• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Zero Probability of Evolution. Atheism wrong?

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
If my God is evil, why does He ask me to support the poor, love my neighbor, obey local laws and promote harmony, peace and understanding? What if you and I are evil? Why should I follow your moral code or vice versa?

Atheist, please!

You are not thinking logically. Just because a god may ask you to do some good does not also mean that he is not evil. It appears that you have never read the Bible. The God of the Bible advocates slavery, orders genocide, is vain and petty. Theists that believe in Satan understand how the Devil can make things look good on a small level to tempt people in. By their standards you bought into a greater evil.

Dodging the question is a way of admitting that you are wrong. So once again, what if your God is evil? If one takes the Bible literally it is impossible for an honest moral person to say that God is not evil.
 

Phantasman

Well-Known Member
1. The NT is Greek, not Aramaic (and not Hebrew originally either, though some wish it was.

2. You are skipping verses that say things like "The Spirit of God is the Spirit of Jesus," Jesus being a male child per the prophecies.
What verse says "the spirit of God is the spirit of Jesus". Being male or female physically means nothing. Jesus died. Christ didn't. Christ means anointed by the Spirit (capital S). We follow Jesus to become anointed by the Spirit as well. To become Christ.

John 1:
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Secret James:
The Lord answered and said: "Truly I say to you, none will be saved unless they believe in my cross. But those who have believed in my cross, theirs is the Kingdom of God. Therefore, become seekers for death, just as the dead who seek for life, for that which they seek is revealed to them. And what is there to concern them? When you turn yourselves towards death, it will make known to you election. In truth I say to you, none of those who are afraid of death will be saved. For the Kingdom of God belongs to those who have put themselves to death. Become better than I; make yourselves like the son of the Holy Spirit."

Gospel of Philip:
Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way. There is a rebirth and an image of rebirth. It is certainly necessary to be born again through the image. Which one? Resurrection. The image must rise again through the image. The bridal chamber and the image must enter through the image into the truth: this is the restoration. Not only must those who produce the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, do so, but have produced them for you. If one does not acquire them, the name ("Christian") will also be taken from him. But one receives the unction of the [...] of the power of the cross. This power the apostles called "the right and the left." For this person is no longer a Christian but a Christ.

The baptism of fire is what made Jesus the Christ. It does the same for men (women). Unless you believe as the orthodox priests teach.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Wow, I already said all morals are subjective, even biblical morals. I also said rape is ALWAYS wrong so you jumped to the God conclusion, which is wholly unsurprising, yet another skeptic who must have all morals as subjective. Because only moral relativists can sin and sin and then accuse Christian of being "judgy". Sigh.
Then how are you claiming objective moral truths?

P.S. I'm not a moral relativist and have never claimed to be. If you think I am, then you don't know what a moral relativist is. You should probably re-read my posts where I explained secular morality.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Sure! You prove you exist and that your moral opinions are NOT objective in nature and I'll prove God exists and bears objective morals.

What does one have to do with the other?

I already said all morals are subjective, even biblical morals.

Got it. All morals are objective. Then there's no need to prove to you that our morals aren't objective as you asked above because you already know that all morals are subjective.

yet another skeptic who must have all morals as subjective.

What? Doesn't that describe you? You just said as much.

If my God is evil, why does He ask me to support the poor, love my neighbor, obey local laws and promote harmony, peace and understanding?

Jeffrey Dahmer might have been kind to kittens and puppies. So what?

I've yet to meet a skeptic anywhere in this world who can justify why rape is sometimes okay-

Most of us wouldn't even try.

one reason you dislike what you feel in the Bible's condoning of rape, yes?

Most of think so.

Unless you can give an example of rape being right, who am I to NOT say rape is objectively wrong?

Because it's not. Nothing is objectively wrong if there is o such thing as objective moral values. Objective refers to objects, and there is no object out there called a moral value. Your own words were that all moral values are subjective.

Feel free to give an example of justified rape so I can retract my position.

You're still confusing objective moral values with universal moral values.

Anyway, you haven't made your case for either objective moral values or a god behind them.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Why would you need a god to command you to love your neighbors, live charitably and sacrificially, honor your leaders, obey the laws of the land, promote peace and harmony? Most atheists do so simply because it's in everybody's best interest including themselves.

