Science standards under threat in Arizona

[BilliardsBall]

How did that work out?

Hitler already followed some brand of Christianity. "Gott mit uns", anyone? Didn't stop him from doing terrible things.

So after it was clear that Hitler's master plan was to kill millions of people, should we have continued to be nice to him, to the detriment of those millions of people? How practical or logical is that?

From my point of view, Hitler doesn't deserve to be treated as I would like to be treated because he was a mass murderer who took the lives of millions of people.



I think you've just demonstrated that this one is folly.

Who says every law, command, principle and precept in the Bible are all "good for good individuals and societies on the whole?" Oh that's right, the very Bible you're quoting. Sorry, I don't go for circular arguments. Slavery isn't good for all individuals and societies. Neither is genocide.

"Gott mit uns" predated Hitler, who was no God-lover or lover of God's Chosen People. The NT says "How can you [Hitler] claim to love an invisible God, if you don't love your brother whom you can see?"

I wrote about Hitler receiving Christian love from gospel witnesses, your statement that Hitler should be punished shows you accept morality as real, tangible, despite its intangible, metaphysical nature... you use absolutes like "Hitler should..." and "Hitler must..." proving you hold to absolute morality and absolute justice. Well, it's a start toward God, for sure...

Slavery wasn't good for the slaveowner economy? Genociding those in Israel to take their lands and possessions wasn't good for the society of the genociders? You can do better than that...

...As can I. There are 613 OT commandments, over 200 of them have direct, PRESCIENT, health benefit, like "Blood is the life", which would have saved Washington from being leeched to death by his "physicians".

 

[Polymath257]

Interesting, to see again you write something like, "...make the deities seem moral when they clearly are not..."

And you know what is "clearly moral" about deities, because your morality is, as you wrote, an idea "which is manifested physically in the universe"? Double standard again--"I'll have metaphysical morality, but metaphysics aren't real." CHOOSE. Be consistent.

Morality is about caring, fairness, and potential harm to sentient beings. All deity stories have the deities ignore basic harm to sentient beings. So they are immoral.

No metaphysics is required here. I am not claiming morality exists in any supernatural sense. It is a shared concept among sentient beings concerning how they interact.

Yes, ideas are physical manifestations, but so what? Ideas are important for structuring societies and rules of interaction.

 

[Polymath257]

I think the issue is I agree regarding many religions, yet Jesus's morality and commands for marriage are not "inscrutable".

Exactly. When theistic myths are clear, they tend to be immoral and uncaring.

 

[Polymath257]

What does it imply, then? It implies:

* Jesus may have been insane
* Jesus may have been deluded
* Jesus may have been "for real"

What death for cause implies is near-total or total belief. Jesus's belief was this:

Romans 5: 6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

OK so he believed that God would save him on the cross. He was wrong. So?

 

[SkepticThinker]

...as devoted to Jesus Christ...

I repeat the question.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"Gott mit uns" predated Hitler, who was no God-lover or lover of God's Chosen People. The NT says "How can you [Hitler] claim to love an invisible God, if you don't love your brother whom you can see?"

Who cares if "Gott mit uns" predated Hitler? So did the swastika. That didn't stop him from incorporating them into Nazi uniforms and belief systems and using them to their own ends.

You’re just presenting the No True Scotsman Fallacy to me here. Maybe they were the real Christians and you’re the faker. Maybe you’re all Christians. Maybe none of you are. All I have to go on is what Christians claim about themselves since the relationship is supposed to exist between a Christian and God. Unless you’re God, I don’t know how you can claim someone isn’t a Christian.

I wrote about Hitler receiving Christian love from gospel witnesses, your statement that Hitler should be punished shows you accept morality as real, tangible, despite its intangible, metaphysical nature... you use absolutes like "Hitler should..." and "Hitler must..." proving you hold to absolute morality and absolute justice. Well, it's a start toward God, for sure...

I'm not trying to get to God as a source of morality; you are. And in doing so, you're completing ignoring the points being made. I don’t think any God is necessary. As I’ve said several times, I don’t think following commands and blindly obeying orders is any kind of exercise in morality.

