I suppose a theist could argue that god gave everyone (except psychopaths) an innate sense of morality in the dorsal lateral pre-frontal cortex, which clearly isn't the only part of the brain affecting our decision making and therefore that we need to condition ourselves with rules and laws of their holy book so that we continue to do what their god says is right. Just playing devil's advocate. You know, Yahweh actually being the devil and all, lol.
Mmm? Morality is given to mankind directly from god, implemented, implanted and indoctrinated into human beings minus the text? And supposedly we have free will? This would refute this claim. If this proposal is correct, free will is only a mirage, for direct implantation of any information is not free will. This is a direct download, as to what we see in robots, which don't have free will.
Great question at the end. My bible would instruct me to act selflessly rather than selfishly. Not that I wouldn't do the same were I an atheist. I can't answer for Christians but I would bet heavily that answers would vary, disproving objective morality as you say.
But taking this a step further, my answer to "What would You do" is always, "It depends on the situation at the time". I assume my morality and conscience are unshakeable, but who knows until it's tested?
@zenzombie72 Not having everyone agree is not disproof of objective morality, any more than having people disagree on whether UFOs landed in a cornfield means that there is no objective truth in that matter. It's called "being wrong". That humans cannot perfectly understand morality is no more puzzling given objective morality than that they don't perfectly understand their brains despite the neuro-sciences being objective. We're just not there yet.
But, pornography is not immoral in my world view. The other stuff you've mentioned yeah that's definitively immoral, but if you meant child pornography or torture porn (that is pornography in which people are being severely tortured), or snuff porn... I would have to agree with you. But who does filming one or more people having sex hurt?
We shouldn't spend so much time on the god argument or where are morality comes from...what we should be doing is applying the scientific method to a social and economic system that ALLOWS our morality to flourish. A sound economic system will solve war, starvation, poverty, crime and social stratification and differential advantage.
THIS is what needs to be at the forefront...the god/moral argument can be solved with the commonality all religions share: some form of the Golden Rule.
a good solution....u ask every patient if he is religious.....if heys no...then he is a welleducated person who is woth saving.
if on the other hand the patient says he is religious.....he is a brainwashed parasite to humanity ...just take a pillow and free the earth of his existance...
I just like to say that in a divine universe the ultimate value is Soul, what happens to the body is secondary. What they should have done is entirely up to their judgment as long as they do not damage Soul and/or disobey God.
It's understandable that to a non-believer life is probably is the ultimate value and within that limit it's very hard to make good decisions.
If altruism and empathy are objective moral acts considered "good", explain why a "bad"person can show such traits? If they're a "bad" person, they can't show such traits, but yet they do. How is that a bad person can commit moral actions? Say you need to save a group of kids from a explosion, but the button to cancel the explosion was deep inside your mother's stomach and killing her was the only way to save the little kids, what is considered a good or bad choice?
Morals? read Deuteronomy that explains the ancient Gods morals or was it mans ideas put to pen? Free will is just another excuse by religion to explain away our different moral sets among humans. They have only had 2000 years to refine the circular arguments.
The surgeon in the middle of the disaster zone does not have as difficult a decision to make as Andy Thomson make it seem. The moral quandary can be easily resolved. You start by helping people who can and will help others and ask them to help people who can and will help others who in turn will help people who can and will help others.....get the idea?
How about this: You a doctor; 6 people need medical attention or they will die you only have time to help one person. No matter which patient you help 5 will die. How do you decide which one lives? And what if hey will die painfully and you have no anesthetic, only a gun? Do you let the 5 die painfully or do you shoot them in a spot that will kill them instantly killing them but sparing them a painful death?
Well in that case I would simply save the life of the person I like most. Suppose I like them all equally, then I will save the life of the person who can best assist me helping the rest die peacefully.
Morality doesn't come frmo the Bible, it EVOLVED! Every social animal has to have a sense of preservation for the community that goes beyond survival of the fittest. If it doesn't then Natural Selection will cut it out of the population.
The ones who can contribute to society in the future would be the ones I would save are the ones who have the potential to get better and to help others, so the not too young or old.
I also agree with Richard Harries, very wise answer and perhaps one of the only times I heard honesty from a priest.
People's differing opinions on right and wrong does not necessarily rule out the existence of objective morality any more than creationists denying the science of evolutionary biology rules out the fact of our origins. It is completely possible that objective morality does indeed exist, and most people are simply wrong about it.
your basic instinct for morality (all about self preservation) can be overwritten through teaching (brainwashing). Extreme example, suicide bombers and nazi's :(. Maybe a very young child has objective morality. even then they can be very cruel.
In response to the hospital dilemma, the fact that this is a dilemma is evidence to the sense of morality instilled in us. Of course there are tough decisions to be made about who to take care of, but the fact that we are taking care of others rather than ourselves is evidence of our inherent morality. If we had no morality, we would not care.
Choosing who to save and how is simply a matter of judgment. Choosing to help anyone other than ourselves is morality.
.morality has everything to do the suffering and happiness of sentient beings which is why we dont have moral obligations towards rocks or trees...Once we agree to this premise, and we understand that happiness and suffering are both mental states, we can reduce morality to the workings of our brain and the deliverance of our senses. Neurology is a science and science is objective. therefore morality is objective. This doesn't necessarily mean that it's always easy to morally assess options.
I'm an atheist but I'm also a moral realist. I do believe that there is an objective morality whether we agree to it or not. Is love btter than cruelty? Is compassion better than hatred? To quote Sam Harris: "Morality can be a lot like food. "There is no such thing as one RIGHT food, but we can certainly distinguish between food and poison..".
morality isn't objective. Whether you refer to slavery, abortion etc these require, or once required conscious thought or debate. Saying that morality is objective means humans have no judgement. If someone in your society kills someone, there was a conscious decision to kill that person if he is a risk on society. Capital punishment isn't considered moral by many countries. Tradition, history and knowledge play a role in what a society considers moral, which is built around our need to survive.
the fact that so many poeple disagree on what's moral doesn't suggest that morality is relative, it usually connotes ignorance and religious dogmatism. People who believe the earth is flat are not dissenting geographers, they're simply wrong; people who believe mutilating female genitalia to obliterate their sexual desire is a good idea are not dissenting ethicists, theyr're just flat out wrong.
typical american arrogance :P do us westerners set human kinds moral standards? The fact that morality is judged differently around the world, means it's subjective. morality is a constantly changing due to human judgement and relativism. The shape of the planet is factual. Morality is a human opinion of what is right and wrong. For example, abortion. Is abortion at nascent consciousness immoral? or before self-awareness? or before memory retention?
To settle this quick...Moral relativism (which you clearly advocate) went out of fashion among serious philosophers and moral ethicists a long time ago and there is one simple reason, it's patently contradictory. By saying: "Morality is relative and not absolute" , you're making and ABSLUTE claim. Moral relativists often suggest that tolerance for diversity of opinion is a good idea, and this again, is and ABSOLUTE claim, not a relative one. I'm sorry mrbarnes86 but reason doesn't take sides.
your not providing any explanation for this objective morality. is there are full moral code written in our genetics? if it is, then it should be black and write. Abortion shouldn't require human thought. Since you seem to have this ability to know right and wrong, I wish to hear your godly answer on capital punishment and abortion.
Objective morality doesn;t necessarily mean that everyone in the world will automatically agree on every issue just like many people don't agree on the origin of the earth and the human species, creationists who believe that the earth is 6000 years old don't make science any less objective, they're just ignorant. The same could be said about peope who think murder is right. People who are anti-abortion are usually religious rightists that know nothing about morality or science.
the problem with those examples is that our morality isn't an object you can say is round or flat. It's a code of conduct put forward by individuals or a group of individuals.
Abortion is obviously pretty clear cut, but at what stage of development does it become immoral. Some doctors suggest 1-2 year olds, due to no memory retention, can be 'terminated'.
The question I keep asking, is where does morality come from?
While it is true that our intuitions are generally a good guide for morality, these have clear limits the same way our senses have limits. Some of our morality is embedded in our dna and is completely biological. Even chimps have been demonstrated to possess a sense of morality. And ultimately, dictums like "the greatest good for the greatest number of people" can serve as general principles to follow., Kant's categorical imperative, etc..
I'm a consequentialist, so for me morality depends on the outcome of a given action..the issue of abortion has more to do with the power a woman should be given over her own body. Do the interests of a fetus (clearly none), trump the interests of a full grown woman? I don't think so.
"Do the interests of a fetus, trump the interests of a full grown woman?"
I agree with your sentiment, but at some point we have to assign the developing child rights. In the UK that line is drawn at the point the baby is able to survive (not unaided) outside the womb, which is currently determined statistically to be 24 weeks. Seems a fair balance to me.
before 1300's roman and greek troops were able to, and routinely did, rape women, girls, and even boys after conquering a city, perfectly legal until later that century.
or in the 18th century, St Paul (1 Corinthians 7:3-5). rape accepted by christians if they were married. "hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract."
In germany, spouse rape was only outlawed in 1997.
not very educated in history, but i'm sure there are plenty more examples.
Morality is not innate or instinctual, but is learned; SO IT IS OBJECTIVE- (meaning fathers, mothers, families, clans, groups, societies and govts set MORALITY, the rules of right conduct to which they require people to conform). This morality is often called ABSOLUTE. What you are attacking is the notion that GOD set it, so call it THEISTIC MORALITY and quit pretending to have a moral position.
Finally some of ur brain cells work! Bible = religious interp of history; so if you understand the religious interp then you know something valuable about the people and how their interp was twisted and used, by 'church' govt, to control, milk and create hysteria.
If YOU set the rules then, yes, by defn, silvery = Absolute Objective Morality. But it is only absolute as long as you make the rules and hold them up as the objective of ALL people.
What dprjones is attacking is the notion that GOD has at any time set an AbsolObjMorality, as claimed by most Catholic and Protestant Church Govts. I just destroyed his general argument that there is no ObjMorality, by simply using the definitions. But his real; objective, exposing the excesses of 'church' govts, needs to be addressed. They are guilty of gross manipulations and abuses. People need to be freed of them- to worship individually and corporately without control, etc.
Yes, for yourself, you certainly can make rules and ignore stuff as you want. You can even think laughter is a weapon of mass destruction. I use it for beneficial purposes, myself, but, until Obama bans it for good, laugh away! FYI, however, your diarrhea problem will not destroy the 'babble.' You really need to hope people see it for what it is, a 'religious' tome, easily used and abused by those wanting absolute objective power.
