Part 2, an attack on creationism

[Mr. Peanut]

Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution

 

[Autodidact]

Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution

So, as I said, those ten leading Biologists who reject the ToE are?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution

The list linked off that page of "Creationists holding doctorates in science" had 94 names, but only 3 Steves. Not particularily impressive.

I was heartened by this passage, though:

ALL my friends with Ph.D. degrees who are college professors believe in evolution. NONE of my friends with Ph.D. degrees who work in the defense industry believe in evolution. When I mentioned this in a private email to an evolutionist, he replied:

This is known in the talk.origins newsgroup as the Salem hypothesis, namely the observation that creationists who claim to have academic credentials generally turn out to be engineers rather than scientists. There are a number of theories to explain this tendency, of which yours is one. One could also argue that engineers are more inclined to accept black-and-white rule-based explanations whereas scientists are more likely to think abstractly about the underlying mechanisms. Whatever the reason, it is an interesting trend. [emphasis supplied]

Notice that if one is an engineer, he only “claim to have academic credentials,” and isn’t really a scientist, in the words of that evolutionist. In response to his next-to-last sentence, one could argue that engineers are more inclined to accept only actual experimental results, whereas scientists are more likely to accept fanciful theories (if told skillfully enough).

Since I take it you place a lot of weight behind the opinions of engineers and don't accept the dismissal of opinions of engineers in the defense industry (i.e. most likely mechanical, electrical and computer engineers) on evolution, I trust you'll be in awe of what I'm about to tell you:

I'm a transportation engineer and I support evolution.



Now... I trust you won't claim that I'm "not really a scientist". After all, designing roads and analyzing traffic arguably has just as much to do with evolution as designing missile guidance systems, if not more.

Edit: I should point out that I have never met an engineer in a field that actually deals with geology or biology who believes in anything other than an old Earth and evolution. Some I've met believe that evolution was started by God, but I've never encountered belief in a 6000-year-old Earth or a literal interpretation of the Genesis account among engineers in actually relevant fields.

Edit 2: my inclination "to accept only actual experimental results" rather than fanciful hypotheses (note: your author used the term "theory" incorrectly) has encouraged me to accept the theory of evolution and reject creationism.

 

[Zeno]

Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution

NSTA :: Position Statement: Teaching of Evolution

Contents | Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition
(from the National Academy of Sciences. Here is a member list. (wikipedia)


http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf
(a PDF file from the world's largest general scientific society)

Edwards v. Aguillard: Amicus Curiae Brief of 72 Nobel Laureates

Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science

Finding the Evolution in Medicine - The NIH Record - July 28, 2006

In 1987 (that's 20 years ago - today we have 20 more years of evidence supporting evolution) 99.85% of the 500,000 U.S. earth and life scientists support evolution science over creation.
-Poll from Newsweek

Need I go on?

 

[Autodidact]

And remember, Peanut, you didn't say that a few scientists reject ToE, you said all the best ones do. So, those "best" scientists (not hydraulic engineers, but scientists) wo reject it?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I love how you think you know all this stuff, and never feel the need to substantiate your statements.

You are asserting that I pretend that I know things I don't. Is this evidence-based reasoning or based on your intuition?

I feel fairly secure in stating that neither anesthesthia nor antiseptic methods were discovered until the recent past, and many adult men subject to circumcision during Biblical times died as a result.

Opium was widely used for pain control during that time. It was used for both adults and infants.

My best friend from childhood was a professor at UW-Madison and is one of the countries leading experts on the history of pharmacology. He is now writing books on the subject for a living and is my source for this information.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Amin: Maybe you need to go back and read the thread. There are several Old Testament passages in which God commands Hebrew soldiers to kill all of a given people, including the children and babies. Sometimes He specifies to be sure not to leave the babies out. Once He even got mad when they failed to kill the babies, and commanded them to go back and finish the job. Nick Soapdish defended these actions as being moral, because God commanded them. I am advocating the position that no matter who commands you to stab that little baby to death, it's still wrong.

