can you proove there isn't a deity?

[SkepticThinker]

In the context you are trying to interpret this in it becomes self contradictory.

I’m not interpreting it in any context. I’m using it’s definition.

Nature and humans do not create morals. As Jefferson said the only source of morality is the God of nature.

Humans do create morals. This is evident from psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc.

It was not creation by the a civilized society intended by that terminology it was apprehension by a civilized society that was meant. That renders the statement a consistent whole, yours turns it into a philosophical train wreck. Here is a better interpretation that bears this out. The distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum offenses is best characterized as follows: a malum in se offense is "naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community,"

Again, I haven’t interpreted it in any context, that’s what you seem to be attempting to do while putting your own spin on it. I merely provided the definition of the phrase.

However lets pretend this society that was firmly committed to all kinds of deities for a minute. They believed certain things were wrong (I mean actually wrong) in and of themselves. Even if people in that relatively ignorant age did not state in that legal dictum that God was the source for that dichotomy, that would still be the only way what they said was true. Unless a transcendent standard exists no natural evil ever can exist. Exactly what molecule or atom is the moral law giver? Which mountain, planet, or force dictates what is evil or good? Nature never has, never can, and never will produce moral truths. It does not have the capacity. Even if (and I do not for a minute agree it was) that the pagan Romans thought natural evils are evil because nature dictated it they would have been wrong about the source but not about the existence of evil.

And now you’re providing your opinion, viewed through the lens of your own religious presumptions.
We are the moral law givers. We organize societies and have to live together with other human beings (well, most of us). Morals come from our own brains, because we are able to analyze situations and determine the consequences of actions. We determine that people who are incapable of doing this are abnormal, mentally deficient or insane. All of this comes from us.

In summary.
1. The Romans knew that some things were actually evil or good.

Even if they (and they did not) ascribe that to nature as causal, they were wrong as so many have exhaustively proven. [/quote]
Sentient creatures are able to determine good from bad.

2. They were either thoroughly pagan, Christian, or a combination of the two and ascribed almost everything to a God's action so there is almost no chance they thought nature created morals.

So what? Do you think Jupiter dictates morality?

It is very very easy to prove me wrong if you were right.
Prove that any act what so ever is actually wrong is God does not exist.

I’ve already done this, numerous times. I’m not getting back on that merry-go-round with you. If you can’t see that morals come from us, based on the fact that they vary from culture to culture, from individual to individual and over time, and in many cases are dependent upon the situation, then we don’t have much to talk about, I’m afraid.

 

[outhouse]

. I can only conclude that biblical truth is not your goal.

.

Historical truth is my goal, that and reality.




Biblical truth is, is theology. theology is not being debated in this thread.

Prove any act ever committed or theoretically capable of being committed is actually evil (objectively wrong or immoral) without God?

Since god doesn't exist scientifically.

Your question is factually invalid.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I did not say I did not interpret the word used in the Bible for slavery in a "softer" way than people post 18th century US slavery have.I said I had no motivation to do so unless it was true. I have no desire to soften Egyptian slavery towards the Jews. If I had any motivation beyond truth it would be in the other direction.

Whether you explicitly said it or not doesn't matter. You actually do that every time you talk about the slavery discussed within the Bible. And you have said as much many times in the past.

 

[outhouse]

2. It is almost a universal agreement that no actual moral truths can exist without a transcendent standard and source.
.

This is either a LIE or intellectual dishonesty.

You cannot post your opinions as fact, when they are not substantiated.


You need to post SOURCES for your false assertions

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have spent more than enough with other faiths to give them up completely. They are either incoherent nonsense, speculative meta-physics, self contradictory, historically unjustifiable, or philosophically unsound. Christianity is no 1 for a reason. It has be many times over the most and best evidence and the most philosophically, comprehensive, and largest explanatory scope by far. There is not even a distant second and its textual tradition is greater than any text of any kind in ancient history. I tried to compare religions back when I was lost and stumbling around in the dark and found no comparison.

Oh okay. Islam isn't far behind Christianity, so there must be some truth to it right? And atheism is apparently on the rise as well, so that must constitute evidence that there is some truth to it as well. Is that how this works?

 

[SkepticThinker]

If my page after page after page of data on OT slavery and the dozens of links has not resolved the issue by now and explained it in the context of a moral God having to deal with a wayward mankind by now I don't think any additional information will help. I have already responded to everything you mentioned several times each. I will do so one last time very briefly.
1. God did not desire slavery. That is why it does not exist in anyplace where he no longer has to allow for human fallibility. If he liked slavery why is it not in heaven and why did Christ claim to free the captives as his mission?
2. Like divorce, death, suffering, and many other ills we call evils (at times) God allowed slavery of a sort because of our problems, not his.

Well gee, for someone who didn’t desire it, he sure took great pains to explain in detail how slaves were to be treated, how long they should be enslaved, how to mark them as your property, where to get them from, etc., etc., etc.
“He” could have just included a commandment against it among the other 600 or so commandments he issued but instead he did the opposite. So I’m sorry, but your explanation doesn’t fly.

2. Of every known law pertaining to slavery in the ANE, Israel had the most benevolent by far. In Babylon it was against the law to not turn in a runaway slave. In Israel it was against the law to do so.

Garbage and irrelevant. Please explain to us how non-Israelite slaves were to be treated.

3. every known record of an actual slave in Israel is of voluntary slavery usually a debt arrangement.

More garbage. Read your own Bible for goodness sake.

