Author Topic: i reccomend this debate - re morality  (Read 6577 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline eh!

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 7681
  • Darwins +457/-109
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
i reccomend this debate - re morality
« on: October 24, 2014, 08:32:28 AM »
a really nice and really smart guy that I think all will agree gets the upper hand on WLC.

some skepisms,
1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"
2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it.   Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Offline bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1556
  • Darwins +68/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Re: i reccomend this debate - re morality
« Reply #1 on: October 24, 2014, 08:41:41 AM »
Not really a hard task to get the upper hand with WLC. Even my nose hairs could. 
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Offline Timo

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1748
  • Darwins +151/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • You know
Re: i reccomend this debate - re morality
« Reply #2 on: October 24, 2014, 11:30:05 AM »
Yeah, I don't understand, for the life of me, why Christians find the moral argument to be impressive. It doesn't make sense on its own terms and it forces you into accepting some pretty ugly things as moral if you think that the conquest of Canaan was an actual thing that happened.
Nah son...

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4944
  • Darwins +140/-653
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
Re: i reccomend this debate - re morality
« Reply #3 on: October 24, 2014, 11:58:27 AM »
Yeah, I don't understand, for the life of me, why Christians find the moral argument to be impressive. It doesn't make sense on its own terms and it forces you into accepting some pretty ugly things as moral if you think that the conquest of Canaan was an actual thing that happened.

But it's been pointed out time and time again that God gave the Canaanites PLENTY of chances to repent and they kept refusing. Why should God allow people to enjoy what He has given them if they are just going to spit in his face?

The rules were broken. They have to deal with the consequences.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4578
  • Darwins +294/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: i reccomend this debate - re morality
« Reply #4 on: October 24, 2014, 12:22:06 PM »
Yeah, I don't understand, for the life of me, why Christians find the moral argument to be impressive. It doesn't make sense on its own terms and it forces you into accepting some pretty ugly things as moral if you think that the conquest of Canaan was an actual thing that happened.

But it's been pointed out time and time again that God gave the Canaanites PLENTY of chances to repent and they kept refusing. Why should God allow people to enjoy what He has given them if they are just going to spit in his face?

The rules were broken. They have to deal with the consequences.

But were they? How do we know that any god told them anything? All we know is that the priests who wrote this stuff down wanted to put down the Canaanites and so accused them of all sorts - no doubt a century or more after the event or even longer so no one could say it was wrong.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Timo

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1748
  • Darwins +151/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • You know
Re: i reccomend this debate - re morality
« Reply #5 on: October 24, 2014, 12:31:40 PM »
But it's been pointed out time and time again that God gave the Canaanites PLENTY of chances to repent and they kept refusing. Why should God allow people to enjoy what He has given them if they are just going to spit in his face?

The rules were broken. They have to deal with the consequences.

What about the children?
Nah son...

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2387
  • Darwins +95/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: i reccomend this debate - re morality
« Reply #6 on: October 24, 2014, 12:55:21 PM »
Yeah, I don't understand, for the life of me, why Christians find the moral argument to be impressive. It doesn't make sense on its own terms and it forces you into accepting some pretty ugly things as moral if you think that the conquest of Canaan was an actual thing that happened.

But it's been pointed out time and time again that God gave the Canaanites PLENTY of chances to repent and they kept refusing. Why should God allow people to enjoy what He has given them if they are just going to spit in his face?

The rules were broken. They have to deal with the consequences.

Sorry, I'm not totally familiar with this story.

Were ALL the Canaanites reprehensible? Did each and every one of them break the rules?

If not, your god's morality is subject to question. If so, your god's narcissistic personality omni-benevolence is subject to question.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Online jdawg70

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 5043
  • Darwins +1075/-10
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: i reccomend this debate - re morality
« Reply #7 on: October 24, 2014, 12:59:03 PM »
But it's been pointed out time and time again that God gave the Canaanites PLENTY of chances to repent and they kept refusing. Why should God allow people to enjoy what He has given them if they are just going to spit in his face?

The rules were broken. They have to deal with the consequences.

Well, let's be honest - they didn't have to deal with the consequences.  God could have chosen to not dole out this particular consequence.

