Homosexuality and Evolution: God's Will and Human Belief

[Ingledsva]

There's no record of the crucifixion, the solar event and the earthquake described in the gospels? Then how did you know about their alleged existence, please?

A book saying something, - or writing things down, does not automatically make them true.

If that were the case, - EVERY religious book in the world would be true, along with every SYFY or fantasy book out there.

Do you believe in Hera, Supreme Goddess, and all her exploits?

Why not? It's written down!

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Not to bust your chops, but tithe to me means you were working, perhaps 14, perhaps 16 years old or more, and committed 10% of your income, not to some cult but an evangelical or fundamentalist church. Is that what you're saying?

It is strange that you think your god is so stupid and without understanding, - that he wouldn't recognized the thought/love behind it, and accept a tithe given anywhere, to any church, or charity, and of any amount, or helping, etc.

Jesus never said to tithe.

The NT is AFTER Jesus' time, and Christians aren't under Jewish animal and grain tithe laws.

*

 

[BilliardsBall]

Because that is what there is. Natural law. No evidence of anything supernatural.

So, you are saying no known anomalies exist in science, contrary to natural law?

 

[BilliardsBall]

The burden of proof is on the person claiming that, " humans are morally flawed, commit moral sin, cannot make utopia, and destroy each other, particularly when we behave apart from scripture, and godless?"

While I do agree that humans can be flawed, that we do have a tendency to destroy each other and that we cannot make utopia given that we can't all agree what utopia would actually be, I definitely don't agree that if we all just believed and followed the Bible that it would get us any closer to any of those things. I see no reason to believe that, and history doesn't bear that out either.

The part I had the biggest problem with is the part I bolded for you. First of all, "godless" people do not behave any more or less morally than anyone else. Secondly, I don't know why you find scripture particularly moral given that it condones slavery, genocide, the murder of witches, gay people, and unruly children, among other things. I could argue that we are more moral as a society when we don't follow such dictates from in the Bible. Do you think the US was behaving morally when they had forced slave labour? Do you think it's moral to kill gay people? I don't. How about all that time the Catholic Church dominated the world and killed thousands of people for heresy and witchcraft all based on Biblical interpretations? Would you say that's the most moral time period in human history? I wouldn't.

Who cares about some "near-universal opinion" ancient or otherwise, about opinions of the Bible that have changed over time anyway? How does that have any bearing on anything? Muslims don't share the same opinion. They have a different holy book. Lots of people follow the Quran and think it's morally superior to godlessness or whatever. Does that make it true?

Your argument seems to be based on the "fact" that what you find moral is moral. I avoid talking about the root issues with skeptics here, as they almost always come to some "do no harm to others" idea when this idea is only sometimes (rarely) present in the animal kingdom. Of course, in an atheistic worldview, one gets to make up stuff as they go.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You've strayed so far from the point I just don't even know what to say anymore.

Are you trying to tell me that I tithed incorrectly, and I had actually tithed the exact percentage of 10% THEN God would have shown himself to me? Do you know how silly you sound? God is a real stickler for proper bookkeeping, is he?

Your answer is indicative of the fact that you neither tithed nor paid attention to the results of giving from a cheerful heart. How much do you tithe currently to anyone?

 

[Polymath257]

So, you are saying no known anomalies exist in science, contrary to natural law?

Are there things we do not understand? yes, of course. But that is more our lack of understanding than it is because of a supernatural. There is no evidence for anything outside of natural laws.

 

[columbus]

Definition of atheism
: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

**Please try again**

How does that differ from what I posted?

Atheism has nothing to do with any particular god image. Theism does. That's the fundamental difference between them.
You find your god image more plausible than that of a Muslim or Hindu. I find them all about the same.
Tom

 

[SkepticThinker]

Your argument seems to be based on the "fact" that what you find moral is moral. I avoid talking about the root issues with skeptics here, as they almost always come to some "do no harm to others" idea when this idea is only sometimes (rarely) present in the animal kingdom.

I do believe I asked you what you find moral. I got pretty specific about it, in fact. And you refuse to answer, I guess.

How does what goes on in the "animal kingdom" have any bearing on human morality? Why bring that up?

