responding to common objections to bible part 5

[Rhyfelwyr]

You define "atheist morals" as applying the principles of evolution onto society.

That's about as wrong as you can possibly get. It's not based on evolution, and its not derived from a belief in any divine creature either.

Not directly, but I think it is fair to say that developments in scientific understanding can have significant impacts on social value systems. The idea of evolution in particular has massive implications for how we view ourselves in the world, where we come from, what we are etc.

Evolution combats traditional notions of divine creation, and thus removes one of the main reasons for believing in God. And for many people, moral nihilism or relativism are the natural consequences of living in a world without a God to act as a universal moral arbiter.

[HoreTore]

Not directly, but I think it is fair to say that developments in scientific understanding can have significant impacts on social value systems. The idea of evolution in particular has massive implications for how we view ourselves in the world, where we come from, what we are etc.

Evolution combats traditional notions of divine creation, and thus removes one of the main reasons for believing in God. And for many people, moral nihilism or relativism are the natural consequences of living in a world without a God to act as a universal moral arbiter.

....Or you could say that the absence of a divine creator lead to the creation of human rights.

I see the creation-debate as much the same as the debate on the sun-centric solar system; a fearful religion who fights tooth and nail against it, before finally caving in, accept it, before realizing that their religion is still thriving and saw little impact from scientific advances. Christianity will survive accepting evolution as well, which is already proven by the fact that Christianity is still a thriving religion, even though most of the world, including most Christians, now accept evolution.

EDIT: Also Rhy, you are not arguing that it is the scientific advances which have an impact on society, but rather it is the dismissal of former foundations(ie. god) which has an impact...

EDIT2: Also, evolution does not really exclude a divine creator, as Big Bang is a separate theory...

[The Stranger]

Ok, I shall take up the challenge.

Your (copied) contention is that morality has no meaning outside of a religious context.

The argument seems to be that (and if I have misrepresented this, please correct me):

1) Morality is only meaningful if expressed in absolute terms.
2) Absolute morality can only originate from a divine source.
These claims, taken together have the result that:
3) Morality is only meaningful if it originates from a religious context.

The problem is that the snippets which you have quoted do not establish either claim. Both can be challenged.

I would argue that it is possible to construct a meaningful quasi-absolute moral system within a given society. There are certain acts which are commonly agreed to be morally unacceptable. If one accepts the validity of the social contract, one can posit a tacitly agreed upon moral code: one which is absolute for the purposes of the given society. While this is not absolute in a fundamental sense, other societies may have different codes, it is robust enough ipso facto to be considered meaningful.

hes not a philosopher. he probably does not understand half you said and will ignore the rest

[Ironside]

Meh, since you rerun the same stuff over and over again like they're some kind of super proofs of your opinion.

Atheist philosopher Richard Taylor
The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, without noticing that in casting God aside they have also abolished the meaningfulness of right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things as war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights are morally wrong, and they imagine that they have said something true and meaningful. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-chr...ality#_ednref3

Let me put it this way. Adultery, rape, incest are wrong correct? Were the adultery, rape and incest that eventually led to the birth of Jesus then wrong?

Can God murder? If another God replicates those divine killings God has done, is that murder?

Can you kill in the name of God? Yes. Can you murder in the name of God?

It either falls down to "He who defines the laws doesn't have to follow them", "those laws doesn't applies here" or "we're adding an additional rule that allows for relativism". All these are examples of relativism, but are still been pretended to be absolutes. An absolute is rigid, it can't be changed by something like forgiveness, unless it's always given for that behavior.

Now I'm not in a mood for some grand post about it, but lacking moral absolutes doesn't not in any mean that you lack morals, nor behavoir that's predisposed towards certain behavior.

"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music."Richard Dawkins, --Out of Eden, page 133

Yes. The genes does only care about reproduction by you or your relvatives. No good, nor evil there.

The thing about morals and evolution is the following question. What secondary factors increases the odds of my genes surviving and spreading? And it's here you evolve the behavior we later codify as morals.

The holy man with no relatives fails on the genetical plane, but so does the straw man without ethics that only follows his primary genetical mission and completly ignores all secondary conditions.
The goal of fotball (soccer) is winnning by making most goals. The fastest way is to run straight forward and shoot the fotball in a straight line into the goal. How much time is spent on making goals? Goal tender? Defenders? The point is making goals, why do we have those?

after rereading you post, i think i have found your misunderstanding. tell me if i cam correct. You think that i say or think, that atheist believe or base there morality on random chemical reactions, is this true?.

I'll explain the problem with the technically correct term random chemical reactions. Look at a single atom that is going to change through nuclear decay. Is it random from what we can see? Yes, it can happen tomorrow, the next second, year, millenia, etc from now. And we have no idea.

Take the number of atoms that exist in 1 gram. It's now top 5 of the most predicable things in the universe. It used to be what we defined a second with, before we found something even more predictable.

Chemistry works the same way (but are a lot messier), so what's random at atomic level are very predictable already on microscopic level. That's because the number of atoms are so freaking huge in one 1 gram. The number (6.022x10^23/mol) is comparable to the number of stars in the observable universe or the number of centiliters of water in all oceans on earth combined.