4. Enslavement for life was apparently very rare but look at why it occurred. If a place was defeated there were four choices of what to do with the people left homeless. Most of he time they were sold into actual chattel slavery and worked to death (literal death). Second they were at times all killed. Third the homeless and desperate masses were left to plague everyone they came into contact with and often stole to survive. Or in Israel they were enslaved, but in Israel as God had made sure, slaves had property rights, they DID have rights to their children they just could not take them off somewhere else, they were paid, they had to be supplied very liberally with food and other goods. They were set up better than 95% of prisoners of war in warfare of them time. That also applies to slaves bought from foreign slave traders.

Please keep justifying slavery and elaborating on the joys and benevolence of owning other human beings as property while at the same time telling the rest of us we are the immoral ones because we don’t believe in a god.

You can use the same garbage to justify pre-Civil War slavery. Where would the slaves have gone if they were set free? They would have been homeless, those poor creatures. We were actually doing them a favour by owning them as property. This is insanity!

In summary it was a form of welfare mandated by necessity. The same God that made his chosen people leave a portion of the grain behind for anyone who was hungry, saved mankind by paying the price 100% himself, and was the chief hope of slaves in actual chattel slavery was not what you wish him so bad to be. Which is why not one person who has brought up slavery to me has actually spent much time whatever looking up what the original words used meant. If anyone actually wanted to know what the truth was that is the very first place they should start but I can't even get most of the non-theists to even accept the meanings I looked up for them. I have to conclude it is because they do not want an explanation. They want an excuse to dismiss the only eternal hope that is possible for some bizarre but common reason.

If I want to know what the Bible says about slavery, all I have to do is read it.
In summary, you are defending immoral actions because you have no other choice, because the Bible says it’s okay and you must believe what the Bible tells you. Again, not a system of morality in any sense of the word.

I am done with this issue, as everything relevant and that would satisfy anyone actually looking for the truth (instead of an excuse) has been said over and over. I have given links to site after site from experts on ANE customs. I can't even see any evidence they were even glanced at. I have no reason to continue this futile discussion with people who are trying to rationalize their desires.
I will discuss anything original that has not been beat to death already, however.

You are the one trying to rationalize the irrational.

 

[1robin]

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "morality" is. There is the idea that there is a universal morality but that only exists as a concept within the scope of humans. What is moral or not is from the point of view of the victim and our connection with them through apathy. Its a functional concept rather than simply an abstract "truth".

That is not even close to the truth. Morals or at least the most meaningful category of morality has been an action against a law that does not reside within humanity. If it wasn't so, then morality would only be equal to opinion. If morality equals opinion then as "Dawkins" honestly admitted why is my opinion better than Hitler's. If you review the speeches that recorded he reasons why men were called to fight Hitler's minions they were almost exclusively objective. That he was violating actual truths not certain culture's opinions. Why would you have the right to take the life of someone who was killing another person based on his opinion that he should?

If mankind used your standard for the basis of morality there would be even more moral insanity than there is and even no actual standard by which to call it insane. The killers at columbine did what they thought was right. Without an objective standard what are you appealing to in order to call them wrong? Your opinion, popular opinion, tradition, scholastic opinion, might? The failure of your moral foundation (more accurately the impotence of it) to found moral truth is apparent in even the agnostic Jefferson's claims that all human rights come from natures God. There is no issue as clear cut as this and I will prove it once again.


My claim was you cannot get moral truths without God.

1. Prove any moral truths actually exist without God.

You didn't. However in another post you did do the only thing left open to a non-theist and it is the only honest response available. It is not true and no one including you actually believes it is true but it is theoretically permissible.

2. You basically said there are no objective moral truths which is exactly what I said you should say and was proof my claim was true. But let me add something on to this and I will bet if your honest with yourself you will agree.


Forgive the nature of the analogies.

Would you say Joseph Mengela or a person who tortured one of your family members did nothing actually wrong? But only violated a social convention? They only did something not preferred in our collective and contrived rules we use to achieve arbitrary and (normally self serving) ends (which some mistakenly call morality instead of ethics). Or would you, like pretty much every non psychopath believe they had actually acted in ways that ought not to have occurred and were absolutely wrong. Regardless of what you might be willing to admit, the basis for our and most systems of law is that there is a transcendent standard that was violated by these actions. We believe and act as if certain acts would be wrong even if no one believed they were, and I thank God we do and that we have not traditionally believed what you stated above.

I think you have (you certainly should have) conceded my original claim, so let me ask another one. Exactly how is anyone entitled to any rights of any kind. I do not mean how are they conceived of, I mean how can anyone claim to actually have any rights without God?

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is not even close to the truth. Morals or at least the most meaningful category of morality has been an action against a law that does not reside within humanity. If it wasn't so, then morality would only be equal to opinion. If morality equals opinion then as "Dawkins" honestly admitted why is my opinion better than Hitler's. If you review the speeches that recorded he reasons why men were called to fight Hitler's minions they were almost exclusively objective. That he was violating actual truths not certain culture's opinions. Why would you have the right to take the life of someone who was killing another person based on his opinion that he should?

If mankind used your standard for the basis of morality there would be even more moral insanity than there is and even no actual standard by which to call it insane. The killers at columbine did what they thought was right. Without an objective standard what are you appealing to in order to call them wrong? Your opinion, popular opinion, tradition, scholastic opinion, might? The failure of your moral foundation (more accurately the impotence of it) to found moral truth is apparent in even the agnostic Jefferson's claims that all human rights come from natures God. There is no issue as clear cut as this and I will prove it once again.


My claim was you cannot get moral truths without God.

1. Prove any moral truths actually exist without God.

You didn't. However in another post you did do the only thing left open to a non-theist and it is the only honest response available. It is not true and no one including you actually believes it is true but it is theoretically permissible.

2. You basically said there are no objective moral truths which is exactly what I said you should say and was proof my claim was true. But let me add something on to this and I will bet if your honest with yourself you will agree.


Forgive the nature of the analogies.