Me? mr mindless religionist? You're what you accuse me of being- labeling, ridiculing, biased, etc. So explain to me why atheists act exactly like the 'religionist' they stand against. The words are different but the attitudes and behaviors are exactly the same. You could be Pat Robertson, h8r!
Oh, sorry! So you really represent a third group of Pat Robertson Wannabees! There's govts, atheists, Robertsonians, and now your ilk! Looks like people need to stop blaming 'religion' and see the trend! That kind of behavior belongs to controlling, milking opportunists. Thanks for helping make my point!
Nope! You're human! We're a tribe. And you are acting just like some of its prominent figures. Your words are different but your actions are the same.
.and since it is learned it has to be taught and some decisions are therefore made as to what to teach. In the case of the Bible, OT, a YHWH based group accepted some unchanging targeted rules of conduct, whether actually dictated by their god or not. But the original Christians actually broke that Absolute Objectivity when, in Acts, NT, they made a decision that Gentile converts NOT follow pure Judaism. Later an organized govt began to dictate to the church and reestablished 'new' OT controls.
dprjones, as I said on 3, morality is not instinctual or innate. As far as we know it is singular to human beings, though I'd like to talk to 'dolphins' about it.
Morality has to do with groups, not individuals, by dfn- "conformity to rules of right conduct." By dfn Objective Morality is 'conformity to targeted rules of right conduct.' And Absolute Objective Morality is 'conformity to unchanging targeted rules of right conduct.' Please note 'God' has no mention in any of these.
Obviously you would just find all the believers and kill them because their life is eternal anyway. Anyone else who only has 1 shot at this life must be saved first, case closed
No, actually it's based on the previous comments you've made, the couple of videos of yours that I watched, and how you attempt to obfuscate oftentimes anyone asks you a direct question.
Every other sperm that died so that yours survived. Every time you breathe your body kills millions of bacteria, also when you take a shower, or wash your hands. You eat food that has to come from somewhere, plants die, animals die. You take up space an resources that another life form could use, either it cannot exist or you cannot. There are ones that can share space, but some absolutely cannot exist at all.
Suffering is necessitated by life. Death is necessitated by life. Plus, my above comment was written in response to you saying that killing animals for food is wrong. Yet killing plants for food is acceptable.
You are positing a subjective value (suffering) and trying to claim objectivity.
Yes, necessity means that they have to happen. There is no way to define what is not-suffering without having suffering to define it. "Up" is not definable without "down"; get the connection? Right/left, up/down, in/out, suffering/happiness.
We don't have to go out of our way to stop suffering, but our actions will nearly always cause suffering somewhere. It's just how much we can accept.
Suffering is completely subjective. One's pleasure is another's pain.
Dodging the question, one type of obfuscation. I'm not refusing to understand, you are doing a horrible job stating your point. You attitude is subjective, yet you claim objectivity in your analysis of "suffering". You claim that suffering is not subjective, but you don't explain how it is not subjective, more obfuscation.
Define how suffering is not subjective, how one thing can cause two different entities the exact same amount of suffering. If you cannot, then quit bullshitting.
You aren't answering anything. I ask you for a definition, you ignore. I ask you to define how suffering is not subjective when it clearly is dependent upon the individual suffering, you don't respond.
I just stated that you needed to put up a definition of suffering that is not dependent upon the individual, and you come back with "I constantly...etc." You don't even know how to answer the most basic question against your stupid fucking claim.
I've answered all your questions except the one I explicity stated I wouldn't in my last comment. You are either blind, stupid, insane, or dishonest. Pick one.
You haven't answered anything. I asked for a definition of suffering, I stated that you needed to show how suffering was objective, I challenged your weak argument based on a subjective analysis of suffering. You never answered to any of those statements.
I pointed out that you are repeatedly obfuscating by trying to not answer the questions I pose. I now point out that you are the one being dishonest and deliberately deceptive.
The English word "morality" is from the Latin "mores" which means "custom". It is culturally dictated. Morality is obviously relative; the uniform worn by a Catholic school girl in America would be considered "immoral" in Saudi Arabia. In the west 60 years ago, homosexuality was a crime; 45 years ago, it was a mental illness. Today it's an acceptable alternative life-style.
Morality is based on what we were raised around, and it has nothing to do with a sky wizard..
I am an animal, I have my moments of anger, and I have my moments of discontent.. And until creationists can accept the same fact that hey too are animals and create their own sense of morality, we as a society and species will never reach our full potential anytime soon.
We're animals, not animated clay statues accept that..
However, the absence of any absolute moral could be construed as proof that God exists and establishes no morality. If that were the case it would also mean that a majority of religions out there are wrong, including Christianity, since they believe in establishing a set of morals. This would contradict the God that established no morals. It would then be up to the individual to establish their own morals system through their life experience. Makes more sense than anything Christianity has.
At the same time, though, individual life experiences can be faulty. Example: say you were in love with a woman, but she cheated on you. You realize through this experience that women cannot be trusted and/or cheating is acceptable and we are sexual animals that cannot keep to one individual. When you meet a woman who loves you, you cheat on her, due to your new morals. Would this code of morality be acceptable if life experience dictated to you it was, even though it causes pain?
Working with the assumption that life is the sum result of the pain and pleasure we feel then I would most emphatically say yes. After all, without pain we would never be able to gauge what pleasure is. The negative is required to provide the standard by which the positive is to be held. In addition, it is up to personal responsibility to gauge what actions should be taken and what actions should not.
I do agree with what you say for the most part. However, from my perception, it seems you do contradict yourself with the idea of personal responsibility. If you do agree that my statement of moral acceptability is correct in that instance, then his actions, to him, are responsible whereas the society sees that as a psychological problem and irresponsible as he causes unnecessary pain to others.
When I mention personal responsibility it was in relation to whether someone accepts the action as correct and perpetuates it, or as incorrect and does not, as well as their emotional reaction to the event.
In addition, we can postulate that when the whole of one's life is held in relation to the rest of existence that morality ceases to exist.
For example: consider the medical and scientific advances that would not have occurred were if not for World War II and the Nazis.
As for the morality that ceases to exist with the example of WW2 and the Nazis, it is safe to assume that without that we would not have such medical and scientific advances. We can also assume, though, these advances would still come down the road, just it would be a longer process. So we may never have needed wars to progress. However I do agree our senses of morality fade when we are dealt with certain factors.
Santos3x7, not relative but wrong as of this post. My experience is nothing like the schizophrenics. As I said, mine is observable and measured. So my claim of knowledge is more than belief.
Lets put this another way, if knowledge and belief were as closely related as you propose they are, then every schizophrenic could be released because it would be impossible to prove that the voices they hear are not actual communications from other sentient life forms. They believe, therefore they are. You have no more ground to claim to know anything about your "god."
Santos3x7 Knowledge of the physical universe and knowledge of the 'spiritual' universe are so DIFFERENT that they must be viewed and studied separately. The physical is very cut and dried. The conscience is not. I realize your point about schizophrenics and agree. All I said about God is I know he exists.
If there were any proof of God that was observable and measurable then that would constitute proof of God and would be heralded by every worshiper across the globe. As it stands, this "observable and measurable proof" is merely the result of confirmation bias. On top of that, you use "special pleading" to try and differ actual knowledge from fictitious belief.
Mine was observed, measured to the minute and 'me' specific. The "'me' specific" may disqualify it by your standards, though I have many friends with similar experience. I don't have to "prove" God and you cannot disprove him. You simply throw around words to try to confuse people! 'Special Pleading'? You use that when dismissing me by calling me ignorant. You also use lots of 'Confirmation Bias,' narrow person. Check your terms against yourself before you fling them around.
I find it cute how you claim that I am guilty of "special pleading" and "confirmation bias," yet you do not even have the sense to specify in which cases I did that. I, on the other hand, specifically point out where YOU made those logical fallacies.
If you are not special pleading, state WHY it is "spiritual knowledge" is different or even real.
If you do not have confirmation bias, explain why your experiences should be taken as proof of god even though they cannot be verified.
Santos3x7, use of a special vocabulary, calling me ignorant when you refuse to know more, selective info, biased interp of info, polarized attitude. That put the nail in both of us, like I said.
Phys/Spir K is an ancient concept, yet contemporary in the sciences; inc mod psych. The concept is Knowledge has both physical and conscience dimensions. These interact but are different and handled differently. One ignores one or the other at a peril. Experiences register in one, the other or both.
An earth centered universe is also an ancient concept, yet is no more valid. As for this type of spiritual knowledge you propose is part of modern psychology, it is in fact the psychological repercussions of physical knowledge that is addressed and not the validity of theistic beliefs. Thus, your argument fails to support, being that is is based in a theistic model and it addresses events following physical death, an act you have not experienced and cannot have knowledge of.
You do actually have to prove the existence of God if you want us to drop everything and follow him.
If your evidence is measured, observable, and (from reading your other posts), repeatable, publish your findings. You'd be the greatest Christian ever. You would be the one to finally prove the existence of God.
At what level of proof? I point to the Universe. You reject it because church govt locked Aristotle's Universe in as church law and taught it as "God's' truth; and, since the science was settled, church govt decided to, quite unlike Christ, threaten and do violence over it. Do you know church history?
If you could prove God exists at any level, you'd be not only the greatest Christian but the greatest religious person ever. If you could prove it at any level, from the atom on up to the universe, it would be a revolution in human thought.
However, it is not enough to merely point at something and say that because it is there, a god made it. That's the Watchmaker argument, and I'm sure you're familiar with that.
By the way, anecdotal evidence is not really evidence. It's an anecdote.
Anecdotal does not meet scientific standards; but meets the definition of 'evidence.' People accept it as they can observe and measure the effects. People DO lie. Scientists DO fake data.
W-maker Analogy: D Hume fails as design allows variation. A snowflake is still a snowflake. C Darwin fails as 'fixed' laws aren't so fixed. Dawkins fails as his program was a design generating random design. Mandelbrot fails as simple systems are still systems. The 'watch' is still on the ground
We now look at the tiniest watch of all. Sci needs to explain it and, rightly per sci, scoffs at how faith does. I get that.
Do you get this: When faith was politicized it was used to control or devastate people (in god's name). But look, Sci is being politicized! It will be used the same way and since its Sci, the control and devastation will be so much greater (for Science!). But is it for Sci or a Lie? The same kind of people are at the top in both instances- politicians.