[total relism]

I think me and you agree on everything im not sure what your objecting to.Maybe you could clearly state [if any] thing your objecting to, or if you just wish to talk discuse, i happily agree to do so as-well.

Meh, since you rerun the same stuff over and over again like they're some kind of super proofs of your opinion.

not sure what your referring to here, i posted new responses to various objections as i have every post. I am not sure why you feel i have tried in anyway to present positive proofs for Christianity, not one of my topics or threads has even attempted that, there all responses, but if you find them super, you should see me on the basketball court.

Let me put it this way. Adultery, rape, incest are wrong correct? Were the adultery, rape and incest that eventually led to the birth of Jesus then wrong?

Can God murder? If another God replicates those divine killings God has done, is that murder?

Can you kill in the name of God? Yes. Can you murder in the name of God?

not sure what your referring to adultery,rape,incest etc if you mean people in his past genealogy that did these things, than i would say no why would that make them ok?. i think you brought this stuff u before i responded you ignored.


there is only one god, who never has murdered and never will, he has killed, just as police/judges etc kill, but do not murder.


you can do anything you feel like in the name of god, that does not make it right.
http://derecjones.com/2011/09/06/twin-towers/

It either falls down to "He who defines the laws doesn't have to follow them", "those laws doesn't applies here" or "we're adding an additional rule that allows for relativism". All these are examples of relativism, but are still been pretended to be absolutes. An absolute is rigid, it can't be changed by something like forgiveness, unless it's always given for that behavior.

or there is divine law giver with absolute morals and "right" and "wrong" who not only has not,but cannot break those laws, it is contradictory to his nature. Not relativism needed, only bible.

Now I'm not in a mood for some grand post about it, but lacking moral absolutes doesn't not in any mean that you lack morals, nor behavoir that's predisposed towards certain behavior.

never said it did, is it to much to ask for someone to read my op for once?. I agree with you 100%,.

Yes. The genes does only care about reproduction by you or your relvatives. No good, nor evil there.
The thing about morals and evolution is the following question. What secondary factors increases the odds of my genes surviving and spreading? And it's here you evolve the behavior we later codify as morals.

agreed,so there is no moral "right" or "wrong" as i sated before. Many random chemical reactions [our brain,majority opinion] may decide we may reproduce better following some arbitrary "laws" and "morals", but they are just results of what some random chemicals decided was ok at some point in time. So if i decide its better to pass on my genes by raping woman and leaving them locked in my basement, and get enogh people around me to agree with me, that is the new morals of the day, not that it is "evil" or "good" as you said.

The holy man with no relatives fails on the genetical plane, but so does the straw man without ethics that only follows his primary genetical mission and completly ignores all secondary conditions.
The goal of fotball (soccer) is winnning by making most goals. The fastest way is to run straight forward and shoot the fotball in a straight line into the goal. How much time is spent on making goals? Goal tender? Defenders? The point is making goals, why do we have those?

agreed as my above post said,if evolution is true there is only one goal to pass on genes, no actual "right" and "wrong" morally, its not a moral wrong to do as i sated above, rape woman leave them locked in my basement. And if possible get enough like minded people to join me and start the new "morals" of the day, the evolved morals,modern etc.

I'll explain the problem with the technically correct term random chemical reactions. Look at a single atom that is going to change through nuclear decay. Is it random from what we can see? Yes, it can happen tomorrow, the next second, year, millenia, etc from now. And we have no idea.
Take the number of atoms that exist in 1 gram. It's now top 5 of the most predicable things in the universe. It used to be what we defined a second with, before we found something even more predictable.
Chemistry works the same way (but are a lot messier), so what's random at atomic level are very predictable already on microscopic level. That's because the number of atoms are so freaking huge in one 1 gram. The number (6.022x10^23/mol) is comparable to the number of stars in the observable universe or the number of centiliters of water in all oceans on earth combined.

ok so your than saying just as i said with dawkins quote, we just dance to our genes, so if i rape/kill its not morally wrong or even my choice, as we just dance to our genes.

[HoreTore]

if evolution is true there is only one goal to pass on genes

It's simply amazing how wrong this quote is.

That evolution is established as undoubtably true does not in any way mean that our only goal is to pass on our genes.

A common misconception among brainwashed fundamentalists.

[total relism]

It's simply amazing how wrong this quote is.

That evolution is established as undoubtably true does not in any way mean that our only goal is to pass on our genes.

A common misconception among brainwashed fundamentalists.

some people cant respond themselves so they must pick out a small piece of a sentence, give it no context or meaning, disregard what the discussion and what was being replied to, than commit logical fallacies to try and brainwash there viewers [whoever they think they are?]. I look forward as always to you supporting evolution as "undoubtably true", we both know what you mean by evolution as well, snap im going to keep this quote as well to show who has been brainwashed and you cant run, i have 3 of your quotes. But please stop giving me gold, i really cant make my whole op with just quotes you have said, I have alot to say on the topic.

