Corner of Berkshire & Fairfax Message Board

General Category => Politics => Topic started by: LC on June 22, 2019, 11:01:35 PM

Title: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on June 22, 2019, 11:01:35 PM
A quick update on the detention centers. Oh right, those things.

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/c3seo4/ahead_of_ice_raids_illinois_governor_bans_private/ersx3h0/


Quote
- 4 Severely Ill Migrant Toddlers Hospitalized After Lawyers Visit Border Patrol Facility

The kids were unresponsive, feverish and vomiting, yet receiving no medical care, according to lawyers.

One 2-year-old’s eyes were rolled back in her head, and she was “completely unresponsive” and limp, according to Toby Gialluca, a Florida-based attorney.



- A group of 250 infants, children and teens has reportedly spent 27 days without adequate food, water and sanitation at a U.S. Border Patrol facility near El Paso, according to the Associated Press.

Several attorneys who visited the station said they found at least 15 children sick with the flu, some of whom were being kept in medical quarantine.

They described seeing a sick and diaper-less 2-year-old boy whose “shirt was smeared in mucus.” Three girls, from the ages of 10 to 15, were taking turns watching him.



- Watchdog finds detainees 'standing on toilets' for breathing room at border facility holding 900 people in space meant for 125

"We also observed detainees standing on toilets in the cells to make room and gain breathing space, thus limiting access to the toilets," the report states. The report was first obtained by CNN.

A cell with a maximum capacity of 12 held 76 detainees, another with a maximum capacity of eight held 41, and another with a maximum capacity of 35 held 155, according to the report



- Teen Mom And Prematurely Born Baby Neglected At Border Patrol Facility For 7 Days

The baby, barely a month old, was wrapped in a dirty towel, wore a soiled onesie and looked listless, said one of the lawyers, Hope Frye. The mother was in a wheelchair due to complications from her emergency C-section and had barely slept ― the pain made it too uncomfortable for her to lie down and she was afraid of dropping her baby, the immigration and human rights attorney said.

- An Expert on Concentration Camps Says That's Exactly What the U.S. Is Running at the Border

"Things can be concentration camps without being Dachau or Auschwitz."



- DHS watchdog finds spoiled food, nooses at multiple immigration detention centers

OIG described the food service issues at Adelanto and Essex as “egregious.” At Adelanto, “lunch meat and cheese were mixed and stored uncovered inlarge walk-in refrigerators,” while chicken “smelled foul and appeared to be spoiled.” Food in the freezer was also expired. At Essex, “open packages of raw chicken leaked blood all over refrigeration units” and “lunch meat was slimy, foulsmelling and appeared to be spoiled.”

At the facility’s bathrooms, OIG observed mold throughout all the walls in the bathroom area, including ceilings, vents, mirrors, and showerstalls. Prolonged exposure to mold and mildew can lead to allergic reactions and long-term health issues.

“The report’s findings reveal that issues in ICE detention are not isolated — they are systemic,”

- Thousands of Immigrant Children Said They Were Sexually Abused in U.S. Detention Centers, Report Says

The federal government received more than 4,500 complaints in four years about the sexual abuse of immigrant children who were being held at government-funded detention facilities, including an increase in complaints while the Trump administration’s policy of separating migrant families at the border was in place, the Justice Department revealed this week.

- 'Evil': Worst Fears Realized as ICE Arrests Dozens of Family or Guardians Attempting to Retrieve Children From Detention



- ICE facility in the middle of chicken pox outbreak has one doctor to treat 1,500 detainees, congressman says

An immigration detention facility in Aurora, Colorado, has just one in-house physician treating its 1,500-plus detainees amid a chicken pox outbreak and a confirmed case of mumps, according to a U.S. congressman. And when the legislator tried to visit the facility Wednesday, he was turned away.



- ICE Blames “Processing Delays” For Keeping Migrant Kids in a Hot Van for 2 Nights

Last July, 37 migrant children who had been separated from their parents at the border were driven to a detention center in Los Fresnos, Texas, to be reunited with their families. Before that could happen, though, the children were forced to wait nearly two days in a van, according to emails obtained by NBC News.



- Trump administration cancels English classes, soccer, legal aid for unaccompanied child migrants in U.S. shelters



- Trump’s pick for ICE director: I can tell which migrant children will become gang members by looking into their eyes



- Children held at the Shiloh Treatment Center, a government contractor south of Houston that houses immigrant minors, described being held down and injected, according to federal court filings.

One child was prescribed 10 different shots and pills, including the antipsychotic drugs Latuda, Geodon and Olanzapine, the Parkinson’s medication Benztropine, the seizure medications Clonazepam and Divalproex, the nerve pain medication and antidepressant Duloxetine, and the cognition enhancer Guanfacine.

Immigrants Are Being Forced To Sleep Outside On The Ground At This Texas Facility: "Why Do They Treat Us Like This?"

People who were held at the McAllen Border Patrol site told BuzzFeed News adults and children had to sleep outside on dirt and grass. Families were also forced to wake up hours before dawn for a head count, with agents rousing children who managed to get a coveted space inside the tent to wait outside, they said.

That last quote brings back memories of basic training... except worse and being done to unwilling children.

Images of migrants, including children, sleeping outside with thermal blankets were first published by CNN, which got them from a source with access to the facility and who was “disturbed” by the conditions. In one photo, a woman is sitting on rocks, leaning on the side of the building, and clutching a baby. In another, a young girl is sleeping on the grass, a baby bottle inches from her feet.

8-Year-Old Migrants Being Forced to Care for Toddlers in Detention Camps

"A Border Patrol agent came in our room with a 2-year-old boy and asked us, 'Who wants to take care of this little boy?' Another girl said she would take care of him, but she lost interest after a few hours and so I started taking care of him yesterday," one teenaged girl told the lawyers in an interview. The lawyers saw the boy and reported that he was not wearing a diaper, had wet his pants and his shirt was covered in mucus.

So... we have people being locked in facilities without trial. Some are so overcrowded that people are forced to stand up. Food and water is spoiled, sexual abuse is rampant, and medical treatment is not adequately provided(1 doctor to treat 1500). The facilities themselves are riddled with mold. Men, Women, and children are forced to sleep outside and wake up before dawn for head counts, and will be punished for seeking shelter in tents. Children are being forced to take psychotropic drugs without consent (likely to make the population more easily manageable). Children are being held for longer durations than legally allowed, and family members are arrested for trying to retrieve their children. To prove how totally cool and legal these ``basically summer camps`` are, they deny oversight at any possible opportunity.

Don`t you dare call them concentration camps though
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Zorrofan on June 23, 2019, 01:48:58 PM
Yes, those camps that Obama was using you mean?

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-barack-obama-fort-sill-former-japanese-internment-camp-1443785

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/06/12/again-was-there-the-outrage-when-obama-used-a-former-japanese-internment-camp-to-detain-illegals-n2548125

Comparisons between Trump and Obama on immigration usually focus on deportations of unauthorized immigrants living in the US. Trump has been rapidly expanding enforcement, but the numbers are still comparable to Obama’s first term. Obama holds the record for deporting more immigrants than any president, with more than 2 million deportations over eight years.

To refer to these detention centers as concentration camps does a disservice to the memory of the 6 million people who actually died in real concentration camps during the Second World War.

But yes, Orange Man Bad......
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Parsad on June 23, 2019, 11:23:43 PM
It doesn't matter whether it was Obama or Trump...they should be pouring more money and resources into making sure it's done right.  I'm on the side of removing illegal immigrants who don't follow protocol or miss their required meetings, and making sure it isn't as easy to get in illegally going forward, but it should be done humanely and every effort made to ensure this stuff doesn't happen.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Zorrofan on June 24, 2019, 03:35:55 AM
It doesn't matter whether it was Obama or Trump...they should be pouring more money and resources into making sure it's done right.  I'm on the side of removing illegal immigrants who don't follow protocol or miss their required meetings, and making sure it isn't as easy to get in illegally going forward, but it should be done humanely and every effort made to ensure this stuff doesn't happen.  Cheers!

I don't think anyone is against those things Parsad but Democrats are doing everything they can to not fund border security. Further the lefts referral to detention centers as concentration camps sickens me. The horror of true concentration camps should not be watered down by virtue signaling snowflakes....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Castanza on June 24, 2019, 07:22:54 AM
It doesn't matter whether it was Obama or Trump...they should be pouring more money and resources into making sure it's done right.  I'm on the side of removing illegal immigrants who don't follow protocol or miss their required meetings, and making sure it isn't as easy to get in illegally going forward, but it should be done humanely and every effort made to ensure this stuff doesn't happen.  Cheers!

I don't think anyone is against those things Parsad but Democrats are doing everything they can to not fund border security. Further the lefts referral to detention centers as concentration camps sickens me. The horror of true concentration camps should not be watered down by virtue signaling snowflakes....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps

It's certainly a bit of both. This past decade of politics can be boiled down to a single term coined by Thomas Sowell "Cosmic Justice."
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on June 24, 2019, 07:34:35 AM
I don't think anyone is against those things Parsad but Democrats are doing everything they can to not fund border security. Further the lefts referral to detention centers as concentration camps sickens me. The horror of true concentration camps should not be watered down by virtue signaling snowflakes....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps
Last I checked this is a policy set by the White House, and the White House bears responsibility for how these people are treated.

And yes, they are concentration camps (distinct from death camps) and they have a long history of being used to oppress political enemies and minority groups. Including here in the US - or have you forgot treatment of the Japanese during WW2?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concentration_and_internment_camps
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Zorrofan on June 24, 2019, 09:16:01 AM
I don't think anyone is against those things Parsad but Democrats are doing everything they can to not fund border security. Further the lefts referral to detention centers as concentration camps sickens me. The horror of true concentration camps should not be watered down by virtue signaling snowflakes....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps
Last I checked this is a policy set by the White House, and the White House bears responsibility for how these people are treated.

And yes, they are concentration camps (distinct from death camps) and they have a long history of being used to oppress political enemies and minority groups. Including here in the US - or have you forgot treatment of the Japanese during WW2?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concentration_and_internment_camps

Oh yes, damn Trump for forcing those poor people to sneak into the country illegally. How dare he repress them by detaining them for breaking the law!!
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on June 24, 2019, 09:34:50 AM
First, not all of these people are entering illegally. Some are seeking asylum.

Secondly, just because someone is in the country illegally, DOES NOT give anyone the right to force them into subhuman conditions or concentration camps.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Castanza on June 24, 2019, 10:03:02 AM
First, not all of these people are entering illegally. Some are seeking asylum.

Secondly, just because someone is in the country illegally, DOES NOT give anyone the right to force them into subhuman conditions or concentration camps.

Not saying that there aren't people seeking asylum....but the vast majority aren't. And a lot of the ones that are claiming asylum are simply using it as an excuse. How do I know this? because my job takes me all over Mexico and South America. There are plenty of countries down there that are stable, closer, and make better candidates for asylum seekers. Not saying that people shouldn't come seek asylum in the US. I'm simply saying that if they were truly seeking asylum out of complete desperation they wouldn't by bypassing a dozen countries that are more than adequate. Even many of the countries that people give a bad rap in SA are much better than what you see in the media etc (and I'm not downplaying Venezuela, Brazil and others). But Mexico has many good areas, so does Argentina, Chile, Panama, Peru, Ecuador, Costa Rica. I realize the US may be the closest for some. But even the people coming from Mexico are bypassing many good areas in Mexico itself.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Zorrofan on June 24, 2019, 11:06:42 AM
First, not all of these people are entering illegally. Some are seeking asylum.

Secondly, just because someone is in the country illegally, DOES NOT give anyone the right to force them into subhuman conditions or concentration camps.

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum disagrees with your instance on calling detainment centers concentration camps. And if you are truly seeking asylum why not seek asylum in Mexico and apply for legal entry in the US?

https://www.ushmm.org/information/press/press-releases/why-holocaust-analogies-are-dangerous

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on June 24, 2019, 12:27:15 PM
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum disagrees with your instance on calling detainment centers concentration camps. And if you are truly seeking asylum why not seek asylum in Mexico and apply for legal entry in the US?

https://www.ushmm.org/information/press/press-releases/why-holocaust-analogies-are-dangerous

I would argue you have made a mischaracterization. The article doesn't mention detention centers or concentration camps. The closest the article gets towards commenting on this situation is the following:

Quote
the former head of the CIA, took to Twitter to criticize federal policies toward illegal migrants using a black and white photo of the iconic train tracks leading the Auschwitz-Birkenau killing center.

Auschwitz as you probably know was a death camp, not a concentration camp. This is a distinction I already pointed out.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Parsad on June 24, 2019, 02:45:19 PM
It doesn't matter whether it was Obama or Trump...they should be pouring more money and resources into making sure it's done right.  I'm on the side of removing illegal immigrants who don't follow protocol or miss their required meetings, and making sure it isn't as easy to get in illegally going forward, but it should be done humanely and every effort made to ensure this stuff doesn't happen.  Cheers!

I don't think anyone is against those things Parsad but Democrats are doing everything they can to not fund border security. Further the lefts referral to detention centers as concentration camps sickens me. The horror of true concentration camps should not be watered down by virtue signaling snowflakes....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps

You are dealing with people...human beings...f**k the wall and the Democrats resistance to it.  Treat the illegals humanely.  One has nothing to do with the other, but both parties are making it so.  Trump as president should be above that...not using it as a bargaining chip.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Parsad on June 24, 2019, 02:53:39 PM
I don't think anyone is against those things Parsad but Democrats are doing everything they can to not fund border security. Further the lefts referral to detention centers as concentration camps sickens me. The horror of true concentration camps should not be watered down by virtue signaling snowflakes....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps
Last I checked this is a policy set by the White House, and the White House bears responsibility for how these people are treated.

And yes, they are concentration camps (distinct from death camps) and they have a long history of being used to oppress political enemies and minority groups. Including here in the US - or have you forgot treatment of the Japanese during WW2?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concentration_and_internment_camps

It doesn't matter whether it was Obama or Trump...they should be pouring more money and resources into making sure it's done right.  I'm on the side of removing illegal immigrants who don't follow protocol or miss their required meetings, and making sure it isn't as easy to get in illegally going forward, but it should be done humanely and every effort made to ensure this stuff doesn't happen.  Cheers!

I don't think anyone is against those things Parsad but Democrats are doing everything they can to not fund border security. Further the lefts referral to detention centers as concentration camps sickens me. The horror of true concentration camps should not be watered down by virtue signaling snowflakes....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps



They aren't concentration camps...and they aren't detention centers.  They are internment camps.  I think it's silly for the left wing to call them concentration camps...we all truly know the horrors of concentration camps, so let's not make true concentration camps benign by comparing them to what the U.S. is doing.  And they aren't detention centers like the right wing likes to call them.  If people are getting sick and dying, we know that they aren't being held for a few hours at the airport on the way back from a vacation in Cuba because they lied about how much tobacco and alcohol they brought back.  There are abuses occurring. 

During the WWII, internment camps were fully supported by 90% of the population, but in hindsight, we can see how erroneous our ways were back then.  These camps will be seen the same way one day.  They aren't atrocious concentration camps, and they aren't hospitable detention centers, but a blight somewhere in between.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Spekulatius on June 24, 2019, 04:23:02 PM
Mass detention in a confined space without trial = concentration camp.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a27813648/concentration-camps-southern-border-migrant-detention-facilities-trump/ (https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a27813648/concentration-camps-southern-border-migrant-detention-facilities-trump/)
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Gregmal on June 24, 2019, 04:25:26 PM
Whatever one wants to call it, you can't feel bad for these people. They come here knowing what is awaiting them.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: michaelj on June 24, 2019, 07:03:36 PM
Whatever one wants to call it, you can't feel bad for these people. They come here knowing what is awaiting them.

We're talking about children and infants here...
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Parsad on June 25, 2019, 12:51:34 AM
Mass detention in a confined space without trial = concentration camp.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a27813648/concentration-camps-southern-border-migrant-detention-facilities-trump/ (https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a27813648/concentration-camps-southern-border-migrant-detention-facilities-trump/)

No, that is an internment camp.  They are in squalid or less than ideal conditions, but they are not being tortured, starved, put to labour or being murdered.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Parsad on June 25, 2019, 12:54:03 AM
Whatever one wants to call it, you can't feel bad for these people. They come here knowing what is awaiting them.

The children had no idea...do you really think they did?  Or deserve it? 

I would want them to go through the system legally, but only a heartless bastard would be ok with this.  I don't think you are one...unless you want to prove me wrong.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Gregmal on June 25, 2019, 05:41:02 AM
Whatever one wants to call it, you can't feel bad for these people. They come here knowing what is awaiting them.

The children had no idea...do you really think they did?  Or deserve it? 

I would want them to go through the system legally, but only a heartless bastard would be ok with this.  I don't think you are one...unless you want to prove me wrong.  Cheers!

Then that's called bad parenting, and maybe the children should be taken away, just like what happens to bad parents in America.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Zorrofan on June 25, 2019, 07:37:55 AM
Interesting video - a collection of democrats on border security prior to Trump being elected.....my oh my what a bunch of Nazis! Demanding enforcement of laws, sending troops to the border, deporting poor illegals.....

https://twitter.com/jaxucks2/status/1142542793635745792

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: cubsfan on June 25, 2019, 07:53:22 AM
Interesting video - a collection of democrats on border security prior to Trump being elected.....my oh my what a bunch of Nazis! Demanding enforcement of laws, sending troops to the border, deporting poor illegals.....

https://twitter.com/jaxucks2/status/1142542793635745792

I love it - total hypocrites. 
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on June 25, 2019, 08:08:34 AM
Interesting video - a collection of democrats on border security prior to Trump being elected.....my oh my what a bunch of Nazis! Demanding enforcement of laws, sending troops to the border, deporting poor illegals.....

https://twitter.com/jaxucks2/status/1142542793635745792

While it's a cute "gotcha" moment, nobody has argued against border security - only the effectiveness of a wall.

But that's a separate topic. We are talking about the humane treatment and processing of people who have already crossed the border.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Zorrofan on June 25, 2019, 09:11:37 AM
Interesting video - a collection of democrats on border security prior to Trump being elected.....my oh my what a bunch of Nazis! Demanding enforcement of laws, sending troops to the border, deporting poor illegals.....

https://twitter.com/jaxucks2/status/1142542793635745792

While it's a cute "gotcha" moment, nobody has argued against border security - only the effectiveness of a wall.

But that's a separate topic. We are talking about the humane treatment and processing of people who have already crossed the border.

Yes, people need to be treated decently, like human beings not animals, but the current "crisis" is brought on by the democrats who not only refuse to fund border security but encourage people to enter illegally.

Democrats were okay with deportation when it was Obama doing it. And a wall isn't effective? Funny that because both Clinton and Obama wanted funding for a wall. Its just now, with Trump as president, that suddenly walls don't work etc, etc. When people were held in detention centers under Obama it was okay but now they are "concentration camps".  It was okay for Obama to send troops to the border but mean Trump is keeping the poor soldiers away from their families. 

Just be honest and admit that democrats are being hypocrites.

 
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on June 25, 2019, 09:46:55 AM
What we need is a better solution from our current President to storing humans in tiny rooms and treating them worse than cattle raised for slaughter.

If we as a society need to point blame before acknowledging that, that is a sad fact. And we are no different than every politician in DC using a humanitarian crisis as a political battleground. And that attitude is exactly the problem.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on June 27, 2019, 07:22:24 AM
First, not all of these people are entering illegally. Some are seeking asylum.

Secondly, just because someone is in the country illegally, DOES NOT give anyone the right to force them into subhuman conditions or concentration camps.

Sure it does. A government can do as it sees fit. Who are you to tell it what it should or shouldn't do?

You do not believe humans have any inalienable rights, correct?  If they do have rights more powerful than what a government says or does, what basis do you have for that?

I find your views on morality quite irrational given that you view all morality as subjective.

I get the feeling that you think morality transcends us...though you claim to think otherwise. ;)

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on June 28, 2019, 03:44:17 PM
You know I forgot to respond to this one Paul. Although I'm sure you can guess all my responses  ;D

Re: who I am to tell the gov't what to do...I mean, this is a democracy. The power of gov't, like human morality, comes from its constituents.

Re: the moral relativism...this again? The evidence certainly supports it. Human behavioral norms (and the codes of behavior we have created) have obviously changed and evolved over time.

As to absolute morality - you'd have to tell us where this absolute morality comes from and what gives you the right to interpret it.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Zorrofan on June 29, 2019, 01:58:26 PM
Democrats = Hypocrisy

Former President Barack Obama’s top immigration chief in charge of removing illegal immigrants said that the “cages” Democrats have accused President Trump of housing children in were the brainchild of the Obama administration.

“I’ve been to that facility, where they talk about cages. That facility was built under President Obama under (Homeland Security) Secretary Johnson. I was there because I was there when it was built,” said Thomas Homan, who was Obama’s executive associate director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement for nearly four years.

At an immigration conference today, Homan, under consideration for a new position of “border czar” in the Trump administration, grew visibly angry answering a question about “cages” often cited by Democratic critics of the president.

Homan, who ran Obama’s successful deportation operation, ripped Democrats who question Trump immigration officials on the Obama-era idea.

He cited one Democratic chairman who asked a Trump official, “You still keeping kids in cages?”

Homan, at the conference hosted by the Center for Immigration Studies, said, “I would answer the question, ‘The kids are being house in the same facility built under the Obama administration.’ If you want to call them cages, call them cages. But if the left wants to call them cages and the Democrats want to call them cages then they have to accept the fact that they were built and funded in FY 2015.”
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Zorrofan on June 29, 2019, 01:59:14 PM
"The people in Congress complaining about the conditions of people in custody are the very same people who are not giving the funding to make those facilities better. What have they done to address the crisis at all? What has Congress done?" -Tom Homan#BorderCrisisPanel
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Gregmal on June 29, 2019, 02:32:07 PM
Nothing new. Pretty sure LC started calling them cages too in 2017.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: cubsfan on June 29, 2019, 03:14:24 PM
Democrats = Hypocrisy

If you want to call them cages, call them cages. But if the left wants to call them cages and the Democrats want to call them cages then they have to accept the fact that they were built and funded in FY 2015.”

Classic!!
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: cameronfen on June 30, 2019, 08:31:32 AM
You can find reporting basically saying that these kids were put in cages in the obama admin, when a.) they were unaccompanied minors and b.) when they had no more room to hold them at dentention centers.  At the time, it was criticized by dems then and diserves to be.  The difference now is Trump puts them in cages and seperates them from family not as a last resort but a first response, because he believes being unessarily cruel as a deterrent.  While there certainly is problems with "mainstream news", this is also a common problem with right wing news imo.  They don't report outright falsehoods, but they leave out context to support ideological ends. 
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Castanza on July 01, 2019, 06:51:25 AM
The difference now is Trump puts them in cages and separates them from family not as a last resort but a first response

Do you have any evidence to support this? Because that is a bold claim to make. Everything you hear from boarder agents and their officials is they don't have enough resources.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 01, 2019, 08:43:24 AM
You know I forgot to respond to this one Paul. Although I'm sure you can guess all my responses  ;D

Re: who I am to tell the gov't what to do...I mean, this is a democracy. The power of gov't, like human morality, comes from its constituents.

Re: the moral relativism...this again? The evidence certainly supports it. Human behavioral norms (and the codes of behavior we have created) have obviously changed and evolved over time.

As to absolute morality - you'd have to tell us where this absolute morality comes from and what gives you the right to interpret it.

Well, absolute or objective morality would only come from something that's beyond the whims of our nature - namely a deity.

So do you view morals as something like fashion then? Human fashion norms (and the codes of fashion we have created) have obviously changed and evolved over time.

Now, do you really believe morality is equal to fashion (if not, do you have any evidence that it's something "deeper")? I didn't. Which certainly conflicts with the atheistic position, does it not?

I view morality as something that comes from God (obviously). If it doesn't, I have no rational reason to blindly follow it. Sometimes we humans shine light on it and sometimes we miss...but something certainly seems to be dragging us (sometimes kicking and screaming) to it.

As far as the right to interpret it, I'll kick it back to the stone age crew:

"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the work of the Law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them."

So it seems as though our consciences bear witness. Do you disagree with that?


Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: cameronfen on July 01, 2019, 04:24:25 PM
The difference now is Trump puts them in cages and separates them from family not as a last resort but a first response

Do you have any evidence to support this? Because that is a bold claim to make. Everything you hear from boarder agents and their officials is they don't have enough resources.

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/jun/19/matt-schlapp/no-donald-trumps-separation-immigrant-families-was/

Also the infamous memo:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/leaked-memo-shows-trump-administration-weighed-separating-families/story?id=60459972
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 01, 2019, 09:03:42 PM
I think morality is closer to fashion than it is to a delusion that it comes from god. Obviously a code of behavior is more impactful than what closes to wear, but I would argue both are created entirely by humanity.

For your next point, do you believe in anything that is human-made, or does it all “come from god?”. The follow up being, if you believe in human devices, then why not morality?

 As to your quote: in other words this quote is saying that anyone can interpret gods word as long as their interpretation agrees with the folks behind this quote.

So IMHO you are ducking the question. Do you believe every word the Bible says, or do you pick and choose? I.e. If I told u I was an Amalekite, would you kill me in cold blood? If not, why are you disobeying god’s direct command?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: cameronfen on July 02, 2019, 07:06:26 AM
I think morality is closer to fashion than it is to a delusion that it comes from god. Obviously a code of behavior is more impactful than what closes to wear, but I would argue both are created entirely by humanity.

For your next point, do you believe in anything that is human-made, or does it all “come from god?”. The follow up being, if you believe in human devices, then why not morality?

 As to your quote: in other words this quote is saying that anyone can interpret gods word as long as their interpretation agrees with the folks behind this quote.

So IMHO you are ducking the question. Do you believe every word the Bible says, or do you pick and choose? I.e. If I told u I was an Amalekite, would you kill me in cold blood? If not, why are you disobeying god’s direct command?

So believe it or not, philosophers esp in UK and US, really hate moral relativism.  On point a professor made, is if you truly believe in moral progress you don't believe in relativism.  You can't even say based on my standards there has been progress, as you are implicitly universalizing your standard. 
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: orthopa on July 02, 2019, 07:20:56 AM
Has anyone on this board actually been to one of these camps and seen what is claimed first hand?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 02, 2019, 10:02:38 AM
I think morality is closer to fashion than it is to a delusion that it comes from god. Obviously a code of behavior is more impactful than what closes to wear, but I would argue both are created entirely by humanity.

For your next point, do you believe in anything that is human-made, or does it all “come from god?”. The follow up being, if you believe in human devices, then why not morality?

 As to your quote: in other words this quote is saying that anyone can interpret gods word as long as their interpretation agrees with the folks behind this quote.

So IMHO you are ducking the question. Do you believe every word the Bible says, or do you pick and choose? I.e. If I told u I was an Amalekite, would you kill me in cold blood? If not, why are you disobeying god’s direct command?

A code of behavior is only more impactful due to chance. Indeed, a king might detest the color red (and kills who disagree) but totally okay with murder. In which case, the code of fashion is more impactful.

What do you mean by "human-made?" I think that things like logic and morality are not human made but I do think things like fashion are human made.

No, the quote doesn't say anything about having to agree with the person behind the quote. It says your own conscience bears witness.

Do I believe every word of the Bible? I don't see why that even matters. The Bible doesn't say you should get your morality from it. I don't know why atheists act like that's a belief.

Would I kill you in cold blood? Nope. For a couple reasons. 1) You're not a deity 2) I'm not Saul. I don't really think all that stuff matters too much anyway. If God said to do it, it's fine. If God doesn't exists, then it's also fine. Am I being irrational here?

I will say though, that if your worldview is accurate, murder in general is okay. That's why I fail to understand why you post so many social justice issues. You would think such a rational, free thinking person would be more open minded to their own biases in relation to the nature of reality.

For instance, wouldn't it be better if the border patrol simply shot people as they came over illegally? Sure a few would die but that would instantly reduce the number of people trying to come over, number in the detention centers and save lots of tax money.

Or, perhaps you would value eugenics?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Castanza on July 02, 2019, 10:09:53 AM
So IMHO you are ducking the question. Do you believe every word the Bible says, or do you pick and choose? I.e. If I told u I was an Amalekite, would you kill me in cold blood? If not, why are you disobeying god’s direct command?

Way to use context there LC...That's a highly accurate interpretation of the Bible and that story specifically....

Also: by your own terms you should use names when talking about others. It's not nice to call people delusional for believing in something you don't.

 :P
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 02, 2019, 10:27:45 AM
I think morality is closer to fashion than it is to a delusion that it comes from god. Obviously a code of behavior is more impactful than what closes to wear, but I would argue both are created entirely by humanity.

For your next point, do you believe in anything that is human-made, or does it all “come from god?”. The follow up being, if you believe in human devices, then why not morality?

 As to your quote: in other words this quote is saying that anyone can interpret gods word as long as their interpretation agrees with the folks behind this quote.

So IMHO you are ducking the question. Do you believe every word the Bible says, or do you pick and choose? I.e. If I told u I was an Amalekite, would you kill me in cold blood? If not, why are you disobeying god’s direct command?

Just wanted to jump in here. Speaking for myself, which I would argue is in step with most Bible believing Christians, I do believe in the inerrancy of Scripture (The Bible) and that it is the inspired word of God. Do we get to pick and choose? No. Do I believe every word it says? Yes. However, that is different to understanding all it says and that is to be expected. As God says, "Isaiah 55:8-9 New International Version (NIV)
8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
    neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
    so are my ways higher than your ways
    and my thoughts than your thoughts."

As for your reference to being an Amalekite; I don't see the revance to the discussion.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 02, 2019, 01:54:26 PM
I think morality is closer to fashion than it is to a delusion that it comes from god. Obviously a code of behavior is more impactful than what closes to wear, but I would argue both are created entirely by humanity.

For your next point, do you believe in anything that is human-made, or does it all “come from god?”. The follow up being, if you believe in human devices, then why not morality?

 As to your quote: in other words this quote is saying that anyone can interpret gods word as long as their interpretation agrees with the folks behind this quote.

So IMHO you are ducking the question. Do you believe every word the Bible says, or do you pick and choose? I.e. If I told u I was an Amalekite, would you kill me in cold blood? If not, why are you disobeying god’s direct command?

You know when I reviewed the thread in general and your comments above in particular, I thought that was an interesting sentence. I think if humans were to come up with a set of moral laws then it will look nothing like that which God commanded. Interestingly enough when Moses went up mount Sinai to receive the 10 commandments the people made a golden calf to worship and had a drunken orgy. I think the latter is a good indication of what a moral set of rules by the people and for the people will look like rather than the following, which I argue no humans, especially as a general group will come up with. I think the rules in itself tells you that it is from God rather than from humans if you consider human history in general.

“ 1 Then God spoke all these words, saying,
2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
3 "You shall have no other gods before Me.
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.
5 You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,
6 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
7 "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.
8 "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
12 "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you.
13 "You shall not murder.
14 "You shall not commit adultery.
15 "You shall not steal.
16 "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor."  (Exodus 20:1, NASB)“


Jesus summarised the above when he was asked which commandment is the greatest as follows,
““Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” Mark 12

God is Holy, which simply means he is whole as in not broken, but we are broken.
When I firstly look at myself, secondly at human history, thirdly at America today, fourthly at what is happening at the border and fifthly at the general discourse on this thread AND measure it against God’s commandments and Jesus’ summary then it leaves little doubt, for me, that we’re not dealing with a human made set of rules. We’re dealing with a Holy God and a people in desperate need of a saviour, which thankfully God provided by giving us His only Son Jesus.

We can attempt to dismiss it all we want, which is our natural inclination anyways, but the Truth is if we tried even just one line from Jesus on for size, “LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR AS YOURSELF” then almost all the problems discussed on this thread would not exist. Wretched bunch we are, me chief among them, but by GRACE I’ve been saved and all I have to say is THANK YOU!   
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Parsad on July 02, 2019, 02:07:27 PM
Has anyone on this board actually been to one of these camps and seen what is claimed first hand?

I didn't see Auschwitz and I didn't see Japanese interment camps...does it mean that what is happening in the detention centers isn't real until we see it with our own eyes?  Cheers!
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 02, 2019, 02:20:56 PM
Has anyone on this board actually been to one of these camps and seen what is claimed first hand?

I didn't see Auschwitz and I didn't see Japanese interment camps...does it mean that what is happening in the detention centers isn't real until we see it with our own eyes?  Cheers!

Sanj, since you're an atheist, do you believe all morality is subjective? If it is subjective, why have an issue with any of this?

The moral views of the perpetrators are no better or worse than yours - just different. All are simply evolutionary instincts anyway. As an atheist, surely you see that you have no more "insight" into morality than any of these folks, right? If you don't have moral insight, why get upset when things don't go as you'd like?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 02, 2019, 11:14:01 PM
Has anyone on this board actually been to one of these camps and seen what is claimed first hand?

I didn't see Auschwitz and I didn't see Japanese interment camps...does it mean that what is happening in the detention centers isn't real until we see it with our own eyes?  Cheers!

Speaking for myself yes. After visiting Dachau it became real for the first time, bearing in mind I did not even see the “real thing”. There is something to be said for seeing it with your own eyes for sure.

In fact what is interesting is that after WW2 ended the American Military made/forced those living outside the camps to tour the camps so that they can know what was happening in their own back yards. The military obviously felt it was critical that people see things with their own eyes. I suppose the question is whether those people will react the same way they did after the WW2 camps if they were to tour the US border facilities today.

Watch from the 30 min 35 sec mark for footage of the military taking people through
https://youtu.be/7y2KsU_dhwI

In the above case people had no knowledge, where here they do, but it does makes you realise that it is important to see things for yourself in some cases. It is the human condition to turn a blind eye to atrocities right in front of them.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 03, 2019, 06:56:00 PM
Plenty to add to the philosophical debate (a good topic imho!) but for now:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146514575048790019?s=20
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 04, 2019, 05:13:26 AM
Plenty to add to the philosophical debate (a good topic imho!) but for now:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146514575048790019?s=20

You aren't replying to the other posts! :(
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 04, 2019, 05:47:01 AM
Plenty to add to the philosophical debate (a good topic imho!) but for now:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146514575048790019?s=20
Yep LC, the link you provided is probably as pragmatic as one can get.


Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
If Illegal Immigrants are unhappy with the conditions in the quickly built or refitted detentions centers, just tell them not to come. All problems solved!
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 04, 2019, 08:28:42 AM
 I am away from a laptop so it’s difficult to write and format long posts! Should be home in a few days :)

Plenty to add to the philosophical debate (a good topic imho!) but for now:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146514575048790019?s=20

You aren't replying to the other posts! :(
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 04, 2019, 08:37:10 AM
How does this justify inhumane treatment? Might as well shoot em on sight. “Well if you don’t like being shot in the chest, don’t bother coming!”

Me.B, would you consider the US treatment of these people to be consistent with what you just posted above: “Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” Mark 12”

Plenty to add to the philosophical debate (a good topic imho!) but for now:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146514575048790019?s=20
Yep LC, the link you provided is probably as pragmatic as one can get.


Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
If Illegal Immigrants are unhappy with the conditions in the quickly built or refitted detentions centers, just tell them not to come. All problems solved!
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 04, 2019, 09:15:22 AM
How does this justify inhumane treatment? Might as well shoot em on sight. “Well if you don’t like being shot in the chest, don’t bother coming!”

Me.B, would you consider the US treatment of these people to be consistent with what you just posted above: “Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” Mark 12”

Plenty to add to the philosophical debate (a good topic imho!) but for now:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146514575048790019?s=20
Yep LC, the link you provided is probably as pragmatic as one can get.


Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
If Illegal Immigrants are unhappy with the conditions in the quickly built or refitted detentions centers, just tell them not to come. All problems solved!

LC I'm losing you. For starters I was quoting the heading from the link you've put up, so are you arguing for or against what you've put up?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 04, 2019, 09:20:51 AM
How does this justify inhumane treatment? Might as well shoot em on sight. “Well if you don’t like being shot in the chest, don’t bother coming!”

Me.B, would you consider the US treatment of these people to be consistent with what you just posted above: “Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” Mark 12”

Plenty to add to the philosophical debate (a good topic imho!) but for now:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146514575048790019?s=20
Yep LC, the link you provided is probably as pragmatic as one can get.


Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
If Illegal Immigrants are unhappy with the conditions in the quickly built or refitted detentions centers, just tell them not to come. All problems solved!

But why follow anything Jesus says? He certainly doesn't have any more moral insights than Trump, right?

Trump is the leader of the free world, a billionaire and married to a supermodel. Jesus died in his early 30s and was poor -and possibly had mental issues (though the same can be argued about Trump!). If one is going to have mental issues, I'd imagine Trump's are a lot more fun.

Why would you want to follow the advice of the 2nd guy?

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 04, 2019, 09:27:15 AM
Ah I misunderstood you - I thought you were posting in support of how we are treating these folks.

Personally I think it’s inhuman and we need to devise a better solution. Item 1 would be to stop breaking up families, item 2 would be a better solution to hold these people
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Castanza on July 05, 2019, 06:57:21 AM
How does this justify inhumane treatment? Might as well shoot em on sight. “Well if you don’t like being shot in the chest, don’t bother coming!”

Me.B, would you consider the US treatment of these people to be consistent with what you just posted above: “Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” Mark 12”

Plenty to add to the philosophical debate (a good topic imho!) but for now:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146514575048790019?s=20
Yep LC, the link you provided is probably as pragmatic as one can get.


Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
If Illegal Immigrants are unhappy with the conditions in the quickly built or refitted detentions centers, just tell them not to come. All problems solved!

You're again misrepresenting the Bible and it's contents in a inaccurate manner. Yes Jesus did say that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. But Jesus also said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesars" : Matt 22:21. Also in Romans it talks a lot about government and its role in life and where and why government came to exist. If you believe the Bible then you believe that government is instituted by God and that any leader put in a position of power is put there (whether good or bad they play a role in the overall thesis).

Romans is very clear about Christians and their role in government (Romans 13:1) "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God." However this does not mean to blindly follow the laws of every government. This type of nonsensical thinking is what caused some terrible people to wield this same verse to justify slavery. We are to obey government until it causes us to sin or is causing civil servants to go beyond simply upholding the law. You can't turn a blind eye to someone like Hitler or others. It's a fine line and I think government overreach is a real thing that should be addressed. I'm not saying I agree with the current boarder situation. I believe there certainly are people who are coming here for help. I think our government will ultimately make legislation to better handle the situation at the boarder in a better more efficient manner. And I think it needs to be done in a humane way.

- 2 Thessalonians 3:10
- Proverbs 19:17
- (laziness) too many verses to quote
- Plenty of verses about immigrants as well. And how we are supposed to help them but also hold them accountable.

Basically I think Christians are expected to operate within the framework of their government to uphold their beliefs (not use government as a justification or framework to push beliefs). There is nothing stopping people from going to another country and helping people in need. I don't think there is anything wrong or Biblically wrong with boarders that would make me feel as if Christians are to oppose them. In-fact, the Bible is full of them. Yet we are given the command to "go unto all the people." If it got to the point where we truly had concentration camps at the boarder and we were killing people....you can be damn sure I would oppose that. I don't think we are there yet. I think there is much that can be addresses legislatively (improving the immigration process, better holding paces, not separating families etc). Things take time to change and you can't expect things you perceive as "in-justices" to change over night.

Christians cannot expect non-Christians to live by their standards. Corinthians talks about this a lot. It's the same reason I am not opposed to legal gay marriage, or legalization of drugs etc. How faithful are you in your beliefs if you need an institution to hold you accountable? Not very. People should be given leeway to fail on their own conscious decisions (which I believe is the number one driving factor for change.). 
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 05, 2019, 07:56:12 AM
Ah I misunderstood you - I thought you were posting in support of how we are treating these folks.

Personally I think it’s inhuman and we need to devise a better solution. Item 1 would be to stop breaking up families, item 2 would be a better solution to hold these people

No you still misunderstand me. I prefer not to emphasize your (or my) position, but prefer to focus on the truth.
Also in light of your earlier posts I want to respond to your question "How does this justify inhumane treatment?"
, which is a good one.

I prefer not to focus on the "you" in any discussion, but rather try as best I can to be respectful and upbuilding to "you".
I also prefer not to focus on "me" and my feelings regarding the discussion, but try and be discerning and look out for my own biases as a result of my fallen nature, which I recognize as broken and imperfect.

Truth by definition is absolute, which logically means it's not relative (to us), which again means it has to be external. I have not come across evidence that points to the infallibility of Scripture and the absolute truth it describes and claims to be. Even simply as a historical document nothing compares, nothing seems to come even close. Although it is heavily disputed I have thus far found it to be indisputable. Not that the fact that the truth has been revealed to us or has been with us for thousands of years generally changed our behaviour. Me just like everyone else, am not inclined to submit to that truth. Truth is absolute, externally rooted, via Jesus in God. When we look at Scripture it says "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." and then "John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." That is why Jesus claims "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me (John 14:6)" No one can find or get to the truth except through Jesus. As much as my flesh want to protest against that statement, it's external to me and stands for eternity, whether I like it or not. Not an easy pill to swallow.

Now let me try and bring this to bear on the situation at the border to address how I would view the "justice" of it all. However before I can do it I must address the elephant in the room. Although I might say I like and want justice, I don't!! In my fallen state I don't give a hoot about justice, I want to win. The reality is that as long as I'm on the right side of justice then I like it, not so much when I'm on the wrong side. However justice is blind to how I feel about it. Why? Because justice is God/absolute truth brought to bear on a situation and similarly my natural state is to rebel against God and/or to pick what I like about Him. God's nature is full of GRACE and TRUTH as we see in John 1:14 above. I like the GRACE part, but not so much the TRUTH. For example, most of us know and like John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.". Not so much the TRUTH part, which we find when we continue reading, "18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." WHY don't we like it? "19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.” So, I don't like it because I'm naturally drawn to the darkness.

Unsurprisingly justice echoes GRACE and TRUTH, justice consists of equity and righteousness (the scales of justice/from Latin justitia meaning righteousness and equity’). We like equity, not so much righteousness. However, we don't get to "pick and choose" as you alluded to earlier, although that is our natural inclination. We don't get to pick and choose, because we're fundamentally dealing with God's nature which is unchangeable "God said to Moses: I AM WHO I AM" Ex 3:14. Justice is an earthly application of the Truth and will unfortunately always be an imperfect reflection of the real thing.

So in light of the above, firstly there is no perfect answer and no perfect outcome, because we live in a broken world. Secondly, does it justify inhumane treatment? No, but that is assuming that they are in fact being treated inhumanely in general, since we're talking in general terms. Our general disposition to those in need is well told and laid out in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), which I will assume most readers will know. I don't think there is disagreement on the equity side here.
However, it is only one side of the justice coin. There is also righteousness. The same Jesus that gave His life so that I might live is the one who according to Rev 19:11-16 will "judge and make war" and "He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God." Frightening stuff that you cannot make up even if you tried. Point is that like many I want to help these folks, but what about the righteousness? What about the fact that the US have laws and rules that are right (righteous for the most part)? Shouldn't someone coming to your country respect it? Shouldn't I respect you in your own home when I'm invited? Don't you have a right to say my house my rules and actually no I don't want you to move in? Doesn't mean I won't help you. Doesn't mean I won't put you up in the shed for a few nights or in the quest room depending on the situation or even in a hotel, like Jesus did in the story of the Good Samaritan. He did not take the guy to his own house. He paid for him to be looked after by another. How are you going to feel if the neighbour walks up the next day and start shouting at you for treating someone so inhumanely by putting them up in the shed? Shame on you, why not in the master bedroom? What is right about the fact that while you go back into your house to figure out how to help me, I decide I'm climbing over the back wall or through the window?

The answer is obviously in finding a balance. Yes you should have justice, but that means balancing righteousness with equity, GRACE and TRUTH.

Fundamentally though you can trace all these issues back to the Garden of Eden. We don't like to submit to the TRUTH and we're just doing a Cain and Abel on each other all over again! That's the nature of darkness, it eats its young! Nothing new now move on. LOL

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 06, 2019, 04:05:30 PM
Hey Paul Mr B etc., so I finally am getting a moment to respond to your points! Saddle up, brothers!

Quote
So believe it or not, philosophers esp in UK and US, really hate moral relativism.  On point a professor made, is if you truly believe in moral progress you don't believe in relativism.  You can't even say based on my standards there has been progress, as you are implicitly universalizing your standard.
Cameron, This is a very good point (IMO) - progress towards something by definition means that "something" is absolute, or there is some objective scale to measure these things.

But you can have shared morals becoming more universally accepted - i.e. seeing equal rights for minority population groups become accepted globally vs regionally. For example seeing equal treatment of women and blacks being beneficial to one society, and having other societies adopt those policies.

Quote
Do we get to pick and choose? No. Do I believe every word it says? Yes. However, that is different to understanding all it says and that is to be expected.
MrB Ok - then who gets to "interpret" it all for us? And why is their interpretation any better than mine?

The Amalekite point is that story is god telling his "chosen people" to go and murder all the Amalekites. It's one of the oft-cited moral contradictions from the bible. And so the question is, if you truly believe, and you saw an Amalekite walking down the street with his family this morning, would you kill them in cold blood, as god has commended?

Quote
I think if humans were to come up with a set of moral laws then it will look nothing like that which God commanded. Interestingly enough when Moses went up mount Sinai to receive the 10 commandments the people made a golden calf to worship and had a drunken orgy. I think the latter is a good indication of what a moral set of rules by the people and for the people will look like rather than the following, which I argue no humans, especially as a general group will come up with.
I asked this question to paul separately in a PM and of course it has been debated centuries over. Are we as humans so close to murdering and raping and fornicating in the streets, that without some booming voice from the heavens telling us that these are wrong, we wouldn't figure it out? If you learned today conclusive proof that god never existed, would you suddenly rob, cheat, and murder your way through your life? How lowly you must think of the human animal!

And let's take other animals: for all we know no other species on this planet has any concept of god or jesus or moses or allah. Yet apes, dolphins, etc. all show evidence of behavioral norms enforced through social structures. Then again they also rape and murder, but then again so do we.

Quote
We can attempt to dismiss it all we want, which is our natural inclination anyways, but the Truth is if we tried even just one line from Jesus on for size, “LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR AS YOURSELF”
While this is nice and all, the golden rule long pre-dates monotheism and the hebrew god and the christian jesus. We should probably be thanking the egyptians for this one.

Quote
But why follow anything Jesus says? He certainly doesn't have any more moral insights than Trump, right?
Paul this one was yours. My response here would be that the things jesus said are a lot more conducive to peaceful social existence. Of course even jesus' teachings can be improved upon (as humans have already done in many societies). But if everyone acted like trump, we'd be in a much worse place socially. Luckily, most people are still able to comprehend this fact and behave accordingly!

One last thing Paul - I don't know where this next point stands in the moral relativism/absolutism spectrum, but you can also invert the argument and say, "Ok - what behaviors would cause the MOST misery for everyone?" You could imagine that murder, torture, rape, pillage, war, death, destruction, etc. etc. etc. are all somewhere in this realm. Now, we simply invert and say "Ok let's all agree NOT to do those things".

And such, you have some moral codes being developed. I don't see how a divine code of ethics is required for a society to reach such a conclusion.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 06, 2019, 04:21:47 PM
Getting around to these last two posts (this one is Castanzas)

Quote
You're again misrepresenting the Bible and it's contents in a inaccurate manner. Yes Jesus did say that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. But Jesus also said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesars" : Matt 22:21. Also in Romans it talks a lot about government and its role in life and where and why government came to exist. If you believe the Bible then you believe that government is instituted by God and that any leader put in a position of power is put there (whether good or bad they play a role in the overall thesis).
Hold on - so how am I misrepresenting the bible when I point out its inconsistencies? I touched on this with my previous response but I'll reiterate: What gives your interpretation of the bible any more truth than mine?

Castanza I hate to say, but your entire post is simply your individual interpretation of select bible verses, which you use to rationalize your opinion. (Then again since god doesn't exist, every Christian does this). But the point is this: we both know what's going on at the border is wrong. To say "it's a fine line government overreach is a real thing if we get to a point where we are killing people etc." is to stick your head in the sand. And to say "Render unto Caesar let every person be in subjucation to government etc." is to do the same thing except using some 2000 year old book as rationalization.

But when you say things such as

 Christians cannot expect non-Christians to live by their standards.... It's the same reason I am not opposed to legal gay marriage, or legalization of drugs etc. .. People should be given leeway to fail on their own conscious decisions (which I believe is the number one driving factor for change.).

This is not truly religious. I mean, to be sure I agree with you here - people need to listen to their own conscious. But this is not religious.

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 06, 2019, 04:43:39 PM
Mr B your last post...Well, let's say that joyce would be proud  ;D ;D. But I will do my best to parse it and respond to what I think to be the salient points. You can tell me if I hit or miss the mark:

Quote
Truth by definition is absolute, which logically means it's not relative (to us), which again means it has to be external. I have not come across evidence that points to the infallibility of Scripture and the absolute truth it describes and claims to be.
Now let's tackle this because it seems to me a contradiction right off the bat.

For something to be generally accepted as "truth" - it should be independently verifiable. In the sciences we can test, test, re-test, test under varying conditions, test over time, etc. and compare outcome. By doing so we can zone in on "truth". Because as you so correctly posted earlier, we are simply human and do not (or can not) know and observe everything.

So to say there is no evidence to contract the bible seems disingenuous. If it were "truth" then every word, sentence, story, phrase, would all be independently verifiable. This is simply not the case:

Firstly, the bible has logical and scientific inconsistencies on seemingly every other page.

Secondly, Of the stories it tells, there has been zero evidence discovered for most of them (and trust me, the fervent religious have looked!) And yet we have evidence of stars exploding, dinosaurs walking the earth, and many other events long pre-dating the scriptural stories.

