What "if" you are wrong

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I said that the Messengers of God are the evidence for God. The person, life, and works of the Messengers are the evidence that they are Messengers.

That's not an argument until you delineate the evidence which leads to that conclusion and explain why you think it must be interpreted as having come through a man from a god. How about if I said that the life and words of Baha'u'llah were evidence for the theory of evolution or for the possibility of travel back in time. Now you ask me what parts of either suggest that conclusion to you, and I answer, "all of it." You would rightfully conclude that I have offered no evidence in support of such claims. That's where I am with your claim that what you call evidence for a god is.

I believe in God on faith and evidence

That's faith. Saying that you have evidence but need faith anyway is saying that your evidence doesn't justify your belief. If the evidence isn't enough to get you to your conclusion about it, but you believe it anyway, you're believing by faith. That's what hard atheists do as well. They're people who claim that gods don't exist, but their evidence, while supportive of that opinion, doesn't justify their conclusion. The NEED faith to assert that gods don't exist, meaning that their claim is unsound even if they have some evidence that gods might not exist.

I have presented examples but then you say "that's not evidence."

You've presented no evidence to me that the messenger was not an ordinary man. I've never seen a single sentence from him that I and millions of others couldn't have written, nor have you or anybody else named any act or series of acts that many ordinary people don't do every day. If you had any, you would post it when asked to, wouldn't you? You don't do that. When I ask you to, you decline. You offer nothing specific. Your vague answer is, "all of it is my evidence."

I never told you that you need to stop thinking and just believe, because that's what pleases God. I only ever told you that you need faith as well as evidence

If I ever believe anything by faith (again), it will mean that I've stopped thinking critically (again). I intend never to do that again. I will conclude what the evidence justifies and nothing more.

One does not first accept that God exists, and then accept what others say God wants. First they look for evidence that indicates that God exists. Then if the evidence is sufficient they believe in God.

Disagree. Don't forget that I have a lot of direct experience with religion. That's not how I came to my beliefs nor anybody else. There was no evidence that the god I believed in, the Christian god - existed before I became a Christian, while I was a Christian, or afterward, and I was already a skilled critical thinker. I entered the religion willing to wait for the evidence to manifest. I willingly suspended disbelief to see if the experience supported a god belief, or, as I worded it then, to try out this ideology and see if it would begin to make sense the way one might walk for a while in a new pair of shoes that don't feel quite right in the hope that they would fit and feel better with time. That never happened, and so I left the religion.

What you're describing is empiricism and critical thought, where one evaluates evidence dispassionately using the rules of reason and believes only as much as that evidence supports. You've correctly stated that no evidence for gods is enough to justify believe in gods by itself - that faith is necessary. I agree. But that is the alternative to empiricism and critical thought. One faith-based thought derails reason the way one faith-based rule in arithmetic derails the process of addition:

If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it​

."- Pastor Peter laRuffa​

Big mistake, and why I say that faith is NOT a virtue. If he uses his faith-based way of adding even once - if he only needs to add two twos together once in a lengthy addition problem, and uses five as their sum - the answer is wrong. Likewise with all reasoning. One piece of non-reasoning (one fallacy, for example), and however good the rest of the thinking is, the answer is unjustified and belief that it is correct is faith-based. Not just a little bit of faith with a lot of valid reasoning. The chain of reasoning is invalid if any link is invalid.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's not an argument until you delineate the evidence which leads to that conclusion and explain why you think it must be interpreted as having come through a man from a god.

I never said that the evidence I presented must be interpreted as having come through a man from a God.
As I have told you on numerous occasions, not everyone is going to interpret the evidence in the same way. Because we each think with a different mind, we each interpret evidence differently. As such, you do not interpret the evidence the same way I do.

That's faith. Saying that you have evidence but need faith anyway is saying that your evidence doesn't justify your belief. If the evidence isn't enough to get you to your conclusion about it, but you believe it anyway, you're believing by faith.

I have evidence but I also need faith because there is no proof that God exists, and that is why faith is necessary. This is not really all that difficult, if you could remove your confirmation bias about faith.

You've presented no evidence to me that the messenger was not an ordinary man. I've never seen a single sentence from him that I and millions of others couldn't have written, nor have you or anybody else named any act or series of acts that many ordinary people don't do every day. If you had any, you would post it when asked to, wouldn't you? You don't do that. When I ask you to, you decline. You offer nothing specific. Your vague answer is, "all of it is my evidence."