I mean, if god did not intervene, would there have been negative consequences for the Canaanites to face?  If so, shouldn't that have been the consequence that they suffered?  If not, what exactly is the point of the rule?

If you try to teach someone to not to touch fire, how do you do it?  Do you try to get them to understand that the consequence is that they'll get burned, and if they don't want to get burned, they shouldn't touch the fire?  Or do you try to get them to understand that the consequence is that you'll kill their family, and if they don't want their family killed, they shouldn't touch the fire?

If you want to try to teach someone how to not get burned by touching a fire, you should go with the former.  If you want to try to teach someone that they shouldn't think for themselves and should just do whatever it is you want them to do, you should go with the latter.  One of these motivations is substantially less moral than the other.  I leave it to you to figure out which one looks like it comes from an egotistical control freak and which one comes from someone who gives a sh*t about the other person.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 7739
  • Darwins +1176/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • This space for rent
Re: i reccomend this debate - re morality
« Reply #8 on: October 24, 2014, 01:43:38 PM »
Yeah, I don't understand, for the life of me, why Christians find the moral argument to be impressive. It doesn't make sense on its own terms and it forces you into accepting some pretty ugly things as moral if you think that the conquest of Canaan was an actual thing that happened.

But it's been pointed out time and time again that God gave the Canaanites PLENTY of chances to repent and they kept refusing. Why should God allow people to enjoy what He has given them if they are just going to spit in his face?

The rules were broken. They have to deal with the consequences.

I've breen spitting in his face for fifty years (well, not literally, since he doesn't exist and hence doesn't have a face, but you get my drift) and he hasn't harmed me in any way. Am I just more likable than your average Canaanite, or has he mellowed a bit over the infinite years?

I've given him carte blanche permission to zap me at any time, but so far, he hasn't bothered. I'd take it personally except I do understand that he is too busy offing little kids in swimming pools, along with soldiers, young black men and too, that he's busy doing is part to be sure that about 20% of all pregnancies result in spontaneous abortion. As busy as he is, its amazing that he has time to love you or anything. But hey, he's got a whole universe to run and I shouldn't expect any special favors just because I overwhelmingly deserve them.

You'd think that North Korea and ISIS and a few other degenerate groups would have gotten his attention, and hence his wrath, but I guess as busy as he is answering petty prayers, he just can't work it in to his schedule.

Seriously, dude, accepting old stories as truth when they don't match a single thing in present day reality ought to be, like, you know, a frickin' clue about how true they are.

The only thing I hate about dying is that after it happens, I'll be as clueless as you.
What I lack in sophistication I make up for with other shortcomings.

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4578
  • Darwins +294/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: i reccomend this debate - re morality
« Reply #9 on: October 24, 2014, 01:46:10 PM »

The only thing I hate about dying is that after it happens, I'll be as clueless as you.

 ;D
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline eh!

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 7681
  • Darwins +457/-109
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: i reccomend this debate - re morality
« Reply #10 on: October 24, 2014, 02:24:05 PM »
excuse my ignorance but are these great biblical wars, plagues, great flood etc recorded elsewhere in the historical record??

these are not particularly the oldest events that have occurred, anyone familiar with the field of comparing historio/biblical facts with just facts?

ignore the great flood inclusion in this post.

some skepisms,
1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"
2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it.   Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15326
  • Darwins +1178/-40
  • Gender: Male
  • We stand on the shoulders of giants
Re: i reccomend this debate - re morality
« Reply #11 on: October 24, 2014, 02:33:04 PM »
But it's been pointed out time and time again that God gave the Canaanites PLENTY of chances to repent and they kept refusing.

Assuming we are talking literary criticism here - that is, discussing the story on its own terms - I have no recollection of yhwh or el trying to do squat for the Canaanites.  Kindly point out where that happened in the story.

Why should God allow people to enjoy what He has given them if they are just going to spit in his face?

The rules were broken. They have to deal with the consequences.

Because that is the whole point of jesus H, innit?  You can break rules and still get the rewards?  Be a complete louse and still get into heaven?  As Will Munny said to Little Bill, deserve's got nothin' to do with it.



