Atheistic Double Standard?

[Darkstorn]

Please quote what statement of mine your referring to.

Why? It was right there when you quoted me. You should know it as well as i.

I quoted you straight, verbatim. It's not my job to go find the original statement: How about you READ the thing you are about to reply to?

 

[Polymath257]

Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close.

The burden of proof is always on the one making the positive existence statement. Nobody has proven the existence of a deity in spite of many attempts.

Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.

First, no version of quantum cosmology has been tested enough to be known to be the truth.
Second, there are several proposed (none tested) ways a universe like our could come about depending on which version of quantum gravity is the case.

Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.

Since we currently have no evidence the basic constants could be anything different, nor do we have any mechanisms for how they could change, this is correct. But you make an assumption that the constants were tuned to produce life. In other words, you assume a goal when none is in evidence. If, instead, and as some proposals say, there are multiple universes like our with different constants in each, then the fact that we find ourselves in one with constants allowing life is a triviality because we are alive.

Yes, this is speculative. But so is any theology. And the theology actually explains nothing.

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.

No, scientists follow the objective evidence. They require testable hypotheses.
How do you make theology testable? What observation can you make to distinguish pantheism, Orthodox Christianity, Islam, and any other variety of theism? Until you have a test, science will and should ignore your claims.

Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.

I would dispute this. It gives far more understanding of our morals than any version of theism. Rawls thoughts on how to structure a society go far deeper and are more rational and reasonable than any version of theism.

Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.

Given the Catholic collaboration with the Nazis, the interminable disputes in the Middle East (not to mention previous ones in Ireland), and, correspondingly, the rise of secular democratic states in the west, it is rather hard to say that theism has done any better than secularism. On the other hand, secular *humanism* has done wonders.

Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.

Then you don't know much about science and scientists. The 'oppressive orthodoxy' amounts to adherence to the scientific method. Ideas must be testable and tested.
But I can see how, if you don't understand the methods and results, you can see scientists as holding to an orthodoxy. But it is the orthodoxy of well-tested ideas that have survived repeated attempts by scientists to *disprove* them.

And that is a crucial aspect of science. One sure way to rise to the top is to shake the current paradigm. But to do so, you have to provide *evidence* and your ideas have to survive challenges proposed by others on how to test them.

Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even ballpark.

Well, at the very least, religion steps outside of the range of testable ideas and into the realm of speculation. It adopts unproven assumptions that lead to no testable results and demands 'faith' rather than skepticism. That is hardly a good scientific, or even a good philosophical position.

Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.

I call BS.

Berlinski does not dismiss the achievements of western science. The great physical theories, he observes, are among the treasures of the human race. But they do nothing to answer the questions that religion asks, and they fail to offer a coherent description of the cosmos or the methods by which it might be investigated.
About Devil's Delusion - David Berlinski

Even religion doesn't answer the questions that religion raises. That's why there are so many different religions! There is no way to test between them, so all that happens is endless dispute with no resolutions. Just look around on these forums. Is there *any* agreement about religious matters? And how long have these religious debates been going on. Now, compare to the debates 200 years ago about atoms and about the nature of light. Science allows resolution of disputes by looking at testable hypotheses and the objective evidence. Religion fails.

 

[Polymath257]

Absolutely 100% wrong, but I am sick of explaining why.



Before you want to know what immorality means would you want to know what morality is?

This will be a complete waste of my time but since part of the reason I debate is to kill time, on rides the mail.

True morality, objective morality, actual moral values and duties, etc..... are defined like so.

1. Let's start with what objective means given the word’s versatility. In philosophy, objective refers to existence apart from perception. An object independent of perception does not change with our feelings, interpretations, or prejudices. Applied to moral values; if they are objective, then they are discovered, not invented. Contrast this with subjective moral values which change from person to person, culture to culture, etc. If morality is objective, it is reasonable to ask: What is the mind-independent basis for objective morality and is this basis sufficiently binding? In other words, it is not enough to show some external ground for morality and then subjectively link that grounding with obligation. Obligation to a particular ethical system must transcend personal preference and also have some significant grounding in the object of perception.
apologetics.net | What is objective morality?

2. By “objective” morality we mean a system of ethics which universally pertains irrespective of the opinions or tastes of human persons: for example, the holocaust was morally wrong irrespective of what Hitler and the Nazis believed about it, and it would have remained morally wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and compelled everyone into compliance with their values.
Moral Argument

3. A proposition is objective if its truth value is independent of the person uttering it. A fact is objective in the same way. For morality to be objective, moral propositions such as "Killing is bad", "Stealing is bad", etc... need to be true independently of the person who is stating them. Moral statements are basically statements of value. Some value statements are clearly subjective: "Tabasco flavored ice cream tastes good" can be true for me, but false for you.
What is objective morality?

