Is it Fair to Incarcerate Christians for their Belief?

[1robin]

Well, since yourself admitted that if there is a god whose nature is founded upon the imperative that eating children for lunch is OK, then it is really OK, i am not sure what is justifiable to start with. Ergo, your critique of homosexuality could be a waste of time, for we cannot exclude a priori that there is a God whose nature is founded on accepting homosexuality.

1. My God did not command any such thing so that is irrelevant. My point was about divine command theory as it applies to the nature of morality if a personal God exist.
2. Since you presumptively reject God anyway then none of this really matters.

I am willing to debate these issues in the context of reason concerning morality. Basically I am talking about ethics. I argue that is we adopt any reasonable ethical standard homosexuality would be unjustifiable.

I agree that your God is not that god. But in order to justify the existence of your God, you are bound to use extra moral evidence. I don't know, miracles and stuff. But if you had clear cut evidence of that, why do you need more controversial and philosophical arguments?

I thought we already agreed I am not trying to establish the existence of my God, just what effect his existence would have on morality. I can switch to showing that God almost certainly exists if you wish, but I can't debate a half dozen very different issues at once. I can even discuss God's existence using any kind of argumentation you may prefer, within reason at least. Please pick one or two.

Apparently there are many. I know quite a few, even if they are not scholars. I debate them much more harshly than I do with you. Believe me.

I used the word scholars intentionally. Strictly speaking I mean all but one of the secular professionals that I have watched debate morality, theology, or even evolution. I am in no way suggesting that there are not a lot of atheists that inconsistently deny God and affirm objective morality, however like most Christians most atheists are idiots. I am saying that among those atheists most educated to know what they are talking about the vast majority know that objective morality cannot exist without God.

But I debate their belief in objective morality. Not the possibility that they defeat themselves by believing that. I have no logical warrant to do that. If you have one, let me know, so that I can bury them

Let me make sure I understand what your asking for. Are you asking me to show you how affirming objective morality while denying God, is contradictory?

Again, as long as we do not have independent evidence of what god exists, any discussion about right or wrong is pointless.

That is almost exactly what my initial statement stated that began this whole thing. I am the only who said that unless God exists, discussions about actual moral right and wrong are meaningless. Why did it take us two days of typing to wind up where we began? I do not have independent evidence for God's existence, but his existence was not what I set out to demonstrate.

Cool. That is what I need to bury those pesky atheistic moral realists.

But how?

It is telling that not only do you not believe morality exists, you do not even want it to exist. Many ways, among which I will list a few ideas below but the best way is to have the atheist who affirms objective morality explain how both can be true at the same time. It is much easier to disprove a single positive, than to prove a universal negative. You know what, I can do even better. If you watch Dr Craig debate Dr Harris on utube, Harris begins by affirming objective morality without God. It took almost an hour but Craig finally cornered Harris and he himself stated that he was merely assuming it existed. The audience had a good laugh and they moved on. Regardless, here are a few ideas:

1. Nature cannot tell anyone what should be, it can only show us what is.
2. No atom has a moral property.
3. Everything that exists requires an explanation. If objective morality exists what is it's explanation, if not God? If it is merely our preferences and opinions then morality is subject to them and there for subjective. Even if someone says evolution produced morality, which morals it produced would be up to preference and opinion. Evolution does not select for truth, it selects for survival.
4. Human beings (or nature) cannot create moral truths nor can we bestow rights. If either exists they must exist outside nature (supernatural).

Craig did much better than I can in a post created in 5 minutes. That debate should address any concern you have.

Or. http://www.strangenotions.com/does-objective-morality-depend-upon-god/

BTW we need to first define objective morality, a good definition is:

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.
Malum in se - Wikipedia

Or moral duties which are true even if no one believes them.

No, we don't. Because your utilitaristic views, even if right, are not logically warranted. They beg the question that "behaviour leading to costs" is wrong. Again, there could be a god that instead of approving children based diet, approves costs because of behavior.

No we don't what? Atheist's commit some fallacy or another if they claim anything what so ever is right or wrong. That is why no state in the history of man has based their laws on social Darwinism. I was not saying atheist's were rationally assuming morality exists, I said they have had to assume morality exists regardless of their worldview having no foundation for it.

There is no reason to debate what a hypothetical God may command or prohibit. It is only meaningful to discuss what a God that has evidence for his existence has commanded or prohibited.

And no, we do not need to assume that something exists. We would beg the question and come to unwarranted conclusions. It is like debating a believer that inists that we should at least believe in kryptonite in order to start a meaningful debate about Superman.

If we do not need to assume that something are good and some things are evil why has every person who ever lived (including you) and every society that has ever existed acted as if they do exist.

At present, you seem to be incapable of proving either the existence of objective morality or god without getting into a vicious and logically unwarranted circle.

To debate homosexuality (which is the topic you brought up) I need to neither prove objective morality exist nor prove that God exist. Your taking arguments meant to show one thing, used them to show something else entirely, then pronounced their failure. That is a classic red herring and / or straw man.

To discuss whether homosexual behavior should be accepted and / or protected by law we must have some set of standards by which to evaluate it. So far you do not seem to have a foundation which justifies any moral or ethical standards what so ever. There for I have a world view in which homosexuality can be evaluated and you don't. You act and actually believe objective morality exists, but your worldview only justifies nihilism or anarchy. That is fine by me, but we need to acknowledge that before we can move on.

 

[Furball]

It depends on if they act on those beliefs. Beliefs by themselves are harmless; if acted upon that's a different story. According to the bible, if your child talks back to you, you're suppose to take them out into the public and stone them to death (deuteronomy 21:18-21) If christians really obeyed the bible like they claim they do, then if they did this, yes they should be incarcerated for murder. I don't believe anyone should go to hell, christian or not. It's sick and barbaric as well as overkill for people who tried to do the best they could in life. Also, according to the bible, many christians are going to hell. Only a few are truly on the path to heaven through the narrow gate according to jesus or joshua or son of man or whatever he calls himself these days.

 

[viole]

Regardless the points I made would still apply, but would only be modulated.

Modulation? I would use a more fashionable term nowadays. What about "alternative facts"?

Then you must agree with my former conclusion, that Christians who marry homosexuals are not following Christ in doing so.

Yes. But that was my point. Our country is de-facto a Christian free area if they do not follow Christ, as it shoukd be expected by Christians, by definition.

As far as how you interpret the bible, in the majority of cases it is obvious. However whenever you are unsure you can fall back on the techniques tested and perfected for over 3000 years. The bible is the most scrutinized, studied, and investigated book in human history. You are literally drowning in more helpful information than you could possibly ever get to. If you want I can describe how I go about resolving what tricky verses mean when I need to. It is not that complicated.

