Zero Probability of Evolution. Atheism wrong?

[ArtieE]

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?

You can say killing is wrong, except in some circumstances it isn't, such as when not killing is more detrimental to the well-being or survival of a society and the people in it. Same goes for rape. There just aren't any realistic real world scenarios where raping somebody would be less detrimental than not raping. That doesn't mean that in principle rape is always wrong any more than killing is always wrong. It just depends on the circumstances.

 

[Phantasman]

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.

The gospel was changed by the patriarchs.

Some said, "Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit." They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled. She is a great anathema to the Hebrews, who are the apostles and the apostolic men. This virgin whom no power defiled [...] the powers defile themselves. And the Lord would not have said "My Father who is in Heaven" (Mt 16:17), unless he had had another father, but he would have said simply "My father".- Gospel of Philip

The gospel was held hostage in Latin for 800 years. It was changed during that time. We even see the changes from translations from William Tyndale (14th century) till KJV to even today. The Gospel of Philip and other NH
books has not been touched for over 1400 years. Yet we put our faith in catholic men.

If you seek beyond the borders the catholic priests keep you in, you will see it (truth). If you follow them, you will be as blind as they are. Murderers and child molesters.

It's a choice. See both sides before you decide.

(22) Jesus saw infants being suckled. He said to his disciples, "These infants being suckled are like those who enter the kingdom."
They said to him, "Shall we then, as children, enter the kingdom?"
Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter the kingdom."- Gospel of Thomas


There are biblical translations where the pronoun used for the Holy Spirit is masculine, in contrast to the gender of the noun used for spirit in Hebrew and Aramaic. In Aramaic also, the language generally considered to have been spoken by Jesus, the word is feminine. However, in Greek the word (pneuma) is neuter.- Wiki

I have showed you in the canon gospel what the non canon shows. The Holy Spirit is the mother, feminine. Nurturer, as a mother who nurtures her children. We become son to her and the Father, Just as Jesus.

Trinity is a catholic lie made up by Tertullian some many decades after Christ, The catholic fathers (priests) have you buffaloed.

 

[bubbleguppy]

Okay, so hear me out.

This is a long video, but I think from it you may see that at the very least the building blocks of life may come from unliving sources.

Also, I apologize in advance because this is a long video. I don't really expect to convince anyone of anything with this video alone because it still leaves some questions open. But it does give insight to things such as the synthesis of amino acids and amino acid chains from the speculated environment of early Earth as it's regarded by geologists, alongside how astroids and comets could have strung together extraterrestrial amino acids into peptides. It's got nothing to do with Pasteur, but everything to do with Stanley Miller & Jennifer Blake.

Start watching at 5:52 to skip over some introduction.
15:20 is when Stanley Miller's experiment is first mentioned.
27:38 is when Jennifer Blake's experiment is first mentioned.

There is a lot of information not specifically about these two experiments in this video which one may find interesting or informative, whether or not one believes in creationism, evolution, or divinely guided evolution.

I hope at least some of you will enjoy this video or at the very least begin to see how geologists generally believe life may have started from non-living material.

 

[Audie]

You can say killing is wrong, except in some circumstances it isn't, such as when not killing is more detrimental to the well-being or survival of a society and the people in it. Same goes for rape. There just aren't any realistic real world scenarios where raping somebody would be less detrimental than not raping. That doesn't mean that in principle rape is always wrong any more than killing is always wrong. It just depends on the circumstances.

What is murder, and what is rape is always going to be a matter of degree, with no absolute bright line distinctions to be made.

We can tho, kind of, you know, recognize what is out at either side of the bell curve.

 

[Audie]

The gospel was changed by the patriarchs.

