Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

#426
#426
rjd970 said:
Then why the need to explicitly state murder is wrong if it was imprinted to begin with? The details are the only thing that need to be stated, right? You said this:
Click to expand...

I read a math book that taught me the multiplication tables when I was a kid. Did the laws of multiplications just come into existence when that textbook was written? Or was it more fully written so that I could learn the fullness of the laws and then be tested (judged) on how well I used them?

rjd970 said:
In cases where it wasn't explicitely stated outside of personal revelation as a standard then one's own conscience is good enough, for all other cases that written standard in needed? Who's really being inconsistent here?
Click to expand...

What is inconsistent about that? The basics were written on hearts, and people are judged in accord with how they live according to that. The basics as well as more specifics are spelled out. People are judged according to how much of that they have received.

They are spelled out in detail so that those who received the basics will know where they came from, and that they are objectively given instead of subjectively perceived.



rjd970 said:
Good people will be good. Bad people will be bad. Religion or any other standard isn't going to change that. The history of christianity and other religious justifications for behaving badly should make that abundantly clear.
Click to expand...


Listen to your contradictions... You said there is no standard then you say that good people will be good and bad people will be bad.

You just used a standard that you claim does not exist.


rjd970 said:
I also said such an answer was worthless. You can't ask a worthless question, get a worthless answer, and then accuse me of being inconsistent. I stated from the beginning the premise of the question was stupid.
Click to expand...

You asserted that the question is worthless. It is not. Just because your answer is worthless does not effect whether the question was. I think you know that. You seem like an honestly, generally "good" guy. You know this is not useless. You just also know it's a question that you can't answer.

That's your problem. You are stuck in a dilemma with your worldview.

You want to judge the Nazis for war crimes while saying that moral issues are a societal construct. You guys want to say that morality is only an invention to wrest power from the strong and give it to the weak-- while allowing morality to exist outside of the "invention" to say that the child rapist is honestly bad.

You have a rational dilemma, and it appears that your only escape is to escape the question altogether.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#427
#427
Crush, I'm saddened by the fact that apparently the only thing between you killing me is your fear of gods retribution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#428
#428
rjd970 said:
Excellent. All your high and mighty posts about us sidestepping questions and you do this.

Again,



Do you think the history of Christianity would be better if this precept was followed as opposed to what is written in the bible? At a minimum I see it to be harder to justify the inquisition and crusades.
Click to expand...

I am not sidestepping anything. I have already told you that Christianity has moral laws that have been broken in the name of Christianity. Jesus gave many specifics on how we are to treat others, and none of them look anything like the violence done in the past in Jesus' name. In general they came down to this:

Love the lord your God and love your neighbor as yourself. The rest of the specifics are wrapped up in these two. (Then he defined 'neighbor' as the person you like the least.) So, can you please put to bed the argument about what people have done in Jesus' name? It's a red herring. It's obvious those people were not acting as Jesus commanded.

Again (and I wonder why I have to repeat myself so often), just because a law is broken does mean the law does not exist.

I then pointed out, from the reference of your morally relative worldview, that (if they truly are relative) no one could hold someone else that did not share the same opinion. From your worldview of moral relativity, that was one opinion given, no more right/wrong than the rapists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#429
#429
Septic said:
Crush, I'm saddened by the fact that apparently the only thing between you killing me is your fear of gods retribution.
Click to expand...

I challenge you to find a single post where I said anything of the sort.

It's interesting that, as opposed to answering on behalf of your own beliefs, all you can do is try to attack mine.

But anyway... I challenge you to find a single place where I've said that. To the contrary, if you go back far enough, you'll find where I defended against that spurious assertion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#430
#430
rjd970 said:
At a minimum I see it to be harder to justify the inquisition and crusades.
Click to expand...

When have I tried to justify the inquisitions/crusades? They were dispicable. I assure you Jesus would say the same because they broke his objective moral standards.

Do yu care to defend your own philosophy? Or shall you just continue tossing out red herrings?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#431
#431
VOLatile said:
Bless your heart. You have so much more patience than I do.
Click to expand...

Hey guy! It was your remark that started the whole thing up. Jump in!

Is rape wrong? rjd says there is no standard. Would you agree? If you disagree, what part of your atheism gives you an objective moral standard? I'll rephrase since the question has been hard to follow... What part of your naturalistic, descriptive universe prescribes what "ought" to be?
 
#432
#432
Orange_Crush said:
I read a math book that taught me the multiplication tables when I was a kid. Did the laws of multiplications just come into existence when that textbook was written? Or was it more fully written so that I could learn the fullness of the laws and then be tested (judged) on how well I used them?

