repeat.Quote:
1. Logic tells you that Jesus considered it wrong to stone the woman, or else he would have done it himself as you have said. If it is not wrong, Christians and Jews should be stoning today.
2. The fact that you have to undertake such a convoluted path of reasoning for justification is reason to not believe In religious myth. How do you know anything is mandated by god. If a Rabbi, or a Pope claims a divine order from god tomorrow to nuke all of the men women in Syria, or China, would you agree with it? Where in the Jewish law does it say if god orders the killing of innocent women and children it is not murder? If the Canaanites were so evil, why wouldn't a loving god send Jesus to them, or miraculously and supernaturally intervene and set them on the right path? It's not believable. What you are describing is an evil, malicious, and psychopathic god. If he is supernatural, then what he omnisciently knows is irrelevant to a loving supernatural gods ability to save everyone and set them on the right path. Why play around with killing and torturing the Canaanites and presumably sending them to hell? Why order or let the Jews pillage, plunder, and apparently rape their women? He is internally inconsistent in the Bible. Is "mercy killing" really justified by any measure? What is the age of "tainting" so that those younger would be spared hell by mercy killing. Why would god send the older "tainted" children to hell when he doesn't have to? A merciful all powerful god would just forgive them. What happens if a self proclaimed prophet claims all abortion is mercy killing as revealed by god? There isn't even agreement among those claiming to be Christians on who gets into heaven. Catholics believe, according to Sam, that most everyone goes to Purgatory for an appropriate amount of time, depending upon your degree of sin, and the you go to heaven. Surely, if one objectively thinks about it, they'll see religion for the nonsense that it is.
I personally don't have to assume a god's existence, omniscient or not, to point out the inconsistency and illogical beliefs of adherents to a religious idea. I can point out the fallacies of belief in such a god without being illogical or needing objective proof. There is no objective proof of any god. However, there is abundant objective proof of illogical human belief in god/gods.
The evidence of reality points to the fallacy of religious beliefs. There is no evidence for the existence of an infinite, omniscient being, other than as a figment of human imaginations. In reality god is created in the image and minds of men.
What I am saying is objectively made determinations of morality are better in terms of everyone's well-being.
What you are projecting is hypothetical without any objective evidence to support that belief. There is considerable disagreement within the Christian community on this subject of heaven, if there is a hell, and who goes there. If God knows the future as you say, it begs the question why would he even put people through the present and even hell when he doesn't have to. If he is all powerful, all loving, and willing to forgive, he could just forgive everyone, a concept preached every Sunday or Saturday from the pulpit, and set everyone up in a utopian heaven right now. No one would have to suffer. This is where faith is folly, and science is a tool for us to navigate reality.
2. In the end, it still remains that you are limited in knowledge and time frame, and God is not. Therefore you are inadequate to fairly judge God.
3. If you don't need objective proof to assume God's existence in order to show the ill-logic, then neither do I in order to show the logic isn't necessarily ill. Yet, that was your claim.
4. The evidence of reality points to an infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient being. Your statement that it does not, is just as much a statement of faith as mine.
5. Just answer the question, it's really simple: If Jesus does return, and those that believed have a perfect life for eternity, then wouldn't the objective, empirically-based approach show that their belief was ultimately the best for their "well-being"? Yes, no, maybe, I don't know? If "yes", then how could an objective, scientific, empirically-based approach TODAY determine that?Why would he need to bring a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy? He could simply forgive without all the confusion. Why would he wait until about 2,000 years ago? And why wouldn't he just start off with heaven in the first place? It only makes sense if you are emotionally vested from being raised in a Christian culture and culturally reinforced to believe.Quote:
1. Or, Jesus didn't do it because he was bringing a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy. In other words, the situation changed, not the morals. Just like I explained earlier. Which you ignore and continue to repeat yourself. This is a pattern for you. Just like with the "christians should be stoning today" comment. It's already been explained why they don't. But with you it's wash, rinse, repeat.Quote:
2. In the end, it still remains that you are limited in knowledge and time frame, and God is not. Therefore you are inadequate to fairly judge God.