What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4578
  • Darwins +294/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: i reccomend this debate - re morality
« Reply #12 on: October 24, 2014, 02:43:15 PM »
excuse my ignorance but are these great biblical wars, plagues, great flood etc recorded elsewhere in the historical record??

these are not particularly the oldest events that have occurred, anyone familiar with the field of comparing historio/biblical facts with just facts?

ignore the great flood inclusion in this post.

Good question.

The defeat of Israel by Babylon is recorded history as is the Persian, Cyrus, who took over Babylon. However, despite the biblical records, Israel / Judah were minor bit players in the history of the area and nothing much else matches anything we know happened. For example the whole Israel gets out of Egypt and the plagues is never mentioned anywhere. For all we know, the history of Israel might start from the people Cyrus sent to Israel in what the bible calls 'after the exile' and the early 'history' is more 'story' than anything else.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline eh!

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 7681
  • Darwins +457/-109
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: i reccomend this debate - re morality
« Reply #13 on: October 24, 2014, 03:21:13 PM »
I would have thought that this area would be the most active area of Xian apologetics, if it is then I have missed it.

the Xian apologetics effort seems to focus on constructing logical word games, why would they need to do that  when they can simply go match scripture (at best only 6000yo) with historical and archaeological fact that no honest person could deny. 

seems the path I would go down if I was a xian apologist cos it is psychologically, emotionally  and intellectually more compelling for the average man on the street to buy into than ontology, epistemology and pre-suppositonal transcendental arguments for god which comes across as dishonest, evasive and pointless to joe average.

so what's up with that?

some skepisms,
1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"
2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it.   Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Online Foxy Freedom

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2882
  • Darwins +317/-14
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: i reccomend this debate - re morality
« Reply #14 on: October 24, 2014, 03:57:52 PM »
excuse my ignorance but are these great biblical wars, plagues, great flood etc recorded elsewhere in the historical record??

these are not particularly the oldest events that have occurred, anyone familiar with the field of comparing historio/biblical facts with just facts?

ignore the great flood inclusion in this post.

More than not being confirmed, the early events before about 800 bc can be shown to be fabrications based on story telling. From about 800 bc scribes began to write down events and early versions of stories which were told at that time. The stories were developed into pseudohistory over time.

Some events which never happened.

At the time of the story of exodus, Canaan was inside the Egyptian Empire not outside.

The Israelites did not conquer Canaan, they were Canaanites who developed a different culture. Yahweh and El were developed from Canaanite gods.

There was no kingdom of David and Solomon. The land in the south at that time was almost uninhabited. The only kingdom which was forming at that time was in the north and had a different line of kings who generally had a bad write up in the OT because of jealousy that they were in fact the real kings with the real kingdom where the bible stories began.

Yahweh did not reveal himself to one set of people. There were two kingdoms which developed worship of Yahweh and El. These were later combined into one god called Yahweh/El in the OT. In the early version of the tale of the sacrifice of Isaac to El. Isaac was almost certainly killed. "You have not withheld your hand". In later editing, stories about Isaac were added.

The story of the exile and return from Egypt was probably a representation of their wishes while in exile in Babylon, and written at that time along with the Babylonian Creation myths which begin the OT.

The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11187
  • Darwins +1865/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: i reccomend this debate - re morality
« Reply #15 on: October 24, 2014, 04:06:22 PM »
Apologists rely on word games and philosophical puzzlers because the facts are not on their side. If they had historical, archeological, geological or anthropological evidence, they would present it. But they don't have any of that, so they make up logical fallacies disguised as reasonable arguments instead. When all else fails, they ask what they think are science-stumping rhetorical questions: "Where did the first particle come from, then? Were you there? Can you show one animal turning into another?"

The religious folks used to be able to rely on science to back them up, most of the time.[1]For many years, certainly until the 1700's, most bible stories were considered literal fact to most people, even in the scientific community. People did not really challenge their accuracy or test the bible accounts against reality.

With the Enlightenment thinking and the beginning of observation-based experimental science (as opposed to just accepting as true what ancient smart people like Aristotle had said) scientific people started, slowly and cautiously, to edge away from the bible. When scientists actually tested biblical claims, they were almost always shown to be false.