Would you say Joseph Mengela or a person who tortured one of your family members did nothing actually wrong? But only violated a social convention? They only did something not preferred in our collective and contrived rules we use to achieve arbitrary and (normally self serving) ends (which some mistakenly call morality instead of ethics). Or would you, like pretty much every non psychopath believe they had actually acted in ways that ought not to have occurred and were absolutely wrong. Regardless of what you might be willing to admit, the basis for our and most systems of law is that there is a transcendent standard that was violated by these actions. We believe and act as if certain acts would be wrong even if no one believed they were, and I thank God we do and that we have not traditionally believed what you stated above.

I think you have (you certainly should have) conceded my original claim, so let me ask another one. Exactly how is anyone entitled to any rights of any kind. I do not mean how are they conceived of, I mean how can anyone claim to actually have any rights without God?

One question: How do we determine that someone's behavior is abnormal?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That is not even close to the truth. Morals or at least the most meaningful category of morality has been an action against a law that does not reside within humanity. If it wasn't so, then morality would only be equal to opinion. If morality equals opinion then as "Dawkins" honestly admitted why is my opinion better than Hitler's. If you review the speeches that recorded he reasons why men were called to fight Hitler's minions they were almost exclusively objective. That he was violating actual truths not certain culture's opinions. Why would you have the right to take the life of someone who was killing another person based on his opinion that he should?

If mankind used your standard for the basis of morality there would be even more moral insanity than there is and even no actual standard by which to call it insane. The killers at columbine did what they thought was right. Without an objective standard what are you appealing to in order to call them wrong? Your opinion, popular opinion, tradition, scholastic opinion, might? The failure of your moral foundation (more accurately the impotence of it) to found moral truth is apparent in even the agnostic Jefferson's claims that all human rights come from natures God. There is no issue as clear cut as this and I will prove it once again.


My claim was you cannot get moral truths without God.

1. Prove any moral truths actually exist without God.

You didn't. However in another post you did do the only thing left open to a non-theist and it is the only honest response available. It is not true and no one including you actually believes it is true but it is theoretically permissible.

2. You basically said there are no objective moral truths which is exactly what I said you should say and was proof my claim was true. But let me add something on to this and I will bet if your honest with yourself you will agree.


Forgive the nature of the analogies.

Would you say Joseph Mengela or a person who tortured one of your family members did nothing actually wrong? But only violated a social convention? They only did something not preferred in our collective and contrived rules we use to achieve arbitrary and (normally self serving) ends (which some mistakenly call morality instead of ethics). Or would you, like pretty much every non psychopath believe they had actually acted in ways that ought not to have occurred and were absolutely wrong. Regardless of what you might be willing to admit, the basis for our and most systems of law is that there is a transcendent standard that was violated by these actions. We believe and act as if certain acts would be wrong even if no one believed they were, and I thank God we do and that we have not traditionally believed what you stated above.

I think you have (you certainly should have) conceded my original claim, so let me ask another one. Exactly how is anyone entitled to any rights of any kind. I do not mean how are they conceived of, I mean how can anyone claim to actually have any rights without God?

Until you understand what a moral truth is (which you clearly don't) then I can't really debate with you.

A moral truth can ONLY exist via the vehicle of a sentient being who can have negative associations with it. They are formed only in functional situations.

How can something be moral or not without a victim? How can it be moral to harm a rock? Can a rock be harmed? The answer usually is no. The rock has not sentience.

A human has sentience. A human can hurt. A human can be subject to harm. From the point of view of the victim we can determine if something is moral or immoral. Are you with me so far? Because you have a massive misunderstanding and I'm trying to find out where it is. Tell me exactly where I loose you.

To continue, we have apathy. This is a functional evolutionary step of our intellectual nature. We have developed the cognitive ability to innately precieve the point of view of another. We can put ourselves in their shoe. In fact legion can tell you more than me I am sure, but if we watch a video of someone else being hurt the exact same parts of the brain light up that would if we were being harmed.

Apathy is the key to morality as morality only exists within a population. The morality of humans stems from the evolutionary drive to survive and reproduce effectively. Doing so we have found as creatures that are more intelligent that we can work together for a common good. That produces far more productive offspring than a cutthroat system.

Are you with me so far?

So within the scope of the victim and our own innate apathy we developed through our evolution we have something that in each and every instance would be morally wrong always. Its not simply subjective but intrinsic.

 

[1robin]

Chistianity is not based on evidence, it is based on faith.

As I am a Christian and since you are not how in the world could you even theoretically know what other people faith is based on. I have been a prayer councilor for years and have heard every single source of doubt and faith I can imagine. I KNOW the source of most Christians faith is evidence. You can't possibly know one way or the other. A person who does not believe in X can't possibly know why another person does believe in X.
The fact you claim to know what you can't possibly know even if you were right is just one more piece of evidence that leaves me no choice but to believe your motivations are emotional and not rational. There is an old saying "The reason why the embittered captain Ahab relentlessly hunted and harpooned Moby Dick is because he could not do so to God". I know the motivation well because I used to be the same way. I did not believe in God but resented and despised him anyway. Every Christian I met got an ear full of resentment clothed in the form of a debate. Hopefully I am wrong but so far you have been perfectly consistent with that hypothesis.

Evidence shows us, Jesus divinity in relationship to the god concept was settled in a hearing, and Constantine forced the vote to literally define god and jesus.