I did not have the OT and its tricky verses in mind. I meant the stories surrounding Jesus resurrection. Honestly, they look like a plot not very well thought. They are implausible even if we believe that such miracles could happen.

A bit like those sci-fi movies that are logical inconsistent even if time travel, teleportation and laser guns were possible.

Besides how could anyone justify taking "Homosexuality is an abomination" as an allegory or analogy?

Well, in the same way eating lobsters should be detestable, I guess. Unless you cherry pick, of course.
.

Pick one of the subjects below and I will give you enough information to shed some light on the issue.

1. The roll of Israel post Abraham and pre - Christ.
2. The covenant of the law.
3. The covenant of grace.
4. The textual traditions and integrity.
5. Levitical law, Mosaic law, the deca law, the spiritual law.
6. Salvation in the OT versus salvation in the NT.

It would be if that is what was true or what I said. I did not suggest anything about their only being a few Christians who practice correct core Christian doctrines. I imagine there are many millions who do. However the percentage of Christians correctly practicing biblical doctrines has decreased (among other reasons) because of the modern secular revolutions. Secularism dilutes even dominant theological populations, it can be a good thing at times, but it is a bad thing in many cases.

Well, you see? That is terribly complicated. I like to think that if a God would exist, He would make things much easier for us. For starters, it is implausible that the creator of 1000 billions galaxies in the observable Universe alsone, would elect a middle eastern tribe as His own people. Much more likely that a middle eastern tribe made up a God that chose them, as gods frequently do with their believers.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

1. My God did not command any such thing so that is irrelevant. My point was about divine command theory as it applies to the nature of morality if a personal God exist.
2. Since you presumptively reject God anyway then none of this really matters.

I know what you mean. And what I reject is not relevant. At the end of the day, you will have to justify all your God's given morality. You can appeal as much as you want to Jesus frowining on gays as much as you want, but that will not take you anywhere.

As long as you do not prove that Jesus, and the other two thirds of God exist, you are out in the cold like everyone else.

I am willing to debate these issues in the context of reason concerning morality. Basically I am talking about ethics. I argue that is we adopt any reasonable ethical standard homosexuality would be unjustifiable.

My advice is then to start a rally demanding that cheesburgers and fries cost 100$ each. Instead of broadcasting ads where you can eat a mountains of fat for a few bucks until you and the whole family barf (followed by an ad showng how to lose weight with the latest work out method).

That would drastically reduce the costs associated with obesity and related diseases which, I believe, are choice driven consequences costing many more billions.

You guys seem to be able to see the little bug, if any, but forget the obvious elephant. No pun intended,

I thought we already agreed I am not trying to establish the existence of my God, just what effect his existence would have on morality. I can switch to showing that God almost certainly exists if you wish, but I can't debate a half dozen very different issues at once. I can even discuss God's existence using any kind of argumentation you may prefer, within reason at least. Please pick one or two.

Well, since divine command requires the existence of a certain god, in order to decide what is right or wrong, objectively, you would need to do that, I am afraid. And you cannot use moral arguments, for obvious reasons.

Come back when you have proved that to your fellow believers in other gods, and then we can talk.

I used the word scholars intentionally. Strictly speaking I mean all but one of the secular professionals that I have watched debate morality, theology, or even evolution. I am in no way suggesting that there are not a lot of atheists that inconsistently deny God and affirm objective morality, however like most Christians most atheists are idiots. I am saying that among those atheists most educated to know what they are talking about the vast majority know that objective morality cannot exist without God.

I do not agree with them, but I would not say they are inconsistent. Usually, they say that truth claims about morality could be of the same nature of truth claims about logic. And the latters can, I hope you agree, exist even without a god.

Let me make sure I understand what your asking for. Are you asking me to show you how affirming objective morality while denying God, is contradictory?

Yes. Basically.

That is almost exactly what my initial statement stated that began this whole thing. I am the only who said that unless God exists, discussions about actual moral right and wrong are meaningless. Why did it take us two days of typing to wind up where we began? I do not have independent evidence for God's existence, but his existence was not what I set out to demonstrate.

Well, you know, I think you can have debates about things like what makes a perfect cheese cake. Or what cholocolate is best. We all agree on some basics, like that chocolate is better tasting than dog's excrements, but we might have quite a debate about Swiss chocolate Vs. Belgian chocolate, for instance. As a Swiss, I fight fiercely in those debates, obviously. Not to speak of things like fashion, style, good manners, etc.

So, unless we believe that taste is an objective value, then I do not see any problem in debating things that might be eminently subjective.

It is telling that not only do you not believe morality exists, you do not even want it to exist. Many ways, among which I will list a few ideas below but the best way is to have the atheist who affirms objective morality explain how both can be true at the same time. It is much easier to disprove a single positive, than to prove a universal negative. You know what, I can do even better. If you watch Dr Craig debate Dr Harris on utube, Harris begins by affirming objective morality without God. It took almost an hour but Craig finally cornered Harris and he himself stated that he was merely assuming it existed. The audience had a good laugh and they moved on. Regardless, here are a few ideas:

Well, I don't agree with objective morality. And Sam's objective morality definition is, at best, questionable.

FYI: i am playing the atheistic moral realist in the next points.

1. Nature cannot tell anyone what should be, it can only show us what is.

Nature cannot tell us anything about logic either, since it might depend on it.

2. No atom has a moral property.

And no pixel represents the Mona Lisa.

3. Everything that exists requires an explanation.

So, either God does not exist, or He requires an explanation, too.

If objective morality exists what is it's explanation, if not God?

If God does not require an explanation, allegedely, then it would be question begging to require that the set of thigs that do not require explanations has only one element. Or three, if you believe in the trinity.

If it is merely our preferences and opinions then morality is subject to them and there for subjective. Even if someone says evolution produced morality, which morals it produced would be up to preference and opinion. Evolution does not select for truth, it selects for survival.

This is definetely the strongest point against atheistic moral realists. Honestly, I would not know how to answer that if I really were an atheistic moral realist. And this is why I agree that naturalism requires the non existence of objective morality.

I will try that out with my friends. Cool.

4. Human beings (or nature) cannot create moral truths nor can we bestow rights. If either exists they must exist outside nature (supernatural).

Well, that does not entail God. It would just entail metaphysical morality.

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.
Malum in se - Wikipedia

Or moral duties which are true even if no one believes them.

That is what atheistsic moral realists believe also, by definition. For them is is like "2+2=5" is falsum in se. Yet, that does not require God to realize that.

No we don't what? Atheist's commit some fallacy or another if they claim anything what so ever is right or wrong. That is why no state in the history of man has based their laws on social Darwinism. I was not saying atheist's were rationally assuming morality exists, I said they have had to assume morality exists regardless of their worldview having no foundation for it.

