Most True Christians Are Sadists

[curiousgirl]

Regarding “Russell’s Teapot”…………

Insofar as it argues against something being considered proven because it can’t be disproven, I agree. I think it goes to far, though, when it involves God. This is an epistemological 'apples-and-oranges' comparison. There is no evidence whatsoever for an orbiting teapot but there is evidence for the probable existence of God. The logic minus the God aspect is sound.

My bolding above. Then you should have no problem providing evidence. But didn't you say earlier that you could not provide evidence?

BS, as for your claims regarding Russell's teapot, I think Hatter said it best:

The critiques of this in the case for God not being equal to a teapot are just a matter of special pleading, and appeal to emotion.

[riley2112]

Regarding “Russell’s Teapot”…………

Insofar as it argues against something being considered proven because it can’t be disproven, I agree. I think it goes to far, though, when it involves God. This is an epistemological 'apples-and-oranges' comparison. There is no evidence whatsoever for an orbiting teapot but there is evidence for the probable existence of God. The logic minus the God aspect is sound.

Faith means belief in something concerning which doubt is theoretically possible.
(William James)



Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/william_james.html#ixzz1eIRMQP4B

[BibleStudent]

Regarding “Russell’s Teapot”…………

Insofar as it argues against something being considered proven because it can’t be disproven, I agree. I think it goes to far, though, when it involves God. This is an epistemological 'apples-and-oranges' comparison. There is no evidence whatsoever for an orbiting teapot but there is evidence for the probable existence of God. The logic minus the God aspect is sound.

My bolding above. Then you should have no problem providing evidence. But didn't you say earlier that you could not provide evidence?

BS, as for your claims regarding Russell's teapot, I think Hatter said it best:

The critiques of this in the case for God not being equal to a teapot are just a matter of special pleading, and appeal to emotion.

Among several others, two of the stronger arguments that serve as evidence are the arguments for the existence of 'logic' and 'morality.' Arguments for both having come from God serve as strong evidence for the existence of God. The Bible is also a strong evidence as are the mathematical probabilities in conjunction with the biological complexities of life and the universe. By themselves, they most often form a 'weak' argument but when combined the argument becomes strong.

[Alzael]

Regarding “Russell’s Teapot”…………

Insofar as it argues against something being considered proven because it can’t be disproven, I agree. I think it goes to far, though, when it involves God. This is an epistemological 'apples-and-oranges' comparison. There is no evidence whatsoever for an orbiting teapot but there is evidence for the probable existence of God. The logic minus the God aspect is sound.

If there is probably evidence for the existence of god, then why do you (or any other theist) never provide it?

This also does not make it an "apples-to-oranges" comparison. Russells Teapot deals with the philosophical burden of proof and where it lies. There is no difference in epistemology and you certainly haven't demonstrated one.

Among several others, two of the stronger arguments that serve as evidence are the arguments for the existence of 'logic' and 'morality.'

How? Don't say they do, BS. Show they do.

Arguments for both having come from God serve as strong evidence for the existence of God.

Why? How does the existence of logic prove god?

The Bible is also a strong evidence as are the mathematical probabilities in conjunction with the biological complexities of life and the universe. By themselves, they most often form a 'weak' argument but when combined the argument becomes strong.

The bible proves nothing. What mathematical probabilities are you using? What biological complexities show this?

How do a bunch of one sentence unsupported statements strung together become a strong argument, BS?

Evidence, BS, remember that part.

Aside:You know, this might be actually be humourous if BS's utter stupidity was at least in some way interesting.

[Alzael]

^^^^^

Thank you for once again clarifying everything. I appreciate it. 

You really are a hoot !!

Also I take it that this is your way of backing out of providing any actual arguments, evidence, or justification for the other points from before as well.

[curiousgirl]

Among several others, two of the stronger arguments that serve as evidence are the arguments for the existence of 'logic' and 'morality.' Arguments for both having come from God serve as strong evidence for the existence of God.

Then show me the actual arguments, and please cite your sources.

The Bible is also a strong evidence as are the mathematical probabilities in conjunction with the biological complexities of life and the universe. By themselves, they most often form a 'weak' argument but when combined the argument becomes strong.

First you need to establish the Bible as a historical document, which you have failed to do.