All humans are limited in knowledge and time. There is no credible empirical evidence to prove god exists. To say who are we to judge god is a cop out when inconsistencies in the Bible are raised. I'm not judging god, because I don't believe he exists. I'm pointing out mythological inconsistencies. These inconsistencies ad weight to the conclusion of god's nonexistence.I said I don't need to believe in god to point out fallacies and inconsistencies in belief in that god. Existence of objective proof is irrelevant to pointing out inconsistencies and fallacies. However, there is not objective proof of any gods existence. If the Bible is god's inerrant word, then certainly that god does not exist because the Bible is full of errors, and there is no objective evidence to support any of the supernatural claims it contains.Quote:
3. If you don't need objective proof to assume God's existence in order to show the ill-logic, then neither do I in order to show the logic isn't necessarily ill. Yet, that was your claim.There is nothing in the Universe that requires the existence of any god for explanation. We have plausible explanations for the present state of the Universe. There is no plausible explanation for the existence of any god, or objective evidence of any god.Quote:
4. The evidence of reality points to an infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient being. Your statement that it does not, is just as much a statement of faith as mine.No. Because there is no objective empirical evidence upon which to make a judgement of Jesus existence as a god, or that he is coming back to life, or back to Earth. Speculation about Jesus' return is not different than any other religion's speculations about the future. There are, all be they smaller, doomsday cults which speculate on their god's return or arrival.Quote:
5. Just answer the question, it's really simple: If Jesus does return, and those that believed have a perfect life for eternity, then wouldn't the objective, empirically-based approach show that their belief was ultimately the best for their "well-being"? Yes, no, maybe, I don't know? If "yes", then how could an objective, scientific, empirically-based approach TODAY determine that?
It would be similar for you to answer a question like this one: if someone kills a unicorn and eats the meat, and it causes cancer and he dies, would an objective, empirically-based assessment after the fact show that eating unicorn was not good for his "well-being"? Certainly, you could answer that hypothetical question, couldn't you?
But, let's just go ahead and take your example: suppose that an objective, empirically-based approach today shows that a heavy, meat-centric diet is bad for one's well being. Here is my question:
Assume you are able to go back decades in time and tell people about this, before there were any objective, empirically-based approaches to show it. Only you know about it, the world doesn't. Would those who followed your advice, simply on the basis of their belief in you, and not in any scientific approach, benefit in the future in terms of "well-being", in an objective, empirically-based way?
It's why HS football players get a baseline read before the season, so that any future concussion event can be objectively evaluated.
Big Bang. More seriously, quantum fluctuation in a vacuum.ScottS said:
Hey atheists....if there is no God, how did all of this get here?
Considering evidence of what will maximize human thriving is not the same as establishing human thriving as a fundamental premise. They are completely, totally, one hundred percent different things.TexasScientist said:Most of y'all are not listening to what I've been saying. Morality should be based upon a humanistic science of morality approach, taking into consideration objective empirical evidence of harm in terms of human, well-being and flourishing, as opposed belief in a religious leaders subjective pronouncements.Sam Lowry said:Every time you say you'd rather base morality on so-called objective evidence, you are speaking subjectively. "I'd rather" is a textbook example of a subjective statement.TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:Most evolutionary psychologists would say we've outgrown the need for religion as a basis for morals. Of course that's pure conjecture on their part, but it doesn't stop them from saying it. They could just as easily say we've outgrown the idea of human well-being as a basis (which is essentially what the murderous scientistic regimes of the last century did say).TexasScientist said:It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.TexasScientist said:
If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.
Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.
Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".
And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.
In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?
The fatal flaws of utilitarianism are equally present in your argument. There's no real way to define "the well-being of others" given the reality that people have conflicting interests and different ideas of well-being. It's an illusory concept subject to exploitation by any and every ideology that happens to seize upon it.Evolutionary psychologists rely upon objective scientific evidence in forming opinions. Religion is where conjecture and subjectivity comes into play because it requires faith and belief without objective evidence. Under your scenario it would no longer be objectively based humanistic science of morality. Instead, it would be some other devised system, such as those of the state regimes you allude. Historically, people are subject to being led down immoral paths by leaders of state, by there religious leaders or both. Cultures and societies determine what is moral. Morality should be based upon a system of values predicated upon harm, well-being, and the ability to flourish of others as determined by empirical, objective scientific evidence - as opposed to a system of subjective religious beliefs,Quote:
Most evolutionary psychologists would say we've outgrown the need for religion as a basis for morals. Of course that's pure conjecture on their part, but it doesn't stop them from saying it. They could just as easily say we've outgrown the idea of human well-being as a basis (which is essentially what the murderous scientistic regimes of the last century did say).Sure there is, because it is evidence based. Well-being can certainly be defined through analysis of objective empirical evidence through application of the scientific method. Religion is the illusory concept, and it has been exploited by the conflicting interests and different ideas and ideologies of religious people.Quote:
There's no real way to define "the well-being of others" given the reality that people have conflicting interests and different ideas of well-being. It's an illusory concept subject to exploitation by any and every ideology that happens to seize upon it.