[Lemur]

I look forward as always to you supporting evolution as "undoubtably true"

You can personally observe evolution in action with fruit flies and some lab equipment. Evolution is the foundation of all modern pharmacology, medicine, and biotechnology. It's also foundational to modern farming, pesticides, herbicides ... gah, the list goes on and on.

If you believe the theory of evolution is controversial, untested, flawed, or fundamentally wrong, that's a thread in and of itself. You should not attempt to refute widely tested and understood scientific theories as an aside, or as an element of a larger argument. That's like saying, "I believe we should invade Syria ... and by the way, the sun does not exist." It's a non-trivial assertion, and you're going to get immediate and well-informed pushback.

P.S.: If you have ever taken an antibiotic, you have personally profited from the theory of evolution. If you believe evolution is some sort of lie, you really, truly, should not avail yourself of modern medicine. Ever.

[total relism]

You can personally observe evolution in action with fruit flies and some lab equipment. Evolution is the foundation of all modern pharmacology, medicine, and biotechnology. It's also foundational to modern farming, pesticides, herbicides ... gah, the list goes on and on.

If you believe the theory of evolution is controversial, untested, flawed, or fundamentally wrong, that's a thread in and of itself. You should not attempt to refute widely tested and understood scientific theories as an aside, or as an element of a larger argument. That's like saying, "I believe we should invade Syria ... and by the way, the sun does not exist." It's a non-trivial assertion, and you're going to get immediate and well-informed pushback.

P.S.: If you have ever taken an antibiotic, you have personally profited from the theory of evolution. If you believe evolution is some sort of lie, you really, truly, should not avail yourself of modern medicine. Ever.

sometimes we say things we regret in future, this will be one of them.


Thank you Lemur, i shall keep this very quote of yours for a future thread, i may even post it on my future op. I will be asking for you to defend this statement you made above on that future thread. You guys are really tempting me and getting me all excited. I am going to have to make a op/than make a post solely on yours and HT quotes. I love what is in bolded [most whole post] and look forward to that topic, i agree it should be by itself, i may put a small side subject in that is semi related, why bible/jesus over any other god. All i can say now is the indoctrination runs deep.

[Ironside]

not sure what your referring to adultery,rape,incest etc if you mean people in his past genealogy that did these things, than i would say no why would that make them ok?. i think you brought this stuff u before i responded you ignored.

You have a situation where an unpunished crime led to something good. Think for that for a second, within a system of moral absolutes.

there is only one god, who never has murdered and never will, he has killed, just as police/judges etc kill, but do not murder.

Giving judges and the police? That'll haunt you.

you can do anything you feel like in the name of god, that does not make it right.
http://derecjones.com/2011/09/06/twin-towers/

I was asking if Abel was asked to murder or kill his son, but since you did open the question. How do you differ from a genuine message from god compared to flase ones, today? No bible to help give the full answer there.

or there is divine law giver with absolute morals and "right" and "wrong" who not only has not,but cannot break those laws, it is contradictory to his nature. Not relativism needed, only bible.

That's not a question of morals, that's a question of power.

never said it did, is it to much to ask for someone to read my op for once?. I agree with you 100%,.

You do not. Otherwise you'd not give those answers as you do.

Take nudity for example. A controversial subject that does not function under any absolutes. Yet it's bound by rules that we've made up together as a people on when it's ok and when it's not. How much tv is ok to watch in a day? How much violence, gore and messed up people and things can you show to children without causing them any harm?

Yet you chose a very extreme position that's extremely unlikely to occur as the baseline if there were no absolutes guiding it. Paraphrasing. You like a hot girl being nude correct? So why aren't everyone nude then? Why aren't people watching tv all their waking moments? Why can't every children understand what you're talking about when you mention Black Lagoon and the twins? I can continue for a very long time.

agreed,so there is no moral "right" or "wrong" as i sated before. Many random chemical reactions [our brain,majority opinion] may decide we may reproduce better following some arbitrary "laws" and "morals", but they are just results of what some random chemicals decided was ok at some point in time. So if i decide its better to pass on my genes by raping woman and leaving them locked in my basement, and get enogh people around me to agree with me, that is the new morals of the day, not that it is "evil" or "good" as you said.

The complications occurs in the secondary objectives. Those contain stuff like surviving, thriving, get a good mate, make my children survive and thrive.

To take your example, you then need to explain do your daughters on why it's a good thing to be locked into a cellar, avoid those who uses allies as a survival strategy (therefore finding it better to kill you and save the women), keep the women healthy enough to them to survive and function. Etc, etc.

Yes if you in some bizarre way found enough people become the police and the judges, redefining rape (introducing the concept of "just" rape like "just" killings) and keep that one up for many, many generations and probably combine it with breeding programmes (adapting to the situation and keep your opinions silent are a survival trait after all), you could end up in a situation where it's the new standard of morals.

But for the people living on earth, how is that different from having the same situation with absolute morals? Those morals aren't followed anyway.

agreed as my above post said,if evolution is true there is only one goal to pass on genes, no actual "right" and "wrong" morally, its not a moral wrong to do as i sated above, rape woman leave them locked in my basement.

And that would make you a horrible, horrible fotball player.