As for the "mathematical probabilities in conjunction with the biological complexities of life and the universe," please show evidence that God had anything to do with that.

[BibleStudent]

reply #264 snipped to conserve space

I would prefer it if you and I did not engage in any more discussions. I am just not willing to be the recipient of your constant insults anymore. I don't mind the occasional jab but yours are so continuous and unrelenting that they make it difficult for me to have any desire to continue engaging with you. Why you feel that sort of thing is necessary is beyond me. I think I know why you do it but that is beside the point. I am already prepared for the ripping you will probably unleash on me for even writing this. If that makes me a coward or a sissy or means that I am banned from the site, then so be it. Thank you.

[BibleStudent]

^^^^^

Thank you for once again clarifying everything. I appreciate it. 

You really are a hoot !!

Also I take it that this is your way of backing out of providing any actual arguments, evidence, or justification for the other points from before as well.

It is your prerogative to conclude that which you choose to conclude. Thank you.

[BibleStudent]

Among several others, two of the stronger arguments that serve as evidence are the arguments for the existence of 'logic' and 'morality.' Arguments for both having come from God serve as strong evidence for the existence of God.

Then show me the actual arguments, and please cite your sources.

Start here:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,15098.0.html
There was a big discussion about morality in this thread that I participated in. You will probably have to read the vast majority of it to see the arguments I was making. Happy reading !!

The Bible is also a strong evidence as are the mathematical probabilities in conjunction with the biological complexities of life and the universe. By themselves, they most often form a 'weak' argument but when combined the argument becomes strong.

First you need to establish the Bible as a historical document, which you have failed to do.

Well, I actually never even started so if that qualifies as failure, then so be it. But I will gadly provide what you are requesting. I kindly ask that you afford me some time to gather all of the material I have....but I suggest you prepare to set aside a substantial amount of time to get through it all.

As for the "mathematical probabilities in conjunction with the biological complexities of life and the universe," please show evidence that God had anything to do with that.

Same as above.

I didn't really want to get into this but far be it for me to deny a request such as this. You are probably going to regret asking for it, though, because I am going to be expecting a thorough response to every bit of information I provide.

[curiousgirl]

LOL, I doubt I will regret asking for information, BS. All you seem to do is dodge, stall, and go off on tangents.

You know that I am not going to read 51 pages of the thread you posted, so just state what your arguments were. Is that so difficult?

[BibleStudent]

You know that I am not going to read 51 pages of the thread you posted, so just state what your arguments were. Is that so difficult?

I get accused of being "lazy" for these kinds of responses. Whatever. If you are genuinely interested in getting a flavor for my position on the origin of morality then I would think you would want to read it. Why don't you ?

In a very abbreviated nutshell, I argue that morality is objective which necessitates that "Someone" created it.

[Emily]

You know that I am not going to read 51 pages of the thread you posted, so just state what your arguments were. Is that so difficult?

I get accused of being "lazy" for these kinds of responses. Whatever. If you are genuinely interested in getting a flavor for my position on the origin of morality then I would think you would want to read it. Why don't you ?

One thing you can do is at least link to the interesting parts of that thread. At the top of each comment is an anchor link. Just link to either your posts or the posts that are interesting. I mean, refusing to read 51 pages isn't a lazy thing. It's just time consuming.

For example: Here's a link to a post you made in that thread on page two
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,15098.msg339911.html#msg339911

Instead of reading all 51 pages and all 1459 comments how about weeding out the boring stuff and getting to your point.

Tough.

[Alzael]

I get accused of being "lazy" for these kinds of responses. Whatever. If you are genuinely interested in getting a flavor for my position on the origin of morality then I would think you would want to read it. Why don't you ?

No, you get accused of being lazy for being unwilling to scroll up a page or two to look at what other people have said to you in the thread. You're asking her to go through 51 pages of a thread she has no reason to read in the first place to find an argument you made over a year ago.

In a very abbreviated nutshell, I argue that morality is objective which necessitates that "Someone" created it.

Fortunately I was actually part of that thread (in fact it's where we first met) and I already know it.

Curiousgirl, you may want to read it. It's very telling about his character and his beliefs.

More to the point though, don't bother looking for evidence of his arguments in it. I spent 5+ pages just trying to explain to him what objective even means.