Some said, "Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit." They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled. She is a great anathema to the Hebrews, who are the apostles and the apostolic men. This virgin whom no power defiled [...] the powers defile themselves. And the Lord would not have said "My Father who is in Heaven" (Mt 16:17), unless he had had another father, but he would have said simply "My father".- Gospel of Philip

The gospel was held hostage in Latin for 800 years. It was changed during that time. We even see the changes from translations from William Tyndale (14th century) till KJV to even today. The Gospel of Philip and other NH
books has not been touched for over 1400 years. Yet we put our faith in catholic men.

If you seek beyond the borders the catholic priests keep you in, you will see it (truth). If you follow them, you will be as blind as they are. Murderers and child molesters.

It's a choice. See both sides before you decide.

(22) Jesus saw infants being suckled. He said to his disciples, "These infants being suckled are like those who enter the kingdom."
They said to him, "Shall we then, as children, enter the kingdom?"
Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter the kingdom."- Gospel of Thomas


There are biblical translations where the pronoun used for the Holy Spirit is masculine, in contrast to the gender of the noun used for spirit in Hebrew and Aramaic. In Aramaic also, the language generally considered to have been spoken by Jesus, the word is feminine. However, in Greek the word (pneuma) is neuter.- Wiki

I have showed you in the canon gospel what the non canon shows. The Holy Spirit is the mother, feminine. Nurturer, as a mother who nurtures her children. We become son to her and the Father, Just as Jesus.

Trinity is a catholic lie made up by Tertullian some many decades after Christ, The catholic fathers (priests) have you buffaloed.

So many people are just so viciously anti catholic.

I am sure "Jesus" would approve of it, aren't you?

 

[Phantasman]

So many people are just so viciously anti catholic.

I am sure "Jesus" would approve of it, aren't you?

We know someone will be held accountable for these words:

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

May be me. May be them. May be someone else.

If we will know them by their "fruits", the catholic (small c) ideology has a lot to answer for.

Keep in mind, it's not the Catholic Church I always refer to. That is a capital C. I refer to the catholic ideology of the early church fathers, who resorted to murder to make their voices the only truth. The same as the Pharisee's and their high priests that tried to mislead the Jews (by destroying the Word).

 

[Audie]

We know someone will be held accountable for these words:

send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

 

[Phantasman]

send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

Then follow Hemingway.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.



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?

A lovely example is found in the many Christians who after the Holocaust and gulags in the last century, embraced and forgave their tormentors and won many of them to Christ. Pastor Wurmbrand told the story of the Nazi in his home, ending with, "The reason my wife pled a headache and went upstairs is you killed her brother. If you step upstairs with me, she will embrace you and love you..."

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.



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?



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.



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.

You can't make me see what you yourself don't see! Note above how you wrote:

"you call this an objective moral truth even as you frequently also post that all moral values are subjective."

I said I have a moral code with hundreds of pieces inside, like yours, subjective.

Rape is always wrong, we need no telescope or microscope for this. Pick one:

1. "rape is always wrong" is an objective moral fact
2. "rape is always wrong" is an eternal, metaphysical truth

Skeptics shy away from 1) and 2) because they imply a moral Creator.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And they are ... ? How can we come to know these things?


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?

I think rape is always wrong because I cannot conceive of an instance where it is right. If you raped someone to save ten other people, you would still say, "Sorry I have to hurt you to effect salvation for others!"

Please pick one:

1. rape is wrong always, an objective moral fact
2. rape is wrong always, a metaphysical, eternal truth

Skeptics hate 1) and 2) as choices because they imply a moral Creator.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

All moral codes (lists of rules/a playbook) are subjective. Within that code, either:

1) rape is always wrong, an objective fact
2) rape is always wrong, an eternal metaphysical truth

Pick one.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

I agree with your entire post, with the caveat that rape is always wrong and rapists are always wrong. Can you think of an example where a rape is right?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Provide evidence for that.Provide evidence for that.

This forum is partial proof. Every atheist I've asked herein has claimed to sometimes forgive their enemies, never to love them. I love you, have I become your enemy for telling you truth?

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

While you were raping the person, you would say, being a decent person, "I apologize for what's going to happen, it's going to save 1,000 people, but I have to do something wrong to make this happen."