"Today's fotball incident is what's everyones lips. For those who haven't heard, the new player total relism wen't utterly crazy today. As soon as the game started, he ran straight into the defending team with the ball. When he lost the ball, he attacked the thwarting player punching him out, then proceeded to grab the ball with his hands and try to kick, punch and bite through the other team. And then he did the same to the referees. All while shouting "To win, the ball has to go into the goal!!". Eventually, they brought him down and he's permanently banned from fotball. He's also facing prison charges and a psychiatric evaluation."
"Well, we can't say that it was anything wrong with his dedication."
"Of course we can. It evidently made him only looking on how to win fotball, never on how actually play it."

ok so your than saying just as i said with dawkins quote, we just dance to our genes, so if i rape/kill its not morally wrong or even my choice, as we just dance to our genes.

I didn't know that you're a compulsive dancer that always dances, always in an identical way everytime you hear a tune? The genes are always influencing our actions one way or another, but they don't control us.

[The Stranger]

P.S.: If you have ever taken an antibiotic, you have personally profited from the theory of evolution. If you believe evolution is some sort of lie, you really, truly, should not avail yourself of modern medicine. Ever.

ehm... thats a bs argument..

[total relism]

First please be very clear on what you object with me on, with examples please. it seems your rambling on with nothing really that your objecting to. Please read what i have actually said in my op [under spoiler] than respond to that, it helps much if we do that before responding. You in fact agree with what i have been saying all along, i think you will realize that if you read my op. You have said just what i said all along in your reply,im 99% sure this has happened before with us here
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ity&highlight=

were you kept objecting, yet over and over said just what i have been saying. I think just take your time, read my op, you will see we agree.

You have a situation where an unpunished crime led to something good. Think for that for a second, within a system of moral absolutes.

and? first what unpunished crime are you referring to you have not said, second i see no problem with absolute morals with this at all. Absolute morals says to do something say rape is wrong. It does not say nothing good can come out of moral wrongs, in fact bible uses that alot. joseph was taken by his brothers and sold into slavery [bad] yet god used that bad, for good.

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people[a] should be kept alive, as they are today.
genesis 50.20.

Giving judges and the police? That'll haunt you.

? no idea what your saying.

I was asking if Abel was asked to murder or kill his son, but since you did open the question. How do you differ from a genuine message from god compared to flase ones, today? No bible to help give the full answer there.

abel murder his son? not sure what your referring to here.

you ask how i tell a message from god. its pretty easy, read the bible. I dont care at all what someone says today, i care what the bible says.

That's not a question of morals, that's a question of power.

not sure what your saying,i was simply saying you tried to make it out like some kind of relativism needed, that is not the case at all as i showed.

You do not. Otherwise you'd not give those answers as you do.
Take nudity for example. A controversial subject that does not function under any absolutes. Yet it's bound by rules that we've made up together as a people on when it's ok and when it's not. How much tv is ok to watch in a day? How much violence, gore and messed up people and things can you show to children without causing them any harm?
Yet you chose a very extreme position that's extremely unlikely to occur as the baseline if there were no absolutes guiding it. Paraphrasing. You like a hot girl being nude correct? So why aren't everyone nude then? Why aren't people watching tv all their waking moments? Why can't every children understand what you're talking about when you mention Black Lagoon and the twins? I can continue for a very long time.

do you think it possible you misunderstood my argument you did not read on my op?.

hmm still not sure your getting it, your naming a bunch of culture right and wrongs we have decided on today. That has nothing to do with what i said. I will repost what my op said so as to fix your confusion.

this is what was posted on my op.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Assumptions/things to consider before answering.

Atheist must put themselves in place as god, as perfect judge of people living thousands of years ago, to decided what is morally correct or not.
1] we must assume we are god, that only we can tell and know what is morally acceptable or not.
2] we must assume their are such things as morals, “right” and “wrong” those ideas only make sense if a moral god created us.
3]we must assume our evolved brains of completely random chemical reactions and matter can somehow have the right idea of what is right and wrong, our evolved animal brains formed by random chemical reactions and matter [dirt] that combined for a survival advantage[according to atheist]. They only “feel” killing is wrong because the random chemical reactions give them a chemical feeling that killing is wrong.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...ity&highlight=

is god not able to take life he has given?


Morality makes no sense in a atheist worldview
"if it all happens naturalistic whats the need for a god? cant I set my own rules? who owns me? I own myself".
Jefery dahmer DVD documentary Jeffrey Dahmer the monster within

This is inconsistent with an evolutionary worldview in which there is no logical basis for “good” or “bad.” By making such a statement, the evolutionist is actually borrowing morals from the Christian worldview and the Bible in order to claim something is “trickery.”
Within a naturalistic, evolutionary worldview, morality is merely a matter of subjective opinion. So, whether something such as trickery or deception is wrong depends on each person—because it’s merely the result of chemical reactions in our brains.
I could just as easily say that this email we received is deceptive and full of wishful thinking. And if I get a big enough group together, we can decide that your definition of trickery is wrong. The combined random chemical reactions in our brains form the majority, which makes you wrong—at least until another majority comes along. Without any ultimate standard, we could go back and forth all day saying this is right or that is right.
As silly as this scenario sounds, it is one of the only arguments evolutionists have for anything that resembles morality. Absolute morals only make sense in a Christian worldview—they come from the One who knows what is good because He is the standard for good. The only One who fits that description is the God of the Bible, the Creator of the universe.