What is inconsistent about that? The basics were written on hearts, and people are judged in accord with how they live according to that. The basics as well as more specifics are spelled out. People are judged according to how much of that they have received.

They are spelled out in detail so that those who received the basics will know where they came from, and that they are objectively given instead of subjectively perceived.
Click to expand...

Still makes no sense. It is self-evident murder is wrong (through god imprinting or whatever you want to believe) but it only works if we all know where it came from. Amazing the Israelites weren't offing each other in droves without objectively receiving instruction not to do so.




Orange_Crush said:
Listen to your contradictions... You said there is no standard then you say that good people will be good and bad people will be bad.

You just used a standard that you claim does not exist.
Click to expand...

When it comes to self-evident morality? Religion or not, Stalin was going to kill who he was going to kill.


Orange_Crush said:
You asserted that the question is worthless. It is not. Just because your answer is worthless does not effect whether the question was. I think you know that. You seem like an honestly, generally "good" guy. You know this is not useless. You just also know it's a question that you can't answer.

That's your problem. You are stuck in a dilemma with your worldview.

You want to judge the Nazis for war crimes while saying that moral issues are a societal construct. You guys want to say that morality is only an invention to wrest power from the strong and give it to the weak-- while allowing morality to exist outside of the "invention" to say that the child rapist is honestly bad.

You have a rational dilemma, and it appears that your only escape is to escape the question altogether.
Click to expand...

You are putting a lot of words in my mouth there. I never said the bolded.

I'm demonstrating why I think a question is worthless, I give you a worthless answer, then you state the question isn't worthless and my answer is inconsistent. Some morality is self-evident. A token written standard is not needed to know that.

Your rational dilemma is you seem to think one is, unless it was written at the time, then my way is good enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#433
#433
Septic said:
Crush, I'm saddened by the fact that apparently the only thing between you killing me is your fear of gods retribution.
Click to expand...

Orange_Crush said:
I challenge you to find a single post where I said anything of the sort.

It's interesting that, as opposed to answering on behalf of your own beliefs, all you can do is try to attack mine.

But anyway... I challenge you to find a single place where I've said that. To the contrary, if you go back far enough, you'll find where I defended against that spurious assertion.
Click to expand...

I did the legwork for you.

Orange_Crush said:
Go learn real theology then come back and discuss with me.

"We love Him because He first loved us."

Christians are not called to be good people out of fear, but as a response to grace.
Click to expand...

Hell has no heat for me due solely to the work that Christ completed for me. Nothing I can do or refrain from earns me anything. I am changed as an individual because of the transforming power of God in my life, and out of a response to unmerited grace.

My prayer is that you guys find the same assurances.

:hi:
 
#434
#434
rjd970 said:
You are putting a lot of words in my mouth there. I never said the bolded.

I'm demonstrating why I think a question is worthless, I give you a worthless answer, then you state the question isn't worthless and my answer is inconsistent. Some morality is self-evident. A token written standard is not needed to know that.

Your rational dilemma is you seem to think one is, unless it was written at the time, then my way is good enough.
Click to expand...


Then by all means, please clarify. Don't allow me to put words in your mouth. Please answer the following questions:

  1. Were the Nazis wrong to do what they did?
  2. Is child rape wrong?
  3. What, in your mechanized Universe that can only describe what "is", is there that prescribes to us what "ought" to be?
  4. Even if right and wrong are self-evident, what in this mechanized universe prescribes that this "self-evidence" "ought" to be true?

I'll hang up and listen. This is your chance to clear the air.
 
#435
#435
Orange_Crush said:
When have I tried to justify the inquisitions/crusades? They were dispicable. I assure you Jesus would say the same because they broke his objective moral standards.

Do yu care to defend your own philosophy? Or shall you just continue tossing out red herrings?
Click to expand...

Orange_Crush said:
I am not sidestepping anything. I have already told you that Christianity has moral laws that have been broken in the name of Christianity. Jesus gave many specifics on how we are to treat others, and none of them look anything like the violence done in the past in Jesus' name. In general they came down to this:

Love the lord your God and love your neighbor as yourself. The rest of the specifics are wrapped up in these two. (Then he defined 'neighbor' as the person you like the least.) So, can you please put to bed the argument about what people have done in Jesus' name? It's a red herring. It's obvious those people were not acting as Jesus commanded.

Again (and I wonder why I have to repeat myself so often), just because a law is broken does mean the law does not exist.

I then pointed out, from the reference of your morally relative worldview, that (if they truly are relative) no one could hold someone else that did not share the same opinion. From your worldview of moral relativity, that was one opinion given, no more right/wrong than the rapists.
Click to expand...