I went to a geology lecture a while back and the guy said that until the 1800's geology was based on the idea that everything you saw in the rocks was created by the great Noahic flood. The fact that nothing that people knew about floods matched with what the bible said was not important. The bible said it, they believed it. Then, they started testing things and that was it for the bible. Everything geological in the bible was shown to be false.

The earth was really quite old; there was no global flood, ever; glaciers were in the areas supposedly under water during the great flood; fossils are laid down in precise layers, not jumbled up the way things are after a flood; when you find certain age fossils, but not other age fossils, you also find petroleum; rushing flood waters destroy things quickly, but erosion of mountains and the formation of canyons happens very slowly; volcanoes are natural phenomena, not caused by angry gods; earthquakes happen in predictable places, not randomly where people are sinners; similar rocks far from each other mean the land masses have moved around over time.

And so forth, gathering evidence and testing it out.

Geologists tend to be fairly hard-headed (heh). They like their proofs to be rock-solid (heh). Once they moved away from trying to fit the actual earth into the bible stories, and got into the area of real concrete evidence (heh) they made real discoveries and never looked back.

Religious apologists do the opposite, looking for evidence to show that what they already believe to be true, is true. If the evidence shows that what they already believe is false, they disregard it. If there is the slightest bit of evidence in their favor, they stop looking. Proof found, case closed. Not science.
 1. The handful of heretics and radicals who challenged the religious view of science got punished, exiled or even executed.
When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4663
  • Darwins +457/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: i reccomend this debate - re morality
« Reply #16 on: October 24, 2014, 09:23:42 PM »
Getting back to the original video. He makes a big mistake at 38 minutes, when he says that there is no compelling reason not to live in an evil manner which suits you. Why not live like a torturer? The fallacy is that just because there is no magical reason not to indulge yourself, somehow a god must pop into existence, to solve this dilemma: to exert mental pressure on people, to stop them doing it. His argument appears to be that because his particular solution does not exist, then atheists are morally compelled to behave evilly, because it's a logical consequence of his fallacy. However, he does forget a few things: if an atheist is truly a nihilist, then there is also no compelling reason to bother indulging himself, since it doesn't amount to anything. The mass murders he quotes are motivated by making a better world, which is irrational, because if you are a nihilist, there is no point in making a better world. You only can be bothered to commit atrocities, if you believe that it will have an effect, or you are insane. Thus religious adherents can commit atrocities, if they think they will be rewarded for it. The bottom line is whether you think you will have to suffer the consequences, not whether there exists a God. Say, if you were told that there was no God, but reincarnation was a fact, then you would behave well, in this life, so as not to suffer in the next. Thus we are motivated by perceived punishment, rather than whether there is a God to please. If we are entirely motivated by the threat of punishment, then it becomes just as rational to keep your head down, in this life, for fear of active persecution. The behaviour of the individual becomes a best fit of a few competing forces (1) there may be punishment in an afterlife, because everyone says so, (2) there may be punishment in this life, because I can see the army and police, and my relatives (3) I need to indulge myself, but only to the maximum extent I can get away with, or be bothered with, given that indulgences also get boring (4) I need to avoid putting myself in any obvious danger, because I have an irrational need to avoid death (5) there is possibly sagely virtue in living a clean life (Epicurean Hedonism) - not indulgence, but avoidance of anything too unpleasant.

Anyway, I daresay I will get past 38 minutes, rather shortly.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 09:36:34 PM by Add Homonym »
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4944
  • Darwins +140/-653
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
Re: i reccomend this debate - re morality
« Reply #17 on: October 24, 2014, 09:55:14 PM »
Yeah, I don't understand, for the life of me, why Christians find the moral argument to be impressive. It doesn't make sense on its own terms and it forces you into accepting some pretty ugly things as moral if you think that the conquest of Canaan was an actual thing that happened.

But it's been pointed out time and time again that God gave the Canaanites PLENTY of chances to repent and they kept refusing. Why should God allow people to enjoy what He has given them if they are just going to spit in his face?

The rules were broken. They have to deal with the consequences.