Thirdly, if we followed the scriptural teachings to the letter (as we must, if it is "truth"), society would begin to look like the ultra-conservative religious groups, who are some of the most immoral and oppressive of all the faithful.

So on this first and very crucial point I will disagree strongly. And this really invalidates a lot of your remaining post - but let's keep pushing on, after all how can I expect you to give me fair credence if I don't do the same to you (again, thanks to the egyptians for this one).

Quote
Not that the fact that the truth has been revealed to us or has been with us for thousands of years generally changed our behaviour. Me just like everyone else, am not inclined to submit to that truth. Truth is absolute, externally rooted, via Jesus in God.
Well this is certainly true - look at human behavior through the ages and see the echelons of both similarities and divergences. There is probably just as much gradiation in human behavior as human genetics! So If we simply look at this human history, that evidence certainly points to a lack of divine revelation.

And speaking of revelation, it certainly did not seem very successful! God and Jesus, the dream team come down from the heavens to educate humanity. And after all this education...it didn't work, as you noted. At best it was ineffective, at worst it was a total failure. And what kind of god is ineffective or a total failure? Perhaps the similar failure of a god that didn't send his tag-team partner down sooner? I guess he wanted humanity to live in abject misery for a few thousand years first!

And is this really the "correct" revelation? I mean, every religion claims its god is THE god. Christianity certainly has no more or less evidence than any other. Perhaps the real revelation was in Antarctica in 400 BC, and it was delivered to a group of well-dressed penguins who are now all extinct.

This all goes back to the first question, even if there IS some deity out there, how do you know anything more about it than anyone else? Because of a book that YOU interpret? And therefore, we can stick 600 kids in a room meant for 60 where they drink out of a toilet, die of sickness, while 15 guards walk the halls for 20 minutes between taking their lunch in the air conditioned break room? This is not good enough.

Ok So I've honestly got to pause here because reading your next paragraphs seem like potentially a full-time job...and I prefer to drink while I work. I'll edit this post and continue later!  ;D
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 08, 2019, 06:50:18 AM

Quote
But why follow anything Jesus says? He certainly doesn't have any more moral insights than Trump, right?
Paul this one was yours. My response here would be that the things jesus said are a lot more conducive to peaceful social existence. Of course even jesus' teachings can be improved upon (as humans have already done in many societies). But if everyone acted like trump, we'd be in a much worse place socially. Luckily, most people are still able to comprehend this fact and behave accordingly!

One last thing Paul - I don't know where this next point stands in the moral relativism/absolutism spectrum, but you can also invert the argument and say, "Ok - what behaviors would cause the MOST misery for everyone?" You could imagine that murder, torture, rape, pillage, war, death, destruction, etc. etc. etc. are all somewhere in this realm. Now, we simply invert and say "Ok let's all agree NOT to do those things".

And such, you have some moral codes being developed. I don't see how a divine code of ethics is required for a society to reach such a conclusion.

Wouldn't you, personally, rather live the life of Trump rather than Jesus though? If you would, couldn't you understand while others would want to do the same? If I knew 100% that there was no God, I would want to live like Trump (or just about anyway else) rather than Jesus. Something about being poor and dying at a young age doesn't sound too nice, in my view (and it's considered a historical fact that Jesus lived and died via crucifixion).

If you want to create peaceful societies, surely you would be in favor of eugenics or something else to weed out the "unfavorable" characteristics of some folks. Human rights don't really exist, so it's silly to act like they do - to man's own detriment!

Misery is a very, very gray topic. Indeed, it may sound "miserable" to have a job if one would rather live off the government. Should we give money to those that don't work, or, would the old stone age book give better advice? It may be "miserable" to "sacrifice" lifestyle for the sake of protecting the environment.

Or let's look at pillaging and war. Let's say group A has a natural resource that group B wants. Group B is more powerful. Why shouldn't Group B take (or destroy) group A to secure that resource? We're assuming that human rights don't exist, and Group B would be less miserable. Group A would also be less miserable (and anything else for that matter) since they're dead.

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 08, 2019, 09:05:55 AM
Quote
Wouldn't you, personally, rather live the life of Trump rather than Jesus though? If you would, couldn't you understand while others would want to do the same?
Well I think Trump is a bad example since he is not very intelligent, sexually assaults women, and gets a little too much satisfaction from his own daughter. But I get your meaning.

But I already made the point: if everyone behaved like that, society would crumble. So it is in all of our best interests not to do so. And we (and other species) have developed social norms to prevent this. Moral relativism does not preclude collective thinking.

Quote
If you want to create peaceful societies, surely you would be in favor of eugenics or something else to weed out the "unfavorable" characteristics of some folks. Human rights don't really exist, so it's silly to act like they do - to man's own detriment!
No, again for a similar reason. If you set a precedent that undesirables should be exterminated, what happens when someone believes you are undesirable? 

Quote
Misery is a very, very gray topic. Indeed, it may sound "miserable" to have a job if one would rather live off the government. Should we give money to those that don't work, or, would the old stone age book give better advice? It may be "miserable" to "sacrifice" lifestyle for the sake of protecting the environment.
That's not the point - the point is if we can identify what "bad" is without a divine morality. And yes we can do this, if we imagine a universe where every creature suffers as much as it can, for as long as it can. This is "bad" - it doesn't get worse from there. And you don't need absolute morality to define this; there is no gray area.

Quote
Or let's look at pillaging and war. Let's say group A has a natural resource that group B wants. Group B is more powerful. Why shouldn't Group B take (or destroy) group A to secure that resource? We're assuming that human rights don't exist, and Group B would be less miserable. Group A would also be less miserable (and anything else for that matter) since they're dead.
Are you asking if I think Group B is "wrong"? Yes I'd say they are wrong or immoral. Why? for the same reasons as above - if everyone did it, we'd all be worse for it.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 08, 2019, 10:20:32 AM
Quote
Wouldn't you, personally, rather live the life of Trump rather than Jesus though? If you would, couldn't you understand while others would want to do the same?
Well I think Trump is a bad example since he is not very intelligent, sexually assaults women, and gets a little too much satisfaction from his own daughter. But I get your meaning.

But I already made the point: if everyone behaved like that, society would crumble. So it is in all of our best interests not to do so. And we (and other species) have developed social norms to prevent this. Moral relativism does not preclude collective thinking.

Quote
If you want to create peaceful societies, surely you would be in favor of eugenics or something else to weed out the "unfavorable" characteristics of some folks. Human rights don't really exist, so it's silly to act like they do - to man's own detriment!
No, again for a similar reason. If you set a precedent that undesirables should be exterminated, what happens when someone believes you are undesirable? 

Quote
Misery is a very, very gray topic. Indeed, it may sound "miserable" to have a job if one would rather live off the government. Should we give money to those that don't work, or, would the old stone age book give better advice? It may be "miserable" to "sacrifice" lifestyle for the sake of protecting the environment.
That's not the point - the point is if we can identify what "bad" is without a divine morality. And yes we can do this, if we imagine a universe where every creature suffers as much as it can, for as long as it can. This is "bad" - it doesn't get worse from there. And you don't need absolute morality to define this; there is no gray area.

Quote
Or let's look at pillaging and war. Let's say group A has a natural resource that group B wants. Group B is more powerful. Why shouldn't Group B take (or destroy) group A to secure that resource? We're assuming that human rights don't exist, and Group B would be less miserable. Group A would also be less miserable (and anything else for that matter) since they're dead.
Are you asking if I think Group B is "wrong"? Yes I'd say they are wrong or immoral. Why? for the same reasons as above - if everyone did it, we'd all be worse for it.

As a free thinking person who's not constrained by the norms of society, wouldn't you still choose to be Trump? You know that the "morals" or "manners" society imposes hurts your own standing in life and can overcome them. Who cares if society struggles as long as you're taking care of number 1?

I'd argue that Trump is quite intelligent (you don't normally become a billionaire and president without at least a somewhat above average intelligence). I'd also argue, in the atheistic sense, him assaulting woman is okay. His morals are not your morals, after all. All of that is subjective so it doesn't make sense to have a super strong opinion about it. Who am I to say that his happiness of doing that is worth more or less than the women's misery?

As an unbiased 3rd party, why would I want to be like Jesus instead of Trump? For the sake of society? That doesn't seem to make much sense. Dying in my early 30s just so society is better off seems like a poor choice.

You seem to be equating his actions towards woman as "wrong." Just because you have been conditioned by society to think that way, that doesn't mean it's true. After all, there are plenty of women who like the bad boys or the more aggressive type. In plenty of cultures women are "less" than the man. Surely, you aren't arrogant enough to think that your way is best?

If I happen to be one of the "undesirables" so be it. I, personally, may not like it but we're looking at the best interest of society after all. It's not rational to let my emotions influence proper decision making. Society determines what's right or wrong - not the "undesirables."

I don't know why you're so insistent on the "if everyone did it, we'll all be worse off" as for your reasoning to do that. If everyone had a huge car or big house, we'd be worse off too. Does that mean it's "wrong" for someone to live in huge mansion and drive gas guzzler? What about if everyone was super frugal? Wouldn't the economy suffer and we'd all be "worse" off?

I find it hard to define misery. If more people were miserable, perhaps we'd all be better off like restricting everyone's carbon footprint. In fact, people being miserable is usually what drives innovation in other areas.

What if someone is "miserable" with their wife. Should they try an affair to reduce the misery? Should they struggle through and try to improve their marriage? What if they just want a new challenge?

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 08, 2019, 12:09:25 PM
I mean this is where we seem to hit a wall every time. Should I be responding to each and every what-if you have presented? It's all the same answer.

There are probably hundreds of millions, if not billions of atheists alive right now. Their behavior is not significantly  different from anyone else's. And yet, despite nonbelief in a god, they manage to live normally ethical lives and have come to decisions for all these what-ifs that you have imagined.

Quote
I find it hard to define misery.
Perhaps this is the reason you are struggling so much (at least from my perspective) with this question of morality.
 
The rest of us, we do our best, we try to make the best decisions, to balance what is good for us in the short-term, the long-term, and to avoid this misery that you find difficult to define. And we try to come together and create some basic guidelines for social behavior to reinforce this, and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes you get Trump, sometimes you get Jesus.

And back to the question of Jesus vs Trump: I was mistaken in my response. I imagined only the individual moral code of Jesus, not actually living the life of Jesus. Because if I had to choose between the two of them, I'd actually choose to be Trump. Why? Not for the reasons you quoted earlier (the money, the power, etc. etc.)

Trump didn't manage to start a crackpot story which has inspired the murder of millions over 2000 years, the theft and abuse of the poor, the stunting of scientific thought for centuries, the pervasive case of child molestation on a global scale, and other untold horrors. On this scale, Jesus is a far worse offender of creating human misery. And frankly we'd probably be better off if the ridiculous stories of his life had never been found, published, and cult-ified.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 09, 2019, 02:36:54 AM
Hey Paul Mr B etc., so I finally am getting a moment to respond to your points! Saddle up, brothers!


Quote
Do we get to pick and choose? No. Do I believe every word it says? Yes. However, that is different to understanding all it says and that is to be expected.
MrB Ok - then who gets to "interpret" it all for us? And why is their interpretation any better than mine?

Very interesting question LC. It’s probably best to define “interpret” first, which I would venture is simply the understanding of the truth about something, put another way the true meaning of something. In this case let’s take step back.

God created man in their image Gen 1:26 “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...”” However, man fell into sin because of his disobedience/rebellion and due to the effects of sin… ”The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Cor 2:14) Essentially, natural man rejects God’s wisdom/The Truth as foolishness to the point of being hostile to God Rom 8:7 “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.”

It implies that natural man cannot interpret God’s truth, because he rejects it.

However, when man rebelled, God provided His Son, Jesus to the pay the price for his sins and reconcile those to God who repent from their sin and accept Jesus as their Lord and at that point they’re reconciled to God and God puts His Spirit in them. John 3:16-18 previously quoted lays that out. At this point natural man is “born again” John 3:5-8 “Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.””

Once God’s Spirit is in me He interprets for me , not because I was not able to hear, but because I am now for the first time able to understand “12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.” 1 Cor 2

So ultimately God’s Spirit interprets for us. Without His Spirit I will “‘Keep on hearing, but (do) not understand; keep on seeing, but (do) not perceive.’” Isaiah 6:9

Quote
The Amalekite point is that story is god telling his "chosen people" to go and murder all the Amalekites. It's one of the oft-cited moral contradictions from the bible. And so the question is, if you truly believe, and you saw an Amalekite walking down the street with his family this morning, would you kill them in cold blood, as god has commended?

I can appreciate where you’re coming from, but according to my research your interpretation is incorrect for the following reasons,

Firstly, it’s not a moral contradiction, but an affirmation of God’s nature, GRACE and TRUTH. To recap, we like the GRACE bit, but not so much the TRUTH part. The TRUTH is God is uncompromising when it comes to sin. The episode I assume you’re referring to (1 Sam 15) illustrates this uncompromising attitude to sin. The Amalekite were an exceedingly wicked nation and God did not want Israel to co-mingle with them, just as God does not want us to sin. I agree that 1 Sam 15 seems very tough on face value, but it does show how much God abhors sin. It also points to Jesus, which like the Amalekites were to take on God’s wrath in order to stand in our stead so we can have a relationship with Him. What God spared the Amalekites He did not spare His own Son. What GRACE to give up your ONLY Son who knew no sin to pay the price for me? So yes the TRUTH is God abhors sin, but He as the judge is merciful and extends His GRACE to you and me and all we have to do is REPENT, accept Jesus and receive the Holy Spirit and everlasting life. The Amalekites stood in direct opposition to that.

Secondly, the episode in 1 Sam 15 is just one part of the history between the two nations. Israel was at war with the Amalekites who were wicked and did not fear God from the days of Moses when the Amalekites ambushed Israel from behind when they were in the desert without water and picked off the weary that were falling behind. It was only by God’s supernatural intervention Israel prevailed and that day God told Moses, “Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.” Therefore, as difficult as it might be to accept, God’s instruction in 1 Sam 15 to essentially blot out the Amalekites is not a one-sided affair.

Thirdly, I’ve not found the claim of genocide to be credible for two reasons. A) When you study the passage in context then there is sufficient evidence that hyperbole was used e.g. Seattle annihilated Denver in the 2016 Superbowl or America annihilated Iraq in the 1980 war. B) Josh 21, 23 etc makes it clear that the Amalekites were still thriving so they were certainly not wiped out.

Fourthly, 1 Sam 15:1 “And Samuel said to Saul…” The instruction was to Saul, not to Israel at large and I just don’t see how one can logically extend that command to Christians today. 

Quote
Quote
I think if humans were to come up with a set of moral laws then it will look nothing like that which God commanded. Interestingly enough when Moses went up mount Sinai to receive the 10 commandments the people made a golden calf to worship and had a drunken orgy. I think the latter is a good indication of what a moral set of rules by the people and for the people will look like rather than the following, which I argue no humans, especially as a general group will come up with.
I asked this question to paul separately in a PM and of course it has been debated centuries over. Are we as humans so close to murdering and raping and fornicating in the streets, that without some booming voice from the heavens telling us that these are wrong, we wouldn't figure it out? If you learned today conclusive proof that god never existed, would you suddenly rob, cheat, and murder your way through your life? How lowly you must think of the human animal!

And let's take other animals: for all we know no other species on this planet has any concept of god or jesus or moses or allah. Yet apes, dolphins, etc. all show evidence of behavioral norms enforced through social structures. Then again they also rape and murder, but then again so do we.

Firstly, you’re not an animal. You were created in God’s image to have dominion over animals. Gen 1:26” Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.””

Secondly, animals don’t know evil, we do and yes we are evil.. today, both individually and collectively. I’ll prove it to you. Here’s a test, which I certainly failed and still fail on my own accord. Imagine you stand in God’s court room today and the measure is God’s law.

1.   Have you ever taken God’s name in vain/used it as a cuss word? Yes or No?
2.   Have you ever stolen incl music, software, movies, etc? Yes or No?
3.   Have you ever had sex outside of marriage? Yes or No?
4.   Have you ever looked at a woman lustfully? Yes or No?
5.   Have you ever told a lie? Yes or No?

Do I need to carry on? Anyone reading the above are guilty of several of those which will make you as it did me at least one of the following, a blasphemer, thief, fornicator, adulterer or a liar or something along the lines of a blaspheming, thieving, fornicating, adultering, liar… It begs the questions Innocent or guilty? Heaven or hell?

We’re not able to figure it out despite the fact that God did create us, He did write his law on our hearts and gave us a conscience Rom 2:15 and He provides the Holy Spirit which currently restrains sin in the world 2 Thes 2:7

Collectively we’re not doing better either and all the comparison with animals do is prove how exceedingly wicked we are as a group. In 2018 in the US 3.9 m babies were born and 638 thousand babies were murdered (we prefer to call it abortions). I wonder which animals kill their own at a rate like that, mainly because of lifestyle choices?

BUT again! God’s GRACE is sufficient to be forgiven for all or any of the above and to receive everlasting life. There is nothing you can do accept receive what is freely offered to you. That is the TRUTH. ALL other religions apart from the TRUTH are religions of works. The TRUTH is there is nothing that you can do to get right with God on your own accord. It has been done, IT IS FINISHED and it’s offered to you and me.

Quote
While this is nice and all, the golden rule long pre-dates monotheism and the hebrew god and the christian jesus. We should probably be thanking the egyptians for this one.

There is zero evidence for that claim. There is not one iota of evidence that disproves the above quote does not belong to Jesus.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Ross812 on July 09, 2019, 07:16:09 AM
Have you ever thought about why religion developed in the first place and what makes one more successful than another?

This article has some fascinating insights:

https://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/Manuscripts/2016%20Norenzayan%20cultural%20evolution.pdf
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 09, 2019, 10:15:49 AM
I mean this is where we seem to hit a wall every time. Should I be responding to each and every what-if you have presented? It's all the same answer.

There are probably hundreds of millions, if not billions of atheists alive right now. Their behavior is not significantly  different from anyone else's. And yet, despite nonbelief in a god, they manage to live normally ethical lives and have come to decisions for all these what-ifs that you have imagined.

Quote
I find it hard to define misery.
Perhaps this is the reason you are struggling so much (at least from my perspective) with this question of morality.
 
The rest of us, we do our best, we try to make the best decisions, to balance what is good for us in the short-term, the long-term, and to avoid this misery that you find difficult to define. And we try to come together and create some basic guidelines for social behavior to reinforce this, and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes you get Trump, sometimes you get Jesus.

And back to the question of Jesus vs Trump: I was mistaken in my response. I imagined only the individual moral code of Jesus, not actually living the life of Jesus. Because if I had to choose between the two of them, I'd actually choose to be Trump. Why? Not for the reasons you quoted earlier (the money, the power, etc. etc.)

Trump didn't manage to start a crackpot story which has inspired the murder of millions over 2000 years, the theft and abuse of the poor, the stunting of scientific thought for centuries, the pervasive case of child molestation on a global scale, and other untold horrors. On this scale, Jesus is a far worse offender of creating human misery. And frankly we'd probably be better off if the ridiculous stories of his life had never been found, published, and cult-ified.

That's an interesting opinion. Care to back up just one of those assertions with facts?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 09, 2019, 11:06:52 AM
I mean this is where we seem to hit a wall every time. Should I be responding to each and every what-if you have presented? It's all the same answer.

There are probably hundreds of millions, if not billions of atheists alive right now. Their behavior is not significantly  different from anyone else's. And yet, despite nonbelief in a god, they manage to live normally ethical lives and have come to decisions for all these what-ifs that you have imagined.

Quote
I find it hard to define misery.
Perhaps this is the reason you are struggling so much (at least from my perspective) with this question of morality.
 
The rest of us, we do our best, we try to make the best decisions, to balance what is good for us in the short-term, the long-term, and to avoid this misery that you find difficult to define. And we try to come together and create some basic guidelines for social behavior to reinforce this, and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes you get Trump, sometimes you get Jesus.

And back to the question of Jesus vs Trump: I was mistaken in my response. I imagined only the individual moral code of Jesus, not actually living the life of Jesus. Because if I had to choose between the two of them, I'd actually choose to be Trump. Why? Not for the reasons you quoted earlier (the money, the power, etc. etc.)

Trump didn't manage to start a crackpot story which has inspired the murder of millions over 2000 years, the theft and abuse of the poor, the stunting of scientific thought for centuries, the pervasive case of child molestation on a global scale, and other untold horrors. On this scale, Jesus is a far worse offender of creating human misery. And frankly we'd probably be better off if the ridiculous stories of his life had never been found, published, and cult-ified.

There are millions of atheists who are not nearly as much of a free thinker that they think they are. They are being controlled by their evolutionary instincts and society. How is that much different (if at all) that those that follow a religion?

How would someone inspired to kill millions by a guy who said things like:

"Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Or

"43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,"


I think it tells you more about the person creating the havoc then the person they allegedly follow.

It reminds me a little of the old Buffett quote about forecasting.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 09, 2019, 11:21:18 AM
Quote
That's an interesting opinion. Care to back up just one of those assertions with facts?

I feel I am insulting the intelligence of everyone reading this, but if you insist:

Quote
inspired the murder of millions over 2000 years
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Death_toll_of_Christianity

Even estimating conservatively, you get to over 1MM deaths from Christian war and oppression.

Quote
the theft and abuse of the poor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence

Quote
the stunting of scientific thought for centuries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Inquisition_and_first_judgement,_1616

Quote
the pervasive case of child molestation on a global scale
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Castanza on July 09, 2019, 11:27:58 AM
Quote
That's an interesting opinion. Care to back up just one of those assertions with facts?

I feel I am insulting the intelligence of everyone reading this, but if you insist:

Quote
inspired the murder of millions over 2000 years
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Death_toll_of_Christianity

Even estimating conservatively, you get to over 1MM deaths from Christian war and oppression.

Quote
the theft and abuse of the poor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence

Quote
the stunting of scientific thought for centuries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Inquisition_and_first_judgement,_1616

Quote
the pervasive case of child molestation on a global scale
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases
No you're insulting Catholicism which is a cult. They don't preach or follow the Bible in pretty much any way. They have persecuted true Christians all throughout history and are an abomination. If you want some perspective on this I would suggest the book "50 Years in the Church of Rome."
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 09, 2019, 11:49:58 AM
Mr B your last post...Well, let's say that joyce would be proud  ;D ;D. But I will do my best to parse it and respond to what I think to be the salient points. You can tell me if I hit or miss the mark:

Quote
Truth by definition is absolute, which logically means it's not relative (to us), which again means it has to be external. I have not come across evidence that points to the infallibility of Scripture and the absolute truth it describes and claims to be.
Now let's tackle this because it seems to me a contradiction right off the bat.

For something to be generally accepted as "truth" - it should be independently verifiable. In the sciences we can test, test, re-test, test under varying conditions, test over time, etc. and compare outcome. By doing so we can zone in on "truth". Because as you so correctly posted earlier, we are simply human and do not (or can not) know and observe everything.


Incorrect. Something is true because it is an inherent fact, not because it is generally accepted as the truth. The sun did not revolve around the earth until it was generally accepted that the earth actually revolves around the sun. Simply put TRUTH is absolute, not relative.
Independent verification does not make something true, because again TRUTH is absolute and inherent e.g. If you shot the 2nd last person on earth then it does not mean it’s not true because it cannot be independently verified. I don’t understand what you’re trying to say regarding the sciences, but although helpful it has serious limitations e.g. you cannot scientifically prove that Trump won the 2016 election, the big bang, etc.

Quote
So to say there is no evidence to contract the bible seems disingenuous. If it were "truth" then every word, sentence, story, phrase, would all be independently verifiable. This is simply not the case:

I’m happy to consider any evidence you can produce and I don’t mean it in a facetious way. Seriously.
Quote
Firstly, the bible has logical and scientific inconsistencies on seemingly every other page.

Please name one.

Quote
Secondly, Of the stories it tells, there has been zero evidence discovered for most of them (and trust me, the fervent religious have looked!) And yet we have evidence of stars exploding, dinosaurs walking the earth, and many other events long pre-dating the scriptural stories.

Incorrect. Let’s start with the Bible itself simply as a historical document. You trust Caesar’s writings? How about Plato’s? Aristotle’s? Are you prepared to be intellectually consistent when comparing it with the Bible? You know how many years between the time these guys produced their works and the earliest copies? In each case a thousand years, 1,400 years in the case of Aristotle. You know how many early copies we have? Between 7 and 49.

The New Testament?? Only 25 years between events and the earliest copies and to date how many copies discovered? Over 24,000!

So before we even peak inside and look at the stories your first problem is that the sources you bring to try and disprove those stories are historically weak in comparison, without exception.

For archeologic evidence start here https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/


Quote
Thirdly, if we followed the scriptural teachings to the letter (as we must, if it is "truth"), society would begin to look like the ultra-conservative religious groups, who are some of the most immoral and oppressive of all the faithful.

Incorrect. Jesus specifically condemned what you suggest e.g. Mat 23 “Jesus Condemns the Pharisees and the Teachers of the Law of Moses 23 Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 The Pharisees and the teachers of the Law are experts in the Law of Moses. 3 So obey everything they teach you, but don’t do as they do. After all, they say one thing and do something else. 4 They pile heavy burdens on people’s shoulders and won’t lift a finger to help. 5 Everything they do is just to show off in front of others. They even make a big show of wearing Scripture verses on their foreheads and arms, and they wear big tassels[a] for everyone to see. 6 They love the best seats at banquets and the front seats in the meeting places….”

Jesus died so you can be free. Not to live a life suggested by you above

For the rest I think we can both agree you went off on a bit of a rant. 

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 09, 2019, 11:56:15 AM
Quote
That's an interesting opinion. Care to back up just one of those assertions with facts?

I feel I am insulting the intelligence of everyone reading this, but if you insist:

Quote
inspired the murder of millions over 2000 years
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Death_toll_of_Christianity

Even estimating conservatively, you get to over 1MM deaths from Christian war and oppression.

Quote
the theft and abuse of the poor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence

Quote
the stunting of scientific thought for centuries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Inquisition_and_first_judgement,_1616

Quote
the pervasive case of child molestation on a global scale
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases

I don't follow your logic. Let's just take your first point and the first event mentioned in the source you cited. So how exactly did Jesus "inspire" the "Thirty Years War"??
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Ross812 on July 09, 2019, 11:56:26 AM
No you're insulting Catholicism which is a cult. They don't preach or follow the Bible in pretty much any way. They have persecuted true Christians all throughout history and are an abomination. If you want some perspective on this I would suggest the book "50 Years in the Church of Rome."

According to your interpretation of the Bible....

The paper I linked earlier gave an interesting psychological and anthropological approach to religion. Small groups of people could keep each other honest and make sure each member contributed to the group because everyone knew each other and interacted. Once large groups of people started living together and roles diversified, it became impossible to interact with everyone and people could freeload off the group. The idea of an all seeing deity that punishes those who do not follow the mores of the group is incredibly effective in making sure each member contributes. Religion developed "costly rituals" to identify true adherents and make sure people couldn't just profess belief and free load. These costly rituals could be property sacrifice, time commitments, or self mutilation to show you were a true believer.

Over time, those groups with the strongest religions and strictest adherents had an advantage over those groups who did not work as well together leading to the spread of religion. 
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 09, 2019, 12:39:12 PM
Quote
No you're insulting Catholicism which is a cult. They don't preach or follow the Bible in pretty much any way. They have persecuted true Christians all throughout history and are an abomination. If you want some perspective on this I would suggest the book "50 Years in the Church of Rome."
No Jesus = No Catholic Church

Tell me who these "True Christians" are. Are they related to the "true scotsman"?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 09, 2019, 12:43:20 PM
I don't follow your logic. Let's just take your first point and the first event mentioned in the source you cited. So how exactly did Jesus "inspire" the "Thirty Years War"??

https://www.history.com/topics/reformation/thirty-years-war

Quote

The Thirty Years’ War was a 17th-century religious conflict fought primarily in central Europe. It remains one of the longest and most brutal wars in human history, with more than 8 million casualties resulting from military battles as well as from the famine and disease caused by the conflict. The war lasted from 1618 to 1648, starting as a battle among the Catholic and Protestant states that formed the Holy Roman Empire.

...

With Emperor Ferdinand II’s ascension to head of state of the Holy Roman Empire in 1619, religious conflict began to foment.

One of Ferdinand II’s first actions was to force citizens of the empire to adhere to Roman Catholicism, even though religious freedom had been granted as part of the Peace of Augsburg.

Is this not a religious war? Is this war not caused by hatred between Catholic and Protestant groups? Are those two groups not founded on Jesus?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 09, 2019, 12:47:31 PM
No you're insulting Catholicism which is a cult. They don't preach or follow the Bible in pretty much any way. They have persecuted true Christians all throughout history and are an abomination. If you want some perspective on this I would suggest the book "50 Years in the Church of Rome."

According to your interpretation of the Bible....

The paper I linked earlier gave an interesting psychological and anthropological approach to religion. Small groups of people could keep each other honest and make sure each member contributed to the group because everyone knew each other and interacted. Once large groups of people started living together and roles diversified, it became impossible to interact with everyone and people could freeload off the group. The idea of an all seeing deity that punishes those who do not follow the mores of the group is incredibly effective in making sure each member contributes. Religion developed "costly rituals" to identify true adherents and make sure people couldn't just profess belief and free load. These costly rituals could be property sacrifice, time commitments, or self mutilation to show you were a true believer.

Over time, those groups with the strongest religions and strictest adherents had an advantage over those groups who did not work as well together leading to the spread of religion.

This doesn't really explain why the apostles died for a lie (after all they know whether or not the event happened) or why Saul changed his path.

But let's say you're right. Why believe in such things as human rights? Wouldn't society be much better off through a thoughtful eugenics program?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 09, 2019, 01:02:28 PM
How would someone inspired to kill millions by a guy who said things like:

"Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Or

"43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,"


I think it tells you more about the person creating the havoc then the person they allegedly follow.

Perhaps they read the parable in Luke and decided to take matters into their own hands:
But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’

Or maybe they went into Matthew:
Quote
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Or perhaps John:
Quote
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 09, 2019, 01:35:19 PM
Hi MrB, this post is a response to yours...quoted the relevant items below:

Quote
Incorrect. Something is true because it is an inherent fact, not because it is generally accepted as the truth. The sun did not revolve around the earth until it was generally accepted that the earth actually revolves around the sun. Simply put TRUTH is absolute, not relative.
I agree but I was not talking about what makes something true, I am talking about how people know/accept something is true. I tried to be very clear in my language here.

The earth rotates about the sun, but we did not know this until we tested and observed. You can say JESUS IS TRUTH, but this is no different than saying the universe is GEOCENTRIC. If it cannot be tested and subject to independent verification, it means nothing.
Quote
Quote
So to say there is no evidence to contract the bible seems disingenuous. If it were "truth" then every word, sentence, story, phrase, would all be independently verifiable. This is simply not the case:
I’m happy to consider any evidence you can produce and I don’t mean it in a facetious way. Seriously.

Appreciate the honest effort, but I mean, the Bible says God made Eve out of a rib. Women did not originate from a rib. There is evidence which traces the evolution of homo sapiens, none of which involves the spontaneous creation of female humans from a rib.

I can go on but I mean, this is pretty basic stuff. Something about a whale eating Job I think is another obvious one, a dude and an Ark. The evidence contradicts the exodus story:

Quote
many if not most of the places mentioned in the Exodus did not exist within the same chronological period as one another. Pithom (Per‐Atum/Tckenu) and Raamses (Per‐Ramesses), the two "treasure cities" claimed to have been built by the Hebrews, never existed at the same time. Pithom did not exist as a significant settlement before the 26th Dynasty. Prior to this, the settlement was known as Tckenu, and was still referred to as such in the Ptolemaic period. It was an obscure garrison town which mainly, if not exclusively, served as a waystation for Egyptian expeditions. Even in its enlarged Roman state, the town barely registered on either Egyptian or Greco–Roman accounts.[17] Per‐Ramesses, the Royal Residence of the Ramessides, was abandoned at the end of the New Kingdom, centuries earlier.[17]

Another example is the Exodus portrayal of Edom. Edom was not yet a nation. In fact, the region wasn't even inhabited yet. The place the Hebrews stop at wasn't even built until 800 BCE, as the earliest Iron Age settlements (copper mining camps) date to the 9th or 10th century BCE according to radiocarbon dating done by Thomas LevyWikipedia's W.svg (the previous estimates having been placed some 300 years later)[22] and the main excavated sites have been dated between the 8th and 6th centuries BCE. However, the latest the Exodus could have occurred and still be biblically accurate is in the 13th century BCE, meaning that if the radiocarbon dating is contested, the settlements would be estimated to be from the 12th or 13th century BCE, thus additionally slimming the "window of opportunity" for Exodus to have taken place.

Evidence of Egyptian history shows no sign of "plagues":

Quote
All of the dates put forward by advocates of the historicity of Exodus fail to correspond to any period of national chaos or collapse in Egypt, as would clearly be expected by such a series of disasters.

Ussher's 1491 BCE date corresponds with a time of ambitious Egyptian expansion. The reign of Hatshepsut was stable, peaceful and saw extensive construction projects and trading missions; this is known from actual material remains as well as Egyptian records. Her successor, Thutmose III, took Egypt to its greatest imperial extent, forging an empire from the Euphrates to the 4th and possibly the 5th cataract. These are not the signs of a nation that, just a few years before, had lost its entire harvest, its drinkable water, its army and its sons. There is no archaeological evidence at all of mass death and impoverishment in the early New Kingdom period.

The same holds true for the period of Ramesses II. Although there were a few brief reigns after Merenptah, and what appears to be an attempt to interfere with the line of succession (the Chancellor Bey affair), there is no evidence of national catastrophe. Not long after, during the reign of Ramesses III, the state was still able to construct numerous massive monuments (such as Medinet Habu and the temple of Ramesses III within the Karnak complex) and mount effective military campaigns on both land and sea.

As I said, the stories in the Bible lack independently verifiable evidence. And the evidence we do have contradicts these stories.

Quote
Quote
Firstly, the bible has logical and scientific inconsistencies on seemingly every other page.

Please name one.
Many folks have made lists. This is probably a good starting point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible

The study of inconsistencies in the Bible has a long history. In the 17th century, Spinoza considered the Bible to be, "...a book rich in contradictions."[38] In the 18th century, Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason compiled many of the Bible's self-contradictions. And in 1860, William Henry Burr produced a list of 144 self-contradictions in the Bible.[39]


Here's the mentioned Burr work:
https://archive.org/stream/SelfContradictionsOfTheBible/Self-Contradictions-Of-The-Bible_djvu.txt

And one example:

GOD IS SATISFIED WITH HIS WORKS.

And God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very
good. (Gen. 1:31.)

GOD IS DISSATISFIED WITH HIS WORKS.

And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and
it grieved him at his heart. (Gen. 6:6.)


Quote
Quote
Thirdly, if we followed the scriptural teachings to the letter (as we must, if it is "truth"), society would begin to look like the ultra-conservative religious groups, who are some of the most immoral and oppressive of all the faithful.
Incorrect. Jesus specifically condemned what you suggest

I see: you must be one of the "true Christians", and all those ultra-conservative Christian groups are the "false Christians".

Again, how do we know your interpretation is any better than these ultra-conservatives?

Your previous response to this question ("So ultimately God’s Spirit interprets for us. Without His Spirit I will “‘Keep on hearing, but (do) not understand; keep on seeing, but (do) not perceive.’” Isaiah 6:9 ")

This is white noise. Do you have "God's Spirit" or do the ultra-conservatives? Or do I? Who has God's Spirit and can interpret the Bible "correctly"? How can we tell?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Ross812 on July 09, 2019, 01:42:45 PM
No you're insulting Catholicism which is a cult. They don't preach or follow the Bible in pretty much any way. They have persecuted true Christians all throughout history and are an abomination. If you want some perspective on this I would suggest the book "50 Years in the Church of Rome."

According to your interpretation of the Bible....

The paper I linked earlier gave an interesting psychological and anthropological approach to religion. Small groups of people could keep each other honest and make sure each member contributed to the group because everyone knew each other and interacted. Once large groups of people started living together and roles diversified, it became impossible to interact with everyone and people could freeload off the group. The idea of an all seeing deity that punishes those who do not follow the mores of the group is incredibly effective in making sure each member contributes. Religion developed "costly rituals" to identify true adherents and make sure people couldn't just profess belief and free load. These costly rituals could be property sacrifice, time commitments, or self mutilation to show you were a true believer.

Over time, those groups with the strongest religions and strictest adherents had an advantage over those groups who did not work as well together leading to the spread of religion.

This doesn't really explain why the apostles died for a lie (after all they know whether or not the event happened) or why Saul changed his path.

But let's say you're right. Why believe in such things as human rights? Wouldn't society be much better off through a thoughtful eugenics program?

The apostles died in something they believed in. I'm not saying Jesus or any of the religious leaders are trying to deceive people. I'm saying humans developed the concept of an all knowing wrathful god as a way to ensure individuals adhered to the mores of their group. The concept evolved thousands of years before the birth of Jesus. Jesus just pushed the evolution forward and created an even more powerful religion.

You should really read through the article I posted. It is quite interesting. The theory is not anti-religion or pro-atheism. It posits that humans could not have been nearly as successful as we have become without religion. It is a human innovation just as important as fire. 

 

 

 
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 09, 2019, 01:49:47 PM
How would someone inspired to kill millions by a guy who said things like:

"Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Or

"43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,"


I think it tells you more about the person creating the havoc then the person they allegedly follow.

Perhaps they read the parable in Luke and decided to take matters into their own hands:
But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’

Or maybe they went into Matthew:
Quote
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Or perhaps John:
Quote
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."

For the first one, that one certainly seems to be conveying judgement. If the followers of Jesus actually thought it meant to kill someone, do you have any evidence that any one of the early church did such acts? If not, why think this is a command to kill?

For the 2nd one, it's basically saying that God has to be number your first priority. There are plenty of times when people become Christians that it drives others away from them. It goes on to say "Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn ‘A man against his father, a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household".

I don't see why someone would have an issue on the 3rd one? Accepting Jesus as an atonement is one of the core beliefs of the religion.

Is that the best you can do?

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 09, 2019, 02:20:39 PM
You're asking me how someone could possibly kill someone else in the name of Jesus.

To that, I point you to all the Christian wars in human history.

I mean come on Paul, you ask me:

Quote
If not, why think this is a command to kill?

Perhaps because it contains this language:
bring them here and slaughter them before me


Obviously these humans interpreted Jesus's words differently than you. And I've given three examples of Jesus' words which could conceivably be interpreted to do so.

What makes their interpretation wrong and yours correct?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 10, 2019, 09:18:23 AM
You're asking me how someone could possibly kill someone else in the name of Jesus.

To that, I point you to all the Christian wars in human history.

I mean come on Paul, you ask me:

Quote
If not, why think this is a command to kill?

Perhaps because it contains this language:
bring them here and slaughter them before me


Obviously these humans interpreted Jesus's words differently than you. And I've given three examples of Jesus' words which could conceivably be interpreted to do so.

What makes their interpretation wrong and yours correct?

Well, for one, it's a parable (as you noted). This explains it better than I can:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENtlW-LEqu8
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Cardboard on July 10, 2019, 11:05:55 AM
"To that, I point you to all the Christian wars in human history."

Why the atheist do you mix religion with wars?

Ever heard of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ghendis Khan, Alexander the Great? These were Jesus follower I suppose?

Then what about Muslims who kill each other, Hindus, etc.

Don't you get it yet? It has nothing to do with religion but, power and human nature.

So now since Parsad imposes on me strong censorship, I wish he could do the same to you or force you to respect, stop judging and accept other people who live and believe differently than you do!

Of course when it comes to economic, I believe there is only ONE way to go and it is free market capitalism.

Cardboard
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 10, 2019, 11:53:48 AM
As a former agnostic, I don't have a problem with lc (or anyone else) questioning. I'd like to try to understand the truth of reality. For me, it boils down to intellectual honesty. We should look at all worldviews skeptically - including atheism.

For instance, lc is like "you really believe that a woman was made from a man's rib?" If one is honest, wouldn't you say that is way, way more likely than life from nonlife? If we gave a team of scientists a man and told them to make a woman out his rib, that doesn't seem as far fetched as giving those same scientists a rock and saying "make something living out of this!" - and no they aren't allowed to pull of germs or something off of the rock for help. :P

After all, you have all the ingredients necessary for that situation to occur (human dna among other things). Does it sound improbable? Sure, but not as improbable than the other.

Or the case of morality (and a big reason why I switched sides), if there is no higher power, it's quite silly to listen to our conscience. Our conscience is simply a by product of our evolutionary instincts and it has no more understanding of a non-existent moral standard than anything else does. This is one of the things I really don't understand about humanists who cry foul on "social injustice". The folks committing the acts of "injustice" get their morality from evolutionary instincts and so do the humanists. If you remove your emotions, why think your instincts are more knowledgeable about something that you don't believe exists - objective morality- than theirs? Being "good without a god" is so much bs.

Our conscience frequently tells us to do thing against our best interest (give to charity, risk your life to save another), so why listen to it? It's about as rational as listening to your "gut feeling" that the market is going to go after March 2009. So much for ughh..."free thinking."
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Ross812 on July 10, 2019, 01:36:28 PM
As a former agnostic, I don't have a problem with lc (or anyone else) questioning. I'd like to try to understand the truth of reality. For me, it boils down to intellectual honesty. We should look at all worldviews skeptically - including atheism.

For instance, lc is like "you really believe that a woman was made from a man's rib?" If one is honest, wouldn't you say that is way, way more likely than life from nonlife? If we gave a team of scientists a man and told them to make a woman out his rib, that doesn't seem as far fetched as giving those same scientists a rock and saying "make something living out of this!" - and no they aren't allowed to pull of germs or something off of the rock for help. :P

After all, you have all the ingredients necessary for that situation to occur (human dna among other things). Does it sound improbable? Sure, but not as improbable than the other.

Do you honestly believe this rib story or are you just giving an example. I think that is what is so infuriating about this whole conversation is a believer will say something asinine like the above and state they are being intellectually honest in the same breath. Then a counterpoint will be made about a bible verse and it is a parable/story/metaphor. Or you ask for examples of problems in Christianity and someone brings up Catholic scandals and the response is "well that's a cult, they're not true believers" etc. It is a little frustrating to try an argue about the logic of the religion if you can pick and choose what is literal, who is a true believer, then state the interpretation can only be understood by the holy spirit within the believer.

Or the case of morality (and a big reason why I switched sides), if there is no higher power, it's quite silly to listen to our conscience. Our conscience is simply a by product of our evolutionary instincts and it has no more understanding of a non-existent moral standard than anything else does. This is one of the things I really don't understand about humanists who cry foul on "social injustice". The folks committing the acts of "injustice" get their morality from evolutionary instincts and so do the humanists. If you remove your emotions, why think your instincts are more knowledgeable about something that you don't believe exists - objective morality- than theirs? Being "good without a god" is so much bs.

Our conscience frequently tells us to do thing against our best interest (give to charity, risk your life to save another), so why listen to it? It's about as rational as listening to your "gut feeling" that the market is going to go after March 2009. So much for ughh..."free thinking."

Maybe the conscience is a set of evolutionary traits that favor the group over the individual and make it more likely the group thrives in the long run. Religion is the human adaptation to manifest the conscience over the population to align the conscience make the group even more biologically competitive. That is my intellectual honesty. Now, do I think there is some deeper spirituality to life that benefits those who meditate, say the rosary, chant the Ohm, pray to Mecca, etc.? Whole heartedly. I just don't believe the Bible, the Koran, or the Bhagavad Gita has a monopoly on it.

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 10, 2019, 01:38:16 PM
Quote
For instance, lc is like "you really believe that a woman was made from a man's rib?" If one is honest, wouldn't you say that is way, way more likely than life from nonlife? If we gave a team of scientists a man and told them to make a woman out his rib, that doesn't seem as far fetched as giving those same scientists a rock and saying "make something living out of this!" - and no they aren't allowed to pull of germs or something off of the rock for help. :P

Paul I'm not saying it's impossible. After all, If god exists, he can make a man out of a gum wrapper and a woman out of a spare cigarette, if he wants.

The point that Mr B pressed me on was "what scientific evidence exists which contradicts the bible".
Well, we have scientific evidence for how humans came to be, which directly contradicts the bible.

Quote
Being "good without a god" is so much bs.
Hah! I really find this hilarious. Let's try this again, because again the evidence is against you. 

Let's take an example: According to the bible, slavery seems to be OK. God, moses, jesus all seemed to be OK with it. In fact they encouraged it:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. Ephesians 6:5 NLT


And for thousands of years we humans enslaved each other. All the while reading the bible, believing we were doing god's will, believing that "goodness comes from god".

And then over time human society gradually stopped enslaving each other. We as a society realized it was wrong. This realization came from the development of human society - not god.

And this same example happened with all the other bullshit from the bible that the "religious" now conveniently ignore. We realized stoning adulterers to death was wrong. We realized sexual slavery was wrong. Cutting off people's hands is wrong. Exterminating males and raping girls is wrong. Executing rival priests is wrong. Stoning a rebellious son is wrong. Exiling the disabled is wrong. etc. etc. etc.

And over time human morality realized these "words from god" were wrong, and so now you conveniently ignore them. That isn't god telling us to ignore this immorality, that is our own human morality guiding us.

So I'll have to say it, that unless you "religious" folks are out there stoning your son to death when he disobeys you, you are just as humanist as I am, and your morality is just as human-created as mine.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 10, 2019, 02:19:33 PM
As a former agnostic, I don't have a problem with lc (or anyone else) questioning. I'd like to try to understand the truth of reality. For me, it boils down to intellectual honesty. We should look at all worldviews skeptically - including atheism.

For instance, lc is like "you really believe that a woman was made from a man's rib?" If one is honest, wouldn't you say that is way, way more likely than life from nonlife? If we gave a team of scientists a man and told them to make a woman out his rib, that doesn't seem as far fetched as giving those same scientists a rock and saying "make something living out of this!" - and no they aren't allowed to pull of germs or something off of the rock for help. :P

After all, you have all the ingredients necessary for that situation to occur (human dna among other things). Does it sound improbable? Sure, but not as improbable than the other.

Do you honestly believe this rib story or are you just giving an example. I think that is what is so infuriating about this whole conversation is a believer will say something asinine like the above and state they are being intellectually honest in the same breath. Then a counterpoint will be made about a bible verse and it is a parable/story/metaphor. Or you ask for examples of problems in Christianity and someone brings up Catholic scandals and the response is "well that's a cult, they're not true believers" etc. It is a little frustrating to try an argue about the logic of the religion if you can pick and choose what is literal, who is a true believer, then state the interpretation can only be understood by the holy spirit within the believer.

Or the case of morality (and a big reason why I switched sides), if there is no higher power, it's quite silly to listen to our conscience. Our conscience is simply a by product of our evolutionary instincts and it has no more understanding of a non-existent moral standard than anything else does. This is one of the things I really don't understand about humanists who cry foul on "social injustice". The folks committing the acts of "injustice" get their morality from evolutionary instincts and so do the humanists. If you remove your emotions, why think your instincts are more knowledgeable about something that you don't believe exists - objective morality- than theirs? Being "good without a god" is so much bs.

Our conscience frequently tells us to do thing against our best interest (give to charity, risk your life to save another), so why listen to it? It's about as rational as listening to your "gut feeling" that the market is going to go after March 2009. So much for ughh..."free thinking."

Maybe the conscience is a set of evolutionary traits that favor the group over the individual and make it more likely the group thrives in the long run. Religion is the human adaptation to manifest the conscience over the population to align the conscience make the group even more biologically competitive. That is my intellectual honesty. Now, do I think there is some deeper spirituality to life that benefits those who meditate, say the rosary, chant the Ohm, pray to Mecca, etc.? Whole heartedly. I just don't believe the Bible, the Koran, or the Bhagavad Gita has a monopoly on it.

Ross, the point of the parable like what lc mentioned is that it is a parable.

Luke 19-27 (which is the slaughter them before me) one even says it's a parable!

"1 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once."

As for Adam's rib. I don't see why it's so "asinine" to think the probability of a woman being created out of a man's rib is higher than life from non life? Do you think it's harder for human dna to be created from another human's dna or for life to create nonlife? How is this not intellectually honest? Is there any evidence life can come from nonlife? There is plenty of evidence that human dna creates human dna. ;)

As for Catholicism, I didn't talk about that. I will say that it does seem that many of the higher ups are not following Jesus teachings. There are many, many good Catholics out there though.


As for the conscience and religion. You might be right. But, as I said before, we can ignore the evolutionary cravings to follow it. Much like it's silly to follow your hunger instincts to eat the candy if you want to lose weight. It's silly to follow one's moral instincts if you want to improve society. It might be better to have a eugenics program. If one believes that their conscience is only an evolutionary instinct, it's silly to follow it.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 10, 2019, 02:47:44 PM
Quote
Luke 19-27 (which is the slaughter them before me) one even says it's a parable!
What does that have to do with how you or anyone else interprets it? You choose to interpret it one way, I choose to interpret it another way.

I interpret that parable (the parable of the ten minas), as Jesus allowing the rich and powerful to grow richer and more powerful - and if anyone dares to try and stop them, it is OK to slaughter them.
And for those who follow the most powerful god and jesus, if anyone dares stand in the way of this god or this jesus, I am justified in slaughtering them.

Which of us is right and how do you know?

Quote
If one believes that their conscience is only an evolutionary instinct, it's silly to follow it.

There may be parts of evolutionary instinct that are counterproductive (eating the candy), the same way there are parts of god's book that are counterproductive (slavery).