Correctly stated, I have presented no evidence that convinces you that the messenger was not an ordinary man.
Just because the evidence does not cause you to believe that Baha'u'llah was more than an ordinary man.....

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

That in no way means that the evidence is not evidence to others that He was more than an ordinary man. It is not evidence for certain people because it causes them to believe, but it is not evidence to you, because it does not cause you to believe because of the way you interpret the evidence.

There was no evidence that the god I believed in, the Christian god - existed before I became a Christian, while I was a Christian, or afterward, and I was already a skilled critical thinker.

There is no evidence that causes you to believe that the God that Jesus revealed exists. That is a correct statement.
There is ample evidence that causes other people to believe that the God that Jesus revealed exists.
It is called the New Testament. Ever heard of it?

I entered the religion willing to wait for the evidence to manifest.

You were waiting for evidence that does not exist because God did not provide it.
God provides whatever evidence He chooses to provide, and if that is not what people want, then they don't have to believe in God.

“Say: O people! Let not this life and its deceits deceive you, for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will. He bestoweth His favor on whom He willeth, and from whom He willeth He taketh it away. He doth whatsoever He chooseth.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 209

That is God 101.

 

[1213]

False. Religions still have their idols, like Jesus Christ, the cross, God, etc. Governments ain secular nations design their structure to manage the diversity of their populations. The funny thing here is that if you claim government is the idol and it's bad, and you admit that religion has its idols, then religions are bad as well. What are you left with? Anarchy?

Being without idols is not necessary anarchy.

This is vague. Is this all you have as an alternative to secular law? Is setting speed limits and creating a limit on how much toxic waste a factory can dump in a river "lawlessness" in your view?

The worst thing in my opinion in modern times is, the law is not the same for all. For example Biden and his "crime" family is not judged the same ways as for example Trump and his friends.

Also, for example murder, nowadays you can get worse sentence for a meme than for raping children.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/21/us/chris-belter-assault-sentence/index.html

MSN

To me that tells lawlessness rules.

Good. Why do you think so many of your fellow Christians fail to love others as commanded by Jesus? It's worse than just being mean people, it is the deliberate deafness to the needs of the many, like women who can't get the reproductive healthcare they need due to vague laws passed by Christian extremists.

What do you mean with "reproductive healthcare", that women can't murder their babies freely?

Right, it's too late to stop gun violence since the gun lobby has been so successful in preventing laws.

No law will ever prevent people to kill others with guns. The only thing gun restriction laws will do is, that they make it easier for criminals to rule

And lax gun laws over the last few decades made it all possible. Easy gun access came from lax gun laws.

Easy gun laws makes it easier for common people to get guns. For criminals it makes no meaningful difference, because obviously they don't care about laws anyway.

Would you say the Lutherans and Catholics who committed the Holocaust were empty and evil?

Why do you think they were Lutherans and Catholics? But, obviously, I think every murderer is evil.

For one the divine right of kings meant that a king could do anything he wants. Look at Trump claiming he has immunity from the crimes he committed as president and afterwards.

It is interesting that parliamentary immunity exists. I am against it. I think all politicians should be judged the same ways as other people.

Parliamentary immunity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He is wrong, but it illustrates the abuse anyone who claims to represent God is above any law created by government and secular law. And look at how republicans in Oklahoma passed a law to ban Sharia law from being enforced. This was a bogus threat but the Christians in government wanted to use their status as Christians in government to smack down Muslims in America.

Secular law means protection for pagans, atheists, Muslims, Hindus, and any other non-Christian group.

I am not sure do I understand correctly. You think it was wrong to ban Sharia law from being enforced? Wouldn't the sharia law go against the protection of others?

The fact is the extreme laws that ban abortion services are even affecting women whose pregnancies are in crisis and can't get the medicare they need, thus putting their lives in danger.

It seems to me that the real problem in this case is that some people are worried that planned parenthood doesn't get enough baby parts to be sold. It is a big business after all and there seems to be many that for some reason want to buy those babies. But what do you think, should the mothers sell their kids for highest bidder, instead of giving them for free?

I think your worry sounds quite hypocrite, when at the same time people were denied for example Ivermectin that could have helped many people.

However, maybe it abortion is better than letting the babies live in a world that hates them. I would allow people to decide the matter for themselves and their children.

If we think women have the right to kill their babies. What do you think, has God the same right, is it ok, if He aborts all evil people?

 

[1213]

So do I. So tell us all this "context" in which it is morally okay to engage in infanticide, genocide, homophobia, ... And don't forget: you need to explain this regardless of a god existing or not.