That is not even close. Constantine only desired harmony not any particular decision. He did not even speak at the counsel other than initially addressing the assembly. He invited 1800 bishops instead of just mandating what he wished without all the bother. Of the hundreds that showed up, I think only two dissented. I did not mention Jesus divinity in what you responded to (piece of evidence number 1000, arguing against what you wish to destroy instead of what was claimed). I almost never argue anything Trinitarian. Not because I think it false but because it makes no difference. I need to accept Christ as savior whether he was divinely empowered or God himself. Before Constantine even drew breath the Bible had claimed Christ existed before the universe. What non-divine being can do that and how did Constantine force that verse to be written before he was born? Plus the dozens that say the same thing.

However the majority conclusions of NT scholars on either side is three primary things among many others.

1. Christ appeared in history with a unprecedented sense of divine authority.
2. He was crucified be the Romans.
3. The Tomb was found empty.

The evidence for these three are overwhelming. The Christian explanation for just these three historical events alone is by far the best, so yes my faith is based on evidence. Many of histories greatest experts on testimony and evidence have been Christians and your hand waiving away people many times over more credentialed than your self will not affect anything.

Islam is almost equal to Christianity in size and popularity.

I will use the absurdity of this statement to indicate why I have decided not to even respond to your claims about the most obscure period of Biblical history because this one can be resolved. Currently Islam has 23.2% of the population, Christianity has 31.59%.

1. That means that Christianity is 140% the size of Islam. On what scale is that close? However it gets far far worse.
2. Most of Islam's nation's count all new births as Muslims.
3. In many nations they are brainwashed from kindergarten. I have known some that have finally gotten out and said they had no idea what a Jew was but knew they hated them in kindergarten. This is true of most of the fundamental nations.
4. Once the child grows up in many of the fundamental nations they must go on trial if they wish to get out of a faith chosen for them. They risk death and imprisonment for shirk.
5. Islam out produces the west by many times over, even though they have less ability to care for the children they prolifically produce.

Given these factors alone I would claim that Islam could be as untrue as it is and should still outnumber Christianity 3 or 4 to 1 but it can't even keep pace even given all of that garbage above.

Let me give another example. Both Christianity and Islam began in weak positions. Islam's first peaceful 10 years produced about 250 followers. However when Muhammad was given command of the soldiers of several tribes and had wealth, blood, power, and influence to peddle Islam grew by 100,000 over the next 12 years. It seems peace does not sell in Islam. Christianity was persecuted by the most powerful empire on Earth in their day and their own country. Yet their first dozen years or so saw it explode on the scene with Churches all over the ANE, Greece, and even Rome. God finally converted the very empire attempting to wipe them out. None of these things prove either one is true though they do belong in the equation and they do indicate the extreme disparity between them. One survives on merit but has had periods of violence. One survives on violence but has had periods of merit.

Personal opinion that hold no credibility for a global comparison.

Quite often I am not even sure your responding to me. I did not mention anything about a global anything.

 

[1robin]

One question: How do we determine that someone's behavior is abnormal?

If I have missed any of your posts recently in this thread let me know. It is all I can do to attempt to keep up.

I am uncertain why abnormal is involved with my claim. Did I mistakenly use that term somewhere. My claims have no relevance to abnormal behavior. If they have any correlation between them it is incidental. Once I clarify why or what your asking maybe I can respond more meaningfully. Let me make up for it by switching gears and adding something I just read that touches on something I think we have discussed.

I have said I think the THEORY of evolution is so ambiguous it actually means nothing. I saw something by Craig that demonstrates that superbly. BTW (this exception excluded) why do Atheists mention him more than Christians do? I think some of you guys check under the bed for him before sleeping. You only worry over true threats I guess. We did not build the finest military in history to defend ourselves from the Congo but from the USSR.

He says the same thing I did that an explanation of everything is actually an explanation of nothing and used an example to prove it. Someone said that our perception of beauty is related to evolutions emphasis on reproductive fitness. Craig response was 100% lethal to that claim and is just an example of countless more of the same.

Secondly, there’s no good evidence that our perception of moral and aesthetic values has been programmed by evolution. Darwinists are extremely imaginative and creative in coming up with what are called “just so” stories in order to explain things via evolution for which there is no empirical evidence. Indeed, these stories are almost endlessly adaptable, so that they become almost irrefutable and, hence, falsifiable. I take your example of why we find young female models more (physically) beautiful than old women to be the reductio ad absurdum of this approach. Why in the world should I believe that the reason I think Claudia Schiffer is more beautiful than Madeleine Albright is because the former but not the latter is closer to her peak of reproductive fitness? That strikes me as preposterous. What evidence is there that warrants so absurd a conjecture?
In fact, doesn’t the evidence point in the opposite direction? If reproductive fitness determined our appraisal of beauty, then why wouldn’t a young woman with a big nose and a harelip look as beautiful to me as a fashion model? Ugly young women are just as fertile as beautiful ones. So what selective advantage is there in being attracted to beautiful women rather than just younger women? Or again, isn’t it odd that you, a woman, agree with me that the young model is more beautiful than an old woman, since you as a woman could have no selective advantage from such an aesthetic judgment? Even if evolution programmed you to think that young men are more handsome than old men, why do you also find the young female model more beautiful (physically) than an old woman? Or again, how is it that we also recognize beautiful members of other species? We often admire a particularly beautiful Arabian horse or a champion in a dog show. How can such judgments be plausibly explained as due to evolutionary programming, since differential judgments of beauty in other animals has absolutely no selective advantage for us? I’m sure that given their ingenuity for coming up with “just so” stories, Darwinists can figure out ways to explain away these anomalies. But why believe such stories? We should demand some pretty strong evidence for thinking that evolution has, in fact, determined our moral and aesthetic judgments. But there is no such evidence. Rather I suspect that these “just so” stories are accepted by many because on the assumption of naturalism it seems natural to suppose that our tastes have been determined by their selective advantage. But then the question arises once more: why think that naturalism is true?
: Our Grasp of Objective Moral Values | Reasonable Faith

The reason I included that is because the same lame arguments would apply to morality as developed from evolution alone. Also keep in mind both I and Craig believe evolution has occurred. We just admit the obvious truth that it does not account for a even small percentage of what it is claimed to have.