[BibleStudent]

You know that I am not going to read 51 pages of the thread you posted, so just state what your arguments were. Is that so difficult?

I get accused of being "lazy" for these kinds of responses. Whatever. If you are genuinely interested in getting a flavor for my position on the origin of morality then I would think you would want to read it. Why don't you ?

One thing you can do is at least link to the interesting parts of that thread. At the top of each comment is an anchor link. Just link to either your posts or the posts that are interesting. I mean, refusing to read 51 pages isn't a lazy thing. It's just time consuming.

For example: Here's a link to a post you made in that thread on page two
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,15098.msg339911.html#msg339911

Instead of reading all 51 pages and all 1459 comments how about weeding out the boring stuff and getting to your point.

Tough.

Because there is a progression in the conversation. You need to see how points are made and countered. If I start cherry picking various comments I made, the discussion is going to start all over again here....and what sense does that make when I have already argued them and it is very simple to click on the link and review it. Why is it okay for me to re-read all 50 or so pages but not 'curiousgirl'?

[Alzael]

By the way, BS, you do realize that she asked you for arguments that provide evidence, right?

Nothing you said at any point in the thread provided evidence. They were your own assertions and ideas.

If people ask you for evidence, you actually need to provide evidence. Not link to something that says something you like.

Here we go down this road again.

Also I'm just curiou, BS, but you do realize that you've already effectively torpedoed your own argument right?

In a very abbreviated nutshell, I argue that morality is objective which necessitates that "Someone" created it.

See the problem?

[Historicity]

Among several others, two of the stronger arguments that serve as evidence are the arguments for the existence of 'logic' and 'morality.' Arguments for both having come from God serve as strong evidence for the existence of God.

Speech includes verbal modeling.  Humans note that reasoning by verbal modeling produces false results and there are ways to formulate rules to separate themselves from mere seemings.

That's what logic is.  I don't see how the supernatural enters into that.

[curiousgirl]

Why is it okay for me to re-read all 50 or so pages but not 'curiousgirl'?

If you really had a logical argument to present, you (and I) would not need to read over 50 pages. You should be able to provide a clear argument (with premises that actually support your conclusion) if you truly have one, and use several posts at most.

I get accused of being "lazy" for these kinds of responses. Whatever. If you are genuinely interested in getting a flavor for my position on the origin of morality then I would think you would want to read it. Why don't you ?

I actually think you are lazy for throwing a link at me with over 50 pages in it, and not even one single quote from your posts. You are also lazy for throwing this pathetic one-sentence "argument" at me, with no evidence for it at all:

In a very abbreviated nutshell, I argue that morality is objective which necessitates that "Someone" created it.

So prove it, BS. If your argument makes sense, clearly state your premises. You will also need to explain why we should accept your premises as true. You will need to provide EVIDENCE.

I am calling you out. You need to provide evidence for your claims, or it's just going to look like you are spouting nonsense. This is not about you needing to send me on a wild goose chase in some other thread. This is about you needing to man up and be clear and coherent with your responses.

[Alzael]

To help curiousgirl and others (and because I'm profoundly bored right now) I'll summarize BS's argument with a few relevant posts from the thread he linked since he can't be bothered to write it out and I know a lot of the material can do it faster.

In order to judge God, one would first have to accept that a standard of morality exists independent of Him. I say that God is perfect morality. Therefore, it is irrational for me to judge the very essence of that which is….unless, of course, like I said, there exists a standard outside of God.

Well, on whose authority do you get to declare this?  Thing is, you could say this about anyone, God or not.  I could say that Genghis Khan's morals are perfect morals.  Or I could say that my own morals are perfect morals.  Or that yours are.

If you are arbitrarily defining God's morals as "perfect", without an external objective standard by which to do so, then your definition is subjective.  It reflects your choice, nothing more.  How could it, if there is no standard, objective and external to your god, by which to judge its morals?

I don't declare, He does. I simply believe it.

    If you are arbitrarily defining God's morals as "perfect", without an external objective standard by which to do so, then your definition is subjective.  It reflects your choice, nothing more.  How could it, if there is no standard, objective and external to your god, by which to judge its morals?

You are correct, which is why it is important to state that God IS morality. To say that God is perfectly moral without first qualifying that statement with "God IS morality," then your contention is true.