Rape is always wrong. Why do skeptics hate moral absolutes? Oh--I know why.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You can say killing is wrong, except in some circumstances it isn't, such as when not killing is more detrimental to the well-being or survival of a society and the people in it. Same goes for rape. There just aren't any realistic real world scenarios where raping somebody would be less detrimental than not raping. That doesn't mean that in principle rape is always wrong any more than killing is always wrong. It just depends on the circumstances.

NO! NO NO NO!

RAPE NEVER DEPENDS ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES. This twisted thinking is the end (and demonic goal) of skepticism and atheism.

NO!

 

[BilliardsBall]

The gospel was changed by the patriarchs.

Some said, "Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit." They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled. She is a great anathema to the Hebrews, who are the apostles and the apostolic men. This virgin whom no power defiled [...] the powers defile themselves. And the Lord would not have said "My Father who is in Heaven" (Mt 16:17), unless he had had another father, but he would have said simply "My father".- Gospel of Philip

The gospel was held hostage in Latin for 800 years. It was changed during that time. We even see the changes from translations from William Tyndale (14th century) till KJV to even today. The Gospel of Philip and other NH
books has not been touched for over 1400 years. Yet we put our faith in catholic men.

If you seek beyond the borders the catholic priests keep you in, you will see it (truth). If you follow them, you will be as blind as they are. Murderers and child molesters.

It's a choice. See both sides before you decide.

(22) Jesus saw infants being suckled. He said to his disciples, "These infants being suckled are like those who enter the kingdom."
They said to him, "Shall we then, as children, enter the kingdom?"
Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter the kingdom."- Gospel of Thomas


There are biblical translations where the pronoun used for the Holy Spirit is masculine, in contrast to the gender of the noun used for spirit in Hebrew and Aramaic. In Aramaic also, the language generally considered to have been spoken by Jesus, the word is feminine. However, in Greek the word (pneuma) is neuter.- Wiki

I have showed you in the canon gospel what the non canon shows. The Holy Spirit is the mother, feminine. Nurturer, as a mother who nurtures her children. We become son to her and the Father, Just as Jesus.

Trinity is a catholic lie made up by Tertullian some many decades after Christ, The catholic fathers (priests) have you buffaloed.

I read Bible translations where source texts are traced to over a century before Constantine.

But I agree and understand that we have languages with He, She and gender neutral.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree with your entire post, with the caveat that rape is always wrong and rapists are always wrong. Can you think of an example where a rape is right?

I could but I agreed to change the subject with another poster. Try again with another example.

By the way, the Bible does not seem to think that rape is terribly wrong. A "crime" that can be fixed by paying off the father, not the victim, and subjecting the victim to a lifetime of abuse does not seem to take the crime very seriously. For your own good you should change the subject. Rape is a property crime in the Bible. Nothing more.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All moral codes (lists of rules/a playbook) are subjective. Within that code, either:

1) rape is always wrong, an objective fact
2) rape is always wrong, an eternal metaphysical truth

Pick one.

Once again, pick a different subject. Have you ever heard of the concept of a false dichotomy?

 

[Phantasman]

I read Bible translations where source texts are traced to over a century before Constantine.

But I agree and understand that we have languages with He, She and gender neutral.

It's all in what we choose to believe from so many sources. In my studies, there wasn't much left before 400AD on the Christian scriptures. This was due to Eusebius compiling his work "History of the Church" and all books being burned or destroyed by the reformation (Catholic Church of Rome) by Constantine's Empiric religion. Even the Codex Sinaiticus, which is older than the Codex Vaticanus used by the Catholic Church, can only be dated to around 400AD. Many believe that Sinaiticus was scribed from the actual 50 Bibles commissioned by Constantine. If it was, it's just more proof of the Catholic church removing scripture books and adding words to scriptural verses.

Jesus told us not to trust the scribes. So I don't take the Bible word for word literally, especially the Gospel.