4. “Objective” means “independent of people’s (including one’s own) opinion.”
Read more: “Objective” or “Absolute” Moral Values? | Reasonable Faith

5. And finally the one I use the most. Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.

The criteria you described in your post fail every test for objective truth.

We heard you the first time. And the second. And the third.

We do not agree with your claims here. We don't agree that there is no standard for objective morality without a deity. We don't agree that a deity *gives* an objective standard for morality.

Reposting this repeatedly has become spam. In the future, please just refer to one on your many posts where you have given these criteria. We can then debate from there without clogging the forum with reposts.

 

[ArtieE]

1. God's first priority is that all those that are willing will come into a loving relationship with him, which guarantees eventual perfect eternal contentment with God himself.

Perfect eternal contentment with a being who drowns a whole planet and commands humans to "go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." and then later says "Love your neighbor as yourself."

If God exists nothing is objectively right or wrong.

So two men having sex is objectively wrong at one time and not at another time? Or is it just the punishement that changes with the times?

Tribal warfare would certainly be consistent with amoral evolution.

Or what your god commands in the Old Testament.

 

[ArtieE]

1. Homosexuality - Always wrong.
2. In one tiny nation for a very finite period it carried a possible death penalty.

Translation: Based on the objective morality of your god it once was moral to kill two men for having sex with each other but it isn't objectively moral any more.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A secular Jew, Berlinski nonetheless delivers a biting defense of religious thought. An acclaimed author who has spent his career writing about mathematics and the sciences, he turns the scientific community’s cherished skepticism back on itself, daring to ask and answer some rather embarrassing questions:

• Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close.
• Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.
• Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.
• Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.
• Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
• Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.
• Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.
• Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even ballpark.
• Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.

"Berlinski nonetheless delivers a biting defense of religious thought."

• I see no defense of religious thought there.

"Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close."

• If by "God" you mean the god of the Christian Bible, that one has been ruled out the same way that married bachelors are ruled out. Other gods may exist, but they will not have mutually exclusive and therefore logically impossible qualities.

"Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close."

• Not an argument for gods.

"Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough."

• This is ridiculous, and immediately disqualifies Berlinski as a credible source.

"Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough."

• The rational ethics of secular humanism is a vastly superior method of determining moral standards relative the Christian Bible, which never figured out that slavery is wrong but that sex out of marriage isn't. The latter is an ossified list of mostly irrational ideas that accomplish nothing useful. The meek are not blessed, and there is no value in loving enemies. The meek lack fortitude. They are routinely imposed upon and exploited. The most that enemies can hope for is to not be hated or be subject to revenge. The Christian model of love involves torture - on the cross and in hell. The Christian model for justice involves eternal torture for skepticism. The Christian model for mercy includes an infinite sentence with no hope of appeal or parole. Humanists do much better than that, especially at the only moral truth in those scriptures: the Golden Rule. American Christians tend to be homophobes, support withdrawing care for the sick, and have no use for welcoming strangers as evidenced by their recent voting habits. Comparing the two ethical methods and systems isn't a good choice for you.

"Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close."

• You owe your religious freedom to secularism. And fortunately, scientists learned how to remove superstition from their method of understanding the world.

"Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough."

• The scientific method is rigorous, and its fruits attest to its validity just as the sterility of religious thought attests to it being incorrect. The scientific legacy of Christianity is centuries of oppressing scientists and attempting to suppress scientific progress while offering nothing of value on its own. It's latest contribution is intelligent design - a useless idea.

"Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even ballpark."

• Religious belief is obviously irrational, meaning based on reason and evidence. It's based on faith, which is the rejection of reason and evidence in making decisions about reality

"Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on."

• "You stare into your high definition plasma screen monitor, type into your cordless keyboard then hit enter, which causes your computer to convert all that visual data into a binary signal that's processed by millions of precise circuits.
  
  "This is then converted to a frequency modulated signal to reach your wireless router where it is then converted to light waves and sent along a large fiber optics cable to be processed by a super computer on a mass server.
  
  "This sends that bit you typed to a satellite orbiting the earth that was put there through the greatest feats of engineering and science, all so it could go back through a similar pathway to make it all the way here to my computer monitor 15,000 miles away from you just so you could say, "Science is all a bunch of man made hogwash."- anon

Sorry, but it is religion that is effete.