In both cases, we try to ignore those parts. We try not to eat the candy. We try not to enslave the other.

However the decision and choice to ignore these parts is purely human. God doesn't say, "don't eat the candy", just like god doesn't say, "don't enslave the other".
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 11, 2019, 01:39:27 AM
I don't follow your logic. Let's just take your first point and the first event mentioned in the source you cited. So how exactly did Jesus "inspire" the "Thirty Years War"??

https://www.history.com/topics/reformation/thirty-years-war

Quote

The Thirty Years’ War was a 17th-century religious conflict fought primarily in central Europe. It remains one of the longest and most brutal wars in human history, with more than 8 million casualties resulting from military battles as well as from the famine and disease caused by the conflict. The war lasted from 1618 to 1648, starting as a battle among the Catholic and Protestant states that formed the Holy Roman Empire.

...

With Emperor Ferdinand II’s ascension to head of state of the Holy Roman Empire in 1619, religious conflict began to foment.

One of Ferdinand II’s first actions was to force citizens of the empire to adhere to Roman Catholicism, even though religious freedom had been granted as part of the Peace of Augsburg.

Is this not a religious war? Is this war not caused by hatred between Catholic and Protestant groups? Are those two groups not founded on Jesus?

LC I'm trying to catch up here, you're quite a few posts ahead of me. Have a few things going on. I appreciate the engagement though.

In response to the above. Correlation does not prove causality. Look at the bold and underlined parts from the source quoted above. Firstly, according to the source Ferdinand was an "inspiration" to the conflict. It was also an important economic war with the Habsburgs. So there has to be a point where the actors in the conflict specifically and humans in general should take ownership of the conflict, from beginning to end. To argue that Jesus inspired it, there has to be causality and none of the above proves it.

Having said that the "call to arms" by God through Jesus under the New Covenant or last days is to spread the gospel. The message is simple. God created you and me. We've sinned against Him, a Holy God, and the wages of sin is death. God loved you so much that He gave His only Son, Jesus to pay the price for me and you, because Jesus had no sin He can stand in our stead. What you and me have to do is repent and accept Jesus then our sins are forgiven, we receive the Holy Spirit, which will put a new heart in you. That way your relationship with God is restored and you receive everlasting life with God under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Judgement is real, but it is not for the Christian to enforce it. The Bible is very clear about that under the New Covenant. Rom 19: 14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. 17 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

Jesus will bring God's judgement and the Thirty Year War will look like a tea party in comparison, so I'm not trying to suggest Jesus is some peace loving, cuddly, pacifist. Far from it, but that's another topic. The obvious cause for war is humans, inspired by the evil within. Mark 7 20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” There is the causality and the TRUTH.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 11, 2019, 05:53:35 AM
Hi MrB, this post is a response to yours...quoted the relevant items below:

Quote
Incorrect. Something is true because it is an inherent fact, not because it is generally accepted as the truth. The sun did not revolve around the earth until it was generally accepted that the earth actually revolves around the sun. Simply put TRUTH is absolute, not relative.
I agree but I was not talking about what makes something true, I am talking about how people know/accept something is true. I tried to be very clear in my language here.

The earth rotates about the sun, but we did not know this until we tested and observed. You can say JESUS IS TRUTH, but this is no different than saying the universe is GEOCENTRIC. If it cannot be tested and subject to independent verification, it means nothing.
Nope, we’re losing track here. I originally put forward the definition of TRUTH in response to your observation “I thought you were posting in support of how we are treating these folks”, exactly to point out that TRUTH is not relative to which side I’m on. How people, including myself, “know/accept something is true” has no bearing on the TRUTH.

Quote
So to say there is no evidence to contract the bible seems disingenuous. If it were "truth" then every word, sentence, story, phrase, would all be independently verifiable. This is simply not the case:

Quote
I’m happy to consider any evidence you can produce and I don’t mean it in a facetious way. Seriously.
Quote
Appreciate the honest effort, but I mean, the Bible says God made Eve out of a rib. Women did not originate from a rib. There is evidence which traces the evolution of homo sapiens, none of which involves the spontaneous creation of female humans from a rib.
I understand your opinion, but what facts are you putting forward? The Bible as a source is formidable in its historical authenticity (previously discussed). Taken together with the TRUTH that it expounds/intellectual consistency it makes sense that one can believe what it says. You will disagree with the latter, because that is why we're having this discussion in general. However, if the Bible is true as it claims then any competing theory should be false. Evolution logically then should be false. You will disagree. Convince me. What evidence "traces the evolution of homo sapiens"?


Quote
I can go on but I mean, this is pretty basic stuff. Something about a whale eating Job I think is another obvious one, a dude and an Ark. The evidence contradicts the exodus story:

Quote
many if not most of the places mentioned in the Exodus did not exist within the same chronological period as one another. Pithom (Per‐Atum/Tckenu) and Raamses (Per‐Ramesses), the two "treasure cities" claimed to have been built by the Hebrews, never existed at the same time. Pithom did not exist as a significant settlement before the 26th Dynasty. Prior to this, the settlement was known as Tckenu, and was still referred to as such in the Ptolemaic period. It was an obscure garrison town which mainly, if not exclusively, served as a waystation for Egyptian expeditions. Even in its enlarged Roman state, the town barely registered on either Egyptian or Greco–Roman accounts.[17] Per‐Ramesses, the Royal Residence of the Ramessides, was abandoned at the end of the New Kingdom, centuries earlier.[17]
Incorrect. The conventional chronological dates assigned to Egyptian history are clearly questionable. https://creation.com/egypt-chronology
Fascinating topic by the way.

Quote
Another example is the Exodus portrayal of Edom. Edom was not yet a nation. In fact, the region wasn't even inhabited yet. The place the Hebrews stop at wasn't even built until 800 BCE, as the earliest Iron Age settlements (copper mining camps) date to the 9th or 10th century BCE according to radiocarbon dating done by Thomas LevyWikipedia's W.svg (the previous estimates having been placed some 300 years later)[22] and the main excavated sites have been dated between the 8th and 6th centuries BCE. However, the latest the Exodus could have occurred and still be biblically accurate is in the 13th century BCE, meaning that if the radiocarbon dating is contested, the settlements would be estimated to be from the 12th or 13th century BCE, thus additionally slimming the "window of opportunity" for Exodus to have taken place.
Firstly, radiocarbon dating as a method is hotly debated as you will know. Here is a thoughtful discussion by an atheist, which shows you the obvious problems with the method https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2018/07/07/can-we-trust-radiocarbon-dating/
Secondly, the words in the Bible stands unchangeable for thousands of years. Surely if it was a document invented by humans and exploited by different groups then someone somewhere would have tried to change the facts in the Bible to line up with the conventional wisdom of the time? How come it's always the estimates around the Bible that changes as in your section in bold above?

Quote
Evidence of Egyptian history shows no sign of "plagues":

Quote
All of the dates put forward by advocates of the historicity of Exodus fail to correspond to any period of national chaos or collapse in Egypt, as would clearly be expected by such a series of disasters.

Ussher's 1491 BCE date corresponds with a time of ambitious Egyptian expansion. The reign of Hatshepsut was stable, peaceful and saw extensive construction projects and trading missions; this is known from actual material remains as well as Egyptian records. Her successor, Thutmose III, took Egypt to its greatest imperial extent, forging an empire from the Euphrates to the 4th and possibly the 5th cataract. These are not the signs of a nation that, just a few years before, had lost its entire harvest, its drinkable water, its army and its sons. There is no archaeological evidence at all of mass death and impoverishment in the early New Kingdom period.

The same holds true for the period of Ramesses II. Although there were a few brief reigns after Merenptah, and what appears to be an attempt to interfere with the line of succession (the Chancellor Bey affair), there is no evidence of national catastrophe. Not long after, during the reign of Ramesses III, the state was still able to construct numerous massive monuments (such as Medinet Habu and the temple of Ramesses III within the Karnak complex) and mount effective military campaigns on both land and sea.
Again conventionally accepted Egyptian chronology is questionable. However there is sufficient evidence of the plagues themselves e.g. the Bible (as a historical document), David Rohl's (a non Christian) writings, which mostly center around the Ipuwer Papyrus (Egyptian document). As a counter I would say you can argue that the extra Biblical historical evidence for ALL the plagues do not exist, but that non exists, is inaccurate.

Same goes for scientific evidence. The following source discusses scientist views, which dismissed the Bible's explanation for the reasons of the plagues, but clearly supports the notion that the plagues did in fact happen.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/7530678/Biblical-plagues-really-happened-say-scientists.html

Finally the non Christian sources are again adjusting the estimates to line up with the Biblical account. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/12/151224-egypt-climate-change-old-kingdom-archaeology/


Quote

As I said, the stories in the Bible lack independently verifiable evidence. And the evidence we do have contradicts these stories.

Quote
Quote
Firstly, the bible has logical and scientific inconsistencies on seemingly every other page.

Please name one.
Many folks have made lists. This is probably a good starting point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible

The study of inconsistencies in the Bible has a long history. In the 17th century, Spinoza considered the Bible to be, "...a book rich in contradictions."[38] In the 18th century, Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason compiled many of the Bible's self-contradictions. And in 1860, William Henry Burr produced a list of 144 self-contradictions in the Bible.[39]


Here's the mentioned Burr work:
https://archive.org/stream/SelfContradictionsOfTheBible/Self-Contradictions-Of-The-Bible_djvu.txt

Fallacy: Appeal to authority
However, I will go with your example below.

Quote

And one example:

GOD IS SATISFIED WITH HIS WORKS.

And God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very
good. (Gen. 1:31.)

GOD IS DISSATISFIED WITH HIS WORKS.

And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and
it grieved him at his heart. (Gen. 6:6.)

God was satisfied until man rebelled against Him and then He was dissatisfied. Where's the contradiction? Contradiction is logical concept not a linguistic one. You would know that though, so what am I missing?


Quote
Quote
Quote
Thirdly, if we followed the scriptural teachings to the letter (as we must, if it is "truth"), society would begin to look like the ultra-conservative religious groups, who are some of the most immoral and oppressive of all the faithful.
Incorrect. Jesus specifically condemned what you suggest
Quote
I see: you must be one of the "true Christians", and all those ultra-conservative Christian groups are the "false Christians".

Again, how do we know your interpretation is any better than these ultra-conservatives? 


Who I am and what I believe has no bearing on the TRUTH. However the Bible does address the topic of true Christians. Interestingly enough my earlier post quoted Romans 12, which goes under the heading "MARKS OF A TRUE CHRISTIAN" I think you will venture closer to the TRUTH by measuring people you're referring to, including myself to said TRUTH.

Marks of the True Christian
9 Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. 10 Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. 11 Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit,[g] serve the Lord. 12 Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. 13 Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality. 14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. 17 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Quote
Your previous response to this question ("So ultimately God’s Spirit interprets for us. Without His Spirit I will “‘Keep on hearing, but (do) not understand; keep on seeing, but (do) not perceive.’” Isaiah 6:9 ")

This is white noise. Do you have "God's Spirit" or do the ultra-conservatives? Or do I? Who has God's Spirit and can interpret the Bible "correctly"? How can we tell?
Firstly, under the New Covenant/last days we were promised the Spirit, but it's conditional in John 14.

Jesus Promises the Holy Spirit
15 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21 Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”

Secondly, how can we tell? Great question LC! By their fruits you shall know them. "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."

You also want to read the wider context.

Life by the Spirit
13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

GREAT DISCUSSION. THANKS LC!!
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Cigarbutt on July 11, 2019, 06:03:33 AM
Optional question for MrB:
I've learned to respect what you post here.
When you write TRUTH in capital letters, does it make it more true than truth?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 11, 2019, 06:25:12 AM
As a former agnostic, I don't have a problem with lc (or anyone else) questioning. I'd like to try to understand the truth of reality. For me, it boils down to intellectual honesty. We should look at all worldviews skeptically - including atheism.

For instance, lc is like "you really believe that a woman was made from a man's rib?" If one is honest, wouldn't you say that is way, way more likely than life from nonlife? If we gave a team of scientists a man and told them to make a woman out his rib, that doesn't seem as far fetched as giving those same scientists a rock and saying "make something living out of this!" - and no they aren't allowed to pull of germs or something off of the rock for help. :P

After all, you have all the ingredients necessary for that situation to occur (human dna among other things). Does it sound improbable? Sure, but not as improbable than the other.

Do you honestly believe this rib story or are you just giving an example. I think that is what is so infuriating about this whole conversation is a believer will say something asinine like the above and state they are being intellectually honest in the same breath. Then a counterpoint will be made about a bible verse and it is a parable/story/metaphor. Or you ask for examples of problems in Christianity and someone brings up Catholic scandals and the response is "well that's a cult, they're not true believers" etc. It is a little frustrating to try an argue about the logic of the religion if you can pick and choose what is literal, who is a true believer, then state the interpretation can only be understood by the holy spirit within the believer.

Ross I think this is a great point. Firstly for anyone accepting that God is who He claims to be and that the Bible is true does not have a problem with the statement that God created man from out of the earth and woman from man. Why would that be a problem if you can speak the universe into existence? As an aside, even the word "human" means from earth and "woman" is a female man; why not the other way around? Anyway, to the point thought, it is not intellectually inconsistent if your presupposition is that God is who He says He is.

Of course you can take issue with the starting point, but then you have to consider the intellectual consistency of the claim that matter was created from a big explosion and that man eventually evolved from that.

I think if you have an extreme starting point then each side has a huge chasm to cross.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 11, 2019, 06:30:27 AM
Optional question for MrB:
I've learned to respect what you post here.
When you write TRUTH in capital letters, does it make it more true than truth?

Not to make you the BUTT of the joke cigar, but are you trying to say that TRUTH is a COMEDY?

Now back off, we're having a series discussion here ;-0

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 11, 2019, 08:12:23 AM
Quote
For instance, lc is like "you really believe that a woman was made from a man's rib?" If one is honest, wouldn't you say that is way, way more likely than life from nonlife? If we gave a team of scientists a man and told them to make a woman out his rib, that doesn't seem as far fetched as giving those same scientists a rock and saying "make something living out of this!" - and no they aren't allowed to pull of germs or something off of the rock for help. :P

Paul I'm not saying it's impossible. After all, If god exists, he can make a man out of a gum wrapper and a woman out of a spare cigarette, if he wants.

The point that Mr B pressed me on was "what scientific evidence exists which contradicts the bible".
Well, we have scientific evidence for how humans came to be, which directly contradicts the bible.

Quote
Being "good without a god" is so much bs.
Hah! I really find this hilarious. Let's try this again, because again the evidence is against you. 

Let's take an example: According to the bible, slavery seems to be OK. God, moses, jesus all seemed to be OK with it. In fact they encouraged it:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. Ephesians 6:5 NLT


And for thousands of years we humans enslaved each other. All the while reading the bible, believing we were doing god's will, believing that "goodness comes from god".

And then over time human society gradually stopped enslaving each other. We as a society realized it was wrong. This realization came from the development of human society - not god.

And this same example happened with all the other bullshit from the bible that the "religious" now conveniently ignore. We realized stoning adulterers to death was wrong. We realized sexual slavery was wrong. Cutting off people's hands is wrong. Exterminating males and raping girls is wrong. Executing rival priests is wrong. Stoning a rebellious son is wrong. Exiling the disabled is wrong. etc. etc. etc.

And over time human morality realized these "words from god" were wrong, and so now you conveniently ignore them. That isn't god telling us to ignore this immorality, that is our own human morality guiding us.

So I'll have to say it, that unless you "religious" folks are out there stoning your son to death when he disobeys you, you are just as humanist as I am, and your morality is just as human-created as mine.

I don't really look at the Bible as a book for scientific evidence. Does the bible ever claim to be a book of science?

When does Jesus say that slavery is okay? In reference to Ephesians, what is Paul supposed to say? Rebel against your masters and die? When Paul wrote that it was a very, very, very small religion. When it's a small religion vs the Roman Empire, you probably don't want to make powerful people even more angry.

There was actually a Slave Bible where slave owners cut out a significant piece of it (I want to say 60% but could be wrong). If it's all about slavery, why remove over half of it?

In an era of declining natural resources, wouldn't you think eugenics is probably a pretty good move?

Now I could certainly be wrong about morality coming from God. If it's only made up in my mind, it's really quite dumb to listen to it when it goes against my best interest. Let's look at Dietrich Bonhoeffer. That's the guy Packer named his fund after.

Bonhoeffer was a German pastor and fought against the Nazis. He made it safely to the US. He actually went back to help fight against the Nazis and ended up being hung. From an atheistic view, isn't this very, very dumb?

He said:

"I have come to the conclusion that I made a mistake in coming to America. I must live through this difficult period in our national history with the people of Germany. I will have no right to participate in the reconstruction of Christian life in Germany after the war if I do not share the trials of this time with my people."

You might like this quote from him:

"Christianity stands or falls with its revolutionary protest against violence, arbitrariness, and pride of power, and with its plea for the weak. Christians are doing too little to make these points clear ... Christendom adjusts itself far too easily to the worship of power. Christians should give more offense, shock the world far more, than they are doing now."
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 11, 2019, 08:24:27 AM
Quote
LC I'm trying to catch up here, you're quite a few posts ahead of me. Have a few things going on. I appreciate the engagement though.
Oh no worries, I understand - the reality is this discussion has occurred for millennia and never changes anyone's mind. We'll miss points and talk past each other, but just having the discussion is the end goal  ;D

Quote
In response to the above. Correlation does not prove causality. Look at the bold and underlined parts from the source quoted above. Firstly, according to the source Ferdinand was an "inspiration" to the conflict. It was also an important economic war with the Habsburgs. So there has to be a point where the actors in the conflict specifically and humans in general should take ownership of the conflict, from beginning to end. To argue that Jesus inspired it, there has to be causality and none of the above proves it.
This is having it both ways. "All the goodness is jesus, all the wickedness is human". What a crock of baloney!

Of course people fight and kill each other for power in the material world. The point is they use their blind faith in jesus (or mohommad or whomever) as the excuse and the means. How do you get countrymen to go kill each other? Is it by saying, "do this so my family can get richer while you die?" or by saying, "those evil wicked nonbelievers are an affront to god and we must risk our lives to cut them down! Oh and don't worry if you die you'll go to heaven!"

Quote
Jesus will bring God's judgement and the Thirty Year War will look like a tea party in comparison, so I'm not trying to suggest Jesus is some peace loving, cuddly, pacifist.
This may be a topic for another day but it is a juicy one. This is the death wish that the truly religious have, not the pseudo religious (i.e. the cafeteria catholics, etc.). They are waiting for the world to end, so that the wheat may be separated from the chaff, and all us nonbelievers will be sent to burn in hell. To the real believer who is convinced he will end up in god's embrace, every day on earth is a toil and they cannot wait for the "other" to be punished. In my interpretation, this is sadism and a very real evil of religion and christianity.

Quote
I originally put forward the definition of TRUTH in response to your observation “I thought you were posting in support of how we are treating these folks”, exactly to point out that TRUTH is not relative to which side I’m on. How people, including myself, “know/accept something is true” has no bearing on the TRUTH.
I don't disagree that facts exist. And some of these facts may be unknown to us.

The point I am making is the one Bertrand Russel makes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.

Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.


You believe the teapot exists, and you ask me to do the same!

Quote
However, if the Bible is true as it claims then any competing theory should be false. Evolution logically then should be false. You will disagree.
I don't disagree with this, but you must prove the bible is true.

If god exists he can create man from a gum wrapper and woman from an old tennis shoe if he wants to.
Of course, if spider-man exists then we can solve a lot of crime issues in NYC.

Quote
Convince me. What evidence "traces the evolution of homo sapiens"?
Well it's generally impossible to convince the religious, and certainly not with facts. But wikipedia provides a wealth of knowlege:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Evidence

As does the Smithsonian:
http://humanorigins.si.edu/

Quote
Firstly, radiocarbon dating as a method is hotly debated as you will know
This is nonsense. I find it hilarious that the religious, whose method of factual verification is "trust me and my book", claim to challenge scientific rigor and independent verification. Here provides the evidence of radiometric dating:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html

Also, the  Braterman article you reference concludes that carbon dating is reliable.

Quote
Surely if it was a document invented by humans and exploited by different groups then someone somewhere would have tried to change the facts in the Bible to line up with the conventional wisdom of the time? How come it's always the estimates around the Bible that changes as in your section in bold above?
Well, scientific analysis changes as new facts and methodologies are introduced. Religion doesn't have this benefit (which is why as I mentioned in an earlier post, it was secular change which forced the religious to abandon slavery etc.)

As to the bible, what about the books left out of the canon? What about the different interpretations of jesus, which had to be "settled" at the council of nicea? To say the bible has been consistent (and to say they are facts) is just not true.

And this is really a moot point. The Epic of Gilgamesh far predates the Bible, and to my knowledge has been "consistent". That doesn't make it true.

Quote
God was satisfied until man rebelled against Him and then He was dissatisfied. Where's the contradiction? Contradiction is logical concept not a linguistic one. You would know that though, so what am I missing?
Why would god be surprised in something he knew would happen?
###

I'll pause here because my next response is (in my opinion) a bit of a cheap argument. But I have seen the religious use the same logic to cast doubt on scientific analysis, so let's have some fun and turn it right back around  ;D


To the second half of your post, this is all your personal interpretation of what makes a "true christian" and how to identify one who has "the spirit". And as we have established, only those with "the spirit" can interpret the bible for the rest of us.

First, if we accept your interpretation, then we must keep jesus' commands to receive "the spirit". Here are some sampled commands that we must follow to get "the spirit":

"If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."


Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear.


Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself


Do you hate your family and hate yourself? Do you not worry about your health, your hunger, your clothes and shelter? By the very fact that we frequent an investment forum, we obviously have taken thought for tomorrow. So already, neither of us are fit to receive "the spirit"

But let's keep going! (why not right? :D) If we wanted to identify those with "the spirit", they will have those characteristics you listed - love, peace, kindness, gentleness...

Now apparently jesus said some stuff like:

I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

"Truly I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemies against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin."

"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

I don't know about you, but this doesn't seem peaceful, kind, gentle, etc.. I mean, he literally says "i don't bring peace".

So apparently this jesus dude can't even follow his own commands and is unwilling of this "spirit"!

Quote
GREAT DISCUSSION. THANKS LC!!
This was a long post but hey, I stick by what I originally wrote: we'll never convince each other of anything but that isn't the point - it's an age-old discussion that's fun to have (at least when there's free time)  ;D
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Ross812 on July 11, 2019, 08:26:08 AM
Ross, the point of the parable like what lc mentioned is that it is a parable.

Luke 19-27 (which is the slaughter them before me) one even says it's a parable!

"1 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once."
As for Adam's rib. I don't see why it's so "asinine" to think the probability of a woman being created out of a man's rib is higher than life from non life? Do you think it's harder for human dna to be created from another human's dna or for life to create nonlife? How is this not intellectually honest? Is there any evidence life can come from nonlife? There is plenty of evidence that human dna creates human dna. ;)

Ross I think this is a great point. Firstly for anyone accepting that God is who He claims to be and that the Bible is true does not have a problem with the statement that God created man from out of the earth and woman from man. Why would that be a problem if you can speak the universe into existence? As an aside, even the word "human" means from earth and "woman" is a female man; why not the other way around? Anyway, to the point thought, it is not intellectually inconsistent if your presupposition is that God is who He says He is.

Of course you can take issue with the starting point, but then you have to consider the intellectual consistency of the claim that matter was created from a big explosion and that man eventually evolved from that.

I think if you have an extreme starting point then each side has a huge chasm to cross.

The point was more that Christians like to follow their book up to a point and twist the point when it is convenient. I mean take wealth as an example. This entire forum is about making money.

Mark 10:21
Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Luke 18:25
"Indeed, it is easier for a camel to pass through an eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

I know you and Mr.B are going to throw out a few more versus and say that it is ok for christians to be wealthy. This whole rib question is met with some mental gymnastics "well there is DNA in a rib and it comes from other human DNA and the core of the word human is earth and woman is feminine man, so you see, the rib is perfectly plausible." You are willing to bend the teaching or find nuance when it comes to wealth, but there is no nuance when it comes to other less controversial topics.

As for Catholicism, I didn't talk about that. I will say that it does seem that many of the higher ups are not following Jesus teachings. There are many, many good Catholics out there though.

I mean 1.2B out of 2.2B christians are Catholic and the Catholic church seems to have a pretty good scriptural case for why they are Jesus's true church. The case has been made over the centuries by the "true church" that the other interpretations of christianity are heretical. I hope their interpretation is wrong for your sake. ;-)     

As for the conscience and religion. You might be right. But, as I said before, we can ignore the evolutionary cravings to follow it. Much like it's silly to follow your hunger instincts to eat the candy if you want to lose weight. It's silly to follow one's moral instincts if you want to improve society. It might be better to have a eugenics program. If one believes that their conscience is only an evolutionary instinct, it's silly to follow it.

Exactly, which is why religion as the manifestation of the conscious came to be. It makes no sense in many situations to follow your conscience and do what is good for the group. When we lived in small groups, you could be punished or ostracized for making self serving decisions. When the group got too large for self governance, we needed an all seeing god to punish us if we were self serving and ignored what was best for the group.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 11, 2019, 08:40:46 AM
Hey Paul, this is a response to your post:

Quote
When does Jesus say that slavery is okay?

You know, I've always thought christians made the best slave-owners. Now I know why. Here we are instructed to serve our christian owners even more diligently!

All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved.

Quote
what is Paul supposed to say? Rebel against your masters and die? When Paul wrote that it was a very, very, very small religion
Ah I see - slavery is only OK under certain circumstances. Thanks jesus!  ;D

Quote
In an era of declining natural resources, wouldn't you think eugenics is probably a pretty good move?
Nope. Human ingenuity continues to improve, increasing the efficiency of resource gathering and use. And I think experts argue that population will stabilize at a somewhat sustainable level.

Quote
If it's only made up in my mind, it's really quite dumb to listen to it when it goes against my best interest.
Define your best interest.

Quote
He actually went back to help fight against the Nazis and ended up being hung. From an atheistic view, isn't this very, very dumb?
Well I'm not so sure. It goes to the "best interest" point - my "best interest" may not be someone else's. There are things in life I would die for, and I'm sure that goes for you as well (family, etc.).  Perhaps this was one of those things, for Bonhoeffer. Also, I don't see that he went back with the expectation that he would die, so it's difficult to say it was "dumb". In fact, his previous success fighting in Germany would support this.

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 11, 2019, 09:07:05 AM
Ross, you're somewhat right about the money part. I think if people worship it rather than God, then that becomes an issue.

Let's take to the two verses you had. In the first, Jesus said "if one wants to be perfect". It doesn't say that one must give all everything away to get to heaven.

For the second, and you may have already known this but the eye of the needle is basically like an arch. The camel has to get down on its knees. It's not easy for it to do but it can still be done. There are a ton of rich people who are evil (Epstein) but there are plenty that do a lot of good too.

I never said that woman being formed from a rib is perfectly reasonable. It doesn't even seem to make much sense in modern times. I look at as more plausible than the alternative view - namely atheist and life from non life. In order to be an atheist, one needs faith that life can come from life...though there is zero evidence that can happen.

Catholicism was the first church of Christianity. They do have a good basis for it. With that being said, I think of all of us can agree, that it certainly seems like a lot of the higher ups aren't following the teachings.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 11, 2019, 09:49:41 AM
Ross, the point of the parable like what lc mentioned is that it is a parable.

Luke 19-27 (which is the slaughter them before me) one even says it's a parable!

"1 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once."
As for Adam's rib. I don't see why it's so "asinine" to think the probability of a woman being created out of a man's rib is higher than life from non life? Do you think it's harder for human dna to be created from another human's dna or for life to create nonlife? How is this not intellectually honest? Is there any evidence life can come from nonlife? There is plenty of evidence that human dna creates human dna. ;)

Ross I think this is a great point. Firstly for anyone accepting that God is who He claims to be and that the Bible is true does not have a problem with the statement that God created man from out of the earth and woman from man. Why would that be a problem if you can speak the universe into existence? As an aside, even the word "human" means from earth and "woman" is a female man; why not the other way around? Anyway, to the point thought, it is not intellectually inconsistent if your presupposition is that God is who He says He is.

Of course you can take issue with the starting point, but then you have to consider the intellectual consistency of the claim that matter was created from a big explosion and that man eventually evolved from that.

I think if you have an extreme starting point then each side has a huge chasm to cross.
Quote
The point was more that Christians like to follow their book up to a point and twist the point when it is convenient. I mean take wealth as an example. This entire forum is about making money.

That's a generalization Ross. What are the facts on which you base that claim?
Also the statement about wealth; what's your point?

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Ross812 on July 11, 2019, 10:09:33 AM
Paul, More than Mark 10:21. Mark 10:17-22:

Quote
17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.

20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.

21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions

Let's take to the two verses you had. In the first, Jesus said "if one wants to be perfect". It doesn't say that one must give all everything away to get to heaven.

Are we reading the same passage? Jesus didn't say if you want to be "perfect" he said give away your possessions if you want to have eternal life...

For the second, and you may have already known this but the eye of the needle is basically like an arch. The camel has to get down on its knees. It's not easy for it to do but it can still be done. There are a ton of rich people who are evil (Epstein) but there are plenty that do a lot of good too.

We actually talked about this in sunday school, but I looked it up for a refresh:

Now in Greek, the primary language of the Gospel, the word for camel is (depending on how it’s transliterated) kamilon. But Burgess argued (and he is one of many who have) that since the word for rope, kamiilon, is essentially a homophone, the passage actually makes more sense if Jesus is telling his fisherman followers, in whose former trade cords and nets played such a prominent role, to imagine trying to thread a thick, nautical rope through a needle’s eye.

Others argue that the camel, the largest thing around, made for vivid imagery: big beast, tiny opening. Still others say there was once an actual gate in Jerusalem’s wall called Needle’s Eye. Other ancient cities had such narrow, low-lintel passageways designed to be the only ones left open late and requiring travelers to dismount, unburden their camels, and squeeze through. A security measure. But no archaeological evidence exists to indicate that Jerusalem ever had a Needle’s Eye. More than that, there’s support for the “rope” hypothesis in Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke most of the time, in which the words for camel and rope are the same: gml. (As in Hebrew, there are no written vowels in Aramaic.)


So either it is impossible (nautical rope through a needle's eye) or the rich man must unburden himself from his riches (unloading the camel to get it through the gate).

Your interpretation is twisting the TRUTH to be convenient. I think if people worship it rather than God, then that becomes an issue. Its convenient to "think" that's what the message is, but the actual scripture is a little less nuanced.

 
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 11, 2019, 01:04:52 PM
Ross, that's interesting. I'm probably a little too money motivated.

The verse I was referring to is from Matthew 19:21:

"Jesus told him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me.”

 
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: bearprowler6 on July 11, 2019, 03:04:55 PM
Not sure if this question/comment has been covered so apologies in advance if it has...

I always find it curious when anyone...quotes from the Bible as support for any argument they are making. To the best of my knowledge there is no original copy of the entire Bible. Fragments of various passages and sections have been found throughout the centuries but no complete version. Assuming this is correct then I am wondered how anyone can be so sure that the Bible is the absolute word of God.

First you dont have an original version of the document that can be referred back to. Second, even if you did have the such an original document it would be written in ancient Aramaic or Hebrew which would require translation into English or whatever other modern language is preferred which would be no easy task. Practically speaking it would be almost impossible to know with absolute confidence that the Bible you are reading today is the word of God as he/she intended.

In todays modern world if you leave out a single word or comma from a sentence or a paragraph its entire meaning can change. So we need to believe that those individuals who filled in the blanks from the missing documents which were written thousands of years ago have it exactly right. That the word of God is being represented exactly as he/she intended. Does anyone else see this as problematic?

Sure faith is needed...thats always the answer I have gotten when I raised this issue in the past however something more than faith is needed ...is it not?


Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Zorrofan on July 11, 2019, 03:50:44 PM
I recently lost someone very dear to me, so this is a topic which has been on my mind of late. So if I may, let me throw in my $0.02 into the discussion....

The apostles Jesus chose should be in a good position to know whether or not Jesus was "the real deal" or not. They were there to witness the miracles he performed. If Jesus was a simple con man trying to trick the masses one would have to think that the apostles would know and be in on the scam. However, judging by their actions one can conclude that they truly believed Jesus was the son of God. Take Peter for example, he died by crucifixion, hanging upside down. IF one didn't believe why wouldn't you just renounce your beliefs and live? Clearly their actions show they had faith.

Famous 17th century philosopher Blaise Pascal posited something along the lines of "It is better to believe in God and be proven wrong than to not believe in God and be proven wrong".

All I know is that people die far too young everyday, be it from illness or accident. As in all things balance is the key, plan for the possibility you may be fortunate enough to live to 100 but enjoy today as well. And treasure every moment you can with those you love for no one knows what tomorrow brings.

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 12, 2019, 01:19:55 AM
I recently lost someone very dear to me, so this is a topic which has been on my mind of late. So if I may, let me throw in my $0.02 into the discussion....

The apostles Jesus chose should be in a good position to know whether or not Jesus was "the real deal" or not. They were there to witness the miracles he performed. If Jesus was a simple con man trying to trick the masses one would have to think that the apostles would know and be in on the scam. However, judging by their actions one can conclude that they truly believed Jesus was the son of God. Take Peter for example, he died by crucifixion, hanging upside down. IF one didn't believe why wouldn't you just renounce your beliefs and live? Clearly their actions show they had faith.

Famous 17th century philosopher Blaise Pascal posited something along the lines of "It is better to believe in God and be proven wrong than to not believe in God and be proven wrong".

All I know is that people die far too young everyday, be it from illness or accident. As in all things balance is the key, plan for the possibility you may be fortunate enough to live to 100 but enjoy today as well. And treasure every moment you can with those you love for no one knows what tomorrow brings.

Sorry for your loss ZF, "“And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.” Romans 8:28
Hope things get better for you with time.

Just a thought on the last bit of your post. Why would one not want to live forever, because that is what God promises. As the best known verse of the Bible says,
"For God So Loved the World
16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life[/b]."

It's a rhetorical question by the way.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 12, 2019, 09:12:02 AM
Not sure if this question/comment has been covered so apologies in advance if it has...

I always find it curious when anyone...quotes from the Bible as support for any argument they are making. To the best of my knowledge there is no original copy of the entire Bible. Fragments of various passages and sections have been found throughout the centuries but no complete version. Assuming this is correct then I am wondered how anyone can be so sure that the Bible is the absolute word of God.

First you dont have an original version of the document that can be referred back to. Second, even if you did have the such an original document it would be written in ancient Aramaic or Hebrew which would require translation into English or whatever other modern language is preferred which would be no easy task. Practically speaking it would be almost impossible to know with absolute confidence that the Bible you are reading today is the word of God as he/she intended.

In todays modern world if you leave out a single word or comma from a sentence or a paragraph its entire meaning can change. So we need to believe that those individuals who filled in the blanks from the missing documents which were written thousands of years ago have it exactly right. That the word of God is being represented exactly as he/she intended. Does anyone else see this as problematic?

Sure faith is needed...thats always the answer I have gotten when I raised this issue in the past however something more than faith is needed ...is it not?

Great question BP! You should scrutinize the Bible on that basis. What is the point if it cannot pass scrutiny. The following are biased sources, but still a good start.

https://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/MartinezR02.html
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2016/march/incredible-proof-for-why-you-should-have-faith-in-the-bible
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 12, 2019, 10:17:48 AM
Also sorry you lost someone zorrofan.

There's a line I like, paraphrasing here:

Although our bodies will all decay, our spirit lingers on in the places we knew as home. And this brings solace to our friends and family for the loss they have sustained.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Zorrofan on July 12, 2019, 10:26:57 AM
MrB and LC,

Thank you for your kind words.

Zorro
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 12, 2019, 11:21:25 AM
Quote
LC I'm trying to catch up here, you're quite a few posts ahead of me. Have a few things going on. I appreciate the engagement though.
Quote
Oh no worries, I understand - the reality is this discussion has occurred for millennia and never changes anyone's mind. We'll miss points and talk past each other, but just having the discussion is the end goal  ;D

LC, let’s roll. I don’t have much time, so let’s see how far we get. I know the above is an off the cuff comment, but the following is noteworthy anyway.
Firstly, I cannot change your mind. Biblically speaking it’s not your mind that needs changing, it’s your heart and all I can do is share the good news with you, the rest is outside my control. Ezekiel 36:26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
Secondly, every day people are saved and they are changed e.g. in China https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/christianity-china and Iran https://www.christianpost.com/news/iranian-intelligence-minister-concerned-with-growth-of-christianity-converts-summoned.html
Having said that there are a number of Pew studies that show that those practicing (not identifying as) Christianity is in the decline in the West.


Quote
In response to the above. Correlation does not prove causality. Look at the bold and underlined parts from the source quoted above. Firstly, according to the source Ferdinand was an "inspiration" to the conflict. It was also an important economic war with the Habsburgs. So there has to be a point where the actors in the conflict specifically and humans in general should take ownership of the conflict, from beginning to end. To argue that Jesus inspired it, there has to be causality and none of the above proves it.
Quote
This is having it both ways. "All the goodness is jesus, all the wickedness is human". What a crock of baloney!

Of course people fight and kill each other for power in the material world. The point is they use their blind faith in jesus (or mohommad or whomever) as the excuse and the means. How do you get countrymen to go kill each other? Is it by saying, "do this so my family can get richer while you die?" or by saying, "those evil wicked nonbelievers are an affront to god and we must risk our lives to cut them down! Oh and don't worry if you die you'll go to heaven!"

At least it seems we agree that people are the problem. Still want to hold your feet to the fire on this one. You have not answered the basic question, How did Jesus inspire these wars, bad behaviour or whatever you want to call it? Show me in the Bible what people are misinterpreting that calls them to the above action mentioned by you.

Quote
Jesus will bring God's judgement and the Thirty Year War will look like a tea party in comparison, so I'm not trying to suggest Jesus is some peace loving, cuddly, pacifist.
Quote
This may be a topic for another day but it is a juicy one. This is the death wish that the truly religious have, not the pseudo religious (i.e. the cafeteria catholics, etc.). They are waiting for the world to end, so that the wheat may be separated from the chaff, and all us nonbelievers will be sent to burn in hell. To the real believer who is convinced he will end up in god's embrace, every day on earth is a toil and they cannot wait for the "other" to be punished. In my interpretation, this is sadism and a very real evil of religion and christianity.

That would be sadistic if true, BUT it’s not. Generally a Christian cannot do what you suggest. One way to illustrate this would be to explain a Christian’s attitude to forgiveness. We’re forgiven not because we deserve it, but by GRACE.  Ephesians 2:8-9 (ESV) 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Also there is no sin from which we cannot be saved, except for blaspheming the Holy Spirit, but let’s put that aside for now. Therefore if I really understand and appreciate my forgiveness then it is not possible for me not to extend that GRACE to someone else. To see this in action I strongly encourage you to read the following; question any Christian including myself have to ask is how I will behave in such a situation? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Nickel_Mines_School_shooting

What you refer to above is not Biblical behaviour.

P.S. Got to bounce. Will try and get to the rest a bit later.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 12, 2019, 12:03:34 PM
Quote
Secondly, every day people are saved and they are changed e.g. in China https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/christianity-china and Iran https://www.christianpost.com/news/iranian-intelligence-minister-concerned-with-growth-of-christianity-converts-summoned.html
My point was that I myself am probably not going to be the one to present some grand argument to have everyone go, "wow, god really doesn't exist!". Just like you (no offense) are probably not going to throw some biblical verse at me so that I say, "oh wow, look at the Joe 3:12 sentence, now I really believe god exists!"

What changes peoples views on these (at least in my estimation) are the emotional experiences we have over the course of our lives.

Quote
Still want to hold your feet to the fire on this one. You have not answered the basic question, How did Jesus inspire these wars, bad behaviour or whatever you want to call it? Show me in the Bible what people are misinterpreting that calls them to the above action mentioned by you.
My premise is that Jesus doesn't exist. So Jesus can't "inspire" anything himself, because if he ever lived he died long long ago. He wasn't existing in the middle age to whisper in some European warlord's ear and say "ever heard of a Crusade?"

All people have is an old story that has been indoctrinated in an entire population. It's used as justification.

I presented some biblical verse where the J-man himself calls for war and death and such. Can you not see how people can use these verses to justify war?

Here's another example, a "soldier of christ"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9w55rJ80oM

Now to be fair I didn't watch this video (was just searching around) but here's the slice of the description:

Jarrod would come to realize how God had used real warfare to prepare him for the spiritual warfare he has been called to fight Sunday after Sunday

I mean, just look at some of the comments for even further evidence of how people use Jesus to justify war:

Amen! 1-30-19 Thank you We are soldiers for the Kingdom.

Thank you for fighting and fighting the good fight. Praying Lord continues to grow us in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. Keep on keeping on until kingdom come!

"Fight the good fight of the faith" ( 1 Timothy 6:12), and, " wage the good warfare" (1 Timothy 1:18) " in the defense and confirmation of The Gospel" (Philippians 1:7) " as a Good Soldier of Jesus Christ"( 2 Timothy 2:3-4)!!🇺🇸🗽🦅🕊️☦️✝️⛪🕊️🙏👼😇⚔️


More to come...

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 12, 2019, 12:47:52 PM
Hey Paul, this is a response to your post:

Quote
When does Jesus say that slavery is okay?

You know, I've always thought christians made the best slave-owners. Now I know why. Here we are instructed to serve our christian owners even more diligently!

All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved.

Quote
what is Paul supposed to say? Rebel against your masters and die? When Paul wrote that it was a very, very, very small religion
Ah I see - slavery is only OK under certain circumstances. Thanks jesus!  ;D

Quote
In an era of declining natural resources, wouldn't you think eugenics is probably a pretty good move?
Nope. Human ingenuity continues to improve, increasing the efficiency of resource gathering and use. And I think experts argue that population will stabilize at a somewhat sustainable level.

Quote
If it's only made up in my mind, it's really quite dumb to listen to it when it goes against my best interest.
Define your best interest.

Quote
He actually went back to help fight against the Nazis and ended up being hung. From an atheistic view, isn't this very, very dumb?
Well I'm not so sure. It goes to the "best interest" point - my "best interest" may not be someone else's. There are things in life I would die for, and I'm sure that goes for you as well (family, etc.).  Perhaps this was one of those things, for Bonhoeffer. Also, I don't see that he went back with the expectation that he would die, so it's difficult to say it was "dumb". In fact, his previous success fighting in Germany would support this.

lc, the slave quote wasn't from Jesus. It's in Timothy. I'm still waiting for you tell to me where Jesus is like "own slaves" or something similar. ;) Assuming that slavery was legal at the time (and it was), what's so bad about the verse?


I would say that "best interest" may be defined as something that keeps you alive the longest in order to reproduce (in an atheistic sense anyway). If one is an atheist, effectively the universe didn't begin until you were alive and will end when you die.

It's pretty dumb to die for family, country or for pretty much any reason since you would be dead - and all those feelings that created the values are dead too. People get this romantic idea of dying for their values or something they believe in...but that all ceases when someone dies. One's values are no bigger than the self.

Do you really not think Bonhoeffer thought it was really, really risky to go back to fight?

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 12, 2019, 01:06:17 PM
Quote
. One way to illustrate this would be to explain a Christian’s attitude to forgiveness. We’re forgiven not because we deserve it, but by GRACE.  Ephesians 2:8-9 (ESV) 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Also there is no sin from which we cannot be saved, except for blaspheming the Holy Spirit, but let’s put that aside for now.

Wrapping up here MrB - so on this one, first that is truly tragic about the Amish school shooting. I mean you read things like that and your heart just hurts. Now can you forgive that murderer? I don't know if I can. I don't know if anyone can. And I don't see how god killing his son forgives that murderer of his own responsibility. Let's accept that jesus died and "saved us all".

I don't want to be saved. People are responsible for their actions. If I were the parents of one of those murdered girls, I don't see how jesus dying absolves that man of his responsibility. And if I ever committed something to atrocious, I wouldn't want that responsibility lifted. To remove that responsibility lessens the value of all those children and the lives they lived, and the families that lost them. This idea of vicarious redemption (i.e. that we are all saved through jesus) is evil.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 12, 2019, 01:20:10 PM
Quote
lc, the slave quote wasn't from Jesus. It's in Timothy. I'm still waiting for you tell to me where Jesus is like "own slaves" or something similar. ;) Assuming that slavery was legal at the time (and it was), what's so bad about the verse?
To the last question first: you ask what is wrong with slavery? Do i really need to answer this? Legality has nothing to do with it. We know now that slavery is wrong. I mean, according to the bible nothing is wrong with it. And apparently the people at the time of jesus didn't think anything was wrong with it, and frankly neither did jesus.

Now as to the first part: I'm sorry, but is not the bible the word of god? Is it not divine and everything in it? You tell me which parts are divine and which are not.

Now as to what Jesus is attributed to saying:

Matthew 18:21-35: Jesus’ “Parable of the Unmerciful Servant”, wherein Jesus compares the relationship between god and humankind to that of a master and his slaves. Jesus offers the story of a master selling a slave along with his wife and children.

Matthew 20:20-28: A series of remarks wherein Jesus recognizes it is necessary to be a slave to be “first” among the deceased entering heaven.

Matthew 24:36-51: Jesus’ “Parable of the Faithful Servant”, wherein Jesus again compares the relationship between God and humankind to that of a master and his slaves.


Jesus does not seem to disparage slavery. In fact he often is seen healing slaves so they could presumably go back to serve their masters. And he takes the view that humans are to god what slaves are to their masters. How quaint!

Quote
I would say that "best interest" may be defined as something that keeps you alive the longest in order to reproduce (in an atheistic sense anyway). If one is an atheist, effectively the universe didn't begin until you were alive and will end when you die.
And this is your opinion, and that's fine. Some atheists may say their "best interest" is to live freely - and would rather fight and die than be ruled by a religious state.

So to claim that your definition of "best interest" is universally applicable, is in my view untrue. Nothing prevents an atheist from leaping in front of a bus to save his child, or donating his wealth to charity, or any other things which help others or shorten his/her own reproductive lifespan.

Quote
One's values are no bigger than the self.
Well I think many atheists and many religious would disagree with this. To claim that atheists cannot envision a better life for humanity after their own death, and that their own actions to further this goal are futile, is again IMHO untrue.

And I definitely think bonhoeffer was aware of the risks of what he was getting into. And just because god isn't currently rewarding him in heaven, that doesn't make his efforts any less worthwhile.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 12, 2019, 01:52:21 PM
lc, why do you feel that slavery is bad? Why do you condemn their version of morality if yours has no more insight than theirs? Do you feel that you're being a bigot?

The atheist that jumps in front of the bus to save their child is irrational. They are simply following their evolutionary instincts. So much for the "free thinkers." I don't see how one can even dispute that. Do you think they're doing anything more than blindly following their instincts? The love for the child is simply a chemical reaction. Let's not act like it's something bigger. You have no evidence to support that claim.

I think the best interest that I described is appropriate. Many times people don't even know what is in their best interest. How is staying alive to spread one's DNA not in that best interest? "Living freely" is simply an emotional desire. It has nothing to do with reality. No one is really ever all that free anyway. We only think we are living freely because we see others who have shackles. Yet, we rarely see our own shackles.

With Bonhoeffer it totally makes his decision dumb. He died. He didn't see the end of the war. I get the feeling that you think all of these things are valuable, but they're not when you're dead. If one is dead, the pleasure of experiencing the values never occur so it's like it never really happened. He could have lead a life of comfort in the US and probably looked like a celebrity after the war. He chose the high road and made the ultimate sacrifice - that doesn't mean it wasn't dumb. If all morality is subjective, hanging out in the US with one's life in hand seems like a better decision. I'm not saying that he did it to get to heaven. I'm saying he did it because it felt it was the right thing to do. If all right and wrong is subjective (as you seem to think) it was a dumb, dumb decision. Wouldn't it rank right next to the people who die taking selfies? They're trying to please the people on instagram and he was trying to please the people in Germany.

If an atheist is like "I would give up my life for world peace." That is completely and utterly idiotic. A) You're dead B) You don't even know if your plan worked c) Even if it did work, you don't enjoy it (or even know about it).  There is nothing that transcends the self so it's dumb to have that as a value. All of these "values" are just programmed into us by evolution and society.



Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 12, 2019, 02:02:37 PM
Quote
Secondly, every day people are saved and they are changed e.g. in China https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/christianity-china and Iran https://www.christianpost.com/news/iranian-intelligence-minister-concerned-with-growth-of-christianity-converts-summoned.html
My point was that I myself am probably not going to be the one to present some grand argument to have everyone go, "wow, god really doesn't exist!". Just like you (no offense) are probably not going to throw some biblical verse at me so that I say, "oh wow, look at the Joe 3:12 sentence, now I really believe god exists!"

Fair comment.

Quote
Still want to hold your feet to the fire on this one. You have not answered the basic question, How did Jesus inspire these wars, bad behaviour or whatever you want to call it? Show me in the Bible what people are misinterpreting that calls them to the above action mentioned by you.

Quote
My premise is that Jesus doesn't exist. So Jesus can't "inspire" anything himself, because if he ever lived he died long long ago. He wasn't existing in the middle age to whisper in some European warlord's ear and say "ever heard of a Crusade?"

All people have is an old story that has been indoctrinated in an entire population. It's used as justification.

I presented some biblical verse where the J-man himself calls for war and death and such. Can you not see how people can use these verses to justify war?

Here's another example, a "soldier of christ"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9w55rJ80oM

Now to be fair I didn't watch this video (was just searching around) but here's the slice of the description:

Jarrod would come to realize how God had used real warfare to prepare him for the spiritual warfare he has been called to fight Sunday after Sunday

I mean, just look at some of the comments for even further evidence of how people use Jesus to justify war:

Amen! 1-30-19 Thank you We are soldiers for the Kingdom.

