responding to common objections to bible part 5

[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.