‘Subjective morality’ is an oxymoron. It necessarily permits that any action can be “right” or “wrong” depending on the person who committed the act believes it to be so.  It implies that all people are morally perfect and condones acts which are obviously immoral.
 
If morality even exists, and I believe it does, then it can only exist objectively. Subjective morality suggests that anything and everything can be rationalized by each of us individually with the intent to establish reasons to legitimize our beliefs. That is a biased belief system no matter how you slice it or dice it that promotes itself on a subjective basis but imposes it objectively on others. That is about as illogical as any argument can be. It is self-contradictory. It is blatantly illogical to say that morality is “subjective” and then project your beliefs onto someone else in any way, shape, or form. It can only become logical when you point to an objective truth in order to validate your position.

You can believe in morality but you cannot justify your belief. You can say that the Nazis were wrong but without an objective standard of morality, then how can it be wrong?

You want to know what is truly ironic about your argument? The irony is that you have thoroughly demonstrated that your argument for subjective morality is not based on knowledge or science….. which you adamantly require of the theist to provide to substantiate their belief in God. In other words, the non-theist holds that the theist position is based on faith and other subjective assertions and not on reality and thus is irrational. Yet, you are doing the exact same thing in making your argument here…..for as soon as you point to science or concrete knowledge, morality becomes subjective by default. Now, that’s irony !!"

How do you know that innocent people would have suffered? How do you know that? If it is even a fraction of a percent possible that everyone escaped the situation unharmed, then I would ask that you kindly discontinue making such a conclusive statement. I was not near as disturbed by the name calling and other derogatory comments as I was over the chronic insistence that my decision would most certainly result in some sort of torture and/or death to the Jewish people and myself. In logical terms, this is a blatantly fallacious assertion using an appeal to probability.

Situational ethics as respects Christianity posits that a moral dilemma or moral paradox is possible when a Christian is in the position of making a decision that will unavoidably result in sin. The Nazi hypothetical is an example of this alleged paradox. While there are those who are in the camp that promotes a type of ‘graduated absolutism', I see no such dilemma. The Bible states that “no temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape” (1 Chorinthians 10:13). Therefore, if I am a Christian who has Jewish guests in my home and I am approached by the Gestapo, my belief is that my determined obedience to God will result in Him providing a way out.

I am starting to think that you have the IQ of a nat. I am using the Bible to make the argument. So, I want you to show me where you find this absolute moral dictate that is not subject to interpretation elsewhere in the Bible.

It is not my intellect that should be called into question here. However, very well, I'll make it simple for you.

I am going by the arguments and morals that you laid down. You put forth the argument that morality is an absolute and that subjective morality does not exist. This means that morality is unchanging and always applicable. This is what you have argued. I am using the morality that you have stated, not the bible. You are the one claiming that morals come from the bible and I am using your arguments as put forth. It was you who stated that a child must obey his parents. If you want to argue for non-subjective morality, then this must ALWAYS be applicable under every possible condition. If the moral changes due to context then it is subjective. This is what these words mean. This is the argument that you have made. If you want to change your argument, then feel free. I don't have to show anything from the bible, because I'm not using the bible, you are. I am simply using the arguments that you've presented. Again, feel free to change it if you want.

By the way, the correct spelling is 'gnat'. If you're going to be insulting, please at least use the language properly.

Bottom line….I do not know for certain how I would respond in a situation where other people’s lives were at stake. I’d have to experience it to know for sure and I pray that God will never put me in that situation.

... which is basically a cop-out. Your objective morality isn't much use if it can't answer a simple hypothetical question, is it? 

I am indeed a moral absolutist but, more specifically, a moral absolutist who denies that any subjective elements need be present and who denies that there are any conflicts. I deny any notion that God could or would put anyone in a situation where they must choose between two "rights" that results in a "wrong."

And yet you've been shown several possible conflicts. None of which you've been able to reconcile. My child scenario for example. Those scenarios play out all the time unfortunately, but you have yet to even begin to get out of that scenario without relying on subjectivity.
 

Several? I recall the Nazi hypothetical and the polygraph test. What did I miss?

You quoted it from me. You still haven't dealt with the fact that you've said children must always obey their parents. So how does a child being given immoral orders mesh with your absolute morality?