This approach anchors morality in a rational empirical consideration of reality as evidenced by the natural world, as opposed to subjective belief in the supernatural world. Consideration is given to what is best, and will maximize the thriving of individuals, all societies and cultures, and other conscious beings. Cultures or societies can use this approach in providing answers to questions of morality as foundational fundamental premises for objective, secular, philosophical discussion or moral problems.
Individuals collectively determine cultural morals from whatever they base as their source. The philosophical debate between objective and subjective morality has been longstanding and won't be resolved here, and is somewhat irrelevant to my point of where morality should be sourced. If you want to say an individual's determination for a source of morality has a subjective and even emotional component, I won't argue with you. I am saying and arguing that morals should be based upon the objective evidence of reality, and not upon subjective religious pronouncements from those claiming divine enlightenment.
Future data, the knowledge of which is available to the past/present, through you, as per the scenario, which you know already. We really don't need to be getting into the whole Back to the Future thing. What about your answer to the question?TexasScientist said:Your original scenario was based on future data, not available in the present.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It is being assumed that eating a heavy, meat-centric diet being bad for your "well-being" has already been scientifically established. That's the scenario. Read the question in its context, please.quash said:That's not how your question was phrased. A subjective decision could go either way as to their future well being. Analyze the data and you have an objective measure of whether their well being has improved or not.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What it shows is already being assumed. Please keep up if you want to chime in.quash said:Depends on what the data show.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:But would their subjective decision lead to their future "well-being" objectively, as you define it?TexasScientist said:Unless you brought along and provided the scientific evidence to support the health benefits, any who followed in belief would make their decision subjectively.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Well, no, you really didn't answer the question. You answered "no" because you didn't want to accept the premise. You really didn't answer the logic of the question, and we know why.TexasScientist said:I believe I did answer. But let's say someone eats a heavy meat centric diet and dies from a heart attack. An objective, empirically based assessment after the fact would show that a heavy meat centric diet is not good for that person's well being.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Why aren't you able to answer a simple question based on a hypothetical? It's irrelevant whether the hypothetical is plausible to you or not. The question isn't requiring you to believe the premise. It's just asking about the logic.TexasScientist said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:1. Or, Jesus didn't do it because he was bringing a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy. In other words, the situation changed, not the morals. Just like I explained earlier. Which you ignore and continue to repeat yourself. This is a pattern for you. Just like with the "christians should be stoning today" comment. It's already been explained why they don't. But with you it's wash, rinse, repeat.Quote:
1. Logic tells you that Jesus considered it wrong to stone the woman, or else he would have done it himself as you have said. If it is not wrong, Christians and Jews should be stoning today.
2. The fact that you have to undertake such a convoluted path of reasoning for justification is reason to not believe In religious myth. How do you know anything is mandated by god. If a Rabbi, or a Pope claims a divine order from god tomorrow to nuke all of the men women in Syria, or China, would you agree with it? Where in the Jewish law does it say if god orders the killing of innocent women and children it is not murder? If the Canaanites were so evil, why wouldn't a loving god send Jesus to them, or miraculously and supernaturally intervene and set them on the right path? It's not believable. What you are describing is an evil, malicious, and psychopathic god. If he is supernatural, then what he omnisciently knows is irrelevant to a loving supernatural gods ability to save everyone and set them on the right path. Why play around with killing and torturing the Canaanites and presumably sending them to hell? Why order or let the Jews pillage, plunder, and apparently rape their women? He is internally inconsistent in the Bible. Is "mercy killing" really justified by any measure? What is the age of "tainting" so that those younger would be spared hell by mercy killing. Why would god send the older "tainted" children to hell when he doesn't have to? A merciful all powerful god would just forgive them. What happens if a self proclaimed prophet claims all abortion is mercy killing as revealed by god? There isn't even agreement among those claiming to be Christians on who gets into heaven. Catholics believe, according to Sam, that most everyone goes to Purgatory for an appropriate amount of time, depending upon your degree of sin, and the you go to heaven. Surely, if one objectively thinks about it, they'll see religion for the nonsense that it is.
I personally don't have to assume a god's existence, omniscient or not, to point out the inconsistency and illogical beliefs of adherents to a religious idea. I can point out the fallacies of belief in such a god without being illogical or needing objective proof. There is no objective proof of any god. However, there is abundant objective proof of illogical human belief in god/gods.
The evidence of reality points to the fallacy of religious beliefs. There is no evidence for the existence of an infinite, omniscient being, other than as a figment of human imaginations. In reality god is created in the image and minds of men.