So, I should stop advocating for the superiority of Swiss chocolate. Right?

And nobody is saying that morality does not exist. I think it does. The word comes also from Latin. It comes from mora, meaning customs. You know the expression "o tempora, o mores"? It means "oh times, oh customs". I guess the Romans got it right from the beginning,

Maybe we should call it customality. Objective customality. What about that?

There is no reason to debate what a hypothetical God may command or prohibit. It is only meaningful to discuss what a God that has evidence for his existence has commanded or prohibited.

And what evidence might that be that does not require additional cosmological, ontological, teleological, moral arguments in order to be accepted?

If we do not need to assume that something are good and some things are evil why has every person who ever lived (including you) and every society that has ever existed acted as if they do exist.

Because I am not currently discussing the advantage of believing things. I am discussing whether those beliefs are true. As you said, evolution is not geared towards truth, only survival. And I fully agree with that. On a side note, I believe that belief in the supernatural is also a natural adaptation.

To debate homosexuality (which is the topic you brought up) I need to neither prove objective morality exist nor prove that God exist. Your taking arguments meant to show one thing, used them to show something else entirely, then pronounced their failure. That is a classic red herring and / or straw man.

i have no idea what you mean with that.

To discuss whether homosexual behavior should be accepted and / or protected by law we must have some set of standards by which to evaluate it. So far you do not seem to have a foundation which justifies any moral or ethical standards what so ever. There for I have a world view in which homosexuality can be evaluated and you don't. You act and actually believe objective morality exists, but your worldview only justifies nihilism or anarchy. That is fine by me, but we need to acknowledge that before we can move on.

I do not have any external moral standard that allow me to evaluate even the most basic things. You do not have either, until you prove that your standard actually exists.

I have only a brain that says, among other things, that:

1) killing children is wrong
2) discriminating people based on their sexual orientation is wrong
3) eating dog's excrement is disgusting

Now, having said that, and after deep realization that my taste of food has no metaphysical foundation, either, do you think I am not entitled to claim that mammals excrements are not good food for breakfast?

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Modulation? I would use a more fashionable term nowadays. What about "alternative facts"?

I went back, but could not find the context for this. Maybe your joking, but in case your serious I think modulation is more appropriate than alternative facts. Your responses haven't change the fact that X is wrong, you mere modulated the magnitude of how wrong. That was a semantic train wreck but your smart enough to know what I meant.

Yes. But that was my point. Our country is de-facto a Christian free area if they do not follow Christ, as it shoukd be expected by Christians, by definition.

No, disobedient Christians do not have their allegiance revoked because they acted incorrectly. Let me just skip to the conclusion. Christians cannot out sin God's grace and become non-Christians. We can act contradictory to God's commands but that does not cause God to revoke his acceptance of us. This is the subject matter within theology which I have studied the most.

I did not have the OT and its tricky verses. I meant the stories surrounding Jesus resurrection. Honestly, they look like a plot not very well thought. They are implausible even if we believe that such miracles could happen.

What standard are you using to determine that the story of Christ's resurrection is not well thought out? What verses and why? Recording what actually takes place is seldom a neat story. For example if the apostles had crafted the story it makes no sense for them to claim women were the initial witnesses, the testimony of women in the ANE was not well regarded. Also keep in mind the apostles knew the facts, and they lost everything but never flinched concerning their accounting what had occurred. As Simon Greenleaf said, except for the apostles honest belief in their message there remains no satisfactory motive by which to explain their actions.

A bit like those sci-fi movies that are logical inconsistent even if time travel, teleportation and laser guns were possible.

I hate time traveling movies, but one day laser guns may be possible. Think of how most people viewed Tesla's poly phase AC generators or vane-less turbine. Regardless I do not see how the resurrection narrative is like any of those other examples. If you want to critique the bible then you first need to post some verses and what exactly your objecting to.

Well, in the same way eating lobsters should be detestable, I guess. Unless you cherry pick, of course.

What?

Unless you have spent enough time to actually understand covenants, progressive revelation, the ontology of morality give God, the purposes God has at this time or that for mankind hearing little snippets about them here or there will only confuse you. You do not need to get to the bottom of most of the bible's mysteries to be saved, but you do have to do so to understand how to harmonize the bible into a perfectly consistent whole.

The above are my statements but you formatted this post in a way that it makes it look like you posted them.

Well, you see? That is terribly complicated. I like to think that if a God would exist, He would make things much easier for us. For starters, it is implausible that the creator of 1000 billions galaxies in the observable Universe alsone, would elect a middle eastern tribe as His own people. Much more likely that a middle eastern tribe made up a God that chose them, as gods frequently do with their believers.

Why don't you think he would? What standard are you using to determine what should or should not have done? The bible clearly states that God's ways are not our ways, so pointing out he did things his way instead of yours is to have al your work ahead of you.

1. God must know what he is doing because the message he gave to an tribe living in a Roman backwater region is the only faith represented in meaningful numbers in every country on Earth.

2. It is a testament to the power of the message that despite giving it to a small tribe, it has never the less altered the world more than any other theological or philosophical system in history and is the largest religion in human history.

There are many reasons why God did what he did. It says that in the fullness of time God sent his son. He had to use Israel because of a covenant he made much earlier with Abraham, he needed a good network of roads by which to spread the message, he needed a stable empire to exist so that when he took that empire captive to his truth it would spread rapidly across most of the civilized world, if you look at population graphs over time they are almost linear until you get to the first century AD or so and then it becomes an exponential curve, etc.........

God does things his way, in his time, and for his reasons. Why on Earth would you think God must meet your standards as to fairness, timeliness, and goals? I do not think most non-theists truly understand what God's existence would actually mean. Otherwise I would not get so many complaints that God did not do what you think he should have. God is only required to be consistent with his own revelation. There is no additional standard he must meet.

 

[1robin]

I know what you mean. And what I reject is not relevant. At the end of the day, you will have to justify all your God's given morality. You can appeal as much as you want to Jesus frowining on gays as much as you want, but that will not take you anywhere.

As long as you do not prove that Jesus, and the other two thirds of God exist, you are out in the cold like everyone else.

This is very simple.

1. If God exists then objective moral values and duties exist.
2. If he does not they do not.
3. If God exists and therefor objective moral duties exist then God defines what those moral duties are.
4. The primary text where we go to determine what God's moral commands are, states that homosexuality is an abomination. So if my God exists there is nothing to argue about concerning homosexuality.
5. However you assume God does not exist, you assume objective moral value and duties exist and you live as if they do, however you will not admit to believing they do so I have to do something in order to discuss moral issues with you.
6. So I assume God does not exist, I do not appeal to objective moral values or duties (even though we all believe they exist), I appeal only to secular ethical reasoning to determine if a behavior should be protected by law (in reality forced at gun point).

