Science is a false God

[ecco]

In like manner, the fact that there are dozens upon dozens of fulfilled Bible prophecies constitutes probative evidence of the existence of its author, Jehovah God.

Care to give a clear, unambiguous example.

 

[Skreeper]

So racism and bigotry are moral? Are you racist and bigoted?

Maybe I need to write it in bigger letters?

It would make it moral for those who believe it is moral.

I for one consider both bigotry and rasicm immoral. And since I am a gay dude I have first hand experience on how harmful bigotry can be.

 

[Maximilian]

If God didn't want to tolerate evil, why did he create evil?

When did God create evil?

 

[ecco]

Frank Zappa — 'A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open.'

You don't see that these apply to you, do you?

That Sagan quote is from: The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

He says: Science as a Candle in the Dark
He does not say: Religion as a Candle in the Dark

 

[Maximilian]

I for one consider both bigotry and rasicm immoral. And since I am a gay dude I have first hand experience on how harmful bigotry can be.

Phew . . . you had me worried there for a bit, lol

It started to look like you were incapable of telling the difference between good and evil but I'm glad you cleared things up

And so, with your clarification, you recognize that, in reality, racism and bigotry are immoral irrespective of how many claim otherwise.

This is to say, it's an objective moral value.

 

[Maximilian]

Sounds like a good argument for the *non-existence* of a God.

How so?

 

[Maximilian]

You can't have it both ways. You are trying to argue for objective morality, on the basis that:-


and then attempting justifying one of those very things (killing of helpless little children) when it's ordered by your god in you favourite book of myths.

Seems to me that those of us who think morality is subjective are being a lot more morally consistent than you who are trying to claim it's objective....

And they weren't helpless little children. They were evil.

Jehovah God has only ever executed the evil, never an innocent.

 

[metis]

When did God create evil?

When He created good and told us to abide by it.

 

[Maximilian]

Why did god commit and command the mass murder of innocent children? That is evil.

What innocents did Jehovah God have executed and how do you know they were actually innocent?

 

[Maximilian]

Seriously? So in your belief system, genocide is not objectively immoral. Killing babies is not objectively immoral.

That's just plain disgusting.

You're not suggesting that, for instance, the genocide of Triads, Nordicists, Zetas, Baasskaps, MS-13s, Jihadists, Mungikis, Bloods, Yakuzas, Bratvas, Nazis and other such evil peoples would be morally wrong, are you?

 

[Skreeper]

Phew . . . you had me worried there for a bit, lol

It started to look like you were incapable of telling the difference between good and evil but I'm glad you cleared things up

And so, with your clarification, you recognize that, in reality, racism and bigotry are immoral irrespective of how many claim otherwise.

This is to say, it's an objective moral value.

Sorry, but no. Just because we two agree on a moral value does not make that moral value objective. It is still our subjective judgement, we just happen to agree on it. You probably consider my sexual preference as 'evil' which would be a moral value we would disagree on.

 

[Maximilian]

Taking young girls as sexual slaves . . . is not objectively immoral.

Where exactly is this mandated anywhere in the Bible?

 

[Polymath257]

Frank Zappa — 'A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open.'

Since you do not have conclusive evidence that Jehovah God does not nor cannot exist does this mean you're open to examining the evidence for his necessary existence objectively?

Absolutely. Of course, don't use any of the tired arguments that have been shown to be faulty.

Examples:
1. First Cause argument
2. Design.
3. Ontological Argument
4. Moral Argument.

That is, unless you can do a *much* better job at them than, say, William Craig.

 

[Maximilian]

You're repeating yourself.



So - is the indiscriminate slaughtering of helpless little children right or wrong?

"Jehovah hates . . . hands that shed innocent blood." -Proverbs 6:16, 17

It is because of this that murder is evil, immoral and why Jehovah God has never, ever killed an innocent.

 

[Audie]

Sorry, but no. Just because we two agree on a moral value does not make that moral value objective. It is still our subjective judgement, we just happen to agree on it. You probably consider my sexual preference as 'evil' which would be a moral value we would disagree on.

Ah,but is it / are you objectively evil?

 

[Audie]

Absolutely. Of course, don't use any of the tired arguments that have been shown to be faulty.

Examples:
1. First Cause argument
2. Design.
3. Ontological Argument
4. Moral Argument.

That is, unless you can do a *much* better job at them than, say, William Craig.

Please! Not even then!

 

[Polymath257]

Indirect evidence is frequently and consistently relied upon to ascertain the reality of our world. As a case in point, it's long been widely used to show that our Sun generates power via nuclear fusion, hydrogen is present in it or that our planet features an iron core. In like manner, the fact that there are dozens upon dozens of fulfilled Bible prophecies constitutes probative evidence of the existence of its author, Jehovah God.

This fact is, by far, the most compelling logical reason why millions upon millions of rational people today the world over only accept the Bible as the Inspired Word of Jehovah God. Simply no other book – religious or not – comes with such illustrious prominence. Because it's impossible for any person to foresee with complete precision what's sure to occur from one hour to the next, there's no two ways about it: Bible prophecies are not of natural origin. I kindly invite you to examine for yourself various examples of these specific and accurately fulfilled prophecies

Ahh, but it is indirect evidence based on *known* laws of physics that can be verified independently of the indirect claims made.

So, for example, we can know the conditions in the center of the sun by our knowledge of how gases and plasma compress, the nuclear reactions that are possible, the amount of light produced by the sun, and the neutrino flux we get from the sun. ALL of these have laws that can be tested independently of the conditions at the center of the sun.

The so-called Biblical prophecies are weak prophesies, at best. And in no way do they serve to demonstrate, even circumstantially, the validity of the Biblical writings. it is hardly illustrious in its specifics except to those who already believe in it. For those who think logically, however, it fails miserably.

 

[ratiocinator]

And they weren't helpless little children. They were evil.

So now you're claiming that every single defenceless Amalekite child was evil? Does that go for the livestock too?

Anyway, so now your argument for objective morality is looking even less secure. You said:

Thing is, neurotypical human beings do not deem sex slavery, pedophilia, the gunning down of helpless little children, brutality, democide, gang rape, racism or even serial homicide as merely socially improper conduct, like, say, picking your nostrils at the dinner table. Much rather, these jolt, outrage as well as horrify.

Now, you, as our resident proponent of objective morality, would (I assume) disregard that "neurotypical" human reaction if you thought god had told you they were all evil?

That's utterly disgusting and terrifying. What did you quote from Voltaire before? Oh, yes: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

 

[Polymath257]

What is your evidence?

As I pointed out, all of Quantum mechanics and General relativity. Both are quite relevant to the question of the origin of the universe, with QM showing that classical notions of causality are simply false.

 

[Jose Fly]

I agree. I consider it morally wrong to do that and then point fingers at others.

From what I have seen of his posts, he has avoided justifying it directly, by diversion and ignoring posts about the specific passages in the OT.

Well, not any more. He's just blatantly advocating and justifying genocide, while simultaneously claiming to be on the side of divine morality.

It's friggin' disgusting no matter how you slice it.