1. Most skeptics live self-centered, not others-centered lives.

2. I go beyond all this to love my enemies. Skeptics (sometimes) forgive their enemies, but NEVER love them, a supernatural quality!
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Of course it doesn't. One might say killing is wrong. But it isn't in circumstances where not killing would be worse for the well-being and survival of the society or the people in it. In theory if you were in a position where raping somebody would save the lives of a thousand people then raping would be moral since not raping would have worse consequences. Since there are no realistic situations where raping can be more beneficial than not raping some people can claim that in practice rape can be said to be objectively wrong. But that has nothing to do with the existence of a god. It simply means that there are no or very few circumstances where rape is more beneficial than detrimental to the well-being of the society and the people in it.

So you're the rapist and you say, "take it and let's save 1,000 people" or do you also apologize because you know rape REMAINS ALWAYS WRONG.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
You are not thinking logically. Just because a god may ask you to do some good does not also mean that he is not evil. It appears that you have never read the Bible. The God of the Bible advocates slavery, orders genocide, is vain and petty. Theists that believe in Satan understand how the Devil can make things look good on a small level to tempt people in. By their standards you bought into a greater evil.

Dodging the question is a way of admitting that you are wrong. So once again, what if your God is evil? If one takes the Bible literally it is impossible for an honest moral person to say that God is not evil.

What if God is evil, what? "What if God is evil?" is a question, but what is it you wish to know from me?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
What verse says "the spirit of God is the spirit of Jesus". Being male or female physically means nothing. Jesus died. Christ didn't. Christ means anointed by the Spirit (capital S). We follow Jesus to become anointed by the Spirit as well. To become Christ.

John 1:
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Secret James:
The Lord answered and said: "Truly I say to you, none will be saved unless they believe in my cross. But those who have believed in my cross, theirs is the Kingdom of God. Therefore, become seekers for death, just as the dead who seek for life, for that which they seek is revealed to them. And what is there to concern them? When you turn yourselves towards death, it will make known to you election. In truth I say to you, none of those who are afraid of death will be saved. For the Kingdom of God belongs to those who have put themselves to death. Become better than I; make yourselves like the son of the Holy Spirit."

Gospel of Philip:
Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way. There is a rebirth and an image of rebirth. It is certainly necessary to be born again through the image. Which one? Resurrection. The image must rise again through the image. The bridal chamber and the image must enter through the image into the truth: this is the restoration. Not only must those who produce the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, do so, but have produced them for you. If one does not acquire them, the name ("Christian") will also be taken from him. But one receives the unction of the [...] of the power of the cross. This power the apostles called "the right and the left." For this person is no longer a Christian but a Christ.

The baptism of fire is what made Jesus the Christ. It does the same for men (women). Unless you believe as the orthodox priests teach.

One of several examples is in Philippians 1: For I know that this will turn out for my deliverance through your prayer and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, 20 according to my earnest expectation and hope that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ will be magnified in my body, whether by life or by death.

And of course there is ONE Spirit.

This leads to another issue, from John 16:

Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. 8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; 11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.

Yet another reason why people must choose between gospels and apocrypha, but cannot logically have both.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
1. Most skeptics live self-centered, not others-centered lives.

That's preposterous. In America, politicized Christianity is very self-centered. The church works incessantly to impose its religious values on the society at large, including non-Christians. It's idea of religious freedom is religious freedom for some Christians, and the rest of Americans be damned.

It's known as Christian exceptionalism, or a sense of Christian privilege. It rears its ugly head at Christmastime, when if a Christian puts up a billboard promoting Christianity, it's a beautiful and wholesome thing, but if a billboard celebrating reason over faith goes up beside it, there is outrage and vandalism.

It's the secular humanists, who are generally politically liberal, that are focusing their attention outward at children LGBT issues, women's reproductive rights, racial equality, economic and education opportunity, access to affordable health care and the like. Christians tend to vote with the Republicans, who are all about concentrating wealth, power, and privilege.

2. I go beyond all this to love my enemies. Skeptics (sometimes) forgive their enemies, but NEVER love them, a supernatural quality!

You keep saying this even as you continually slander atheists as you are again in this post. This is just you virtue signalling - trying to appear virtuous with words.

Recommending loving enemies is foolish advice. An enemy is a person who has harmed you, or wants to harm you. It's foolish to embrace such a person. Doing so is not a virtue. It's a mistake.