And we have no further use for the god concept. Everything that has been explained has been explained without it, and everything that remains to be explained can potentially be explained without it. Fine tuning was mentioned. The fact that there are physical laws and constants at all argues against a god. It removes the need for a god. It suggests that if there is a god, it is constrained in its creative choices. And it is better explained with a multiverse hypothesis.

Man's religious phase will be remembered as the period between the tie we first began to wonder and when we found our answers, none of them involving gods.

 

[ArtieE]

Why do you ask the same question in 2 -3 different ways, in 2 - 3 different posts, and ignore the response every time.

I answer the posts in chronological order. Might be some overlap.

To cover the different tribal wars in enough detain to acquire resolution requires a lot of work. We would have to drop everything else to concentrate of them one at a time. I am willing to do the work, are you, let me know if you want to concentrate on OT warfare alone so we can drop the rest and get into which ever one you want to tackle. Your choice, do not make it lightly.

No that is not necessary let's let people draw their own conclusions. Tribal warfare isn't objectively wrong, it just depends on who starts it. It appears that if your god starts it it's objectively right, if I started a tribal war it would be objectively wrong?

 

[ArtieE]

2. By “objective” morality we mean a system of ethics which universally pertains irrespective of the opinions or tastes of human persons: for example, the holocaust was morally wrong irrespective of what Hitler and the Nazis believed about it, and it would have remained morally wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and compelled everyone into compliance with their values. Moral Argument

But the holocaust would have been morally right if your god had started it?

3. A proposition is objective if its truth value is independent of the person uttering it. A fact is objective in the same way. For morality to be objective, moral propositions such as "Killing is bad", "Stealing is bad", etc... need to be true independently of the person who is stating them.

And it is objectively true that "killing is bad" and "stealing is bad" is detrimental to the well-being of a society and the people in it. You can just use a computer and calculate the detrimental effects if people in a society all started killing each other and stealing from each other. That truth value is independent of peoples opinions. Hence it's objectively true that killing is immoral and stealing is immoral.

 

[1robin]

Because it's the other way around. The reason our "preferred moral goals line up with God's eternal moral nature" is because we invented this god in our image. It is hardly a coincidence that humans interested in our own well-being and survival invents a god interested in our well-being and survival.

1. How any physical hands does God have?
2. How fallible is God?
3. How tall is God?
4. How much food does he eat?
5. How many universes did man create?
6. Which man is the uncaused first cause of all effects?
7. Which man is omnipotent?
8. Which one of us is omnipresent?
9. Which one of us is independent of time?
10. Which of us not composed of matter?
11. Which one of us knows the ending from the beginning?
12. Which one of us is one being composed of 3 persons?
etc....

What is meant by men being made in God's image is that we are moral agents and have a limited version of God's sovereignty over other creatures.

Your barking up the wrong tree, in the wrong forest, on the wrong planet.

New International Version
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD.

New International Version
"As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

6. God’s Ways are Not Our Ways

 

[1robin]

I also have a great idea. Tell me where I go wrong. Here is what I said:

"I think what 1robin means is that it once was objectively moral to kill homosexuals, then it stopped being objectively moral, but if tomorrow God commands us to kill homosexuals it becomes objectively moral again."

Where do I go wrong?

1. Because how you punish an evil behavior does not make the behavior wrong or right. Lets say I was Joseph Stalin and said that any who orders a tuna fish sandwich after 4pm should serve 4 months in jail. Would that make ordering a tuna fish sandwich after 4pm actually wrong. No it would only make it contradictory to Stalin's preference, in the exact same way that God's morality contradicts your preferences.
2. Homosexuality has always been wrong, is currently wrong, and will always wrong (just like all other sins). However other changes may make the way God handles homosexuality.
3. Humans do this all the time, it is wrong for a bum to cut of someone's arm in the alley but ok for a doctor to do win a hospital, children have different rules than parents, drinking is legal in a bar but illegal while driving.
4. So homosexuality is an eternal objective wrong, what commands God gives concerning homosexuals depend on many subjective factors.

After review you may not be as far off as I originally thought, after hundreds of people rewriting misrepresentations of what they find inconvenient I usually just assume they are misrepresentations.

If you want to known whether you were right or wrong above, look up divine command theory.

 

[1robin]

Let's try this again shall we?

"This sounds like temporal lobe epilepsy. If any reader of this thread comes across a person who suddenly has religious experiences or shows signs of hyper religiosity please advice them to seek medical help. These could be symptoms of disease or injury of the brain.

Is this true or false?

This is a purely subjective criteria which would be up to every individual. The chances are so small that those who claim religious experience have epilepsy that is seems absurd to suggest they immediately run to the doctor for a test. If a person actually has epilepsy it will almost always manifest in ways that do justify visiting the doctor.