Is aborting countless number of babies infanticide?

What does homophobia mean?

So when this god orders infanticide, genocide, stoning adulturers, killing gay people when they have sex, keeping slaves, etc.....
Then those can be safely ignored because it "breaks" this "love others" rule?

If people brake the love rule, don't you think they deserve penalty?

If God orders death, it is because person is evil and unrighteous. I think He has the right to decide who can live forever and who can't, because He has given life. Human's can't make that decision, because they have not given life and has not the right to judge.

Meaning that the bible has immoral commandments which violate its very own other commandments?
Meaning that it holds bad teachings?

I don't think it has bad and immoral teachings. Death penalty for evil and unrighteous people is not in my opinion wrong. If the evil people would be allowed to live eternally, they would make life eternal suffering for all. Would that be loving, to allow evil people to turn life into eternal suffering?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have evidence but I also need faith because there is no proof that God exists

I understand that to mean that you believe by faith but want to say that your faith is supported by evidence. You use words like evidence and proof from the world of empiricism, but what you describe is not how empiricism works. One's beliefs are either justified empirically or they are not, in which case faith is required to believe them. It's an either-or thing. All beliefs are either empirically justified or held by faith. None are a bit of each.

I had hoped to explain that with the addition analogy. A sum is either correct or incorrect. No sum is both and no sum is neither (technically known as mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, or MECE sets). Though there may have been hundreds of basic additions as a long column of multi-digit addends are summed, and all but one may have been done correctly, a little bit of error makes it all wrong the way a little bit of faith makes it all faith.

This is not really all that difficult, if you could remove your confirmation bias about faith.

I have no confirmation bias about faith. My position on faith is sound. Belief by faith is a logical error. As just outlined, it is the alternative to empirically justified belief, which is based in valid reasoning applied to evidence to arrive at correct conclusions (knowledge).

It is never correct to believe by faith if one's purpose is to be correct. I understand that belief is used differently by others, who are prone to embrace it when it comforts, and aren't really interested in being correct. I've learned the danger there, and understand that although some ideas may be disconcerting, it is useful to hold them if they are correct and risky to accept the comfort of a faith-based conclusion if it informs choices and behavior. I can give you several examples both from within religion and outside of it (the evidence part of my argument):

It is dangerous to believe by faith that one is immune to snake bites, or that somebody like Jim Jones or David Karesh is god's messenger on earth.

People are stealing the rights of women based in their faith-based religious beliefs, and it's already harming people. People die from such faith-based beliefs.

People will vote for an antidemocratic monster in November based in faith.

People died of Covid needlessly based in faith-based choices regarding vaccines.

People are frequently swindled because they had faith. They didn't do their due diligence and collect the evidence that their trust was justified. Look at how much money people who have faith in Trump or the NRA or televangelists are throwing away, as all of those people live in opulence and see their contributors as suckers.

People are disregarding the warnings of scientists on climate based in faith, and it will cost us all, but it will cost those that don't sell their homes on the Florida coasts, for example, in a timely manner. What do you think Mar-a-Lago will be worth once Floridian hurricanes are so frequent and extreme that nobody will insure it, nobody will buy it, and it's going to blow down? Somebody's going to own that property when that time comes. Who will that be? The one who continued believing by faith that nothing is happening when others had seen the light and sold while there was still a market.

So, as you can see, my distrust and rejection of faith as a path to knowledge is not a confirmation bias, which is another undesirable byproduct of belief by faith generated to defend that belief from contradictory evidence. It is a well-reasoned and evidenced position.

 

[F1fan]

Being without idols is not necessary anarchy.

You claimed government is the new idol, so which is it? If there's no government then a collection of citizens live in anarchy.

The worst thing in my opinion in modern times is, the law is not the same for all. For example Biden and his "crime" family is not judged the same ways as for example Trump and his friends.

Right, Trump has actually committed crimes that he is being held accountable for. Yet MAGA republcians are trying to make a case against Biden that have no evidence. So the same would be for all this nonsense against Biden to stop since there is no evidence of crimes. Hunter Biden has his own issues that is being dealt with, and even his misconduct is not what MAGAs are claiming. MAGAs are wrong.

Also, for example murder, nowadays you can get worse sentence for a meme than for raping children.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/21/us/chris-belter-assault-sentence/index.html

MSN

Incoherent. You mentioned murder for no reason, then referred to a meme without explanation, and then one rape case that does not represent any national or judicial norm.

To me that tells lawlessness rules.