Morality is something that needs to be reasoned through, when we realize that our actions have consequences that can affect a lot of people. We don’t need absolute dictates send down from a deity. You don’t either; you just think you do. An action that may be moral in one situation may not be moral in another. You know this, because we’ve had this conversation before. So in that sense, morality is not absolute.

I don’t know what you mean by “absolute justice.” Could you clarify?

Slavery wasn't good for the slaveowner economy? Genociding those in Israel to take their lands and possessions wasn't good for the society of the genociders? You can do better than that...

It's not good for the slaves. Nor is it good for the society being exterminated. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

...As can I. There are 613 OT commandments, over 200 of them have direct, PRESCIENT, health benefit, like "Blood is the life", which would have saved Washington from being leeched to death by his "physicians".

You think a commandment about not drinking animal blood would have saved Washington’s life somehow? Do you think Washington and his doctors had never read the Bible?

 

[BilliardsBall]

OK so he believed that God would save him on the cross. He was wrong. So?

Huh? Jesus prophesied in all four gospels He would rise again after dying in Jerusalem on the cross.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Morality is about caring, fairness, and potential harm to sentient beings. All deity stories have the deities ignore basic harm to sentient beings. So they are immoral.

No metaphysics is required here. I am not claiming morality exists in any supernatural sense. It is a shared concept among sentient beings concerning how they interact.

Yes, ideas are physical manifestations, but so what? Ideas are important for structuring societies and rules of interaction.

But that's my point regarding your subjective, anti-evolutionary beliefs:

1) "It is a shared concept" yes, morality, however, morality widely diverges among cultures

2) Atheists love to "quote" communal creatures like ants and bees, but never acknowledge that most carnivores/omnivores prey among the weak or forcibly mate

 

[Polymath257]

But that's my point regarding your subjective, anti-evolutionary beliefs:

1) "It is a shared concept" yes, morality, however, morality widely diverges among cultures

Which shows it isn't really objective. The core concepts tend to be universal, though.

2) Atheists love to "quote" communal creatures like ants and bees, but never acknowledge that most carnivores/omnivores prey among the weak or forcibly mate

And we have managed to consider women to be valid members of our societies that deserve equal rights. That took a long time and had to be fought against the religious forces.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Who cares if "Gott mit uns" predated Hitler? So did the swastika. That didn't stop him from incorporating them into Nazi uniforms and belief systems and using them to their own ends.

You’re just presenting the No True Scotsman Fallacy to me here. Maybe they were the real Christians and you’re the faker. Maybe you’re all Christians. Maybe none of you are. All I have to go on is what Christians claim about themselves since the relationship is supposed to exist between a Christian and God. Unless you’re God, I don’t know how you can claim someone isn’t a Christian.



I'm not trying to get to God as a source of morality; you are. And in doing so, you're completing ignoring the points being made. I don’t think any God is necessary. As I’ve said several times, I don’t think following commands and blindly obeying orders is any kind of exercise in morality.

Morality is something that needs to be reasoned through, when we realize that our actions have consequences that can affect a lot of people. We don’t need absolute dictates send down from a deity. You don’t either; you just think you do. An action that may be moral in one situation may not be moral in another. You know this, because we’ve had this conversation before. So in that sense, morality is not absolute.

I don’t know what you mean by “absolute justice.” Could you clarify?



It's not good for the slaves. Nor is it good for the society being exterminated. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?



You think a commandment about not drinking animal blood would have saved Washington’s life somehow? Do you think Washington and his doctors had never read the Bible?

Brass tacks. We can't define Hitler's Christianity or my morality until we define what a Christian is, this without being NTS:

No veg meat > My veg friend eats meat > No true vegetarian eats meat ... isn't NTS.

Jesus said who is a Christian, why is the founder of Christianity’s definition different than your definition?

 

[Polymath257]

Brass tacks. We can't define Hitler's Christianity or my morality until we define what a Christian is, this without being NTS:

No veg meat > My veg friend eats meat > No true vegetarian eats meat ... isn't NTS.

Jesus said who is a Christian, why is the founder of Christianity’s definition different than your definition?