Thank you for fighting and fighting the good fight. Praying Lord continues to grow us in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. Keep on keeping on until kingdom come!

"Fight the good fight of the faith" ( 1 Timothy 6:12), and, " wage the good warfare" (1 Timothy 1:18) " in the defense and confirmation of The Gospel" (Philippians 1:7) " as a Good Soldier of Jesus Christ"( 2 Timothy 2:3-4)!!🇺🇸🗽🦅🕊️☦️✝️⛪🕊️🙏👼😇⚔️


More to come...

LC I suggest you do watch that video. It’s a great description of the good fight Christians are called to. One thing the guy said you will find interesting, something along the lines that you as a Christian should keep your eyes on Jesus, He’s your Commander and you should follow His orders. Now that is not something I can recall as a direct quote from the Bible, but I would venture that it’s NOT unBiblical.
Biblically speaking on a high level there is a war and Christians are part of that war. “Eph 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” Also Jesus is not dead, He’s alive and His Spirit lives in me and because of that I live in Him and He in God. John 17 (this is Jesus praying) 20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.”

The overarching COMMAND Jesus gave the disciples is the Great Commission,Mat 28: 16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

So absolutely there is war on and we are soldiers in that war, but ultimately its against the principalities and powers, basically evil. HOWEVER, we are not called to the kind of action you generally refer to, which is why I ask again, where exactly did Jesus, let’s call him the Commander in Chief, call anyone to the kind of action you mention?

Importantly what you have to realise is that you’re on a side. You think you’re not, but you are. Hopefully you at least realise there are sides and where you stand, but what is a really desperate situation is where people don’t even realise they’re fighting somebody’s war. They don’t even realise that whilst in their own minds they’re captain of their own ship, they’re in fact just a pawn in someone else’s game. At least I know who my Master is, what I’m fighting for and what the battlefield looks like. To paraphrase that great video you linked: Lift up your eyes LC!

So back to my “dead” Commander in Chief. This is a great true story of Lee Strobel pretty much along the lines of what you’re saying. He was the legal editor for the Chicago Tribune and a passionate atheist that set out to prove his wife that she has fallen in with some crazy cult worshipping a dead man. He set out to factually prove that Jesus was not who he claimed to be. What he found changed his life https://youtu.be/rhe8KhSxWGo

At the end of the day, Christians are in a war and we do have a mission and we are zealous for the things of Christ. So with that said, congratulations I’ve just put a target on your back. You’ve just made it onto my prayer list! LOL
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 12, 2019, 02:33:14 PM
Quote
. One way to illustrate this would be to explain a Christian’s attitude to forgiveness. We’re forgiven not because we deserve it, but by GRACE.  Ephesians 2:8-9 (ESV) 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Also there is no sin from which we cannot be saved, except for blaspheming the Holy Spirit, but let’s put that aside for now.

Wrapping up here MrB - so on this one, first that is truly tragic about the Amish school shooting. I mean you read things like that and your heart just hurts. Now can you forgive that murderer? I don't know if I can. I don't know if anyone can. And I don't see how god killing his son forgives that murderer of his own responsibility. Let's accept that jesus died and "saved us all".

I don't want to be saved. People are responsible for their actions. If I were the parents of one of those murdered girls, I don't see how jesus dying absolves that man of his responsibility. And if I ever committed something to atrocious, I wouldn't want that responsibility lifted. To remove that responsibility lessens the value of all those children and the lives they lived, and the families that lost them. This idea of vicarious redemption (i.e. that we are all saved through jesus) is evil.

I appreciate the sentiment LC, but you’re wrong. This is not a foreign idea. We all have different roles in life. If I go out and murder your child, is it your job to avenge that murder? Is it not someone else role to bring justice to bear? If I wreck your car is it not someone else role to bring justice to bear and for me to afford you compensation, debt paid let’s move on? If I cannot replace your car would it be such a foreign idea that someone else replace your car in my stead? This is straight forward and logical.
Here you have a Guy,  you wrecked His car, you cannot pay and He says to you, LC you know I care enough about you that I don’t want to lose our relationship. I’ll pay for the car. What do you have to do? Say thank you and stop wrecking cars. Not that complicated up to this point right?

Now let’s assume for a moment you accepted the offer. What happens when someone comes along and accidentally scratches your car and tells you he is totally broke and do not have the means to pay? Are you going to have him thrown in debtor’s prison or go work for you until he paid it all back? Maybe you forgive him, because of how much you have been forgiven.

Only person that struggle with forgiveness is a person that never experienced underserved forgiveness.

Lastly, you misunderstand Biblical judgment and justice. That murderer if unforgiven will face God, because as He says “Rom 12: 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” Justice will be done and he will pay, it’s just not my job to affect that judgement. Can that murderer be forgiven though? Absolutely. Why? Because Jesus paid the price for that murderer and if he repents and puts his faith in Jesus then he is free.

Psalm 103:12 (ESV)
12 as far as the east is from the west,
    so far does he remove our transgressions from us.


Not that complicated it’s called GRACE...(and TRUTH)
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 12, 2019, 07:04:45 PM
lc, why do you feel that slavery is bad? Why do you condemn their version of morality if yours has no more insight than theirs? Do you feel that you're being a bigot?
I've made this point at least four times, so what is one more time? If everyone believed slavery was good, we would end up enslaving each other and spreading misery across human society. You simply don't acknowledge that an atheist can choose something aside from your own pre-conceived idea of what they "should" do.

I think "version" of morality does have more "insight" (not even sure what you mean by that, but let's keep it going) than someone who thinks slavery is OK, for the reason I mentioned above.

No I don't feel like a bigot. What does that have to do with anything?

Quote
The atheist that jumps in front of the bus to save their child is irrational. They are simply following their evolutionary instincts. So much for the "free thinkers." I don't see how one can even dispute that. Do you think they're doing anything more than blindly following their instincts? The love for the child is simply a chemical reaction. Let's not act like it's something bigger. You have no evidence to support that claim.
Let's take it in the reverse order.

-First off, I always find it ironic when those are asking for evidence to support anything.
-Love is a chemical reaction but to say it is not "something bigger" is silly. If I save my son's life out because my chemicals cause me to "love" my son, and he goes on to cure cancer - well my "love" has led to something slightly bigger than just the chemical reactions in my brain.
-"Blindly following instinct" is nonsense. Does the father not realize the bus will probably kill him? Of course he does or he would not rush to save his son. Does the firefighter not realize he may die any day on the job? Of course he does or he would not wear PPE. Did Bonhoeffer not realize he may die? I'm sure he did. But just because a choice is made almost instantly, does not mean it is "blind".

Quote
Many times people don't even know what is in their best interest. How is staying alive to spread one's DNA not in that best interest? "Living freely" is simply an emotional desire. It has nothing to do with reality. No one is really ever all that free anyway. We only think we are living freely because we see others who have shackles. Yet, we rarely see our own shackles.
I would say that to define someone's "best interest" is pretty subjective. Perhaps not fully subjective but the spectrum is huge. The rest of this I think is you pontificating  ;D

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 12, 2019, 07:21:12 PM
Mr. B, I'm addressing your comments in reverse:

Quote
If I go out and murder your child, is it your job to avenge that murder? Is it not someone else role to bring justice to bear? If I wreck your car is it not someone else role to bring justice to bear and for me to afford you compensation, debt paid let’s move on? If I cannot replace your car would it be such a foreign idea that someone else replace your car in my stead?
I'm not talking about giving justice, or vengeance, or debt. I'm talking about the responsibility and ownership of the action.
This quoting of CS Lewis may make it more clear: https://youtu.be/Mp9XIh-BPio?t=173

Quote
So absolutely there is war on and we are soldiers in that war, but ultimately its against the principalities and powers, basically evil. HOWEVER, we are not called to the kind of action you generally refer to, which is why I ask again, where exactly did Jesus, let’s call him the Commander in Chief, call anyone to the kind of action you mention?
Sometimes I really do feel like I'm talking to a wall  ;D

But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’

I think I've already established that by Jesus' lofty standards, none of us are "fit" to interpret the bible. And so despite this, everyone tries anyway and follows their own interpretation of the bible. So can you really not see how someone can use lines of text like this as justification for murder?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 12, 2019, 07:27:24 PM
Quote
Importantly what you have to realise is that you’re on a side. You think you’re not, but you are. Hopefully you at least realise there are sides and where you stand, but what is a really desperate situation is where people don’t even realise they’re fighting somebody’s war. They don’t even realise that whilst in their own minds they’re captain of their own ship, they’re in fact just a pawn in someone else’s game. At least I know who my Master is, what I’m fighting for and what the battlefield looks like. To paraphrase that great video you linked: Lift up your eyes LC!
Oh I am definitely on the side of the unbeliever. And I'll take a hellfire of damnation if that's what happens, rather than lie to myself and others. And you can tell your master that, next time you pray!  :P

And I'll just say that I have no master, real or imaginary, and I prefer it that way, and I wish the same for you too.

You say to lift up your eyes, I say to lift up your mind!  ::)
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 13, 2019, 06:08:23 AM
lc, why do you feel that slavery is bad? Why do you condemn their version of morality if yours has no more insight than theirs? Do you feel that you're being a bigot?
I've made this point at least four times, so what is one more time? If everyone believed slavery was good, we would end up enslaving each other and spreading misery across human society. You simply don't acknowledge that an atheist can choose something aside from your own pre-conceived idea of what they "should" do.

I think "version" of morality does have more "insight" (not even sure what you mean by that, but let's keep it going) than someone who thinks slavery is OK, for the reason I mentioned above.

No I don't feel like a bigot. What does that have to do with anything?

Quote
The atheist that jumps in front of the bus to save their child is irrational. They are simply following their evolutionary instincts. So much for the "free thinkers." I don't see how one can even dispute that. Do you think they're doing anything more than blindly following their instincts? The love for the child is simply a chemical reaction. Let's not act like it's something bigger. You have no evidence to support that claim.
Let's take it in the reverse order.

-First off, I always find it ironic when those are asking for evidence to support anything.
-Love is a chemical reaction but to say it is not "something bigger" is silly. If I save my son's life out because my chemicals cause me to "love" my son, and he goes on to cure cancer - well my "love" has led to something slightly bigger than just the chemical reactions in my brain.
-"Blindly following instinct" is nonsense. Does the father not realize the bus will probably kill him? Of course he does or he would not rush to save his son. Does the firefighter not realize he may die any day on the job? Of course he does or he would not wear PPE. Did Bonhoeffer not realize he may die? I'm sure he did. But just because a choice is made almost instantly, does not mean it is "blind".

Quote
Many times people don't even know what is in their best interest. How is staying alive to spread one's DNA not in that best interest? "Living freely" is simply an emotional desire. It has nothing to do with reality. No one is really ever all that free anyway. We only think we are living freely because we see others who have shackles. Yet, we rarely see our own shackles.
I would say that to define someone's "best interest" is pretty subjective. Perhaps not fully subjective but the spectrum is huge. The rest of this I think is you pontificating  ;D

lc, a bigot is someone who is intolerant of another's opinions. In the past, people felt slavery was okay. You are not okay with that and think your values are superior. How is this not bigotry? All morality is subjective after all. It's not fair to qualify it with "human misery" because that too is subjective.

You have no evidence that your values are superior. You only think they're superior based on things that you were taught - that human rights exist and the way your brain is wired. However, human rights don't exist since there is no higher power to give unalienable rights. And your brain is wired in a way that you have no control over - just like the slave owners. I fail to see why your values are superior?

It doesn't matter if "misery is spread across society" if the people who are not enslaved are better off. Evolution teaches us that the fittest survive, does it not? Let's say we enslaved 10% of the world's population and they did most of what we hate to do. 90% of the world would then be less miserable. Would you be in favor of slavery then?

With the choices happening instantly, yes they are blind choices. You are making these things bigger than what they are. The father is acting on instincts. He's not thinking things through. How is that not following your instincts blindly? He would realize that he could also have a new child and that his dna can live on but if he's dead, he cannot. Indeed the bus could kill the father and the child! Wisely, he would let the bus hit his child.

You're acting like human existence is more than what you claim it is. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. Well, I suppose you can if you like pretending or living a lie.

If we're just a bunch of animals following an illusion, that's certainly the case. You are lying to yourself whether you realize it or not. Are you trying to get to the truth of reality or do you just want to pretend?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 13, 2019, 10:58:19 AM
Quote
You have no evidence that your values are superior
Yes I do. If everyone enslaved each other, and everyone could potentially be enslaved, we would all be worse off. Do you disagree with this?

I've already mentioned multiple moral codes which are not subjective. The golden rule is one (would I want this done to me?). Extrapolation to society is another (would I want everyone to do this?). Comparison to absolute bad (does this get us closer/further from the most suffering for all?) is a third.

You do not accept these.

I suppose you do not accept these because they are created by humans? Well I have news for you, your bible was created by humans. And you cannot prove otherwise.

So when you say, "If we're just a bunch of animals following an illusion, that's certainly the case. You are lying to yourself whether you realize it or not. Are you trying to get to the truth of reality or do you just want to pretend?


I find it incredibly ironic. It is the religious who believe an illusion (the bible is divine), the religious who lie to themselves (their morality is divine), the religious who pretend to know more about reality than anyone else.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Ross812 on July 13, 2019, 12:44:39 PM
You have no evidence that your values are superior. You only think they're superior based on things that you were taught - that human rights exist and the way your brain is wired. However, human rights don't exist since there is no higher power to give unalienable rights. And your brain is wired in a way that you have no control over - just like the slave owners. I fail to see why your values are superior?

It doesn't matter if "misery is spread across society" if the people who are not enslaved are better off. Evolution teaches us that the fittest survive, does it not? Let's say we enslaved 10% of the world's population and they did most of what we hate to do. 90% of the world would then be less miserable. Would you be in favor of slavery then?

With the choices happening instantly, yes they are blind choices. You are making these things bigger than what they are. The father is acting on instincts. He's not thinking things through. How is that not following your instincts blindly? He would realize that he could also have a new child and that his dna can live on but if he's dead, he cannot. Indeed the bus could kill the father and the child! Wisely, he would let the bus hit his child.

You're acting like human existence is more than what you claim it is. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. Well, I suppose you can if you like pretending or living a lie.

If we're just a bunch of animals following an illusion, that's certainly the case. You are lying to yourself whether you realize it or not. Are you trying to get to the truth of reality or do you just want to pretend?

Uh, you're gonna die on your cross justifying slavery? This highlights the whole problem with religion. No nuance when it comes to a damn rib, a great flood, being gay, abortion etc, but hey, slavery was ok back then and Jesus was just keeping up with the times. If jesus had said something like "God's children cannot own each other for they are owned by my father, and who among you can claim to own what is the possession of the almighty." So much suffering could have been prevented over the coarse of history as many slave owners where good God fearing Christians. So go ahead and argue slavery is ok and it is just morality based on nothing to support not owning others like livestock.

As technology brings us closer and governments can punish those out for their own self interst, the role of religion in society will die. The transformation has been occurring all around us in developed countries for a few decades now.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 13, 2019, 01:04:55 PM
Quote
You have no evidence that your values are superior
Yes I do. If everyone enslaved each other, and everyone could potentially be enslaved, we would all be worse off. Do you disagree with this?

I've already mentioned multiple moral codes which are not subjective. The golden rule is one (would I want this done to me?). Extrapolation to society is another (would I want everyone to do this?). Comparison to absolute bad (does this get us closer/further from the most suffering for all?) is a third.

You do not accept these.

I suppose you do not accept these because they are created by humans? Well I have news for you, your bible was created by humans. And you cannot prove otherwise.

So when you say, "If we're just a bunch of animals following an illusion, that's certainly the case. You are lying to yourself whether you realize it or not. Are you trying to get to the truth of reality or do you just want to pretend?


I find it incredibly ironic. It is the religious who believe an illusion (the bible is divine), the religious who lie to themselves (their morality is divine), the religious who pretend to know more about reality than anyone else.

So now you're picking and choosing what's objectively moral and subjectively moral?  ???

If there is nothing that goes beyond the self all morality is subjective since each of it just makes it up. All morality comes from the same source - evolutionary instincts -so it's unfair to say one is better than the other. Person A's brain is wired in a certain way and Person B's is wired differently. We have an illusion that ours is better but it's not. They might very well think the same!

The Bible was created by humans. I agree. People don't claim that God wrote the Bible but that it was inspired by God. The Bible is not divine. The Bible is a book. God is divine.

I do think morality comes from God. I cannot prove it. I will, however, say that if it doesn't come from God, it's silly to follow it when it's against our best interest (like saving one's child that's about to be hit by a bus).

There is no right and wrong except what we determine within ourselves. Therefore the acts that our "bigger than ourselves" aren't really bigger because we determine what they are (how big or small). We might think they're bigger but that's really just an illusion due to a heightened emotional state.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 13, 2019, 01:30:59 PM
You have no evidence that your values are superior. You only think they're superior based on things that you were taught - that human rights exist and the way your brain is wired. However, human rights don't exist since there is no higher power to give unalienable rights. And your brain is wired in a way that you have no control over - just like the slave owners. I fail to see why your values are superior?

It doesn't matter if "misery is spread across society" if the people who are not enslaved are better off. Evolution teaches us that the fittest survive, does it not? Let's say we enslaved 10% of the world's population and they did most of what we hate to do. 90% of the world would then be less miserable. Would you be in favor of slavery then?

With the choices happening instantly, yes they are blind choices. You are making these things bigger than what they are. The father is acting on instincts. He's not thinking things through. How is that not following your instincts blindly? He would realize that he could also have a new child and that his dna can live on but if he's dead, he cannot. Indeed the bus could kill the father and the child! Wisely, he would let the bus hit his child.

You're acting like human existence is more than what you claim it is. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. Well, I suppose you can if you like pretending or living a lie.

If we're just a bunch of animals following an illusion, that's certainly the case. You are lying to yourself whether you realize it or not. Are you trying to get to the truth of reality or do you just want to pretend?

Uh, you're gonna die on your cross justifying slavery? This highlights the whole problem with religion. No nuance when it comes to a damn rib, a great flood, being gay, abortion etc, but hey, slavery was ok back then and Jesus was just keeping up with the times. If jesus had said something like "God's children cannot own each other for they are owned by my father, and who among you can claim to own what is the possession of the almighty." So much suffering could have been prevented over the coarse of history as many slave owners where good God fearing Christians. So go ahead and argue slavery is ok and it is just morality based on nothing to support not owning others like livestock.

As technology brings us closer and governments can punish those out for their own self interst, the role of religion in society will die. The transformation has been occurring all around us in developed countries for a few decades now.

No, I'm certainly not justifying slavery. As a believer, I believe in human rights (we silly believers believe in things without evidence you know).

I'm saying that it's bigoted to say that it's wrong if morality is subjective. If atheism is the correct worldview no one has any more insight into morality because there is no standard. Any "standard" is simply an illusion. The slave owners thought slavery was good. If I'm an atheist, what grounds do I have to say that their view is wrong and mine is right?

Besides, perhaps Jesus did say it but there is no record of it. Let's say that 10 years from now, there is a document uncovered (and we'll assume it's legit) and that Jesus condemns slavery. We'll say that it's a manuscript that dated earlier than the earliest we have now. Would you and lc become believers then?

Also as a fun aside and fun speculating outside of my wheelhouse (and pretty far out there), but there is something called the holographic principle, it's similar to us living in a hologram. Amazingly, many, many near death experiences talk about how that experience was "more real" than anything that they've experienced on earth. Which, one would expect to hear if we really are holograms. Now if someone who is more knowledgeable about string theory wants to correct my misunderstanding here, I'm happy to hear it.

Ross, by the way, what are your beliefs?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 14, 2019, 08:36:10 PM
Paul, we'll obviously have to agree to disagree. I think we've beaten the topic to death. I mean, after 3 days the topic may very well be resurrected but I'm sure we'll beat it back down again, and rightfully so  ;D
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 15, 2019, 07:53:58 AM
Quote
You have no evidence that your values are superior
Yes I do. If everyone enslaved each other, and everyone could potentially be enslaved, we would all be worse off. Do you disagree with this?

I've already mentioned multiple moral codes which are not subjective. The golden rule is one (would I want this done to me?). Extrapolation to society is another (would I want everyone to do this?). Comparison to absolute bad (does this get us closer/further from the most suffering for all?) is a third.

I suppose you do not accept these because they are created by humans? Well I have news for you, your bible was created by humans. And you cannot prove otherwise.

So when you say, "If we're just a bunch of animals following an illusion, that's certainly the case. You are lying to yourself whether you realize it or not. Are you trying to get to the truth of reality or do you just want to pretend?


I find it incredibly ironic. It is the religious who believe an illusion (the bible is divine), the religious who lie to themselves (their morality is divine), the religious who pretend to know more about reality than anyone else.

LC how do you reconcile your position that moral laws (or at least some of them) are not subjective, yet they are created by humans? For moral laws not to be subjective they have to be objective correct? If so then where do those laws come from?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 15, 2019, 08:55:32 AM
It's a fair question. To be honest I am not sure whether morals are relative or absolute. I think my conversation with Paul has illustrated that.  ;D I mean, there's certainly no proof either way.

Let's look at it empirically. If we compare it to a universal law that we have evidence for - let's take a physical law such as gravity. Gravity we can observe everywhere, we can predict how large bodies will behave based on our understanding of gravity. I would argue we cannot do the same with morality. We have seen different behavioral codes emerge across the world, both intra- and inter- species.

However we do see certain parts of morality to be almost universal. By that I mean we've seen things like the golden rule independently exist in different cultures over time. Or prohibitions (either direct laws or social norms) on things like murder, theft, etc.

So these are really the only two points of evidence we have in terms of morality: species have developed some moral codes which are common, and developed some moral codes which are unique.

My theory is perhaps there are parts of morality that exist as objectively as life itself exists. For example, murder would be a direct threat to the existence of any species (human, animal, plant, bacteria, etc.). Any species which continuously murders each other has an increased probability of extinction. Some behaviors directly lead to pain (either physical or psychological).

And as an aside we have seen something like 99% of all species to ever have existed, are now extinct (for one reason or another). So it seems to have taken a very long time for forms of life to breed out the hyper-violent variants.

And so maybe human morals have been built on top of something like this. And as we've formed societies to ease survival, by living together we've learned (probably the hard way) that things like theft and rape and such will increase the probability of death and by extension, extinction.

I think this explanation is much more probable than an argument from divinity. It is theoretically possible that some objective  morals can form the same way life can form. At the very least it does not require an assumption of a divinity.

As another aside, in practice none of this matters. In reality, humans behave as if morals are relative. To show this, just invert the proposition: Let's assume that god exists and a divine code of morality exists which has been revealed to us. This is the religious proposition. However, we have zero no evidence that humans have ever consistently behaved by a universal moral code. So even if some divine morality does exist, it will never actually be practiced by humanity. Unless of course god comes down and enforces it with an iron fist.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 15, 2019, 09:19:04 AM
It's a fair question. To be honest I am not sure whether morals are relative or absolute. I think my conversation with Paul has illustrated that.  ;D I mean, there's certainly no proof either way.

Let's look at it empirically. If we compare it to a universal law that we have evidence for - let's take a physical law such as gravity. Gravity we can observe everywhere, we can predict how large bodies will behave based on our understanding of gravity. I would argue we cannot do the same with morality. We have seen different behavioral codes emerge across the world, both intra- and inter- species.

However we do see certain parts of morality to be almost universal. By that I mean we've seen things like the golden rule independently exist in different cultures over time. Or prohibitions (either direct laws or social norms) on things like murder, theft, etc.

So these are really the only two points of evidence we have in terms of morality: species have developed some moral codes which are common, and developed some moral codes which are unique.

My theory is perhaps there are parts of morality that exist as objectively as life itself exists. For example, murder would be a direct threat to the existence of any species (human, animal, plant, bacteria, etc.). Any species which continuously murders each other has an increased probability of extinction. Some behaviors directly lead to pain (either physical or psychological).

And as an aside we have seen something like 99% of all species to ever have existed, are now extinct (for one reason or another). So it seems to have taken a very long time for forms of life to breed out the hyper-violent variants.

And so maybe human morals have been built on top of something like this. And as we've formed societies to ease survival, by living together we've learned (probably the hard way) that things like theft and rape and such will increase the probability of death and by extension, extinction.

I think this explanation is much more probable than an argument from divinity. It is theoretically possible that some objective  morals can form the same way life can form. At the very least it does not require an assumption of a divinity.

As another aside, in practice none of this matters. In reality, humans behave as if morals are relative. To show this, just invert the proposition: Let's assume that god exists and a divine code of morality exists which has been revealed to us. This is the religious proposition. However, we have zero no evidence that humans have ever consistently behaved by a universal moral code. So even if some divine morality does exist, it will never actually be practiced by humanity. Unless of course god comes down and enforces it with an iron fist.
Ok that's interesting, I appreciate the thoughtful response LC.

Would you disagree if I said that morals cannot be subjective, because it's not dependant on subjective views? For example, murder, rape, incest, etc are still evil even if we both agreed it was good? Now if you were to agree, what then if all of the US were to agree those were good; wouldn't murder, rape, slavery, etc still be evil? It won't be good in the US, but evil everywhere else, no?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 15, 2019, 09:42:07 AM
Do I smell a Gotcha! coming? :D

I think some acts are objectively bad. But then again, that is just my subjective opinion. I have no evidence to prove it, unlike the evidence we have to prove gravity.

I would say it depends on how we define 'bad'. But even some try to argue that this is subjective.

And so we try to make absolute definitions of 'bad'. One would be, "leading to the species' extinction". Another would be "the most possible suffering for everything".

There are behaviors which lead to "objective bads", and there are behaviors which do not. Unchecked murder objectively increases the probability of a species extinction, for example. So you could say that murder is therefore objectively bad. Medicine and exercise objectively leads us away from extinction, so you could say they are objectively good.

I think that's about as far as I could push it.

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 15, 2019, 10:57:12 AM
Do I smell a Gotcha! coming? :D

Don't be so focused on defending your position. It can blind you to the TRUTH. It takes courage to follow the trail of reason.

Quote

I think some acts are objectively bad. But then again, that is just my subjective opinion.

You realize that statement makes no sense right?



Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 15, 2019, 11:16:13 AM

Quote

I think some acts are objectively bad. But then again, that is just my subjective opinion.

You realize that statement makes no sense right?

I'm referring to how we all interact with reality. Remember this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress

It's getting at the heart of the issue. How can we tell if something is objectively good or bad? How can we explore the nature of morality? What methodology do we use? Do we use our human perceptions? Perhaps not, as we all perceive  the world differently. You read the Bible and take one meaning, someone else takes another meaning, for example. Is there another way to measure it?

So yes I lean toward the argument that there are some objective goods and bads, and I've tried to show the methodology I use to draw that conclusion. I try to (1) draw on empirical evidence of humanity in general, to remove personal bias, and (2) define something that is objectively good or bad in all cases. But I recognize that this may not be the best methodology to use. I've even given the counterarguments to both of these methods in my previous post, to try and facilitate an honest discussion.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 15, 2019, 01:05:15 PM

Quote

I think some acts are objectively bad. But then again, that is just my subjective opinion.

You realize that statement makes no sense right?

I'm referring to how we all interact with reality. Remember this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress

It's getting at the heart of the issue. How can we tell if something is objectively good or bad? How can we explore the nature of morality? What methodology do we use? Do we use our human perceptions? Perhaps not, as we all perceive  the world differently. You read the Bible and take one meaning, someone else takes another meaning, for example. Is there another way to measure it?

So yes I lean toward the argument that there are some objective goods and bads, and I've tried to show the methodology I use to draw that conclusion. I try to (1) draw on empirical evidence of humanity in general, to remove personal bias, and (2) define something that is objectively good or bad in all cases. But I recognize that this may not be the best methodology to use. I've even given the counterarguments to both of these methods in my previous post, to try and facilitate an honest discussion.

It's amazing how there hasn't been a single protest about the color of the dress but there have been plenty about "ICE raids" or other related topics.

I'm curious, lc, why do you post so many topics about "moral" issues but not a single one about the equally important issues of fashion? After all, they're  just arbitrary decisions made by our evolutionary instincts.

If you want to remove personal biases, you would realize that nothing is inherently good or bad, in the atheistic since anyway. Even the "empirical evidence" is biased.

Since nothing is good or bad, it's silly to get upset about immigration or any other social issues. We think the issues are bad because of genetic programming. The same programming tells us to sell at the bottom of a bear market or to eat the doughnut instead of broccoli for breakfast. I don't see a reason to trust one versus the others if they're all operating from the same platform.

I think these sum it up nicely:

""Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone."

or this:

"Why do you ask Me about what is good?” Jesus replied, “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

 
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 15, 2019, 01:18:28 PM

Quote

I think some acts are objectively bad. But then again, that is just my subjective opinion.

You realize that statement makes no sense right?

I'm referring to how we all interact with reality. Remember this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress

It's getting at the heart of the issue. How can we tell if something is objectively good or bad? How can we explore the nature of morality? What methodology do we use? Do we use our human perceptions? Perhaps not, as we all perceive  the world differently. You read the Bible and take one meaning, someone else takes another meaning, for example. Is there another way to measure it?

So yes I lean toward the argument that there are some objective goods and bads, and I've tried to show the methodology I use to draw that conclusion. I try to (1) draw on empirical evidence of humanity in general, to remove personal bias, and (2) define something that is objectively good or bad in all cases. But I recognize that this may not be the best methodology to use. I've even given the counterarguments to both of these methods in my previous post, to try and facilitate an honest discussion.

You’re dodging the issue. To say that an act which is objectively bad is your subjective opinion is not logical. It’s the same as saying the tree in the forest did not fall unless I heard it. TRUTH is necessarily objective. The tree in the forest fell or it did not. Whether someone heard it or not is irrelevant. Likewise an act that is objectively bad is a TRUTH statement, independent of your opinion. Surely that makes sense right? This is not a trick question, it’s LOGIC 101
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 15, 2019, 03:36:51 PM
Quote
Since nothing is good or bad, it's silly to get upset about immigration or any other social issues
It's like a broken record.

Quote
You’re dodging the issue. To say that an act which is objectively bad is your subjective opinion is not logical.
I'm dodging the issue? I answered your question:

So yes I lean toward the argument that there are some objective goods and bads, and I've tried to show the methodology I use to draw that conclusion


I threw four questions at you and you have ignored all four:

How can we tell if something is objectively good or bad? How can we explore the nature of morality? What methodology do we use? Do we use our human perceptions?


You've  managed to ignore the fact that any human interpretation of scripture is inherently relative.

You've managed to ignore the fact that humans had to improve biblical morality simply to co-exist with black people.

Hell, you've managed to ignore the fact that jesus tells you to hate your father and mother, ignore your thrift and hunger, leave no thought for the morrow, and follow him to salvation.

You want to have the conversation and I'm all for it, but it has to go both ways. You can talk about TRUTH and GRACE and all the other magic words you want, but let's not forget FAITH: the willingness to believe something without evidence. Because at the end of the day there is zero evidence for what you believe, and no amount of poking and prodding the limitations of the human experience is going to change that.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 15, 2019, 03:43:00 PM
Quote
Since nothing is good or bad, it's silly to get upset about immigration or any other social issues

You can talk about TRUTH and GRACE and all the other magic words you want, but let's not forget FAITH: the willingness to believe something without evidence. Because at the end of the day there is zero evidence for what you believe, and no amount of poking and prodding the limitations of the human experience is going to change that.

It sounds like a broken record since you're experiencing cognitive dissonance.

Faith is something like... your morality? But you still believe it and trust that you're correct, right?

lc, why don't you just repeat what a religious lady told me when I was agnostic: "I just believe because I believe!"

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 15, 2019, 03:50:21 PM
I'll just have to take comfort in the fact that your best response has been reduced to: "I know you are but what am I?"
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 16, 2019, 03:51:23 AM
Quote
Since nothing is good or bad, it's silly to get upset about immigration or any other social issues
It's like a broken record.

Quote
You’re dodging the issue. To say that an act which is objectively bad is your subjective opinion is not logical.
I'm dodging the issue? I answered your question:

So yes I lean toward the argument that there are some objective goods and bads, and I've tried to show the methodology I use to draw that conclusion


I threw four questions at you and you have ignored all four:

How can we tell if something is objectively good or bad? How can we explore the nature of morality? What methodology do we use? Do we use our human perceptions?


You've  managed to ignore the fact that any human interpretation of scripture is inherently relative.

You've managed to ignore the fact that humans had to improve biblical morality simply to co-exist with black people.

Hell, you've managed to ignore the fact that jesus tells you to hate your father and mother, ignore your thrift and hunger, leave no thought for the morrow, and follow him to salvation.

You want to have the conversation and I'm all for it, but it has to go both ways. You can talk about TRUTH and GRACE and all the other magic words you want, but let's not forget FAITH: the willingness to believe something without evidence. Because at the end of the day there is zero evidence for what you believe, and no amount of poking and prodding the limitations of the human experience is going to change that.

LOL!! Misdirection. Still dodging. Answer the question To say that an act which is objectively bad is your subjective opinion is not logical. Do you agree; yes or no?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 16, 2019, 07:24:54 AM
It would depend on the evidence you have to back up that claim. To simply claim it, is inherently subjective as the person making the claim.

You simply made a claim, then accused me of not answering your non-question. So to say I am dodging anything is nonsensical. You're frothing at the mouth, presumably with religious fervor.

And despite the absurdity of your request, I've still responded to you in good faith. You fail to extend the same effort in kind.

So thanks, but no thanks.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 16, 2019, 07:38:45 AM
I'll just have to take comfort in the fact that your best response has been reduced to: "I know you are but what am I?"

lc, the way I see it is that we have two options:

A) Atheism is the correct worldview. In which case morality is something similar to fashion. It changes over time and it's silly to get to upset when there is a social injustice (well anymore than a fashion injustice). If people got as upset about all of my fashion injustices, I would probably be dead or in jail by now. Any standard is simply an illusion.

B) Theism is the correct worldview. Morality matters because it transcends us. Fashion doesn't really matter because it is truly subjective. Social justice issues matter because those issues are more important because morality is more important.

So, I suppose the question is, what do you really think the truth of reality really is?

For the record, don't think this is religious fervor. I don't even go to church. But I am interested in why we do and believe in the things we do.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 16, 2019, 08:10:37 AM
I wouldn't even go that far, by that I mean I don't think the two options you have presented are all-encompassing.

Here are two possibilities off the top of my head which I think your two options fail to address:

Under the atheist case:
-Absolute morality may still exist. Absolute morality does not necessarily require on a divinity. One case may be that it is inherent to the development of life, but I would guess that there are possibilities as well.

Under the deist (let's not even pretend we can jump from deism to theism) case:
-Even if a deity exists which created the universe, there is no proof that this deity has created or revealed a "correct" morality.

So to ask "which I think is the reality", I don't think your options are the only options.

But in general I take the empirical approach. I presented at least my thoughts in an earlier post:

We have seen different behavioral codes emerge across the world, both intra- and inter- species.

However we do see certain parts of morality to be almost universal. By that I mean we've seen things like the golden rule independently exist in different cultures over time. Or prohibitions (either direct laws or social norms) on things like murder, theft, etc.

So these are really the only two points of evidence we have in terms of morality: species have developed some moral codes which are common, and developed some moral codes which are unique.

What conclusion does this lead to? I think it suggests there are some universal morals.

What do you think?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 16, 2019, 08:12:16 AM
Quote
Since nothing is good or bad, it's silly to get upset about immigration or any other social issues
It's like a broken record.

Quote
You’re dodging the issue. To say that an act which is objectively bad is your subjective opinion is not logical.
I'm dodging the issue? I answered your question:

So yes I lean toward the argument that there are some objective goods and bads, and I've tried to show the methodology I use to draw that conclusion


I threw four questions at you and you have ignored all four:

How can we tell if something is objectively good or bad? How can we explore the nature of morality? What methodology do we use? Do we use our human perceptions?


You've  managed to ignore the fact that any human interpretation of scripture is inherently relative.

You've managed to ignore the fact that humans had to improve biblical morality simply to co-exist with black people.

Hell, you've managed to ignore the fact that jesus tells you to hate your father and mother, ignore your thrift and hunger, leave no thought for the morrow, and follow him to salvation.

You want to have the conversation and I'm all for it, but it has to go both ways. You can talk about TRUTH and GRACE and all the other magic words you want, but let's not forget FAITH: the willingness to believe something without evidence. Because at the end of the day there is zero evidence for what you believe, and no amount of poking and prodding the limitations of the human experience is going to change that.

LOL!! Misdirection. Still dodging. Answer the question To say that an act which is objectively bad is your subjective opinion is not logical. Do you agree; yes or no?
It would depend on the evidence you have to back up that claim. To simply claim it, is inherently subjective as the person making the claim.

You simply made a claim, then accused me of not answering your non-question. So to say I am dodging anything is nonsensical. You're frothing at the mouth, presumably with religious fervor.

And despite the absurdity of your request, I've still responded to you in good faith. You fail to extend the same effort in kind.

So thanks, but no thanks.

LOL! Come on LC. Calm yourself down. I'm trying to have a civil and logical discussion. Why are you running away from such a simple question? What do you find intellectually so scary that you're not willing to answer such a simple question about a statement that you made? To say that an act which is objectively bad is your subjective opinion is not logical. Do you agree; yes or no? Obviously it's not a claim I'm making, I'm challenging something you said and you're clearly backing down from a simple yes or no question.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 16, 2019, 01:14:41 PM
I wouldn't even go that far, by that I mean I don't think the two options you have presented are all-encompassing.

Here are two possibilities off the top of my head which I think your two options fail to address:

Under the atheist case:
-Absolute morality may still exist. Absolute morality does not necessarily require on a divinity. One case may be that it is inherent to the development of life, but I would guess that there are possibilities as well.

Under the deist (let's not even pretend we can jump from deism to theism) case:
-Even if a deity exists which created the universe, there is no proof that this deity has created or revealed a "correct" morality.

So to ask "which I think is the reality", I don't think your options are the only options.

But in general I take the empirical approach. I presented at least my thoughts in an earlier post:

We have seen different behavioral codes emerge across the world, both intra- and inter- species.

However we do see certain parts of morality to be almost universal. By that I mean we've seen things like the golden rule independently exist in different cultures over time. Or prohibitions (either direct laws or social norms) on things like murder, theft, etc.

So these are really the only two points of evidence we have in terms of morality: species have developed some moral codes which are common, and developed some moral codes which are unique.

What conclusion does this lead to? I think it suggests there are some universal morals.

What do you think?

I thought about adding the deist piece to the last post but felt it wasn't super necessary. If deism is the correct worldview, it seems odd that the deity would impart morality and then leave us alone.

With atheism, I think an absolute morality does require a deity. Otherwise it's just subjective with the illusion of objectivity. Even if it's hardwired though evolutionary means (like our need for water) it still makes sense for us to ignore moral "goods" at our whims.

Just like we can temporarily ignore having to drink water. A husband may not cheat on his wife while she's at home but he might certainly do it while traveling. I may be fine drinking water at home but if I'm out somewhere and the water looks questionable, I might hold off. This is probably not the best way to put it but hopefully it helps.

For the folks who get upset about social issues, it would probably be best to ignore them (if one is an atheist). For instance:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/us/they-push-they-protest-and-many-activists-privately-suffer-as-a-result.html

Why get upset and harm yourself for something that only matters just because you think it does? Like, if you think it doesn't matter, then it really doesn't.

It's almost like "I really need to get the top score in this video game!". Well, I'm sure it "matters" to the gamer to get the top score...but it really doesn't matter.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 17, 2019, 11:12:06 AM
Quote
Since nothing is good or bad, it's silly to get upset about immigration or any other social issues
It's like a broken record.

Quote
You’re dodging the issue. To say that an act which is objectively bad is your subjective opinion is not logical.
I'm dodging the issue? I answered your question:

So yes I lean toward the argument that there are some objective goods and bads, and I've tried to show the methodology I use to draw that conclusion


I threw four questions at you and you have ignored all four:

How can we tell if something is objectively good or bad? How can we explore the nature of morality? What methodology do we use? Do we use our human perceptions?


You've  managed to ignore the fact that any human interpretation of scripture is inherently relative.

You've managed to ignore the fact that humans had to improve biblical morality simply to co-exist with black people.

Hell, you've managed to ignore the fact that jesus tells you to hate your father and mother, ignore your thrift and hunger, leave no thought for the morrow, and follow him to salvation.

You want to have the conversation and I'm all for it, but it has to go both ways. You can talk about TRUTH and GRACE and all the other magic words you want, but let's not forget FAITH: the willingness to believe something without evidence. Because at the end of the day there is zero evidence for what you believe, and no amount of poking and prodding the limitations of the human experience is going to change that.

LOL!! Misdirection. Still dodging. Answer the question To say that an act which is objectively bad is your subjective opinion is not logical. Do you agree; yes or no?
It would depend on the evidence you have to back up that claim. To simply claim it, is inherently subjective as the person making the claim.

You simply made a claim, then accused me of not answering your non-question. So to say I am dodging anything is nonsensical. You're frothing at the mouth, presumably with religious fervor.

And despite the absurdity of your request, I've still responded to you in good faith. You fail to extend the same effort in kind.

So thanks, but no thanks.

LOL! Come on LC. Calm yourself down. I'm trying to have a civil and logical discussion. Why are you running away from such a simple question? What do you find intellectually so scary that you're not willing to answer such a simple question about a statement that you made? To say that an act which is objectively bad is your subjective opinion is not logical. Do you agree; yes or no? Obviously it's not a claim I'm making, I'm challenging something you said and you're clearly backing down from a simple yes or no question.

Mike Tyson – “everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth”. TRUTH has the same effect. The question is what do you do about it? It's easy to postulate and pontificate from the side, but it's a totally different matter to get in the ring and face reality. If my son came to me and asked what he should do when a guy tries to push him around I will of course say you square up to him. What will I say (what will I do?) when the guy trying to push him around is Mike Tyson? We can understand why someone will advise you to run in those circumstances or even run themselves. The problem with taking that approach is that you will never be free.

So, getting back to the unanswered (sadly) question , To say that an act which is objectively bad is your subjective opinion is not logical. Do you agree; yes or no? The answer is of course Yes, because for one objective is the opposite of subjective https://www.etymonline.com/word/objective. The purpose, in a philosophical sense, is to define the object as such, so as to distinguish it from the subjective by removing the subjective. It must stand independent (from the subjective) e.g. the tree in the forest still falls if nobody hears it. If you illogically argue that the objective is somehow dependent on the subjective then it’s akin to arguing that the tree in the forest only falls if there is someone to hear it. Anyway, I think for most of us objective v subjective are simple, well understood concepts. 

We strive for objective truth, because we’re looking for something that transcends the subject. Truth should be truth independent of what I think. As innocuous and logical as this line of reasoning might appear at first glance the more you think it through the more you realize that at this point, depending on your worldview, you should start to get rather uncomfortable in your seat.
At this point you’re at a fork in the road, because you either stop the train right here and say, NO, moral law is subjective. It’s what I make it to be, or what the majority of us make it to be, the strongest, etc. However, you’re ultimately walking away from objective moral laws.
If you don’t stop the train, then depending on your worldview, you’re facing Mike Tyson, because to remove the subject in the case of objective moral laws means you're  removing us/humans. So, the question then becomes if you’re looking for moral truths outside of ourselves, if you’re looking for objective moral laws then where do they come from? For a moral law demands a moral law giver. If that is not us then who or what is it that gave us moral laws? There is your punch in the mouth from Mike Tyson, which explains why people choose to run away.

If a punch in the face was not enough, how about a jab from Mike Tyson too? TRUTH is EXCLUSIVE. For example, the TRUTH about Atheism v Jesus is that they do not co-exist. There is no middle ground, there is no compromise. One is true and one is false. I’m not diminishing the reality of our subjective views, but they are subjective and the TRUTH, which is objective does not depend on subjective views to exist. God does not exist because I believe in Him. He either exists or He does not. From a Christian perspective it explains why Jesus says, John 14“6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Getting it wrong necessarily means that you’re basing your reality, your life, on a falsehood; you’re living a lie and you are in bondage to that lie. Again it explains why Jesus says in John 8, “The Truth Will Set You Free 31 So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” Jesus is effectively saying He's the TRUTH and there is freedom in Him and by implication, all competing worldviews including ATHEISM are false.

The flipside of course is that if the atheist is correct and his worldview is TRUE then God does not exist. However, don’t underestimate how radical your worldview is. Even in being indifferent, your worldview is radical.

A worldview seeks to answer four questions we all have, unless you’re so numb to reality that you don’t care, which doesn’t mean you’re not still answering those questions by implication.


Assuming you care and to have the correct worldview, your worldview must provide answers which are TRUE and coherent to ALL the questions above. Only then will you be free. How do you know your worldview is TRUE? Well test it for TRUTH. To be TRUE your Worldview has to be,


There are many competing worldviews and I have a basic understanding of most, but not all. I have an extreme interest in testing my worldview, because I have zero interest in living a lie.
I’m after the TRUTH and I have no fear of being proven wrong, I’m in radical pursuit of the TRUTH and if me or anyone claim to know or even claim to BE the TRUTH then that claim better hold up.
So, SPEAKING FOR MYSELF the reason I’ve placed my HOPE in Jesus Christ and why HE sits at the centre of my worldview are the following. (note: I say HOPE, because absolute certainty removes free will, but that is another discussion).

God created me (origin) for HIS glory and to have a relationship with HIM (meaning). God is HOLY and we’re not because of free will, which when exercised we chose to sin and thereby acquired knowledge of GOOD and EVIL. God gave us moral laws to navigate GOOD and EVIL (morality). God wrote them down in simple detail (10 commandments) and Jesus summarized them as follows in Mark 12

The Great Commandment
28 And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” 32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. 33 And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.


To the last question, I know my destiny, which is everlasting life in God and Jesus, which is why I was created in the first place John 17:3 "And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."

EMPIRICAL ADEQUACY. For Jesus I start with claims about himself. He is the only one that claimed to be God and a divine saviour. No other god claimed that and people that claimed or claims that are without exception thought to be mad. Millions, including most importantly thousands in his time, believed/s that claim. The people closest to Him were prepared, without exception, to die for those claims. An interesting side note is that we’ve even essentially reset the global calendar to 1 (AD, [anno domini, the year of our Lord]) when he was born, so to say that there was massive buy-in is an understatement. Try and imagine for a moment what global event will have us decide we’re going to start counting at 0 again? I digress.
The Bible, which is historically credible, unless you choose to dismiss essentially all writings of western literature, leaves no doubt of the validity of Jesus’ exceptional nature. As a historical document no other religious text or any other historical document for that matter comes even remotely close in terms of proving its authenticity. Creation science e.g. young earth, six day creation, the flood, etc are all credible and science supports it.  https://www.icr.org/homepage/ I can go on, but you catch my drift.

EXPERIENTIAL RELEVANCE – When I look around me, from the hands of my child to outer space it shouts intelligent design. When I get up in the morning, I feel a sense of purpose to serve something bigger than me. When I search God’s word, when I pray and when I worship, I do not feel the same as when I attend a rock concert, or when I read a book or when I’m being thoughtful about big decisions in my life. It is a real spiritual experience. When I look at the claims the Bible make and the warnings it has then I see it in life. The 10 commandments and Jesus’ summary of them, are as valid today as when they were given almost 4,000 years ago. I see in every day life how we get ourselves in trouble when we ignore them. Yes, we don’t like them, but that again that too is explained by the Bible. Also, my many years in Africa and my frequent travel in India left me with no doubt that Supernatural evil exists and I’ve seen too many people come to Christ and have the Holy Spirit change their lives to doubt the Holy Spirit’s existence. I’ve also seen Him work in my own life, my marriage and my family. Lastly, I see how the removal of God and TRUTH from American life is devastating the public square. Civility gone. Love gone. Order gone. Structure gone. As the Bible says it would when you remove God from the public square.

But if God does not exist then why not behave like that?
I would be in there with everyone else swinging punches like the rest of them, shouting down anyone else but myself (interesting thought) and try and rearrange life exactly how I want it. Driven by my own endless desires. Why, not?? If there is no God then it’s a sensible worldview.

(Origin) I come from primordial soup. I’m a monkey just smarter.
(Meaning) The meaning of life is determined by only three people, me, myself and I. The only thing that is real is what I feel or maybe what Oprah says, I should feel. I can chose my sex, gender, how many partners I want, etc, etc. Live for the moment, live for the experience.
(Morality) Live exactly how I want and who the hell are you to tell me anything different?
(Destiny) Nowhere. I come from nothing and to nothing I go.

Incidentally the Bible not only addresses the answers to the above according to God, but also address what the world will tell you are the answers to those questions. The world will lead you to believe that there is no God, that Satan is not real and that he is not interested in your destruction/separation from God. Nothing new under the sun. Short of that you will have false teachers in the church, even people claiming to be Jesus to lead Christians and others away from the faith. People that pretend to be Christians, but are not. That is Satan's ultimate sucker punch, which puts Mike Tyson to shame.

Ultimately, I cannot decide for you. All I can do is share my worldview. You have to decide what you believe in, but don’t underestimate how RADICAL your decision is, How EXCLUSIVE it is and that it is either TRUE or FALSE. There is no middle ground.

Jesus is the WAY and the TRUTH or He is FALSE. The consequences are eternal.







Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 17, 2019, 12:33:44 PM
Quote
With atheism, I think an absolute morality does require a deity. Otherwise it's just subjective with the illusion of objectivity. Even if it's hardwired though evolutionary means (like our need for water) it still makes sense for us to ignore moral "goods" at our whims.
I still do not really follow you here - how the bolded statement is a logical statement?