It's one case. Do I need to list thousands of cases where justice it being done to show you are being biased and narrow minded? The guy was arrested and charged. If you don't like his punishment then make an argument about judges and their rulings.

What do you mean with "reproductive healthcare", that women can't murder their babies freely?

The Roe decision meant courts don't refer to abortion services as murder, so incorrect claim. The SC over-ruling of the decision has cast the USA into chaos, and women's lives at risk.

This sort of extremist bias is why we can't have a discussion about reproductive healthcare. You don't seem informed about any of the lawsuits against states that ban abortion services. This is why religious absolutism, idealism, extremism is inconsistent with a stable and functioning modern society.

No law will ever prevent people to kill others with guns. The only thing gun restriction laws will do is, that they make it easier for criminals to rule

False. How does this even make any sense? Limiting gun access means criminals have more access to guns? More of your repeating MAGAmedia disinformation? We know better.

Easy gun laws makes it easier for common people to get guns. For criminals it makes no meaningful difference, because obviously they don't care about laws anyway.

False. A law that requires ALL gun sales to go through dealers means any buyer will have to pass a background check. And there should be a program to buy back guns and have them recycled for other uses. We need to reduce the number of guns.

You might come back with the claim that criminals already have guns. Yup, and that's due to lax gun laws so far. It will take time for criminals to get caught with these illegal guns and at some point the availability will decline. Let's note that it's a good that the Crumbley shooter's parents were found complicit in his mass murder.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/oxford-school-shooting-ethan-crumbley-parents.html

Why do you think they were Lutherans and Catholics? But, obviously, I think every murderer is evil.

Because they were. German citizens are a majority Catholic and Lutheran. These Christians committed the Holocaust. Belief in Jesus guarantees nothing where it comes to being moral and decent. We see it being cover for evil and cruelty. I suggest those who limit reproductive healthcare for women are close to being evil. They value their extremist ideology over the well-being of women (who the "pro-life" attitude doesn't apply).

It is interesting that parliamentary immunity exists. I am against it. I think all politicians should be judged the same ways as other people.

Parliamentary immunity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Good, then you accept Trump's indictments and punishments so far. He's not above the law.

I am not sure do I understand correctly. You think it was wrong to ban Sharia law from being enforced? Wouldn't the sharia law go against the protection of others?

Yes it was wrong. And the courts agreed. I thought you might be aware of the issue as it made national news. No, the Sharia law had no public or civil enforcement. The republicans in Oklahoma just wanted to use their authority in government to wage a religious war.

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/court-upholds-ruling-blocking-oklahoma-sharia-and-international-law-ban#:~:text=DENVER%2C%20CO%20–%20A%20federal%20appeals,”%20and%20“international%20law.”

Republicans use their authority in ways that are illegal and un-American, and unconstitutional. Look at the border dispute with Texas and the Federal government.

https://www.npr.org/2024/01/30/1227828620/the-dispute-between-texas-and-the-white-house-over-border-control-escalates

It seems to me that the real problem in this case is that some people are worried that planned parenthood doesn't get enough baby parts to be sold. It is a big business after all and there seems to be many that for some reason want to buy those babies. But what do you think, should the mothers sell their kids for highest bidder, instead of giving them for free?

Oh, is this disinformation still being spread around? This claim lost in a lawsuit. You are wrong.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/fd/de/fddee2ba-5ae1-4a89-9c4f-7e72c8a4db02/210218-fact-sheet-cmp-fetal-tissue-backgrounder-prod.pdf

Get your facts right if you are going to debate in an open forum. You are wrong.

https://www.npr.org/2016/01/28/464594826/in-wake-of-videos-planned-parenthood-investigations-find-no-fetal-tissue-sales

I think your worry sounds quite hypocrite, when at the same time people were denied for example Ivermectin that could have helped many people.

More disinformation. Why didn't you fact check four year old falsehood? You are wrong.

Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19

Using the Drug ivermectin to treat COVID-19 can be dangerous and even lethal. The FDA has not approved the drug for that purpose.

www.fda.gov

However, maybe it abortion is better than letting the babies live in a world that hates them. I would allow people to decide the matter for themselves and their children.

This is hyperbolic, and ignores the facts of flaws in human biology and reproduction. If human reproduction was a perfect and flawless process then you might have an argument. But your extremist position is that anti-abortion laws apply to cases where there are problems in reproduction and women are refused the healthcare they need for their well-being. Lawsuits have been filed and they will win.