So, for example, if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in brainwashing or exterminating everyone who disagreed with them, so that everybody would think the Holocaust had been good, it would still have been wrong, because God says it is wrong, regardless of human opinion. Morality is based in God, and so real right and wrong exist and are unaffected by human opinions.


In fact you only#feel#,murder,rape etc are wrong because the#random chemical reactions in your brain make you feel that way.#Not because it truly is right or wrong. I may be like hitler and think murdering is good, what makes your random chemical reactions correct and mine wrong?.They have no right to tell another person [random chemical reactions] That thinks murder,rape,sexism are good [hitler]. That that person is wrong to do so. there is no way to now if you, and not the other person have the right chemical reactions. In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad.

#
Atheist philosopher Richard Taylor
The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, without noticing that in casting God aside they have also abolished the meaningfulness of right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things as war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights are morally wrong, and they imagine that they have said something true and meaningful. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-chr...ality#_ednref3


"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music."Richard Dawkins, --Out of Eden, page 133

“ He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p266 2003

“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrafice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel,and if he does so it is mearly because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution#
then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p262 2003#


Darwin on the poor
“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
#Charles Darwin,#The Descent of Man

The complications occurs in the secondary objectives. Those contain stuff like surviving, thriving, get a good mate, make my children survive and thrive.
To take your example, you then need to explain do your daughters on why it's a good thing to be locked into a cellar, avoid those who uses allies as a survival strategy (therefore finding it better to kill you and save the women), keep the women healthy enough to them to survive and function. Etc, etc.
Yes if you in some bizarre way found enough people become the police and the judges, redefining rape (introducing the concept of "just" rape like "just" killings) and keep that one up for many, many generations and probably combine it with breeding programmes (adapting to the situation and keep your opinions silent are a survival trait after all), you could end up in a situation where it's the new standard of morals.

But for the people living on earth, how is that different from having the same situation with absolute morals? Those morals aren't followed anyway.

bolded parts

as i sated and my point from beginning, it is not a moral wrong to do what i said in anyway. It may be a society wrong at some time that random chemicals decided was wrong, but not a moral wrong.

no i dont need to,especially if i get majority to agree and it becomes custom. If all that matters as you said, is passing on genes, that is all i need t o do. Why does some random chemicals [my child] need a explanation of anything? there just chemical and the majority decided this is good thing to do and normal. Who said i wont keep my woman healthy? besides i can just go get new ones if not.


thank you for agreeing with me,that there is no absolute morals in a atheistic belief system, the best case is majority opinion.


how is it different
i think your thinking on the wrong level of what i am saying, i say 100% morals based on bible [waether they are followed or not] are much better than atheistic ones,but that is not my point. I was just saying to say something is morally wrong, only makes sense if the bible is true, not if atheism is true.

And that would make you a horrible, horrible fotball player.
"Today's fotball incident is what's everyones lips. For those who haven't heard, the new player total relism wen't utterly crazy today. As soon as the game started, he ran straight into the defending team with the ball. When he lost the ball, he attacked the thwarting player punching him out, then proceeded to grab the ball with his hands and try to kick, punch and bite through the other team. And then he did the same to the referees. All while shouting "To win, the ball has to go into the goal!!". Eventually, they brought him down and he's permanently banned from fotball. He's also facing prison charges and a psychiatric evaluation."
"Well, we can't say that it was anything wrong with his dedication."
"Of course we can. It evidently made him only looking on how to win fotball, never on how actually play it."

does not matter,as you said and dawkins all that matters is to pass on genes [score goal] .

so what your basically saying is, because society as set up rules against straight passing on genes [rape basement etc] we have to play by those rules and as easily pass on genes. Ok no problem here. that does not make anything morally right or wrong, it makes it socially right or wrong by some random chemical reactions that decided. As even your futbul analogy shows,all that matters is passing on genes [scoring]. You prove my statement yet again,while thinking we disagree.

I didn't know that you're a compulsive dancer that always dances, always in an identical way everytime you hear a tune? The genes are always influencing our actions one way or another, but they don't control us.

not according to you or dawkins, what does this free will come from?

your last post,we are no different or special as humans in atheistic/evolution worldview.




you
I'll explain the problem with the technically correct term random chemical reactions. Look at a single atom that is going to change through nuclear decay. Is it random from what we can see? Yes, it can happen tomorrow, the next second, year, millenia, etc from now. And we have no idea.
Take the number of atoms that exist in 1 gram. It's now top 5 of the most predicable things in the universe. It used to be what we defined a second with, before we found something even more predictable.
Chemistry works the same way (but are a lot messier), so what's random at atomic level are very predictable already on microscopic level. That's because the number of atoms are so freaking huge in one 1 gram. The number (6.022x10^23/mol) is comparable to the number of stars in the observable universe or the number of centiliters of water in all oceans on earth combined.