You said at 'any level.' I did with my anecdote. And see? Still treated as nobody! I get that (both ways)! Personal experience is not rocket science (it only led to rs)! Science requires proof that God is hesitant to provide (I have theories). The Bible is a far less than perfect piece to put on his resume (theories here, too). Still, it's useful in faith (personal growth, not control or devastation) and in life.
Nobody has climbed inside personal experience and flown to the moon in it.
You smear Darwin, Mandelbrot, et al as if they only sat in a room and wrote stuff down out of the air, and no one else has ever looked at and tested their claims. Guess what! People have and validated their theories!
You know who sat in a room and wrote stuff down out of thin air? The St. John that wrote a little book called "Revelations." And, I'm sure, many other authors of the bible.
They climbed inside their dreams and made them happen, based on personal experiences along the way.
Darwin is a hero. He forced free thought into the church. I don't argue evolution because the word 'created' means 'caused to happen,' suggesting process. But CD invoked fixed laws which changed. Mandelbrot was great! But he did not discuss the origins of the simple that build the complex. It's dumb to argue complexity as a proof of God. The origin of the simple is more important.
Revelation is a 'comic book' of sorts written to make xtians think and look at their world. I hope you don't imply I think any of those men wrote 'out of thin air.' If I gave you that impression I am sorry. I merely pointed out problems in using them to exclude the Watchmaker Analogy. Also the bible is not purely fiction. Archeology supports people and places. History supports nations and politics. The Jews interpreted everything through the lens of their religion. That's expected.
@mallardhead I haven't read revelation yet, but from what I've heard about it (from a former christian) it sounds like the author was on LSD when he wrote it.
@Santo3x7 You also seriously misinform Kamikaze34! K34 mistakenly posits the idea that the actions of a single person may be applied to the whole of people- a woman's faithlessness = all womens bent; and you posit that to 'gauge' pleasure one must know pain. Ridiculous! Yet, without knowing it you both have discussed The Garden of Eden and the Fall of Man; two of the most widely discussed ideals, though in different term, of today- socialism/Utopian society and human morality!
We're only human if there is a God whoa re we to say what he thinks or feels? How do we even know God is "he"? God did not come down and write the bible with his own hand. Followers of God wrote the bible, and any relegious texts. No one still lives, when any relegious text was written. Man's view is skewered. Things get bent and twisted to suit our own needs, right?
Take the 10 Cs! It does not matter that 'THOU shalt not kill' has a human societal antecedent to the Bible or that the objectiveness comes from humans. It's wrong to murder others. Per Jesus, hate is the root murder; so is true mercy killing murder? Does every soldier in a war hate the enemy? And why not 100% the rule by reversing it, THOU shalt cause others to live! ? That would be the coolest thing! I just don't think anybody thinks enough about these things!
NOrleans: 'you make decisions anyway.' Hopefully you use the best relative objectivity you can, but you make decisions. To humans it matters because dead is dead to us, but dead is not dead to God. Death is a shift of realities in life. 'Objectively' I cannot prove that. It's something I just 'know,' and a hope I share. I had to pass through the valley of the shadow of organized religion but I survived and learned differences.
Know - to perceive or understand as fact or truth
Faith - belief that is not based on proof
Obviously, you cannot "know" that. You, instead, have faith that this is thus. It should be noted that without proof you cannot establish fact, and without fact you cannot know, so therefore faith is belief based on ignorance.
Know- to apprehend clearly and with certainty, to understand from experience or attainment (You forgot part of the definition! Isn't that an ignorant thing to do?)
Faith- confidence or trust in a person or thing (oops! forgot again! More ignorance!) Also 'the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.'
I do know that! You think too narrowly. That's an igonrant thing to do!
Well, I could not find either of your "definitions" in either the Random House dictionary or The American Heritage Dictionary.
Regardless both of the definitions your chose can also be interpreted in the manner I proposed. If you cannot see something so simple as that you are the truly ignorant.
"apprehend clearly & w/ certainty" = fact or truth
"things not seen" = not based on proof
It would seem you are so narrow minded you cannot understand how you prove my point.
@Santo3x7 Interesting we each see the other as ignorant, yet use the same words & definition. Reason is based on knowledge and experience, which tests the knowledge. Your knowledge base is limited by choice. Mine is not. I have all of science and all the spiritual. You reject information, showing biased/narrow applications, and so prove yourself unreasonable-irrational-ignorant. You were educated by people who meant for you to do that. You are as much their victim as I was Organized Religion's.
My knowledge is based on proven, scientific standards where as yours is based on the premise that you can shoe-horn the definitions to give a false sense of validity to your beliefs. You might as well claim that knowledge and belief are the same thing, or that apples and pine-cones are equally well suited for pies.
@Santo3x7 I've seen more "proven" science change than I care to list. Fun ex: Brontosaurus. But you do seem to comprehend 'shoe-horn.' "False" is relative. Your premise is relative so useless. Again, you abuse the definition of knowledge (shoe-horn!) so try again. I believe in your ability to grow in understanding! That's proven knowledge!
Look at d.c again! It's right there! There are more dfns for Faith! #s mean 0!
That's pine nut pie! Cones=apple skin. See what I mean? U don't know enough!
I don't know about you but I use the skin in my apple pies.
Science is meant to changed based on new understandings whereas "god" is supposedly constant.
I did not say "faith" was not there, I said your definition for "know" as not.
Regardless of what you believe it is inescapable that knowledge relies on testable hypotheses. If a thought lacks that, it is a belief. To disregard such a fixed point is tantamount to invalidating all usage of language.
Then you'd use the cone and ruin your pine nut pie! I skin my apples but eat the raw skins! Antioxidants, you know? I seem to have read where God changed his mind once or twice and let humans influence him once or twice. Is it possibly your narrow dfn of 'constant' or how you choose to apply that word? Have you checked source languages?
It's there, #5, under 'know.'
Sci knowledge depends on sci proof. All knowledge must be testable. Most does not require the rigors of science.
Just a second! That definition describes experience. Since I really doubt you have died I fail to see how your use of that form of "know" is even applicable in this instance. That definition relates to being to knowledge of performing an action, not knowledge of the existence of that action.
@Santo3x7 Exactly! I understand from life's experience that God exists. I have made the observations and measurements. Death is not the requisite experience for knowing that. When you experience enough of life you will know it, too. It's wrong for anyone to think the Bible is the measure of God. It's also wrong to dismiss the Bible, because it teaches us something about us. Dawkins is not wrong in his criticisms of the Bible. He is wrong in dismissing God because of it.
Ah, so as I understand it you have resorted to the "since it's so far beyond my comprehension then God must be responsible" mentality as it pertains to Life and God. That's a cop-out. It's essentially giving up on seeking the answer and accepted the easiest one available. If God truly existed then in it's infinite wisdom it would pass down at least one moral that could be held as absolute. Since there isn't one, then the likelihood of a God is equally absent.
I have experienced enough of life to see that God does exist...in people's minds. However, if he is real, it may be likely, but at the same time unlikely. From my life experiences, God's an asshole. So if he is real, then I would rather go to hell then be consistently worshiping a narcissistic, sadistic, kill frenzy dictator.
Kamikaze34, I know several people for whom life has been so cruel each blames God, explicitly, because they have been taught wrongly about him. Here's what I BELIEVE about that- God loves them and will prove himself worthy of them. That may happen after their deaths but I BELIEVE they will understand him for who he really is and see the truth of their physical lives and the people who surrounded them. If I BELIEVE wrongly then I'll be the first to jump into the lake of fire.
I am sorry your mother has Alzheimer's. However, I have to say the mind is a complicated machine. Research has been done with Alzheimer patients and they have seen that there are certain things that can stimulate their brain, such as music. However I am not qualified to speak more in depth about that condition. And as for God: Experience and reading about him in his book have shown me he's not really great or good. It's sad I'm morally superior to him, really.
Maybe you're right. The brain is complicated. But the latest I've read from science and medicine says what she experiences is impossible. If it was just that book I'd probably be right there with you. Its a useful book but by no means is that book God, as organized religion (creations of man) say. Interesting! My experiences with people show that they have no moral superiority. Eventually every one turns out to be less than moral.
I actually said I'm morally superior to God, and judging the moral spectrum of what is morally acceptable in today's world, God is morally corrupt. And I did not say the book was God. However it's supposed to show us who God is and I'm sure depending on where you look you'll see many different versions of God. Humans do have the moral superiority that they decide what is moral for their time and not God.
I know you think you are and would like you to better explain from 'and judging' to 'corrupt,' please. Many people think that about the book. I was raised to that lie. I've studied the many versions. I find them interesting and informative! Humans don't have moral superiority in actuality. They do decide what they want as moral for their time, until opportunists take over. That's why the oppressed always look to a non-human based objective morality and a Utopia.
We do not agree with genocide, yet God has ordered the wiping out of civilizations. He has destroyed civilizations on his own. It's been shown in his bible that he does do that. He does not say you should question him and you are commanded to do what he tells you to do. Dictator much? And Christians are probably some of the biggest opportunists around. With their God wanting to control everyone, I can see why they try to use whatever means necessary to obtain those goals.
Thanks! I can't argue your conclusions about what is attributed to God/Christ or people who use their names. You may be right about the inspiration to opportunism, but opportunism uses whatever is available. Atheism is its next big hidey hole!
I do disagree with 'Dictator much?', as atheism/socialism has killed and enslaved far more in 110 years than can be attributed to God/Christ over time. Unless you accept that 9 billion died in the Flood.
If you want to play the card at how atheism is attributed to dictators, then be my guest. However, dictatorships have been seen as religious, worship of the state which does become like a religion we would see with Christianity and Islam. Atheism does not worship anything. It will hold some things in higher regard, but not worship these things. There is a video around here that shows nations more atheist influenced are actually more peaceful than more religious nations.
Kam34, you threw down the D card. As atheists tell me so often, 'religion' is just about God. You cannot use your argument, though I completely agree that the state becomes god. They use God to gain power and then throw God out, having never believed in him, and take his place as god. the titles Xtianity and Islam become empty camouflage. I also believe that's what Lenin and Stalin did with atheism. Right atheism worships "nothing!" That nothing is really "something!" But atheists do "Worship."