More women join lawsuit challenging Texas’ abortion laws

Twenty women are challenging the state’s abortion laws, saying they were unable to get the health care they needed for their medically complex pregnancies.

www.texastribune.org

If we think women have the right to kill their babies. What do you think, has God the same right, is it ok, if He aborts all evil people?

More hyperbolic nonsense that makes no argument against the actual issues. This illustrates the blindness and sickness of religious extremism.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The worst thing in my opinion in modern times is, the law is not the same for all. For example Biden and his "crime" family is not judged the same ways as for example Trump and his friends.

You're talking about Trump, who pardoned convicted criminals, who promises to release the convicted J6 insurrectionists, and would pardon himself despite being a criminal.

There is no Biden crime family, but there is a Trump crime family. Only one Biden has legal trouble, but father Trump and his two sons have recently had their family business, which has been adjudicated a criminal enterprise, shut down, and all are forbidden from being in business in New York for several years.

And there is no double standard here. Every Biden for whom charges could be brought has been indicted.

What do you mean with "reproductive healthcare", that women can't murder their babies freely?

We're talking about embryos and fetuses, not babies, and murder is a legal term. If abortion is not illegal, then performing it is not murder.

No law will ever prevent people to kill others with guns.

Agreed. The goal is to minimize that, since prevention seems to be impossible. It's the same with drunk driving deaths. No laws will prevent them, but good laws and good law enforcement can reduce its incidence.

It seems to me that the real problem in this case is that some people are worried that planned parenthood doesn't get enough baby parts to be sold.

That's more Christian disinformation and scurrilous lying.

people were denied for example Ivermectin that could have helped many people.

You listen to the wrong sources. A physician has a duty to NOT prescribe medications that have not been shown to be safe and efficacious. Ivermectin | COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines

maybe it abortion is better than letting the babies live in a world that hates them. I would allow people to decide the matter for themselves and their children.

Of course you wouldn't. You have zero support for women making that choice themselves. You support forcing unwanted pregnancies to term. But yes, perhaps it is better to not force women to have babies they don't want for the potential child as well as the potential mother.

If people brake the love rule, don't you think they deserve penalty?

Do you think that you are entitled to love, and that if you don't get it from everybody, those that don't love you deserve to be punished?

If God orders death, it is because person is evil and unrighteous

No, it would be because the deity is a killer and nobody could stop it from killing. Moreover, if this deity has created a torture chamber for the purpose of forcing gratuitous suffering on souls it keeps conscious just to make them suffer, then that deity deserves to be the only prisoner in it, and if one had the power, he would be justified in damning it for eternity there just as it would do to others.

I don't think it has bad and immoral teachings.

I've just named a few. As you can see, many find this religion and its deity immoral. You can't allow yourself to make such moral judgments against your god. It's part of the cost of believing that it can read your mind and will punish you for thought crimes, which would also be immoral by humanist standards.

 

[Trailblazer]

No law will ever prevent people to kill others with guns. The only thing gun restriction laws will do is, that they make it easier for criminals to rule

Gun laws have worked to eliminate gun deaths in Japan.
Compare/contrast gun laws in Japan to the United States.

Japan has almost completely eliminated gun deaths — here's how

• Japan is a country of more than 127 million people, but it rarely sees more than 10 gun deaths a year.
• Culture is one reason for the low rate, but gun control is a major one, too.
• Japan has a long list of tests that applicants must pass before gaining access to a small pool of guns.

Japan has almost completely eliminated gun deaths — here's how

The weapons law of Japan begins by stating "No one shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords", and very few exceptions are allowed. Citizens are permitted to possess firearms for hunting and sport shooting, but only after submitting to a lengthy licensing procedure.

Overview of gun laws by nation - Wikipedia

“The only guns that Japanese citizens can legally buy and use are shotguns and air rifles, and it’s not easy to do. The process is detailed in David Kopel’s landmark study on Japanese gun control, published in the 1993 Asia Pacific Law Review, still cited as current. (Kopel, no left-wing loony, is a member of the National Rifle Association and once wrote in National Review that looser gun control laws could have stopped Adolf Hitler.)

To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you’ll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don’t forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.

Even the most basic framework of Japan’s approach to gun ownership is almost the polar opposite of America’s. U.S. gun law begins with the second amendment's affirmation of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” and narrows it down from there. Japanese law, however, starts with the 1958 act stating that “No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords,” later adding a few exceptions. In other words, American law is designed to enshrine access to guns, while Japan starts with the premise of forbidding it.”