Because there are several distinct definitions, which have evolved over time.

For example, the Nicene Creed has been a common minimal set of beliefs for someone to be 'Christian', but that then ignores the Nestorians, Arians, and others.

Paul seems to have one view of who could be in the new religion and Jesus seemed to have a very different idea.

Then, of course, there are all of the more modern interpreters: Calvin, Luther, etc.

 

[Bear Wild]

Huh? Jesus prophesied in all four gospels He would rise again after dying in Jerusalem on the cross.

Written by people after the event creating the beliefs they wanted to establish as true. I do not know of anything written by Jesus himself. There are more than four gospels anyway each with its own point of view.

 

[Audie]

Written by people after the event creating the beliefs they wanted to establish as true. I do not know of anything written by Jesus himself. There are more than four gospels anyway each with its own point of view.

There are lots of people utterly convinced
that angels really led Joseph Smith to the
"gold books".

We notice of course that this incapacity
for reason and immunity to any but their
chosen pov tends to leak over into all subject
areas, however unrelated.

Were they like that all along, hence
so easily taken in by every religious hoax
and crackpot idea that comes along and
seems to fit? I mean, "hydroplate theory"?
Flash frozen mammoths?

Each of them has a different craziness-set
but, they are all immune to common sense.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Which shows it isn't really objective. The core concepts tend to be universal, though.



And we have managed to consider women to be valid members of our societies that deserve equal rights. That took a long time and had to be fought against the religious forces.

Yet not Christianity, which elevated women--Jesus appearing first to women following His resurrection, appointing female apostles, women judging Israel, etc. I think you've sifted religion but not found the right one yet IMHO, if you know what I mean?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Because there are several distinct definitions, which have evolved over time.

For example, the Nicene Creed has been a common minimal set of beliefs for someone to be 'Christian', but that then ignores the Nestorians, Arians, and others.

Paul seems to have one view of who could be in the new religion and Jesus seemed to have a very different idea.

Then, of course, there are all of the more modern interpreters: Calvin, Luther, etc.

But I mentioned Jesus Christ's words, recorded in the Bible. Which would you consider a better defining set of terms, Jesus's words (since "Christian" is English for "Jesus follower") or a council which met 300 years or more after He spoke?

 

[Polymath257]

But I mentioned Jesus Christ's words, recorded in the Bible. Which would you consider a better defining set of terms, Jesus's words (since "Christian" is English for "Jesus follower") or a council which met 300 years or more after He spoke?

Considering Jesus didn't start the religion of Christianity (Paul did, mostly), I'd pick the council for $200.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Written by people after the event creating the beliefs they wanted to establish as true. I do not know of anything written by Jesus himself. There are more than four gospels anyway each with its own point of view.

I wrote, "Huh? Jesus prophesied in all four gospels He would rise again after dying in Jerusalem on the cross."

How would you determine if this was myth or fact, these statements? Do you only accept as true statements taken direct from witnesses? How would you decide a murder trial where someone says, "I witnessed this murder" but the murder victim was unable to speak?

 

[Polymath257]

Yet not Christianity, which elevated women--Jesus appearing first to women following His resurrection, appointing female apostles, women judging Israel, etc. I think you've sifted religion but not found the right one yet IMHO, if you know what I mean?

I'm more of the opinion that anything supernatural is misguided nonsense.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Brass tacks. We can't define Hitler's Christianity or my morality until we define what a Christian is, this without being NTS:

No veg meat > My veg friend eats meat > No true vegetarian eats meat ... isn't NTS.

Jesus said who is a Christian, why is the founder of Christianity’s definition different than your definition?

If you're just going to ignore my points, then forget it. Thanks anyway.

There are thousands of branches/sects/divisions of Christianity. When you guys can sort out amongst yourselves who is a "real" Christian, then get back to me. Until then, you don't have much to tell me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

But I mentioned Jesus Christ's words, recorded in the Bible. Which would you consider a better defining set of terms, Jesus's words (since "Christian" is English for "Jesus follower") or a council which met 300 years or more after He spoke?

How do we know that those are Jesus Christ's words and that they accurately quoted?