I am an aworshiper (new made up word). I have a lack, or absence of worship. I do agree with what people say, and also disagree with what people say. Is agreeing a form of worship? If that is so then all Christians have worshiped their pastor in some way or fashion. If you are a Christian then chances are you may have worshiped someone or are worshiping someone, based on the assumption that agreeing is a form of worship.
depends- 'schachah' or 'worship' means 'to bow down.' It is first used (KJV) by Abraham, about to 'sacrifice' Isaac, as the reason his servant stay behind. Great point about pastor worship! I hold the same view.
Honestly, I did that, was raised to it, then everything crashed. I had to reevaluate Organized Religion or kill myself. OrgR is a false God. I looked for the real, asked for some enlightenment, got it and have rescuing other crashed souls since then.
I've seen several such vids. Then researched the truth. The vids lie about % of population that's atheist. It also misrepresents spirituality by telling folk to look at church attendance as representative of xtian commitment. It's misleading. Attd doe not = commitment. As to the 'peace,' look at how packed these nation are. They are sardines and have to get along. But even that is mis-representative. The govt god severely limits people and controls everything!
That is a skewed statement that, once again, demonstrates a complete lack of understanding on your part.
Slavery has traditionally been justified WITH religion.
More people could have be killed due to atheism/socialism due to the advancement of human knowledge and technology that was attained WITHOUT religion. In fact, religion hinders the progress of human achievement.
Ex. Creationism, Flat Earth, universe rotates around earth, etc.
@Santo3x7 Special Pleading- claiming I lack comprehension- again. I see differently, with a broader knowledge base.
'Religion' is the whipping boy of the day, just as the "Jew" was before WWII. It's a Progressive tactic. You're being used, as they used 'religion.'
You're also wrong. Arabs were dealing slaves 1100 years before Mohamed. Slavery was an economic necessity, sanctified by govts /societies. Oh, and they claim God's approval wrongly. Lack of knowledge. Misrepresentation of the bible.
You obviously do not know what special pleading is. Special pleading is making an assertion that deviates from the accepted norm(i.e. physical knowledge is different from spiritual knowledge because it just is). Claiming, and explaining, how you lack a comprehensive knowledge of a complex issue is not special pleading. Why don't you go look words up before you start using them? Might be a wise choice.
Accepted norm? There you go again: Special Pleading- control of information and definitions. PK/SK is pre-hindu and has evolved a lot since then. It's not my fault you ignored it.
I just explained your Confirmation Bias as well.
Wisely I did look them up as you decided to use them to confound discussion.
Earth centrism came from the Greeks to the mideast with Alex the Great as science, not religion. Flat earth is as old as humanity. Creationism needs discussion. Einstein was a creationist.
Einstein, Planck, Kelvin, Stokes, Maxwell, Mendel, Farady, Boyle, Newton, Descarte, Galilei, Kepler, Bacon, Copernicus: Science is from these men and they were 'religious.'
Men of faith advanced humanity. They are the basis of human knowledge and tech.
Special Pleading is based on the fact that there are accepted norms and that one is asserting an opinion that is contradictory to those accepted norms without stating a reason as to why.
Confirmation Bias is NOT stating opinion as fact but is actually interpreting events in a manner that confirms ones opinion.
You are a compete fool who has no understanding of simple terms or their usage.
So SpecPleading is what YOU say it is by relative peer norming. For CB I just reinterpreted what the site said. Redefining or narrowly defining terms, rejecting info provided, spinning info as per your own bias and holding a polarized attitude is the same as making your opinion the fact. Calling me a fool is SpecPleading.
You started this Fallacy nonsense to justify your position. That's Confirmation Bias!
I apologize for inadvertently doing that but you do it on purpose.
Once again, you fail to understand the meaning behind the words. To reject information provided is not confirmation bias if the information provided is shown to be in fault. I have expressly demonstrated how your information is false in multiple points. Holding a polarized attitude is to say that one refuses to accept irrefutable proof that is provided, which you have failed to do since all of your proof has been subjective and open to multiple interpretation.
Furthermore, pointing out that someone is using faulty logic is not Confirmation Bias. The fact that you refuse to accept that knowledge is accepted as a collection of factual and provable thought is itself a polarized attitude since to do so would invalidate your original statement that you "know" what happens after death.
Secondly, I wasn't justifying my position. I was simply pointed out how you couldn't justifying yours.
This has been flagged as spam show
225 people can't face reality.
exacerbatedtaboo 11 months ago
I suppose a theist could argue that god gave everyone (except psychopaths) an innate sense of morality in the dorsal lateral pre-frontal cortex, which clearly isn't the only part of the brain affecting our decision making and therefore that we need to condition ourselves with rules and laws of their holy book so that we continue to do what their god says is right. Just playing devil's advocate. You know, Yahweh actually being the devil and all, lol.
MtlRedAtheist 1 year ago
Mmm? Morality is given to mankind directly from god, implemented, implanted and indoctrinated into human beings minus the text? And supposedly we have free will? This would refute this claim. If this proposal is correct, free will is only a mirage, for direct implantation of any information is not free will. This is a direct download, as to what we see in robots, which don't have free will.
strikenetter 1 year ago
Genetic fallacy, lol.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
Great question at the end. My bible would instruct me to act selflessly rather than selfishly. Not that I wouldn't do the same were I an atheist. I can't answer for Christians but I would bet heavily that answers would vary, disproving objective morality as you say.
But taking this a step further, my answer to "What would You do" is always, "It depends on the situation at the time". I assume my morality and conscience are unshakeable, but who knows until it's tested?
zenzombie72 1 year ago
@zenzombie72 Not having everyone agree is not disproof of objective morality, any more than having people disagree on whether UFOs landed in a cornfield means that there is no objective truth in that matter. It's called "being wrong". That humans cannot perfectly understand morality is no more puzzling given objective morality than that they don't perfectly understand their brains despite the neuro-sciences being objective. We're just not there yet.
newperve 7 months ago
4.07 Damn fine point.
I can only think of - God IS the moral order of the universe.
zenzombie72 1 year ago
But, pornography is not immoral in my world view. The other stuff you've mentioned yeah that's definitively immoral, but if you meant child pornography or torture porn (that is pornography in which people are being severely tortured), or snuff porn... I would have to agree with you. But who does filming one or more people having sex hurt?
Jonstern1983 1 year ago
We shouldn't spend so much time on the god argument or where are morality comes from...what we should be doing is applying the scientific method to a social and economic system that ALLOWS our morality to flourish. A sound economic system will solve war, starvation, poverty, crime and social stratification and differential advantage.
THIS is what needs to be at the forefront...the god/moral argument can be solved with the commonality all religions share: some form of the Golden Rule.
blaziermissy 1 year ago
god is good???
in the bible he is responsible for the killing of nearly 1 billon people...
he is a vile and evil serial killer... he should be shot.!!!!
religious people imbeciles..to try to hide his krimes...
robot014 1 year ago
@robot014 You Fail at Spelling
ThePuppyTurtle 10 months ago
a typical religious hysteric proposition....
a good solution....u ask every patient if he is religious.....if heys no...then he is a welleducated person who is woth saving.
if on the other hand the patient says he is religious.....he is a brainwashed parasite to humanity ...just take a pillow and free the earth of his existance...
happy???
robot014 1 year ago
I just like to say that in a divine universe the ultimate value is Soul, what happens to the body is secondary. What they should have done is entirely up to their judgment as long as they do not damage Soul and/or disobey God.
It's understandable that to a non-believer life is probably is the ultimate value and within that limit it's very hard to make good decisions.
x86freak 1 year ago
If altruism and empathy are objective moral acts considered "good", explain why a "bad"person can show such traits? If they're a "bad" person, they can't show such traits, but yet they do. How is that a bad person can commit moral actions? Say you need to save a group of kids from a explosion, but the button to cancel the explosion was deep inside your mother's stomach and killing her was the only way to save the little kids, what is considered a good or bad choice?
HybridD91 1 year ago
some people need god. theyd go off the deep end if they didnt need it. the ones that dont are evolved mentally.
AXSofHFDS 1 year ago
Morals? read Deuteronomy that explains the ancient Gods morals or was it mans ideas put to pen? Free will is just another excuse by religion to explain away our different moral sets among humans. They have only had 2000 years to refine the circular arguments.
baxtar1963 1 year ago
The surgeon in the middle of the disaster zone does not have as difficult a decision to make as Andy Thomson make it seem. The moral quandary can be easily resolved. You start by helping people who can and will help others and ask them to help people who can and will help others who in turn will help people who can and will help others.....get the idea?
82abhilash 1 year ago
How about this: You a doctor; 6 people need medical attention or they will die you only have time to help one person. No matter which patient you help 5 will die. How do you decide which one lives? And what if hey will die painfully and you have no anesthetic, only a gun? Do you let the 5 die painfully or do you shoot them in a spot that will kill them instantly killing them but sparing them a painful death?
thenamelessone83 1 year ago
Well in that case I would simply save the life of the person I like most. Suppose I like them all equally, then I will save the life of the person who can best assist me helping the rest die peacefully.
82abhilash 1 year ago
Keep in mind that you are talking about an exception circumstance even among exceptional circumstances.
82abhilash 1 year ago
Excellent video . . . except for the minor error at the title. That was a bit embarrasing . . . unless you are a nihlistic exestentialist. ; )
Maphisto86 1 year ago
10 stars from me.
Morality doesn't come frmo the Bible, it EVOLVED! Every social animal has to have a sense of preservation for the community that goes beyond survival of the fittest. If it doesn't then Natural Selection will cut it out of the population.
warren52nz 1 year ago
The ones who can contribute to society in the future would be the ones I would save are the ones who have the potential to get better and to help others, so the not too young or old.
I also agree with Richard Harries, very wise answer and perhaps one of the only times I heard honesty from a priest.
Anyway, 5 stars.
ChiNoRondoX 1 year ago
People's differing opinions on right and wrong does not necessarily rule out the existence of objective morality any more than creationists denying the science of evolutionary biology rules out the fact of our origins. It is completely possible that objective morality does indeed exist, and most people are simply wrong about it.
ionz75 2 years ago
your basic instinct for morality (all about self preservation) can be overwritten through teaching (brainwashing). Extreme example, suicide bombers and nazi's :(. Maybe a very young child has objective morality. even then they can be very cruel.
mrbarnes86 2 years ago
Umm, so? I'm not sure how you are addressing my point.
ionz75 2 years ago
My apologies ionz75, I seem to have replied to you instead. I have fat fingers.
mrbarnes86 2 years ago
Oh, that makes sense. I was scratching my head for a while there.
ionz75 1 year ago
In response to the hospital dilemma, the fact that this is a dilemma is evidence to the sense of morality instilled in us. Of course there are tough decisions to be made about who to take care of, but the fact that we are taking care of others rather than ourselves is evidence of our inherent morality. If we had no morality, we would not care.