From: A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths

This policy in Japan is very similar to the Laws in the Baha’i Faith:

173. It hath been forbidden you to carry arms unless essential # 159

Bahá’u’lláh confirms an injunction contained in the Bayán which makes it unlawful to carry arms, unless it is necessary to do so. With regard to circumstances under which the bearing of arms might be “essential” for an individual, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá gives permission to a believer for self-protection in a dangerous environment. Shoghi Effendi in a letter written on his behalf has also indicated that, in an emergency, when there is no legal force at hand to appeal to, a Bahá’í is justified in defending his life. There are a number of other situations in which weapons are needed and can be legitimately used; for instance, in countries where people hunt for their food and clothing, and in such sports as archery, marksmanship, and fencing.
The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, pp. 240-241

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is aborting countless number of babies infanticide?

No.

What does homophobia mean?

As if you don't know...

If people brake the love rule, don't you think they deserve penalty?

I said: "infanticide, genocide, stoning adulturers, killing gay people when they have sex, keeping slaves, "

What rule was broken that justified the indiscriminate killings of babies, toddlers, people of a certain ethnicity, people who had sex,...?

If God orders death, it is because person is evil and unrighteous.

Including babies and toddlers, all people of a certain ethnicity, people who had sex "the wrong way",...

Right.

I think He has the right to decide who can live forever and who can't, because He has given life. Human's can't make that decision, because they have not given life and has not the right to judge.

Uhu. So IOW, "might makes right".

I don't think it has bad and immoral teachings.

I do and I just gave you a couple. Your response was dancing all around it and basically just saying "it was right because god said it was".
You are just confirming my point and demonstrating the sheer immorality of "divine command theory".

Death penalty for evil and unrighteous people is not in my opinion wrong. If the evil people would be allowed to live eternally, they would make life eternal suffering for all. Would that be loving, to allow evil people to turn life into eternal suffering?

How about: giving them a chance to repent and turn their ways around?
Isn't your religion supposed to be all about that?

 

[1213]

No.

Ok, then "God killing babies" is also not infanticide.

As if you don't know...

Please give your definition. It helps to show the problem with your ridiculous accusation.

What rule was broken that justified the indiscriminate killings of babies, toddlers, people of a certain ethnicity, people who had sex,...?

Bible tells eternal life is for righteous. So, if one doesn't live eternally, it means he is not righteous. Going against God's will can tell that person is not righteous. And gay sex is one of such things, but not the only one.

But, it is possible that God allows also righteous person to die, for example Jesus. In Biblical point of view it is not the end. Righteous people can have eternal life with God. That is why I don't see a problem, if a body dies. It is not the end. If God allows innocent child to die, I believe the child can have eternal life with God and therefore I have no reason to say God does wrongly.

But, I think also that God has the right to decide how long life He gives. If He would give only short life for all, I would have not just reason to complain, because no one has done anything to deserve more.

and basically just saying "it was right because god said it was".

In that case you don't seem to understand my point.

How about: giving them a chance to repent and turn their ways around?

By what I see, God gives much time to repent.

 

[1213]

Gun laws have worked to eliminate gun deaths in Japan.
Compare/contrast gun laws in Japan to the United States.

Thank you. It would be interesting to compare for example Sweden and Japan. I may be wrong, but I think Sweden has about as strict laws, but it is still very deadly place nowadays.

I believe the reason for difference in Japan is not the laws, but the culture that makes people live more peacefully.

 

[1213]

You're talking about Trump, who pardoned convicted criminals, who promises to release the convicted J6 insurrectionists, and would pardon himself despite being a criminal.

I think there is no good lawful reason to keep the J6 tourists in jail, if they have not done any crime, like most of them didn't do. Many of those who are in jail, are without just reason, and it is sad that U.S has become like some kind of communist third world dictatorship under Bidler's regime.

We're talking about embryos and fetuses, not babies, and murder is a legal term. If abortion is not illegal, then performing it is not murder.

Then I have no good reason to think God would not have right to abort any human. If person is morally and spiritually in lesser state than a fetus, there should be no reason to complain, if God aborts such a person.

...No laws will prevent them, but good laws and good law enforcement can reduce its incidence.

I believe stricter gun laws will increase murders.

That's more Christian disinformation and scurrilous lying.

There seems to be evidence for that it happens.

Planned Parenthood Faces New Allegations Of Selling Aborted Fetal Tissue To UCSD | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

You listen to the wrong sources. A physician has a duty to NOT prescribe medications that have not been shown to be safe and efficacious.

Like the "vaccines"?

You support forcing unwanted pregnancies to term.