I reason that if an unnecessary behavior that is also a choice piles up bodies like cord wood and costs us al billions ought to have some benefits which justify the cost. If you cannot grant at least the standards I appealed to, then no standard exists by which you can draw any conclusions about what anyone must accept. Your worldview justifies nihilism or anarchy, not morality or ethics.

My advice is then to start a rally demanding that cheesburgers and fries cost 100$ each. Instead of broadcasting ads where you can eat a mountains of fat for a few bucks until you and the whole family barf (followed by an ad showng how to lose weight with the latest work out method).

Even if this was a nutritional discussion I would have no such burden. I do not need to have or propose a solution to correctly identify a problem.

That would drastically reduce the costs associated with obesity and related diseases which, I believe, are choice driven consequences costing many more billions.

We are beaten over the head with studies and demands showing how bad certain foods are. When I hear the same about the destruction homosexuality causes then you can use your analogy. Michele Obama may come to my door and take the sandwich out of my kid's hands but she will defend the majority cause of new aids cases.

You would make one horrific lawyer. You can't get your client off by pointing out that other clients have been found guilty of other crimes.

You guys seem to be able to see the little bug, if any, but forget the obvious elephant. No pun intended

You brought up homosexuality not the totality of biblical morality. The bible condemns thousands of things but you only mentioned one of them.

Well, since divine command requires the existence of a certain god, in order to decide what is right or wrong, objectively, you would need to do that, I am afraid. And you cannot use moral arguments, for obvious reasons.

Divine command theory applies to a certain kind of God. I believe in a certain kind of God. Where is the disconnect or the burden/

Come back when you have proved that to your fellow believers in other gods, and then we can talk.

Proven what, I made two if then statements?

I do not agree with them, but I would not say they are inconsistent. Usually, they say that truth claims about morality could be of the same nature of truth claims about logic. And the latters can, I hope you agree, exist even without a god.

To say God does not exist but objective morality does exist is pretty much the most inconsistent thing I can think of. I have to leave for the day I will try and get to the rest tomorrow. I do not know about logical laws specifically but it is hard for me to imagine that anything at all could exist without God. It is probable that some truths may not require a universe but they must have a cause and / or an explanation for themselves within themselves or external to themselves.

 

[viole]

This is very simple.

1. If God exists then objective moral values and duties exist.
2. If he does not they do not.
3. If God exists and therefor objective moral duties exist then God defines what those moral duties are.
4. The primary text where we go to determine what God's moral commands are, states that homosexuality is an abomination. So if my God exists there is nothing to argue about concerning homosexuality.
5. However you assume God does not exist, you assume objective moral value and duties exist and you live as if they do, however you will not admit to believing they do so I have to do something in order to discuss moral issues with you.
6. So I assume God does not exist, I do not appeal to objective moral values or duties (even though we all believe they exist), I appeal only to secular ethical reasoning to determine if a behavior should be protected by law (in reality forced at gun point).

Mmh, nope. Even if your argument were sound (big if), I could argue that another God exists. For example one that has no issues with gays.

And that is what I meant when I said that you have to prove Jesus first. At least. Allah would also do, for what concerns gays, probably. And you need to do that using arguments that are not based on ethics, if you do not want to be circular.

And that is my challenge. If you had enough evidence that exactly that divinity exists (with His baggage of moral values), by using things like miracles, empty tombs, talking serpents, flying prophets, you name it, then you can start arguing about what comes from His nature.

But since theists, in general, do not seem satisfied with the evidence that would justify their particular faith (obviously), they need support from things like moral arguments (necessarily circular to prove a particular God), cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, ontological arguments, etc. that say nada about what God we are talking about and what moral nature He, She or They might have.

Therefore, even if it is true that objective morality exists if and only if a God exists, then you are not much better off, as long as we are not sure what God it might be.

I reason that if an unnecessary behavior that is also a choice piles up bodies like cord wood and costs us al billions ought to have some benefits which justify the cost. If you cannot grant at least the standards I appealed to, then no standard exists by which you can draw any conclusions about what anyone must accept. Your worldview justifies nihilism or anarchy, not morality or ethics.

Of course I cannot grant that. And I can use the same arguments you use. I would need to assume that there is indeed a God that would agree with you. But there could be a God who agrees with me, for what you know.

And you are begging the question. You are assuming that nihilism and anarchy are bad things. I think they are, but I cannot prove that are objectively bad, for the same reason I mentioned before.

And independently from that, having (subjective) moral values, and recognizing them as such, does not entail justifying anarchy.

Even if this was a nutritional discussion I would have no such burden. I do not need to have or propose a solution to correctly identify a problem.

Well, this could be less facetious than you think. i suspect that the prospect of eating disgusting things and the prospect to see children tortured to death, might activate the same brain's areas.

And if this is true, as it might be indeed true, then it is possible to have very strong moral feelings without any metaphysical label attached to it. In the same sense as "eating dog's crap" is not necessarily an objectively wrong thing to do.

Remember, we might "simply" be computing machines. With tastes and rules of engagement with other people wired in, including the rejection of anarchy and chaos. Very strong stuff that yet, does not need to be metaphysically justified.

We are beaten over the head with studies and demands showing how bad certain foods are. When I hear the same about the destruction homosexuality causes then you can use your analogy. Michele Obama may come to my door and take the sandwich out of my kid's hands but she will defend the majority cause of new aids cases.

And where is my rally of people fighting against the immoral policy to offer fat food at low cost?

Honestly, when I come to America, I see much more overweight people than gays. Unless you have a disproportionate population of gays, of course.

You would make one horrific lawyer. You can't get your client off by pointing out that other clients have been found guilty of other crimes.

Obviously. Mathematicians are not necessarily good with lawyers things. However, I believe that it is morally more acceptable to reduce calories (Europeans do not starve, for instance) then to force (male) homosexuals to stay abstinent for all their life.

Starting with the law hanging fruits wlll prove to me that you are really concerned with health costs and do not simply pick out (male) gays because of some other agenda.

You brought up homosexuality not the totality of biblical morality. The bible condemns thousands of things but you only mentioned one of them.

i suppose you condemn with the same energy consumers of seafood without scales (e.g. Shrimps). Do you do that? I ask because that should also be detestable to you, if you take Leviticus seriously.

Divine command theory applies to a certain kind of God. I believe in a certain kind of God. Where is the disconnect or the burden

The burden for you is to prove that that certain kind of God exists, before claiming that you idetified the correct objective values.

And that all those biblical "values" are not simply the subjective opinion of some ancient goat herders from the Bronze age, as their look and feel might indicate.