Autodidact, you do realize you are focusing on less than 1% of the Bible and ignoring the other 99%? Not to mention you are focused on events that happened 3000 years ago.

That is not to say that 1% doesn't need to be addressed, but you and I clearly disagree of the authority God would hold if He exists. God gave us all of our rights, including our right to live, and He will take it away from every one of us at some point. No human has that authority. Please state an argument as to why God (given He exists, and is the creator and sustainer of everything, which I know you don't believe), should not have that authority over us.

Of course murder is a heinous crime to both man and God, if it comes from the volition of a human. That should be obvious to everyone (except for psychopaths).

The thing you fail to acknowledge is what God has commanded to Christians is clearly stated and viewable by all in the NT. If you disagree with Christian morality and what God has commanded to us, lets start there.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Nothing in science is proven, including all of the theories I named.......Theories are either supported by the evidence or disproven. ToE is supported by the evidence. That's as good as it gets in Science.

That is a clear and well stated statement about science.

Yes, because those hundreds of stubborn Christian scientists who had to be persuaded of this theory a hundred years ago are really, really, stupid.

Calling people stupid is hardly a compassionate statement. You may disagree with them, but on what measurement device do you call them stupid?

As I keep saying, you're anti-science. And I think you should renounce all the benefits it's given you as soon as possible. Your computer, for example, is the work of the devil.

I don't think Roli is anti-science. I think you are missing the point. He is not questioning the institution of science, but rather the motives of certain scientists.

You are really hard headed. Science does not seek to, try to, or have anything to do with, debunking God. That includes Biology as well as Chemistry, Geology, Astronomy, and all the rest of it.

Once again, Roli said "scientist" and you converted it to "science".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think Roli is anti-science. I think you are missing the point. He is not questioning the institution of science, but rather the motives of certain scientists.

He basically said that he only supports science when it produces results that are in agreement with the views he already has. That's about as anti-science as you can get.

 

[Autodidact]

You are asserting that I pretend that I know things I don't. Is this evidence-based reasoning or based on your intuition?

No, I'm asserting that you make assertions without support. This is a purely empirical observation.

Opium was widely used for pain control during that time. It was used for both adults and infants.

Now there you go.

My best friend from childhood was a professor at UW-Madison and is one of the countries leading experts on the history of pharmacology. He is now writing books on the subject for a living and is my source for this information.

O.K., so I have to take your word for it? You know I've never met you?

Anyway, I googled it and it's interesting. Apparently the Egyptians did use opium, and it was cultivated in lower Mesopotamia aka Babylonia, during Biblical times, although AFAIK it is not mentioned in the Bible.

Anyway, anything substantive at all? I still aver (while lacking personal insight into the issue) that an adult man would likely regard circumcision with some apprehension.

 

[Autodidact]

Autodidact, you do realize you are focusing on less than 1% of the Bible and ignoring the other 99%? Not to mention you are focused on events that happened 3000 years ago.

No, I'm not. Remember, I gave you 4 humongous posts, and those were only the conclusions. Most of these passages go on for pages, with "We travelled to the land of the King of Yadayada, who brought forth 5000 of his men, and we fought on the shores of Whozis River. The battle raged blah blah, and then we etc. etc.," and then at the very end, "We killed everyone and everything, except the loot, which we took and kept." So the part I gave is just the tip of the iceberg. (OR, alternatively, I excerpted: "God commanded us to kill all the people of Wherever." And then you get passage after passage about the journey to Wherever, and the King of Wherever, and his sons, and what Joshua or whoever said, etc. etc. As I said, and I think established, conquest and dominion, including ethnic cleansing, is one of the major themes of the OT. [which reminds me that you owe me either a substantiation or an apology, and your failure to do either has lowered you greatly in my esteem.]

In any case, it's irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if it were .001%. The point is that you think your religion and your ethics are about love, but your worship and obey a bloodthirsty, primitive, Palestinian war God.