I don't support unwanted pregnancies. If they don't want to get pregnant, they should not have sex.

But, I think it is fascinating how atheists often have no problem, if mothers kill their babies, but if God kills, then it is a problem. I would like to know why the difference.

Do you think that you are entitled to love, and that if you don't get it from everybody, those that don't love you deserve to be punished?

In Biblical point of view love means people don't do anything evil to others. I don't say I should get anything from others, I just think people should not do evil things to others.

...Moreover, if this deity has created a torture chamber for the purpose of forcing gratuitous suffering on souls it keeps conscious just to make them suffer,...

I have no reason to believe that. By what is said in the Bible, eternal life is only for righteous. If one doesn't live, how could he suffer or feel anything?
These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Matt. 25:46
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23
Don't be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna [also translated hell].
Matt. 10:28

But, I don't think God has to make anyone to suffer. People make their own suffering. And, if it would be so, that unrighteous and evil people would just be separated to their own place, where they could be without God, as they wish, they would make it eternal suffering for them all, by their own actions and desires. I believe it would be too cruel, which is why I believe evil people are in the end destroyed. And I don't see any problem with that, if is done by God, who also gave the life in the first place.

 

[1213]

You claimed government is the new idol, so which is it? If there's no government then a collection of citizens live in anarchy.

Anarchy can mean to be without any order. Order can exist without a government, which is why getting rid of all evil governments doesn't necessary mean disorder.

Right, Trump has actually committed crimes that he is being held accountable for. Yet MAGA republcians are trying to make a case against Biden that have no evidence. So the same would be for all this nonsense against Biden to stop since there is no evidence of crimes.

I think the biggest crime of Bidler's regime has been to go against the constitution and freedom of speech. Unfortunately there seems to be no consequences for him, for going against the oath he has made.

Because they were. German citizens are a majority Catholic and Lutheran. These Christians committed the Holocaust. Belief in Jesus guarantees nothing where it comes to being moral and decent.

I don't see any reason to believe they believed Jesus, which is why I don't see any reason to call them Christians.

No, the Sharia law had no public or civil enforcement.

But, isn't that what Muslims want? Should it be accepted, if they want so? If not, I think you agree with the Christians who oppose it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok, then "God killing babies" is also not infanticide.

No. Infanticide concerns born children. Babies, infants, toddlers...
It does not concern embryo's.

Please give your definition. It helps to show the problem with your ridiculous accusation.

"ridiculous accusation"? So the bible does not consider homosexuality a "sin" and it doesn't call for the death of "men who lay with men as if with a woman", ie: homosexual sex?

Bible tells eternal life is for righteous. So, if one doesn't live eternally, it means he is not righteous. Going against God's will can tell that person is not righteous. And gay sex is one of such things, but not the only one.

You are dancing all around. Nobody is talking about imaginary life after death.
We are talking about killing people that are biologically alive.

But, it is possible that God allows also righteous person to die, for example Jesus. In Biblical point of view it is not the end. Righteous people can have eternal life with God. That is why I don't see a problem, if a body dies. It is not the end.

So why do you care about abortion?
Consistency is not your strong suit it seems.

Also note how little value you place on life in defense of your religious biblical beliefs.
It has you saying disturbing things like "not seeing a problem if a body dies".

If God allows innocent child to die, I believe the child can have eternal life

And yet you have a problem with abortion.

Also, we are not talking about this supposed god supposedly "allowing" innocents to die.
We are instead talking about this supposed god actively engaging and / or commanding genocidal and infanticidal killing sprees.

with God and therefore I have no reason to say God does wrongly.

Right, because your biblical beliefs have made you morally bankrupt. "might makes right" is your morality.
In your mind, rape and murder would be morally justified, even a moral duty, if your god commands it merely by virtue of this perceived authority commanding it.

But, I think also that God has the right to decide how long life He gives. If He would give only short life for all, I would have not just reason to complain, because no one has done anything to deserve more.

See? Morally bankrupt. Might makes right.

In that case you don't seem to understand my point.

It is exactly what you are saying, and you just confirmed it once more in the previous paragraphes.

By what I see, God gives much time to repent.

God isn't the one issuing death penalties.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think there is no good lawful reason to keep the J6 tourists in jail, if they have not done any crime, like most of them didn't do.

The J6 criminals who have been convicted have been convicted of crimes, and Trump has promised to pardon them despite being convicted criminals that have never been exonerated.

it is sad that U.S has become like some kind of communist third world dictatorship under Bidler's regime.