The commend to obey your parents is a moral absolute and very central to this command is that it be honored only when it is consistent with the teachings of the Bible. This is confirmed in other passages of the Bible. God is to be honored first. There is no conflict and any "clash" you perceive is just that- a false perception.

You have yet to even begin to show that. You have yet to provide anything that supercedes that command. If it's confirmed in the bible then actually list them. You have not produced anything that says that it's meant to be applicable in anything other than as an absolute, unalterable commandment. Also since it is a moral commandment from god, following it is honouring god. But again, show me the exceptions. And keep in mind that it has to specifically reference the command to obey your parents.

I should also point out that you're shifting your argument, yet again. If is to be honoured only when consistent with other teachings, then you're arguing for your definition of 'gradual absolutism' because you're saying that in conflicting cases it's all right to go with the least immoral choice.

I've asked you about six times now to produce the list of morals that you're arguing for. You have yet to to do so. So don't blame me for interpreting your morals based on your arguments so far and holding you to them. You've been given chances to clarify and ignored them.

*quotes a bunch of bible verses which I don't care enough to copy

o basically, after slogging through all of those, this is what I come up with.

The first one: Almost every line in this clearly says that children should obey their parents absolutely.
"The child is to obey his parents… period."
"It is NOT the child’s right to choose whether he WANTS to obey or not."
"A child that is disobedient to a parent CANNOT be obedient to God, for God said, “Children obey your parents!”"
"There are no days off. There are no private areas where they don’t have to obey. ALL things."
Pretty much everything in here says that this is an absolute. There is only one line out of the whole thing that says that children are supposed to not obey if it contradicts one of god's morals (which BS quoted). And this is not from the bible, it was written by the author of the paper. The bible verse the author quotes does absolutely nothing to support this position, and I'm actually not even sure why he included it in there.

The second one:This one is fairly clear about children always obeying their parents too. Again there's only one line that supports that this is not meant to be an absolute. And once again this is a line written by the author with no biblical support provided (once more quoted by BS). The only source she provides is a story from the bible about a young man who disobeys his father, however after reading the whole story it in no way states or implies that the son did anything moral or immoral. It's actually not even really clear that he directly disobeyed his father. You could say that he ratted on his father, but nothing indicates that he actually disobeyed. And again, there's no indication from the story of any morality regarding the decision.

The third one:Basically just read what I said about the first one. It pretty much applies to both. They use the same weird bible phrase to justify it.

The last one: This is the only one that comes close to arguing BS's point. I won't bother you with the majority of it, because it's the same thing as the other two. And again there's only one line supporting that children should not obey god if it conflicts with morality, again written by the author, not from the bible. The author justifies this with the phrase from Acts "We must obey god rather than men". However this only says that god should be obeyed above all else. But this whole thing is about god's commandments and when they conflict. God has commanded children to always obey. This says nothing about whether this one commandment is overridden if in conflict with another.

Conclusion:All of these are just repetitions of exactly the point that I was raising, children should be completely obedient without thought or question to their parents no matter they order. All of them only spare one or two lines to add in that exception as an afterthought, and none of them justify it as anything other than opinion. Now I will give BS credit, in that the last article could be interpreted as allowing the exception,but it's a stretch beause of it's vagueness. Especially if you look at the verse in it's biblical context where it clearly is in reference to the obeying god over the laws of men, as opposed to overriding any other religious commandment. And it's far and away from anything conclusive or the great consensus among biblical scholars that BS claimed. Especially since only one of these even seems to have a name attached to them. They can't even agree on the reason for the exception, let alone that their reasons are non-sensical or vague. Especially telling considering the amount of minute detail some of them put into very trivial things, but only sparing a few lines for this.

 

OK. You prefer to not commit the minor sin which would prevent the major sin happening. Your honesty leads directly to the murder of the Jews. You are to some degree ('accessory' or not) responsible for those deaths.

And evidently you prefer to be innocent of lying, but guilty of murder (to some degree; quite a large degree, I would say).

The Nazi's are the murderers here. NOT ME. It is their immoral behavior and evil motivations that resulted in the murders. I despise their actions and would never, in any way, condone any of their evil deeds. I am an innocent 'bystander' in an environment that THEY created. You are pointing a finger at the wrong party. I did everything I could in my reality to both honor God and protect the Jews. It is not even close to being my fault in any way, shape, or form for the predicament me and my house guests found ourselves in. Your are doing nothing more than projecting THEIR guilt onto me and I will not accept that under any circumstances.
 