And what difference does it make when it happened? That's one of my points. Does God show up later to clear this up? Does he ever bother to explain that actually stabbing babies is not a beneficial enterprise? He does not. He appears once, to one people, and spends a lot of time telling them who to kill, a lot of time what to sacrifice, emphasizes that He's a jealous God, and throws them a few commandments.

You say this makes so much sense to you, orders the entire world and life so well, that it persuades you it must be true. Except when it doesn't, it's time to drag out God and His Mysterious Ways that Cannot Be Known By Us, which is to say, it makes no sense!

That is not to say that 1% doesn't need to be addressed, but you and I clearly disagree of the authority God would hold if He exists. God gave us all of our rights, including our right to live, and He will take it away from every one of us at some point. No human has that authority. Please state an argument as to why God (given He exists, and is the creator and sustainer of everything, which I know you don't believe), should not have that authority over us.

Right. You are a moral relativist who believes that killing babies is morally right if you believe that God commands it, and I am a moral absolutist who believes that killing babies is always wrong.

Well, I don't see why I should have to answer hypotheticals, since God does not in fact exist, and in fact this is an excellent argument as to why He should not, as it would lead to genocidal wars and other horrors. (And belief in Him has in fact done so.) I would say that might does not make right, that morals are based in compassion and not authority, and just because I gave birth to my child does NOT give me the right to annihilate her.

Of course murder is a heinous crime to both man and God, if it comes from the volition of a human. That should be obvious to everyone (except for psychopaths).

Right. It's a heinous crime. Except when God does it. Gotcha. Still making sense to you? Do you think people ever mistakenly believe that God commands them to do it? Do you think that belief in this God, the God that you worship, might contribute to that possibility?

The thing you fail to acknowledge is what God has commanded to Christians is clearly stated and viewable by all in the NT. If you disagree with Christian morality and what God has commanded to us, lets start there.

So you don't think the OT applies to Christians? Now that's a logical religion for you. God comes down in person and reels out commandments left and right, and splits the scene, and we actually don't have to pay any attention to those commandments? Those were just what? Practice? Preamble? I hope all the stick-gatherers and disobedient children that got stoned to death didn't mind too much.

Here's the thing, Nick. Historically, Christianity made an early decision to piggy-back onto Judaism. O.K., good plan, that helped greatly with the initial marketing. But now, 2000 years later, you're stuck with it. You don't get to go back and say, actually, just kidding, it's really a whole new religion.

 

[Autodidact]

Calling people stupid is hardly a compassionate statement. You may disagree with them, but on what measurement device do you call them stupid?

Hint to Nick: Check sarcasm meter for sensitivity.

I don't think Roli is anti-science. I think you are missing the point. He is not questioning the institution of science, but rather the motives of certain scientists.

His posts indicate otherwise.

Once again, Roli said "scientist" and you converted it to "science".

And who else, pray tell, does science? O.K., Roli's against "what scientists do." I reiterate: He needs to ride his mule home and light his candle, then write out his objections with a quill pen. And heaven forbid he come down with appendicitis.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

No, I'm asserting that you make assertions without support. This is a purely empirical observation.

Ok, you can tell yourself if it makes you feel better. The fact is you claimed I didn't know what I was talking about.

O.K., so I have to take your word for it? You know I've never met you?

Ah, now here comes the "I'm lying" accusation. Great.

Anyway, I googled it and it's interesting. Apparently the Egyptians did use opium, and it was cultivated in lower Mesopotamia aka Babylonia, during Biblical times, although AFAIK it is not mentioned in the Bible.

I see.. since it was not mentioned in the Bible it must not have existed then and there. There is a fallacy.