I mean Robin, take a good look at all of them. Isn't that obvious?

To say God does not exist but objective morality does exist is pretty much the most inconsistent thing I can think of. I have to leave for the day I will try and get to the rest tomorrow. I do not know about logical laws specifically but it is hard for me to imagine that anything at all could exist without God. It is probable that some truths may not require a universe but they must have a cause and / or an explanation for themselves within themselves or external to themselves.

Well, if you think that logic requires God, then all your arguments, cosmological or whatever, are circular.

The very statement "everything requires a cause", even if true, would need to be assumed without God in the premise. For the simple reason that you use it to (try to) prove God.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Yes. Basically.

This is one long post. I am continuing from where I left off yesterday.

If you said that Stalin's starving of millions of Ukrainians was wrong and I said it was right. That would make for two subjective opinions about an ethical action. If an objective truth to the matter exists it must come from a far more objective and sovereign source than simply asking another person's subjective opinion. Only by appealing to an objective, universally sovereign, moral agent which transcends nature can we find the actual truth concerning Stalin's actions. Without God there no longer exists objective goods or evils for anyone's opinion to correspond with or to.

Well, you know, I think you can have debates about things like what makes a perfect cheese cake. Or what cholocolate is best. We all agree on some basics, like that chocolate is better tasting than dog's excrements, but we might have quite a debate about Swiss chocolate Vs. Belgian chocolate, for instance. As a Swiss, I fight fiercely in those debates, obviously. Not to speak of things like fashion, style, good manners, etc.

So, unless we believe that taste is an objective value, then I do not see any problem in debating things that might be eminently subjective.

Ok, let me back up yet again and post my core argument.

1. If God exists objective moral values and duties exist (God being my God or one very similar to him)
2. If God does not exist no objective moral value or duty can possibly exist.
3. You have no idea whether my God exists or not, yet you presume he doesn't because that is what you prefer.
4. To have a debate with non-theists I can assume God does not exist, and while in that case objective moral values and duties can't exist. So I do what non-theists do, I post reasoned based moral standards.
5. The relevant ethical principle here would be that no one has a right to practice a behavior that results in massive physical destruction and monetary costs without sufficient justification.
6. You have 3 possible responses. 1. You can grant that God may exist and therefor objective morality may exist (and it condemns homosexuality). 2. You can assume reason based moral values and facts exist and homosexuality is unjustifiable. 3. You can act consistently with your world view and say that you lack any foundation to condemn or force at gun point any behavior what so ever.

Well, I don't agree with objective morality. And Sam's objective morality definition is, at best, questionable.

FYI: i am playing the atheistic moral realist in the next points.

No atheist who grants objective morality exists is going to have a rational argument to justify that. What I wanted you to see was the ease with which Craig eliminated any possibility for objective moralities' existence on an atheist world view.

Nature cannot tell us anything about logic either, since it might depend on it.

I am not sure what your doing with the logic argument. Logic, like mathematics, possibly physics, and much of philosophy are abstract pieces of furniture which we find pre-existing and which are probably independent of our universe. If they do transcend the universe then like morality they need a transcendent (supernatural) source.

And no pixel represents the Mona Lisa.

Poetic response, but a meaningless one. Your analogy does not really address my argument. If no atom, no law, no time, nor any other entity in nature contains a moral property then no matter how many you pile together (without God) the whole will not include any moral property. If you want to affirm personhood, racial equality, the dignity and sanctity of human life, actual moral duties and values, etc..... then you cannot account for them by summing up their parts. You must look to a foundation which transcends the natural.

So, either God does not exist, or He requires an explanation, too.

That is almost as bad as Dawkins' central argument, which has been referred to as the worst argument against God in the history of western thought. Existing things require an explanation of themselves within them selves or external to themselves. God explains himself because he is eternal and uncaused, everything else is derivative.

If God does not require an explanation, allegedely, then it would be question begging to require that the set of thigs that do not require explanations has only one element. Or three, if you believe in the trinity.

God is like the concept of a properly basic belief. He requires no additional causes, explanations, or accounts external to himself. He is a necessary being, not a contingent being as is true in all other cases. These couple of statements here govern everything we are discussion. Morality is also an abstract but contingent concept.

This is definetely the strongest point against atheistic moral realists. Honestly, I would not know how to answer that if I really were an atheistic moral realist. And this is why I agree that naturalism requires the non existence of objective morality.

I will try that out with my friends. Cool.

I am glad something I said resonated with you. The issue of moral ontology seems complex until you spend a lot of time investigating it (especially listening to good theistic philosophers in debates) but then one day everything crystalizes and you wonder how you missed it for so long. It is one of the few theological arguments that is an absolute. Most conclusions are merely probabilities, but among a few others moral ontology is unequivocal.

Well, that does not entail God. It would just entail metaphysical morality.

If a thing exists, even an abstract concept it must have an actual source. The word metaphysical cannot actually produce or explain anything. The same with natural laws. They are descriptive not prescriptive, 2 + 2 never created 4 of anything. The word metaphysical never produced anything.

That is what atheistsic moral realists believe also, by definition. For them is is like "2+2=5" is falsum in se. Yet, that does not require God to realize that.

That is to conflate things. Without God my saying murder is wrong does not correspond to or contradict any actual moral duty. I believe that without God mathematical truths could not exist either but I would come closer to believing they could exist without God than morality. Actually, no I can't see them existing without God either. Once you go back far enough the universe will disappear, I do not see how nothing can contain natural laws.

There are three concepts I always find non-theists underestimating.

1. Nothing.
2. Infinity.
3. God's existence.

So, I should stop advocating for the superiority of Swiss chocolate. Right?

No, we constantly advocate for subjective issues all the time. However we just need to admit we are talking about preferences.

And nobody is saying that morality does not exist. I think it does. The word comes also from Latin. It comes from mora, meaning customs. You know the expression "o tempora, o mores"? It means "oh times, oh customs". I guess the Romans got it right from the beginning,

What your describing is Malum prohibitum and should be called ethics. What I believe in is called Malum in se' and is what most people think of by the term morality.

Since the first is 100% subjective, and the latter is 100% objective using the word moral for both is simply confusing.

Maybe we should call it customality. Objective customality. What about that?

I think ethics is best, maybe legality, or even social fashion. I do not care as long as we realize it is subjective or basically amounts to preference and might makes right.

And what evidence might that be that does not require additional cosmological, ontological, teleological, moral arguments in order to be accepted?

The consensus among NT historians concerning core facts of Christ's life for example.

Because I am not currently discussing the advantage of believing things. I am discussing whether those beliefs are true. As you said, evolution is not geared towards truth, only survival. And I fully agree with that. On a side note, I believe that belief in the supernatural is also a natural adaptation.