Choosing who to save and how is simply a matter of judgment. Choosing to help anyone other than ourselves is morality.
TheMitchellRG 2 years ago
.morality has everything to do the suffering and happiness of sentient beings which is why we dont have moral obligations towards rocks or trees...Once we agree to this premise, and we understand that happiness and suffering are both mental states, we can reduce morality to the workings of our brain and the deliverance of our senses. Neurology is a science and science is objective. therefore morality is objective. This doesn't necessarily mean that it's always easy to morally assess options.
stanleygarden 2 years ago
I'm an atheist but I'm also a moral realist. I do believe that there is an objective morality whether we agree to it or not. Is love btter than cruelty? Is compassion better than hatred? To quote Sam Harris: "Morality can be a lot like food. "There is no such thing as one RIGHT food, but we can certainly distinguish between food and poison..".
stanleygarden 2 years ago
morality isn't objective. Whether you refer to slavery, abortion etc these require, or once required conscious thought or debate. Saying that morality is objective means humans have no judgement. If someone in your society kills someone, there was a conscious decision to kill that person if he is a risk on society. Capital punishment isn't considered moral by many countries. Tradition, history and knowledge play a role in what a society considers moral, which is built around our need to survive.
mrbarnes86 2 years ago
the fact that so many poeple disagree on what's moral doesn't suggest that morality is relative, it usually connotes ignorance and religious dogmatism. People who believe the earth is flat are not dissenting geographers, they're simply wrong; people who believe mutilating female genitalia to obliterate their sexual desire is a good idea are not dissenting ethicists, theyr're just flat out wrong.
stanleygarden 1 year ago
typical american arrogance :P do us westerners set human kinds moral standards? The fact that morality is judged differently around the world, means it's subjective. morality is a constantly changing due to human judgement and relativism. The shape of the planet is factual. Morality is a human opinion of what is right and wrong. For example, abortion. Is abortion at nascent consciousness immoral? or before self-awareness? or before memory retention?
Is capital punishment moral?
mrbarnes86 1 year ago
To settle this quick...Moral relativism (which you clearly advocate) went out of fashion among serious philosophers and moral ethicists a long time ago and there is one simple reason, it's patently contradictory. By saying: "Morality is relative and not absolute" , you're making and ABSLUTE claim. Moral relativists often suggest that tolerance for diversity of opinion is a good idea, and this again, is and ABSOLUTE claim, not a relative one. I'm sorry mrbarnes86 but reason doesn't take sides.
stanleygarden 1 year ago
your not providing any explanation for this objective morality. is there are full moral code written in our genetics? if it is, then it should be black and write. Abortion shouldn't require human thought. Since you seem to have this ability to know right and wrong, I wish to hear your godly answer on capital punishment and abortion.
mrbarnes86 1 year ago
Objective morality doesn;t necessarily mean that everyone in the world will automatically agree on every issue just like many people don't agree on the origin of the earth and the human species, creationists who believe that the earth is 6000 years old don't make science any less objective, they're just ignorant. The same could be said about peope who think murder is right. People who are anti-abortion are usually religious rightists that know nothing about morality or science.
stanleygarden 1 year ago
the problem with those examples is that our morality isn't an object you can say is round or flat. It's a code of conduct put forward by individuals or a group of individuals.
Abortion is obviously pretty clear cut, but at what stage of development does it become immoral. Some doctors suggest 1-2 year olds, due to no memory retention, can be 'terminated'.
The question I keep asking, is where does morality come from?
mrbarnes86 1 year ago
While it is true that our intuitions are generally a good guide for morality, these have clear limits the same way our senses have limits. Some of our morality is embedded in our dna and is completely biological. Even chimps have been demonstrated to possess a sense of morality. And ultimately, dictums like "the greatest good for the greatest number of people" can serve as general principles to follow., Kant's categorical imperative, etc..
stanleygarden 1 year ago
What we do know is that morality is not relative the same was that truth is not relative.
stanleygarden 1 year ago
I'm a consequentialist, so for me morality depends on the outcome of a given action..the issue of abortion has more to do with the power a woman should be given over her own body. Do the interests of a fetus (clearly none), trump the interests of a full grown woman? I don't think so.
stanleygarden 1 year ago
@stanleygarden
"Do the interests of a fetus, trump the interests of a full grown woman?"
I agree with your sentiment, but at some point we have to assign the developing child rights. In the UK that line is drawn at the point the baby is able to survive (not unaided) outside the womb, which is currently determined statistically to be 24 weeks. Seems a fair balance to me.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
If moral was objective, you wouldn't find repeated acceptable murder or rape in any cultures around the world, at any time in history
mrbarnes86 2 years ago
@mrbarnes86 then give me one example of a culture where rape on a child is accepted in a society. If morality isn't in any way objective.
XLKontrabanda 2 years ago
before 1300's roman and greek troops were able to, and routinely did, rape women, girls, and even boys after conquering a city, perfectly legal until later that century.
or in the 18th century, St Paul (1 Corinthians 7:3-5). rape accepted by christians if they were married. "hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract."
In germany, spouse rape was only outlawed in 1997.
not very educated in history, but i'm sure there are plenty more examples.
mrbarnes86 2 years ago
AGAIN----- TO dprjones
Morality is not innate or instinctual, but is learned; SO IT IS OBJECTIVE- (meaning fathers, mothers, families, clans, groups, societies and govts set MORALITY, the rules of right conduct to which they require people to conform). This morality is often called ABSOLUTE. What you are attacking is the notion that GOD set it, so call it THEISTIC MORALITY and quit pretending to have a moral position.
mallardhead 2 years ago
oh yes u mean like silvery is absolutely moral yeah?
i bet u never ever read ur idiotically stupid babble
ptica11 2 years ago
@ptica11
Finally some of ur brain cells work! Bible = religious interp of history; so if you understand the religious interp then you know something valuable about the people and how their interp was twisted and used, by 'church' govt, to control, milk and create hysteria.
If YOU set the rules then, yes, by defn, silvery = Absolute Objective Morality. But it is only absolute as long as you make the rules and hold them up as the objective of ALL people.
So close! Make the connect, ptica11 !
mallardhead 2 years ago
yes i make the rules and i shit on idiotic monster god cheezus jesus and his other 1/3 and father yhwh
ptica11 2 years ago
@ptica11
What dprjones is attacking is the notion that GOD has at any time set an AbsolObjMorality, as claimed by most Catholic and Protestant Church Govts. I just destroyed his general argument that there is no ObjMorality, by simply using the definitions. But his real; objective, exposing the excesses of 'church' govts, needs to be addressed. They are guilty of gross manipulations and abuses. People need to be freed of them- to worship individually and corporately without control, etc.
mallardhead 2 years ago
and i can simply destroy the idiotic babble by shitting on it
i can destroy ur monster zombie god cheezus jesus by laughing at him
ptica11 2 years ago
@ptica11
Yes, for yourself, you certainly can make rules and ignore stuff as you want. You can even think laughter is a weapon of mass destruction. I use it for beneficial purposes, myself, but, until Obama bans it for good, laugh away! FYI, however, your diarrhea problem will not destroy the 'babble.' You really need to hope people see it for what it is, a 'religious' tome, easily used and abused by those wanting absolute objective power.
mallardhead 2 years ago
@mallardhead
yes again i shit right into ur retarded monster god cheezus mouth
ptica11 2 years ago
@ptica11
and again you miss the point, diarrhea mouth h8r!
mallardhead 2 years ago
again u miss the point mr mindless religionist
go back to munching on ur zombie monster god dick
ptica11 2 years ago
@ptica11
Me? mr mindless religionist? You're what you accuse me of being- labeling, ridiculing, biased, etc. So explain to me why atheists act exactly like the 'religionist' they stand against. The words are different but the attitudes and behaviors are exactly the same. You could be Pat Robertson, h8r!
mallardhead 2 years ago
why u asking me mr brain dead religionist pig? ask an atheist
ptica11 2 years ago
@ptica11
Oh, sorry! So you really represent a third group of Pat Robertson Wannabees! There's govts, atheists, Robertsonians, and now your ilk! Looks like people need to stop blaming 'religion' and see the trend! That kind of behavior belongs to controlling, milking opportunists. Thanks for helping make my point!
mallardhead 2 years ago
totally out ur camp mr religionists pig
i am all abut shitting into retarded cheezus jesus mouth
ptica11 2 years ago
@ptica11
Nope! You're human! We're a tribe. And you are acting just like some of its prominent figures. Your words are different but your actions are the same.
mallardhead 2 years ago
nope i am not
i am god
btw i still enjoy taking a dump right into cheezus mouth
ptica11 2 years ago
@ptica11
see just like other people who think they're godz, too!
How does your own diarrhea taste, cheezus?
mallardhead 2 years ago
@mallardhead
i bet u love to chow on ur zombie gods dick
ptica11 2 years ago
@mallardhead
btw i do not think i am god
i know i am god
so go back to mindless ass kissing of ur idiotic zombie monster god cheezus
ptica11 2 years ago
@ptica11
LOL- Discovered the 'kiss up' was to dominating people. The IZMGC was people. Now that's resolved I'm content.
Enjoy your IZMGC. Mine is now named ptica11 porcelain.
mallardhead 2 years ago
@mallardhead
no monster god is ur illusion mr mindless religionist
ptica11 2 years ago
@ptica11 as u say, god-self, izmgc-self
mallardhead 2 years ago
@mallardhead
shit u r still high on ur monster zombie god flash ha?
ptica11 2 years ago
@ptica11
since you would not even try to understand, why ask, self-god ptica11porcelain?
mallardhead 2 years ago
8:25 - Well, they infact do mention slaves, 2 of commandments. But you must read the original text, not this shortened version.
raoskaos 2 years ago
.and since it is learned it has to be taught and some decisions are therefore made as to what to teach. In the case of the Bible, OT, a YHWH based group accepted some unchanging targeted rules of conduct, whether actually dictated by their god or not. But the original Christians actually broke that Absolute Objectivity when, in Acts, NT, they made a decision that Gentile converts NOT follow pure Judaism. Later an organized govt began to dictate to the church and reestablished 'new' OT controls.
mallardhead 2 years ago
dprjones, as I said on 3, morality is not instinctual or innate. As far as we know it is singular to human beings, though I'd like to talk to 'dolphins' about it.