What I am saying is objectively made determinations of morality are better in terms of everyone's well-being.
What you are projecting is hypothetical without any objective evidence to support that belief. There is considerable disagreement within the Christian community on this subject of heaven, if there is a hell, and who goes there. If God knows the future as you say, it begs the question why would he even put people through the present and even hell when he doesn't have to. If he is all powerful, all loving, and willing to forgive, he could just forgive everyone, a concept preached every Sunday or Saturday from the pulpit, and set everyone up in a utopian heaven right now. No one would have to suffer. This is where faith is folly, and science is a tool for us to navigate reality.
2. In the end, it still remains that you are limited in knowledge and time frame, and God is not. Therefore you are inadequate to fairly judge God.
3. If you don't need objective proof to assume God's existence in order to show the ill-logic, then neither do I in order to show the logic isn't necessarily ill. Yet, that was your claim.
4. The evidence of reality points to an infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient being. Your statement that it does not, is just as much a statement of faith as mine.
5. Just answer the question, it's really simple: If Jesus does return, and those that believed have a perfect life for eternity, then wouldn't the objective, empirically-based approach show that their belief was ultimately the best for their "well-being"? Yes, no, maybe, I don't know? If "yes", then how could an objective, scientific, empirically-based approach TODAY determine that?Why would he need to bring a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy? He could simply forgive without all the confusion. Why would he wait until about 2,000 years ago? And why wouldn't he just start off with heaven in the first place? It only makes sense if you are emotionally vested from being raised in a Christian culture and culturally reinforced to believe.Quote:
1. Or, Jesus didn't do it because he was bringing a new covenant of forgiveness and mercy. In other words, the situation changed, not the morals. Just like I explained earlier. Which you ignore and continue to repeat yourself. This is a pattern for you. Just like with the "christians should be stoning today" comment. It's already been explained why they don't. But with you it's wash, rinse, repeat.Quote:
2. In the end, it still remains that you are limited in knowledge and time frame, and God is not. Therefore you are inadequate to fairly judge God.
All humans are limited in knowledge and time. There is no credible empirical evidence to prove god exists. To say who are we to judge god is a cop out when inconsistencies in the Bible are raised. I'm not judging god, because I don't believe he exists. I'm pointing out mythological inconsistencies. These inconsistencies ad weight to the conclusion of god's nonexistence.I said I don't need to believe in god to point out fallacies and inconsistencies in belief in that god. Existence of objective proof is irrelevant to pointing out inconsistencies and fallacies. However, there is not objective proof of any gods existence. If the Bible is god's inerrant word, then certainly that god does not exist because the Bible is full of errors, and there is no objective evidence to support any of the supernatural claims it contains.Quote:
3. If you don't need objective proof to assume God's existence in order to show the ill-logic, then neither do I in order to show the logic isn't necessarily ill. Yet, that was your claim.There is nothing in the Universe that requires the existence of any god for explanation. We have plausible explanations for the present state of the Universe. There is no plausible explanation for the existence of any god, or objective evidence of any god.Quote:
4. The evidence of reality points to an infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient being. Your statement that it does not, is just as much a statement of faith as mine.No. Because there is no objective empirical evidence upon which to make a judgement of Jesus existence as a god, or that he is coming back to life, or back to Earth. Speculation about Jesus' return is not different than any other religion's speculations about the future. There are, all be they smaller, doomsday cults which speculate on their god's return or arrival.Quote:
5. Just answer the question, it's really simple: If Jesus does return, and those that believed have a perfect life for eternity, then wouldn't the objective, empirically-based approach show that their belief was ultimately the best for their "well-being"? Yes, no, maybe, I don't know? If "yes", then how could an objective, scientific, empirically-based approach TODAY determine that?
It would be similar for you to answer a question like this one: if someone kills a unicorn and eats the meat, and it causes cancer and he dies, would an objective, empirically-based assessment after the fact show that eating unicorn was not good for his "well-being"? Certainly, you could answer that hypothetical question, couldn't you?
But, let's just go ahead and take your example: suppose that an objective, empirically-based approach today shows that a heavy, meat-centric diet is bad for one's well being. Here is my question:
Assume you are able to go back decades in time and tell people about this, before there were any objective, empirically-based approaches to show it. Only you know about it, the world doesn't. Would those who followed your advice, simply on the basis of their belief in you, and not in any scientific approach, benefit in the future in terms of "well-being", in an objective, empirically-based way?
It's why HS football players get a baseline read before the season, so that any future concussion event can be objectively evaluated.