I know all about how evolution has been turned into the Swiss army knife explanation for everything except inconvenient things like Hitler's attempts at social Darwinism. I agree with very few of them.

If we all have enormous confidence in our perceptions of the visual realm, why should we write of our virtually universal perception of an objective moral realm?

I do not have any external moral standard that allow me to evaluate even the most basic things. You do not have either, until you prove that your standard actually exists.

That is not my argument. My argument is that the conclusion that both the existence of God and the realm of objective morality is more likely than their negation.

I have only a brain that says, among other things, that:

1) killing children is wrong
2) discriminating people based on their sexual orientation is wrong
3) eating dog's excrement is disgusting

I see three things you would prefer not to happen, I see nothing that without God is actually wrong. No matter what words you come up with all you have left if God does not exist is ethical preferences.

Now, having said that, and after deep realization that my taste of food has no metaphysical foundation, either, do you think I am not entitled to claim that mammals excrements are not good food for breakfast?

I do not see the relevance. If there exists an objective goal and standard for breakfast then there exists an objective truth as to what best fulfills that them.

I objectively object to the relative length to the subjective resistance to read posts of this length. Let's see if we can pare them down.

 

[1robin]

Mmh, nope. Even if your argument were sound (big if), I could argue that another God exists. For example one that has no issues with gays.

We usually have long debates but this is the Hindenburg of posts.

This is a discussion between you and I on the subject you introduced. That means that issue is discussed within either your world view or mine. You deny mine, and your is atheistic so I made secular arguments. This isn't a comparative religion debate so other possible God's are irrelevant. Besides there are hundreds of millions of them, so no one can debate them all.

And that is what I meant when I said that you have to prove Jesus first. At least. Allah would also do, for what concerns gays, probably. And you need to do that using arguments that are not based on ethics, if you do not want to be circular.

This has gone off the rails. I made two secular arguments about sexuality, God's are irrelevant.

And that is my challenge. If you had enough evidence that exactly that divinity exists (with His baggage of moral values), by using things like miracles, empty tombs, talking serpents, flying prophets, you name it, then you can start arguing about what comes from His nature.

That is only my burden if my arguments presumes God exists. It didn't, I simply mentioned what would be true if he did.

But since theists, in general, do not seem satisfied with the evidence that would justify their particular faith (obviously), they need support from things like moral arguments (necessarily circular to prove a particular God), cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, ontological arguments, etc. that say nada about what God we are talking about and what moral nature He, She or They might have.

Most Christians have never heard of the Moral argument. The evidence that convinces most people who become Christians is the lives of others and the bible. Not philosophy.

Therefore, even if it is true that objective morality exists if and only if a God exists, then you are not much better off, as long as we are not sure what God it might be.

As long as you realize what you seem to then I am as well off as I intended to be. All I wanted to show was that your worldview contains no foundation for objective moral values and duties as well as a mountain of the most cherished human you yourself affirm like racial equality and inherent rights.

Of course I cannot grant that. And I can use the same arguments you use. I would need to assume that there is indeed a God that would agree with you. But there could be a God who agrees with me, for what you know.

That is a whole other argument and also one that makes no sense. I can compare the evidence for my God's existence and show it dwarfs the evidence you can come up with for another God but we can only have one debate at a time.

And you are begging the question. You are assuming that nihilism and anarchy are bad things. I think they are, but I cannot prove that are objectively bad, for the same reason I mentioned before.

Of course I do, however that is not what I said, so I have no burden to defend it.

And independently from that, having (subjective) moral values, and recognizing them as such, does not entail justifying anarchy.

Have you seen the Big Lebowsky? It is so funny it was inducted to the library of congress, and it has a quote in it that applies here.

Well, this could be less facetious than you think. i suspect that the prospect of eating disgusting things and the prospect to see children tortured to death, might activate the same brain's areas.

I am talking about the ontology of a concept that does not depend on our brain. If God exists then the ontology of morality is more objective than the ontology of Venus, and both would remain the same if no human brains existed. However on your world view torturing Children would be no worse than eating a disgusting thing. That has sort of been my point the whole time. Morality on your view is simply preference or societal fashion.

And if this is true, as it might be indeed true, then it is possible to have very strong moral feelings without any metaphysical label attached to it. In the same sense as "eating dog's crap" is not necessarily an objectively wrong thing to do.

My point exactly, without God moral and esthetic taste are merely preferences.

Remember, we might "simply" be computing machines. With tastes and rules of engagement with other people wired in, including the rejection of anarchy and chaos. Very strong stuff that yet, does not need to be metaphysically justified.

I believe I have shown (it was surprisingly easy) that we at least have freewill even if determinism explained everything else.

I started this discussion claiming that without God is similar to taste. It's only preference. Why do you keep clothing it in different ways and then saying it back to me over and over again?

And where is my rally of people fighting against the immoral policy to offer fat food at low cost?

I have never been to a rally, I didn't call for a rally, and your side is the big protest crowd. Why are rally's relevant.

Honestly, when I come to America, I see much more overweight people than gays. Unless you have a disproportionate population of gays, of course.

This is not a nutrition thread. Your client is not innocent because another client was guilty of another crime. The bible condemns gluttony as well. Is your best defense of homosexuality really saturated fats?

Obviously. Mathematicians are not necessarily good with lawyers things. However, I believe that it is morally more acceptable to reduce calories (Europeans do not starve, for instance) then to force (male) homosexuals to stay abstinent for all their life.

Starting with the law hanging fruits wlll prove to me that you are really concerned with health costs and do not simply pick out (male) gays because of some other agenda.

Start a nutrition thread and I will respond with I agree, then you can make a thread for every behavior that might be bad for people, and I will read them as well. The status of fatty food is of no relevance to the justification of homosexual behavior.

i suppose you condemn with the same energy consumers of seafood without scales (e.g. Shrimps). Do you do that? I ask because that should also be detestable to you, if you take Leviticus seriously.

I do not have the opportunity to since almost all of us agree that bad food is bad for us. As usual Chesterton says it best: Most men can agree on what is wrong (destruction without justification), however we disagree on what wrongs to excuse (homosexuality). You do not want to discuss everything relevant to the 613 Levitical laws.

Why are you doing everything under the sun except defend homosexuality?

The burden for you is to prove that that certain kind of God exists, before claiming that you idetified the correct objective values.

No I don't. I do not think I have any burden in that entire realm of any kind. However on many occasions I have shown the evidence for God's existence is better than for his negation. Every atom in the universe is evidence for God's existence. Start there.

And that all those biblical "values" are not simply the subjective opinion of some ancient goat herders from the Bronze age, as their look and feel might indicate.