Morality has to do with groups, not individuals, by dfn- "conformity to rules of right conduct." By dfn Objective Morality is 'conformity to targeted rules of right conduct.' And Absolute Objective Morality is 'conformity to unchanging targeted rules of right conduct.' Please note 'God' has no mention in any of these.
It is learned.
mallardhead 2 years ago
Obviously you would just find all the believers and kill them because their life is eternal anyway. Anyone else who only has 1 shot at this life must be saved first, case closed
langeroony35 2 years ago
I just looked at your youtube page. Your most recent video makes many statements about feelings that you have.
Your apparent use of pure logic is flawed by your emotional instability.
13shadowwolf 2 years ago
That's great, but I have no emotional issues. That's just an inferrence you made because yoiu're overpresumptuous.
mrpitchf0rk 2 years ago
(I am, in fact, the most emotionally stable person I know.)
mrpitchf0rk 2 years ago
Oops, subjective analysis.
13shadowwolf 2 years ago
Confirmed by the actions and statements of everyone I know...
mrpitchf0rk 2 years ago
No, actually it's based on the previous comments you've made, the couple of videos of yours that I watched, and how you attempt to obfuscate oftentimes anyone asks you a direct question.
13shadowwolf 2 years ago
What do I do to confuse things?
mrpitchf0rk 2 years ago
Every other sperm that died so that yours survived. Every time you breathe your body kills millions of bacteria, also when you take a shower, or wash your hands. You eat food that has to come from somewhere, plants die, animals die. You take up space an resources that another life form could use, either it cannot exist or you cannot. There are ones that can share space, but some absolutely cannot exist at all.
13shadowwolf 2 years ago
Suffering. Key component you're not paying attention to.
mrpitchf0rk 2 years ago
Suffering is necessitated by life. Death is necessitated by life. Plus, my above comment was written in response to you saying that killing animals for food is wrong. Yet killing plants for food is acceptable.
You are positing a subjective value (suffering) and trying to claim objectivity.
13shadowwolf 2 years ago
Whether or not something is suffering is not subjective.
mrpitchf0rk 2 years ago
(And also, suffering and death happen, yes. But that doesn't mean they have to happen and that doesn't mean we have to make them happen.)
mrpitchf0rk 2 years ago
Yes, necessity means that they have to happen. There is no way to define what is not-suffering without having suffering to define it. "Up" is not definable without "down"; get the connection? Right/left, up/down, in/out, suffering/happiness.
We don't have to go out of our way to stop suffering, but our actions will nearly always cause suffering somewhere. It's just how much we can accept.
Suffering is completely subjective. One's pleasure is another's pain.
13shadowwolf 2 years ago
Sigh, nevermind. I can explain it to you all day and you'll only refuse to understand.
mrpitchf0rk 2 years ago
Dodging the question, one type of obfuscation. I'm not refusing to understand, you are doing a horrible job stating your point. You attitude is subjective, yet you claim objectivity in your analysis of "suffering". You claim that suffering is not subjective, but you don't explain how it is not subjective, more obfuscation.
Define how suffering is not subjective, how one thing can cause two different entities the exact same amount of suffering. If you cannot, then quit bullshitting.
13shadowwolf 2 years ago
I'll say it again, but it's useless because I've said it already and you keep ignoring it and there's no reason for you to change now:
The existence of suffering is not subjective.
mrpitchf0rk 2 years ago
That's dodging the question yet again. Is your argument so weak that you can't even properly define it?
What is suffering? Put forth a definition of suffering that is not dependent upon the one who is suffering. It's put up or shut up time.
13shadowwolf 2 years ago
I'll shut up because you're an ass.
I constantly genuinely answer your questions, you accuse me of dodging them. Show me one single example of me dodging any question.
And don't you start with "Oh hurr well you're dodging the question again". No, fuck you. It's time you actually justify your accusations.
mrpitchf0rk 2 years ago
You aren't answering anything. I ask you for a definition, you ignore. I ask you to define how suffering is not subjective when it clearly is dependent upon the individual suffering, you don't respond.
I just stated that you needed to put up a definition of suffering that is not dependent upon the individual, and you come back with "I constantly...etc." You don't even know how to answer the most basic question against your stupid fucking claim.
SHUT THE FUCK UP!
13shadowwolf 2 years ago
I've answered all your questions except the one I explicity stated I wouldn't in my last comment. You are either blind, stupid, insane, or dishonest. Pick one.
mrpitchf0rk 2 years ago
You haven't answered anything. I asked for a definition of suffering, I stated that you needed to show how suffering was objective, I challenged your weak argument based on a subjective analysis of suffering. You never answered to any of those statements.
I pointed out that you are repeatedly obfuscating by trying to not answer the questions I pose. I now point out that you are the one being dishonest and deliberately deceptive.
13shadowwolf 2 years ago
That's great, but I have responded to every single thing you've said and everyone (who is not trolling) will attest to that.
You are either blind, stupid, insane, trolling, or dishonest. I can't believe I wasted any time on you.
mrpitchf0rk 2 years ago
You responded with bullshit. You didn't answer any questions or rise to a single challenge.
I'm done with you, you are a FUCKTARD!
13shadowwolf 2 years ago
It's not me you're hurting, it's your credibility. Keep on, it doesn't affect me at all.
mrpitchf0rk 2 years ago
So, the man is starving. I kill him to stop his suffering forever.
I just reduced suffering overall, which means that a mercy killing is good.
13shadowwolf 2 years ago
Biblical actions also include but are not limited to: Raping woman, murdering infidels.
voyagervsbor 2 years ago
The English word "morality" is from the Latin "mores" which means "custom". It is culturally dictated. Morality is obviously relative; the uniform worn by a Catholic school girl in America would be considered "immoral" in Saudi Arabia. In the west 60 years ago, homosexuality was a crime; 45 years ago, it was a mental illness. Today it's an acceptable alternative life-style.
hulakan 2 years ago
Morality is based on what we were raised around, and it has nothing to do with a sky wizard..
I am an animal, I have my moments of anger, and I have my moments of discontent.. And until creationists can accept the same fact that hey too are animals and create their own sense of morality, we as a society and species will never reach our full potential anytime soon.
We're animals, not animated clay statues accept that..
afterhumanity333 2 years ago
At best the concept of "spiritual knowledge" is a pseudoscience and about as valid as astrology and the Law of Attraction.
Santo3x7 2 years ago
However, the absence of any absolute moral could be construed as proof that God exists and establishes no morality. If that were the case it would also mean that a majority of religions out there are wrong, including Christianity, since they believe in establishing a set of morals. This would contradict the God that established no morals. It would then be up to the individual to establish their own morals system through their life experience. Makes more sense than anything Christianity has.
Santo3x7 2 years ago
@Santo3x7
At the same time, though, individual life experiences can be faulty. Example: say you were in love with a woman, but she cheated on you. You realize through this experience that women cannot be trusted and/or cheating is acceptable and we are sexual animals that cannot keep to one individual. When you meet a woman who loves you, you cheat on her, due to your new morals. Would this code of morality be acceptable if life experience dictated to you it was, even though it causes pain?
Kamikaze34 2 years ago
@Kamikaze34
Working with the assumption that life is the sum result of the pain and pleasure we feel then I would most emphatically say yes. After all, without pain we would never be able to gauge what pleasure is. The negative is required to provide the standard by which the positive is to be held. In addition, it is up to personal responsibility to gauge what actions should be taken and what actions should not.
Santo3x7 2 years ago
@Santo3x7
I do agree with what you say for the most part. However, from my perception, it seems you do contradict yourself with the idea of personal responsibility. If you do agree that my statement of moral acceptability is correct in that instance, then his actions, to him, are responsible whereas the society sees that as a psychological problem and irresponsible as he causes unnecessary pain to others.
Kamikaze34 2 years ago
@Kamikaze34
When I mention personal responsibility it was in relation to whether someone accepts the action as correct and perpetuates it, or as incorrect and does not, as well as their emotional reaction to the event.
In addition, we can postulate that when the whole of one's life is held in relation to the rest of existence that morality ceases to exist.
For example: consider the medical and scientific advances that would not have occurred were if not for World War II and the Nazis.
Santo3x7 2 years ago
@Santo3x7
I understand now. Thank you.
As for the morality that ceases to exist with the example of WW2 and the Nazis, it is safe to assume that without that we would not have such medical and scientific advances. We can also assume, though, these advances would still come down the road, just it would be a longer process. So we may never have needed wars to progress. However I do agree our senses of morality fade when we are dealt with certain factors.
Kamikaze34 2 years ago
Additionally, my example is not relative:
Schizophrenics get their opinions from thing(s) they cannot prove exists.
You get your opinions from thing(s) you cannot prove exists.
Ergo, you have no more basis to claim to knowledge over belief than a schizophrenic does.
Santo3x7 2 years ago
Santos3x7, not relative but wrong as of this post. My experience is nothing like the schizophrenics. As I said, mine is observable and measured. So my claim of knowledge is more than belief.
mallardhead 2 years ago
Lets put this another way, if knowledge and belief were as closely related as you propose they are, then every schizophrenic could be released because it would be impossible to prove that the voices they hear are not actual communications from other sentient life forms. They believe, therefore they are. You have no more ground to claim to know anything about your "god."
Santo3x7 2 years ago
Santos3x7 Knowledge of the physical universe and knowledge of the 'spiritual' universe are so DIFFERENT that they must be viewed and studied separately. The physical is very cut and dried. The conscience is not. I realize your point about schizophrenics and agree. All I said about God is I know he exists.
mallardhead 2 years ago
@mallardhead
If there were any proof of God that was observable and measurable then that would constitute proof of God and would be heralded by every worshiper across the globe. As it stands, this "observable and measurable proof" is merely the result of confirmation bias. On top of that, you use "special pleading" to try and differ actual knowledge from fictitious belief.