Are you saying that everything which is "objective" require a deity? Let's go back to physical laws. Does gravity require a deity? Does mathematics? If not, how is this any different from morality?

I take the skeptic's view: that there is no evidence that an absolute morality requires a divinity. So to claim "an absolute morality must come from a deity" is an unsupported claim - and to believe it requires pure faith. I'm curious if you would agree with this, or perhaps you have some source of evidence that I am not aware of?

Quote
Why get upset and harm yourself for something that only matters just because you think it does? Like, if you think it doesn't matter, then it really doesn't.

It's almost like "I really need to get the top score in this video game!". Well, I'm sure it "matters" to the gamer to get the top score...but it really doesn't matter.
I think you mis-typed in the first part here because it doesn't quite follow.

But yes, it matters to the gamer, that's why the gamer pursues it. It doesn't matter to the fashionista which is why the fashionista doesn't pursue high scores at video games. Many different things matter to different humans. Also, many similar things matter to different humans. I don't see how any of this is controversial.

Hence when I said earlier: So these are really the only two points of evidence we have in terms of morality: species have developed some moral codes which are common, and developed some moral codes which are unique.

This part of religion both concerns and saddens me - it's like, the religious cannot fathom why things matter to people without an absolute law telling them what should matter. It's reminiscent of the death wish I mentioned a while back (i.e. life doesn't matter without a divinity). If you need religion to give meaning to life, I have no problem with that, live and let live and all that. But I would argue it's much more satisfying when you give meaning to your own life, and we give meaning to our lives.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 17, 2019, 03:34:43 PM
I'll say that math, for instance, can be objective.

No one who understands math will say that 1 is greater than 2 or 10 is greater than 11. This the case whether or not God exists (though, I personally don't think math would make sense if there wasn't a mind behind it...but that's a different topic!).

However, objective morality doesn't exist without God. For instance, you think it's "bad" for Trump to have detention centers. Trump thinks it's "good." As a 3rd party, how would I know who is right? Though I'd argue that you both can agree that 1 is less than 2.

1 being less than 2 is objective. I'd also say that almost everyone (even adulterers) thinks it's "wrong" to cheat on their wife - though they'll often try to justify their decisions. But cheating on one's spouse is only wrong if the person thinks it is, right?

Here is a quote from the following article quoting Singer:

"But what if ethics, human rights and human dignity aren’t made up? One of the brilliant insights that the world leaders, philosophers and theologians who crafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights had was the assumption that human rights and dignity aren’t invented but discovered. During our conversation, Singer actually admitted this, remarking that he increasingly thinks that moral values and duties exist independently of us, in a “similar way to mathematical truths existing”."

https://www.premierchristianity.com/Past-Issues/2018/December-2018/Who-created-human-rights-and-why-it-s-a-problem-for-atheists

This video might also be helpful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A14THPoc4-4


So, lc, would you say that risking your life to save a stranger "matters" as much as the gamer trying to get the top score?

If all of life's meaning is simply determined by each individual, a gamer can rightly say so. If that's the case, I see no reason to protest detention centers. It would seem like more fun to get drunk or play a game. Each of us determine meaning, individually, after all.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 17, 2019, 08:56:38 PM
Quote
However, objective morality doesn't exist without God. For instance, you think it's "bad" for Trump to have detention centers. Trump thinks it's "good." As a 3rd party, how would I know who is right? Though I'd argue that you both can agree that 1 is less than 2.
You keep saying this, but what is the evidence or proof? I'll keep pressing you on this.

Your "for instance" is not conclusive proof, as it can just as easily be said, "You think absolute morality necessitates a divinity. I think it does not. How do we know who is right?"

All we know about absolute morality is that it must be independent of humanity. But the same can be said for gravity, for mathematics, for XYZ laws of the universe. None of these things necessitate a divinity. So why must absolute morality?

Quote
So, lc, would you say that risking your life to save a stranger "matters" as much as the gamer trying to get the top score?

If all of life's meaning is simply determined by each individual, a gamer can rightly say so. If that's the case, I see no reason to protest detention centers. It would seem like more fun to get drunk or play a game. Each of us determine meaning, individually, after all.
I personally think these camps are very serious for a variety of reasons, but not everyone feels the same way.

Humanity as a whole behaves as if morality is relative. The evidence certainly shows this. Not everyone thinks these concentration camps are very important. Which is why you have people ignoring and/or minimizing this crisis.

What does your interpretation of god's absolute morality instruct you to do about this issue?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 18, 2019, 12:47:19 AM
Quote
However, objective morality doesn't exist without God. For instance, you think it's "bad" for Trump to have detention centers. Trump thinks it's "good." As a 3rd party, how would I know who is right? Though I'd argue that you both can agree that 1 is less than 2.
You keep saying this, but what is the evidence or proof? I'll keep pressing you on this.

Your "for instance" is not conclusive proof, as it can just as easily be said, "You think absolute morality necessitates a divinity. I think it does not. How do we know who is right?"

All we know about absolute morality is that it must be independent of humanity. But the same can be said for gravity, for mathematics, for XYZ laws of the universe. None of these things necessitate a divinity. So why must absolute morality?
Firstly, what will you accept as evidence or proof? 
Secondly, cause and effect dictates that an effect (absolute morality) must have a cause (moral law giver).
Thirdly, gravity, mathematics, etc are effects. Again the principle of causation dicates a cause.

Therefore unless you want to argue the principle of causation I postulate God as the cause of everything.

Gen 1:1 "The Creation of the World
1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

John 1:1 "The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 1:14     
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.


If not God then what? I'm open to any plausible argument.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Cardboard on July 18, 2019, 05:26:02 AM
This is the problem with atheists. They think that they are logical and know everything but, they are not or similar to religious people who believe in something.

A very simple example is the universe. Some say it is infinite which makes no sense but, end of discussion for them. No need to question how that can be?

Some say it is finite. Then what is on the other side? Ah, another universe. Then what is on the other side of that other universe?

Years ago they thought that matter would collapse back into the same tiny start from the big bang. Then whoops, someone found out that the universe was accelerating outward. Must be dark matter attracting it to get that. Then whoops, after years and years looking for dark matter they are near giving up on it and now talk about parallel universe...

It is the same with this latest first picture of a black hole. Wow, so wonderful! However, do they realize that this picture is millions years old? That black hole is nowhere near where it was or looking like it today.

Maybe I should start my own theory: if the universe expands so fast, it should be obvious that things are now much further apart than we see them in the sky (speed of light is only 300,000 km/s). Then is it possible that black holes no longer exist or are much smaller since they can't feed themselves with close by stars?

So many things that we don't know. So beware of those who claim to know everything.

Cardboard

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 18, 2019, 06:57:10 AM
Quote
However, objective morality doesn't exist without God. For instance, you think it's "bad" for Trump to have detention centers. Trump thinks it's "good." As a 3rd party, how would I know who is right? Though I'd argue that you both can agree that 1 is less than 2.
You keep saying this, but what is the evidence or proof? I'll keep pressing you on this.

Your "for instance" is not conclusive proof, as it can just as easily be said, "You think absolute morality necessitates a divinity. I think it does not. How do we know who is right?"

All we know about absolute morality is that it must be independent of humanity. But the same can be said for gravity, for mathematics, for XYZ laws of the universe. None of these things necessitate a divinity. So why must absolute morality?

Quote
So, lc, would you say that risking your life to save a stranger "matters" as much as the gamer trying to get the top score?

If all of life's meaning is simply determined by each individual, a gamer can rightly say so. If that's the case, I see no reason to protest detention centers. It would seem like more fun to get drunk or play a game. Each of us determine meaning, individually, after all.
I personally think these camps are very serious for a variety of reasons, but not everyone feels the same way.

Humanity as a whole behaves as if morality is relative. The evidence certainly shows this. Not everyone thinks these concentration camps are very important. Which is why you have people ignoring and/or minimizing this crisis.

What does your interpretation of god's absolute morality instruct you to do about this issue?

lc, just a quick question and I'll reply to your questions. I've posted a couple videos. Have you watched either of them? If the answer is no, well, then, I think it's pretty obvious that you've already made up your mind about things. If the answer is yes, why have you not said anything about them?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 18, 2019, 08:17:25 AM
Quote
However, objective morality doesn't exist without God. For instance, you think it's "bad" for Trump to have detention centers. Trump thinks it's "good." As a 3rd party, how would I know who is right? Though I'd argue that you both can agree that 1 is less than 2.
You keep saying this, but what is the evidence or proof? I'll keep pressing you on this.

Your "for instance" is not conclusive proof, as it can just as easily be said, "You think absolute morality necessitates a divinity. I think it does not. How do we know who is right?"

All we know about absolute morality is that it must be independent of humanity. But the same can be said for gravity, for mathematics, for XYZ laws of the universe. None of these things necessitate a divinity. So why must absolute morality?

Quote
So, lc, would you say that risking your life to save a stranger "matters" as much as the gamer trying to get the top score?

If all of life's meaning is simply determined by each individual, a gamer can rightly say so. If that's the case, I see no reason to protest detention centers. It would seem like more fun to get drunk or play a game. Each of us determine meaning, individually, after all.
I personally think these camps are very serious for a variety of reasons, but not everyone feels the same way.

Humanity as a whole behaves as if morality is relative. The evidence certainly shows this. Not everyone thinks these concentration camps are very important. Which is why you have people ignoring and/or minimizing this crisis.

What does your interpretation of god's absolute morality instruct you to do about this issue?

lc, just a quick question and I'll reply to your questions. I've posted a couple videos. Have you watched either of them? If the answer is no, well, then, I think it's pretty obvious that you've already made up your mind about things. If the answer is yes, why have you not said anything about them?

That's also why you won't get an answer to the question of what is acceptable evidence/proof for God. Asking for evidence/proof for God, without suggesting what would be acceptable evidence/proof is just bait. The questioner will always switch on you, because they've already made up their minds.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 18, 2019, 08:43:25 AM
This is the problem with atheists. They think that they are logical and know everything but, they are not or similar to religious people who believe in something.

A very simple example is the universe. Some say it is infinite which makes no sense but, end of discussion for them. No need to question how that can be?

Some say it is finite. Then what is on the other side? Ah, another universe. Then what is on the other side of that other universe?

Years ago they thought that matter would collapse back into the same tiny start from the big bang. Then whoops, someone found out that the universe was accelerating outward. Must be dark matter attracting it to get that. Then whoops, after years and years looking for dark matter they are near giving up on it and now talk about parallel universe...

It is the same with this latest first picture of a black hole. Wow, so wonderful! However, do they realize that this picture is millions years old? That black hole is nowhere near where it was or looking like it today.

Maybe I should start my own theory: if the universe expands so fast, it should be obvious that things are now much further apart than we see them in the sky (speed of light is only 300,000 km/s). Then is it possible that black holes no longer exist or are much smaller since they can't feed themselves with close by stars?

So many things that we don't know. So beware of those who claim to know everything.

Cardboard

Cardboard something you might find interesting pondering is how do you provide evidence for God which is infinite, everlasting, omnipresent, that no one has ever seen (1 John 4:12) and whose thoughts are not our thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9)?

Something else I find interesting is the relationship between uncertainty and free will. Why do we have hope in Christ? Why not 100% certainty? The reason is that if God determined that you do accept Him then He removed your free will, because you cannot have 100% certainty and free will. If I'm not getting my point across then this might help https://www.quora.com/If-the-future-can-be-predicted-with-absolute-certainty-is-free-will-completely-nullified

Anyway just a few things I find interesting.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 18, 2019, 09:46:39 AM
c, just a quick question and I'll reply to your questions. I've posted a couple videos. Have you watched either of them? If the answer is no, well, then, I think it's pretty obvious that you've already made up your mind about things. If the answer is yes, why have you not said anything about them?
I did watch the video you posted on 'justice'.

Why haven't I mentioned it? Because it's completely irrelevant to the current topic of discussion. We're talking about the origins of morality, and any evidence regarding its absolute or relative nature. We are not discussing what that particular morality entails.

We already had a very lengthy discussion a few pages back on what biblical morality entails (i pointed out a variety of inconsistencies). If you'd like we can continue talking about that but I'll warn you I may make reference to god killing children with bears.

And finally there's the point that I keep making: some person interpreted the "the bible's view of justice (0:43)" to fit his own narrative. What makes his interpretation correct compared to my interpretation?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 18, 2019, 09:50:03 AM
So many things that we don't know. So beware of those who claim to know everything.

So true. Which is why science if a process of empiricism and re-evaluation of previous theories.

It's not a 2000 year old book used to explain everything. (A book, by the way, which has already been contradicted by the observable universe both scientifically and morally).
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 19, 2019, 03:52:41 AM
So many things that we don't know. So beware of those who claim to know everything.

So true. Which is why science if a process of empiricism and re-evaluation of previous theories.
LOL!! You must never let facts get in the way of a good story!

Seriously though can we just get the basics right?

Fact is that science and empiricism are two different things and respectfully, you're confused about how they fit together. 

Science is the study of how nature is structured and behaves through repeatable experiments to which deductive (LOGICAL!!) reasoning is applied. It's BOTH practice and reason. Essentially we're trying to figure out how things work by running tests. HOWEVER it has obvious and well known limitations e.g. it cannot be applied to (measure) LOVE; another well known example is that you cannot test the Big Bang Theory. You can try and test FOR the Big Bang Theory, but to date nobody has been able to create an explosion starting with nothing and even if they started with something they were still left with nothing. Be as it may non-Creation scientists will argue that it simply points to the limitations of Science as would Creation scientists when it comes to testing for God.

Empiricism is the THEORY/REASONING that ALL knowledge comes from that which can be observed through touch, smell, sight, etc. According to the THEORY of Empiricism the previously mentioned tree in the forest does not fall unless someone sees or hears it. I would argue the limitations of this THEORY is obvious; typically Humenist!

Finally now that we've clarified what the words actually mean it might be helpful to also learn the connection between the two words.

You have it backwards. Science is NOT a process of empiricism. Fact is that Empiricism is a theory or philosophy of Science. Recall, Science is both practice and reason. For illustration, you do the experiment and then you apply deductive reasoning to it. However, there are different theories around how you should look at the data and Empiricism is one of those theories. Science is certainly NOT a process of Empiricism!

Simplistically Empiricism says that if I cannot sense it, it does not exist, it's a human centric, subjective interpretation of the data. It is one of many philosophies of how we think about the data that we observe. Another obvious competing philosophy would be Creationism.   

As an aside and going slightly off topic now, but the theory of Empiricism is quite ironic because science is supposed to move us towards objective truth, at least that is a popular argument with atheists. Yet the theory of Empiricism essentially argues that the subjective observable sensory experience is the only thing that's reliable. Also although Empiricism is fundamentally a worldview, its original proponents were by far the most aggressive in linking it to Science by arguing it's the only way to interpret the observations. That is why it's generally thought of as a philosophy of Science when in fact it's just a way of arranging the observable facts to fit a subjective, humanist worldview. It's a corrupt way of thinking as would be the case when a Creationist arrange the observable facts to fit his/her worldview, when I would argue the correct way is to simply use deductive reasoning and follow the breadcrumbs, wherever they might lead you and subsequently see to what end it supports your worldview. In practice it is of course easier said than done, because we're naturally inclined to put the cart (worldview) before the horse AND I don't think it's realistic to try and totally decouple reasoning from worldview. Lastly on this point, we again have to acknowledge that Science can only take us so far.

The theory of Empiricism is doubly ironic because the original champions (Locke, Hume, etc) of Empiricism argued that reason is an unreliable and inadequate route to knowledge and therefore we should only rely on that which we can experience (feel, see, touch, etc). Yet!! They were all philosophers! If that's not a self defeating and nonsensical way to try and figure out the truth then I don't know what is.

Anyway, back to the main point. The definition of science and empiricism and how they're related are Science 101.

Quote
It's not a 2000 year old book used to explain everything. (A book, by the way, which has already been contradicted by the observable universe both scientifically and morally).

Again let's not let facts get in the way of a good story!! LOL, oh my.
Interesting observation to say this in 2019. Did not realize all of the Bible was written after the birth of Christ. It's probably not a bad idea to let the Jews know the Torah was written after the birth of Christ.

Too many elementary mistakes, Watson!!

“The greatest deception which men incur proceeds from their opinions." -Leonardo da Vinci
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: meiroy on July 19, 2019, 05:48:31 AM
Find you a wife that would love you as much as MrB loves his bold font :)  -- no one ever said.

Well, I really had high hopes, so I read this entire thread and it is so disappointing that you guys did not manage to resolve this whole god/religion thingie.  Then again, FNMA and FMCC is at its 263 page so who knows, maybe by then.

Just a BTW, the core idea of scientific thinking, is that everything is fallible. A genius can come up with a theory that everyone would think is true for 50 years, and then someone would come up with one example, just one, that disproves this theory and that's it. A change, progress is made.  This is the core difference from ideology or religion which hold a certain idea or notion to be the absolute truth and so would necessarily lead to certain repression.  The conflict then is not only between scientific thinking and religion/ideology but also can be between religion and ideology, where both claim different absolute truth (e.g. Leninist countries and religion)

I'm not saying which is right or wrong, worse or better,  or whatever, to each his own, just pointing out the difference.

This, of course, is not a hypothetical discussion.  One can simply look around and see the results of scientific thinking.


Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: cubsfan on July 19, 2019, 06:09:33 AM
it is so disappointing that you guys did not manage to resolve this whole god/religion thingie.  Then again, FNMA and FMCC is at its 263 page so who knows, maybe by then.

now that is funny
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Cigarbutt on July 19, 2019, 06:15:07 AM
^This has been an interesting topic. Thank you.
Much like many topics, the TRUE meaning of empiricism has evolved over time, a situation that makes it awkward to draw firm conclusions.  :)
On a personal level, I wonder if Descartes sort of nailed it when he correlated self-existence with self-thought while at the same time applying general doubting.
For those interested about the distance separating religion from science, I found the following book useful:
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/on-trial-for-reason-9780198797920?cc=ca&lang=en&
https://www.amazon.com/trial-reason-Science-Religion-Culture/dp/0198797923/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=on+trial+for+reason&qid=1563541504&s=gateway&sr=8-2
Whether you use a deductive or metaphysical approach, one of the book's messages is that dogmatic positions may land you in an Inquisition or a Tribunal.
I thought the book On Trial for Reason helped to define the trail to reason or even the Truth if you believe so.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Castanza on July 19, 2019, 06:22:12 AM
I couldn't keep up with the religion posts from page 6 I believe lol Took too much effort and text is a poor medium for deep conversations.

Anyways! Back to the main topic! I always think this guy does a good job with his YouTube videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY7nsd_947U
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: cubsfan on July 19, 2019, 06:34:59 AM
Great clip! 

Best line:  "So much for the honor system"
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: meiroy on July 19, 2019, 06:44:26 AM

Cigarbutt,

Is it a fun read? I tried reading Descartes' Bones which so many people recommend but it was definitely not a fun read.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Cigarbutt on July 19, 2019, 07:37:00 AM

Cigarbutt,

Is it a fun read? I tried reading Descartes' Bones which so many people recommend but it was definitely not a fun read.
meiroy,
I guess it depends on your definition of fun (or is it FUN?).  :)
Don't rely on my comments for these 'soft' topics 'cause I can enjoy Gregmal's New York Post tabloidic references as much as arid and theoretical work on abstract concepts.
Just in case, I remember the work to be well written, well documented but somewhat scholarly. I would read only if you have an unusual interest in the topic or in Galileo.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 19, 2019, 07:47:49 AM
Find you a wife that would love you as much as MrB loves his bold font :)  -- no one ever said.

Well, I really had high hopes, so I read this entire thread and it is so disappointing that you guys did not manage to resolve this whole god/religion thingie.  Then again, FNMA and FMCC is at its 263 page so who knows, maybe by then.

Just a BTW, the core idea of scientific thinking, is that everything is fallible. A genius can come up with a theory that everyone would think is true for 50 years, and then someone would come up with one example, just one, that disproves this theory and that's it. A change, progress is made.  This is the core difference from ideology or religion which hold a certain idea or notion to be the absolute truth and so would necessarily lead to certain repression.  The conflict then is not only between scientific thinking and religion/ideology but also can be between religion and ideology, where both claim different absolute truth (e.g. Leninist countries and religion)

I'm not saying which is right or wrong, worse or better,  or whatever, to each his own, just pointing out the difference.

This, of course, is not a hypothetical discussion.  One can simply look around and see the results of scientific thinking.

Meiroy please explain the section in bold (you asked for it) above.
 
1. Why do you say it will lead to certain repression?
2. Why do you say there is a conflict between religion and scientific thinking?

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 19, 2019, 07:54:37 AM
^This has been an interesting topic. Thank you.
Much like many topics, the TRUE meaning of empiricism has evolved over time, a situation that makes it awkward to draw firm conclusions.  :)
On a personal level, I wonder if Descartes sort of nailed it when he correlated self-existence with self-thought while at the same time applying general doubting.
For those interested about the distance separating religion from science, I found the following book useful:
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/on-trial-for-reason-9780198797920?cc=ca&lang=en&
https://www.amazon.com/trial-reason-Science-Religion-Culture/dp/0198797923/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=on+trial+for+reason&qid=1563541504&s=gateway&sr=8-2
Whether you use a deductive or metaphysical approach, one of the book's messages is that dogmatic positions may land you in an Inquisition or a Tribunal.
I thought the book On Trial for Reason helped to define the trail to reason or even the Truth if you believe so.

Thanks CB that looks like a really interesting read. However says will only be printed by Nov 2019??
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Cigarbutt on July 19, 2019, 08:38:39 AM
^This has been an interesting topic. Thank you.
Much like many topics, the TRUE meaning of empiricism has evolved over time, a situation that makes it awkward to draw firm conclusions.  :)
On a personal level, I wonder if Descartes sort of nailed it when he correlated self-existence with self-thought while at the same time applying general doubting.
For those interested about the distance separating religion from science, I found the following book useful:
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/on-trial-for-reason-9780198797920?cc=ca&lang=en&
https://www.amazon.com/trial-reason-Science-Religion-Culture/dp/0198797923/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=on+trial+for+reason&qid=1563541504&s=gateway&sr=8-2
Whether you use a deductive or metaphysical approach, one of the book's messages is that dogmatic positions may land you in an Inquisition or a Tribunal.
I thought the book On Trial for Reason helped to define the trail to reason or even the Truth if you believe so.

Thanks CB that looks like a really interesting read. However says will only be printed by Nov 2019??
I would be tempted to ask you to believe me on this one but deductive reasoning is forcing me to apologize for wrong information as I confused the to-be published work with other pieces of work that the author has published over the years (and at least of one of which I have read).
https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3AMaurice+A.+Finocchiaro&s=relevancerank&text=Maurice+A.+Finocchiaro&ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1
My mother (who was very religious) used to say: "Fault confessed is half redressed" and I assume this is confirmed by the Scriptures. Isn't it?
At any rate, sincere apologies for the wrong info.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 19, 2019, 08:46:29 AM
Well, I really had high hopes, so I read this entire thread and it is so disappointing that you guys did not manage to resolve this whole god/religion thingie.  Then again, FNMA and FMCC is at its 263 page so who knows, maybe by then.

Just a BTW, the core idea of scientific thinking, is that everything is fallible. A genius can come up with a theory that everyone would think is true for 50 years, and then someone would come up with one example, just one, that disproves this theory and that's it. A change, progress is made.  This is the core difference from ideology or religion which hold a certain idea or notion to be the absolute truth and so would necessarily lead to certain repression.  The conflict then is not only between scientific thinking and religion/ideology but also can be between religion and ideology, where both claim different absolute truth (e.g. Leninist countries and religion)
Paul and I can probably go back and forth for 200 pages so just give it time ;)

As to your second paragraph, this is spot on. But it's not just science which has a self-updating mechanism. You look at the morals of people from the biblical timeframe vs. people today and you see we humans have updated those as well. This is one of the commonly-cited drawbacks of the bible - it cannot be updated.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 19, 2019, 09:19:57 AM
^This has been an interesting topic. Thank you.
Much like many topics, the TRUE meaning of empiricism has evolved over time, a situation that makes it awkward to draw firm conclusions.  :)
On a personal level, I wonder if Descartes sort of nailed it when he correlated self-existence with self-thought while at the same time applying general doubting.
For those interested about the distance separating religion from science, I found the following book useful:
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/on-trial-for-reason-9780198797920?cc=ca&lang=en&
https://www.amazon.com/trial-reason-Science-Religion-Culture/dp/0198797923/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=on+trial+for+reason&qid=1563541504&s=gateway&sr=8-2
Whether you use a deductive or metaphysical approach, one of the book's messages is that dogmatic positions may land you in an Inquisition or a Tribunal.
I thought the book On Trial for Reason helped to define the trail to reason or even the Truth if you believe so.

Thanks CB that looks like a really interesting read. However says will only be printed by Nov 2019??
I would be tempted to ask you to believe me on this one but deductive reasoning is forcing me to apologize for wrong information as I confused the to-be published work with other pieces of work that the author has published over the years (and at least of one of which I have read).
https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3AMaurice+A.+Finocchiaro&s=relevancerank&text=Maurice+A.+Finocchiaro&ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1
My mother (who was very religious) used to say: "Fault confessed is half redressed" and I assume this is confirmed by the Scriptures. Isn't it?
At any rate, sincere apologies for the wrong info.
No worries. Looks like an interesting read anyway, thanks.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 19, 2019, 01:00:42 PM
Quote
However, objective morality doesn't exist without God. For instance, you think it's "bad" for Trump to have detention centers. Trump thinks it's "good." As a 3rd party, how would I know who is right? Though I'd argue that you both can agree that 1 is less than 2.
You keep saying this, but what is the evidence or proof? I'll keep pressing you on this.

Your "for instance" is not conclusive proof, as it can just as easily be said, "You think absolute morality necessitates a divinity. I think it does not. How do we know who is right?"

All we know about absolute morality is that it must be independent of humanity. But the same can be said for gravity, for mathematics, for XYZ laws of the universe. None of these things necessitate a divinity. So why must absolute morality?

Quote
So, lc, would you say that risking your life to save a stranger "matters" as much as the gamer trying to get the top score?

If all of life's meaning is simply determined by each individual, a gamer can rightly say so. If that's the case, I see no reason to protest detention centers. It would seem like more fun to get drunk or play a game. Each of us determine meaning, individually, after all.
I personally think these camps are very serious for a variety of reasons, but not everyone feels the same way.

Humanity as a whole behaves as if morality is relative. The evidence certainly shows this. Not everyone thinks these concentration camps are very important. Which is why you have people ignoring and/or minimizing this crisis.

What does your interpretation of god's absolute morality instruct you to do about this issue?

Well, how would objective morality exist if a moral law giver didn't exist? Does a best color exist? Perhaps if there was an Artist that created all colors and said "blue is best." Then it would be objective. If things are subjective they can't also be objective.

I'll also think that the laws of the universe require a deity. I'm sure you've heard of the fine tuning argument - the universe is so fine tuned that if gravity was off by a small amount, it would collapse on itself. The one counter I've heard to that is the multiverse theory.

As for gravity and the creator of the universe, Lawrence Krauss (atheist) is like "well you can have a universe from nothing when you factor in gravity." He said "You take space, get rid of all the particles, all the radiation, and it actually carries energy, and that notion that in fact empty space - once you allow gravity into the game, what seems impossible is possible." So, if you add energy and gravity "nothing" turns into something? What are energy and gravity then?

Humanity as a whole agree that morality is relative? How many people think that cheating on their spouse is good? Do you look highly on people who murder even if they're great investors?

You using the term "concentration camps" is really a far fetched. How many Jews voluntarily came to Germany knowing they might get sent to the Nazi's versions of this? If you had to be put in one, which would you choose?


As far as what I feel to do, well, I'm not God so I can't say for sure but it seems like there are two options:

1)If a country is Christian (and the US is secular for what it's worth) I could see why there would be open borders. The Bible makes it pretty clear, as you said before, that one is supposed your neighbor as thyself. So, I wouldn't imagine Jesus would advocate for putting people in the detention centers.

2) With that said, as a secular nation, the US has the duty to protect its citizens. From as secular perspective, I see no reason for the US to provide to immigrants (unless they provide an economic or other benefit). As an atheist, who only believes in things with evidence, I find it irrational one would believe in human rights. Why should taxpayers suffer to help support someone else if the only "good" is what each individual creates in his or her own mind? Shouldn't it be up to other individuals who want to help to do so and leave the rest alone? Why is it okay for people to violate another country's laws?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 19, 2019, 02:11:58 PM
Quote
Well, how would objective morality exist if a moral law giver didn't exist?
Great question! I don't know for certain - but I have already presented an alternative hypothesis. This hypothesis is perhaps a moral code is embedded within life itself.

I'd argue there is just as little evidence for my hypothesis as there is for your claim that objective morality must come from a divinity.

In fact my hypothesis has a slight edge in that it requires less extreme assumptions. I only assume an undiscovered mechanism which links morality to observable life. You require an assumption that an all-powerful all-knowing being created the universe and revealed such morality to observable life.

But ultimately, this goes to my still unanswered questions that I posed to Mr.B before he climbed the soapbox, namely: how can we observe and measure morality, what methodology can we use to collect evidence and analyze it?

So to this point as I said I do not know for certain. IMHO there is not enough evidence to conclude on either side of (a) whether an objective morality exists, and (b) if it does exist, whether it must have originated from god.

This is why I said your to your claim "However, objective morality doesn't exist without God"; that this cannot possibly be said conclusively.

Quote
So, if you add energy and gravity "nothing" turns into something? What are energy and gravity then?
Yes to the first (at least that's my understanding of the works of smarter men than I), and great question, and something science is still exploring, to the second!

Quote
Humanity as a whole agree that morality is relative?
Where did I say that? You are putting words in my mouth!  :-[

Quote
As far as what I feel to do, well, I'm not God so I can't say for sure but it seems like there are two options:

1)If a country is Christian (and the US is secular for what it's worth) I could see why there would be open borders. The Bible makes it pretty clear, as you said before, that one is supposed your neighbor as thyself. So, I wouldn't imagine Jesus would advocate for putting people in the detention centers.

2) With that said, as a secular nation, the US has the duty to protect its citizens. From as secular perspective, I see no reason for the US to provide to immigrants (unless they provide an economic or other benefit). As an atheist, who only believes in things with evidence, I find it irrational one would believe in human rights. Why should taxpayers suffer to help support someone else if the only "good" is what each individual creates in his or her own mind? Shouldn't it be up to other individuals who want to help to do so and leave the rest alone? Why is it okay for people to violate another country's laws?
I did not ask what you feel personally, I also didn't ask for a strawman on the atheist/humanist morality. I asked what god's absolute morality says on the subject.

The fact that you can't come to a concrete answer seems to indicate that god's absolute morality is perhaps not-so-clear after all. Or, you are simply choosing not to follow it. Which is it?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 19, 2019, 02:39:09 PM
https://www.propublica.org/article/secret-border-patrol-facebook-group-agents-joke-about-migrant-deaths-post-sexist-memes#

Quote
Members of a secret Facebook group of nearly 9,500 current and former Border Patrol agents posted vulgar memes about Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and joked about the deaths of Central American migrants ahead of Ocasio-Cortez's visit to migrant detention facilities on Monday with other lawmakers, ProPublica reported.

Pretty disturbing stuff that I won't post here.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 19, 2019, 03:20:12 PM
Quote
Well, how would objective morality exist if a moral law giver didn't exist?
Great question! I don't know for certain - but I have already presented an alternative hypothesis. This hypothesis is perhaps a moral code is embedded within life itself.

I'd argue there is just as little evidence for my hypothesis as there is for your claim that objective morality must come from a divinity.

In fact my hypothesis has a slight edge in that it requires less extreme assumptions. I only assume an undiscovered mechanism which links morality to observable life. You require an assumption that an all-powerful all-knowing being created the universe and revealed such morality to observable life.

But ultimately, this goes to my still unanswered questions that I posed to Mr.B before he climbed the soapbox, namely: how can we observe and measure morality, what methodology can we use to collect evidence and analyze it?

So to this point as I said I do not know for certain. IMHO there is not enough evidence to conclude on either side of (a) whether an objective morality exists, and (b) if it does exist, whether it must have originated from god.

This is why I said your to your claim "However, objective morality doesn't exist without God"; that this cannot possibly be said conclusively.

Quote
So, if you add energy and gravity "nothing" turns into something? What are energy and gravity then?
Yes to the first (at least that's my understanding of the works of smarter men than I), and great question, and something science is still exploring, to the second!

Quote
Humanity as a whole agree that morality is relative?
Where did I say that? You are putting words in my mouth!  :-[

Quote
As far as what I feel to do, well, I'm not God so I can't say for sure but it seems like there are two options:

1)If a country is Christian (and the US is secular for what it's worth) I could see why there would be open borders. The Bible makes it pretty clear, as you said before, that one is supposed your neighbor as thyself. So, I wouldn't imagine Jesus would advocate for putting people in the detention centers.

2) With that said, as a secular nation, the US has the duty to protect its citizens. From as secular perspective, I see no reason for the US to provide to immigrants (unless they provide an economic or other benefit). As an atheist, who only believes in things with evidence, I find it irrational one would believe in human rights. Why should taxpayers suffer to help support someone else if the only "good" is what each individual creates in his or her own mind? Shouldn't it be up to other individuals who want to help to do so and leave the rest alone? Why is it okay for people to violate another country's laws?
I did not ask what you feel personally, I also didn't ask for a strawman on the atheist/humanist morality. I asked what god's absolute morality says on the subject.

The fact that you can't come to a concrete answer seems to indicate that god's absolute morality is perhaps not-so-clear after all. Or, you are simply choosing not to follow it. Which is it?

lc, what would cause morality to be objective if one assumes there is no deity?

Did you not say that "humanity as a whole behaves as if morality is relative"? If they behave it as such, wouldn't they also believe it as such?

For a concrete answer, and my interpretation of God's absolute morality. We should love the immigrants (and everyone else) as we would treat ourselves. Which, I'm assuming you probably agree with. ;)

So, which of these "concentration camps" would you take? How many immigrants have been gassed to death in the US's?

Care to answer my "strawman?"

How does an atheist, who claims to only believe in things with evidence, believe in human rights? And "feelings" don't count as evidence.

If human rights don't exist, why is it not okay to build a wall? Or to, as someone said a few pages back, sarcastically, "shoot 'em as they come over?"

Wouldn't these both be a better (and cheaper) use of tax payer's money? After all, human rights don't exist. ;)
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 19, 2019, 04:55:45 PM
Quote
lc, what would cause morality to be objective if one assumes there is no deity?
I'll just refer you to the first line of my previous post.

Quote
Did you not say that "humanity as a whole behaves as if morality is relative"? If they behave it as such, wouldn't they also believe it as such?
What people believe and how people behave can be two very distinct things.

Quote
For a concrete answer, and my interpretation of God's absolute morality. We should love the immigrants (and everyone else) as we would treat ourselves. Which, I'm assuming you probably agree with. ;)
I do agree!

But then how can there possibly be those who support and enable these camps (and at the highest levels of government!) who claim to be Christian?

Quote
So, which of these "concentration camps" would you take? How many immigrants have been gassed to death in the US's?
Gassed? None, thank god! Died from inhuman conditions? 24 and counting.

Quote
Care to answer my "strawman?"
Of course not, it's a strawman!

Quote
How does an atheist, who claims to only believe in things with evidence, believe in human rights? And "feelings" don't count as evidence.
I don't "believe" in human rights. Human rights are as self-evident as human life, love, and empathy!

Quote
If human rights don't exist, why is it not okay to build a wall? Or to, as someone said a few pages back, sarcastically, "shoot 'em as they come over?"

Wouldn't these both be a better (and cheaper) use of tax payer's money? After all, human rights don't exist. ;)
But human rights do exist, which is why treating immigrants so poorly that 24 have died, solely as a bargaining chip to get money for a big wall, is flat out wrong!
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 19, 2019, 06:13:20 PM
Quote
lc, what would cause morality to be objective if one assumes there is no deity?
I'll just refer you to the first line of my previous post.

Quote
Did you not say that "humanity as a whole behaves as if morality is relative"? If they behave it as such, wouldn't they also believe it as such?
What people believe and how people behave can be two very distinct things.

Quote
For a concrete answer, and my interpretation of God's absolute morality. We should love the immigrants (and everyone else) as we would treat ourselves. Which, I'm assuming you probably agree with. ;)
I do agree!

But then how can there possibly be those who support and enable these camps (and at the highest levels of government!) who claim to be Christian?

Quote
So, which of these "concentration camps" would you take? How many immigrants have been gassed to death in the US's?
Gassed? None, thank god! Died from inhuman conditions? 24 and counting.

Quote
Care to answer my "strawman?"
Of course not, it's a strawman!

Quote
How does an atheist, who claims to only believe in things with evidence, believe in human rights? And "feelings" don't count as evidence.
I don't "believe" in human rights. Human rights are as self-evident as human life, love, and empathy!

Quote
If human rights don't exist, why is it not okay to build a wall? Or to, as someone said a few pages back, sarcastically, "shoot 'em as they come over?"

Wouldn't these both be a better (and cheaper) use of tax payer's money? After all, human rights don't exist. ;)
But human rights do exist, which is why treating immigrants so poorly that 24 have died, solely as a bargaining chip to get money for a big wall, is flat out wrong!

You said it could be a moral code embedded in life itself? Would this be through evolution or something else?

As far as those that support these camps, I don't think they want to have them either. However, they must operate on a secular level, not religious. They're also in office to obey the laws of the land. On a secular level, I see no issue with what they're doing. They're not forcing anyone to go into our country. Why is it okay for immigrants to break the laws of our country? Should government officials not enforce the rule of law?

Human rights are self-evident? No, not if atheism is accurate. As the Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" No Creator, no unalienable rights. The government determines who has certain rights and who doesn't. If they government wants to put these folks in detention centers (that we're built by the Obama administration, for what it's worth). I don't see why an atheist would have an issue with that.

Your view of human rights is simply an illusion that you've been indoctrinated into believing.


Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: meiroy on July 19, 2019, 10:13:43 PM
Find you a wife that would love you as much as MrB loves his bold font :)  -- no one ever said.

Well, I really had high hopes, so I read this entire thread and it is so disappointing that you guys did not manage to resolve this whole god/religion thingie.  Then again, FNMA and FMCC is at its 263 page so who knows, maybe by then.

Just a BTW, the core idea of scientific thinking, is that everything is fallible. A genius can come up with a theory that everyone would think is true for 50 years, and then someone would come up with one example, just one, that disproves this theory and that's it. A change, progress is made.  This is the core difference from ideology or religion which hold a certain idea or notion to be the absolute truth and so would necessarily lead to certain repression.  The conflict then is not only between scientific thinking and religion/ideology but also can be between religion and ideology, where both claim different absolute truth (e.g. Leninist countries and religion)

I'm not saying which is right or wrong, worse or better,  or whatever, to each his own, just pointing out the difference.

This, of course, is not a hypothetical discussion.  One can simply look around and see the results of scientific thinking.

Meiroy please explain the section in bold (you asked for it) above.
 
1. Why do you say it will lead to certain repression?
2. Why do you say there is a conflict between religion and scientific thinking?

ahah, you're right, my fault. Couldn't help it.


So what do you think about Brexit?


Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 19, 2019, 11:40:30 PM
Find you a wife that would love you as much as MrB loves his bold font :)  -- no one ever said.

Well, I really had high hopes, so I read this entire thread and it is so disappointing that you guys did not manage to resolve this whole god/religion thingie.  Then again, FNMA and FMCC is at its 263 page so who knows, maybe by then.

Just a BTW, the core idea of scientific thinking, is that everything is fallible. A genius can come up with a theory that everyone would think is true for 50 years, and then someone would come up with one example, just one, that disproves this theory and that's it. A change, progress is made.  This is the core difference from ideology or religion which hold a certain idea or notion to be the absolute truth and so would necessarily lead to certain repression.  The conflict then is not only between scientific thinking and religion/ideology but also can be between religion and ideology, where both claim different absolute truth (e.g. Leninist countries and religion)

I'm not saying which is right or wrong, worse or better,  or whatever, to each his own, just pointing out the difference.

This, of course, is not a hypothetical discussion.  One can simply look around and see the results of scientific thinking.

Meiroy please explain the section in bold (you asked for it) above.
 
1. Why do you say it will lead to certain repression?
2. Why do you say there is a conflict between religion and scientific thinking?

ahah, you're right, my fault. Couldn't help it.


So what do you think about Brexit?

Please answer my two questions. I’m genuinely interested.

What do you mean by Brexit? It’s used widely and generally assumed to be well defined, but in my experience it’s not. So happy to answer you if you can boil it down.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 20, 2019, 01:29:19 AM
Quote
Well, how would objective morality exist if a moral law giver didn't exist?
Great question! I don't know for certain - but I have already presented an alternative hypothesis. This hypothesis is perhaps a moral code is embedded within life itself.

I'd argue there is just as little evidence for my hypothesis as there is for your claim that objective morality must come from a divinity.

In fact my hypothesis has a slight edge in that it requires less extreme assumptions. I only assume an undiscovered mechanism which links morality to observable life. You require an assumption that an all-powerful all-knowing being created the universe and revealed such morality to observable life.

But ultimately, this goes to my still unanswered questions that I posed to Mr.B before he climbed the soapbox, namely: how can we observe and measure morality, what methodology can we use to collect evidence and analyze it?

So to this point as I said I do not know for certain. IMHO there is not enough evidence to conclude on either side of (a) whether an objective morality exists, and (b) if it does exist, whether it must have originated from god.

This is why I said your to your claim "However, objective morality doesn't exist without God"; that this cannot possibly be said conclusively.

Quote
So, if you add energy and gravity "nothing" turns into something? What are energy and gravity then?
Yes to the first (at least that's my understanding of the works of smarter men than I), and great question, and something science is still exploring, to the second!

Quote
Humanity as a whole agree that morality is relative?
Where did I say that? You are putting words in my mouth!  :-[

Quote
As far as what I feel to do, well, I'm not God so I can't say for sure but it seems like there are two options:

1)If a country is Christian (and the US is secular for what it's worth) I could see why there would be open borders. The Bible makes it pretty clear, as you said before, that one is supposed your neighbor as thyself. So, I wouldn't imagine Jesus would advocate for putting people in the detention centers.

2) With that said, as a secular nation, the US has the duty to protect its citizens. From as secular perspective, I see no reason for the US to provide to immigrants (unless they provide an economic or other benefit). As an atheist, who only believes in things with evidence, I find it irrational one would believe in human rights. Why should taxpayers suffer to help support someone else if the only "good" is what each individual creates in his or her own mind? Shouldn't it be up to other individuals who want to help to do so and leave the rest alone? Why is it okay for people to violate another country's laws?
I did not ask what you feel personally, I also didn't ask for a strawman on the atheist/humanist morality. I asked what god's absolute morality says on the subject.

The fact that you can't come to a concrete answer seems to indicate that god's absolute morality is perhaps not-so-clear after all. Or, you are simply choosing not to follow it. Which is it?

Going for character again. How predictable....

As I recall I wasn’t the one that claimed objective morality is just my subjective opinion and then ran away when I was challenged on the obvious logical inconsistency of the statement. However, to be fair as I presented in my discussion about Tyson, it’s understandable.

Also, I’m not trying to convince anyone that God exists, that Jesus is who He claims to be or that the Holy Spirit convicts. I cannot do that and that’s not my job. I’m the witness in the stand, I’m not the prosecutor, I’m not the defence Attourney and I’m certainly not the judge. Conviction comes from the Holy Spirit. The Bible is clear,

Psalm 14:1 14 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

Proverbs 28:26 ESV
Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered


Most importantly, Proverbs 9:10
10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,
    and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.


Two people reading the above. One thinks it’s foolishness the other the TRUTH. The difference? One has been convicted by the Holy Spirit and the other has not. As a witness, I have no power over it. So when I apologise for Jesus and share The Good News, don’t confuse it with an attempt to convict you.

Now as to the question about how do we observe and measure morality? We do this every day and we do it intuitively, because we’re created moral beings. You’re doing it right now and more formally we do this everyday through our legal system.....and by the way, it’s not science (in the common sense), it cannot be measured precisely (by us), but it’s certainly real.

Biblically speaking I venture the following.

Humans are moral beings. Why? Because we’re created in God’s image. Morals dictate the behaviour in a relationship. Perfect relationship will have perfect moral behaviour. Relationship is fundamental to  God.  God is love, because that provides the unity in God, which consists of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. It explains why God could love before creation, because love needs relationship. A solitary God cannot love.
So, God is a moral being, therefore we are moral beings, because we’re created in His image. If you pay close attention then you will note that when God created man He said in OUR image, not MY image. Genesis 1:26
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

In the Garden of Eden we were told not to acquire knowledge of good and evil. We chose to and we’re suffering the consequences we were promised. Free will comes with responsibilities, which we’re finding out. It took us about 5 minutes flat to break every moral law there is, so God flooded the entire world which was exceedingly wicked. Gen 6: 5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually
What we have to realise is that what happened in the background is we were further and further removed from God. Before sin Man walked with God in the Garden, we had a perfect (close) relationship, because I suppose you could say it was morally good. However, as with any relationship the worse we treated God the more distance we created. It got to the point where God could only find one family (Noah’s) who still feared God. Later again it got to the point where God had to spell it out for us. 10 Commandments.

So what should be in our hearts had to be spelt out for us. So the measure in detail is the 10 Commandments, which Jesus summarised  by saying we should firstly love God and secondly love our neighbour as ourselves.
So there is your objective moral law, which is also written on every man’s heart as the Bible would say, but it’s just another way of saying that we’re created as moral beings. It’s objective, because God gave it to us. Logically it’s consistent.

How do we measure it. Firstly God is the perfect measure and the perfect judge and He will judge all, Christian and non-Christian alike. Non-Christians, “Philippians 2:9-11 (ESV)
9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


Christians and non-Christians
Hebrews 9:27 ESV
And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,


Christians
Romans 14:12 ESV
So then each of us will give an account of himself to God


Secondly, how do we measure it? Through judgement, preferably guided by wisdom, but at our best we do so imperfectly. We all do it everyday when we interact with people and then of course we do it in various other forms such as in our legal system. At the top of the pyramid in the US is the Supreme Court and all its judges. Not complicated. Simple, but not necessarily easy.

Very interesting how consistent the Bible is, despite the never ending chorus saying it’s a bunch of Rabbis that made it all up. Pretty formidable logical consistency from Genesis to Revelation on this topic (morality) and it even applies to our everyday lives and in our hearts we actually experience morality. What a coincidence. However, what I find most amazing is that nobody every complains about “the rules of” the 10 commandments, except for the bit about God of course and the fact and when you refer to these rules as the 10 commandments. It’s always the same. You think murder is bad? Yes of course. Stealing, yes, etc. So we basically ALL agree these are good rules? Yes. 10 commandments? No. Also amazing that for something so complex as morality you have just 10 rules to dictate it all. Not one is bad, except for the God bit of course. There is not one sin (bad moral behaviour as you would call it) that is not covered by the 10 commandments.
Not one has been proven to be outdated (except again for the God bit) and has stood the test for thousands of years. Now that is what I call a remarkable feat for those Rabbis. Got to give it to them. I mean those guys make even Shakespeare look like an amateur,

Ex 20:18 Now when all the people saw the thunder and the flashes of lightning and the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking, the people were afraid[d] and trembled, and they stood far off 19 and said to Moses, “You speak to us, and we will listen; but do not let God speak to us, lest we die.” 20 Moses said to the people, “Do not fear, for God has come to test you, that the fear of him may be before you, that you may not sin.” 21 The people stood far off, while Moses drew near to the thick darkness where God was.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 20, 2019, 06:05:20 AM
Find you a wife that would love you as much as MrB loves his bold font :)  -- no one ever said.

Well, I really had high hopes, so I read this entire thread and it is so disappointing that you guys did not manage to resolve this whole god/religion thingie.  Then again, FNMA and FMCC is at its 263 page so who knows, maybe by then.

Just a BTW, the core idea of scientific thinking, is that everything is fallible. A genius can come up with a theory that everyone would think is true for 50 years, and then someone would come up with one example, just one, that disproves this theory and that's it. A change, progress is made.  This is the core difference from ideology or religion which hold a certain idea or notion to be the absolute truth and so would necessarily lead to certain repression.  The conflict then is not only between scientific thinking and religion/ideology but also can be between religion and ideology, where both claim different absolute truth (e.g. Leninist countries and religion)

I'm not saying which is right or wrong, worse or better,  or whatever, to each his own, just pointing out the difference.

This, of course, is not a hypothetical discussion.  One can simply look around and see the results of scientific thinking.

Meiroy please explain the section in bold (you asked for it) above.
 
1. Why do you say it will lead to certain repression?
2. Why do you say there is a conflict between religion and scientific thinking?

ahah, you're right, my fault. Couldn't help it.


So what do you think about Brexit?


In reference to science and religion, this video is worthwhile:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y2ICUYwp4E&t=528s

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 20, 2019, 01:12:21 PM
Quote
You said it could be a moral code embedded in life itself? Would this be through evolution or something else?
Possibly! Possibly not! :)
It could be like gravity, a constant force in the universe
It could be like love, exists only metaphysically and between humans
It could be some sub-atomic particle which is yet undiscovered
It could be something totally different which we can't even fathom. Maybe the aliens made it  ;D

My only point is that we don't know, and you don't either. So to say that absolute morality must come from a divine origin, is false.
Do you still disagree with this? 

Quote
As far as those that support these camps, I don't think they want to have them either. However, they must operate on a secular level, not religious. They're also in office to obey the laws of the land
I see, so religious morality is not relevant in this situation. Silly me, I thought it was absolute. So then, when is god's morality applicable vs not applicable? Who makes that decision?