Opium was in widespread use, even in Israel. I will ask my friend if he can get a source for you if you are really concerned about my honesty.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

No, I'm not. Remember, I gave you 4 humongous posts, and those were only the conclusions. Most of these passages go on for pages, with "We travelled to the land of the King of Yadayada, who brought forth 5000 of his men, and we fought on the shores of Whozis River. The battle raged blah blah, and then we etc. etc.," and then at the very end, "We killed everyone and everything, except the loot, which we took and kept." So the part I gave is just the tip of the iceberg. (OR, alternatively, I excerpted: "God commanded us to kill all the people of Wherever." And then you get passage after passage about the journey to Wherever, and the King of Wherever, and his sons, and what Joshua or whoever said, etc. etc. As I said, and I think established, conquest and dominion, including ethnic cleansing, is one of the major themes of the OT.

I agree there are quite a few passages that describe the conquest of the ancient hebrews. But exactly how many verses actually have God commanding genocide?

[which reminds me that you owe me either a substantiation or an apology, and your failure to do either has lowered you greatly in my esteem.]

Substantiation or an apology for what? I'm sorry for not following you -- please refresh my memory. Anyway, you have already called me an immoral psychopath -- I'm not sure how I can go much lower.

In any case, it's irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if it were .001%. The point is that you think your religion and your ethics are about love, but your worship and obey a bloodthirsty, primitive, Palestinian war God.

Sure it does, because you are ignoring the other 99% that portrays Him as a holy, righteous God.

And what difference does it make when it happened? That's one of my points. Does God show up later to clear this up? Does he ever bother to explain that actually stabbing babies is not a beneficial enterprise? He does not. He appears once, to one people, and spends a lot of time telling them who to kill, a lot of time what to sacrifice, emphasizes that He's a jealous God, and throws them a few commandments.

You say this makes so much sense to you, orders the entire world and life so well, that it persuades you it must be true. Except when it doesn't, it's time to drag out God and His Mysterious Ways that Cannot Be Known By Us, which is to say, it makes no sense!

Because I am not omniscient, it must not make sense? You are basically saying that if I don't know everything about everything in the Bible, then I shouldn't believe any of it. It makes sense that I am not omniscient and can't know everything about an infinite God.

Right. You are a moral relativist who believes that killing babies is morally right if you believe that God commands it, and I am a moral absolutist who believes that killing babies is always wrong.

I am not a moral relativist. Like I said God and humans do not share the same authority. The ethics I follow are absolute.

You still haven't acknowledged that the Bible has anything good to say.

If you are a moral absolutist, then what are your principles? Other than to be happy, because inflating your ego and being condescending to others (or in your version being sarcastic) may make you happy, but is that ethical?

Well, I don't see why I should have to answer hypotheticals, since God does not in fact exist, and in fact this is an excellent argument as to why He should not, as it would lead to genocidal wars and other horrors. (And belief in Him has in fact done so.)

So you are making an absolute claim that God does not exist. And how do you know this? Where is your evidence? You are not merely stating that there is no substantiated evidence for God, or we don't know one way or the other. You are stating with certainty there is no God. Is this based on intuition or evidence?

I still think that to make your case that I am immoral, you ought to make the argument that if God were to exist, He should not have the authority He has. God's existance is one of my assumptions. If you can't counter this point, then given my assumption that God exists, I have a moral view.

Right. It's a heinous crime. Except when God does it. Gotcha. Still making sense to you?

God has every right to take any life He intends to. We don't have that right.

Right now in my battle with cancer, I will use ever resource God gives me to fight it. But if it His will that I die, then it is according to His plan. It would affect the lives of many others in ways I can't predict, but God knows.

Do you think people ever mistakenly believe that God commands them to do it? Do you think that belief in this God, the God that you worship, might contribute to that possibility?

No I think people believe it is a good excuse for heinous crimes. The Bible is clear that there are wolves in sheeps clothing. Killing others in cold blood is an act of producing some rotten fruit.

But what do I know, I am an immoral psychopath.

So you don't think the OT applies to Christians? Now that's a logical religion for you. God comes down in person and reels out commandments left and right, and splits the scene, and we actually don't have to pay any attention to those commandments? Those were just what? Practice? Preamble? I hope all the stick-gatherers and disobedient children that got stoned to death didn't mind too much.