Anyway clarify what you asked and I will respond.

 

[Benoni]

Seeing God is invisable to the human eye and does everything to hide himself.
You will never find him on your terms.
For one thing you are not really looking.

 

[1robin]

Until you understand what a moral truth is (which you clearly don't) then I can't really debate with you.

I don't think you can do so given the definition. Just kidding. By all means lets clear this up.

Truth is several things.
1. It is not a matter of perception, opinion, or acceptance.
2. Truth is independent of human apprehension.
3. Truth is an objective quality.
4. Truth is almost always an exclusive category.

Moral truths are value conditions that apply to the correctness of an action that is objective in nature.

A moral truth can ONLY exist via the vehicle of a sentient being who can have negative associations with it. They are formed only in functional situations.

That is not true. Just as Pluto's existence is independent of our knowledge of it moral truths must be independent of our apprehension of them. There is an obscure category where you would be correct. If I said that murder is morally wrong then it is an objective fact that I said it. It however is not true because I said it or believe it. It is only true if it is true independent of anyone's perception of it.

How can something be moral or not without a victim? How can it be moral to harm a rock? Can a rock be harmed? The answer usually is no. The rock has not sentience.

I will show the absurdity of your criteria by simply applying it. If sentience is the foundation for morality or (more properly unjustified actions against sentient beings) then why is murdering a human more wrong than murdering a gnat? By your own standard you probably committed a hundred cases of murder on your drive to work tomorrow. As usual my world view resolves these self contradictions your creates. I have more value to God than a gnat and they were subjected to humanity by their creator. You can derive no actual value for any life or anything without God. human flourishing at the expense of every other being on the planet is not moral it is speciesm.

A human has sentience. A human can hurt. A human can be subject to harm. From the point of view of the victim we can determine if something is moral or immoral. Are you with me so far? Because you have a massive misunderstanding and I'm trying to find out where it is. Tell me exactly where I loose you.

I am well aware that we can cause pain to others. You have not said why doing so is actually wrong. At best you have said it is not preferred or convenient and has become no more than a social fashion. Look, I do not think you are being condescending on purpose but you are completely wrong. I know exactly what the state of moral argumentation is among the best scholars through ought history. I am not for a second suggesting you are unintelligent but you are really not knowledgeable about this issue. That is proven by simply applying your irrational standards. I hope you can see the failures the generate and mine do not. All the way back to Israel, Greece, and Rome men of learning have classified at least much of morality as being against objective standards. This is not new or rocket science. Truth has burdens, your claims do not meat them. If God exists then mine do. I know exactly what your saying and I know exactly why it can't possibly be true. If you wish I can supply some of the best philosophers in history in their own words adding to what I have said.

It is not simply that your are incorrect, it is there is not even a theoretical possibility you can be correct.

To continue, we have apathy. This is a functional evolutionary step of our intellectual nature. We have developed the cognitive ability to innately precieve the point of view of another. We can put ourselves in their shoe. In fact legion can tell you more than me I am sure, but if we watch a video of someone else being hurt the exact same parts of the brain light up that would if we were being harmed.

Not one thing here makes any act ever committed actually wrong. It may make them unpopular, it may make them undesirable, against a social convention, or against an intuition. What it can't possibly do is make murder is wrong a true statement.

Let me illustrate this another way. Empathy is at it's core an opinion. Hitler thought wiping out the evil Jews was an empathetic act that led to a greater good in the long run. By your standards above how was he wrong. Whose empathy are we to use as the basis for law, popular opinion, mine, yours, Hitler's, Muhammad's, or Billy Graham's? Your morality has an illusory, ambiguous, and moving target for a foundation.

I think you may be confusing the ontological argument for moral truth with how do secular humans resolve moral issues.

Apathy is the key to morality as morality only exists within a population. The morality of humans stems from the evolutionary drive to survive and reproduce effectively. Doing so we have found as creatures that are more intelligent that we can work together for a common good. That produces far more productive offspring than a cutthroat system.

Then will anyone's sense of apathy do? Are you satisfied if Charlie mansion's sense of apathy is the standard? I am a veteran and have seen people so devoid of moral sanity that their sense of apathy would be what most would call evil. I don't mean a slight minority either. I mean a huge proportion of humanity.

Are you with me so far?

I was aware of everything you have said long before you said it. This is a description of how humanity has at times resolved moral issues. It has nothing what so ever to do with moral fact.

Not one thing you have suggested has the slightest power to make rape is actually wrong a true statement. That reminds me of something. You said where no victim is present that no moral wrong has been committed. Then why do we lock people up for a long period of time for attempted murder. We even lock people up for thinking evil things. The other day I heard in Britain a man was jailed for drawing pictures of children in weird scenarios. No child saw it, it was not on public display, no one was hurt. Or how about a victim who was also sentient but no wrong was charged. When a dolphin forcibly copulates with another dolphin by your standards they should be arrested.

So within the scope of the victim and our own innate apathy we developed through our evolution we have something that in each and every instance would be morally wrong always. Its not simply subjective but intrinsic.

I am pretty sure I see why you are not getting this. I have grown to like you and so it may be best to summarize this discussion this way.


You are describing how some groups of humanity may have resolved ethical issues when necessary. That is not what I was talking about.

When Stalin kills 20 million people or a little girl is raped you, me, and 99% of humanity believes they have done something objectively wrong. That belief has been in poems, songs, literature, dissertations, moral commands, legal foundations, philosophical discourses, and theological texts since they existed.