Quote
Why is it okay for immigrants to break the laws of our country?
Who said it was?
Also, what is "our" country? Don't you believe god created the heavens and earth and provided moral laws to govern his creation?

Quote
Should government officials not enforce the rule of law?
Who says they should not?
Is subjecting refugees to degrading and inhumane conditions part of law enforcement?

Quote
Human rights are self-evident? No, not if atheism is accurate.
Why not?

Quote
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
As there exists zero evidence for a creator, one could interpret this as, all humans have certain rights by the very fact of our existence.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 20, 2019, 01:15:02 PM

In reference to science and religion, this video is worthwhile:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y2ICUYwp4E&t=528s
I did not find this worthwhile as it was one gigantic logical fallacy (appeal to authority).

I mean, here's a big ole list of atheist scientists, but you don't need to burn 16 minutes of your time to realize it is an irrelevant point  ;D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 21, 2019, 01:58:44 AM
Great discussion with Ravi Zachariahs. Covers a lot that we talked about here.
You were created with great purpose. Don’t let anyone tell you that from nothing you come and to nothing you go. It’s a LIE!
https://youtu.be/6aVTZ2TyTF0
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 21, 2019, 03:19:24 PM
All The World's Religions In One Map
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-21/all-worlds-religions-one-map
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: bearprowler6 on July 22, 2019, 07:11:02 AM
I found this opinion piece interesting and worth sharing:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/20/opinions/god-of-love-had-a-really-bad-week-bass/index.html
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 22, 2019, 08:27:49 AM
I found this opinion piece interesting and worth sharing:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/20/opinions/god-of-love-had-a-really-bad-week-bass/index.html

Same Bible. Different gods.

Exactly, and it's no difference in practice than moral relativism.


Another interesting point is that Christianity does not seem to "immunize" people from hatred and racism.

If this were medicine for example, over such a large sample size we would conclude this as no different from placebo. Food for thought.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 22, 2019, 12:40:48 PM
Quote
You said it could be a moral code embedded in life itself? Would this be through evolution or something else?
Possibly! Possibly not! :)
It could be like gravity, a constant force in the universe
It could be like love, exists only metaphysically and between humans
It could be some sub-atomic particle which is yet undiscovered
It could be something totally different which we can't even fathom. Maybe the aliens made it  ;D

My only point is that we don't know, and you don't either. So to say that absolute morality must come from a divine origin, is false.
Do you still disagree with this? 

Quote
As far as those that support these camps, I don't think they want to have them either. However, they must operate on a secular level, not religious. They're also in office to obey the laws of the land
I see, so religious morality is not relevant in this situation. Silly me, I thought it was absolute. So then, when is god's morality applicable vs not applicable? Who makes that decision?

Quote
Why is it okay for immigrants to break the laws of our country?
Who said it was?
Also, what is "our" country? Don't you believe god created the heavens and earth and provided moral laws to govern his creation?

Quote
Should government officials not enforce the rule of law?
Who says they should not?
Is subjecting refugees to degrading and inhumane conditions part of law enforcement?

Quote
Human rights are self-evident? No, not if atheism is accurate.
Why not?

Quote
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
As there exists zero evidence for a creator, one could interpret this as, all humans have certain rights by the very fact of our existence.

lc, so you're telling me that morality might be somewhat similar to gravity- in that its a constant force in the universe that transcends humanity? I agree! ;)

If we're going to play super skeptic, you can not make absolutes about anything. For instance, I'm not 100% sure you're not a form of AI. But I'll still say that if morality isn't from a deity, it is an illusion that seems like it's absolute but it really isn't. I'll say that is a certainty. Indeed, in almost all religions morality is a key thing. If it doesn't point to a higher power, I'm not sure what would.

Even if morality is a "undiscovered sub atomic particle" it still makes sense to ignore it when it suits you. Why wouldn't you?

So do you think government officials (or anyone else) should follow their conscience instead of a law if that law violates their conscience?

"Our" country is anyone who is an American citizen. That seems pretty clear. Ultimately though, everything belongs to God.


If human rights are "self-evident" and are an atheist, why is that a fair argument? If someone says God is "self-evident" and produces the same about of evidence, should I believe them?

People have certain rights based on their existence? Really? By who? Do you have evidence to support that? I have plenty of evidence to show that if Person A is more power that he can take from Person B.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 22, 2019, 01:45:49 PM

In reference to science and religion, this video is worthwhile:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y2ICUYwp4E&t=528s
I did not find this worthwhile as it was one gigantic logical fallacy (appeal to authority).

I mean, here's a big ole list of atheist scientists, but you don't need to burn 16 minutes of your time to realize it is an irrelevant point  ;D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology

Everyone appeals to authority since no one is an expert in anything. Another way to look at it is like this:

"“Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared – the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.”
M. D. Aeschliman C. S. Lewis on Mere Science  1998 First Things 86 (October, 1998): 16-18.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 22, 2019, 01:48:48 PM
Quote
lc, so you're telling me that morality might be somewhat similar to gravity- in that its a constant force in the universe that transcends humanity? I agree! ;)
I simply don't know! This seems to be the most plausible explanation as to why certain moral codes have developed independently in different human societies, over different spans of time. But this does not necessitate a divine origin!

Quote
If we're going to play super skeptic, you can not make absolutes about anything. For instance, I'm not 100% sure you're not a form of AI. But I'll still say that if morality isn't from a deity, it is an illusion that seems like it's absolute but it really isn't. I'll say that is a certainty. Indeed, in almost all religions morality is a key thing. If it doesn't point to a higher power, I'm not sure what would.
This was my point to Mr. B which he did not understand and then the bolded font came out. Hence my question on, "How we can gather evidence".

Because, what you say is true IF we assume the premise that morality has a divine origin. But there is no evidence for this.

So if we assume a skeptic's perspective, (i.e. it is one possibility that morality is divine, but also possible that it is not), then we need to figure out objective means to gather evidence. And since you have rightly said in previous posts that a non-divine morality has the possibility of being highly subjective, these objective means become very important.

Quote
Even if morality is a "undiscovered sub atomic particle" it still makes sense to ignore it when it suits you. Why wouldn't you?
My response is that because doing so would be bad for life itself.
But a good question! And I would argue that this question is equally applied to a divine morality.

In other words, a good moral code should not require added incentive to follow it. For example, the reason we don't murder each other is because murder is inherently wrong, not because we simply try to avoid going to hell.

Quote
So do you think government officials (or anyone else) should follow their conscience instead of a law if that law violates their conscience?
You'll have to be a bit more clear on what you mean by "conscience" but in some cases, yes. For a famous example, Auschwitz guards.

Quote
If human rights are "self-evident" and are an atheist, why is that a fair argument? If someone says God is "self-evident" and produces the same about of evidence, should I believe them?
Because we have evidence that humans exist. We have no evidence that god exists. I would argue everything which exists has some type of rights just by the very nature of its existence.

Quote
People have certain rights based on their existence? Really? By who? Do you have evidence to support that?
Another fantastic question, you are on a roll ;D. And a hotly contested one...here's a decent exposition:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-origin-of-natural-rights

I personally buy into the "human nature" origin i.e. the fact that we empathize with our fellow human.

If I strike you or steal from you or hurt you, I know it causes you pain and suffering. And, I know pain and suffering are bad. Both of these premises can be shown to be true, except perhaps to the psychopath (who cannot recognize either or both).

To me, these two statements essentially form the basis for secular morality and natural rights.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 22, 2019, 01:53:07 PM

Everyone appeals to authority since no one is an expert in anything. Another way to look at it is like this:

"“Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared – the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.”
M. D. Aeschliman C. S. Lewis on Mere Science  1998 First Things 86 (October, 1998): 16-18.
You must recognize that this is silly.
Ok then: what makes your authorities any more correct than my authorities?

To your quote, I can only assume by 'lawless sub-nature' he refers to quantum mechanics? In which case we have made incredible progress over the past 20 years.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 23, 2019, 01:18:43 PM
Quote
lc, so you're telling me that morality might be somewhat similar to gravity- in that its a constant force in the universe that transcends humanity? I agree! ;)
I simply don't know! This seems to be the most plausible explanation as to why certain moral codes have developed independently in different human societies, over different spans of time. But this does not necessitate a divine origin!

Quote
If we're going to play super skeptic, you can not make absolutes about anything. For instance, I'm not 100% sure you're not a form of AI. But I'll still say that if morality isn't from a deity, it is an illusion that seems like it's absolute but it really isn't. I'll say that is a certainty. Indeed, in almost all religions morality is a key thing. If it doesn't point to a higher power, I'm not sure what would.
This was my point to Mr. B which he did not understand and then the bolded font came out. Hence my question on, "How we can gather evidence".

Because, what you say is true IF we assume the premise that morality has a divine origin. But there is no evidence for this.

So if we assume a skeptic's perspective, (i.e. it is one possibility that morality is divine, but also possible that it is not), then we need to figure out objective means to gather evidence. And since you have rightly said in previous posts that a non-divine morality has the possibility of being highly subjective, these objective means become very important.

Quote
Even if morality is a "undiscovered sub atomic particle" it still makes sense to ignore it when it suits you. Why wouldn't you?
My response is that because doing so would be bad for life itself.
But a good question! And I would argue that this question is equally applied to a divine morality.

In other words, a good moral code should not require added incentive to follow it. For example, the reason we don't murder each other is because murder is inherently wrong, not because we simply try to avoid going to hell.

Quote
So do you think government officials (or anyone else) should follow their conscience instead of a law if that law violates their conscience?
You'll have to be a bit more clear on what you mean by "conscience" but in some cases, yes. For a famous example, Auschwitz guards.

Quote
If human rights are "self-evident" and are an atheist, why is that a fair argument? If someone says God is "self-evident" and produces the same about of evidence, should I believe them?
Because we have evidence that humans exist. We have no evidence that god exists. I would argue everything which exists has some type of rights just by the very nature of its existence.

Quote
People have certain rights based on their existence? Really? By who? Do you have evidence to support that?
Another fantastic question, you are on a roll ;D. And a hotly contested one...here's a decent exposition:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-origin-of-natural-rights

I personally buy into the "human nature" origin i.e. the fact that we empathize with our fellow human.

If I strike you or steal from you or hurt you, I know it causes you pain and suffering. And, I know pain and suffering are bad. Both of these premises can be shown to be true, except perhaps to the psychopath (who cannot recognize either or both).

To me, these two statements essentially form the basis for secular morality and natural rights.

Let's look at the incentives. I don't think most people follow God "just to get into heaven." I think they follow God because God is righteousness. By following God one is doing the "right" or "good" thing.

Most folks will say that human rights or morality come from one of two sources: God or evolution.

Sure, you can say we don't know for sure (aliens, or subatomic particles) but if we assume it's one or the other, do you agree that there is not really a right or wrong?

If you're going to say that it's up to the individual to determine meaning in their life, it's fair to say they determine what is moral or not. So, if that's the case, why aren't you ago with those that post post the (nasty) things about AOC or immigrants? I would wager that if morality is not divine, that it's simply an illusion. As an illusion, it's up to each individual to determine if they think something is right or wrong.

So the question, ultimately is, do you think it's an illusion or not? I didn't which is why I had to jump to the side of theism. Unless there is a God, I don't see how it's not an illusion.

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 23, 2019, 03:38:48 PM
Quote
Let's look at the incentives. I don't think most people follow God "just to get into heaven." I think they follow God because God is righteousness. By following God one is doing the "right" or "good" thing.
Yea I think you are way off the mark here. Most people "follow god" because they are indoctrinated at a very young age. And I'd take a gander that, going down the list, there's a handful of other reasons ahead of "righteousness". But this is just my opinion, as you have yours.

None of that changes the fact that a good moral code should have intrinsic value, it should not need a divine goon to enforce it.

Quote
Most folks will say that human rights or morality come from one of two sources: God or evolution.
Well I've given you some alternatives including what is generally accepted as the source of 'natural rights', but OK I'll play along

Quote
Sure, you can say we don't know for sure (aliens, or subatomic particles) but if we assume it's one or the other, do you agree that there is not really a right or wrong?
No, I disagree with the strongest notion possible.

Quote
If you're going to say that it's up to the individual to determine meaning in their life, it's fair to say they determine what is moral or not.
Determining meaning in one's life is not the same as determining what is moral. So I would argue that it is not fair to say this.

Quote
So, if that's the case, why aren't you ago with those that post post the (nasty) things about AOC or immigrants? I would wager that if morality is not divine, that it's simply an illusion. As an illusion, it's up to each individual to determine if they think something is right or wrong.

So the question, ultimately is, do you think it's an illusion or not? I didn't which is why I had to jump to the side of theism. Unless there is a God, I don't see how it's not an illusion.
Well, I certainly do think morality does not require a god. I think the only argument I haven't made is the old socratic one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

Which essentially boils down to, is something "good" because god says so, or does god say something is "good" because it is inherently good?

Accepting the former is completely arbitrary. Accepting the latter proves morality is independent of god.

Ultimately I think I've presented a pretty strong case to the following:
(1) a secular morality may still define 'right' and 'wrong' (in fact, this is exactly reality as we know it)
(2) even if we assume a god created the universe, it doesn't mean he has prescribed a morality to us
(3) even if we assume a god created the universe AND we assume he has prescribed a morality to us, it doesn't mean you or any other religion know what that morality is

And I'm sure you feel just as strongly for believing what you do. But I do think we exhausted almost all the avenues of debate, so, cheers to us ;D
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 23, 2019, 11:54:33 PM
Quote
Let's look at the incentives. I don't think most people follow God "just to get into heaven." I think they follow God because God is righteousness. By following God one is doing the "right" or "good" thing.
Yea I think you are way off the mark here. Most people "follow god" because they are indoctrinated at a very young age. And I'd take a gander that, going down the list, there's a handful of other reasons ahead of "righteousness". But this is just my opinion, as you have yours.

None of that changes the fact that a good moral code should have intrinsic value, it should not need a divine goon to enforce it.

Quote
Most folks will say that human rights or morality come from one of two sources: God or evolution.
Well I've given you some alternatives including what is generally accepted as the source of 'natural rights', but OK I'll play along

Quote
Sure, you can say we don't know for sure (aliens, or subatomic particles) but if we assume it's one or the other, do you agree that there is not really a right or wrong?
No, I disagree with the strongest notion possible.

Quote
If you're going to say that it's up to the individual to determine meaning in their life, it's fair to say they determine what is moral or not.
Determining meaning in one's life is not the same as determining what is moral. So I would argue that it is not fair to say this.

Quote
So, if that's the case, why aren't you ago with those that post post the (nasty) things about AOC or immigrants? I would wager that if morality is not divine, that it's simply an illusion. As an illusion, it's up to each individual to determine if they think something is right or wrong.

So the question, ultimately is, do you think it's an illusion or not? I didn't which is why I had to jump to the side of theism. Unless there is a God, I don't see how it's not an illusion.
Well, I certainly do think morality does not require a god. I think the only argument I haven't made is the old socratic one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

Which essentially boils down to, is something "good" because god says so, or does god say something is "good" because it is inherently good?

Accepting the former is completely arbitrary. Accepting the latter proves morality is independent of god.

Ultimately I think I've presented a pretty strong case to the following:
(1) a secular morality may still define 'right' and 'wrong' (in fact, this is exactly reality as we know it)
(2) even if we assume a god created the universe, it doesn't mean he has prescribed a morality to us
(3) even if we assume a god created the universe AND we assume he has prescribed a morality to us, it doesn't mean you or any other religion know what that morality is


And I'm sure you feel just as strongly for believing what you do. But I do think we exhausted almost all the avenues of debate, so, cheers to us ;D

Leaving you/man as his own god. The arbiter of everything. Story of the 20 century. The bloodiest century to date, even more so than the first 19 centuries combined. All you need now is a Stalin to run things for you. LOL
God luck with that.

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 24, 2019, 02:43:23 AM
Circling back to the start of the thread; the detention centers and the treatment of those seeking access to the US, "Just in case anyone forgot", what the tread is about.

I find it tricky ground, but the following helped me to parse it out and hopefully there is something that you might find helpful too. I found it's as important to figure out HOW we help people, as it is to figure out WHY we help. When I read general commentary in the press I find that a) people generally just claim certain actions to be taken, without understanding or explaining why and b) they take one side of the argument e.g. let's help one group of people (migrants) at the expense of others (citizens).

The following does seem to point to a just outcome.

 
I will start with the WHY; God (of course).
God is love, which consists of TRUTH and GRACE. He is THE moral being and THE morals stem from the relationship between God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. God created man in their image and therefore we are moral beings too. We have intrinsic worth (we're not animals!!), because we were created in God's image, we're God-like, which of course does not make us God. However, it does explain the reason we behave like gods when we imagine God out of our lives.

Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

27 So God created man in his own image,
    in the image of God he created him;
    male and female he created them.


Morals dictate relationship and perfect morals lead to perfect relationship. Perfect relationship has perfect love, which consists of GRACE and TRUTH. The triune God have perfect relationship and it was possible to have it before creation, because love needs two or more; a logical dilemma for (literal) monotheistic gods. Before the Fall we did have perfect relationship with God and is why Adam and Eve could walk in the Garden with God. However after the Fall sin corrupted everything; after our decision to acquire the knowledge of good and evil. God respects our free will, but the trade off is that we're responsible for our decision(s). Fundamentally those decisions will take two courses, one that chose eternal life with God by accepting His free gift of redemption (Jesus Christ) and the other eternal separation from God (Hell); GRACE and TRUTH again.

Sin increased in the world, because of the way we exercised our free will. God provided moral laws that had to be written down (at a point where we did not know who we were anymore), which starts with the statement that God is who He says He is (TRUTH), but that He redeems (GRACE).

Pay attention to two things. 1. TRUTH and GRACE, which makes up LOVE and dictates morality. 2. The first 4 laws are vertical (God/Man) and the rest are horizontal (man to man).


The Ten Commandments
Ex 20 And God spoke all these words, saying,
2 “I am the Lord your God (TRUTH), who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery (GRACE/REDEMPTION).

3 “You shall have no other gods before me.
4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.
8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

12 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
13 “You shall not murder.
14 “You shall not commit adultery.
15 “You shall not steal.
16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
17 “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.”


Jesus then summarized the mentioned first 4 "vertical" laws and 6 "horizontal" laws as follows,
Matt 28
“Which commandment is the most important of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ (VERTICAL) 31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ (HORIZONTAL) There is no other commandment greater than these.”


The term love your neighbour is yourself needs to be read in light of the details it summarizes. The vertical laws clearly tell me to love/respect my neighbour as myself, BUT read the 6 laws. TRUTH is that as my lawnmower is mine, I should respect that my neighbour's lawnmower is his and as my neighbour's wife is his, so I have a right to expect my neighbour will leave my wife alone. There are two sides to the coin. GRACE would also dictate that I will help my neighbour if in need. However, as much as I might need a lawnmower, I have no right to go and take my neighbour's. It explains why the right thing to do is to go and knock on his door and ask him if I could borrow his lawnmower if I need one. HOWEVER, he has no obligation to lend it to me, UNLESS he wants to extend GRACE. What is GRACE? It is good will, it's undeserved and unmerited. That is why my desire to borrow his mower does not trump his right to his mower. However, if he loves his neighbour as he loves himself he will likely will for me to borrow his mower as should I. Still it will still be GRACE (unmerited will, good will).


Now let's return to the detention centers. We're all created in God's image and migrants are no different. There is no excuse for treating anyone poorly. HOWEVER, just as it's perfectly clear that I have no right to go into your shed to "borrow" your mower, even go onto your property without permission a migrant has no right to enter the US other than by knocking on the door. As much as he might want me to extend GRACE to him, he has no right to simply come and take or enter without express permission. His desire for GRACE does not trump my right to be treated as he would like to be treated.
In light of the above it makes sense why it would be wrong for me to walk up to a migrant, whilst in Mexico and on his way to the US border,  and take his bottle of water. It would be wrong for me to kick him out of his tent at night, so me and my family can sleep there. Likewise it would be wrong for the migrant to enter the US without knocking on the door and being invited in. If I'm found in the migrant's tent I should be removed, even forcefully; me and my family, including my children. He can let my children stay, but that will be GRACE. Likewise if I'm found in your shed, you have every right to remove me or have me removed. If I have my 6 year old boy with me he should be removed with me to. If I step on a nail while in your shed, you can help me, but I don't acquire rights to stay. All the while it never give anyone an excuse for not treating someone as someone that was created in God's image.

Loving your neighbour like yourself consists of GRACE and TRUTH. Love is both and divorcing one from the other is the old one legged man in an ass kicking contest. Equally so the WHY!! Divorcing the vertical from the horizontal is meaningless. God redeemed and if we really get that then we will be inclined to share that GRACE and help. Just as we do not deserve God's GRACE, so the migrant does not deserve our help, which is WHY, if we get anything about what we were purposed for, we SHOULD help.


“I am the Lord your God (TRUTH), who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery (GRACE/REDEMPTION).

Let the US love the MIGRANTS as the US love themselves AND let the MIGRANTS love the US as they love themselves.


 
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 24, 2019, 08:02:18 AM
Quote
Let's look at the incentives. I don't think most people follow God "just to get into heaven." I think they follow God because God is righteousness. By following God one is doing the "right" or "good" thing.
Yea I think you are way off the mark here. Most people "follow god" because they are indoctrinated at a very young age. And I'd take a gander that, going down the list, there's a handful of other reasons ahead of "righteousness". But this is just my opinion, as you have yours.

None of that changes the fact that a good moral code should have intrinsic value, it should not need a divine goon to enforce it.

Quote
Most folks will say that human rights or morality come from one of two sources: God or evolution.
Well I've given you some alternatives including what is generally accepted as the source of 'natural rights', but OK I'll play along

Quote
Sure, you can say we don't know for sure (aliens, or subatomic particles) but if we assume it's one or the other, do you agree that there is not really a right or wrong?
No, I disagree with the strongest notion possible.

Quote
If you're going to say that it's up to the individual to determine meaning in their life, it's fair to say they determine what is moral or not.
Determining meaning in one's life is not the same as determining what is moral. So I would argue that it is not fair to say this.

Quote
So, if that's the case, why aren't you ago with those that post post the (nasty) things about AOC or immigrants? I would wager that if morality is not divine, that it's simply an illusion. As an illusion, it's up to each individual to determine if they think something is right or wrong.

So the question, ultimately is, do you think it's an illusion or not? I didn't which is why I had to jump to the side of theism. Unless there is a God, I don't see how it's not an illusion.
Well, I certainly do think morality does not require a god. I think the only argument I haven't made is the old socratic one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

Which essentially boils down to, is something "good" because god says so, or does god say something is "good" because it is inherently good?

Accepting the former is completely arbitrary. Accepting the latter proves morality is independent of god.

Ultimately I think I've presented a pretty strong case to the following:
(1) a secular morality may still define 'right' and 'wrong' (in fact, this is exactly reality as we know it)
(2) even if we assume a god created the universe, it doesn't mean he has prescribed a morality to us
(3) even if we assume a god created the universe AND we assume he has prescribed a morality to us, it doesn't mean you or any other religion know what that morality is

And I'm sure you feel just as strongly for believing what you do. But I do think we exhausted almost all the avenues of debate, so, cheers to us ;D

Let's invert. ;)

Most people "follow morality" because they are indoctrinated at a young age. You think that putting immigrants in detention centers is "bad" due to what society has taught you. It has no bearing on the true nature of reality. You could have been raised in an tribe and been trained to kill outsiders.


Why would you be so intolerant to not allow people to determine their own morality? You don't have any more insight than they do. As someone posted previously "your morality isn't my morality." The same system (the brain) that is creating meaning in another person's life also creates morality.

With euthyphro dilemma, I think it's a false dilemma. God isn't saying anything. I think God is goodness. Indeed, God's very nature/character is Goodness. God doesn't just "create" morality. It's not arbitrary. He is morality.

As a small aside (and certainly speculation on my part), in Genesis says "Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being. "

First, we are all formed from dust (stardust to be more precise):.

https://www.space.com/35276-humans-made-of-stardust-galaxy-life-elements.html

Second, I could be wrong here but I think the "breath of life" into us goes deeper than just being alive. Rather, it's our soul and conscience. God gave all of us a part of Himself. We can choose to follow that or not

I'm thinking that we evolved and were just regular primates at one time. God's "breath of life" is God giving us a part of himself - morality and consciousness. Which is, ultimately, what separated us from all the other animals.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 24, 2019, 05:49:31 PM
Quote
You think that putting immigrants in detention centers is "bad" due to what society has taught you. It has no bearing on the true nature of reality.
No, I've already presented my argument as to how secularism can determine objective morality.

Quote
Why would you be so intolerant to not allow people to determine their own morality?
Like I said above, I've already presented my argument on this.

Quote
With euthyphro dilemma, I think it's a false dilemma. God isn't saying anything. I think God is goodness. Indeed, God's very nature/character is Goodness. God doesn't just "create" morality. It's not arbitrary. He is morality.

God isn't saying anything? Ex 20 And God spoke all these words, saying,
You think God is goodness? Or God's very nature/character is Goodness? Well, which is it?
God didn't "create" morality, god IS morality? Nonsense, but I guess you need nonsense to explain his ridiculous biblical behavior.

Quote
As a small aside (and certainly speculation on my part), in Genesis says "Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being. "

First, we are all formed from dust (stardust to be more precise):.

https://www.space.com/35276-humans-made-of-stardust-galaxy-life-elements.html

Second, I could be wrong here but I think the "breath of life" into us goes deeper than just being alive. Rather, it's our soul and conscience. God gave all of us a part of Himself. We can choose to follow that or not

I'm thinking that we evolved and were just regular primates at one time. God's "breath of life" is God giving us a part of himself - morality and consciousness. Which is, ultimately, what separated us from all the other animals.
Quite the liberal interpretation. And you must realize stardust isn't actual dust.

And to me, it illustrates the olympic routine of mental gymnastics needed to reconcile bronze-age explanations of with modern scientific evidence.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 25, 2019, 04:06:06 AM
Love your neighbour as you love yourself. God's GRACE and TRUTH reflected in the face of Jesus and reflected in the face of Christians onto the world. Salt and light...

Forbes list of 100 largest charities in US - 2018
https://www.forbes.com/top-charities/list/

1. United Way - Founded in 1887, a Denver Jewish woman, a priest, two ministers and a rabbi got together...(Frances Wisebart Jacobs, the Rev. Myron W. Reed, Msgr. William J.O’Ryan, Dean H. Martyn Hart and Rabbi William S. Friedman)

https://www.forbes.com/companies/united-way-worldwide/?list=top-charities#3fe23a1671af
https://www.unitedway.org/about/history

2. Feeding America - Founded by a devout Roman Catholic John van Hengel
https://www.feedingamerica.org/about-us/our-history
https://www.forbes.com/companies/feeding-america/?list=top-charities#4d1128a0223f

3. Americares Foundation - Founded by Robert Macauley, Episcopalian
https://www.forbes.com/companies/americares-foundation/?list=top-charities#70a28bce7564
https://people.com/archive/with-an-entrepreneurs-energy-americares-bob-macauley-brings-help-to-the-worlds-needy-vol-31-no-21/

4. Task Force for Global Health - Founded by William Foege, Lutheren
https://www.forbes.com/companies/task-force-for-global-health/?list=top-charities#137700c4394c
https://www.wartburg.edu/2012/05/01/Medal-of-Freedom-goes-to-Graven-winner-Foege-son-of-Wartburg-graduate/

5. Salvation Army - Founded by Methodist Reform Church minister William Booth and his wife Catherine as the East London Christian Mission

https://www.forbes.com/companies/salvation-army/?list=top-charities#501d5a51cb57
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salvation_Army

...and so the list goes on


America's Top Colleges
https://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/list/

1. Harvard- "founded" by John Harvard.
At its inception, this university's name was "New College," and its purpose was mainly to educate clergy. In 1639, the school's name became Harvard University, so named for the Rev. John Harvard. Harvard bequeathed half of his estate and his entire library to the school upon his death. This significant bequest led the school to honor him by taking his name.
https://www.bestcollegereviews.org/history-behind-harvard-university/

https://www.forbes.com/colleges/harvard-university/

Motto: "Veritas" from the early motto "Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae, meaning "Truth for Christ and the Church"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Harvard_University

2. Yale- Founded by Connecticut Colony, the "Collegiate School" was established by clergy to educate Congregational ministers.
https://www.forbes.com/colleges/yale-university/

Motto: Lux et Veritas meaning "Light and Truth" in the Christian context as its 1972 college laws stated, "Every student shall consider ye main end of his study.to know God in Jesus Christ and answerably to lead a Godly sober life.”
http://archives.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/01_03/seal.html

3. Stanford University founded by Leland and Jane Stanford
"The Stanfords had intended that a church should become "the centerpiece of the university complex".[10] They were deeply religious, and for their day and social standing, "open-minded ecumenicalists",[11] so Jane Stanford was determined that a church built on campus be a "nondenominational—if essentially Protestant—house of worship"."

https://www.forbes.com/colleges/stanford-university/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Memorial_Church

Motto: "Die Luft der Freiheit weht" meaning the "wind of freedom blows" chosen by David Jordan, Stanford's first president

4. MIT founded by William Barton Rogers (faith unclear)
On April 10, 1861, the governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts signed a charter for the incorporation of the "Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Boston Society of Natural History" which had been submitted by William Barton Rogers, a natural scientist. Rogers sought to establish a new form of higher education to address the challenges posed by rapid advances in science and technology in the mid-19th century, that he believed classic institutions were ill-prepared to deal with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology
https://www.forbes.com/colleges/massachusetts-institute-of-technology/

Motto "Mens at Manus" meaning mind and hand.

5. Princeton - Founded by New Light Presbyterians

https://www.forbes.com/colleges/princeton-university/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Princeton_University

Motto: DEI SUB NUMINE VIGET or "Under God's power she flourishes."

https://princetoniana.princeton.edu/things-princeton/colors-shields


And so the list goes on....

Love is GRACE and TRUTH. Love in action should be a light and salt to the world....
The above are just a few examples of God's common GRACE we all enjoy....

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: bearprowler6 on July 25, 2019, 09:18:13 AM
Regarding the discussion on where the moral authority originates. For those who believe it all came from Christ...please ponder two situations:

i) So that means that no human before Christ was born had any moral compass. There were several centuries of human life before Christianity.

ii) And post the birth of Christ...for those societies that have absolutely no access to the teachings of Christ...for example todays North Korea....are all of its people without any moral compass. I would say this is highly unlikely to be the case. In fact, I would venture if we had the chance we would encounter many very moral people in North Korea who live by a stronger moral code than many western folks that have had ongoing exposure to Christs teachings.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 25, 2019, 01:26:43 PM
Quote
You think that putting immigrants in detention centers is "bad" due to what society has taught you. It has no bearing on the true nature of reality.
No, I've already presented my argument as to how secularism can determine objective morality.

Quote
Why would you be so intolerant to not allow people to determine their own morality?
Like I said above, I've already presented my argument on this.

Quote
With euthyphro dilemma, I think it's a false dilemma. God isn't saying anything. I think God is goodness. Indeed, God's very nature/character is Goodness. God doesn't just "create" morality. It's not arbitrary. He is morality.

God isn't saying anything? Ex 20 And God spoke all these words, saying,
You think God is goodness? Or God's very nature/character is Goodness? Well, which is it?
God didn't "create" morality, god IS morality? Nonsense, but I guess you need nonsense to explain his ridiculous biblical behavior.

Quote
As a small aside (and certainly speculation on my part), in Genesis says "Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being. "

First, we are all formed from dust (stardust to be more precise):.

https://www.space.com/35276-humans-made-of-stardust-galaxy-life-elements.html

Second, I could be wrong here but I think the "breath of life" into us goes deeper than just being alive. Rather, it's our soul and conscience. God gave all of us a part of Himself. We can choose to follow that or not

I'm thinking that we evolved and were just regular primates at one time. God's "breath of life" is God giving us a part of himself - morality and consciousness. Which is, ultimately, what separated us from all the other animals.
Quite the liberal interpretation. And you must realize stardust isn't actual dust.

And to me, it illustrates the olympic routine of mental gymnastics needed to reconcile bronze-age explanations of with modern scientific evidence.

lc, you have presented why you think secular morality is there but that is certainly not objective. "I don't like pain. If I cause someone else pain, I know that's bad so I don't do it." That is nonsense. If bringing someone else pain brings me comfort, I don't see what that shouldn't be okay - especially if I have the ability to do it. Humanity has a history of this type of action. I think in this time of abundance, people often forget about that. If we are ever desperate again for resources, your "objective morality" will be thrown out the window.

Even with this said, if one feels "pain" that is simply an byproduct of evolution. Here's an example:

Let's say all food only grew in places with pointy, sharp rocks. As we evolved, humans that enjoyed pain (and there are those folks out there) were the best at getting food. Since they could get food, they were the most popular and now their genetics are in all of us. Therefore, pain is "good". It is by sheer luck that people evolved the way they did to value the things they did. That is not objective - that is just luck. At least be honest about it. That's why, as Shakespeare once said "Why, then, 'tis none to you, for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison. Well, then it isn't one to you, since nothing is really good or bad in itself—it's all what a person thinks about it."

The same can be said for colors. Let's say that all food was colored yellow. Because of this, studies have shown that 99% of the population favors yellow over every other color. Now we have "objective" evidence that yellow is the best color. Do you agree with that? So is this objective or the illusion of objectivity?

lc, as I've asked before, why do you trust your sense of morality if you don't know (or don't even think you know) where it came from?

Why is it "nonsense" of God is morality or of his character?

Yes, the stardust and evolution is pure speculation. I even said that!
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 25, 2019, 01:41:11 PM
Regarding the discussion on where the moral authority originates. For those who believe it all came from Christ...please ponder two situations:

i) So that means that no human before Christ was born had any moral compass. There were several centuries of human life before Christianity.

ii) And post the birth of Christ...for those societies that have absolutely no access to the teachings of Christ...for example todays North Korea....are all of its people without any moral compass. I would say this is highly unlikely to be the case. In fact, I would venture if we had the chance we would encounter many very moral people in North Korea who live by a stronger moral code than many western folks that have had ongoing exposure to Christs teachings.

I think morality comes from God. Since God created man, God existed before all men. God has written moral laws on the heart of man. So, in essence, morality transcends each of us.

If morality isn't from God, and is simply an evolutionary quirk (or a subatomic particle or alien invention as lc seems to think it might be), I see no reason to value it nearly as deeply as we do. Indeed often times people will go against their best interest to do the "right thing." If all of the "right things" in life are simply made up in our own mind (they don't transcend us), it is irrational to blindly follow that.

Our mind can simply change the definition of "right" and "wrong" to suit our best interests. Anything less is irrational.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 25, 2019, 03:39:51 PM
Quote
If bringing someone else pain brings me comfort, I don't see what that shouldn't be okay - especially if I have the ability to do it.
And this is sadism, psychopathy, i.e. those unable to empathize and identify human rights.

Quote
Humanity has a history of this type of action.
And this proves nothing. I could just as easily attribute it to religion. I'm sure we both agree all types of people (believers, nonbeleivers, etc) commit immoral acts. We just disagree where the morality comes from.

Quote
If we are ever desperate again for resources, your "objective morality" will be thrown out the window.
First, do you have any evidence for this claim? Second again this proves nothing. People can just as easily toss out a divine morality.

Quote
Let's say all food only grew in places with pointy, sharp rocks. As we evolved, humans that enjoyed pain (and there are those folks out there) were the best at getting food. Since they could get food, they were the most popular and now their genetics are in all of us. Therefore, pain is "good".
Logically extremely rocky areas do not hold water and over time natural selection would probably remove edible plant life from these areas.

So your hypothetical is just as preposterous as me saying, "What if god is actually Satan and has been lying and messing with us this entire time, for his own sadistic pleasure?"

But hey let's ignore all that and just list your assumptions:

1. All food does not grow in places with pointy sharp rocks.
2. Even if it did, isn't it more reasonable that the smartest (not most masochistic) humans gathered the most food?
3. Even if all the food grew in pointy places, and no human could figure out how to use a stick, it doesn't mean we would recognize pain as "good", and start practicing sadism and masochism towards each other. It would be a means to an end. Similar to hunting animals to eat.

Quote
The same can be said for colors. Let's say that all food was colored yellow. Because of this, studies have shown that 99% of the population favors yellow over every other color. Now we have "objective" evidence that yellow is the best color. Do you agree with that? So is this objective or the illusion of objectivity?
This is another strawman. And I think it's the exact same one as you presented earlier although I am too lazy (immoral?) to check  ;D

Quote
lc, as I've asked before, why do you trust your sense of morality if you don't know (or don't even think you know) where it came from?
As you've asked before, and I've answered before. Humans can independently identify natural rights. Humans can independently identify good and bad. This is what we need to form the basis of morality, which we have done.

Quote
Why is it "nonsense" of God is morality or of his character?
If a characteristic of god is "good", it means that "good" exists independently of god. And therefore, god is not the origin of "good".
If god is literally "goodness", then goodness is essentially whatever god is. And since god can be anything, whenever he wants, for whatever reason he wants, then so can "good".
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 26, 2019, 01:55:09 AM
Regarding the discussion on where the moral authority originates. For those who believe it all came from Christ...please ponder two situations:

i) So that means that no human before Christ was born had any moral compass. There were several centuries of human life before Christianity.


Bearprowler6 in some ways you are correct that it all came from Christ. Christ is the center of the redemption story and redemption is the only thing that can make us morally right with God. We're all sinners and as the saying goes the difference between me and someone that has not accepted Christ is that I've been forgiven, but I'm still a sinner.

The Good News in a nutshell is that God, who Created us in their image, is perfect, including morally perfect. We chose to sin against our Creator and to restore our relationship we have to do or give something, just as you will be paying a fine when found guilty of something in a court of law. However, we're unable to pay what is required, so God provided by GRACE His Son, Jesus to die in our stead. Jesus can pay the price, because He came to earth and experienced it as fully man, BUT without sin and then died on the cross for me and you in order to pay that price. That is why Jesus said on the cross, "it is finished" (John 19:30). Therefore no matter how small or how severe, how morally seemingly insignificant or how morally ghastly (in human judgement), Jesus paid it all.

Where the line slightly deviates from your thinking is that the Bible clearly states that Jesus (the incarnate Christ) has been there since the beginning as part of the triune God (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit). Read John 1:1 " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." with John 1:14 " And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."

Another maybe more familiar statement, which makes sense in light of the above is the interaction Jesus had in John

John 8:52 "‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.’ 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?” 54 Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’ 55 But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” 57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.

Having said that it will hopefully make sense to you why it refers to God in the plural (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) when we were created.

Gen1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...”

So you are correct that we get our moral compass in part from Jesus, because He is part of God and we were created in the image of God, but God, including Jesus, has been there from before we were created.

Quote
ii) And post the birth of Christ...for those societies that have absolutely no access to the teachings of Christ...for example todays North Korea....are all of its people without any moral compass. I would say this is highly unlikely to be the case. In fact, I would venture if we had the chance we would encounter many very moral people in North Korea who live by a stronger moral code than many western folks that have had ongoing exposure to Christs teachings.

Bearprowler6 there is a lot to unpack in that question. I don't think it is correct to equate moral compass with the fact whether people heard Jesus teachings or not. There are plenty that heard Jesus' teachings and have no moral compass. However if I read your question carefully it seems to be asking about the sufficiency of one's moral code. So at the risk of misinterpreting your question the Bible is clear that nobody is good enough. God is LOVE and it consists of GRACE and TRUTH. We naturally like the GRACE part, but not so much the TRUTH. Therefore I don't expect you to like to hear the following, but the Bible is clear that none of us are good enough to be "morally" right with God (TRUTH). Unlike ALL other religions Christianity is exclusive in that it is not a matter of works (stuff we can do), but it's about accepting the free gift of Jesus (GRACE). You can NEVER work your way into being right with God (TRUTH), but only by accepting Jesus to stand in your stead (GRACE). You can never be morally good enough, because God is morally perfect and we've chosen to sin against Him and continually do it (TRUTH). We've fallen so far anyway. It is amazing to me when one talk about morals that I always think, well I'm not so bad am I? What do you think about yourself? However, whenever we measure against God's standards then we realize we all fall short (except Jesus).
Have you ever stolen? Ever taken God's name in vain? Ever looked at a woman or man lustfully  (adultery according to Jesus)? etc. Just read the 10 Commandments and ask yourself the simple question, guilty or not? So morally good or bad? Heaven or Hell? https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A1-18&version=ESV

So even when you heard the message or even when you've accepted Jesus (The Only Way to God) you're not good enough on your own. "Isaiah 64:6 We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment." and also Romans 10 as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;. The ONLY way to get morally right with God is by accepting Jesus John 14:6  Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

Lastly, I'm not sure whether you were implicitly asking what about someone that has not heard about Christ? Will they be going to hell? Happy to explore that though if interested.


Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 26, 2019, 02:07:23 AM
Quote
Why is it "nonsense" of God is morality or of his character?
If a characteristic of god is "good", it means that "good" exists independently of god. And therefore, god is not the origin of "good".
If god is literally "goodness", then goodness is essentially whatever god is. And since god can be anything, whenever he wants, for whatever reason he wants, then so can "good".

LC where's the logic?

If a characteristic of LC is "his face", it means that "his face" exists independently of LC. And therefore, LC is not the origin of "his face".
If LC is literally "his face", then "his face" is essentially whatever LC is. And since LC can be anything, whenever he wants, for whatever reason he wants, then so can "his face".

Surely you see the contradiction?

If a characteristic of god is "good" v If god is literally "goodness"





Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 26, 2019, 01:35:58 PM
No I don't see the contradiction. You have changed the premise by using "hisface". To maintain the same logical structure, I would say that I am not the origin of "faces", for example.

Why don't you take a shot:

Is something "good" because god says so, or does god say something is "good" because it is inherently good?


Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 26, 2019, 02:22:24 PM
Quote
If bringing someone else pain brings me comfort, I don't see what that shouldn't be okay - especially if I have the ability to do it.
And this is sadism, psychopathy, i.e. those unable to empathize and identify human rights.

Quote
Humanity has a history of this type of action.
And this proves nothing. I could just as easily attribute it to religion. I'm sure we both agree all types of people (believers, nonbeleivers, etc) commit immoral acts. We just disagree where the morality comes from.

Quote
If we are ever desperate again for resources, your "objective morality" will be thrown out the window.
First, do you have any evidence for this claim? Second again this proves nothing. People can just as easily toss out a divine morality.

Quote
Let's say all food only grew in places with pointy, sharp rocks. As we evolved, humans that enjoyed pain (and there are those folks out there) were the best at getting food. Since they could get food, they were the most popular and now their genetics are in all of us. Therefore, pain is "good".
Logically extremely rocky areas do not hold water and over time natural selection would probably remove edible plant life from these areas.

So your hypothetical is just as preposterous as me saying, "What if god is actually Satan and has been lying and messing with us this entire time, for his own sadistic pleasure?"

But hey let's ignore all that and just list your assumptions:

1. All food does not grow in places with pointy sharp rocks.
2. Even if it did, isn't it more reasonable that the smartest (not most masochistic) humans gathered the most food?
3. Even if all the food grew in pointy places, and no human could figure out how to use a stick, it doesn't mean we would recognize pain as "good", and start practicing sadism and masochism towards each other. It would be a means to an end. Similar to hunting animals to eat.

Quote
The same can be said for colors. Let's say that all food was colored yellow. Because of this, studies have shown that 99% of the population favors yellow over every other color. Now we have "objective" evidence that yellow is the best color. Do you agree with that? So is this objective or the illusion of objectivity?
This is another strawman. And I think it's the exact same one as you presented earlier although I am too lazy (immoral?) to check  ;D

Quote
lc, as I've asked before, why do you trust your sense of morality if you don't know (or don't even think you know) where it came from?
As you've asked before, and I've answered before. Humans can independently identify natural rights. Humans can independently identify good and bad. This is what we need to form the basis of morality, which we have done.

Quote
Why is it "nonsense" of God is morality or of his character?
If a characteristic of god is "good", it means that "good" exists independently of god. And therefore, god is not the origin of "good".
If god is literally "goodness", then goodness is essentially whatever god is. And since god can be anything, whenever he wants, for whatever reason he wants, then so can "good".
Sadism is still an product of evolution. It's by the sheer luck that the universe was created the way it was that most of us aren't sadists.

It's doesn't take a strong imagination to see how people react when resources are limited. Look at Black Friday! That's for a consumer good. Let's see what happens with a limited amount of clean water.

No, lc, the Satan comment is nothing like my example. People, plants and animals grew because the universe was set up in certain way (either by a Mind or chance). If the universe had been formed in another way, it's not unreasonable at all to think that plants, people and animals would have evolved in a different way. If people would have evolved in a different way, it's fair to say their morality would have been different too.

If humans can, independently, identity human rights, why do isolated tribes automatically try to kill outsiders?


Yes, I think God can choose to be good but wouldn't chose to be anything other than that. Why would he want to violate his own laws?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 29, 2019, 04:48:36 AM
Quote
Why is it "nonsense" of God is morality or of his character?
If a characteristic of god is "good", it means that "good" exists independently of god. And therefore, god is not the origin of "good".
If god is literally "goodness", then goodness is essentially whatever god is. And since god can be anything, whenever he wants, for whatever reason he wants, then so can "good".

LC where's the logic?

If a characteristic of LC is "his face", it means that "his face" exists independently of LC. And therefore, LC is not the origin of "his face".
If LC is literally "his face", then "his face" is essentially whatever LC is. And since LC can be anything, whenever he wants, for whatever reason he wants, then so can "his face".

Surely you see the contradiction?

If a characteristic of god is "good" v If god is literally "goodness"
No I don't see the contradiction. You have changed the premise by using "hisface". To maintain the same logical structure, I would say that I am not the origin of "faces", for example.

Why don't you take a shot:

Is something "good" because god says so, or does god say something is "good" because it is inherently good?


LC I'm afraid I still don't following your logic. I'm not even getting off the starting line with your proposition, "If a characteristic of god is "good", it means that "good" exists independently of god."

The reason I changed out the person and attribute in your premise is because it exposes the faulty logic on which your inference is based.

A characteristic or attribute by definition implies it is part of something and not independent.

noun: attribute; plural noun: attributes
/ˈatrɪbjuːt/
1. a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something.

https://www.google.com/search?q=attribute&oq=attribute&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.5607j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

It exposes what you're basically saying is that because A is part of something, A exists independently. It is an obvious contradiction. 

Furthermore if you dig into what the word "good" actually means then you identify another problem with your premise. Popular etymology will show "good" to come from the Old English "gōd". So based on popular etymology your premise reads If a characteristic of god is "gōd", it means that "gōd" exists independently of god.
https://www.google.com/search?q=good+etymology&oq=good+et&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j0l4.5127j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Aside from the obvious problems with the structure of your argument you have to ponder why would etymology of the word "good" point you to God?

You might be interested to learn that the first recorded use of the word "good" in the Bible is in Gen 1:3 when light was created and "the light was good." In this case it is a translation of the Hebrew word "tōv" and "good" doesn't do the Hebrew meaning justice, the more accurate meaning is "to be in harmony with God". It is noteworthy that "tōv" was also only used in relation to man before The Fall, when man was still in harmony with God.
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/35798/in-genesis-131-what-does-very-good-mean

In conclusion I think it's interesting that the popular etymology/the root of the word "good" we ALL use points you to God and then also the Bible explains that God sits at the heart of what "good" is. God is an absolute standard and "good" is that which runs along the grain of His Creation, that which is in harmony with God, that which is used for the purpose it was created. Food for thought...

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 29, 2019, 10:08:31 AM
Dodging it.

Is something "good" because god says so, or does god say something is "good" because it is inherently good?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 30, 2019, 08:55:24 AM
Dodging it.

Is something "good" because god says so, or does god say something is "good" because it is inherently good?

I think too many people see God as an old man in a chair that says and does things. I look at God as more like a being or energy or something along that line. Our minds can't fully comprehend God but we see bits and pieces like his goodness. So this Being came into the world as Jesus so that we could understand a bit better.

If we assume that God is love, why couldn't God also be goodness?

Getting back to the other post, if the world had come about in a different way or we had evolved differently, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that sadism could be as valued by that society as charity is in ours? Perhaps they might even look down on charity or love with disdain or as a quality of the mentally deranged.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 30, 2019, 09:31:42 AM
See you start off describing what I would characterize is closer to the Deist position. God is an "energy" etc. And I don't have much argument with the deist case. That said, I don't think for a second that god is "love" and "good". I think these exist completely independent of a deity, and furthermore I'd say the evidence leans towards that conclusion.

But see when you go and take this "energy" and then toss jesus in the mix, this is where I get up in arms. The god of jesus is very much a personal god. This god apparently intervenes in humanity. This god tells us what to do. And although I have no idea what this supposed god wants of us, YOU apparently do (this is the 3rd person "you"). And your only "evidence" for this, is a bronze age book written by uneducated tribesmen.

Now, to your hypothetical on the evolution of morality - yes I think that's a possibility, only not in this universe. Worth noting is that your hypothetical most likely requires either a complete re-adjustment of (1) the human species, or (2) the very laws of nature (or both!). So I would say that it probably could not happen in this universe, but I wouldn't say it's a complete impossibility.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on July 30, 2019, 11:23:04 AM
I'll admit I'm biased here but with the deist case, it seems to make more sense that if a deity exists, it would probably interact with its creation. It makes little sense to create something just to go off and do something else. Since people have a longing for God, it seems to me a theistic God is more likely. 