What I actually did was to take the biblical view that homosexuality is wrong and see if it was wrong when looked at through secular glasses. On any rational secular standard it is and dozens of posters in at least thread threads tried and failed to counter that conclusion.

I mean Robin, take a good look at all of them. Isn't that obvious?

All of what?

Well, if you think that logic requires God, then all your arguments, cosmological or whatever, are circular.

The very statement "everything requires a cause", even if true, would need to be assumed without God in the premise. For the simple reason that you use it to (try to) prove God.

Ciao

- viole

There have been an army of histories best philosophers and scientists who determined just as I have that only God explains the existence of everything or anything, and that those conclusions were in most cases non-circular. How many Aquinas, Leibniz, Descartes, Plantigas, Collins, Keplers, Bacons, faradays, Newtons, or 80%+ of all Nobel Laureates, etc....ad infinitum, does it take?

 

[metis]

If you had enough evidence that exactly that divinity exists (with His baggage of moral values), by using things like miracles, empty tombs, talking serpents, flying prophets, you name it, then you can start arguing about what comes from His nature.

Exactly.

Hey, as you well know, there simply is no objectively-derived evidence that there is a God or Gods, and yet look at how many people feel that they not only can define God(s), but then get into all sorts of information about God(s).

Now, as far as I'm concerned, I do not know if there's a God, Gods, or none of the above, and I certainly don't feel qualified to somehow give any more characteristics. OTOH, some in all different religions and denominations/branches feel so strongly that they know that they forget that what they have is "belief"/"faith", and these are not synonymous with "facts".

Of course with you, I'm "preaching to the choir".

 

[QuestioningMind]

Its unescapable. They are destined to suffer forever.

It's my understanding that this God is all knowing and knows precisely what's in my heart and mind. If that's the case, then I'm golden! Because as soon as God looks into my heart and mind he'll say: 'Of COURSE you didn't believe in me, because you were never presented with sufficient evidence to justify believing in me. Good job using that rational and reasoning brain I created for you the way it was intended!"

 

[QuestioningMind]

Ohhhh, I don't know about that. Kim Davis comes to mind.

That's silly... Davis wasn't jailed for her beliefs, she was jailed for failing to follow established law. That her beliefs happened to conflict with established law isn't relevant. Claiming otherwise would be like saying that a man who believes God wants him to behead his cheating wife is thrown in jail for his 'beliefs'. It isn't his beliefs that got him jailed, but rather acting on those beliefs in violation of established laws against murder.

 

[Ingledsva]

Is it Fair to Incarcerate Christians for their Belief?

Depends on the situation.

It is not right to force your beliefs, religious or other, on anyone. (Obviously with one caveat to world societally accepted human rights norms.)

However, if Christians, or any other religions, go into areas in which they know there are laws against proselytizing, or against religions in general, and proselytize anyway, then they have to accept the consequences.

*

 

[MonkeyFire]

It's my understanding that this God is all knowing and knows precisely what's in my heart and mind. If that's the case, then I'm golden! Because as soon as God looks into my heart and mind he'll say: 'Of COURSE you didn't believe in me, because you were never presented with sufficient evidence to justify believing in me. Good job using that rational and reasoning brain I created for you the way it was intended!"

Faith is a theory.

 

[viole]

We usually have long debates but this is the Hindenburg of posts.

This is a discussion between you and I on the subject you introduced. That means that issue is discussed within either your world view or mine. You deny mine, and your is atheistic so I made secular arguments. This isn't a comparative religion debate so other possible God's are irrelevant. Besides there are hundreds of millions of them, so no one can debate them all.

This has gone off the rails. I made two secular arguments about sexuality, God's are irrelevant.

That is only my burden if my arguments presumes God exists. It didn't, I simply mentioned what would be true if he did.

Most Christians have never heard of the Moral argument. The evidence that convinces most people who become Christians is the lives of others and the bible. Not philosophy.

As long as you realize what you seem to then I am as well off as I intended to be. All I wanted to show was that your worldview contains no foundation for objective moral values and duties as well as a mountain of the most cherished human you yourself affirm like racial equality and inherent rights.



That is a whole other argument and also one that makes no sense. I can compare the evidence for my God's existence and show it dwarfs the evidence you can come up with for another God but we can only have one debate at a time.

Of course I do, however that is not what I said, so I have no burden to defend it.

Have you seen the Big Lebowsky? It is so funny it was inducted to the library of congress, and it has a quote in it that applies here.

I am talking about the ontology of a concept that does not depend on our brain. If God exists then the ontology of morality is more objective than the ontology of Venus, and both would remain the same if no human brains existed. However on your world view torturing Children would be no worse than eating a disgusting thing. That has sort of been my point the whole time. Morality on your view is simply preference or societal fashion.

My point exactly, without God moral and esthetic taste are merely preferences.

I believe I have shown (it was surprisingly easy) that we at least have freewill even if determinism explained everything else.

I started this discussion claiming that without God is similar to taste. It's only preference. Why do you keep clothing it in different ways and then saying it back to me over and over again?

I have never been to a rally, I didn't call for a rally, and your side is the big protest crowd. Why are rally's relevant.

This is not a nutrition thread. Your client is not innocent because another client was guilty of another crime. The bible condemns gluttony as well. Is your best defense of homosexuality really saturated fats?

Start a nutrition thread and I will respond with I agree, then you can make a thread for every behavior that might be bad for people, and I will read them as well. The status of fatty food is of no relevance to the justification of homosexual behavior.

I do not have the opportunity to since almost all of us agree that bad food is bad for us. As usual Chesterton says it best: Most men can agree on what is wrong (destruction without justification), however we disagree on what wrongs to excuse (homosexuality). You do not want to discuss everything relevant to the 613 Levitical laws.

Why are you doing everything under the sun except defend homosexuality?

No I don't. I do not think I have any burden in that entire realm of any kind. However on many occasions I have shown the evidence for God's existence is better than for his negation. Every atom in the universe is evidence for God's existence. Start there.

What I actually did was to take the biblical view that homosexuality is wrong and see if it was wrong when looked at through secular glasses. On any rational secular standard it is and dozens of posters in at least thread threads tried and failed to counter that conclusion.

All of what?



There have been an army of histories best philosophers and scientists who determined just as I have that only God explains the existence of everything or anything, and that those conclusions were in most cases non-circular. How many Aquinas, Leibniz, Descartes, Plantigas, Collins, Keplers, Bacons, faradays, Newtons, or 80%+ of all Nobel Laureates, etc....ad infinitum, does it take?

I think I need to put some structure on my position.

Let's say that X is the moral predicate "homosexual acts are wrong" or "human behaviour that has a cost for society is alwasy wrong", or whatever.