The most an enemy can hope for is that you don't seek revenge. The best thing one can do regarding an enemy is separate oneself from that enemy, and not carry a grudge.

One skill necessary to a life well lived is to be a good judge of people and surround yourself with the best of them - those who are reliable, honorable, considerate, kind, wise, and the like, nor whatever it is you mean by loving enemies - a concept you have steadfastly refused to define or illustrate in the past when asked. I asked you what you do with enemies that you are calling love and now are calling a supernatural quality, but you declined to answer. so I assumed that had nothing.

Let's see how you respond this time. What is it that you claim to do with enemies that a non-Christian doesn't do that you consider loving, and why is that a virtue?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Then how are you claiming objective moral truths?

P.S. I'm not a moral relativist and have never claimed to be. If you think I am, then you don't know what a moral relativist is. You should probably re-read my posts where I explained secular morality.

My moral code has rules or precepts for dozens of life's moral choices, same as you. My moral code is subjective, same as you.

I have a moral concept, a subset of my whole moral code, touching the rape of a man or woman. Here's where we differ, I seem to be the sole person on the forum who thinks rape is always wrong, not sometimes wrong. Skeptics seem to feel:

1. Rape is sometimes right, that is, it is subjectively wrong, leading to uphold another of their principles, that
2. NOTHING is objectively true, as everyone knows that
3. Objective things, especially objective, timeless morals, show the need for a timeless morals giver, God
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
What does one have to do with the other?



Got it. All morals are objective. Then there's no need to prove to you that our morals aren't objective as you asked above because you already know that all morals are subjective.



What? Doesn't that describe you? You just said as much.



Jeffrey Dahmer might have been kind to kittens and puppies. So what?



Most of us wouldn't even try.



Most of think so.



Because it's not. Nothing is objectively wrong if there is o such thing as objective moral values. Objective refers to objects, and there is no object out there called a moral value. Your own words were that all moral values are subjective.



You're still confusing objective moral values with universal moral values.

Anyway, you haven't made your case for either objective moral values or a god behind them.

I think the issue we are having is we are not parsing statutes inside the code. I have a subjective moral code, yes, with dozens of axioms inside it, such as "some moral decisions aren't black and white and there is room for choice" and "rape is always wrong".

If you can show me how a rape of a man or woman can be a good moral choice, I will agree that "rape is wrong" is subjective. If you are unable to do so, I must repeat how "rape is wrong" is an objective statement. Where is the flaw in my logic here?

For example, 2+3=5 is always true, not subjectively true, but objectively true. If you have a proof of 2+3≠5, I will say by necessity that 2+3=5 is subjectively, not objectively, true.

I don't see the need for word salad, if we can agree that objective vs. subjective has to do with facts versus choice or speculation. Do you have an example of "right rape" for me or no?

Rape is wrong is clearly NOT a universal moral value. Ask any rapist! Ask cultures overseas who rape routinely as a weapon of war! I believe, however, that even if not held to universally, those who dissent are objectively (always) wrong.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Here's where we differ, I seem to be the sole person on the forum who thinks rape is always wrong, not sometimes wrong.
Then you're not paying attention. Most of us would agree that we feel that rape is always wrong, including me. Where we differ is that you call this an objective moral truth even as you frequently also post that all moral values are subjective.

Skeptics seem to feel:

1. Rape is sometimes right, that is, it is subjectively wrong, leading to uphold another of their principles, that
2. NOTHING is objectively true, as everyone knows that
3. Objective things, especially objective, timeless morals, show the need for a timeless morals giver, God

1. This skeptic feels that rape is never right, and that that is a subjective determination that is true only for those that agree with it
2. Many things are objectively true, such as the earth warms the earth. "Even a blind man knows when the sun is shining" because of that warmth.
3. The objectively real is what exists even if all conscious observers of iit disappear. It exists outside of our heads, and is at least in principle demonstrable. Show us either this god or an objective moral truth. Where should I look for it? In the ocean? Should I bring a microoscope? In the sky? Is it naked-eye visible, or will I need a telescope?

If you can show me how a rape of a man or woman can be a good moral choice, I will agree that "rape is wrong" is subjective.

I've already told you that I can't show you either that rape is a good or bad moral choice. I can only give you my subject take on it. All I can show you are the consequences of rape. If that doesn't activate your moral compass to oppose such activity, then it doesn't, and for you, rape is not wrong - a subjective judgment just like its opposite. There is no moral value pertaining to rape outside of the minds of moral agents. The value has no objective reality, nor the statement that rape is wrong or right any truth value.