This kind of reminds me or the group of people who claim and unidentified object must be alien in origin. But if you want to find the recorded historical event which more closely epilepsy than any others in mainstream religion then Muhammad's cave experience. Actually it is almost a word for word description of biblical occurrences of demon possession, but it is still your best candidate for an epileptic fit explaining supernatural experience. No one I the bible, nor that I know personal who ever made a claim to a supernatural event showed any sign of epilepsy.

Just how does epilepsy explain water turning to wine and shared by an entire party? How does it get Christ's body out of a sealed tomb? How does it feed thousands with a few fish? Bring Lazarus back to life in the presence of dozens? Or make even Christ's enemies claim to experience him after death?

Natural explanations for core Christian miracle events are simply pathetic.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What is meant by men being made in God's image is that we are moral agents and have a limited version of God's sovereignty over other creatures.

If that's the full extent of saying that man is made in the image of such a god, then the comment is in error. We have much more in common with the beasts than that. Like us, they experience pain, fear, illness, hunger, and a very long list of other common traits. They are born and die, breath, ambulate, and at times bleed.

And they also demonstrate evidence of being moral agents as well:

Moral behavior in animals

Also, many of us reject the morality ascribed to this god and assume no sovereignty over other creatures. Furthermore,many of us are interested in their welfare and intervene on their behalf to minimize their suffering, something this god can't be bothered to do for them or us.

 

[1robin]

Just for fun check this out:
Twelve Proofs of the Inexistence of God

I do not have time to read an entire paper. I would actually find it interesting if you would copy and paste just the arguments them selves from that site. Or just the best.

Done formally you should post 1 - 6 (usually at most 4) premise' that are true and the conclusion that follows logically from them.

Do this for the best 3 or 4 arguments from your site. I am very interested to see how universally negatives are proven, since they are impossible to prove. But I don't have half an hour to read an entire paper guessing which parts you think are important. I usually quote the arguments I want to draw attention to then supply the link if anyone wants to investigate the entire resource.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

1. Because how you punish an evil behavior does not make the behavior wrong or right. Lets say I was Joseph Stalin and said that any who orders a tuna fish sandwich after 4pm should serve 4 months in jail. Would that make ordering a tuna fish sandwich after 4pm actually wrong. No it would only make it contradictory to Stalin's preference, in the exact same way that God's morality contradicts your preferences.
2. Homosexuality has always been wrong, is currently wrong, and will always wrong (just like all other sins). However other changes may make the way God handles homosexuality.
3. Humans do this all the time, it is wrong for a bum to cut of someone's arm in the alley but ok for a doctor to do win a hospital, children have different rules than parents, drinking is legal in a bar but illegal while driving.
4. So homosexuality is an eternal objective wrong, what commands God gives concerning homosexuals depend on many subjective factors.

Many of us find this kind of thinking immoral. We have already evolved beyond such irrational hatreds and bigotry, and pointless punishment.

If you want to known whether you were right or wrong above, look up divine command theory.

Absolutely the worst moral theory ever.

If you want to convince a person who believes like you do to gouge out the eyes of a puppy with a spoon, all you need do is convince him that it is the will of his god. That's how we get holocausts, Jonestown, the Branch Davidians, and the present debacle in the White House - people failing to object to obviously immoral people and actions because somebody is thumping a Bible.

That's why we hear Christians imploring one another to forgive heinous actions because they can be convinced that God has forgiven it. Haggard and Bakker come to mind. Sorry, boys. Neither of you will be forgiven on the basis of a ghost allegedly forgiving you.

 

[1robin]

OK. So once it was in God's nature that men having sex with each other was immoral and that they should be killed, then it wasn't in God's nature that men having sex with each other was immoral and they shouldn't be killed, but tomorrow it might become in God's nature that men having sex with each other is immoral and they should be killed again?

No, it has always been in God's nature that homosexuality was wrong.

1 Timothy 1:8-11
Chapter Parallel Compare
8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine


You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)
The Bible and Same-Sex Attraction | Living Out

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
The Bible and Same-Sex Attraction | Living Out

(Romans 1:26-27) "Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones; in the same way, men committed shameful acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."
There are 6 Scriptures about homosexuality in the Bible. Here's what they really say.

So homosexuality is against God's nature.

However what to do about it depended on many contextual issues. I have already explained some of what these were and given other examples.

I do not like homosexual debates because it's defenders are emotion based. If they were rationally based I could give data and arguments to show homosexuality is unjustifiable for secular reasons alone. But data and reason have no effect on emotion and preference so abortion debates just keep going and going no matter how tall the mountain of evidence against them becomes. So I am closing out our discussion concerning homosexuality.