I've breen spitting in his face for fifty years (well, not literally, since he doesn't exist and hence doesn't have a face, but you get my drift) and he hasn't harmed me in any way. Am I just more likable than your average Canaanite, or has he mellowed a bit over the infinite years?

I've given him carte blanche permission to zap me at any time, but so far, he hasn't bothered. I'd take it personally except I do understand that he is too busy offing little kids in swimming pools, along with soldiers, young black men and too, that he's busy doing is part to be sure that about 20% of all pregnancies result in spontaneous abortion. As busy as he is, its amazing that he has time to love you or anything. But hey, he's got a whole universe to run and I shouldn't expect any special favors just because I overwhelmingly deserve them.

You'd think that North Korea and ISIS and a few other degenerate groups would have gotten his attention, and hence his wrath, but I guess as busy as he is answering petty prayers, he just can't work it in to his schedule.

Seriously, dude, accepting old stories as truth when they don't match a single thing in present day reality ought to be, like, you know, a frickin' clue about how true they are.

The only thing I hate about dying is that after it happens, I'll be as clueless as you.

That would be a great point if God was still doing what he did in the OT.

The punishment awaits you upon death.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4944
  • Darwins +140/-653
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
Re: i reccomend this debate - re morality
« Reply #18 on: October 24, 2014, 09:58:24 PM »


Religious apologists do the opposite, looking for evidence to show that what they already believe to be true, is true. If the evidence shows that what they already believe is false, they disregard it. If there is the slightest bit of evidence in their favor, they stop looking. Proof found, case closed. Not science.

Interesting that you mention that.

Here is a scientific article that says that atheists might not exist:
http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_edge/blog/scientists_discover_that_atheists_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982

Will you agree with it? or disregard it since it doesn't match what you think?
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 7739
  • Darwins +1176/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • This space for rent
Re: i reccomend this debate - re morality
« Reply #19 on: October 24, 2014, 10:09:13 PM »


Religious apologists do the opposite, looking for evidence to show that what they already believe to be true, is true. If the evidence shows that what they already believe is false, they disregard it. If there is the slightest bit of evidence in their favor, they stop looking. Proof found, case closed. Not science.

Interesting that you mention that.

Here is a scientific article that says that atheists might not exist:
http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_edge/blog/scientists_discover_that_atheists_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982

Will you agree with it? or disregard it since it doesn't match what you think?

You mean the one where someone says
Quote
“They point to studies showing, for example, that even people who claim to be committed atheists tacitly hold religious beliefs, such as the existence of an immortal soul.”

They didn't study me.

And if it is the article is true, then free will is out the window for everyone, including you. It would mean that you are a theist because you have no choice. Which would be the case or not there is an actual god. I can't see how you would think that a good thing.
What I lack in sophistication I make up for with other shortcomings.

Offline Timo

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1748
  • Darwins +151/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • You know
Re: i reccomend this debate - re morality
« Reply #20 on: October 24, 2014, 10:44:39 PM »
Skeptic, what about the kids? Was it good that God commanded them to be killed? Was it good of the Israelites to carry out that command?
Nah son...

Offline eh!

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 7681
  • Darwins +457/-109
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: i reccomend this debate - re morality
« Reply #21 on: October 24, 2014, 10:51:48 PM »
"
That would be a great point if God was still doing what he did in the OT.

The punishment awaits you upon death."


that would be a great point if god did any of the things he did in the OT at the time it was written or at a time when it could be verified objectively - alas we only have a record of things that are copies, of copies, of copies .... of stories handed down by only god knows who, only god knows when, to god knows what individuals and all absent from all other historians and scholars at the time  all conveniently with a long enough interval after the said actions to make them completely unverifiable.

perhaps there is some overwhelming evidence for bible stories, from history, geology, science....

not asking you to prove it all, just pick one event, I dunno like the overwhelming evidence for jesus would do.

some skepisms,
1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"
2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it.   Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Offline eh!