God had a different covenent with the Jews than with the Christians.

Here's the thing, Nick. Historically, Christianity made an early decision to piggy-back onto Judaism. O.K., good plan, that helped greatly with the initial marketing. But now, 2000 years later, you're stuck with it. You don't get to go back and say, actually, just kidding, it's really a whole new religion.

Have you read the New Testament?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Opium was in widespread use, even in Israel. I will ask my friend if he can get a source for you if you are really concerned about my honesty.

Here is an excerpt of the email from my friend:

The majority of our ancient medical sources for that part of the world are in Greek and Latin. They were written by Greek and Roman physicians, who were not accustomed to performing circumcision--it just wasn't a popular western procedure, so it didn't merit much attention. As a matter of fact, I've seen more about "circumcision repair" by ancient physicians than actual circumcision, but there are thousands of pages of medical manuscripts that have not been translated so it would be foolish of me to say that some Greco-Roman doctor didn't actually address the issue. The standard pain reliever in the first century was opium. It was used for just about everything and was given to adults and infants alike. Opium was one of the top 4 or 5 most commonly used drugs up until roughly the late 19th/early 20th century. It wouldn't surprise me if they gave circumcision patients a dose of opium mixed in wine before performing the procedure, but I can't give you any proof. As for the sources, you may find something in the lesser known rabbinical traditions, but the Classical stuff will not be of much help. Having said all that, 90% of pain control in antiquity came down to the use of good old fashioned opium.

 

[Autodidact]

Ok, you can tell yourself if it makes you feel better. The fact is you claimed I didn't know what I was talking about.

Please quote where I said that.

Ah, now here comes the "I'm lying" accusation. Great.

Leap to conclusions much?

I see.. since it was not mentioned in the Bible it must not have existed then and there. There is a fallacy.

I don't know about a fallacy, but if would have been incorrect--if I had said that.

Opium was in widespread use, even in Israel. I will ask my friend if he can get a source for you if you are really concerned about my honesty.

Nick, we don't know each other. That's why, on the internet, it's a good idea to provide sources for your factual assertions, and be prepared to back them up.

What I actually said, is that there seems to be some validity to your assertion, although it's not clear, and you failed to provide any documentation. If you read my post, you will notice how fair it in fact was.

 

[Autodidact]

Here is an excerpt of the email from my friend:

The majority of our ancient medical sources for that part of the world are in Greek and Latin. They were written by Greek and Roman physicians, who were not accustomed to performing circumcision--it just wasn't a popular western procedure, so it didn't merit much attention. As a matter of fact, I've seen more about "circumcision repair" by ancient physicians than actual circumcision, but there are thousands of pages of medical manuscripts that have not been translated so it would be foolish of me to say that some Greco-Roman doctor didn't actually address the issue. The standard pain reliever in the first century was opium. It was used for just about everything and was given to adults and infants alike. Opium was one of the top 4 or 5 most commonly used drugs up until roughly the late 19th/early 20th century. It wouldn't surprise me if they gave circumcision patients a dose of opium mixed in wine before performing the procedure, but I can't give you any proof. As for the sources, you may find something in the lesser known rabbinical traditions, but the Classical stuff will not be of much help. Having said all that, 90% of pain control in antiquity came down to the use of good old fashioned opium.

And this is why sources are good. We're not talking about the first century, are we?

In any case, Nick, this is an unnecessary, although interesting, distraction, from my aside, that circumcising adults is dangerous and painful, let alone my main point, which is that you claim that the single worldview that makes the most sense to you is to worship an ancient Palestinian war God.

 

[Autodidact]

Nick: What citing sources does is something that scientific protocol also does. It gives everyone equal access to the same information. It's kind of a fair game thing. No one has a monopoly on the data. In the long run, it makes for better results, probably due to the advantage of questioning from all sides. As my dad used to say, we don't cut the cards because we cheat, but because we don't.