"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music."Richard Dawkins, --Out of Eden, page 133



btw, i clearly reject we are just robots to our genes, i do think we have freewill, the bible makes sense of that,atheism/evolution does not.

[a completely inoffensive name]

....Or you could say that the absence of a divine creator lead to the creation of human rights.

We hold these truths to be self evident......

Come on HoreTore. Don't let ideology get in the way of fact.

[Sigurd]

I was asking if Abel was asked to murder or kill his son, but since you did open the question. How do you differ from a genuine message from god compared to flase ones, today? No bible to help give the full answer there.

abel murder his son? not sure what your referring to here.

This should be Abraham of course, as Abel was killed by Kain before he could reproduce with one of his sisters.
Doesn't exactly strengthen the argument of Ironside to mix up the story... gives indications of lack of understanding of the texts in question.
Abraham was tested in his faith - and was rewarded abundantly. Either way he chose he would not have been permitted to kill his son.

Ironside's post does seem "drunken" somewhat.

[Ironside]

This should be Abraham of course, as Abel was killed by Kain before he could reproduce with one of his sisters.
Doesn't exactly strengthen the argument of Ironside to mix up the story... gives indications of lack of understanding of the texts in question.
Abraham was tested in his faith - and was rewarded abundantly. Either way he chose he would not have been permitted to kill his son.

Ironside's post does seem "drunken" somewhat.

Bah, I did remember wrong with Abel first, said wait a minute that's wrong. It was Abraham? Checks. Ah, it was Abraham. And then I still write the wrong name. I'll post my point in my response to tr. In retrospect, some arguments weren't that coherent, although I still like my fotball anology.

I think distracted is more correct. I post very rarely while drunk and was sober posting that one.

and? first what unpunished crime are you referring to you have not said, second i see no problem with absolute morals with this at all. Absolute morals says to do something say rape is wrong. It does not say nothing good can come out of moral wrongs, in fact bible uses that alot. joseph was taken by his brothers and sold into slavery [bad] yet god used that bad, for good.

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people[a] should be kept alive, as they are today.
genesis 50.20.

not sure what your saying,i was simply saying you tried to make it out like some kind of relativism needed, that is not the case at all as i showed.

The crime is done by Lot's daughters.

I'll be brief and make a huge reformulation. Absolute morals are rigid. That's what makes them absolutes.

Yet the Bible consists of plenty of exceptions where you need to ask God for the answer.

Don't murder. I'll tell who's ok to kill.
Don't steal. I'll grand you stuff, but you need to take it from someone else first.
Don't worship anyone or anything else, because that makes me jealous.
Don't covet someone else's stuff, because only I can do that.

It undermines the rules and rather become a "father knows best" situation, where you don't have the real answer without asking father first. You could guess it, but it still would make you wrong because this time it was one exception.

? no idea what your saying.

The police and judges are organisations are making relative justice. They can be corrupt, power abusing and their judgement will depend on the person judging, the defendant and what time and place in history. They are a very poor example on absolute justice.

abel murder his son? not sure what your referring to here.

you ask how i tell a message from god. its pretty easy, read the bible. I dont care at all what someone says today, i care what the bible says.

We can run with the slaugther of the Midianites instead of Abraham (who it was supposed to be). It's supposed to be just, because God ordered it. The problem is that such means are no longer possible since God no longer speaks that way today.

do you think it possible you misunderstood my argument you did not read on my op?.

hmm still not sure your getting it, your naming a bunch of culture right and wrongs we have decided on today. That has nothing to do with what i said. I will repost what my op said so as to fix your confusion.

this is what was posted on my op.

My point is that humanity are fully capable of deciding on complex matters and maintain a fairly stable decision without any divine guidance. That means that the social morals are also stable enough to function without any absolute moral guidance.

does not matter,as you said and dawkins all that matters is to pass on genes [score goal] .

so what your basically saying is, because society as set up rules against straight passing on genes [rape basement etc] we have to play by those rules and as easily pass on genes. Ok no problem here. that does not make anything morally right or wrong, it makes it socially right or wrong by some random chemical reactions that decided. As even your futbul analogy shows,all that matters is passing on genes [scoring]. You prove my statement yet again,while thinking we disagree.

Think it as a force of nature. Is gravity morally right or wrong? It is the way it is, no morals involved. Now people living in gravity can and will tempory reject it (walking jumping etc) but it's always there and will always matter in the end. That's what they talk about. In that context morals make little sense.

In the context of our lives, our genes has found out that it spreads better following certain behaviors. That creates a bias towards those behaviors and we've codified those because we think they give us a better life. That's the space where you find morals. The fundamental flaw Richard Taylor makes, is that he says that morals are the judgement of an moral arbiter, while morals without the arbiter rather is an attempt to answer the question of what society you want to live in.

And you still persist with random chemical reactions. Skip the random at least.

not according to you or dawkins, what does this free will come from?

your last post,we are no different or special as humans in atheistic/evolution worldview.

btw, i clearly reject we are just robots to our genes, i do think we have freewill, the bible makes sense of that,atheism/evolution does not.