I am arguing my position, you just refuse to listen and level attacks of inconsistencies to make yourself feel better.

My whole point that continually goes over your head is that a written standard is not needed for self-evident morality. The fact that there is a written standard doesn't keep people from doing what they are going to do anyway. Stalin, Crusades, Inquistion, etc, etc. Written or no written standard, people will still behave badly. We know they are bad because it is self-evident.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#436
#436
rjd970 said:
When it comes to self-evident morality? Religion or not, Stalin was going to kill who he was going to kill.
Click to expand...

The question that I'm asking you to answer is: Was he wrong for doing so?

It really is a simple conversation-- not as complicated as you seem to make it. I've reduced it down to a yes/no answer for you.
 
#437
#437
rjd970 said:
I am arguing my position, you just refuse to listen and level attacks of inconsistencies to make yourself feel better.

My whole point that continually goes over your head is that a written standard is not needed for self-evident morality.
Click to expand...

I countered that. It is needed for two reasons:

So that we know where the self-evident came from, and to add detail to the basics.

rjd970 said:
The fact that there is a written standard doesn't keep people from doing what they are going to do anyway. Stalin, Crusades, Inquistion, etc, etc. Written or no written standard, people will still behave badly. We know they are bad because it is self-evident.
Click to expand...

I answered that too. That is like saying: You don't need the highway laws because it is self-evident people should drive at 55. Don't make a written law because those who would drive 80 will not drive 55.

If a highway patrolman pulled you over with no objective highway law, you could just say-- "Hey, wasn't self evident to me." And drive away. With an objective law, he can point to it, claim you should have known, then write you a ticket.

Your argument is logically unsound.

Please answer my questions:

Was Stalin, Hitler, Crusades, Inquisition wrong?
 
#438
#438
There was nothing wrong with the Crusades. Not the the first, second, ninth, or current (depends on who is counting what).
 
#440
#440
Orange_Crush said:
I countered that. It is needed for two reasons:

So that we know where the self-evident came from, and to add detail to the basics.



I answered that too. That is like saying: You don't need the highway laws because it is self-evident people should drive at 55. Don't make a written law because those who would drive 80 will not drive 55.

If a highway patrolman pulled you over with no objective highway law, you could just say-- "Hey, wasn't self evident to me." And drive away. With an objective law, he can point to it, claim you should have known, then write you a ticket.

Your argument is logically unsound.

Please answer my questions:

Was Stalin, Hitler, Crusades, Inquisition wrong?
Click to expand...

Arguing from the position that a god is necessary for self evident morality is bananas. Frankly, the bible is a terrible guide to morality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#441
#441
Septic said:
Arguing from the position that a god is necessary for self evident morality is bananas. Frankly, the bible is a terrible guide to morality.
Click to expand...

So it's not morally correct to stone people to death for disobeying their parents, being of a different religion than you, or forgetting to rest on Saturday?

Because my bible says otherwise!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#442
#442
Orange_Crush said:
Hey guy! It was your remark that started the whole thing up. Jump in!

Is rape wrong? rjd says there is no standard. Would you agree? If you disagree, what part of your atheism gives you an objective moral standard? I'll rephrase since the question has been hard to follow... What part of your naturalistic, descriptive universe prescribes what "ought" to be?
Click to expand...

I agree with RJD.

There's no "rape" in animal kingdom. It's clearly defined only by humans.
 
Last edited:
#443
#443
Vol8188 said:
So it's not morally correct to stone people to death for disobeying their parents, being of a different religion than you, or forgetting to rest on Saturday?

Because my bible says otherwise!
Click to expand...

I'll see your stoning and raise you with the moral deviance of wearing mixed fabrics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#446
#446
Septic said:
Arguing from the position that a god is necessary for self evident morality is bananas. Frankly, the bible is a terrible guide to morality.
Click to expand...

I'll bet you didn't even notice the absurdity of that statement, while holding to moral relativism in a non-prescriptive universe.

lol
 
#447
#447
Vol8188 said:
So it's not morally correct to stone people to death for disobeying their parents, being of a different religion than you, or forgetting to rest on Saturday?

Because my bible says otherwise!
Click to expand...

Septic said:
I'll see your stoning and raise you with the moral deviance of wearing mixed fabrics.
Click to expand...

What makes either of those "bad" in your morally relative, non-prescriptive universe?
 
#449
#449
The arguments coming from the non believers in this thread are extremely weak. I mean it's sad. I think the non believers cannot handle the concept of a supreme being ruling over them. Because they know if there is a God, he can squash them like a bug whenever he wants. Also just for the record, atheism is the most illogical religion on the planet.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top