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 7681
  • Darwins +457/-109
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: i reccomend this debate - re morality
« Reply #22 on: October 24, 2014, 10:53:04 PM »
Skeptic, what about the kids? Was it good that God commanded them to be killed? Was it good of the Israelites to carry out that command?

yeah, and wiping poop on priests faces, is that good   :laugh:
some skepisms,
1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"
2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it.   Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2196
  • Darwins +288/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: i reccomend this debate - re morality
« Reply #23 on: October 25, 2014, 12:10:07 AM »


Religious apologists do the opposite, looking for evidence to show that what they already believe to be true, is true. If the evidence shows that what they already believe is false, they disregard it. If there is the slightest bit of evidence in their favor, they stop looking. Proof found, case closed. Not science.

Interesting that you mention that.

Here is a scientific article that says that atheists might not exist:
http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_edge/blog/scientists_discover_that_atheists_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982

Will you agree with it? or disregard it since it doesn't match what you think?

Did you read the article?  It's actually very interesting. 

What they are basically claiming is that humans have evolved a predisposition toward metaphysical beliefs such as a soul, or karma, or voodoo, or whatever.  They state this trait evolved for multiple reasons.  Some I agree with and others I think are sketchy, but I have no problem with the overall notion that this predisposition is an evolved characteristic.  I've actually long thought the same thing, and so have many people I'm sure.  One of the reasons for it I'll quote here:
Quote
Social scientists have long believed that the emotional depth and complexity of the human mind means that mindful, self-aware people necessarily suffer from deep existential dread. Spiritual beliefs evolved over thousands of years as nature’s way to help us balance this out and go on functioning.

When I think about this a little more, it seems to me that this presents a really big problem for all religions, including Christianity. 

If spirituality is an evolved trait, then some people will have more of it, and some people will have less.  Just like some people have short arms, and some people have long arms, but we all get arms (obviously not birth defects here).  This explains quite well why we have the wide variety of different levels that some people take their 'spiritual-ness'.  Some are fundamental, evangelical Christians, while others really don't give a shit and show up on Sundays because that's what their parents did. 

If spirituality is an evolved trait, then people, when presented by a form of belief that satisfies this 'spiritual-ness', will adopt it readily, and will require far less stringent evidence to verify it's truth.  When you couple that with our inborn tendency to trust what our parents and those around us say, it explains quite well why people so often follow the religion of their parents and / or local culture. And why they use reasoning and argumentation that is both really bad, and easily refuted by people who don't believe the same things that they do.     

And lastly, if spirituality is an evolved trait, then when you look around the world at all the different religions, and all the people following different belief systems, what sort of conclusion can you draw about the truth or falseness of god(s)?  It seems pretty simple.  If people DO have a deep, evolved affinity for the metaphysical, we can see all the different god(s) and religions that have ever been invented by humanity as nothing more than the manifestation of that tendency, and not as actual beings that exist in reality.  What I mean to say is, when people invented Zeus, it wasn't because Zeus was real.  Zeus was the invention of people who had a deep seeded, evolutionary affinity for something spiritual.  Zeus was their outlet for their spirituality.  The Christian God is yours, skeptic. 

The article basically sums up our spiritual leanings as an evolutionarily beneficial psychological state.  To me, this is a great explanation as to why so many people believe, when the evidence for any form of god or god(s) is non-existent.  It's because their brains are wired to believe it. 

Now, what does that tell us about whether or not a god or god(s) exist?  Nothing.  But it sure does make a good case that it's really all in people's heads. 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5596
  • Darwins +182/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: i reccomend this debate - re morality
« Reply #24 on: October 25, 2014, 08:06:53 PM »
Yeah, I don't understand, for the life of me, why Christians find the moral argument to be impressive. It doesn't make sense on its own terms and it forces you into accepting some pretty ugly things as moral if you think that the conquest of Canaan was an actual thing that happened.

But it's been pointed out time and time again that God gave the Canaanites PLENTY of chances to repent and they kept refusing. Why should God allow people to enjoy what He has given them if they are just going to spit in his face?

The rules were broken. They have to deal with the consequences.
free will negates the requirement to listen to or obey God,or even to pay attention to his instructions for living. Christians always use Jesus as the reason they sin and are forgiven,so why are other groups held to YOUR higher standard?
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11187
  • Darwins +1865/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: i reccomend this debate - re morality
« Reply #25 on: October 25, 2014, 09:15:15 PM »


Religious apologists do the opposite, looking for evidence to show that what they already believe to be true, is true. If the evidence shows that what they already believe is false, they disregard it. If there is the slightest bit of evidence in their favor, they stop looking. Proof found, case closed. Not science.