The genes didn't teach me English. What they did was giving me a brain and body capable of learning a language and speak it. Seen those nature vs nurture debates? With 100,0% nature would be slaves under our genes, but none argues that. They are a starting point, that continues to follow you throughout your life, but they don't have the final word.

Seriously, are you rejecting the notion of genetics since it's connected to evolution now? They aren't the same thing.

[Kadagar_AV]

Ok, so one time at band camp...

*trying to elevate the level of discussion*


I do however have to give TR respect for thinking he is being a good christian... And people wonder why I abhor some religions...

[Sarmatian]

I'm still amazed that his threads still garner so many responses. And if I started a serious discussion like, who's better Clint Eastwood or John Wayne, would you participate? Noooo. You'd be here discussing whether God raped moral evolution to create a big bang with gravity.

[total relism]

From now ion, i am only going to respond to your posts that directly deal with op. I find it very hard to even know what your trying to argue,you often agree with me yet end up turning it into some kind of argument. You are not at all clear what you object to, you change your stance every post as well as what you are suppose be arguing against. I really find it difficult to even try and see what your trying to argue. I try to get you to exspalin often and you ignore. Another posted said you seemed drunk,to me you certainty seem under the influence of something,its not that i cant read you, i just have no idea why you say what you do or object to what you than agree with,it seems just to do so. You over and over make claims as well,than i ask for support and you just move onto something new, you always never take what i say,but what your mind invents that i say,than attack that. I think this happened on other thread and discussion is pointless i feel , so unless on topic, i will not respond.

The crime is done by Lot's daughters.

I'll be brief and make a huge reformulation. Absolute morals are rigid. That's what makes them absolutes.

Yet the Bible consists of plenty of exceptions where you need to ask God for the answer.

Don't murder. I'll tell who's ok to kill.
Don't steal. I'll grand you stuff, but you need to take it from someone else first.
Don't worship anyone or anything else, because that makes me jealous.
Don't covet someone else's stuff, because only I can do that.

It undermines the rules and rather become a "father knows best" situation, where you don't have the real answer without asking father first. You could guess it, but it still would make you wrong because this time it was one exception.

so why is a crime done by someone in jesus genealogy [there are many] a argument for what? against what? i ask every time you wont share.


The rest im sorry i just dont even know what your trying to say,absolute morals say something is wrong. So if i rape a 3 year old girl,that is wrong, that breaks a moral code given by the creator. As I said murder and kill are different things, had you read any of my op's i think you would see that. The rest is unsupported claims that can be responded to if you were to support with anything, you cant take time to understand/read my op, should we aspect the same of the bible you have never read?.


as far as the rules, they are not and cannot be undermined by god, it would be contrary to his nature. So i am not surprised in your mind this is the case, with the bible this is not so.

The police and judges are organisations are making relative justice. They can be corrupt, power abusing and their judgement will depend on the person judging, the defendant and what time and place in history. They are a very poor example on absolute justice.

they were not my example, do you read my responses ever? no offence but put the pipe down. I said like a judge/cop they do not commit murder,when giving death sentence, they give out justice. Not saying they cant abuse this power as sinful humans, it was analogy of one of the difference between murder and killing.

We can run with the slaugther of the Midianites instead of Abraham (who it was supposed to be). It's supposed to be just, because God ordered it. The problem is that such means are no longer possible since God no longer speaks that way today.

agreed, that is why we dont go kill the midianites, god was directly involved when that happened. please read my thread on that. Absolute morals do not mean we are all suppose to build a big boat because god told noah to,this seems to be what your implying here. if so i have no idea how to help, maybe read what i said in op,instead of what i have never said.

My point is that humanity are fully capable of deciding on complex matters and maintain a fairly stable decision without any divine guidance. That means that the social morals are also stable enough to function without any absolute moral guidance.

and that has nothing to do with what i posted, witch is again why i am done responding to you as i even re post my op many times and you ignore.

Think it as a force of nature. Is gravity morally right or wrong? It is the way it is, no morals involved. Now people living in gravity can and will tempory reject it (walking jumping etc) but it's always there and will always matter in the end. That's what they talk about. In that context morals make little sense.

In the context of our lives, our genes has found out that it spreads better following certain behaviors. That creates a bias towards those behaviors and we've codified those because we think they give us a better life. That's the space where you find morals. The fundamental flaw Richard Taylor makes, is that he says that morals are the judgement of an moral arbiter, while morals without the arbiter rather is an attempt to answer the question of what society you want to live in.

And you still persist with random chemical reactions. Skip the random at least.

you even misunderstand quote, he is atheist. But yet again without knowing you support and agree with my op that you wont read, yet think we disagree. There is no such thing as moral absolutes, the best you can do is say morals arise from survival advantage, that makes them not a moral right or wrong, but a survival advantage,that is same reason you cannot refute my counter arguments and morals as morally wrong,my entire op is shown true, yet you think we disagree.

The genes didn't teach me English. What they did was giving me a brain and body capable of learning a language and speak it. Seen those nature vs nurture debates? With 100,0% nature would be slaves under our genes, but none argues that. They are a starting point, that continues to follow you throughout your life, but they don't have the final word.