We have three cases:

Morality is not objective. That is what I believe. But that does not entail that I should not debate what I consider wrong or right. I could even act as if morality was objective, for we do a lot things as if.... You mentioned determinism. I think it is plausible that our mental states follow deterministic patterns, too,, but that does not prevent me from assuming a compatibilist position and discuss free will as if it were indeed free. I cannot possibly do otherwise, since I also feel happy with myself for a good choice, or regret a bad choice. And even if I believe my brain to be a machine, I (the machine) cannot help but to feel these subjective experiences.

Morality is objective and independent from God. You think this is self defeating, but I do not. It seems obvious to me that there are predicates that are true even without God. For instance, Y = "God does not exist" is true if God does not exist. And if there are logical predicates that can be true without God, why not moral predicates like X? Insisting that moral predicates enjoy a special status, would only beg the question.

Morality is objective and dependent from God (e.g. Divine command theory): in this case we cannot make any moral judgement about X, for there is an infinity of possible Gods, and some of them might approve X, while others might object. X can be assessed only when we have clear cut and independent evidence of a certain God, and what His Nature looks like.

In other words: insisting that morality is objective, because founded on God and that God is your God, and make a case for X based on that premise, is a waste of time, as long as you cannot show and convince the whole world that your God is true.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

I think I need to put some structure on my position.

Let's say that X is the moral predicate "homosexual acts are wrong" or "human behaviour that has a cost for society is alwasy wrong", or whatever.

Looks good so far but I bet the wheels will come off below. Just kidding.

We have three cases:

Ok.

Morality is not objective. That is what I believe. But that does not entail that I should not debate what I consider wrong or right. I could even act as if morality was objective, for we do a lot things as if.... You mentioned determinism. I think it is plausible that our mental states follow deterministic patterns, too,, but that does not prevent me from assuming a compatibilist position and discuss free will as if it were indeed free. I cannot possibly do otherwise, since I also feel happy with myself for a good choice, or regret a bad choice. And even if I believe my brain to be a machine, I (the machine) cannot help but to feel these subjective experiences.

That is to confuse ontology with epistemology. The nature of a thing has nothing to do with if or how we come to know about it. The nature of morality is independent of what you think about what morality is. That is why even if evil Muhammad existed his moral commands would be true even if I refused to follow them.

Morality is objective and independent from God. You think this is self defeating, but I do not. It seems obvious to me that there are predicates that are true even without God. For instance, Y = "God does not exist" is true if God does not exist. And if there are logical predicates that can be true without God, why not moral predicates like X? Insisting that moral predicates enjoy a special status, would only beg the question.

I do not believe that any truths can exist without God, but I was trying to not go too far afield. I will deal with much of this in a summary below.

Morality is objective and dependent from God (e.g. Divine command theory): in this case we cannot make any moral judgement about X, for there is an infinity of possible Gods, and some of them might approve X, while others might object. X can be assessed only when we have clear cut and independent evidence of a certain God, and what His Nature looks like.

In this case our God given consciences and divine revelation would be the conduit to how we would come to know moral truths. In Genesis it makes it clear that we were created to dwell in complete intimacy with God. However sin separates us from God. If you look at the story of the temple veil that was torn when Christ died, it's a beautiful representation of his death removing the barrier between believers and God.

In other words: insisting that morality is objective, because founded on God and that God is your God, and make a case for X based on that premise, is a waste of time, as long as you cannot show and convince the whole world that your God is true.

Ciao

- viole

Ok let me deal with most of this stuff in these final responses because everything was so fragmented above.

1. We perceive an objective moral realm, there are more reasons to trust that perception than it's negation. Why do you have confidence an external reality exists and corresponds to your sensory perceptions except in the cases of God and morality?

2. Why does every poster defending homosexuality demand biblical arguments when I make secular claims, and secular arguments when I make biblical claims?

3. Why does reality look exactly the way it should if we have freewill, yet you hold to hard determinism anyway? I can't imagine a theory with more evidence against it than hard determinism.

4. Logical laws, numbers, mathematical principles, etc....... are probably not explained by anything in the universe but that does not make them necessary beings or mean they have internal explanations. Something explains them, logic does not explain logic's existence, mathematics and science cannot be proven by mathematics or science, and morality does not explain it's own existence. Yet all of them must have an explanation. My world view has a perfect explanation for them, yours does not.

5. I was going to type a list at this point of all the things that most of us consider cherished truths that can't exist unless God does but in 2 minutes I thought of so many I decided not to spend a half hour typing them. I have a source that perfectly explains the existence of everything you mentioned and even everything you didn't. So it is you who need to sufficiently account for everything you have brought up. From what you said it sounds like your choice is between God and moral delusion. Delusion is what Michael Ruse' famous choice was, Dawkins' was pitiless indifference, and Sam H said what the truth actually is: that he likes to assume the morals he likes actually exist, what else is there without God?

However perhaps the best description I have ever heard from your side of the fence was from the lovable teddy bear that is Nietzsche:

THE MADMAN----Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!"---As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?---Thus they yelled and laughed

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us---for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto."


Internet History Sourcebooks

That poem still gives me the chills.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Its unescapable. They are destined to suffer forever.

Death is the payment for sin, nothing else!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I can't understand what the idea of "fairness" has to do with anything here, since nobody is sentenced to hell (nor promoted to heaven) for any reason at all. Just because you've been indoctrinated with an irrational belief doesn't mean that it actually represents any sort of reality.

Your consciousness (that which makes you uniquely you) will end. Then, there will be no you -- not in heaven, nor hell, nor limbo, nor anything else. To understand what that feels like, just try to remember what you felt for all the millennia before you were born. You felt nothing. There was no you. You cannot remember anything about it, and the fact that you did not exist when Elizabeth I was Queen, or Torquemada was burning Christians, or Lincoln was trying to emancipate slaves, should tell you pretty much everything you need to know.

And then there's no more need for fear.

You may not believe this, but the Bible actually supports your view of what happens at death! --Ecclesiastes 9:5; Psalms 146:3-4.

 

[Electus de Lumine]

Whereas Christians often tell people they will go to Hell for not 'believing jesus is their lord and savior'; what if the Bible was the other way around, and those accepting a human sacrifice as Kosher, are defiling the Law, and thus are the one's who shall be sent to the Pit (Hell)....

So is it fair to mislead the masses? To not explain the Laws to them? So they can at least try to understand why they've been charged in the first place? Especially when they think they're on a honey trail to Heaven...

Not even Yahweh deserves hell let alone those fooled by his deceptions.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Death is the payment for sin, nothing else!

God is Love
Suffering can't come into Heaven one way or the other.
Pain is relative to disbelief, hell, and evil. They from the 666.