We all have opinions about morality. I'm wondering what makes yours more valid than anyone else's.

Of course, in an atheistic worldview, one gets to make up stuff as they go.

Atheism isn't a worldview. It's a single position on a single issue. Other than that, atheists can and do believe just about anything else that they want.

Personally, I try to adhere to something of an humanistic worldview with an emphasis on the well-being of human beings.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Your answer is indicative of the fact that you neither tithed nor paid attention to the results of giving from a cheerful heart.

What are you talking about?

I gave money very cheerfully as a child. As noted twice now. You told me if I did that, God would have presented himself/herself/itself to me. That didn't happen. So you're apparently wrong about that.

How much do you tithe currently to anyone?

Why would I tithe to a church now? I don't believe in god(s).

 

[columbus]

There's no record of the crucifixion, the solar event and the earthquake described in the gospels? Then how did you know about their alleged existence, please?

Sorry, I assumed that you were smart enough to grasp that I was referring to records independent of the implausible stories in the legend of the Christ.

So let me ask again. How would you account for the lack of independent records for events described in the Gospels? From the earthquake to the Risen Jesus, lots of things are claimed which I would expect other people to have a record of, even if they didn't grasp the significance you attribute to the events.
Tom

 

[BilliardsBall]

Are there things we do not understand? yes, of course. But that is more our lack of understanding than it is because of a supernatural. There is no evidence for anything outside of natural laws.

I think you're not following what anomalies imply to you, therefore:

"If we find something that is an anomaly to a natural law, we will simply bend the natural law so that it reframes around the order." Since natural law is inductively observed, you are pre-biasing your observations by saying that nothing can disobey previous observations, which a religious faith stance and not a scientific stance.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sorry, I assumed that you were smart enough to grasp that I was referring to records independent of the implausible stories in the legend of the Christ.

So let me ask again. How would you account for the lack of independent records for events described in the Gospels? From the earthquake to the Risen Jesus, lots of things are claimed which I would expect other people to have a record of, even if they didn't grasp the significance you attribute to the events.
Tom

I knew what you were asking, but first you are disdaining the evidence of dozens of eyewitness to what you call implausible events. Second, you are making interesting assumptions:

1. An earthquake was a big deal in the ANE

2. All written records from the first century should have survived unto the present day, and cross-verification is therefore available on all ancient records. There are simply piles and piles of written documents extant that are not scriptures from the 1st century.

3. Jesus, when He resurrected, didn't do what the writers said, by appearing to 500 followers, some of whom were moved to become evangelists. He appeared on Caesar's lap, making it utterly inexplicable that scribes in Rome didn't testify to the resurrected Jesus Christ.

Etc.

 

[BilliardsBall]

How does that differ from what I posted?

Atheism has nothing to do with any particular god image. Theism does. That's the fundamental difference between them.
You find your god image more plausible than that of a Muslim or Hindu. I find them all about the same.
Tom

Thanks for restating what I quoted you and then telling me I was wrong. Jesus offers forgiveness for double standards and hypocrisy also.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What are you talking about?

I gave money very cheerfully as a child. As noted twice now. You told me if I did that, God would have presented himself/herself/itself to me. That didn't happen. So you're apparently wrong about that.


Why would I tithe to a church now? I don't believe in god(s).

I didn't say "God would present Himself unto you". There are specific blessings associated with giving, which you would have/should have received. Read the scriptures and you'll understand.

 

[Polymath257]

I think you're not following what anomalies imply to you, therefore:

"If we find something that is an anomaly to a natural law, we will simply bend the natural law so that it reframes around the order." Since natural law is inductively observed, you are pre-biasing your observations by saying that nothing can disobey previous observations, which a religious faith stance and not a scientific stance.

What does it even mean to 'disobey previous observations'? There are previous observations and there are current observations. Some of each will have instrument errors, but ALL of them have to be explained. So, if new observations do not fit into the 'hypotheses' are have made, then those hypotheses are modified to encompass the new observations.

If anything, this is a very good reason to think the term 'supernatural' is is simply meaningless. If there is an explanation, it gets rolled into the next round of hypotheses and tested with the next cycle of observations.