Seriously, are you rejecting the notion of genetics since it's connected to evolution now? They aren't the same thing.

your brain is decided by those genes and chemicals, they cannot create free will, they determined how your brain would be and what you think. Had you a dog brain you would have very different morals. As dawkins said, we just dance to our genes.

Genetics,i say genes determine who you are [true,genome,genetic code] you say that rejects genetics, hmmm not sure you will do well when creation/evolution comes.

[Ironside]

so why is a crime done by someone in jesus genealogy [there are many] a argument for what? against what? i ask every time you wont share.

The rest im sorry i just dont even know what your trying to say,absolute morals say something is wrong. So if i rape a 3 year old girl,that is wrong, that breaks a moral code given by the creator.

Absolute morals should not contain second guessing, agreed?

If God commands you to rape a 3 year old girl, it's no longer wrong to do it, because God does not ever do wrong. If a severe crime isn't punished and the consequences are much later rewarded, it's second guessing, since obviously God was ok with the exception this time.

I'll ask a question. Do you consider Biblical times fundamentally different from modern times in it's relation with God? As in, does God no longer interact in a way that makes a "God exception" possible?

As I said murder and kill are different things, had you read any of my op's i think you would see that. The rest is unsupported claims that can be responded to if you were to support with anything, you cant take time to understand/read my op, should we aspect the same of the bible you have never read?.

The first one, converting murder into killings, got more than few examples.
The second one, stealing is ok, is when God gives out territory already taken and the Jews respond by sacking it.
The third one? Your bible doesn't contain this part in the commandments?
...You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
God is telling that he's jealous, all by himself.
The forth is a play on above, coveting, envy and jealously got a bit of overlap or follows as a consequence.

as far as the rules, they are not and cannot be undermined by god, it would be contrary to his nature. So i am not surprised in your mind this is the case, with the bible this is not so.

They aren't undermined by God, they're undermined because people doesn't know the will of God, since he's giving commands that contradict previously established rules.

you even misunderstand quote, he is atheist. But yet again without knowing you support and agree with my op that you wont read, yet think we disagree. There is no such thing as moral absolutes, the best you can do is say morals arise from survival advantage, that makes them not a moral right or wrong, but a survival advantage,that is same reason you cannot refute my counter arguments and morals as morally wrong,my entire op is shown true, yet you think we disagree.

And? He's a philosopher. Most of their job is to make statements that most humans find is more or less wrong, half-right or right. The idea is to expand horizons, which often leads to odd directions. Here I agree with his statement that without absolute morals, you don't have moral values that got moral value 0 (good stuff) or infinity (bad stuff). So claiming that something has value infinity in a relative society is wrong.

The flaw he and makes you is that relative values doesn't mean that both are 0. They mean that one value is 3 currently (very good) and has been between 1-15 historically, while another value is 200 millions and been between 1 million -200 million (horribly bad). And here comes both the genes and our independence from our genes into play. Our genes gives ourself an unique moral value, but it's also influenced by society, our upbringing and our choises. The value of everyone combined gives us the moral system we have at this point. And we, not our genes (they can't really keep up) decides if we want to change this or not.

And then you come in and claim that a system that we instinctually, logically and emotionally don't want and runs very different from today (we like things to stay the same, in some degree at least) has the same value as the opposite? That is where we disagree. Maybe 0,1% of the population wants murder to be legal. Yes, if they can convince a large enough majority (that's going to be way more than 50,1%) it can become legal and possibly even a norm. But that's ridiculously hard to do, would require continous pressure to ensure that more instinctual behavior doesn't reassert itself. So it's not really relevant. Not more than absolute morals getting completely forgotten by everyone on earth.

your brain is decided by those genes and chemicals, they cannot create free will, they determined how your brain would be and what you think. Had you a dog brain you would have very different morals. As dawkins said, we just dance to our genes.

Genetics,i say genes determine who you are [true,genome,genetic code] you say that rejects genetics, hmmm not sure you will do well when creation/evolution comes.

The genetic code does not, and cannot, specify the nature
and position of every capillary in the body or every neuron
in the brain. What it {can} do is describe the underlying
fractal pattern which creates them.

Remember, genes are NOT blueprints. This means you can't, for example,
insert "the genes for an elephant's trunk" into a giraffe and get a
giraffe with a trunk. There -are- no genes for trunks. What you CAN do
with genes is chemistry, since DNA codes for chemicals.

Courtesy of whoever came up with Academician Prokhor Zakharov.

The whole point of genetics are the in built adaptabillity, and it's restraints.

I think you're mixing up biochemistry and genetics. They are not the same thing. Our genes are simply too general to describe what I'm thinking right now and that's intentional. My biochemistry (I include the electrical signals in that) has an unique pattern that if somehow repeted would make think and do exactly the same thing again. Yes genetics does have a strong influence on my biochemistry, but they aren't my biochemistry.

To make it clear. Compared to your genes, you have a free will. Compared to your complete biochemisty, you do not, because they are what describes you.