No, you're not an innocent bystander.

In this scenario you chose to collaborate with the Nazis by informing on the Jews.

That makes you morally complicit in their murder. 

So you're innocent of lying, but guilty of murder (or aiding and abetting it).



BS, bear in mind that when this Nazi scenario was first proposed, you denied any responsibility on the grounds that you wouldn't know for definite what the Nazis would do to the Jews. The clear implication was that, if you did know for sure what the Nazis were going to do, you would be complicit in their murder.

But we've tightened up the scenario so that you no longer have this excuse of ignorance.

But you still deny that collaboration is wrong, on the new and spurious ground that the murders are solely the responsibility of the Nazis ("It is their immoral behavior and evil motivations that resulted in the murders." ), and the extraordinary claim that..

"I did everything I could in my reality to both honor God and protect the Jews."

... which sounds wonderfully noble, except that taking that approach actually led you to handing these Jews over to the Nazis, which is a deeply immoral act that makes you complicit in their murder.

Collaboration with the Nazis was wrong, immoral, unethical. I don't understand why you don't understand this.

I think I'll stop here. I think curiousgirl can get the jist of his argument.

Maybe this time he'll actually prove something about it.

Edit:Wow, listening to curiousgirl and reading the old thread it's weird how much she sounds like me back then.

[Alzael]

Just a pair of personal favourites of mine from the thread.

Screwtape

I pretty well explained where I get off saying that.  I find it precious that you are acting all indignant and morally outraged, given the content of the article you linked.  What, did you expect people here to say "hmm, that bigot has a point when he says we are intellectually bankrupt"?  Did you expect people to not take that as an insult?  Let's take a look at the last paragraph you linked:

    So, after an economic meltdown when an armed stranger is approaching you on a dark road and you are taking food home to your hungry family, who would you rather the stranger be, a Christian who believes stealing is wrong and that God is watching or the atheist who sees a need and points his gun at you as he adapt his ethics to suit the moment?


Nice.  Really it is the identical talking point as this lovely bit of propaganda.  Did you think that would be endearing?  I'd say that kind of bigotry is the source of derogatory statements aimed at atheists, not my commentary.  Congratulations for promoting and propagating bigotry.  I bet jesus is proud.

And as I said (and you failed to comprehend), I've not actually directed you to have intercourse with your mother yet.  I asked you for a reason to not do so.  I'm still waiting.

Jeff

Grow up you child.  So the big nasty atheist said something mean to you.  Boo effing hoo.  Jesus man, you say you are 47, but it seems you are closer to 12.   You insulted him first by posting bigoted, idiotic material, and then he says something to you that offends you back, and you go running off the playground to tell your mommy.  Didn't she ever teach you "sticks and stones"?   

It's so typical though.  You are losing the argument in a massive way, so you take the first opportunity to jump ship so you can keep your idiotic beliefs intact.  Everyone here was ripping on your argument.  You were losing, huge.  An adult would take it like a man.

BTW, he never actually told you to fuck your mother.  If you care to go back and look again, you would see that to be true.  He wanted to say it because you posted material that is openly offensive to the people on this site, but he didn't actually tell you to do it.  He probably should have.  You certainly deserved it for endorsing that mans hate speech.   

Also, do you think we never hear Christians say bad things to us?  Why don't you take a peek in the Mail bag section of this forum to see the kind of comments we have to deal with from good Christian folks like yourself.  If you think the love of Jesus imparts some sort of special ability to only be kind to others, then you really are nuts.  But do we run and hide whenever someone "touches a nerve"?  No, we take it in stride.  Know why? Because we are used to insults from Christians like you.  Happens all the time.

If you ever get the balls to come back and finish the conversation, the grown ups will still be here.

[Historicity]

Among several others, two of the stronger arguments that serve as evidence are the arguments for the existence of 'logic' and 'morality.'

Morality is about restraint from passing emotions and impressions and about longer term goals.  It also is about initiating protective actions.  It only exists between animals and I've seen it in the behaviors of vertebrates such as mammals and birds.  I don't associate with reptiles as much so I can't say.