 

[ArtieE]

1. Because how you punish an evil behavior does not make the behavior wrong or right. Lets say I was Joseph Stalin and said that any who orders a tuna fish sandwich after 4pm should serve 4 months in jail. Would that make ordering a tuna fish sandwich after 4pm actually wrong. No it would only make it contradictory to Stalin's preference, in the exact same way that God's morality contradicts your preferences.
2. Homosexuality has always been wrong, is currently wrong, and will always wrong (just like all other sins). However other changes may make the way God handles homosexuality.
3. Humans do this all the time, it is wrong for a bum to cut of someone's arm in the alley but ok for a doctor to do win a hospital, children have different rules than parents, drinking is legal in a bar but illegal while driving.
4. So homosexuality is an eternal objective wrong, what commands God gives concerning homosexuals depend on many subjective factors.

After review you may not be as far off as I originally thought, after hundreds of people rewriting misrepresentations of what they find inconvenient I usually just assume they are misrepresentations.

If you want to known whether you were right or wrong above, look up divine command theory.

Sorry but I couldn't find any answer in there. If God says "if men have sex with each other kill them" is it objectively moral to kill them? If, later, God says that this doesn't apply anymore, is it then objectively immoral to kill them? I'm just trying to figure out if killing men for having sex with each other is objectively moral or immoral or if we have to consult God every time we feel like killing homosexuals to find out if it's presently objectively moral or immoral...

 

[ArtieE]

This is a purely subjective criteria which would be up to every individual. The chances are so small that those who claim religious experience have epilepsy that is seems absurd to suggest they immediately run to the doctor for a test. If a person actually has epilepsy it will almost always manifest in ways that do justify visiting the doctor.

What if you meet somebody who suddenly has a religious experience or becomes hyper religious and you do nothing? What if later it turns out that this person had a tumor? What would your conscience say?

This kind of reminds me or the group of people who claim and unidentified object must be alien in origin. But if you want to find the recorded historical event which more closely epilepsy than any others in mainstream religion then Muhammad's cave experience. Actually it is almost a word for word description of biblical occurrences of demon possession, but it is still your best candidate for an epileptic fit explaining supernatural experience. No one I the bible, nor that I know personal who ever made a claim to a supernatural event showed any sign of epilepsy.

Old Testament prophet showed epileptic symptoms
Saint Paul and Epilepsy .pdf
There's a lot of information online about temporal lobe epilepsy and religious experiences.

Just how does epilepsy explain water turning to wine and shared by an entire party? How does it get Christ's body out of a sealed tomb? How does it feed thousands with a few fish? Bring Lazarus back to life in the presence of dozens? Or make even Christ's enemies claim to experience him after death?

Natural explanations for core Christian miracle events are simply pathetic.

You forgot Matthew 27.

51 And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake; and the rocks were rent; 52 and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming forth out of the tombs after his resurrection they entered into the holy city and appeared unto many."

I agree that it would be difficult to find natural explanations for this. Of course it would be nice with some independent corroboration but only Matthew seemed to notice this amazing miraculous event. Nobody else even bothered to mention it.

 

[ArtieE]

I do not have time to read an entire paper.

But others will. And you will be at a disadvantage for not knowing your "opponents" arguments.

 

[1robin]

Why? It was right there when you quoted me. You should know it as well as i.

I quoted you straight, verbatim. It's not my job to go find the original statement: How about you READ the thing you are about to reply to?

What you claimed was not even coherent, and did not seem related to anything I said. Which probably explains why you won't actually quote what I said and coherently comment on it. Since what you said does not seem related to anything I have said, I can't guess what it is, in order to reply.

 

[1robin]

Perfect eternal contentment with a being who drowns a whole planet and commands humans to "go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." and then later says "Love your neighbor as yourself."So two men having sex is objectively wrong at one time and not at another time? Or is it just the punishement that changes with the times? Or what your god commands in the Old Testament.

I already told you that to do justice to any of these sweeping claims requires serious investigation, which means that only 1 or 2 can be tackled at a time. I offered you the choice of which ones you want to get to the bottom of but all you do is cough forth every complaint you can think of. This isn't debate, it is yelling at traffic. If you sincerely wanted to get to the bottom of any one of these issues I have explained what is necessary, you have failed to even feign an attempt. I conclude you are not sincere but simply emotionally motivated to impugn that which you do not seem to understand very well.

Either pick a subject or two to actually get to the bottom of or I will respond in as petty and trivial a fashion as that which you post in.