Your discussing epistemology not ontology. Your claims reduce what Stalin did to acts against social fashions or conventions and not actually immoral truths. I would hate to think the free-world only had that as the motivation for stopping Hitler and fortunately we had God and that is what Britain's, France's, and the United States leaders appealed to for justification, not apathy or the ability to put our selves in another's place. They said he had violated absolute moral truth and that is justification for using force to stop another not what you have said.

Nothing you have said rises above arbitrary opinion. That is however all that is left if God does not exist and my entire point. So if you are satisfied with that then there is no contention between us.

 

[1robin]

I’m not interpreting it in any context. I’m using it’s definition.

Humans do create morals. This is evident from psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc.

Again, I haven’t interpreted it in any context, that’s what you seem to be attempting to do while putting your own spin on it. I merely provided the definition of the phrase.

And now you’re providing your opinion, viewed through the lens of your own religious presumptions.
We are the moral law givers. We organize societies and have to live together with other human beings (well, most of us). Morals come from our own brains, because we are able to analyze situations and determine the consequences of actions. We determine that people who are incapable of doing this are abnormal, mentally deficient or insane. All of this comes from us.


Even if they (and they did not) ascribe that to nature as causal, they were wrong as so many have exhaustively proven.

Sentient creatures are able to determine good from bad.


So what? Do you think Jupiter dictates morality?

I’ve already done this, numerous times. I’m not getting back on that merry-go-round with you. If you can’t see that morals come from us, based on the fact that they vary from culture to culture, from individual to individual and over time, and in many cases are dependent upon the situation, then we don’t have much to talk about, I’m afraid.[/QUOTE] I am out of time and you look as if you are wanting to really get with it. I will try and respond later today but if not probably will tomorrow. I think your are completely wrong but some of your points can lead to interesting issues.

 

[Sees]

It's definitely possible to prove that certain conceptions of deity are not logically able to exist. In the end all you do is kill one or more specific concepts or images. You don't rule out that a certain energy, spirit, being, etc. exists but perhaps decide that it is highly improbable.

 

[1robin]

Since god doesn't exist scientifically.

Your question is factually invalid.

I am out of time so I will only respond to this claim.

How in the world is scientifically proven a basis for asking a question? If this were 5000 years ago and I asked if other solar systems existed, would that be an invalid question because at that time they were scientifically unverifiable. How in the world is the tiny fragment of reality that we can apprehend through science the basis for the applicability of a question. I sure am glad our fore fathers asked and resolved moral questions before telescopes invented. There was an entire category of philosophy concerning morality that existed long before any significant scientific advances were made (and a very disproportionate amount of even those were made by Christians and a few Muslims).

Are you claiming that no question or decision is valid that can't be scientifically resolved? If so then half of your decisions are invalid or more.

That is all of this I can take for now.

Have a good one and if you ever want to debate the parts of the Bible that lie within the parts of history that can be resolved to a reasonable probability instead of the parts of human history least likely to be reliably understood by anyone (let alone a layman in a forum) then let me know.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If I have missed any of your posts recently in this thread let me know. It is all I can do to attempt to keep up.

Nothing in this thread that I know of. I’m still waiting for you to respond “Indisputable Rational Evidence that god exists” thread though.

I am uncertain why abnormal is involved with my claim. Did I mistakenly use that term somewhere. My claims have no relevance to abnormal behavior. If they have any correlation between them it is incidental. Once I clarify why or what your asking maybe I can respond more meaningfully. Let me make up for it by switching gears and adding something I just read that touches on something I think we have discussed.

It’s involved in your claim that morality doesn’t come from us. I’m trying to show you that it does, and how it does. The reason we can and do claim that a person is abnormal is that they differ from the norm in some way. The fact that we have a norm is a good indication that there are certain things we value (“good” things”) and certain things we don’t, and/or that we think are harmful or wrong (“bad” things). A person that we consider sociopathic or psychopathic, for example, is a person that we deem to be lacking in empathy, which is one of the cornerstones of morality. Without empathy, we are unable to place ourselves in someone else’s shoes and imagine how they would feel in a given situation. We find a lack of empathy in a human being to be abnormal and the actions that follow from that to be immoral in many cases because they are quite often harmful.

As another example, let’s think of a child to whom you are trying to teach a value or moral lesson to. More times than not, when you’re trying to explain to say a 4-year old, why we don’t hit each other, we’ll ask them “How do you feel when someone hits you?” to illustrate the point. I went through this just the other day with my niece.

I have said I think the THEORY of evolution is so ambiguous it actually means nothing. I saw something by Craig that demonstrates that superbly. BTW (this exception excluded) why do Atheists mention him more than Christians do? I think some of you guys check under the bed for him before sleeping. You only worry over true threats I guess. We did not build the finest military in history to defend ourselves from the Congo but from the USSR.

If you say that evolution is so ambiguous as to render it meaningless then you’re just wrong. Why is “theory” in capital letters?

I don’t know that atheists do mention Craig more than Christians do. I can’t say that I’ve seen anyone mention him more than you do. I don’t lend him or his arguments all that much credence and I despise quote mining.

I don’t know what building a military to beat the Russians has to do with anything. Could you elaborate?

He says the same thing I did that an explanation of everything is actually an explanation of nothing and used an example to prove it. Someone said that our perception of beauty is related to evolutions emphasis on reproductive fitness. Craig response was 100% lethal to that claim and is just an example of countless more of the same.

Evolution isn’t an explanation of everything.

Our development is absolutely tied in with evolution though, there’s no way it couldn’t be.