I suppose these behaviors could be proven objective by showing that with some sort of double blind test different impartial observers would describe them the same way.  I can't see at what point we would have to declare supernatural intervention.

[Add Homonym]

Among several others, two of the stronger arguments that serve as evidence are the arguments for the existence of 'logic' and 'morality.'

Erg. I think we need a sticky thread for the "morality" argument. It's so lame.

Christians focus on how morality is cross cultural, to prove their point; but in order to really prove their point, they have to show how morality cannot be derived from a set of general, selfish preservation principles that most tribal species seem to agree upon, because they simply have to, to be a tribe.

When I thought more about which "moral" principles are compulsory to adhere to, I found that only murder and theft are semi-solid. There is no cross-cultural agreement on how to marry women, or how much you can lie, simply because there is no compelling evolutionary logic to base it on. Most animals fight for the right to mate multiple females, and this is in Islam and many tribal cultures. Marriage laws are a premiere moral of Judaism, yet they have no liberal ethical basis, only an evolutionary one.

Then, a contra argument: if it's bad to kill, then why does "God" ordain death for trivial offenses? Then, why does Jesus come along and negate it? Even the murder principle is flexible in religion.

There are definitely morals that come from God: those which make no sense. Examples:

Killing people for doing something on a Saturday
Beard and hair laws
Persecution of homosexuals
Laws against nakedness
Divorce laws
Worship of idols

It's only the crap non-cross-cultural laws which truly come from God; the rest we have to follow to survive.

The absurdity of the morals argument, is that Christians seem to know what most of the morals are for. If so, then they can be derived from "common sense". The ones they can't explain are the shit that come from non-commonsense, ie God.

[curiousgirl]

Alz, I think begging the question is what BS continues to do. I saw no evidence in any of his posts. This quote from BS regarding God's authority pretty much sums it up:

I don't declare, He does. I simply believe it.

That says it all, ladies and gentlemen. He simply believes what he thinks God says.
 
Alz, I thought it was pretty ironic that BS said this to you, since he spelled "gnat" incorrectly:

I am starting to think that you have the IQ of a nat.

WOW...

[Alzael]

Erg. I think we need a sticky thread for the "morality" argument. It's so lame.

Christians focus on how morality is cross cultural, to prove their point; but in order to really prove their point, they have to show how morality cannot be derived from a set of general, selfish preservation principles that most tribal species seem to agree upon, because they simply have to, to be a tribe.

Actually they need to prove how morality can exist even if there's no one to dictate what that morality is. This is where claims like BS's immediately fail. Morality that comes from any sort of being cannot be objective. Morality must exist as a separate thing, independant of the god being and unalterable even by him.

The problem of course becomes, if killing is objectively wrong......well their god kills all the time. So by doing this they admit that their god is immoral. If they say that god gives us morality then morality is subjective and we're only really arguing over the subject we take our morals from.

[BibleStudent]

Alz, I think begging the question is what BS continues to do. I saw no evidence in any of his posts. This quote from BS regarding God's authority pretty much sums it up:

I don't declare, He does. I simply believe it.

That says it all, ladies and gentlemen. He simply believes what he thinks God says.
 
Alz, I thought it was pretty ironic that BS said this to you, since he spelled "gnat" incorrectly:

I am starting to think that you have the IQ of a nat.

WOW...

That's it? That's your response? You have made no argument whatsoever. You picked out a spelling error??!!!! WTH ??

This is a GREAT example of the hideous double standard that is so often preached but not practiced around here. Amazing. And YOU accuse me of dodging??!!! Do you know how severely I would get railed for posting a response that did not include direct refutations to specific claims?

I call foul. That's stonewalling if I've ever seen it. Unbelievable !!!

WOW   

[BibleStudent]

Among several others, two of the stronger arguments that serve as evidence are the arguments for the existence of 'logic' and 'morality.'

Erg. I think we need a sticky thread for the "morality" argument. It's so lame.

Christians focus on how morality is cross cultural, to prove their point; but in order to really prove their point, they have to show how morality cannot be derived from a set of general, selfish preservation principles that most tribal species seem to agree upon, because they simply have to, to be a tribe.