Santo3x7 2 years ago
@Santo3x7
Mine was observed, measured to the minute and 'me' specific. The "'me' specific" may disqualify it by your standards, though I have many friends with similar experience. I don't have to "prove" God and you cannot disprove him. You simply throw around words to try to confuse people! 'Special Pleading'? You use that when dismissing me by calling me ignorant. You also use lots of 'Confirmation Bias,' narrow person. Check your terms against yourself before you fling them around.
mallardhead 2 years ago
@mallardhead
I find it cute how you claim that I am guilty of "special pleading" and "confirmation bias," yet you do not even have the sense to specify in which cases I did that. I, on the other hand, specifically point out where YOU made those logical fallacies.
If you are not special pleading, state WHY it is "spiritual knowledge" is different or even real.
If you do not have confirmation bias, explain why your experiences should be taken as proof of god even though they cannot be verified.
Santo3x7 2 years ago
Santos3x7, use of a special vocabulary, calling me ignorant when you refuse to know more, selective info, biased interp of info, polarized attitude. That put the nail in both of us, like I said.
Phys/Spir K is an ancient concept, yet contemporary in the sciences; inc mod psych. The concept is Knowledge has both physical and conscience dimensions. These interact but are different and handled differently. One ignores one or the other at a peril. Experiences register in one, the other or both.
mallardhead 2 years ago
@mallardhead
An earth centered universe is also an ancient concept, yet is no more valid. As for this type of spiritual knowledge you propose is part of modern psychology, it is in fact the psychological repercussions of physical knowledge that is addressed and not the validity of theistic beliefs. Thus, your argument fails to support, being that is is based in a theistic model and it addresses events following physical death, an act you have not experienced and cannot have knowledge of.
Santo3x7 2 years ago
You do actually have to prove the existence of God if you want us to drop everything and follow him.
If your evidence is measured, observable, and (from reading your other posts), repeatable, publish your findings. You'd be the greatest Christian ever. You would be the one to finally prove the existence of God.
But I'll bet you can't.
Echo5joker 2 years ago
@Echo5joker
At what level of proof? I point to the Universe. You reject it because church govt locked Aristotle's Universe in as church law and taught it as "God's' truth; and, since the science was settled, church govt decided to, quite unlike Christ, threaten and do violence over it. Do you know church history?
My experience is anecdotal, formally.
mallardhead 2 years ago
If you could prove God exists at any level, you'd be not only the greatest Christian but the greatest religious person ever. If you could prove it at any level, from the atom on up to the universe, it would be a revolution in human thought.
However, it is not enough to merely point at something and say that because it is there, a god made it. That's the Watchmaker argument, and I'm sure you're familiar with that.
By the way, anecdotal evidence is not really evidence. It's an anecdote.
Echo5joker 2 years ago
@Echo5joker
Anecdotal does not meet scientific standards; but meets the definition of 'evidence.' People accept it as they can observe and measure the effects. People DO lie. Scientists DO fake data.
W-maker Analogy: D Hume fails as design allows variation. A snowflake is still a snowflake. C Darwin fails as 'fixed' laws aren't so fixed. Dawkins fails as his program was a design generating random design. Mandelbrot fails as simple systems are still systems. The 'watch' is still on the ground
mallardhead 2 years ago
@Echo5joker
We now look at the tiniest watch of all. Sci needs to explain it and, rightly per sci, scoffs at how faith does. I get that.
Do you get this: When faith was politicized it was used to control or devastate people (in god's name). But look, Sci is being politicized! It will be used the same way and since its Sci, the control and devastation will be so much greater (for Science!). But is it for Sci or a Lie? The same kind of people are at the top in both instances- politicians.
mallardhead 2 years ago
@Echo5joker
You said at 'any level.' I did with my anecdote. And see? Still treated as nobody! I get that (both ways)! Personal experience is not rocket science (it only led to rs)! Science requires proof that God is hesitant to provide (I have theories). The Bible is a far less than perfect piece to put on his resume (theories here, too). Still, it's useful in faith (personal growth, not control or devastation) and in life.
mallardhead 2 years ago
Nobody has climbed inside personal experience and flown to the moon in it.
You smear Darwin, Mandelbrot, et al as if they only sat in a room and wrote stuff down out of the air, and no one else has ever looked at and tested their claims. Guess what! People have and validated their theories!
You know who sat in a room and wrote stuff down out of thin air? The St. John that wrote a little book called "Revelations." And, I'm sure, many other authors of the bible.
Echo5joker 2 years ago
@Echo5joker
They climbed inside their dreams and made them happen, based on personal experiences along the way.
Darwin is a hero. He forced free thought into the church. I don't argue evolution because the word 'created' means 'caused to happen,' suggesting process. But CD invoked fixed laws which changed. Mandelbrot was great! But he did not discuss the origins of the simple that build the complex. It's dumb to argue complexity as a proof of God. The origin of the simple is more important.
mallardhead 2 years ago
@Echo5joker
Revelation is a 'comic book' of sorts written to make xtians think and look at their world. I hope you don't imply I think any of those men wrote 'out of thin air.' If I gave you that impression I am sorry. I merely pointed out problems in using them to exclude the Watchmaker Analogy. Also the bible is not purely fiction. Archeology supports people and places. History supports nations and politics. The Jews interpreted everything through the lens of their religion. That's expected.
mallardhead 2 years ago
@mallardhead I haven't read revelation yet, but from what I've heard about it (from a former christian) it sounds like the author was on LSD when he wrote it.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
@Santo3x7 You also seriously misinform Kamikaze34! K34 mistakenly posits the idea that the actions of a single person may be applied to the whole of people- a woman's faithlessness = all womens bent; and you posit that to 'gauge' pleasure one must know pain. Ridiculous! Yet, without knowing it you both have discussed The Garden of Eden and the Fall of Man; two of the most widely discussed ideals, though in different term, of today- socialism/Utopian society and human morality!
mallardhead 2 years ago
@mallardhead
We have no more discussed The Garden of Eden and the Fall of Man than you have discussed why your opinions are anything but fictitious beliefs.
Santo3x7 2 years ago
We're only human if there is a God whoa re we to say what he thinks or feels? How do we even know God is "he"? God did not come down and write the bible with his own hand. Followers of God wrote the bible, and any relegious texts. No one still lives, when any relegious text was written. Man's view is skewered. Things get bent and twisted to suit our own needs, right?
TheOriginalXian 2 years ago
To point out to any Christian that says they just follow the God of the New Testament:
"For I am the Lord, I do not change."
- Malachi 3:6
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever"
- Hebrews 13:8
According to their own scriptures the two are inseparable.
Santo3x7 2 years ago
Take the 10 Cs! It does not matter that 'THOU shalt not kill' has a human societal antecedent to the Bible or that the objectiveness comes from humans. It's wrong to murder others. Per Jesus, hate is the root murder; so is true mercy killing murder? Does every soldier in a war hate the enemy? And why not 100% the rule by reversing it, THOU shalt cause others to live! ? That would be the coolest thing! I just don't think anybody thinks enough about these things!
mallardhead 2 years ago
NOrleans: 'you make decisions anyway.' Hopefully you use the best relative objectivity you can, but you make decisions. To humans it matters because dead is dead to us, but dead is not dead to God. Death is a shift of realities in life. 'Objectively' I cannot prove that. It's something I just 'know,' and a hope I share. I had to pass through the valley of the shadow of organized religion but I survived and learned differences.
mallardhead 2 years ago
@mallardhead
Know - to perceive or understand as fact or truth
Faith - belief that is not based on proof
Obviously, you cannot "know" that. You, instead, have faith that this is thus. It should be noted that without proof you cannot establish fact, and without fact you cannot know, so therefore faith is belief based on ignorance.
You are ignorant.
Santo3x7 2 years ago
@Santo3x7
Know- to apprehend clearly and with certainty, to understand from experience or attainment (You forgot part of the definition! Isn't that an ignorant thing to do?)
Faith- confidence or trust in a person or thing (oops! forgot again! More ignorance!) Also 'the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.'
I do know that! You think too narrowly. That's an igonrant thing to do!
mallardhead 2 years ago
Well, I could not find either of your "definitions" in either the Random House dictionary or The American Heritage Dictionary.
Regardless both of the definitions your chose can also be interpreted in the manner I proposed. If you cannot see something so simple as that you are the truly ignorant.
"apprehend clearly & w/ certainty" = fact or truth
"things not seen" = not based on proof
It would seem you are so narrow minded you cannot understand how you prove my point.
Santo3x7 2 years ago
@Santo3x7 Interesting we each see the other as ignorant, yet use the same words & definition. Reason is based on knowledge and experience, which tests the knowledge. Your knowledge base is limited by choice. Mine is not. I have all of science and all the spiritual. You reject information, showing biased/narrow applications, and so prove yourself unreasonable-irrational-ignorant. You were educated by people who meant for you to do that. You are as much their victim as I was Organized Religion's.
mallardhead 2 years ago
My knowledge is based on proven, scientific standards where as yours is based on the premise that you can shoe-horn the definitions to give a false sense of validity to your beliefs. You might as well claim that knowledge and belief are the same thing, or that apples and pine-cones are equally well suited for pies.
Santo3x7 2 years ago
@Santo3x7 I've seen more "proven" science change than I care to list. Fun ex: Brontosaurus. But you do seem to comprehend 'shoe-horn.' "False" is relative. Your premise is relative so useless. Again, you abuse the definition of knowledge (shoe-horn!) so try again. I believe in your ability to grow in understanding! That's proven knowledge!
Look at d.c again! It's right there! There are more dfns for Faith! #s mean 0!
That's pine nut pie! Cones=apple skin. See what I mean? U don't know enough!
mallardhead 2 years ago
@mallardhead
I don't know about you but I use the skin in my apple pies.
Science is meant to changed based on new understandings whereas "god" is supposedly constant.
I did not say "faith" was not there, I said your definition for "know" as not.
Regardless of what you believe it is inescapable that knowledge relies on testable hypotheses. If a thought lacks that, it is a belief. To disregard such a fixed point is tantamount to invalidating all usage of language.
Santo3x7 2 years ago
@Santo3x7
Then you'd use the cone and ruin your pine nut pie! I skin my apples but eat the raw skins! Antioxidants, you know? I seem to have read where God changed his mind once or twice and let humans influence him once or twice. Is it possibly your narrow dfn of 'constant' or how you choose to apply that word? Have you checked source languages?
It's there, #5, under 'know.'