 

[roli]

And who else, pray tell, does science? O.K., Roli's against "what scientists do." I reiterate: He needs to ride his mule home and light his candle, then write out his objections with a quill pen. And heaven forbid he come down with appendicitis

Are you aware of the sweep of secular humanisim throughout the world,maybe you're an adherent to secular humanism yourself,maybe you could answer that if your so inclined.
Their agenda has many purposes, but primarily it is to destroy christianity and exalt man as the fullness of all things,mankind has always attempted this incredible feat and please don't tell me or convince yourself that it is for the betterment of mankind.We all know their objective.
Are you aware of how many scientists are involved in this movement as well, including hundreds of thousands of prominenTleaders,political,professional,religious,governmental as well.
This is a movement that seems to remain very secretive, yet it is extremely purvasive throughout our western world.
These scientists who are diligent on proving evolution, seem to me, to have this agenda as well.
They are attempting to tear down Christianity one brick at a time, not that this will ever happen, but this is their agenda.

And I am not referring to scientists who are desperately searching for the answers that will make our world a better place and who's agenda's are transparent and honest ie:,cures,inventions,discoveries that enhance technology etc. But those who's sole agenda is to subtly remove God from the equation, thus silencing the conscience of guilt and conviction of immorality and thereby enhance man's freedom to glorify himself as the supreme being he always thought he was.

Again, trust me when I say, I am not the least bit concerned nor insecure in my position with Christ and my faith in God,I know where I stand with my savior I know whee he has brought me from and wher he is taking me.
Nothing can or will ever change that.

Eveyrthing has a purpose,evolutionists are no different.
I mean what benefit could evolutionists find in proving evolution, other than ,i told you so and an ego boost.
I mean will evolution help society in any way,will it improve life, will change people's behavior, give them hope or purpose,
What will evolution do for society if it is proven.
My answer, nothing ,take God out , you have Russia, Germany ,terrorism,dictatorship , etc.

How liberating for man to get God off his conscience and out of his world.
Then man becomes godlike himself, this is the overall agenda ,I beleive

 

[Autodidact]

I agree there are quite a few passages that describe the conquest of the ancient hebrews. But exactly how many verses actually have God commanding genocide?

You made a claim about this, Nick, not me, so you need to figure that out.

Substantiation or an apology for what? I'm sorry for not following you -- please refresh my memory. Anyway, you have already called me an immoral psychopath -- I'm not sure how I can go much lower.

If you truly believe that it would be moral for you to slaughter a little baby if God told you to. Do you?

Here's a hypo. I'm a lesbian and an atheist. And to make it worse, I was born a Jew. So, I'm a reprobate, heathen, abominator, right? And get this: I'm not raising my children to worship Yahweh! Now let's say that you have a profound religious experience of some kind, in which God instructs you to kill my children. (Please don't say He wouldn't; I spent a lot of my time establishing that He did. A lot. And don't say that people who have religious experiences are crazy, because your entire belief system is based on just this type of personal revelation. Finally, we already know that you have absolutely no way to evaluate whether such a vision is objectively correct or true.) Do you do it? Would it be right?

Anyway, I said that "The land I gave you; kill everyone in it/ the land He gave us; we killed everyone in it" is a major OT theme. You accused me of distorting the Bible. I think I have shown that it is, to anyone with any objectivity. If you think not, please show us. I do not (as I have said several times) like to be inaccurate. If I am, please show me how. If not, please withdraw your unfounded accusation.

Sure it does, because you are ignoring the other 99% that portrays Him as a holy, righteous God.

You say it's 99%. I don't find a lot of passages that I consider just or righteous. I mean, it claims it, but His actual behavior: He likes Abel's offering better because it's meat? He tortures Job--and kills his children, because he's a righteous man? His commandments are horrible: kill disobedient children. Kill people who work on Saturday. Kill a woman who grabs her husband's wrestling opponent's testicles.