I'll say that if God doesn't exist (in either version) love is simply a chemical reaction - we just think that it means more than it really does. If we had a machine that created the love chemical in our brain, we would value that equally as we do the love chemical that our spouse produces. In fact, we might value the machine more because it's all love all the time. ;)

Further, goodness is all up the the person who determines it. Since there is nothing that transcends humanity and all humans are programmed to think the way they do due to genetic programming (that they have no control over!), no one has any real insight into goodness. Just like in the alternative reality of humans valuing sadism over charity - they just ended up with a different roll of the dice than we did. Now, if deity that existed that put moral laws of His essence into each, we could then start to get into objective definition of "goodness."

Uneducated tribesman? Really?

Not exactly a conservative source:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/were-the-disciples-of-jes_b_9508024

"Don’t assume the disciples were all of humble means or uneducated.

Although some of Jesus’ disciples may have been poor and uneducated, it is likely that some of them were rich, well-educated, and synagogue-trained. Matthew 9:9 identifies Matthew as a tax collector, so he was probably fluent in the languages spoken in his area (Greek, Latin, Aramaic).

Colossians 4:14 tells us that Luke was educated as a doctor. Luke 8:3 states that Joanna was the wife of Herod’s steward, so she would have lived a comfortable lifestyle on the palace grounds. Luke 23:50 describes Joseph of Arimathea as a member of the Sanhedrin. The fact that he was able to provide a tomb for Jesus indicates he had some wealth."

Or perhaps a little bit more about Paul?

It won't let me copy it but here's more information about his education:

https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/who-was-paul-his-early-life-and-why-it-matters

Or from NT Wright (a New Testament scholar) said:

"WRIGHT: Absolutely. I mean, I started off studying ancient history before I started theology. I was looking at people like the Emperor Augustus, and philosophers like Seneca and so on before I ever turned my attention to Paul. I want to say, Paul is up there along with people like Cicero and Seneca.

He didn’t write as much but, he was every bit as influential. When we come back to our own age, over the last 200 years, Paul is up there with Thomas Jefferson or Karl Marx or Václav Havel or people like that. These are great thinkers who have actually changed the way that history moves through their thinking, actions and writings."

Not bad for a bunch of "uneducated tribesmen."

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 30, 2019, 12:24:06 PM
Dodging it.

Is something "good" because god says so, or does god say something is "good" because it is inherently good?
Happy to answer it LC or any other questions you might care to put to me, because I can only grow if I'm being challenged. However, as I said I'm not even getting off the starting line with your proposition. Once again you're seem to be backing away when I'm challenging you on an obvious contradiction. Remember, "I think some acts are objectively bad. But then again, that is just my subjective opinion"?

It has been mentioned on CoB&F that you essentially bait and switch or hit and run when you reason. In my experience that is fair comment (as you do again here) and I think you do everyone here including yourself a disservice. You bring a lot to the table, but can bring so much more if you stay within the larger structure of the discussion in a coherent way. Ironing sharpening iron, rather than frustrate.

The broader framework is helpful when we discuss worldviews,

Origin
Meaning
Morality
Destiny


For something to be true it has to answer those questions and be logically consistent, empirically adequate and experientially relevant.

For example when we talk about "good" or "goodness" and for it to be true it has to fit into the above framework. Also bear in mind your question, "Is something "good" because god says so, or does god say something is "good" because it is inherently good?" when I discuss this. Goodness is one of the many attributes of God, others being e.g. Aseity, Eternity, Goodness, Graciousness, Holiness, Immanence, Immutability, etc, etc. The fact that God is eternal, immutable etc means His attributes are likewise and therefore I don't think something is good because God says so, neither because it is inherently good. I think it's something slightly different. Firstly God is absolute and one of His attributes is goodness. Secondly in light of my prior post around the Hebrew word for good "tōv", meaning "in harmony with God" something is not good because God says so, neither is it good because it is inherently good, it is good because it is in harmony with God. It generally runs along the grain of God and His Creation rather than against it.

Now when we step back for a moment consider this. I believe in God, I believe He created me (origin), He tells me before I was born He knew me (meaning), He tells me what is right or wrong, what is good (morality) and He tells me what my purpose is and where I fit in, in eternity (destiny).
When I get asked a question such as "Is something "good" because god says so, or does god say something is "good" because it is inherently good?" I can answer it in a logically consistent way (shown above). Empirically there is adequate evidence for me that loving God is good,  honouring your Father is good, not murdering is good, etc. Lastly my relevant experience of good things like knowing God, worship, my family, Creation, complexity of the human biology, galaxies, etc, etc versus experience of bad things like murder, abortion, hate, age, death, etc, etc backs up the Biblical view of good.

Therefore approaching a particular question without losing sight of the bigger picture is powerful and I venture you will gain much by it rather then just picking random pieces to try and tear down or frustrate others' arguments. I've gained much by your question as it served to reinforce my worldview.

For you to consider is what has atheism to offer when answering that same question, ""Is something "good" because god says so, or does god say something is "good" because it is inherently good?"

How does the answers fit in with the basic questions of life and how does it score on the test for TRUTH?

Origin (no god)
Meaning (no meaning)
Morality (subjective, changeable)
Destiny (cosmic dust at best)

Logically consistent - In light of the above why should there be good at all?
Empirically adequate - Human history does not convince me of any consistent standard that can even be attempted to be called good outside of God.
Experientially relevant - Again just based on my experience from the world it shouts out Creation and Creator. For me it's as simple as looking up at the stars at night.

So how about you get back to your unanswered question...Dodger ;-)
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on July 30, 2019, 12:41:30 PM
See you start off describing what I would characterize is closer to the Deist position. God is an "energy" etc. And I don't have much argument with the deist case. That said, I don't think for a second that god is "love" and "good". I think these exist completely independent of a deity, and furthermore I'd say the evidence leans towards that conclusion.

But see when you go and take this "energy" and then toss jesus in the mix, this is where I get up in arms. The god of jesus is very much a personal god. This god apparently intervenes in humanity. This god tells us what to do. And although I have no idea what this supposed god wants of us, YOU apparently do (this is the 3rd person "you"). And your only "evidence" for this, is a bronze age book written by uneducated tribesmen.

Now, to your hypothetical on the evolution of morality - yes I think that's a possibility, only not in this universe. Worth noting is that your hypothetical most likely requires either a complete re-adjustment of (1) the human species, or (2) the very laws of nature (or both!). So I would say that it probably could not happen in this universe, but I wouldn't say it's a complete impossibility.

LC why does it "get you up in arms"? Why exactly what bothers you so much? Clearly it's very personal personal to you or at least it seems like it. Why?
You know Jesus talked about this in John 15:18 “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you."

Why would a God that does not exist and a man that was clearly nuts by claiming to a) be God and b) be His Son get you up in arms?

I'm really asking this rhetorically.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 30, 2019, 01:28:08 PM
Mr. B I've answered your question on objective morality. You might want to revisit those posts since you glossed over it.

Quote
something is not good because God says so, neither is it good because it is inherently good, it is good because it is in harmony with God.
You're trying to have it both ways. "In harmony with god" is a nice way of saying "inherently good", because your assumption is that god = good.

The contrapositive illustrates this. If something is un-harmonious with god, can it still be good? Not by your logic.

Quote
For you to consider is what has atheism to offer when answering that same question, ""Is something "good" because god says so, or does god say something is "good" because it is inherently good?"

I answered this earlier when talking with Paul. It comes from our humanity and our natural rights as living beings.

Quote
How does the answers fit in with the basic questions of life and how does it score on the test for TRUTH?
Well firstly, your "test for truth" is anything but.

However I'll play along:

Origin (no god) - as far as we know, the natural universe
Meaning (no meaning) - defined by ourselves
Morality (subjective, changeable) - based in humanity
Destiny (cosmic dust at best) - a wonderfully temporal life

I vastly prefer this to fairy tales of eternity and certainty.

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 30, 2019, 01:43:51 PM
Quote
I'll admit I'm biased here but with the deist case, it seems to make more sense that if a deity exists, it would probably interact with its creation. It makes little sense to create something just to go off and do something else.
Well I disagree. Something along the lines of "if you love it, set it free". You can't be there forever watching over the shoulder.

Quote
I'll say that if God doesn't exist (in either version) love is simply a chemical reaction - we just think that it means more than it really does
Well perhaps, but I would say that love is transcendent to the people it affects. This is again my response to Mr. B's question from back a few pages. Would "love" exist if no living creature existed? Like morality, I would argue that love comes from life and humanity.

Quote
Further, goodness is all up the the person who determines it. Since there is nothing that transcends humanity and all humans are programmed to think the way they do due to genetic programming (that they have no control over!), no one has any real insight into goodness.
I've already said, that I've already said, that I've already said how we can determine "good" and "bad" without divine influence. I think at this point you may be repeating it to convince yourself :D

As to transcendence of humanity - sure there is. Life, for example, is greater than our humanity.

As to the uneducated tribesman, I'll take you over the biblical Paul any day of the week.  ;D
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on July 30, 2019, 01:53:20 PM
Quote
LC why does it "get you up in arms"? Why exactly what bothers you so much? Clearly it's very personal personal to you or at least it seems like it. Why?
Well, "up in arms" is simply a figure of speech. I could have said "draw the line". But more generally, I think that religious belief is a crutch on humanity, both at its core (belief without evidence) and its various forms (all which display the arrogance of certainty). And, I like to speak out against it.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on August 01, 2019, 03:12:51 AM
Mr. B I've answered your question on objective morality. You might want to revisit those posts since you glossed over it.
Frustrating again LC. You know I was referring to post 197, where
a) you contradict yourself by saying "because A is part of something, A exists independently.", and
b) you cannot explain how the word "good" in popular etymology derived from the word "gōd"
 

Quote
something is not good because God says so, neither is it good because it is inherently good, it is good because it is in harmony with God.
Quote
You're trying to have it both ways. "In harmony with god" is a nice way of saying "inherently good", because your assumption is that god = good.

The contrapositive illustrates this. If something is un-harmonious with god, can it still be good? Not by your logic.

No I'm simply saying both your propositions are wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Firstly, let's go back to post 197 again. Something is not good because God says it's good, it's good because it's in harmony with an attribute of God. If I point to a blue wall and say it's blue, it does not become blue because I say so, it's blue because it measures up against the standard of blue (CAUS in the US).

Secondly, it also did not become a blue, it's still a wall.
Not that complicated really, is it? Simple logic.

The contrapositive does in fact support my proposition. You stated "If something is un-harmonious with god, can it still be good? Not by your logic" Correct. Something that is un-harmonious with God cannot be good. Again as in post 197 the etymology of the antonyms point directly to disharmony in the context of God. When I Google "good + antonyms" I get two words "bad" and "wicked". Bad - "of poor quality or a low standard". Would that not include disharmony? Disharmony with what? No surprise where "wicked" leads you, the word is derived from "witch".

Quote
For you to consider is what has atheism to offer when answering that same question, ""Is something "good" because god says so, or does god say something is "good" because it is inherently good?"

Quote
I answered this earlier when talking with Paul. It comes from our humanity and our natural rights as living beings.

Yep, natural rights like these "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"

Also just for fun,

natural
/ˈnatʃ(ə)r(ə)l/
adjective
1. existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.

or as the Cambridge dictionary put it, "not involving anything made or done by people:"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/natural

So interesting thought; how you create something metaphysical such as good if you remove people and deny God.

Quote
How does the answers fit in with the basic questions of life and how does it score on the test for TRUTH?

Well firstly, your "test for truth" is anything but.

However I'll play along:

Origin (no god) - as far as we know, the natural universe
Meaning (no meaning) - defined by ourselves
Morality (subjective, changeable) - based in humanity
Destiny (cosmic dust at best) - a wonderfully temporal life

I vastly prefer this to fairy tales of eternity and certainty.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on August 01, 2019, 03:39:17 AM
Quote
LC why does it "get you up in arms"? Why exactly what bothers you so much? Clearly it's very personal personal to you or at least it seems like it. Why?
Well, "up in arms" is simply a figure of speech. I could have said "draw the line". But more generally, I think that religious belief is a crutch on humanity, both at its core (belief without evidence) and its various forms (all which display the arrogance of certainty). And, I like to speak out against it.

I cannot agree more LC! Jesus is the crutch humanity, me more than most, needs to become right with God. A position I accept in humble submission. It is the exact opposite of "arrogance of certainty". It is not possible to have an arrogant heart when you acknowledge that a) you've sinned against your almighty Creator and b) there is nothing you can do, but to accept the free gift of His Son to become right with Him. Trust me, no arrogance there.

Why would I take anyone else's word, but the One that created it all? Certainly not someone that tells me we came from nothing, this is just a blip and to nothing we go when everything around me shouts creation. If I walk along a path and pick up a book that is written in a language I understand I will assume someone wrote it. I just don't buy the argument that the book just fell out of the sky, worse yet, just one letter dropped and then over billions of years it developed into a book. Makes no sense.

LC you know what I find very interesting is that you say you have no argument with the Deist case. However you clearly take issue with a personal God. Indicates to me the age old problem of heart versus mind. Your heart is telling you there is a God, however your mind recognizes that if you accept a personal God you have to deal with Him on His terms. Not an easy road to travel from "arrogance of certainty" to humble submission. If you want to understand more about the "Logic of God" then I great read is the following book.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Logic-God-Ravi-Zacharias/dp/0310454034

It will measure up against your intellectual stamina!



Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on August 01, 2019, 10:06:26 AM
Quote
Frustrating again LC. You know I was referring to post 197, where
a) you contradict yourself by saying "because A is part of something, A exists independently.", and
b) you cannot explain how the word "good" in popular etymology derived from the word "gōd"
 
I actually didn't know what post you were referring to  :-[
Anyways, the argument is closer to "because part of something is A, A exists independently of that something". Or really, "because part of something echoes A.... etc".

As to the etymology, it is pointless. The word "clue" originates from a greek myth around the minotaur. Now, the minotaur never existed, but "clues" certainly exist.

Quote
Something is not good because God says it's good, it's good because it's in harmony with an attribute of God. If I point to a blue wall and say it's blue, it does not become blue because I say so, it's blue because it measures up against the standard of blue (CAUS in the US).
By your logic, if something can only be considered good if it "is in harmony" with god's goodness, and god creates and defines goodness, so yes, it is a nice roundabout way of saying "something is good because god says it's good".

Quote
The contrapositive does in fact support my proposition. You stated "If something is un-harmonious with god, can it still be good? Not by your logic" Correct. Something that is un-harmonious with God cannot be good. Again as in post 197 the etymology of the antonyms point directly to disharmony in the context of God. When I Google "good + antonyms" I get two words "bad" and "wicked". Bad - "of poor quality or a low standard". Would that not include disharmony? Disharmony with what? No surprise where "wicked" leads you, the word is derived from "witch".
This is a fallacious point (again, the origin of a word is essentially meaningless in the context of this discussion). But I think the point is addressed with my response directly above.

Quote
Yep, natural rights like these "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"

Also just for fun,

natural
/ˈnatʃ(ə)r(ə)l/
adjective
1. existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.

or as the Cambridge dictionary put it, "not involving anything made or done by people:"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/natural

So interesting thought; how you create something metaphysical such as good if you remove people and deny God.

Interesting question indeed and, unlike the religious, I have no certain answer (I like to throw the jab when I can ;)).

Perhaps metaphysical things such as "good" and love" exist in a similar fashion to physical laws such as gravity. I.e. they are both a product and a requirement of the universe's existence.

Or perhaps they are a function or an expression of life itself. Life, as you correctly point out, is not the same as humanity. But without life could there be love? good and bad? If the tree falls....however a tree exists physically in the universe, not metaphysically. Also goes to the subjective vs objective aspect as we tried discussing earlier  ;D ;D



Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on August 01, 2019, 10:11:02 AM
Quote
LC you know what I find very interesting is that you say you have no argument with the Deist case. However you clearly take issue with a personal God. Indicates to me the age old problem of heart versus mind. Your heart is telling you there is a God, however your mind recognizes that if you accept a personal God you have to deal with Him on His terms.
No I wouldn't say that's an accurate characterization.

I have no argument with the Deist case because it's essentially impossible to disprove. At the end of the day, the Deist can always say, "yes but god created evolution, god created the big bang, etc. etc." And the Deist can just say, "well yes we have no evidence for it, but only because we cannot possibly find such evidence or we just haven't discovered it yet". It's Russell's teapot on a cosmic scale.

And hey, there may be a miniscule probability that it is in fact the truth. However, as I've said countless times now, going from a deist to a theist is simply baloney  ;D
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on August 02, 2019, 02:56:51 AM
Quote
Frustrating again LC. You know I was referring to post 197, where
a) you contradict yourself by saying "because A is part of something, A exists independently.", and
b) you cannot explain how the word "good" in popular etymology derived from the word "gōd"
 
I actually didn't know what post you were referring to  :-[
Anyways, the argument is closer to "because part of something is A, A exists independently of that something". Or really, "because part of something echoes A.... etc".

As to the etymology, it is pointless. The word "clue" originates from a greek myth around the minotaur. Now, the minotaur never existed, but "clues" certainly exist.
LC you just go by the numbers. Work your way back to post number 197
http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/politics/just-in-case-anyone-forgot/msg377351/#msg377351
That was a cheap shot, but you did leave your arms hanging ;-)

Seriously though you should know better than pushing for etymology being pointless and then try to back it up with an incorrect fact. "Clue" is "anything that guides or directs in an intricate case", which is revised spelling of clew meaning "a ball of thread or yarn".
https://www.etymonline.com/word/clue

Words are the way we connect the metaphysical with the physical and make sense of our world, it is fundamental to how we establish the TRUTH, how we navigate reality. Words are simply AMAZING!!

Think about what I said before. A worldview must answer the basic questions of origin, meaning, morals and destiny and those answers must be coherent and for it to be TRUE they need to be logically consistent, empirical adequate and experimentally relevant. How can you possibly do this without words and what are words if not the very metaphysical essence they convey and move the physical world?

Here's a thought for you. Every single thing you see around you comes from the earth. A few hundred years ago people were slogging it out, walking hundreds of miles on foot, while underneath their feet there were planes, trains and automobiles. It took ideas (metaphysical), conveyed by words (translating metaphysical to physical) to organize the physical to the point that you took elements from the ground underneath our feet to fashion a plane. Fundamentally the earth is just a big ole ball of clay out of which we fashion weird and wonderful things. 

How was earth created?
Gen 1: 3 And God said...light
Gen 1: 6 And God said...expanse/water
Gen 1: 9 And God said...land
Gen 1: 11 And God said...plants....etc, etc He did it with Words!!

God created everything by just speaking, however when it came to man...
Gen 2:7 then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

In the creation of man God intervened directly and also breathed into him life.

Furthermore when it comes to Jesus, He is the metaphysical becoming physical. He is the Word!
John 1
The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life,[a] and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Don't miss how metaphysical not only organizes, but give actual life to the physical.

Then in John 1:14
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son[d] from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Which leads us to John 14:6
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Simply put in the Word is life and death as Jesus said,
Matthew 12:36-37    
I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on August 02, 2019, 02:00:27 PM
Quote
I'll admit I'm biased here but with the deist case, it seems to make more sense that if a deity exists, it would probably interact with its creation. It makes little sense to create something just to go off and do something else.
Well I disagree. Something along the lines of "if you love it, set it free". You can't be there forever watching over the shoulder.

Quote
I'll say that if God doesn't exist (in either version) love is simply a chemical reaction - we just think that it means more than it really does
Well perhaps, but I would say that love is transcendent to the people it affects. This is again my response to Mr. B's question from back a few pages. Would "love" exist if no living creature existed? Like morality, I would argue that love comes from life and humanity.

Quote
Further, goodness is all up the the person who determines it. Since there is nothing that transcends humanity and all humans are programmed to think the way they do due to genetic programming (that they have no control over!), no one has any real insight into goodness.
I've already said, that I've already said, that I've already said how we can determine "good" and "bad" without divine influence. I think at this point you may be repeating it to convince yourself :D

As to transcendence of humanity - sure there is. Life, for example, is greater than our humanity.

As to the uneducated tribesman, I'll take you over the biblical Paul any day of the week.  ;D

If a deity is eternal (which if its a deity is probably a fair assertion), it certainly can take time to keep an eye on things. ;)

See, the love isn't transcendental between people. It only feels that way. It's just two creatures that are creating an a chemical reaction. It's silly to make it mean more than it is. Just like the love machine chemical maker would do. Turn it off, and that feel is gone.

How is life greater than our humanity? If all humans die, what are we transcending?

Haha thanks but pretty sure nothing I do will be around 2,000 years from now. :P

Also, for MrB's post, you mentioned that morality was subjective and changeable based on humanity. Wouldn't war also be "moral" since it's based on humanity?

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: rukawa on August 06, 2019, 09:08:57 AM
Origin
Meaning
Morality
Destiny

For something to be true it has to answer those questions and be logically consistent, empirically adequate and experientially relevant.

If meaning, morality and destiny are created by humans which I strongly believe to be the case than its unclear in what sense they are true or false since they are just human constructions.

To me its extremely clear that humans have some need for a story in which these questions are answered. And I believe, a la Jordan Peterson, that this can only be because it has big survival value. I can think of two reasons why. One might be that there is actual survival value, in the natural world, in finding meaning in things. Cats and animals definitely display traits which imply they have some understanding of causality. I definitely think there is some truth to that but I don't think its a sufficient explanation for what is happening with humans. 

The other possibility is based on the fact that humans tend to live in societies. And societies that tend to thrive are cohesive. Suppose you have society A with a shared narrative that answers the questions above and you have society B without that shared narrative and the two societies come into conflict. In the long run society A will obliterate society B. This is because society A will be far more cohesive and unified than society B. So humans will tend to live in societies like A.

Living in a society like A, what characteristics will tend to be reinforced? I believe that societies like A will tend to value true believers. People who actually believe in the big LIE that is the basis of society A. They will tend to thrive because their beliefs will coincide with actions that the society values.

The Game has rules. It has rewards. It has penalties. It has a goal. The advantage of having games is that they unify societies. The game of Islamic societies is Islam. The game of the West is science, capitalism etc. Mohammed invented the Game of Islam and Newton invented the game of Science. The game of the US, invented by the founding fathers, used to revolve around worlds like "freedom", "democracy".  The game of philosophy revolves around a word called "Truth". But all these games are arbitrary as all games are.

That is the way I view it. But in the end I don't think there is any inherent meaning, morality except that which humans choose to believe in.  The Games though do have very clear utility and humans are very strongly predisposed to believe in them. That does not imply that they are true or false...just useful.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Ross812 on August 06, 2019, 10:52:59 AM
Origin
Meaning
Morality
Destiny

For something to be true it has to answer those questions and be logically consistent, empirically adequate and experientially relevant.

If meaning, morality and destiny are created by humans which I strongly believe to be the case than its unclear in what sense they are true or false since they are just human constructions.

To me its extremely clear that humans have some need for a story in which these questions are answered. And I believe, a la Jordan Peterson, that this can only be because it has big survival value. I can think of two reasons why. One might be that there is actual survival value, in the natural world, in finding meaning in things. Cats and animals definitely display traits which imply they have some understanding of causality. I definitely think there is some truth to that but I don't think its a sufficient explanation for what is happening with humans. 

The other possibility is based on the fact that humans tend to live in societies. And societies that tend to thrive are cohesive. Suppose you have society A with a shared narrative that answers the questions above and you have society B without that shared narrative and the two societies come into conflict. In the long run society A will obliterate society B. This is because society A will be far more cohesive and unified than society B. So humans will tend to live in societies like A.

Living in a society like A, what characteristics will tend to be reinforced? I believe that societies like A will tend to value true believers. People who actually believe in the big LIE that is the basis of society A. They will tend to thrive because their beliefs will coincide with actions that the society values.

The Game has rules. It has rewards. It has penalties. It has a goal. The advantage of having games is that they unify societies. The game of Islamic societies is Islam. The game of the West is science, capitalism etc. Mohammed invented the Game of Islam and Newton invented the game of Science. The game of the US, invented by the founding fathers, used to revolve around worlds like "freedom", "democracy".  The game of philosophy revolves around a word called "Truth". But all these games are arbitrary as all games are.

That is the way I view it. But in the end I don't think there is any inherent meaning, morality except that which humans choose to believe in.  The Games though do have very clear utility and humans are very strongly predisposed to believe in them. That does not imply that they are true or false...just useful.

That is an eloquent way of relating what the paper I linked to earlier in the thread:

https://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/Manuscripts/2016%20Norenzayan%20cultural%20evolution.pdf

There is an inherent advantage to having large groups of people working toward the same goals which can be achieved through religion.

In modern times, MrB, Paul, and LC can work together cohesively because they both adhere to a set of laws and play within the constructs of modern capitalism. The game evolves over time with modern religion peaking in strength at the height of the dark ages. It has been on the decline since the enlightenment. 

 
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on August 07, 2019, 09:37:45 AM
ross and ruk, what are your worldviews?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: rukawa on August 10, 2019, 07:42:53 AM
ross and ruk, what are your worldviews?

I am an athiest. Hardcore skeptic about all things including religion, science, statistics, alternative and modern medicine.  Politically you could call me neo-liberal or classical liberal perhaps. Except that I'm pretty skeptical about that too...I just find myself defending it most of the time because all the alternatives seem a lot worse. I am growing more conservative though mostly due to reading history. I strongly believe in evolution, that cellphones don't cause cancer, that vaccines work, that the Earth is round and that GMOs are not inherently dangerous but I regard many of the ideas of proponents of Global Warming as completely ridiculous. I'm pretty comfortable with religion, religious societies and religious people....I just don't believe in it.

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on August 11, 2019, 07:23:49 AM
Origin
Meaning
Morality
Destiny

For something to be true it has to answer those questions and be logically consistent, empirically adequate and experientially relevant.

If meaning, morality and destiny are created by humans which I strongly believe to be the case than its unclear in what sense they are true or false since they are just human constructions.
I would generally agree with your statement.

The dilemma I find is that we think of truth as exclusive and in accordance with reality (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth) then the above statement is just the beginning of the journey. For us to navigate reality we accept certain truth statements, but we don't pluck it out of thin air. There is a logical construct in which we do it and we are for the most part extremely rational about it. If you're not rational you won't be able to cross the road without being killed and yet for must of us we do it daily, seemingly with great success. How do we do this?

As a microcosm of the above we do it in a logical construct in which we establish truth, or something to be a fact. Let my try and illustrate with the simple example of crossing the road.

Origin (one side of the road)
Meaning (value my life enough not to get myself killed)
Morality (getting myself killed/committing suicide is wrong)
Destiny (other side)

The above we answer by being logically consistent (if it's big enough and fast moving it's going to kill me and it goes for a bike, car, truck, bus irrespective of the size, colour, etc) and we do not chop and change from day to day; Empirically adequate (how many hits by a hard object does it take to convince you that being hit by a bus is going to kill you) and experientially relevant (it's relevant every time we wish to cross the road, which is fairly often).

The dilemma I find is that when I apply the same logical construct to moral truths then it does not point me to something subjective, but objective. I think we covered that well in this thread already. As I laid out before, moral truths e.g. Ex 20: 13 "You shall not murder. 14 “You shall not commit adultery. 15 “You shall not steal. 16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." exist independent of the human subjective view/construct.
Another way I try and think about it is to ask, if it was merely a human construct then why do we not find societies where it the inverse of the above are accepted/constructed as being true? Why are there no societies where they accepted truths such as You shall murder, You shall commit adultery, You shall steal and You shall bear false witness against your neighbor??? There are ample examples where those things are practiced, yet they're not accepted as truths? If truth is objective then it makes perfect sense and if subjective then it makes no sense. Then because I conclude it's objective you have to ask yourself who/what is the moral law giver? Whether it's physical or metaphysical, it has to come from somewhere.

As explained previously Christ provides answers to all of the above in a personal way and because I'm a family man and a Father it highly correlates with my experience of the love of a Father for his children. It is primarily a relationship based on love that comes out of the mutual acceptance of free will, but out of free will also comes sin/bad things/that which goes against God's design.

Quote
To me its extremely clear that humans have some need for a story in which these questions are answered. And I believe, a la Jordan Peterson, that this can only be because it has big survival value. I can think of two reasons why. One might be that there is actual survival value, in the natural world, in finding meaning in things. Cats and animals definitely display traits which imply they have some understanding of causality. I definitely think there is some truth to that but I don't think its a sufficient explanation for what is happening with humans. 
I'm asking myself why is it that we need a story? If we're just blobs of cosmic dust then why do we give a hoot? Again on that basic question for me things like the theory of evolution falls flat. The search for meaning is experientially relevant. I feel the need for meaning/a story. However to ascribe it as a survival mechanism is something I find problematic. Why would anyone then be prepared to die for something they believe in then? Anyone that is prepared to die for their faith would logically contradict the assumption that meaning correlates with survival. Why would a Father die to save his child or a firefighter to save someone in danger? In these cases people chose not to survive for the very things that give meaning to their lives.

For me the reason we need a story is because we were created with great purpose. Fundamentally it is to glorify God in the way we behave in His Creation. I was created to honor Him in the same sense a son or daughter should honor their father in a loving and respectful way by ultimately living the life they've been given to the full along the grain of Creation. Procreate, design, invent, build, enjoy, love, preserve, share, give etc within the guardrails of Creation. Those guardrails are to love God and your neighbour as you love yourself or by not murdering, stealing, fornicating, blaspheming etc. Makes perfect sense to me.

Quote
The other possibility is based on the fact that humans tend to live in societies. And societies that tend to thrive are cohesive. Suppose you have society A with a shared narrative that answers the questions above and you have society B without that shared narrative and the two societies come into conflict. In the long run society A will obliterate society B. This is because society A will be far more cohesive and unified than society B. So humans will tend to live in societies like A.
Mmmm. I'm not so sure. Empirically I find the statements inadequate for several reasons. I'm African and as cohesive as my African societies might be they don't exactly thrive. Also, what about the US? The US was built out of people leaving cohesive societies. Also the US thrives (we can probably agree), but she has not built her resources by "obliterating" other societies.

I think it's also important to note that Christ's message does not promise riches, despite prosperity preaching saying otherwise. For me the most plausible answers to those questions does not necessarily promise me a "thriving" outcome in the survivalist/worldly sense. There are several Biblical texts pointing in the opposite direction,

Matt 16:25 
For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake (Jesus) will find it. 
Matthew 10
Not Peace, but a Sword
34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.


Quote
Living in a society like A, what characteristics will tend to be reinforced? I believe that societies like A will tend to value true believers. People who actually believe in the big LIE that is the basis of society A. They will tend to thrive because their beliefs will coincide with actions that the society values.

I'm not sure I'm following exactly what you're saying. Whether you're saying what society A believes in is actually the truth or it's just a case that what they believe in is a "shared narrative". I'm also not onboard with the direct link between the truth and link you seem to draw between you will thrive if your worldview is true.

Having said that the official motto of the US is "In God We Trust" and there's some truth to the US believing that such belief will let it thrive e.g. in 1861 Treasury Secretary Salmon Chase wrote to U.S. Mint director James Pollack that "No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense", which is why "The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins. You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition."

However, whether it automatically translate in true believers being valued, that I'm not so sure about. My sense is that Christian values are heavily attacked in the US these days e.g. the US Vice President this year specifically warned students about that "Pence tells graduating Christians to be ready for attacks on their faith"
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/13/18617717/pence-liberty-university-speech-christians-attack

Quote

The Game has rules. It has rewards. It has penalties. It has a goal. The advantage of having games is that they unify societies. The game of Islamic societies is Islam. The game of the West is science, capitalism etc. Mohammed invented the Game of Islam and Newton invented the game of Science. The game of the US, invented by the founding fathers, used to revolve around worlds like "freedom", "democracy".  The game of philosophy revolves around a word called "Truth". But all these games are arbitrary as all games are.

What game? Truth is not a game, it's reality. To navigate reality you need to know what's true and for your perception of reality to align with reality/truth it helps to be rational. If you cross the road and your goal is to make it to the other side alive, you need to be rational about certain truths. You can have all the theories in the world, but there are certain non negotiable truths that you have to rationalize to produce a certain outcome such as not being hit by a bus.

The dilemma with the reality of life is that at this point you don't get to to choose whether you want to cross the road, you're halfway.

You can argue with the origin, but you're here. Empirically that's obvious. 
You can argue with meaning, but from experience you know it's real or at least that it exists.
You can argue with morality, but empirically it's proven to exist.
You can argue with destiny, but you know from experience that it's relevant. 

There are alternatives to the construct you use and atheism is a construct, it is a belief.
An alternative is that God created you, Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."

"The game of the West is science, capitalism etc." or another alternative is it's "In God We Trust" (US), "From Sea to Sea" (Canada, quote from King's James Bible, Ps 72v8), "God and my right" (UK), etc
"Mohammed invented the Game of Islam" or another alternative is 1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
"Newton invented the game of Science" or another alternative is that Science (the word means knowledge or to know) is as old as Creation itself Genesis 2:9 And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Quote

That is the way I view it. But in the end I don't think there is any inherent meaning, morality except that which humans choose to believe in.  The Games though do have very clear utility and humans are very strongly predisposed to believe in them. That does not imply that they are true or false...just useful.

I respect your opinion, but it does not help to explain how for example ALL 12 apostles died for "The Lie" as you put it. https://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1-300/whatever-happened-to-the-twelve-apostles-11629558.html
What is useful about that?
Christians are reported to be the most persecuted believers globally. So in some sense is it not the least useful belief to have?
https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/07/12/the-global-persecution-of-christians/

One alternative is that Jesus is the TRUTH and the rational decision is to NOT live a lie, despite the negative societal consequences.

Respectfully I conclude that from my point of view you're crossing the road and I'm shouting "Bus!", you conclude there is no bus, but truth by its very nature dictates that there either is a bus or there is not.
I'm making the case that only Christ answers the questions of origin, meaning, morality and destiny in a logical consistent way, with empirical adequacy and it's experientially relevant. The redemptive story of Christ is a personal one and a consequence of a loving Creator God that gave us free will, because love without free will is impossible. However free will implies the possibility of sin (anti God) and where there is sin, there is a need for a saviour (pathway back to God). However in order not to violate free will you have to get out of the way of the bus yourself by repenting (turning away from sin towards God) and accepting the Saviour (Christ) to have your relationship with God (your Father Creator) restored.

Either Jesus was a lunatic or the alternative is John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: MrB on August 11, 2019, 07:41:17 AM
Origin
Meaning
Morality
Destiny

For something to be true it has to answer those questions and be logically consistent, empirically adequate and experientially relevant.

If meaning, morality and destiny are created by humans which I strongly believe to be the case than its unclear in what sense they are true or false since they are just human constructions.

To me its extremely clear that humans have some need for a story in which these questions are answered. And I believe, a la Jordan Peterson, that this can only be because it has big survival value. I can think of two reasons why. One might be that there is actual survival value, in the natural world, in finding meaning in things. Cats and animals definitely display traits which imply they have some understanding of causality. I definitely think there is some truth to that but I don't think its a sufficient explanation for what is happening with humans. 

The other possibility is based on the fact that humans tend to live in societies. And societies that tend to thrive are cohesive. Suppose you have society A with a shared narrative that answers the questions above and you have society B without that shared narrative and the two societies come into conflict. In the long run society A will obliterate society B. This is because society A will be far more cohesive and unified than society B. So humans will tend to live in societies like A.

Living in a society like A, what characteristics will tend to be reinforced? I believe that societies like A will tend to value true believers. People who actually believe in the big LIE that is the basis of society A. They will tend to thrive because their beliefs will coincide with actions that the society values.

The Game has rules. It has rewards. It has penalties. It has a goal. The advantage of having games is that they unify societies. The game of Islamic societies is Islam. The game of the West is science, capitalism etc. Mohammed invented the Game of Islam and Newton invented the game of Science. The game of the US, invented by the founding fathers, used to revolve around worlds like "freedom", "democracy".  The game of philosophy revolves around a word called "Truth". But all these games are arbitrary as all games are.

That is the way I view it. But in the end I don't think there is any inherent meaning, morality except that which humans choose to believe in.  The Games though do have very clear utility and humans are very strongly predisposed to believe in them. That does not imply that they are true or false...just useful.

That is an eloquent way of relating what the paper I linked to earlier in the thread:

https://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/Manuscripts/2016%20Norenzayan%20cultural%20evolution.pdf

There is an inherent advantage to having large groups of people working toward the same goals which can be achieved through religion.

In modern times, MrB, Paul, and LC can work together cohesively because they both adhere to a set of laws and play within the constructs of modern capitalism. The game evolves over time with modern religion peaking in strength at the height of the dark ages. It has been on the decline since the enlightenment.
What I find challenging with that view in general is that it does not explain why you will have minority religions in societies.
Specific to Christianity, as previously noted, it does not explain how for example ALL 12 apostles died for their faith https://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1-300/whatever-happened-to-the-twelve-apostles-11629558.html
or that Christians are reported to be the most persecuted believers globally.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/07/12/the-global-persecution-of-christians/

In many ways Christ promises me that believing the TRUTH will be costly and bring no societal advantage.
John 15:The Hatred of the World
18 “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.


I believe in Christ because to me He is the only answer to the questions of origin, meaning, morality and destiny, which I find logically consistent, empirically adequate and experientially relevant. I can understand that you take issue with that, but I don't accept the notion that I hold that position because of utility value in a societal sense and neither does my Christian brothers and sisters, that I know.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on August 12, 2019, 01:55:30 PM
ross and ruk, what are your worldviews?

I am an athiest. Hardcore skeptic about all things including religion, science, statistics, alternative and modern medicine.  Politically you could call me neo-liberal or classical liberal perhaps. Except that I'm pretty skeptical about that too...I just find myself defending it most of the time because all the alternatives seem a lot worse. I am growing more conservative though mostly due to reading history. I strongly believe in evolution, that cellphones don't cause cancer, that vaccines work, that the Earth is round and that GMOs are not inherently dangerous but I regard many of the ideas of proponents of Global Warming as completely ridiculous. I'm pretty comfortable with religion, religious societies and religious people....I just don't believe in it.

Thanks. I see where you're coming from and I think I agree with you, assuming that a deity does not exist.

What are you not skeptical about?

Since you believe (probably) that humans create meaning, morality and destiny, do you think that all morality is subjective? If we strip away all emotions, are all actions equally moral or immoral? I'm not talking about social cohesiveness here just right and wrong.

For instance, are Jeffery Epstein and Deitreich Bonhoffer morally equal since each individual gives their own actions meaning? Epstein can't really control how he feels about children and Bonhoffer can't help the feeling of fighting the Nazis. One killed himself and one died for fighting against oppressors. Are they really equal?

Personally, I don't believe all morality is subjective which is why I moved from agnostic to theism. I think that Epstein knew what he was doing was wrong but did it anyway


For what it's worth, I do have a problem with GMOs. I don't know for sure they harm folks. However, since the body evolved to eat food in a moral natural state, I'd prefer to not take the risk of mixing dna from different things. For instance, there is "bt corn" that is designed to kill insects. Something tells me that I probably shouldn't put that in my body. Just to save a few bucks on food doesn't seem worth the trade off to me, personally.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: rukawa on August 18, 2019, 09:27:51 AM
What are you not skeptical about?

I'm not skeptical about stuff that is proven to work and I'm only not skeptical up to the degree that proof is demonstrated. For instance, I'm not very skeptical that a 747 can fly across the Atlantic because it basically works. My fundamental belief is that almost nothing works and getting anything to work is a very difficult trial and error process. "working" applies as much to ideas about the world as it does with anything else. To me the real question for any belief or idea is...what can I do with it.


Quote
Since you believe (probably) that humans create meaning, morality and destiny, do you think that all morality is subjective? If we strip away all emotions, are all actions equally moral or immoral? I'm not talking about social cohesiveness here just right and wrong.

I believe its subjective yes. That does not mean I believe that all actions are equally moral or immoral. I have my own sense of right and wrong and I believe all humans a certain amount of shared common morality which came from evolution. My view is that morality though hugely shared is still a choice. People choose the person they want to be, they choose the life they lead and the actions they take. The fact that humans choose these things subjectively doesn't make them any less real or important.

Quote
For instance, are Jeffery Epstein and Deitreich Bonhoffer morally equal since each individual gives their own actions meaning? Epstein can't really control how he feels about children and Bonhoffer can't help the feeling of fighting the Nazis. One killed himself and one died for fighting against oppressors. Are they really equal?

Not to me. To me, even if morality is subjective its perfectly correct and reasonable to say my morality is better than yours. You are wrong. You are evil (I'm using you rhetorically here...not to refer to you personally). I don't have any problem with judging other people based on my standards.

Quote
For what it's worth, I do have a problem with GMOs. I don't know for sure they harm folks. However, since the body evolved to eat food in a moral natural state, I'd prefer to not take the risk of mixing dna from different things.

If you have sex you are mixing dna from different things. Nature also does not respect species boundaries. Viruses insert dna from one species into completely different ones. Our cells contain parts, mitochondria that were mostly probably originally bacteria. And these bacteria that our cells co-opted hundreds of millions of years ago contain their own dna and their own separate cell membranes.

But beyond that I fundamentally disagree with the idea that we evolved to eat a particular kind of food or live in a particular way. And I don't just think its true of us or for that matter most species. Nature changes too frequently and rapidly for evolution to work this way. Any species is going to have to be adaptable to a range of different things or it will go extinct rapidly.

Lets perform a thought experiment...you take a bunch of species at random from different parts of the world and throw them together. What happens? If species evolved to eat only particular things and live in particular ways than the whole ecosystem will rapidly fail. But that is not what happens! To the extent this has been done and its been done repeatedly these ecosystems are indistinguishable from "natural" ones.

These are all the theoretical reasons I don't have problems with GMOs. The other is that I don't believe in small "effects". Something either has an effect or it doesn't and usually the effects are easy to see, visible and strong. The idea of some insidious poison that takes decades to kill or hurt...I'm not saying those things don't exist. I'm saying that they are hugely unlikely. GMOs are not killing us even though we consume them in huge quantities. If they were dangerous why aren't people getting sick...why aren't millions of people dying. Where are all the dead bodies. Your only counter-argument is that they could be hurting us slowly...but my point is that that is extremely unlikely. If GMOs were truly harmful it should not be so difficult to see it.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on August 19, 2019, 02:13:24 PM
What are you not skeptical about?

I'm not skeptical about stuff that is proven to work and I'm only not skeptical up to the degree that proof is demonstrated. For instance, I'm not very skeptical that a 747 can fly across the Atlantic because it basically works. My fundamental belief is that almost nothing works and getting anything to work is a very difficult trial and error process. "working" applies as much to ideas about the world as it does with anything else. To me the real question for any belief or idea is...what can I do with it.


Quote
Since you believe (probably) that humans create meaning, morality and destiny, do you think that all morality is subjective? If we strip away all emotions, are all actions equally moral or immoral? I'm not talking about social cohesiveness here just right and wrong.

I believe its subjective yes. That does not mean I believe that all actions are equally moral or immoral. I have my own sense of right and wrong and I believe all humans a certain amount of shared common morality which came from evolution. My view is that morality though hugely shared is still a choice. People choose the person they want to be, they choose the life they lead and the actions they take. The fact that humans choose these things subjectively doesn't make them any less real or important.

Quote
For instance, are Jeffery Epstein and Deitreich Bonhoffer morally equal since each individual gives their own actions meaning? Epstein can't really control how he feels about children and Bonhoffer can't help the feeling of fighting the Nazis. One killed himself and one died for fighting against oppressors. Are they really equal?

Not to me. To me, even if morality is subjective its perfectly correct and reasonable to say my morality is better than yours. You are wrong. You are evil (I'm using you rhetorically here...not to refer to you personally). I don't have any problem with judging other people based on my standards.

Quote
For what it's worth, I do have a problem with GMOs. I don't know for sure they harm folks. However, since the body evolved to eat food in a moral natural state, I'd prefer to not take the risk of mixing dna from different things.

If you have sex you are mixing dna from different things. Nature also does not respect species boundaries. Viruses insert dna from one species into completely different ones. Our cells contain parts, mitochondria that were mostly probably originally bacteria. And these bacteria that our cells co-opted hundreds of millions of years ago contain their own dna and their own separate cell membranes.

But beyond that I fundamentally disagree with the idea that we evolved to eat a particular kind of food or live in a particular way. And I don't just think its true of us or for that matter most species. Nature changes too frequently and rapidly for evolution to work this way. Any species is going to have to be adaptable to a range of different things or it will go extinct rapidly.

Lets perform a thought experiment...you take a bunch of species at random from different parts of the world and throw them together. What happens? If species evolved to eat only particular things and live in particular ways than the whole ecosystem will rapidly fail. But that is not what happens! To the extent this has been done and its been done repeatedly these ecosystems are indistinguishable from "natural" ones.

These are all the theoretical reasons I don't have problems with GMOs. The other is that I don't believe in small "effects". Something either has an effect or it doesn't and usually the effects are easy to see, visible and strong. The idea of some insidious poison that takes decades to kill or hurt...I'm not saying those things don't exist. I'm saying that they are hugely unlikely. GMOs are not killing us even though we consume them in huge quantities. If they were dangerous why aren't people getting sick...why aren't millions of people dying. Where are all the dead bodies. Your only counter-argument is that they could be hurting us slowly...but my point is that that is extremely unlikely. If GMOs were truly harmful it should not be so difficult to see it.

I'll skip the GMO talk since it's taking the conversation into a different direction so let's hop back to morality.

If you believe that morality is from evolution, why do you feel yours is superior? Are you getting yours from a different source than say Epstein? If you're not getting it from a different source, how do you judge superiority?

As a former agnostic, I came to the conclusion that, if atheism is correct, morality is basically like a favorite color or a type of manners. Some people like green, some prefer blue. Neither is more "right" than the other. Do people protest when someone wears orange instead of blue? No, because it's all subjective. Why should morality be looked at differently?

In some cultures, it's very acceptable to put your elbows on the table while eating, in others it's considered a no-no.  It's all subjective because one society made up something and so did another. Why are you not skeptical about your moral superiority?

Now, if you want to really get into atheism, you may have heard of determinism...so let's just say the "choice" people have for their moral actions is simply an illusion of choice. In reality, people's brains are structured in a certain way that makes them do certain things (want young girls, give to charity) and they actually have no real control over it.

Ultimately, I think morality is a "real" thing and, as a result, had to abandon my agnosticism.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on September 08, 2019, 10:38:38 AM
Now our border patrol agents just blatantly lie to these families to get them separated:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/border-agents-use-baths-to-separate-kids-from-parents-2018-6

Hmm :/
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on September 09, 2019, 08:34:58 AM
Now our border patrol agents just blatantly lie to these families to get them separated:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/border-agents-use-baths-to-separate-kids-from-parents-2018-6

Hmm :/

As an open-minded, liberal, why are you so intolerant?

The agents have their subjective view of morality as do you. Neither is more right than another since there is no higher moral standard to aspire to. So...what's the big deal?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on September 14, 2019, 08:12:01 AM
rukawa and lc,

I'm still patiently waiting for your responses.

If you're atheist, I can see why people might think that.

If you believe that morality is subjective, well that goes with atheism so that also makes sense.

What I don't believe makes sense, unless you can explain otherwise, why do each of you think your morality is superior? Things that are subjective, by their very nature, are not superior (like I said you don't think your favorite color is "good" and another's "evil"). If you don't think your morality is superior, why fault others who have a different version of morality? Why be so skeptical against let's say God but not your very own version of morality?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on September 14, 2019, 05:05:36 PM
Paul, come back to the real world. Make like Jesus and worry about the poor and downtrodden, not the philosophers judging from their ivory tower:

https://truthout.org/articles/the-us-has-disappeared-more-than-42000-migrants-wheres-the-outrage/

In operation since late January, Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), originally called “Remain in Mexico,” allows the U.S. government to push most non-Mexican asylum seekers into Mexico once immigration officials have cleared them to make an asylum claim. As of early September, the number of people forced into Mexico under MPP had reportedly risen to more than 42,000.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: rukawa on September 16, 2019, 04:13:00 AM
What I don't believe makes sense, unless you can explain otherwise, why do each of you think your morality is superior? Things that are subjective, by their very nature, are not superior

I believe in the exact opposite statement. ONLY things that are judged subjectively can even have a concept of superiority. The whole idea of good/bad and superior, inferior are fundamentally subjective. On the other hand objective things can never be superior or inferior.  Nothing judged objectively is good or bad.

Even your morality requires a subject. The subject is GOD. If I ask you why you believe in your morality than your answer can only be because GOd said so. And than if I ask you why you believe in your God and not for instance Satan who is also a God in other religions...your answer will have to be...because you believe or feel that Satan is a false God and your God isn't. And probably you would also not be comfortable with the morality of Satanists. In the end you too have made a decision about good/bad, superior and inferior but you have stated that someone else made the choice for you ...an invisible all-knowing, all-powerful entity and that somehow this distinguishes it. But all I see when I look at what you have done..is that you made the your choice in the same way I did. You went with what you felt SUBJECTIVELY was the right thing...you just pretended it wasn't you who made the choice. Have you ever seen GOD? Do you personally know him? If not that what was it that drove you to decide on the particular faith you have subscribed to? How do you judge right and wrong. I would wager in the same way as all the rest of us..subjective judgement.

Lets say for sake of argument that the Satanists are right and Satan is the real God. Would you than adopt the morality of Satanists? Under your logic you would be obligated to do so and yet somehow I think you would resist it...but where does that resistance come from. It comes from your subjective judgement and feelings about what good and bad are. If God told you that killing and eating babies was the best thing you could possibly do and that you should feel joy at their screams...what would your reaction be?