If you are unable to do so, I must repeat how "rape is wrong" is an objective statement. Where is the flaw in my logic here?

I can't make you see it. The flaw is simply that you keep calling a subjective moral choice an objectively true entity, yet cannot demonstrate that value outside of a mind.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
What if God is evil, what? "What if God is evil?" is a question, but what is it you wish to know from me?

You went off the rails with your claims about your version of God. We were discussing morality. Now I could show how your version of God is rather evil, but it appears that you already know this. You do not seem to understand that all morals are subjective. Some are arguable superior to others. What we should be doing as human beings is to try to improve our morals. When one uses an outdated source moral improvement is impeded.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
My moral code has rules or precepts for dozens of life's moral choices, same as you. My moral code is subjective, same as you.

I have a moral concept, a subset of my whole moral code, touching the rape of a man or woman. Here's where we differ, I seem to be the sole person on the forum who thinks rape is always wrong, not sometimes wrong. Skeptics seem to feel:

1. Rape is sometimes right, that is, it is subjectively wrong, leading to uphold another of their principles, that
2. NOTHING is objectively true, as everyone knows that
3. Objective things, especially objective, timeless morals, show the need for a timeless morals giver, God

That is because you do not understand what subjective and objective are. And you keep strawmanning the debate. That is not honest on your part. As a supposed Christian you should not do that.

A certain act that everyone else finds vial may be found not to be wrong in a specific person's morals. I would argue that his morals are inferior to mine.

For example if a person ordered genocide, and thought that it was moral I would say that his morals were inferior to mine. If a person supported slavery I would say that his morals were inferior to mine. Do you understand this? That person may think that what he is doing is moral. He may even claim that his actions are "objectively correct", that does not make it the case. His actions are only subjectively wrong since there is no "objective".

Now if one first sets up a subjective moral system all actions may be objectively or subjectively right or wrong within that system. Perhaps this is where your confusion comes from. Within your system an action may be objectively wrong, but that does not make it objectively wrong for all systems. There are those who will not see that almost anything is objectively wrong. Psychopaths have different morals from me and hopefully you. Even within their own system they can be "moral".

In a society we make our own morals and as time goes by our morals improve. If one relies on the Bible, which is loaded with moral flaws, one's morality tends to get stuck in the past. Morals in religious societies are almost always worse than morals in secular societies. They do not improve as quickly as those not tied to an out dated moral system.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I did answer your question. I used a question to answer you. Why are you still not answering most of the questions I've asked of you for weeks now?
Yeah, so that's not an answer. It's a deflection.

I explained my system of morality to you. You have yet to even acknowledge anything I've said about it and/or to explain your system.
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
My moral code has rules or precepts for dozens of life's moral choices, same as you. My moral code is subjective, same as you.
And they are ... ? How can we come to know these things?

I have a moral concept, a subset of my whole moral code, touching the rape of a man or woman. Here's where we differ, I seem to be the sole person on the forum who thinks rape is always wrong, not sometimes wrong. Skeptics seem to feel:

1. Rape is sometimes right, that is, it is subjectively wrong, leading to uphold another of their principles, that
2. NOTHING is objectively true, as everyone knows that
3. Objective things, especially objective, timeless morals, show the need for a timeless morals giver, God
I don't know what the big focus on rape is with you.

You keep saying rape is always wrong, but you have not grounded that in anything other than your say-so and some claim about objective morality not existing without God, after admitting that even with God, morality is subjective. I guess I'm getting frustrated because you can't seem to explain how you have derived your moral code in the first place, apart from "God says so." You just keep making proclamations and pronouncements about what specific things you think are objectively wrong, but you keep leaving out the most important part, which is the foundation of your code and how you're determining what is and is not moral and how you're concluding that certain things are objectively moral/immoral. WHY do you think rape is always wrong and how are you deciding that is an objective claim?
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
So you're the rapist and you say, "take it and let's save 1,000 people" or do you also apologize because you know rape REMAINS ALWAYS WRONG.
Not in the case of saving a 1,000 people. If killing a person saves 1,000 people the killing wouldn't be wrong. If raping a person saves 1,000 people the act wouldn't be wrong.
 
Top