I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me,

Does that sound just to you? Say you're a good Christian, but your father was not. Uh oh, punishment time for you, Nick. And that God really knows how to punish. Etc. Etc. Etc. Why were the Amalekites destroyed? For something their ancestors did centuries earlier. I could go on and on but my fingers get tired. I mean, I personally feel pity for the firstborn of the Egyptians.

Because I am not omniscient, it must not make sense? You are basically saying that if I don't know everything about everything in the Bible, then I shouldn't believe any of it. It makes sense that I am not omniscient and can't know everything about an infinite God.

No, Nick, and you know your response is disingenuous. Because it doesn't make sense to you, it doesn't make sense to you. The basic premise of the Bible doesn't make sense, so you just don't think about it. It does not make sense that anything that anyone else does has any bearing on my wrong-doing, that I should be punished for something that Adam and Eve did, or that Jesus can redeem me from it. That's just whacko. And that's the heart of the story, isn't it? The idea that I'm guilty because a talking snake persuaded a pre-historic woman to eat the wrong fruit, and the idea that God made a woman pregnant, and her son was killed, which somehow expiates my guilt. Those are very ancient, very primitive ideas. Modern, rational ethics says that I'm responsible for my sins and the good I do, that I must make reparations, I must atone, and those whom I harm may forgive me.

I am not a moral relativist. Like I said God and humans do not share the same authority. The ethics I follow are absolute.

But if you come to believe that God commands you to do it, now it's right for you too, right? Evil things are good, if God commands them, which he does regularly throughout his brief appearance in the Bible.

You still haven't acknowledged that the Bible has anything good to say.

Yes I did. Read the thread.

If you are a moral absolutist, then what are your principles? Other than to be happy, because inflating your ego and being condescending to others (or in your version being sarcastic) may make you happy, but is that ethical?

I explained it to you, and here it is again, short short version:
If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion. Much more detail would need a separate thread. In any case, whatever my ethics are, in no circumstances do they include infanticide or genocide, which unfortunately yours do.

So you are making an absolute claim that God does not exist. And how do you know this? Where is your evidence? You are not merely stating that there is no substantiated evidence for God, or we don't know one way or the other. You are stating with certainty there is no God. Is this based on intuition or evidence?

Annoying isn't it, those unsubstantiated assertions? Of course I don't know this; it's only my belief or opinion. However, assuming what you are trying to prove is no way to win an argument.

I still think that to make your case that I am immoral, you ought to make the argument that if God were to exist, He should not have the authority He has. God's existance is one of my assumptions. If you can't counter this point, then given my assumption that God exists, I have a moral view.

Exactly. You think genocide is moral. I don't. Further, this makes sense to you. And that's the difference between us.

btw, Nick, what about people of other religious faiths? Is genocide moral when their God commands it? Because we know that you have no way to distinguish which God is real. So if Allah (pbuh) commands genocide, or His followers command Him to, is it moral for them to commit it? Or does your moral license only apply to Christians?

God has every right to take any life He intends to. We don't have that right.

And He has the right to command you to do so, and then you would have not only the right but the obligation, right? Remember the passage where God gets angry at the Israelites because they failed to kill the babies too? And they have to go back and finish the job? Nice God you got there.

Right now in my battle with cancer, I will use ever resource God gives me to fight it. But if it His will that I die, then it is according to His plan. It would affect the lives of many others in ways I can't predict, but God knows.

Nice distraction. As I've said repeatedly, I'm not talking about illness or natural evil. I'm talking about a God who commands His followers to commit evil. And I hope you live a long and healthy life.

No I think people believe it is a good excuse for heinous crimes. The Bible is clear that there are wolves in sheeps clothing. Killing others in cold blood is an act of producing some rotten fruit.

How about when God commands it?

But what do I know, I am an immoral psychopath.

Well, what do you call people who think that killing babies is moral?

Have you read the New Testament?

Most of it. And many other works of many religious faiths. The Bible is far from my favorite. I have not even peeked at the Qu'ran though, have you? I figure life is only so long.