Subjectivity does not ultimately require reasons. IT IS THE REASON. Asking why makes no sense beyond a certain point. There is no science of good and bad. What makes my morality superior...my judgement that is superior. Reasons, explanations and arguments are really there for persuading other people and then too usually about complicated situations with trade offs. At the base of those reasons are a huge part that can't be explained and just is based on feelings of revulsion, disgust, horror. When moral arguments are made they ultimately must refer to these base situations where there is widespread agreement. Interrogating beyond this base to ultimate reasons is a useless endeavor since you can always just keep asking the question Why?

As to the reason for my delay...I'm trying to avoid posting too much in this section since I know its a waste of energy. But the other reason is that I don't really have very good answers to your questions. Mr. B questions were also difficult..I can't really come up with a strong evolutionary explanation for the human desire for meaning, shared narratives and tribalism. THe ultimate answer would have to involve survival but its not completely clear to me how man's search for meaning is tied to survival. Or how having shared narratives works....its all too group selectionist which is weak.

That said...I don't really believe your answers are that great either....God seems to be a convenient catchall bucket in which you can throw any hard question you can't explain....but it doesn't really tell us much since no one knows anything about God. So you basically ask a hard question...I come up with a bad answer and then you come back with the catchall God. But God is just a word....it has almost zero meaning because it can mean anything.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on September 16, 2019, 09:44:24 AM
Paul, come back to the real world. Make like Jesus and worry about the poor and downtrodden, not the philosophers judging from their ivory tower:

https://truthout.org/articles/the-us-has-disappeared-more-than-42000-migrants-wheres-the-outrage/

In operation since late January, Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), originally called “Remain in Mexico,” allows the U.S. government to push most non-Mexican asylum seekers into Mexico once immigration officials have cleared them to make an asylum claim. As of early September, the number of people forced into Mexico under MPP had reportedly risen to more than 42,000.

Lc, you see I think I have come to the real world. The whole idea of everything we do boiling down to "evolutionary instincts" is not my own but rather a fellow atheist on this forum. He planted one of the seeds on this for me. Before I was a simple agnostic just doing the "right" thing. Going through Mere Christianity by Lewis and his argument for a moral standard really helped crystallized what I really thought about life.

Strictly from materialist standpoint, I would have to trust Trump's judgment over some uneducated tribesman in the Middle East. Trump is an Ivy League graduate (Jesus didn't even go to college!). Trump is the leader of the free world (Jesus died in his early 30s with a few followers). Trump is married to a supermodel (Jesus never married). Trump is a "stable genius." Jesus was probably crazy since he thought he was divine. Trump is a billionaire. Jesus lived a life of poverty.

Seriously if all there is to life is materialism, why would I listen to anything Jesus says? On virtually anything of importance in materialism Trump is killing it. Now, if you think there is something more to the story, why are you still an atheist? ;)

As far as the ivory tower goes, Lewis actually fought in WWI and was an atheist and later in life became a Christian. So pretty much the opposite of a protected ivory tower. ;)
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on September 16, 2019, 01:27:11 PM
Sorry to say but you have become a broken record.

Quote
As far as the ivory tower goes, Lewis actually fought in WWI and was an atheist and later in life became a Christian. So pretty much the opposite of a protected ivory tower. ;)
And here you are waxing poetic about morality, and ignoring the discussion on how our government is lying to poor migrants in order to steal and cage their children, how our President enables it, and how a vocal group of our fellow citizens seem to actually take pleasure in it.

Shall we infer which is more important to you?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Gregmal on September 16, 2019, 01:35:58 PM
Sorry to say but you have become a broken record.

Quote
As far as the ivory tower goes, Lewis actually fought in WWI and was an atheist and later in life became a Christian. So pretty much the opposite of a protected ivory tower. ;)
And here you are waxing poetic about morality, and ignoring the discussion on how our government is lying to poor migrants in order to steal and cage their children, how our President enables it, and how a vocal group of our fellow citizens seem to actually take pleasure in it.

Shall we infer which is more important to you?

LOL Steal??? I assure you we don't want them....
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: cubsfan on September 16, 2019, 01:48:21 PM
... and remember those are the "cages" that the Obama administration built...
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Castanza on September 16, 2019, 01:49:55 PM
Sorry to say but you have become a broken record.

Quote
As far as the ivory tower goes, Lewis actually fought in WWI and was an atheist and later in life became a Christian. So pretty much the opposite of a protected ivory tower. ;)
And here you are waxing poetic about morality, and ignoring the discussion on how our government is lying to poor migrants in order to steal and cage their children, how our President enables it, and how a vocal group of our fellow citizens seem to actually take pleasure in it.

Shall we infer which is more important to you?

Who is stealing children? haha Good lord that is ridiculous. I mean, maybe if Bill Clinton were still in office I'd believe it. But the only ones "stealing" children are the ones coming across the border. They even did that DNA test thing-ma-bob that showed like 40-50% of people sneaking across the border with children weren't even related to the kids.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on September 16, 2019, 01:50:37 PM
What I don't believe makes sense, unless you can explain otherwise, why do each of you think your morality is superior? Things that are subjective, by their very nature, are not superior

I believe in the exact opposite statement. ONLY things that are judged subjectively can even have a concept of superiority. The whole idea of good/bad and superior, inferior are fundamentally subjective. On the other hand objective things can never be superior or inferior.  Nothing judged objectively is good or bad.

Even your morality requires a subject. The subject is GOD. If I ask you why you believe in your morality than your answer can only be because GOd said so. And than if I ask you why you believe in your God and not for instance Satan who is also a God in other religions...your answer will have to be...because you believe or feel that Satan is a false God and your God isn't. And probably you would also not be comfortable with the morality of Satanists. In the end you too have made a decision about good/bad, superior and inferior but you have stated that someone else made the choice for you ...an invisible all-knowing, all-powerful entity and that somehow this distinguishes it. But all I see when I look at what you have done..is that you made the your choice in the same way I did. You went with what you felt SUBJECTIVELY was the right thing...you just pretended it wasn't you who made the choice. Have you ever seen GOD? Do you personally know him? If not that what was it that drove you to decide on the particular faith you have subscribed to? How do you judge right and wrong. I would wager in the same way as all the rest of us..subjective judgement.

Lets say for sake of argument that the Satanists are right and Satan is the real God. Would you than adopt the morality of Satanists? Under your logic you would be obligated to do so and yet somehow I think you would resist it...but where does that resistance come from. It comes from your subjective judgement and feelings about what good and bad are. If God told you that killing and eating babies was the best thing you could possibly do and that you should feel joy at their screams...what would your reaction be?

Subjectivity does not ultimately require reasons. IT IS THE REASON. Asking why makes no sense beyond a certain point. There is no science of good and bad. What makes my morality superior...my judgement that is superior. Reasons, explanations and arguments are really there for persuading other people and then too usually about complicated situations with trade offs. At the base of those reasons are a huge part that can't be explained and just is based on feelings of revulsion, disgust, horror. When moral arguments are made they ultimately must refer to these base situations where there is widespread agreement. Interrogating beyond this base to ultimate reasons is a useless endeavor since you can always just keep asking the question Why?

As to the reason for my delay...I'm trying to avoid posting too much in this section since I know its a waste of energy. But the other reason is that I don't really have very good answers to your questions. Mr. B questions were also difficult..I can't really come up with a strong evolutionary explanation for the human desire for meaning, shared narratives and tribalism. THe ultimate answer would have to involve survival but its not completely clear to me how man's search for meaning is tied to survival. Or how having shared narratives works....its all too group selectionist which is weak.

That said...I don't really believe your answers are that great either....God seems to be a convenient catchall bucket in which you can throw any hard question you can't explain....but it doesn't really tell us much since no one knows anything about God. So you basically ask a hard question...I come up with a bad answer and then you come back with the catchall God. But God is just a word....it has almost zero meaning because it can mean anything.

rukawa,

Only things that are subjective can have any concept of superiority? Well, I disagree. Sure, it can have an illusion of superiority but it certainly can't have real superiority. Do you feel that purple is superior to blue? Of course not! If it had a real level of superiority it would be objective then. Like for instance, hypothetically, let's say one of the world religions were actually true, that one would be objectively superior because it's true - there would be no illusion. Just like, if we find out that atheism is accurate, that would be objectively superior too.

No, I'm not saying because "God says so." People do not get their morality from a book. They get it from their conscience. The question then becomes, ultimately, does the conscience have an origin of the divine or evolution?

If it's has an origin that transcends humanity, it can be trusted and objective. If it origins from evolution, it is totally subjective with the possible illusion of objectivity.

For instance, let's say we agree that sexually molesting small children is bad. So the question is why is it bad? Is it bad because evolution taught us that small children can't procreate so we shouldn't do that? Or, is it because that action is against the nature of a deity?

If it's due to evolutionary quirks, and if the environment were a little different, we could just as easily say that molesting children is good because after the age of 12 (or whatever) children could no longer procreate in this alternative story of evolution.

So to your point about Satanists. If God plays a part in our conscience, we would reject the Satanist's version of morality because it's against God's version of morality. It's against God's character.

Now, if Satan plays a part in one's conscience, of course they would value Satan's morality. But in the current world, I would resist it because my conscience would tell me otherwise.

If "God" told me that eating babies is good, I'd have to question the validity of that since it goes against my conscience, obviously.

As Paul said:
12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares."

"The requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness" is a big key here. If the moral law of our hearts is from evolution, we should choose to ignore it when it goes against our best interest.

Oh, this isn't a catchall for God or a "god of the gaps argument." I'm presenting two choices for morality/conscience: God (which is the traditional view) and evolution (the modern). If evolution is true, we can ignore moral issues when it's against our best interest. If traditional view is true, it makes sense to do the "greater good" because there is a good that transcends our own personal good. Believe me, one of these is objectively superior (we just don't know for sure yet). ;)

As Dostoevsky (allegedly said): ""If God does not exist, everything is permitted.'

As I said before, if one truly believes their moral compass is subjective, I fail to see why they could form an opinion on moral issues (if they're being intellectually honest). However...almost no one actually thinks that - even most atheists!
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on September 16, 2019, 02:01:53 PM
Sorry to say but you have become a broken record.

Quote
As far as the ivory tower goes, Lewis actually fought in WWI and was an atheist and later in life became a Christian. So pretty much the opposite of a protected ivory tower. ;)
And here you are waxing poetic about morality, and ignoring the discussion on how our government is lying to poor migrants in order to steal and cage their children, how our President enables it, and how a vocal group of our fellow citizens seem to actually take pleasure in it.

Shall we infer which is more important to you?

Well, I hope I can influence folks on here (at least slightly). I can't do much about what's happening there.

However, I will say that those folks probably know the risk when they enter a country illegally. It's certainly sad no doubt (and yes, it's wrong to lie to families. It's also wrong for the families to lie to the officers), but I also believe in personal responsibility. If I go out and break the law and my child is with me, they'll take my child away too. Choices and actions have consequences. Now, if Trump started slaughtering these folks, that's a different story but he's not. They are breaking the law and the government is trying to handle it in a relatively humane way.

But, like I said, if materialism is all there is, shouldn't you be trusting our stable genius president instead of some crazy guy who thought he was divine? I think God is tugging at your heart a little here, lc. I really don't understand your values if you really think atheism is true. You should be thanking Trump for doing all of this. After all, morality is all subjective anyway so it doesn't really matter. Does it really matter if my shirt is green or blue? Nope, same here if atheism is true.

So the question here, lc, is what do you really believe to be true? ;)
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on September 16, 2019, 02:26:09 PM
Castanza,
If I ask to borrow your car and promise to return it with a full tank of gas, and then lock up your car in my garage and you never see it again, well that's theft. Except now we're talking about people.

cubsfan,
I don't care who built these cages. There is plenty of blame to go around, I'd be happy to lob some at Obama if it makes you feel better. The point is to solve problems: This is inhumane treatment and it should be stopped, regardless of who is the perpetrator.

Quote
Well, I hope I can influence folks on here (at least slightly). I can't do much about what's happening there.

However, I will say that those folks probably know the risk when they enter a country illegally. It's certainly sad no doubt (and yes, it's wrong to lie to families. It's also wrong for the families to lie to the officers), but I also believe in personal responsibility. If I go out and break the law and my child is with me, they'll take my child away too. Choices and actions have consequences. Now, if Trump started slaughtering these folks, that's a different story but he's not. They are breaking the law and the government is trying to handle it in a relatively humane way.

Paul, you can vote for a government which doesn't support this policy. I'd argue you'll have much better luck with that than trying to convert people by slinging CS Lewis like a dope dealer (kidding :D :D )

Now in terms of the border:

(1) What a textbook case of victim-blaming! People who are legally claiming asylum are being separated from their children. They have done nothing illegal. So your argument about personal responsibility is a red herring, because these people have committed no crime.

But I guess it's OK to lock kids up and mistreat them, as long as we're not "slaughtering" them? Is that the type of black-and-white reasoning you want to put your name behindg? I wager not.

(2) The government was handling this humanely during the Obama administration. The Obama policy was not to separate families. The Trump administration has made the conscious effort to pursue this inhumane policy. So no, the government is not trying to handle it humanely. They have made a deliberate choice to handle it inhumanely.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: cubsfan on September 16, 2019, 02:37:33 PM
Of course, the simple solution is to build the wall and let your "victims" claim the proper asylum at a LEGAL port of entry.

However, that solution makes much too much sense and is totally rejected by the Left and Democrats and your friends in the human trafficking cartels.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on September 16, 2019, 03:03:11 PM
Castanza,
If I ask to borrow your car and promise to return it with a full tank of gas, and then lock up your car in my garage and you never see it again, well that's theft. Except now we're talking about people.

cubsfan,
I don't care who built these cages. There is plenty of blame to go around, I'd be happy to lob some at Obama if it makes you feel better. The point is to solve problems: This is inhumane treatment and it should be stopped, regardless of who is the perpetrator.

Quote
Well, I hope I can influence folks on here (at least slightly). I can't do much about what's happening there.

However, I will say that those folks probably know the risk when they enter a country illegally. It's certainly sad no doubt (and yes, it's wrong to lie to families. It's also wrong for the families to lie to the officers), but I also believe in personal responsibility. If I go out and break the law and my child is with me, they'll take my child away too. Choices and actions have consequences. Now, if Trump started slaughtering these folks, that's a different story but he's not. They are breaking the law and the government is trying to handle it in a relatively humane way.

Paul, you can vote for a government which doesn't support this policy. I'd argue you'll have much better luck with that than trying to convert people by slinging CS Lewis like a dope dealer (kidding :D :D )

Now in terms of the border:

(1) What a textbook case of victim-blaming! People who are legally claiming asylum are being separated from their children. They have done nothing illegal. So your argument about personal responsibility is a red herring, because these people have committed no crime.

But I guess it's OK to lock kids up and mistreat them, as long as we're not "slaughtering" them? Is that the type of black-and-white reasoning you want to put your name behindg? I wager not.

(2) The government was handling this humanely during the Obama administration. The Obama policy was not to separate families. The Trump administration has made the conscious effort to pursue this inhumane policy. So no, the government is not trying to handle it humanely. They have made a deliberate choice to handle it inhumanely.

Well, I didn't vote for Trump. I won't be surprised at all if we'll look back at his administration as one of the most corrupt ever but I hope I'm wrong. Though I think it's good that he's forcing China's hand a bit.

As far as the actual topic goes, I haven't spent much time thinking about it (probably sad I know considering how much time I've spent on this actual thread). You know, all of this poetic waxing about morality and all takes up a lot of time. I still have my moral failings. My wife is an immigrant so the issue hits close to home.  So I'm interested in learning more.

Yes, I won't say that it's okay to lock up kids and mistreat them but it is certainly is better than killing them. I think we can both agree to that.

With that said, couldn't someone cross over and just claim asylum once they're caught here then? How many people can claim asylum?

By the way, while I'd like for you to believe in God (and everyone else), I do think holding strong views of morality while holding an atheistic position is highly irrational. ;)


Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: cubsfan on September 16, 2019, 03:11:40 PM

Well, I didn't vote for Trump. I won't be surprised at all if we'll look back at his administration as one of the most corrupt ever but I hope I'm wrong.

Now that is a very interesting comment. I hope you are wrong too.

What in the world makes you think that Trump's administration is in any way corrupt?

Are you really a believer in the Trump/Putin Conspiracy to throw the election to Trump?

All the eyes and scrutiny have been focused on Trump since his first day in office - I mean it's unprecendented really.
Everyone in Washington is out to bring the President down - media, Democrats, and Never-Trump Republicans.

Exactly where do you see the corruption of his administration?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on September 16, 2019, 03:25:39 PM

Well, I didn't vote for Trump. I won't be surprised at all if we'll look back at his administration as one of the most corrupt ever but I hope I'm wrong.

Now that is a very interesting comment. I hope you are wrong too.

What in the world makes you think that Trump's administration is in any way corrupt?

Are you really a believer in the Trump/Putin Conspiracy to throw the election to Trump?

All the eyes and scrutiny have been focused on Trump since his first day in office - I mean it's unprecendented really.
Everyone in Washington is out to bring the President down - media, Democrats, and Never-Trump Republicans.

Exactly where do you see the corruption of his administration?

I don't think there was a conspiracy with Trump and Putin. Do I think Putin wanted Trump to win? Sure, but I think that's more to do with Putin thinking Trump would hurt the US (and allies) rather than a coordinated plot. With that said, I hope Trump does well for the sake of the country.

I'm very much against his administration ending things like the Fiduciary Rule (where advisers legally had to act in the client's best interest first) and things like allowing certain types of pesticides:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-pesticide/trump-epa-allows-use-of-controversial-pesticide-idUSKCN1UD35D

Or the fact that he deals with super slimy people like Acosta (giving Epstein a weak punishment). You can tell I really like Acosta :P

Or stuff like this:

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg-hinz-politics/blagojevich-clemency-would-turn-rule-law-its-head

The guy is in jail for corruption itself!

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: cubsfan on September 16, 2019, 04:00:58 PM
Fair enough Stahleyp!
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on September 16, 2019, 04:56:06 PM
Quote
I won't be surprised at all if we'll look back at his administration as one of the most corrupt ever but I hope I'm wrong
Well to put it mildly, some are already unsurprised.

Quote
So I'm interested in learning more.

With that said, couldn't someone cross over and just claim asylum once they're caught here then? How many people can claim asylum?
Well the wikipedia page presents the dry facts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States

For a humanitarian perspective of Trumps "Zero Tolerance" policy towards asylum seekers:
https://www.rescue.org/article/it-legal-cross-us-border-seek-asylum

I found this quote particularly disheartening:

Quote
Is seeking asylum legal?

Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or request the opportunity to apply for, asylum. "There’s no way to ask for a visa or any type of authorization in advance for the purpose of seeking asylum,” says the International Rescue Committee’s director of immigration, Olga Byrne. “You just have to show up." 

"While the administration is saying people should come here legally and follow a legal process, it's making it impossible to do so,” says Byrne. “So many individuals and families have been trying to follow a legal process, but instead they’ve been stranded in Tijuana or other northern Mexico towns because they have been denied access to any U.S. official.”

Cubsfan's suggestion that the only way to legally apply for asylum is at a port of entry, this is untrue. One can already be in the US and apply for asylum.

Trump's policy, and "the wall" is partly designed to discourage refugee and asylum seekers, by denying them access to a US official at a port of entry, or access into the US at all.

If we just build a wall and bury our heads beneath it, this simply won't be our problem!

Has that approach ever worked? And to use your situation as an example, it is as you rightfully say, sadly common: You yourself mention how much you have participated in this thread and yet not given much thought to the very topic of the thread (despite your wife being an immigrant!). This irony is quite depressing, and I would argue a disheartening reflection of a good chunk of the American voting public. :(

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on September 17, 2019, 06:39:11 AM
lc,

You didn't answer my questions.

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Castanza on September 17, 2019, 06:54:02 AM
Castanza,
If I ask to borrow your car and promise to return it with a full tank of gas, and then lock up your car in my garage and you never see it again, well that's theft. Except now we're talking about people.

LC that is a ridiculous analogy. And it's not even accurate. I'm curious, have you even watched any of the hearings? Or are you simply listening to what MSM has to say? My guess would be the later. Did you even watch the entire McAleenan testimony?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaZUQPmgNZk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEFoi_leYDw
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on September 17, 2019, 11:21:12 AM
Did you?  Hastings would not say CPB has an obligation to provide sanitary hygene products to children. He says, "well we provide it" but he does not commit to an obligation to do so. What a weasel! His only commitment was to "fully investigate" claims contrary to the Trump administration's hard line testimony.

The guy obviously has a really tough job and to his credit has done quite a bit. But the reality is they are underfunded, and our administration's policies are causing this issue.

And what MSM nonsense are you talking about? I quoted a Businessinsider article, which is owned by a german publishing house. And the information in that article (https://www.businessinsider.com/border-agents-use-baths-to-separate-kids-from-parents-2018-6)
comes from Anne Chandler who is an executive director of Tahirih Justice Center (https://www.tahirih.org/about-us/)

Here are some more quotes from that article for you:

Quote
"The officers say, 'I'm going to take your child to get bathed' — that's one we see again and again," Chandler said. After the parent asks about their child, agents have said "This is a long bath", or "you won't be seeing your child again", she added.

Quote
Chandler said "there is no one process" to carry out the policy, leaving agents to coerce migrant parents by whatever means possible to take their children away.

Quote
She said agents have also threatened parents with additional charges if they did not let their child go.

Quote
Chandler said her office was working with nine parents who had been given no information as to where there child was after they were taken in May.

"None of them had direct information from immigration on where their child was located," she said. "The one number they were given by some government official from the Department of Homeland Security was a 1-800 number. But from the phones inside the detention center, they can't make those calls."

Quote
In some cases, Chandler said, parents have even been deported back to their home countries without their children.

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: Castanza on September 17, 2019, 11:31:27 AM
Did you?  Hastings would not say CPB has an obligation to provide sanitary hygene products to children. He says, "well we provide it" but he does not commit to an obligation to do so. What a weasel! His only commitment was to "fully investigate" claims contrary to the Trump administration's hard line testimony.

The guy obviously has a really tough job and to his credit has done quite a bit. But the reality is they are underfunded, and our administration's policies are causing this issue.

And what MSM nonsense are you talking about? I quoted a Businessinsider article, which is owned by a german publishing house. And the information in that article (https://www.businessinsider.com/border-agents-use-baths-to-separate-kids-from-parents-2018-6)
comes from Anne Chandler who is an executive director of Tahirih Justice Center (https://www.tahirih.org/about-us/)

Here are some more quotes from that article for you:

Quote
"The officers say, 'I'm going to take your child to get bathed' — that's one we see again and again," Chandler said. After the parent asks about their child, agents have said "This is a long bath", or "you won't be seeing your child again", she added.

Quote
Chandler said "there is no one process" to carry out the policy, leaving agents to coerce migrant parents by whatever means possible to take their children away.

Quote
She said agents have also threatened parents with additional charges if they did not let their child go.

Quote
Chandler said her office was working with nine parents who had been given no information as to where there child was after they were taken in May.

"None of them had direct information from immigration on where their child was located," she said. "The one number they were given by some government official from the Department of Homeland Security was a 1-800 number. But from the phones inside the detention center, they can't make those calls."

Quote
In some cases, Chandler said, parents have even been deported back to their home countries without their children.

There is another video where this is touched on. Not sure if it's him or someone else testifying. But the general gist is that they are required to provide such hygene products etc. But they cannot force anyone to use them. Same goes for food and other medical attention.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on September 17, 2019, 11:39:22 AM
I do have some sympathy for BP officers. They are told to take these people's children, stick all the kids in a box which is 9 times over capacity, try to keep everyone clean and fed. I mean, teachers try to do the same thing in a classroom of 20-30. We expect the same from BP who are stuck in vastly more difficult circumstances? It's unrealistic - and it's due to this ridiculous zero tolerance policy.

I mean, you know who could get these kids to eat and bathe? Their parents.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on September 17, 2019, 12:29:13 PM
lc, would you prefer a wall or the current method if those are the only two options?

Also, as I've noted many times, your feelings around all these are mostly random. Your evolutionary instincts create one "truth" and Trump's create another "truth.'  As a 3rd party who hasn't looked at the issue much, why should I value your version of truth vs Trump's (if your worldview is accurate)?

Which of these do you feel is really true:

A) Your evolutionary instincts are firing off in a somewhat random manner. Your version of morality is an illusion and has no real basis in the true version of reality (basically that there are no moral truths). Everyone's brains are structured in ways they can't control so everyone's moral system is of equal "truth."

B) Your conscience is actually something that transcends yourself/humanity (since liberals are Godaphobic, we'll say...uhh, an Undiscovered Particle) and there is actually a real truth to your feelings of moral justice (something that people really should follow)?

It seems quite clear to me you say you believe in A but you really believe B. ;)

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on September 17, 2019, 01:32:50 PM
Paul, we’ve had the same discussion on morality countless times. My views may seem random but perhaps that’s because they are not written in The Book. But the topic of morality,  well its become a bit repetitive and I’m sure we both feel like we’re talking....to the wall  ;D

As to your choice...what kind of baited question is that?

“Would you prefer I kick you with soccer cleats or a steel-toed boot?”
Only the bully, the tyrant, the oppressor...the worst part of humanity...asks such a question!
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on September 17, 2019, 02:05:03 PM
Paul, we’ve had the same discussion on morality countless times. My views may seem random but perhaps that’s because they are not written in The Book. But the topic of morality,  well its become a bit repetitive and I’m sure we both feel like we’re talking....to the wall  ;D

As to your choice...what kind of baited question is that?

“Would you prefer I kick you with soccer cleats or a steel-toed boot?”
Only the bully, the tyrant, the oppressor...the worst part of humanity...asks such a question!


If you really care about families not being separated, the wall will help with that. Sure, it's baited but it also gets to your true intentions. The bully, tyrant and oppressor certainly sounds like the left. They call everyone bigot, racist, etc if they have a different opinion. It's very cult like.
 
We've had it countless times because you never answer. ;)

Morality doesn't come from the The Book. The Book actually says the moral law comes from one's conscience. If you really feel that morality is subjective, why are you trying to force Trump to not do what he feels is best? I don't see how that isn't bigoted. If you're going to be open minded and tolerant, I don't see how this is any different from the "bigots" the left is always calling folks. Bigotry is simply the intolerance of another person's opinions. The left is incredibly intolerant (and bigoted) but are blind to it. This is coming from a guy who voted for Obama and would have gladly voted for Bernie Sanders  (yes, I knew he was crazy) in 2016!

If you believe that morality extends beyond yourself and evolutionary instincts (there really is a true right and wrong), why do you not believe in the "Undiscovered Particle"? The amount of "empirical evidence" is basically the same - faith. Faith is good enough for you to force your subjective moral judgement on folks but not to believe in a Creator? Okay, makes sense!

I would really like to understand why you're so firm on something you feel doesn't really matter. I struggled through this question which is why I stopped being agnostic and went the theism route. It certainly seems like the most rational choice if morality really matters.


Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on September 17, 2019, 03:09:36 PM
Quote
If you really care about families not being separated, the wall will help with that.

I see. "Don't claim asylum and we won't rip your family apart!"

You're talking either wickedness, or ignorance. Sadly you're not alone.

Quote
The bully, tyrant and oppressor certainly sounds like the left. They call everyone bigot, racist, etc if they have a different opinion. It's very cult like.

More nonsense. You present a choice between a rock and a hard place, and then have the gall to criticize for saying both options suck? Get real.

And finally, you're projecting with your "cult" comment.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on September 17, 2019, 03:59:06 PM
Quote
If you really care about families not being separated, the wall will help with that.

I see. "Don't claim asylum and we won't rip your family apart!"

You're talking either wickedness, or ignorance. Sadly you're not alone.

Quote
The bully, tyrant and oppressor certainly sounds like the left. They call everyone bigot, racist, etc if they have a different opinion. It's very cult like.

More nonsense. You present a choice between a rock and a hard place, and then have the gall to criticize for saying both options suck? Get real.

And finally, you're projecting with your "cult" comment.

Real wickedness doesn't exist in your worldview. I can assure you that something you agree with, where you are actually taking a human life, is far more wicked than what you are against. Personally, I think taking kids away from their family and a mother ending the birth of her own child (except in say the case of rape or health) are wrong but that's my subjective opinion!

Oh, the left is very much like a cult. All things based on "feelings." That's why I don't prescribe to that ideology anymore.

Like I said a bigot is someone who is intolerant to another's opinions. You are intolerant to Trump's opinions. You don't think that's bigoted? Or, like most of the left, only the bigots are the folks you disagree with?

I've pointed out on numerous occasions why your values are contradictory and irrational. I'll say it again. You want to force your subjective opinion on other people. You accept that your opinion is the "right" one based on no empirical evidence yet you don't accept God - which is the only reason your moral values would have any reason to be valid anyway.

If you don't believe in a transcendent view of morality, that's fine but it makes little sense to have a such a strong opinion if you don't really think there's more to it than materialism.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on September 17, 2019, 08:28:32 PM
Well I’m still not going to take the bait and talk about morality.

On the bigot comment, you are so nonsensically off base it is disappointing!

Disagreeing with someone does not make you intolerant of them. I’m sure you can wrap your head around that distinction.

To put it more concretely, I think this zero tolerance policy is inhumane. And furthermore, the multiple sources which describe the conditions these people are subject to corroborate my view.

But I am not dismissing zero tolerance simply because it comes from Mr. Orange. And I have not said anything which even suggests that.

So to say I am bigoted is, again, either wicked or ignorant of the term. And I've spoken to you often enough to say that you don't usually exhibit such behavioral traits :D
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on September 18, 2019, 01:49:45 PM
Well I’m still not going to take the bait and talk about morality.

On the bigot comment, you are so nonsensically off base it is disappointing!

Disagreeing with someone does not make you intolerant of them. I’m sure you can wrap your head around that distinction.

To put it more concretely, I think this zero tolerance policy is inhumane. And furthermore, the multiple sources which describe the conditions these people are subject to corroborate my view.

You won't talk about morality because you realize your views don't make sense. ;)


https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bigot


You are utterly intolerant of Trump's opinion or belief, right?

The left frequently tells people they are bigots. For instance, if someone doesn't want their daughter competing against a transgender female in an athletic competition, they are a bigot.

The left thinks they are morally righteous so they call other folks bigots. If Trump is morally righteous, it's fair to call those that are against him bigots too. After all, all moral righteous is simply in the eye of the beholder.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on September 19, 2019, 09:22:49 AM
Where have I been “Utterly intolerant”? Show me, I am curious to know.

Trump implemented a policy. I have reviewed the effects of this policy and in my opinion, characterize it as inhumane.

You’ve now creating imaginary hoops to perform a full routine of mental gymnastics. I’ll give it a score of 2/10, at least the effort is consistent :)
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on September 19, 2019, 09:32:32 AM
Where have I been “Utterly intolerant”? Show me, I am curious to know.

Trump implemented a policy. I have reviewed the effects of this policy and in my opinion, characterize it as inhumane.

You’ve now creating imaginary hoops to perform a full routine of mental gymnastics. I’ll give it a score of 2/10, at least the effort is consistent :)


If you classify something as "inhumane" and "concentration camp" isn't that utterly intolerant?

If you had the power to do so, wouldn't you absolutely stop Trump?

You know, morality is objective but also subjective and..."feelings!"

Hopefully if I can be as irrational, so I too can win the gold like you one day. ;)

Ehh...maybe not. I'd rather be honest. You can keep the gold!
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on September 19, 2019, 11:06:15 AM
You are arguing nonsense and semantics. Get real.

Quote
If you had the power to do so, wouldn't you absolutely stop Trump?
More nonsense: totalitarian absolutes. This is a democracy where we vote to add and remove people from leadership positions.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on September 19, 2019, 12:31:10 PM
You are arguing nonsense and semantics. Get real.

Quote
If you had the power to do so, wouldn't you absolutely stop Trump?
More nonsense: totalitarian absolutes. This is a democracy where we vote to add and remove people from leadership positions.

Are you a bigot in regards to totalitarianism now??? ;)

So you wouldn't stop Trump if you could? Come on now!

Let's say parents don't want their daughter to compete against a transgender female in an athletic competition, is that bigotry or not?

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on September 19, 2019, 01:04:26 PM
Quote
So you wouldn't stop Trump if you could? Come on now!
So you definitely you enjoy coming up with these hypothetical situations  ;D  Although I think there's quite a bit of area for improvement in how you design them. For example, what exactly do you mean, "if I could?"

If I was the President? (When then why would I need to 'stop Trump'?)
If I was on the supreme court? A member of Congress? (Well then how could I 'stop Trump'?)
If was a member of the voting public (I already answered this in my previous post)
If I was a lunatic with a gun? (Is this the only way you know to 'stop Trump'? Again, your totalitarianism rears its ugly head)

So again, another poorly defined question (similar to your earlier one: "well if it's a choice between a wall and a cage...")


Quote
Let's say parents don't want their daughter to compete against a transgender female in an athletic competition, is that bigotry or not?
I think if you're asking me to define bigotry for you, well then you've got your own problems to sort out.


And I'll also notice you still can't quite get onto the topic of what to do about how we as a society should treat thousands of migrants trying to claim asylum. Keep dancing in that ivory tower.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on September 19, 2019, 01:21:22 PM
Quote
So you wouldn't stop Trump if you could? Come on now!
So you definitely you enjoy coming up with these hypothetical situations  ;D  Although I think there's quite a bit of area for improvement in how you design them. For example, what exactly do you mean, "if I could?"

If I was the President? (When then why would I need to 'stop Trump'?)
If I was on the supreme court? A member of Congress? (Well then how could I 'stop Trump'?)
If was a member of the voting public (I already answered this in my previous post)
If I was a lunatic with a gun? (Is this the only way you know to 'stop Trump'? Again, your totalitarianism rears its ugly head)

So again, another poorly defined question (similar to your earlier one: "well if it's a choice between a wall and a cage...")


Quote
Let's say parents don't want their daughter to compete against a transgender female in an athletic competition, is that bigotry or not?
I think if you're asking me to define bigotry for you, well then you've got your own problems to sort out.


And I'll also notice you still can't quite get onto the topic of what to do about how we as a society should treat thousands of migrants trying to claim asylum. Keep dancing in that ivory tower.

I actually know what bigotry means. Most people tend to use it only in a (self defined) manner to suit their political agenda. ;)

Let's just say you could change for any of those reasons (or for any reason). ;)

You skip so many of my questions!  :o

But back to the immigrants. Like I said, if I'm an atheist. I would have no problem with how they're treated and may even want a wall. Ultimately, it seems most rational to minimize the public taxpayer cost since the government's primary responsibility is to its citizens and not folks from another country. The more public funds are used non-citizens, the less for actual citizens. But then again, that is my subjective opinion.

As a theist, I can say "you know what humans matter more than where you're from or the country you're in and should be treated in a humane manner. We're all made in the image of God and should be treated as such."

An atheist making an emotional claim to something they admit is basically arbitrary makes very little sense to me. 

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on September 19, 2019, 01:49:27 PM
Quote
I actually know what bigotry means. Most people tend to use it only in a (self defined) manner to suit their political agenda. ;)
Well that's great, but you brought it up and then you asked me to define it for you! Give me a break!  ;D

Quote
You skip so many of my questions!  :o
Yeah but you ask bad ones.
"Would you stop Trump if you could?" <---poorly defined
"Would you choose a wall or a cage" <----false premise

Quote
But back to the immigrants. Like I said, if I'm an atheist. I would have no problem with how they're treated and may even want a wall. Ultimately, it seems most rational to minimize the public taxpayer cost since the government's primary responsibility is to its citizens and not folks from another country. The more public funds are used non-citizens, the less for actual citizens. But then again, that is my subjective opinion.
So there's a fair point but it's muddled.  The logic  becomes circular depending on what you define as "responsibility to its citizens".  For example, why don't we pull out of Afghanistan? Why don't we cut off all support for Israel? Ah, but defeating the Taliban and supporting democracy in the middle east is in service and provides defense to US citizens!, one could say. Well, I say allowing asylum claims is also in service to US citizens (for a few reasons, one being that someone has to donate blood for another to receive it!)

So who decides where this responsibility ends? Well, we vote on leaders who define it. And we join with other countries to negotiate it globally (For example: the US supports UN law on Asylum and Refugee rights).

So for those reasons I don't quite buy the argument you are making. But I am glad to see we are getting somewhere productive  :D

Quote
As a theist, I can say "you know what humans matter more than where you're from or the country you're in and should be treated in a humane manner. We're all made in the image of God and should be treated as such."

An atheist making an emotional claim to something they admit is basically arbitrary makes very little sense to me.
See? You scratch my back, I scratch yours.   ;D

So first off, I don't think atheists make the admission you are claiming. Atheists don't say, humans are value-less and can be used and disposed of like a broken hammer and nail.

Secondly, part of morality comes from the shared nature of humanity. I think I took this position a few weeks back with you, namely that humanism, and human rights, originate from the fact that we are all alive and sharing this planet. Here too we see an amount of shared definition - for example the UN's universal declaration of human rights as an attempt to define what exactly these rights are.

I mean, you're essentially trying to make the argument that atheists cannot be "good" because atheists cannot define "good". Empirically, this does not hold up (we see plenty of good atheists), and logically it does not either (atheists can define morality and there is nothing "good" which the religious are able to do, but the atheist is unable).

You're asking, "why should you care about these people, you're an atheist!" Well, I am, and I do! So your point kind of falls flat.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: cwericb on September 20, 2019, 05:22:38 AM
You can be an atheist/agnostic and still try to live by the “Golden Rule” - Do onto others as you would have them do onto you. Lack of religion does not mean a lack of morality.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on September 20, 2019, 06:47:07 AM
Quote
I actually know what bigotry means. Most people tend to use it only in a (self defined) manner to suit their political agenda. ;)
Well that's great, but you brought it up and then you asked me to define it for you! Give me a break!  ;D

Quote
You skip so many of my questions!  :o
Yeah but you ask bad ones.
"Would you stop Trump if you could?" <---poorly defined
"Would you choose a wall or a cage" <----false premise

Quote
But back to the immigrants. Like I said, if I'm an atheist. I would have no problem with how they're treated and may even want a wall. Ultimately, it seems most rational to minimize the public taxpayer cost since the government's primary responsibility is to its citizens and not folks from another country. The more public funds are used non-citizens, the less for actual citizens. But then again, that is my subjective opinion.
So there's a fair point but it's muddled.  The logic  becomes circular depending on what you define as "responsibility to its citizens".  For example, why don't we pull out of Afghanistan? Why don't we cut off all support for Israel? Ah, but defeating the Taliban and supporting democracy in the middle east is in service and provides defense to US citizens!, one could say. Well, I say allowing asylum claims is also in service to US citizens (for a few reasons, one being that someone has to donate blood for another to receive it!)

So who decides where this responsibility ends? Well, we vote on leaders who define it. And we join with other countries to negotiate it globally (For example: the US supports UN law on Asylum and Refugee rights).

So for those reasons I don't quite buy the argument you are making. But I am glad to see we are getting somewhere productive  :D

Quote
As a theist, I can say "you know what humans matter more than where you're from or the country you're in and should be treated in a humane manner. We're all made in the image of God and should be treated as such."

An atheist making an emotional claim to something they admit is basically arbitrary makes very little sense to me.
See? You scratch my back, I scratch yours.   ;D

So first off, I don't think atheists make the admission you are claiming. Atheists don't say, humans are value-less and can be used and disposed of like a broken hammer and nail.

Secondly, part of morality comes from the shared nature of humanity. I think I took this position a few weeks back with you, namely that humanism, and human rights, originate from the fact that we are all alive and sharing this planet. Here too we see an amount of shared definition - for example the UN's universal declaration of human rights as an attempt to define what exactly these rights are.

I mean, you're essentially trying to make the argument that atheists cannot be "good" because atheists cannot define "good". Empirically, this does not hold up (we see plenty of good atheists), and logically it does not either (atheists can define morality and there is nothing "good" which the religious are able to do, but the atheist is unable).

You're asking, "why should you care about these people, you're an atheist!" Well, I am, and I do! So your point kind of falls flat.

Fair enough on what's in the best interest of the citizens part.

I don't think you and I are far of on the treatment of immigrants overall. ;)


However, the humanism part...yeah, I don't buy that!

Oh, no. Atheists can be plenty good. In fact, I would argue that many times the nonbeliever is more good than the so-called believer. When I was agnostic I lived, what most would probably consider, a more morally good life than many churchgoers.

What I'm saying is that "good" doesn't really exist without a deity. Essentially, we're all just organic robots operating our pre-programmed software (evolutionary instincts -which we have no real control over) without a deity. So "goodness" is only in the eye of the beholder and doesn't really mean anything. Some people are born to be Bonhoeffer, some are born to be Epstein. Each of us is just following our evolutionary instincts.

Another way to look at is like a game. All of us go through this game and we have rules. So, the question really becomes are we just following the rules someone else made up or is there a Creator of the game who's rules are intuitive because He made us? If someone else made up the rules, why follow them if they're not in our best interest? If a Creator made the rules, the rules are more than us and gives us a reason to follow them even if it's not in our best interest (like giving to charity or being honest instead of lying).

And that's my issue with Humanism. It's basically for folks who are 1) afraid to face the reality they think actually exists (goodness is an illusion, life is meaningless) 2) think they're smarter than they are (I only believe in things when I have evidence which is why I reject a deity...but I don't hold the same standards to my own moral compass) 3) People who actually believe in God but don't have the honesty to admit it (looking at you, lc). ;)

From the American Humanist Association:

"Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good."

There is nothing "rational" about helping another person if it hurts you. There is no real greater good so it's irrational to act like there is. Perhaps eugenics is a greater good? Equality for all? Who knows! Even if folks got a majority consensuses, that still doesn't mean anything.

Anything you view as a greater good can be called good but it's really an illusion in the truest since of the word. Epstein thought it was the greater good to have a farm to pop out his babies because he was so awesome. Greater good? Yes (to him). Greater good to the world..ugh, no.

By the way, the question isn't a false premise. A false premise is when you make an assumption and then make that assumption across categories.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on September 20, 2019, 07:02:25 AM
You can be an atheist/agnostic and still try to live by the “Golden Rule” - Do onto others as you would have them do onto you. Lack of religion does not mean a lack of morality.

I agree. However, a lack of religion (or a deity) does mean a lack of truth in morality though (should one really follow it or not?).

As Shakespeare said, “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”

Essentially what I mean by that is there a transcendent good or is what is good only determined by each individual? If atheism is true, the later is true in which case it is irrational to act against our best interest. If theism is true, it is rational to act against our best interest because there is a good greater than us.

This is the most rational conclusion unless someone can explain to me otherwise.
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on September 20, 2019, 09:00:30 AM
Your entire post hinges on the following proposition:

Quote
What I'm saying is that "good" doesn't really exist without a deity.

This is because you refuse to accept evidence and reasoning to the contrary, because it disagrees with your beliefs (or more precisely, what you want to believe).

So your entire post can be responded to with this observation.


Now let me ask you, is the humanitarian crisis on the border part of god's plan for these children and migrants?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on September 20, 2019, 09:27:10 AM
Your entire post hinges on the following proposition:

Quote
What I'm saying is that "good" doesn't really exist without a deity.

This is because you refuse to accept evidence and reasoning to the contrary, because it disagrees with your beliefs (or more precisely, what you want to believe).

So your entire post can be responded to with this observation.


Now let me ask you, is the humanitarian crisis on the border part of god's plan for these children and migrants?

lc, I can say the same exact thing about your position. You want to believe God doesn't exist. How do I know this? Because you want empirical evidence for God but not for your moral compass. This is also why you're in a contradictory state - the whole morality is objective and subjective issue.

But yes, this and everything else is part of God's divine plan.

But I can't say I view this as a humanitarian crisis (relatively anyway). There are many things that are much worse in this world. Is this bad, sure? But something like Isis is much worse. Why have you not posted more about that?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: LC on September 20, 2019, 09:39:38 AM
Quote
Because you want empirical evidence for God but not for your moral compass.

No, this is incorrect. I do want evidence for my moral compass, and I can satisfactorily get there. Here is a pretty good article on the matter, it gives a good history of the discussion over the centuries to frame modern discussion on the issue:

https://secularhumanism.org/2014/07/cont-how-morality-has-the-objectivity-that-matterswithout-god/

Quote
But something like Isis is much worse. Why have you not posted more about that?
Because they are two different situations.

 ISIS is an internationally designated terrorist organization so there is some justification to the US military's pseudo-occupation in parts of the middle east. But even there I think we go too far (how many civilian deaths? it is terrible).

However on migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers -  these people are generally nonviolent, don't hate the country (actually they want to come here), and are fleeing squalor and violence. But my government cages their children and sends their parents away.

Can you not see the distinction?
Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: cwericb on September 20, 2019, 10:12:35 AM

Wow! I haven’t been following this thread closely so I may be taking things out of context, but some of your statements seem to be rather.... self serving?

“What I'm saying is that "good" doesn't really exist without a deity.”

What? That is complete and utter nonsense. Surely you don't believe that? You must have a strange definition of “good”.  Are you suggesting that one must believe in a deity to understand right from wrong or good from bad? 

“If atheism is true ... it is irrational to act against our best interest. If theism is true, it is rational to act against our best interest because there is a good greater than us."

Why? Isn’t that a rather selfish view? Who decided that? I assume it is strictly your personal view.

But I can see where it comes from - “We’re number one!” - “We are the best!” - “We are the greatest!” - “We can do everything better than anyone else can!” - Why, because... “In God we trust”  Really, isn't this just more conceited and elitist baloney?

Many people on the other hand, believe that if we avoid hurting others, help others in times of need and treat others with respect and treat them as we would have them treat us, it will be a much happier world for us all. Call it 'good' or 'bad', atheism/theism has nothing to do with it. Unless one is prejudiced against anyone who doesn't believe in a deity.

Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on September 21, 2019, 01:45:11 PM
Quote
Because you want empirical evidence for God but not for your moral compass.

No, this is incorrect. I do want evidence for my moral compass, and I can satisfactorily get there. Here is a pretty good article on the matter, it gives a good history of the discussion over the centuries to frame modern discussion on the issue:

https://secularhumanism.org/2014/07/cont-how-morality-has-the-objectivity-that-matterswithout-god/

Quote
But something like Isis is much worse. Why have you not posted more about that?
Because they are two different situations.

 ISIS is an internationally designated terrorist organization so there is some justification to the US military's pseudo-occupation in parts of the middle east. But even there I think we go too far (how many civilian deaths? it is terrible).

However on migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers -  these people are generally nonviolent, don't hate the country (actually they want to come here), and are fleeing squalor and violence. But my government cages their children and sends their parents away.

Can you not see the distinction?

Yes, Isis and the border wall are two very different issues. Isis was also much worse.

We could also look at it a little differently. The immigrants are coming in to a country without being asked to do so. People in countries with Isis are being killed without doing anything. Are the immigrants doing anything "wrong"? That's quite subjective.

For the article, can you explain to me what's so compelling?

Got to love in when people have to redefine terms to make their arguments:

"The better argument is that morality is neither objective nor subjective as those terms are commonly understood." So yes, let's first redefine what objective and subjective mean.

"It’s based on a picture of morality in which morality serves functions similar to factual descriptions (or mathematical theorems). We need to discard that picture. Let’s clear our minds and start anew." Oh, next let's redefine morality!

Yes, lc, I see where you're getting your "empirical evidence." Let's first redefine what "empirical" means. Next we'll then redefine evidence as "feelings." ;)



Title: Re: Just in case anyone forgot
Post by: stahleyp on September 21, 2019, 02:02:58 PM

Wow! I haven’t been following this thread closely so I may be taking things out of context, but some of your statements seem to be rather.... self serving?

“What I'm saying is that "good" doesn't really exist without a deity.”

What? That is complete and utter nonsense. Surely you don't believe that? You must have a strange definition of “good”.  Are you suggesting that one must believe in a deity to understand right from wrong or good from bad? 

“If atheism is true ... it is irrational to act against our best interest. If theism is true, it is rational to act against our best interest because there is a good greater than us."

Why? Isn’t that a rather selfish view? Who decided that? I assume it is strictly your personal view.

But I can see where it comes from - “We’re number one!” - “We are the best!” - “We are the greatest!” - “We can do everything better than anyone else can!” - Why, because... “In God we trust”  Really, isn't this just more conceited and elitist baloney?

Many people on the other hand, believe that if we avoid hurting others, help others in times of need and treat others with respect and treat them as we would have them treat us, it will be a much happier world for us all. Call it 'good' or 'bad', atheism/theism has nothing to do with it. Unless one is prejudiced against anyone who doesn't believe in a deity.

Nope, I don't believe someone has to believe in deity to know right from wrong. I believe God sculpted our conscience for us to know that. I'll say that right and wrong don't really exist though, if atheism is correct.

And yes, I certainly believe that "good" really only exists if there is a deity.

How else could it exist? Here's my point. In the materialistic world view, the only way we know what is "good" or "bad" is based on a chemical reaction of morality (we'll call these evolutionary instincts). We have one chemical reaction if we do something "good" and a different one if we do something "bad". What if we took a pill (voluntarily or not) that reversed those actions? Would things we consider evil now be considered admirable then? Yes. Essentially there is no true "good" because it's all an illusion.

Person A's brain is wired to it's "good" to be selfish. Person B might think it's "good" to give to charity. Who is right here?

Or, in an alternative reality, let's say we had evolved a little differently. Our evolutionary instincts might value sadism over charity. Keep in mind that is a very real possibility since sadism actually exists. It's simply by the luck of nature that sadism didn't dominate our species.

Look at how our evolutionary instincts trick us in other ways. Our evolutionary instincts want a lot of fatty and unhealthy foods, we sell out at market bottoms, etc. Why trust our evolutionary instincts for morality?

So yes, I'm fully confident that "good" only exists if a deity exists. Anything less is an illusion of goodness.


How is it rational to act against your best interest if there nothing transcends each individual?  :o