Secondly, there’s no good evidence that our perception of moral and aesthetic values has been programmed by evolution. Darwinists are extremely imaginative and creative in coming up with what are called “just so” stories in order to explain things via evolution for which there is no empirical evidence. Indeed, these stories are almost endlessly adaptable, so that they become almost irrefutable and, hence, falsifiable. I take your example of why we find young female models more (physically) beautiful than old women to be the reductio ad absurdum of this approach. Why in the world should I believe that the reason I think Claudia Schiffer is more beautiful than Madeleine Albright is because the former but not the latter is closer to her peak of reproductive fitness? That strikes me as preposterous. What evidence is there that warrants so absurd a conjecture?

It’s a result of evolutionary developments in many cases, rather than being programmed by evolution.

I said nothing about female models anywhere. But if you don’t understand reproductive fitness and how preference plays a role in it, I suggest you read up on the evidence. Go look up pheromones while you’re at it. I assure you, there is empirical evidence available.

In fact, doesn’t the evidence point in the opposite direction? If reproductive fitness determined our appraisal of beauty, then why wouldn’t a young woman with a big nose and a harelip look as beautiful to me as a fashion model? Ugly young women are just as fertile as beautiful ones. So what selective advantage is there in being attracted to beautiful women rather than just younger women? Or again, isn’t it odd that you, a woman, agree with me that the young model is more beautiful than an old woman, since you as a woman could have no selective advantage from such an aesthetic judgment? Even if evolution programmed you to think that young men are more handsome than old men, why do you also find the young female model more beautiful (physically) than an old woman? Or again, how is it that we also recognize beautiful members of other species? We often admire a particularly beautiful Arabian horse or a champion in a dog show. How can such judgments be plausibly explained as due to evolutionary programming, since differential judgments of beauty in other animals has absolutely no selective advantage for us? I’m sure that given their ingenuity for coming up with “just so” stories, Darwinists can figure out ways to explain away these anomalies. But why believe such stories?

Looks like you have a lot of reading to do.

I’m going to leave this alone because I never mentioned models and I don’t see what this has to do with morality.

We should demand some pretty strong evidence for thinking that evolution has, in fact, determined our moral and aesthetic judgments. But there is no such evidence. Rather I suspect that these “just so” stories are accepted by many because on the assumption of naturalism it seems natural to suppose that our tastes have been determined by their selective advantage. But then the question arises once more: why think that naturalism is true?
: Our Grasp of Objective Moral Values | Reasonable Faith

Naturalism is testable. The reality we all share collectively, is all we have to go on.

We determine where morality comes from by studying psychology, history, sociology, anthropology, and neuropsychology to name a few. On an individual level, we determine morality by analyzing the result of actions on those around us. The vast majority of people do this, including yourself.

The reason I included that is because the same lame arguments would apply to morality as developed from evolution alone. Also keep in mind both I and Craig believe evolution has occurred. We just admit the obvious truth that it does not account for a even small percentage of what it is claimed to have.
Anyway clarify what you asked and I will respond.

See above. Also, see the other descriptions of morality given within the thread (Monk of Reason is a good one to start with).

Maybe you could explain how your view of morality as dictated from some invisible authority figure is a system of morality at all. Because I don't see that it is. It is simply obedience to authority. I'd go even further to say that it is subjective and arbitrary, which is the very thing you are trying to argue against, because it is subject to the whims and desires of a single entity that is far removed from ourselves. Just look at your defense of Biblical slavery as an example of this.

 

[outhouse]

I am out of time so I will only respond to this claim.

How in the world is scientifically proven a basis for asking a question? If this were 5000 years ago and I asked if other solar systems existed, would that be an invalid question because at that time they were scientifically unverifiable. How in the world is the tiny fragment of reality that we can apprehend through science the basis for the applicability of a question. I sure am glad our fore fathers asked and resolved moral questions before telescopes invented. There was an entire category of philosophy concerning morality that existed long before any significant scientific advances were made (and a very disproportionate amount of even those were made by Christians and a few Muslims).

Are you claiming that no question or decision is valid that can't be scientifically resolved? If so then half of your decisions are invalid or more.

That is all of this I can take for now.

Have a good one and if you ever want to debate the parts of the Bible that lie within the parts of history that can be resolved to a reasonable probability instead of the parts of human history least likely to be reliably understood by anyone (let alone a layman in a forum) then let me know.

Your obviously running from historical truth.

History is based on probablility, and you ignore the facts regarding archeology and what is really known about history too date.

Its why you cannot refute my statements

You cannot refute what I posted so you run. The difference between you and me is I BACK WHAT I POST

The Exodus has not been substantiated or proven
Jericho walls have been prove to be uninhabited when it was supposedly there in scripture.
Moses has no Historicity
Abraham has no Historicity, nor Isaac or Jacob
Noah has no historicity
No global flood has taken place scientifically.

Moses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That means an exodus of the scale described in the Torah would have been impossible.

the figure of Moses as a leader of the Israelites in these events cannot be substantiated

the tradition of Moses as a lawgiver and culture hero of the Israelites can be traced to the Deuteronomist source, corresponding to the 7th-century Kingdom of Judah

This means moses is thought to have been created by Deuteronomist during the 7th century.

Wall of Jericho - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

. They did not find substantial evidence for renewed occupation in the late Bronze Age at the time of Joshua, which in general agreed with the earlier statement by Watzinger that "in the time of Joshua, Jericho was a heap of ruins, on which stood perhaps a few isolated huts".

This means it did not happen as written.


Abraham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By the beginning of the 21st century, and despite sporadic attempts by more conservative scholars such as Kenneth Kitchen to save the patriarchal narratives as history, archaeologists had "given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible 'historical figures'".