When I thought more about which "moral" principles are compulsory to adhere to, I found that only murder and theft are semi-solid. There is no cross-cultural agreement on how to marry women, or how much you can lie, simply because there is no compelling evolutionary logic to base it on. Most animals fight for the right to mate multiple females, and this is in Islam and many tribal cultures. Marriage laws are a premiere moral of Judaism, yet they have no liberal ethical basis, only an evolutionary one.

Then, a contra argument: if it's bad to kill, then why does "God" ordain death for trivial offenses? Then, why does Jesus come along and negate it? Even the murder principle is flexible in religion.

There are definitely morals that come from God: those which make no sense. Examples:

Killing people for doing something on a Saturday
Beard and hair laws
Persecution of homosexuals
Laws against nakedness
Divorce laws
Worship of idols

It's only the crap non-cross-cultural laws which truly come from God; the rest we have to follow to survive.

The absurdity of the morals argument, is that Christians seem to know what most of the morals are for. If so, then they can be derived from "common sense". The ones they can't explain are the shit that come from non-commonsense, ie God.

Would you consider yourself a moral relativist? Do you believe in absolute morality?  Is it your position that there is a single, absolute, and "true" moral standard?

[curiousgirl]

BS, you don't get to play the victim here. I repeatedly asked you for evidence. You never get anywhere with your claims because they are baseless. If you behave in a ridiculous manner, I'm certainly going to call you out on it.

It's very telling that you jumped on one post, and ignored the other where I asked you for evidence.

[curiousgirl]

reply #264 snipped to conserve space

I would prefer it if you and I did not engage in any more discussions. I am just not willing to be the recipient of your constant insults anymore. I don't mind the occasional jab but yours are so continuous and unrelenting that they make it difficult for me to have any desire to continue engaging with you. Why you feel that sort of thing is necessary is beyond me. I think I know why you do it but that is beside the point. I am already prepared for the ripping you will probably unleash on me for even writing this. If that makes me a coward or a sissy or means that I am banned from the site, then so be it. Thank you.

BS, I call foul on your post above. I bet you are intimidated by Alzael's ability to be logical and consistent, and to call you out on your nonsense.

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT YOUR GOD EXISTS???

[Alzael]

That's it? That's your response? You have made no argument whatsoever. You picked out a spelling error??!!!! WTH ??

This is a GREAT example of the hideous double standard that is so often preached but not practiced around here. Amazing. And YOU accuse me of dodging??!!! Do you know how severely I would get railed for posting a response that did not include direct refutations to specific claims?

I call foul. That's stonewalling if I've ever seen it. Unbelievable !!!

WOW   

BS, if you only did something like that occasionally you wouldn't get railed for it. You get railed for it because you do it constantly. Remember the thread that you yourself just linked? Cause I just went through half of it (good times). Do you want to go back and look through all of the numerous times that people had nail your feet to the ground to get a solid answer. That was back when everyone was being easy on you and giving you a lot of leeway (Jetson even expressed his amazement at how much everyone was letting you get away with that thread). You've had the same complaints and the same admonishments made since the beginning and you don't ever even try to display better behaviour.

Like I said, don't try to play the martyr, it's an internet forum and we have a long record of your past posts that don't provoke sympathy.

[BibleStudent]

reply #264 snipped to conserve space

I would prefer it if you and I did not engage in any more discussions. I am just not willing to be the recipient of your constant insults anymore. I don't mind the occasional jab but yours are so continuous and unrelenting that they make it difficult for me to have any desire to continue engaging with you. Why you feel that sort of thing is necessary is beyond me. I think I know why you do it but that is beside the point. I am already prepared for the ripping you will probably unleash on me for even writing this. If that makes me a coward or a sissy or means that I am banned from the site, then so be it. Thank you.

BS, I call foul on your post above. I bet you are intimidated by Alzael's ability to be logical and consistent, and to call you out on your nonsense.

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT YOUR GOD EXISTS???

So typical. I gave you a link to a conversation that I had regarding morality. You apparently go read it and come back with a spelling error and nothing else. Are you hear just to butt heads or do you actually have a position that would refute the position I laid out in that thread? You don't and now you're getting frustrated so you rush to the "where is the evidence that your God exists?" default deflection. It's getting old, tiring...and so predictable. I gave you a place to start and now you are conveniently using a non-existent standard that you are simply making in order to make it appear as though I failed to respond to your request. So, who's playing the victim?