The wannabe dictator is Trump, who intends to pardon criminals left and right, including himself. Joe is a kind, compassionate, wise, and experienced man who defends democracy from the likes of Trump and the people who vote for him.

Then I have no good reason to think God would not have right to abort any human.

The god you believe in would be the chief abortionist in the universe if it existed. There are FAR more miscarriages than intended abortions.

I believe stricter gun laws will increase murders.

There is data available on the subject. Does data matter to you, or do you just believe things without it or despite it?

I don't support unwanted pregnancies.

Really? That's not very Handmaid's Tale of you. The Christians on the Supreme Court disagree with you.

But you've moved the goalpost. My comment was, "You support forcing unwanted pregnancies to term." Did you want to address THAT? Do you deny it? Do you think that a pregnant woman who wants an abortion should be forced to give birth to that fetus against her will (rhetorical question - of course you do)?

In Biblical point of view love means people don't do anything evil to others.

Really? That's pretty far from this humanist's understanding of what love is and entails. I guess that by your definition, most of us outside of your religion already love almost all of humanity, since we don't know most of them and have no chance to act with malice toward them. Love is more than that to me.

I don't think God has to make anyone to suffer.

The god you believe in inflicts gratuitous suffering on much of mankind in its petulant, intolerant rage. It created hell for that purpose.

I believe evil people are in the end destroyed. And I don't see any problem with that, if is done by God, who also gave the life in the first place.

Your Christian values are FAR from my humanist values. A humanist would consider that immoral.

 

[F1fan]

Anarchy can mean to be without any order. Order can exist without a government, which is why getting rid of all evil governments doesn't necessary mean disorder.

Really? Give us examples of a large society that has no government and has civil order. Realize even churches have governing hierarchies. So explain your claim here.

I think the biggest crime of Bidler's regime has been to go against the constitution and freedom of speech.

Give us examples of each of these claims. What has Biden done against the constitution, and what has he done against the 1st amendment?

Unfortunately there seems to be no consequences for him, for going against the oath he has made.

As Trump claims and the law has verified, presidents have certain levels of immunity. Of course you haven't actually stated and demonstrated that Biden has done anything wrong.

I don't see any reason to believe they believed Jesus, which is why I don't see any reason to call them Christians.

Is it up to you, and anyone else, to decide who is Christians and who isn't? You've heard of the No True Scotsman fallacy, haven't you?

Why do you think the German Catholics and Lutherans weren't Christian? Give us your definition, and tell us if you fit into it.

But, isn't that what Muslims want?

If Muslims want to live by Sharia law how can the government stop them? No theist can execute another even if their religion says they can since secular laws supercede religious law. But Muslims in the USA can still apply Sharia law in their community as long as it doesn't violate secular law. If you disagree, explain.

Should it be accepted, if they want so?

Christians get to home school their kids and indoctrinate them, so why can't Muslims have their rules for their families and religious community?

If not, I think you agree with the Christians who oppose it.

Accepting religious freedom is not the same as agreeing with it. I oppose indocrination of children and think it should be illegal. But I have to accept that it is legal, and may harm certain young people who had the bad luck of being born in a family of religious extremists.

Did you notice that the Christian extremists in Oklahoma who banned Sharia law were knocked down by the Supreme Court for being unconstitutional?

 

[Dawnofhope]

To all that believe a god does exist and those that believe(or lack belief) a god does not exist.....
What if you are wrong? Will it matter?

People believe or disbelieve in God or gods for all sorts of reasons. The existence of the God of Abraham is what I grew up with. It makes sense and animates my life to some extent. If God doesn't exist at all and there is no God, then it matters little. What is important I do the best to be attuned to 'truth' and life the best I can each day.

 

[Trailblazer]

Thank you. It would be interesting to compare for example Sweden and Japan. I may be wrong, but I think Sweden has about as strict laws, but it is still very deadly place nowadays.

Thanks, I did not know that about Sweden.

I believe the reason for difference in Japan is not the laws, but the culture that makes people live more peacefully.

I think it is both the culture and the laws.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't support unwanted pregnancies. If they don't want to get pregnant, they should not have sex.

Well said. Nobody needs sex unless they want to have a child. People only want sex.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Thank you. It would be interesting to compare for example Sweden and Japan. I may be wrong, but I think Sweden has about as strict laws, but it is still very deadly place nowadays.

I believe the reason for difference in Japan is not the laws, but the culture that makes people live more peacefully.

Also possibly because Japan has more restrictive immigration policies?