The two works largely responsible were Thomas L. Thompson's The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (1974), and John Van Seters' Abraham in History and Tradition (1975). Thompson's argument, based on archaeology and ancient texts, was that no compelling evidence pointed to the patriarchs living in the 2nd millennium and that the biblical texts reflected first millennium conditions and concerns; Van Seters, basing himself on an examination of the patriarchal stories, agreed with Thompson that their names, social milieu and messages strongly suggested that they were Iron Age creations

This means they have no historicity


Noah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The earliest written flood myth is found in the Mesopotamian Epic of Atrahasis and Epic of Gilgamesh texts. Many scholars believe that Noah and the Biblical Flood story are derived from the Mesopotamian version, predominantly because Biblical mythology that is today found in Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Mandeanism shares overlapping consistency with far older written ancient Mesopotamian story of The Great Flood, and that the early Hebrews were known to have lived in Mesopotamia

What part of flood myths, don't you understand?

Flood myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The flood myth motif is widespread among many cultures as seen in the Mesopotamian flood stories, the Puranas, Deucalion in Greek mythology, the Genesis flood narrative

FLOOD MYTH

Genesis flood narrative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Genesis flood narrative is a flood myth in the Hebrew Bible


FLOOD MYTH

 

[Ingledsva]

If my page after page after page of data on OT slavery and the dozens of links has not resolved the issue by now and explained it in the context of a moral God having to deal with a wayward mankind by now I don't think any additional information will help. I have already responded to everything you mentioned several times each. I will do so one last time very briefly.

Obviously NOT satisfactorily, - for me, or most others here!

1. God did not desire slavery. That is why it does not exist in anyplace where he no longer has to allow for human fallibility. If he liked slavery why is it not in heaven and why did Christ claim to free the captives as his mission?

BALONEY! supposedly the Bible is from God - and it obviously allows slavery!

2. Like divorce, death, suffering, and many other ills we call evils (at times) God allowed slavery of a sort because of our problems, not his.

Baloney again! You are TRYING to make up excuses for what your Bible ALLOWS. You don't speak for God (if one exists.)

3. Of every known law pertaining to slavery in the ANE, Israel had the most benevolent by far. In Babylon it was against the law to not turn in a runaway slave. In Israel it was against the law to do so.

I will assume you are referring to Deuteronomy 23:15, which is usually translated -

Deu 23:15 Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:


Which is a VERY OBVIOUS misunderstanding of the text. Taken as is - it would mean total chaos! All slaves, indentured servants, concubines and other sex slaves, etc, - would just run next door and say I escaped from my master, - and demand to be set up as in verse 16. That is STUPID! They never would have written such illogical crap. Here are two others with slightly different translations.

(YLT) Thou dost not shut up a servant unto his lord, who is delivered unto thee from his lord;

(Darby) Thou shalt not hand over to his master a bondman that hath escaped from his master unto thee:

Darby says this is a HEBREW BONDSMAN and it is talking to the HEBREW. It is noted there actually is an "AS THEE" in there.

The law says it is ILLEGAL for a HEBREW bond holder to MISTREAT a HEBREW BONDSMAN. Therefore The HEBREW that the HEBREW BONDSMAN escaped to, can not LEGALLY return that HEBREW to that abuse he ran away from. And this applies to ONLT HEBREW bondsmen. Not to slaves, and not to bondsmen from other nations.

THAT and only THAT makes sense in this verse.

4. every known record of an actual slave in Israel is of voluntary slavery usually a debt arrangement.

Which is about as close to reality as saying - in every known record of cookie skeet shooting they usually use sugar cookies. There are very few texts concerning such from these ancient times - and people such as yourself are trying to hide, or fudge, the reality, and we know what the Bible says concerning slavery.

5. Enslavement for life was apparently very rare but look at why it occurred. If a place was defeated there were four choices of what to do with the people left homeless. Most of he time they were sold into actual chattel slavery and worked to death (literal death). Second they were at times all killed. Third the homeless and desperate masses were left to plague everyone they came into contact with and often stole to survive. Or in Israel they were enslaved, but in Israel as God had made sure, slaves had property rights, they DID have rights to their children they just could not take them off somewhere else, they were paid, they had to be supplied very liberally with food and other goods. They were set up better than 95% of prisoners of war in warfare of them time. That also applies to slaves bought from foreign slave traders.

In summary it was a form of welfare mandated by necessity. The same God that made his chosen people leave a portion of the grain behind for anyone who was hungry, saved mankind by paying the price 100% himself, and was the chief hope of slaves in actual chattel slavery was not what you wish him so bad to be. Which is why not one person who has brought up slavery to me has actually spent much time whatever looking up what the original words used meant. If anyone actually wanted to know what the truth was that is the very first place they should start but I can't even get most of the non-theists to even accept the meanings I looked up for them. I have to conclude it is because they do not want an explanation. They want an excuse to dismiss the only eternal hope that is possible for some bizarre but common reason.

I am done with this issue, as everything relevant and that would satisfy anyone actually looking for the truth (instead of an excuse) has been said over and over. I have given links to site after site from experts on ANE customs. I can't even see any evidence they were even glanced at. I have no reason to continue this futile discussion with people who are trying to rationalize their desires.

I will discuss anything original that has not been beat to death already, however.

This last is just more Christian bull from people that can't handle their religion not being perfect, or the God, looking like an A-you know what. Therefore they try to fudge the religion's history, and/or writings.

"It wasn't REAL slavery." "Slavery was their welfare system" "They had to drag home little girls as sex slaves - because they might have starved - after we killed everybody else, and their animals (food.)" "If we didn't kill them, they might grow up and seek revenge."

As many of us have said - to you - over-and-over, THIS IS BULL - it is revisionist history by Christians.



*

 

[ladybug77]

THE TRUTH IS WITHIN ALL RELIGIONS, AND WITHOUT THE WORD RELIGION. take a journey....its amazing what you will find.