Interesting that you mention that.

Here is a scientific article that says that atheists might not exist:
http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_edge/blog/scientists_discover_that_atheists_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982

Will you agree with it? or disregard it since it doesn't match what you think?

I can tell you what criteria I will use to agree with or disregard the article, before I even read any of it: is the research sound or not?

See, it does not matter to me if the research supports what I already think, or who posted it, or what the source of the research is, or if it was done by religious people or by atheists.

Here is what I need to know: Do the conclusions follow from the premise in a logical fashion? Was the sampling statistically accurate? Do the researchers take other similar research into account and show how theirs is supported by it, or if it differs, why they got different results? 

Is the research sound or not? That is how I can tell if the article is likely to be true.

If the research is sound, I will agree with it. If I have to change my opinion on something, I will do so. If the research is not sound, I will disregard it. That means that unsound research is disagreeable to me, even if I like the conclusions, if I think the scientist who wrote it is cute, if I am related to the scientist, or if I find out that the scientist likes doggies. When and if there is solid research that shows the existence of any gods, I will then believe that there are gods. Until that day comes, I will be an atheist.

How about you, skeptic? What is your criteria for accepting or rejecting information?
When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Online jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8886
  • Darwins +1119/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: i reccomend this debate - re morality
« Reply #26 on: October 25, 2014, 11:04:01 PM »
That would be a great point if God was still doing what he did in the OT.
More accurately, it would be a great point if this god ever existed to do the things that the Hebrews attributed to him in the Old Testament.

Quote from: skeptic54768
The punishment awaits you upon death.
I don't think ParkingPlaces is the slightest bit worried about what a nonexistent god might do to him after he dies.  Especially since his consciousness will be nonexistent then as well.  What's the point of bringing him back to life at that point, just to punish him for an indefinite period of time?  All that would prove is that your god is vengeful, petty, and controlling to the point of being really stupid about it.  You know, like those people who talk about how they'd bring someone back to life just so they could kill them again.  Is that what your god is like?

Granted, you probably believe that humans have an immortal soul and that's what would be punished, but that's even more nonsensical.  Why punish the soul for things it's influenced to do because it's in a body, with the inevitable weaknesses and foibles that come with having a body.  Not to mention that this punishment, again, is vengeful, petty, and controlling.  Is that what your god is like?
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4944
  • Darwins +140/-653
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
Re: i reccomend this debate - re morality
« Reply #27 on: November 06, 2014, 12:21:51 PM »
I do not believe it is petty. We make prisons and rules on how to stay out of prisons, just like God made Hell and rules on how to stay out of Hell.

If a criminal said, "You guys just made up prison and the rules on how to avoid it! Why not just take the prisons away, then we wouldn't have to worry about any rules on how to avoid them?" Nobody would take it seriously.

Yet atheists say, "God just made up Hell and the rules on how to avoid it! Why not just take Hell away, then we wouldn't have to worry about any rules on how to avoid Hell?"

Why are prisons OK but not Hell?
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4578
  • Darwins +294/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: i reccomend this debate - re morality
« Reply #28 on: November 06, 2014, 12:34:10 PM »
Prisons and the criminals inside them are real. You can go and see them. I used to be an organist at a prison so I've seen inside one.

Compare that with...

god - not a sign of this dude, we have only what people have told us he is supposed to have said and we have no idea who the people were who wrote it down.

Hell - Mythical place supposedly set up by the god dude but, since there is no sign of him it is unlikely he has ever done anything[1].

So, we have justice on earth by human means by which we not only punish wrong doers but we protect the rest of the population from the dangerous ones. The thing is that, whilst theists waffle on about heaven and hell, they don't really believe what they say. If they did there would be a lot on extra-judicial killings and, at the same time, many would not be punished as they would be punished in the next life by god.
 1. since non-existence makes doing anything a b it harder than normal
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)