 

[Polymath257]

I knew what you were asking, but first you are disdaining the evidence of dozens of eyewitness to what you call implausible events. Second, you are making interesting assumptions:

1. An earthquake was a big deal in the ANE

Yes, earthquakes were a big deal. They were seen as omens from the Gods.

2. All written records from the first century should have survived unto the present day, and cross-verification is therefore available on all ancient records. There are simply piles and piles of written documents extant that are not scriptures from the 1st century.

There are more records from that time period than you might initially expect. In particular, our records of large things like earthquakes is pretty good. They would have also noticed if the dead were coming out of tombs and noted that in their historical records.

3. Jesus, when He resurrected, didn't do what the writers said, by appearing to 500 followers, some of whom were moved to become evangelists. He appeared on Caesar's lap, making it utterly inexplicable that scribes in Rome didn't testify to the resurrected Jesus Christ.

Etc.

How about the whole story is fiction? That fits *much* better with the current evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I didn't say "God would present Himself unto you". There are specific blessings associated with giving, which you would have/should have received. Read the scriptures and you'll understand.

I've read the Bible. This conversation centres around your point of view. You made assertions that if I did a certain thing, a certain result would have occurred. I did the thing, and the result did not occur. In fact, nothing occurred.

I just give because I want to. Not because I expect rewards in return.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm mentioning the fact to you, regarding the animal kingdom, which we are a part of, that atheists make up morality as they go without finding evidence in the animal kingdom to support their distortions.

We all "make up" morality as we progress as a civilization. Hence the reason most of us don't keep slaves anymore or stone gay people to death, or torture witches, among other terrible things we used to do in the past that we can find in the Bible.

First of all, why would anyone need evidence from the animal kingdom in a conversation about human morality? I mean, we can see morality on display in the animal kingdom, but that is a different set of morality from our own.

Secondly, if morality is about well-being (and I think it is), then it's not as arbitrary as you make it out to be. We are all physical beings, living in a physical universe which we all navigate within. In any given situation, there are a finite number of actions that can be taken, and we can compare the consequences of each action with respect to well-being (morality). Some of those actions will be better than others (good) and some will be worse (bad). From there, we can try to determine which would be the best course of action, and go from there. To me, this sure beats blindly swallowing dictates from a being that is far removed from ourselves and that never shows itself to us.

My morality is more valid than another's since I'm in touch with the author of all, from whose person moral standards extend to you, and who has given mankind a moral conscience and free will.

So you claim. But there is no way to verify such a thing.

Not to mention that I don't find much of what is written in the Bible to be moral to begin with. I'm not sure what's moral about stoning people to death or bashing babies' heads against rocks. And I'm not sure what you find moral about it. I haven't seen you make much of an effort to demonstrate the morality of the Bible either. Other than, "it's moral because it is."

I also don't see any reason to believe that much of what is dictated within the Bible is moral at all. Not to mention the fact that I don't find blind obedience to be any kind of practice in morality.

Your morality is less valid than another's since it is relativist, subjective, self-serving, and self-deceptive.

My morality is grounded in human well-being which I think is the only thing that actually makes any sense.

 

[columbus]

1. An earthquake was a big deal in the ANE

Earthquakes were a big deal. Very big deal.
Particularly "omenous" if it were in conjunction with a solar eclipse. And happened as Passover was getting underway. During an extremely tumultuous period in the history of Judea.

And it isn't like we would have to sift through centuries looking for it. If Jesus was born within a year or two of 1ad, and crucified within a year or two of age 33, the possible dates can be counted on your fingers.
Sometime, during the last 1900 years, someone would have found some record of such an amazing event.

But, no.
Apparently nobody but the Gospel authors noticed it. And not even all of them found it worth mentioning.
Apparently.

Tom

 

[columbus]

Thanks for restating what I quoted you and then telling me I was wrong. Jesus offers forgiveness for double standards and hypocrisy also.

So, tell me again what you don't understand.
I am saying that non-theists view all such stories and prophets and deities as pretty much the same.

It's religious people who pick one set and treat it differently from the rest.
That's why I find it more enlightening to learn about Hinduism from a Christian, Christianity from a Muslim, Islam from a pagan, ....

People seem much better able to understand the religions that they don't identify with.
Tom