Sci knowledge depends on sci proof. All knowledge must be testable. Most does not require the rigors of science.
mallardhead 2 years ago
"For I am the Lord, I do not change."
- Malachi 3:6
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever"
- Hebrews 13:8
Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks God us supposed to be constant...
#5 reads: to understand from experience or attainment (usually fol. by how before an infinitive): to know how to make gingerbread.
I was looking for the keywords "to apprehend clearly" and missed it.
Santo3x7 2 years ago
Just a second! That definition describes experience. Since I really doubt you have died I fail to see how your use of that form of "know" is even applicable in this instance. That definition relates to being to knowledge of performing an action, not knowledge of the existence of that action.
Santo3x7 2 years ago
@Santo3x7 Exactly! I understand from life's experience that God exists. I have made the observations and measurements. Death is not the requisite experience for knowing that. When you experience enough of life you will know it, too. It's wrong for anyone to think the Bible is the measure of God. It's also wrong to dismiss the Bible, because it teaches us something about us. Dawkins is not wrong in his criticisms of the Bible. He is wrong in dismissing God because of it.
mallardhead 2 years ago
@mallardhead
Ah, so as I understand it you have resorted to the "since it's so far beyond my comprehension then God must be responsible" mentality as it pertains to Life and God. That's a cop-out. It's essentially giving up on seeking the answer and accepted the easiest one available. If God truly existed then in it's infinite wisdom it would pass down at least one moral that could be held as absolute. Since there isn't one, then the likelihood of a God is equally absent.
Santo3x7 2 years ago
@mallardhead
I have experienced enough of life to see that God does exist...in people's minds. However, if he is real, it may be likely, but at the same time unlikely. From my life experiences, God's an asshole. So if he is real, then I would rather go to hell then be consistently worshiping a narcissistic, sadistic, kill frenzy dictator.
Kamikaze34 2 years ago
Kamikaze34, I know several people for whom life has been so cruel each blames God, explicitly, because they have been taught wrongly about him. Here's what I BELIEVE about that- God loves them and will prove himself worthy of them. That may happen after their deaths but I BELIEVE they will understand him for who he really is and see the truth of their physical lives and the people who surrounded them. If I BELIEVE wrongly then I'll be the first to jump into the lake of fire.
mallardhead 2 years ago
@mallardhead
I am sorry your mother has Alzheimer's. However, I have to say the mind is a complicated machine. Research has been done with Alzheimer patients and they have seen that there are certain things that can stimulate their brain, such as music. However I am not qualified to speak more in depth about that condition. And as for God: Experience and reading about him in his book have shown me he's not really great or good. It's sad I'm morally superior to him, really.
Kamikaze34 2 years ago
@Kamikaze34
Maybe you're right. The brain is complicated. But the latest I've read from science and medicine says what she experiences is impossible. If it was just that book I'd probably be right there with you. Its a useful book but by no means is that book God, as organized religion (creations of man) say. Interesting! My experiences with people show that they have no moral superiority. Eventually every one turns out to be less than moral.
mallardhead 2 years ago
@mallardhead
I actually said I'm morally superior to God, and judging the moral spectrum of what is morally acceptable in today's world, God is morally corrupt. And I did not say the book was God. However it's supposed to show us who God is and I'm sure depending on where you look you'll see many different versions of God. Humans do have the moral superiority that they decide what is moral for their time and not God.
Kamikaze34 2 years ago
@Kamikaze34
I know you think you are and would like you to better explain from 'and judging' to 'corrupt,' please. Many people think that about the book. I was raised to that lie. I've studied the many versions. I find them interesting and informative! Humans don't have moral superiority in actuality. They do decide what they want as moral for their time, until opportunists take over. That's why the oppressed always look to a non-human based objective morality and a Utopia.
mallardhead 2 years ago
@mallardhead
We do not agree with genocide, yet God has ordered the wiping out of civilizations. He has destroyed civilizations on his own. It's been shown in his bible that he does do that. He does not say you should question him and you are commanded to do what he tells you to do. Dictator much? And Christians are probably some of the biggest opportunists around. With their God wanting to control everyone, I can see why they try to use whatever means necessary to obtain those goals.
Kamikaze34 2 years ago
@Kamikaze34
Thanks! I can't argue your conclusions about what is attributed to God/Christ or people who use their names. You may be right about the inspiration to opportunism, but opportunism uses whatever is available. Atheism is its next big hidey hole!
I do disagree with 'Dictator much?', as atheism/socialism has killed and enslaved far more in 110 years than can be attributed to God/Christ over time. Unless you accept that 9 billion died in the Flood.
mallardhead 2 years ago
@mallardhead
If you want to play the card at how atheism is attributed to dictators, then be my guest. However, dictatorships have been seen as religious, worship of the state which does become like a religion we would see with Christianity and Islam. Atheism does not worship anything. It will hold some things in higher regard, but not worship these things. There is a video around here that shows nations more atheist influenced are actually more peaceful than more religious nations.
Kamikaze34 2 years ago
Kam34, you threw down the D card. As atheists tell me so often, 'religion' is just about God. You cannot use your argument, though I completely agree that the state becomes god. They use God to gain power and then throw God out, having never believed in him, and take his place as god. the titles Xtianity and Islam become empty camouflage. I also believe that's what Lenin and Stalin did with atheism. Right atheism worships "nothing!" That nothing is really "something!" But atheists do "Worship."
mallardhead 2 years ago
I am an aworshiper (new made up word). I have a lack, or absence of worship. I do agree with what people say, and also disagree with what people say. Is agreeing a form of worship? If that is so then all Christians have worshiped their pastor in some way or fashion. If you are a Christian then chances are you may have worshiped someone or are worshiping someone, based on the assumption that agreeing is a form of worship.
Kamikaze34 2 years ago
statement for mallardhead.
Kamikaze34 2 years ago
@Kamikaze34
depends- 'schachah' or 'worship' means 'to bow down.' It is first used (KJV) by Abraham, about to 'sacrifice' Isaac, as the reason his servant stay behind. Great point about pastor worship! I hold the same view.
Honestly, I did that, was raised to it, then everything crashed. I had to reevaluate Organized Religion or kill myself. OrgR is a false God. I looked for the real, asked for some enlightenment, got it and have rescuing other crashed souls since then.
mallardhead 2 years ago
I've seen several such vids. Then researched the truth. The vids lie about % of population that's atheist. It also misrepresents spirituality by telling folk to look at church attendance as representative of xtian commitment. It's misleading. Attd doe not = commitment. As to the 'peace,' look at how packed these nation are. They are sardines and have to get along. But even that is mis-representative. The govt god severely limits people and controls everything!
mallardhead 2 years ago
@mallardhead
That is a skewed statement that, once again, demonstrates a complete lack of understanding on your part.
Slavery has traditionally been justified WITH religion.
More people could have be killed due to atheism/socialism due to the advancement of human knowledge and technology that was attained WITHOUT religion. In fact, religion hinders the progress of human achievement.
Ex. Creationism, Flat Earth, universe rotates around earth, etc.
Santo3x7 2 years ago
@Santo3x7 Special Pleading- claiming I lack comprehension- again. I see differently, with a broader knowledge base.
'Religion' is the whipping boy of the day, just as the "Jew" was before WWII. It's a Progressive tactic. You're being used, as they used 'religion.'
You're also wrong. Arabs were dealing slaves 1100 years before Mohamed. Slavery was an economic necessity, sanctified by govts /societies. Oh, and they claim God's approval wrongly. Lack of knowledge. Misrepresentation of the bible.
mallardhead 2 years ago
@mallardhead
You obviously do not know what special pleading is. Special pleading is making an assertion that deviates from the accepted norm(i.e. physical knowledge is different from spiritual knowledge because it just is). Claiming, and explaining, how you lack a comprehensive knowledge of a complex issue is not special pleading. Why don't you go look words up before you start using them? Might be a wise choice.
Santo3x7 2 years ago
@Santo3x7
Accepted norm? There you go again: Special Pleading- control of information and definitions. PK/SK is pre-hindu and has evolved a lot since then. It's not my fault you ignored it.
I just explained your Confirmation Bias as well.
Wisely I did look them up as you decided to use them to confound discussion.
mallardhead 2 years ago
Santos3x7
Confirmation Bias- stating opinion as fact.
Earth centrism came from the Greeks to the mideast with Alex the Great as science, not religion. Flat earth is as old as humanity. Creationism needs discussion. Einstein was a creationist.
Einstein, Planck, Kelvin, Stokes, Maxwell, Mendel, Farady, Boyle, Newton, Descarte, Galilei, Kepler, Bacon, Copernicus: Science is from these men and they were 'religious.'
Men of faith advanced humanity. They are the basis of human knowledge and tech.
mallardhead 2 years ago
@mallardhead
Special Pleading is based on the fact that there are accepted norms and that one is asserting an opinion that is contradictory to those accepted norms without stating a reason as to why.
Confirmation Bias is NOT stating opinion as fact but is actually interpreting events in a manner that confirms ones opinion.
You are a compete fool who has no understanding of simple terms or their usage.
Santo3x7 2 years ago 2
@Santo3x7
So SpecPleading is what YOU say it is by relative peer norming. For CB I just reinterpreted what the site said. Redefining or narrowly defining terms, rejecting info provided, spinning info as per your own bias and holding a polarized attitude is the same as making your opinion the fact. Calling me a fool is SpecPleading.
You started this Fallacy nonsense to justify your position. That's Confirmation Bias!
I apologize for inadvertently doing that but you do it on purpose.
mallardhead 2 years ago
@mallardhead
Once again, you fail to understand the meaning behind the words. To reject information provided is not confirmation bias if the information provided is shown to be in fault. I have expressly demonstrated how your information is false in multiple points. Holding a polarized attitude is to say that one refuses to accept irrefutable proof that is provided, which you have failed to do since all of your proof has been subjective and open to multiple interpretation.
Santo3x7 2 years ago
@mallardhead
Furthermore, pointing out that someone is using faulty logic is not Confirmation Bias. The fact that you refuse to accept that knowledge is accepted as a collection of factual and provable thought is itself a polarized attitude since to do so would invalidate your original statement that you "know" what happens after death.
Secondly, I wasn't justifying my position. I was simply pointed out how you couldn't justifying yours.
Santo3x7 2 years ago
@mallardhead
CB: to believe a false claim, because it fits with the beliefs your already have; and to a reje