I don't particularly want to sin...

[SkepticThinker]

You've never studied or observed animals on your own? They've exhibited some characteristics that somehow has made you believe that they pray to gods, conduct funerals, enact legislation, or hold charity events? Do keep it mind that I am referring to planet earth, eh?

It sounds to me like you've never interacted with or done any reading whatsoever with any animals ever, save for human beings, if you believe the things you do about them.

 

[Sheldon]

I am simply accepting the scientific evidence, which overwhelmingly supports species evolution, the genetic evidence alone, is sufficient to accurately demonstrate our taxonomy. Theistic beliefs and the lack of them, have absolutely no relevance to that.

Sheldon, you sound biased and unreasonable whenever you speak unequivocally of 'no evidence for God', and 'incontrovertible evidence for evolution'.

You seem to have ignored my post, yet again. I can see how you might want to believe that though, as you are as closed minded a person as I've met, and creationists are often of that ilk, they have to be in order to convince themselves that overwhelming scientific evidence from multiple fields of study, based on over 162 years of global scientific scrutiny is entirely wrong, and unevidenced archaic superstition right. If the earth is a few thousand years old, how is light visible from stars that are billions of light years away from us? Did your deity create the light en route?

However, as I explained, and you ignored, the genetic evidence alone, is sufficient to accurately demonstrate our taxonomy. Theistic beliefs and the lack of them, have absolutely no relevance to that. Can you even grasp that simple sentence?

Even the most ardent atheist, can still appreciate how the majority have concluded that there is a God.

That a bare appeal to numbers, it is called an argumentum ad populum fallacy, again you don't seem to realise how irrational your every post is.

For, even I can appreciate the notion that there is no God - for a time being. But, you, on the other hand, appear to be oblivious to the grounds in which one may accept the veracity of God's existence.

On the contrary I treat god claims the same as all other claims, they are subject to the same principle of logic, and epistemology.

It is you who has the irrevocable presuppositions.

Irrevocable, really? Perhaps you could name 2, just for my edification?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, it is. It is always a deceit. In other words, it would have been more favorable to avoid the situation, then to have to compromise your integrity.
The point is, that there are grounds to extenuate when one tells a lie, but it is never the preferred solution.

So it is not always immoral to lie, and in fact, depending on the situation, lying could be the most moral action one could take.
That's what I've been saying all along.

 

[Sheldon]

Neil DeGrass is in your signature. And, the rest is the fundamental principle that I am basing all my opinions on.

Do you even know who Neil deGrasse Tyson is? He is not a biologist, so your opinions here as wrong again.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That a bare appeal to numbers, it is called an argumentum ad populum fallacy, again you don't seem to realise how irrational your every post is.

No. He's not claiming that it is proof that G-d exists, he merely cites it as an example that according to you, all those people must be irrational.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It does get exasperating simply trying to predicate a fact as 'men are spiritual beings' and to be met with such contention that the discussion never passes that point. I do have an indignation for atheists, i believe that their sentiments are derived from a desire to not accept God's existence and His authority. I think that He created the world in a manner that left enough ambiguity in its design, in order to expose the sceptics at heart.

Once you have demonstrated that "men are spiritual beings" (Not women too, or ... ?), then that is the time to believe it.

Your beliefs about atheists don't ring true for me. I will accept whatever is demonstrably evident. The reason I don't believe in your God is because I have not seen any good evidence to convince me that said God exists. I used to believe, and then realized I didn't have any good reasons to do so.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So it is not always immoral to lie, and in fact, depending on the situation, lying could be the most moral action one could take.

You speak about an exception, and not the rule.
Lies are not acceptable, and you know it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

A man and a woman is a symbiotic and complementarian union. Two men, or two women cannot achieve the same results.

It sure seems to me like my cousin and her wife are in a wonderful relationship. More wonderful than many I've seen between men and women.
You can't prove anything you say about this, you're just going by the dictates of some bronze age book. So why should I believe you?

 

[Sheldon]

It does get exasperating simply trying to predicate a fact as 'men are spiritual beings' and to be met with such contention that the discussion never passes that point.

That's because you can demonstrate no objective evidence for your assertion. You might think this doesn't matter, but others obviously disagree.

I do have an indignation for atheists, i believe that their sentiments are derived from a desire to not accept God's existence and His authority.

Then this is one more thing you don't understand, as atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity, so it is irrational to conflate that disbelief with a desire to not accept something they don't believe exists.

I think that He created the world in a manner that left enough ambiguity in its design, in order to expose the sceptics at heart.

A fairly obvious and desperate rationalisation, you might want to Google Occam's razor, as this would help you understand your flaw in your reasoning here. Though your posts suggest, that you don't have any interest in examining anything that you believe, with objectivity or critical thinking.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What if the outcome in the world when people ignore God is that right and wrong cease to have meaning and the powerful just force their way?

What if the moon was made of cheese?

People who don't believe in God can be, and are, capable of being moral.

These hypotheticals aren't getting us anywhere. What exactly are you trying to say?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Just to take a historical example: The bombs at Nagasaki and Hiroshima ended the war, so okay?

What about it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Are they atheists?

They're gods.

 

[Sheldon]

You speak about an exception, and not the rule.
Lies are not acceptable, and you know it.

I don't know it at all, I can think of plenty of occasions where a lie would be morally preferable to the truth. Then again, my subjective moral worldview is primarily concerned with avoiding and where possible preventing unnecessary suffering, rather than pleasing a deity I imagine is real, and would be displeased by something based on archaic religious texts.

 

[Sheldon]

A man and a woman is a symbiotic and complementarian union. Two men, or two women cannot achieve the same results.

Tell that to my ex wife. Though why you think all relationships should conform to achieving one result that you prefer is baffling. If two (or more) consenting adults are happy, and no one is being harmed, more power to their elbow as far as I am concerned.

 

[Sheldon]

What if the outcome in the world when people ignore God is that right and wrong cease to have meaning and the powerful just force their way?

That's a circular reasoning fallacy. People who believe strongly in things tend to want them to be true, and often become emotionally invested in others accepting their beliefs, this was never truer than with religions.

 

[Sheldon]

What if this is the outcome if people live as though God did not exist?

That is called whataboutism. You also ignored my question which was:

Would you want to deny it, just because you find the idea unpalatable?

If you answer my question, I will reciprocate.

 

[Sheldon]

What if the outcome in the world when people insist on their god's moral dominion is that the people with the most resources kill those with less, enslave them and pillage their land.

Like, you know, what happened throughout history.

And of course was continually endorsed by the deity depicted in the bible.

 

[Sheldon]

Thirza Fallen said: ↑
No, but you are an atheist in regard to them.

But, they don't exist? How can their alleged opinion have any bearing on reality?

 

[Sheldon]

we must conclude that evolution is a fallacy.

It is, really? Could you explain which principle of logic, you think the theory of evolution violates? Only I am dubious about your latest sweeping, and unevidenced assertion.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You speak about an exception, and not the rule.
Lies are not acceptable, and you know it.

There are many, many possible exceptions to the rule.
Hence the reason I don't claim that lying is always immoral. That's a religious claim.
Instead what I do is assess each situation in regards to the consequences of my actions as to how they effect the well-being of people and things around me. Sometimes lying is the most moral action and sometimes telling the truth is the most moral action. Depends on the situation.