midnight378:


allow me please to answer you.
yes it is NOT wrong, and it's precisely what Genesis describes, and you should know the answer to this if you have ever read your Bible.
you see your god is too stupid to figure out what to do about Eve.
you do read the Bible, right ?
your god has exactly that occur as He tried to figure out what to make for Adam as a helpmate.

Genesis 2:18-20
The Lord God said : "It is not good for man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him". So the Lord God formed out of the ground various wild animals and various birds of the air and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; whatever the man called each of them would be its name. The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be a suitable partner for the man.

so as you can see from the Bible, your god is too stupid to make a partner for the man, and to compensate for His stupidity , they had to have "tryouts",...
and as part of that, your god had to have Adam sleep with pretty much every animal in existence . since your Bible mentions none of the things you're worried about, sex with animals is totally a part of god's master plan, and He totally approves of sex with animals . Hehehehe

In other words, bestiality is objectively wrong with God but to you it is subjective

Tamaratonye1:

The act itself indicates a danger to society. Animals cannot consent. Leaving aside for the moment the wrongness that is animal rape, you've just identified somebody who isn't overly concerned with consent and may not always be content to limit their predation to the livestock. Letting your rapists get a start with non-verbal victims is not something that any smart society encourages.


That's because you're using simple logic and common sense to try and understand the most complicated and least common event in the history of history. Common sense is wonderful for not grabbing hot objects, sticking your tongue in electrical outlets, and avoiding a host of other common everyday hazards. It is complete rubbish at understanding the origin of the universe.

As for bestiality, it is highly subjective if you need no permission from an animal to kill and eat it. BTW one of the conditions is that it poses no harm to the society. Would it still be wrong?

Is there no UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE of everything that exist?
You evaded the question:
Logically, infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible. It has to terminate somewhere and that is the where the Uncaused First Cause of Everything is waiting

FemiAjani:


Any religious code is adopting the subjective opinions of some deity. Saying that is objective is like my claiming everybody asking me what is moral would give an objective morality. Sorry, but it doesn't. You mentioned that objective morality gives a standard from God. That claim is simply pushing the subjective morality back one step. Why does God think that sin is moral or immoral? If it is simply his whim, then it is not objective: it is simply the subjective opinion of God. If, instead, it is based on some deeper principles, then morality doesn't come from God, but from those deeper principles. You asked if sex with an animal wrong if there is guarantee that the animal is not hurt, that adequate protection against STDs are used and no danger is posed to the society? Well, can the animal give consent? if not, then it is immoral.

Furthermore, your asking if there can possibly be no uncaused first cause that exists is a rather twisted way to ask the question, but yes, of course it is possible that there is no first cause of everything that exists. For example, there may be many different uncaused causes. That even seems likely since it is not uncommon for two different events to have no causes in common. So we expect a wide diversity of causes as we go back in time. To think all of those causal lines converge to a single 'first cause' would be quite remarkable and unlikely. And, of course, we know that uncaused causes happen all the time: most quantum events are uncaused in any classical sense. As for the universe as a whole, it is far from clear that there needs to be a single cause for the whole thing. And, in fact, since ALL causality we have ever seen has been inside of the universe, and since causality is simply another way of saying there are natural laws, the very idea of a cause for the universe seems self-contradictory.

The subjective code of a deity makes it objective for man.
Sometimes, a government steps in to fulfill the same role.

The age 18 years old as a baseline for consent is an objective rule made by government. If a child is 17 years 9 months, you cannot have sex with her as an adult without the risk of legal infraction.

You have no point dear!

midnight378:


actually that is not true.
have you never studied the Bible ?
The standards there changed countless times.

Objective standard is any standard you can't bend at your whim.

Example is legal age in most western cultures set at 18 years old. Even if it changes to 17 years old, it is still an objective standard for citizens.

A man who had sex with a 17 years 9 months old girl would be attested for rape

Tamaratonye1:

I understood your point well enough, but mine doesn't seem to have registered with you. It depends upon the assumptions and definitions, just as what history is depends upon definitions and assumptions. The only question being whether or not in the set of reasonable definitions and assumptions that one can make about the subject, is there a set that demonstrates the opposite of your conclusions, and I suggest that there are.

As to history, your analogy, besides being a false one, shows the same problem. You define history as being a frame of reference of art, story, and past time. If I conceive of history somewhat differently from you, being only about what is past, then it may at some point in the future be possible to accurately reconstruct all of the past. It's not currently possible, but this isn't about what is currently possible but about what is possible in principle, and since whether it is possible for science to demonstrate god's existence being false depends critically upon cherry-picking your assumptions and definitions such that your chosen conclusion results, that is a form of begging the question and makes your conclusion invalid.


I fail to see how this is at all analogous. Failing further elaboration on your part, I'm dismissing it as much. And since I said that in general that things would not change much, either you simply didn't understand what I said or you're reaching in order to be argumentative. I didn't suggest throwing out any bathwater, and as far as having a point, my only point was that in some, religion is an enabler for their evil. If you want to dispute that, I'm all ears. Instead you've made a tortuous and poorly explained analogy which doesn't at all seem cogent. I think you're just looking to say "nuh uh" to anything anyone says.


That's nice. Even if I were to agree, that has nothing to do with the third question or my response to it. This is a species of ignoratio elenchi, a fallacy whereby even if what the arguer says is true, it would not refute the point they are responding to. Since I've responded to such questions elsewhere, I'll simply note that in this context this is irrelevant and therefore a red herring.

It's pretty obvious now that you're just pissing into the wind for the hell of it. You'll make any response to points made just to be contrary and that is arguing in bad faith.


To the best of my knowledge, I have never asserted the words you attribute to me here. I'll need you to cite the relevant context where I said this before I can respond. At this juncture I'll simply point out that again you are playing games with definitions here. In addition to being dishonest it renders your conclusion invalid.

Your argument seem to say that Religion and Science are equivalent in their sphere of reference and that All religions are bad (without giving any content reason). The third point you were totally off as you didn't address the fact that Atheism is a belief system.

Tamaratonye1:

No, that's not what objective morality means. It's rather ironic that you accuse her of not knowing the difference and then go on to demonstrate that you, yourself, don't know the difference.

Absoluteness is a qualifier of moralities and applies to both objective and subjective moralities.

Subjective morality is absolute!?

You amaze me.

chryssanthe:

Clap for yourself!

You just admitted that you and, according to you, all your "brothers in Christ" will be raping your own children, pets and any animal you happen to find "attractive" and eating your neighbours and coworkers, the moment you decide there is no god!

WE, inferior, immoral atheists, do not look to our government to tell us not to rape our children and eat our parents. WE, inferior, immoral atheists, have our own moral compass, yes, informed by society and by humanity as a whole, but still our own, not IMPOSED upon us by laws and government.
You (and, apparently, all religious people) have no morals of their own and need SOMEONE ELSE to tell you not to rape children and eat other human beings.

Congratulations, you're an outstanding human being. You should be proud of yourself.

Congratulations too!

FemiAjani:


Well, we don't have a tested quantum theory of gravity, that much is true. But I'm not sure why this is relevant. In fact, often the philosophical question of what something 'truely is' is simply mental masturbation. A thing is defined by its properties, including how it interacts with other things. Secondly, history would say something about the development of physics: which ideas worked, which ones didn't, what roads were investigated that lead nowhere, etc. Chemistry can help with sociology. Thirdly, the concept of 'God' isn't well enough defined to test. It's like asking if science can prove or disprove fremlins. You give me a good definition first and then we can look into it. The problem is that theists can't seem to agree on the properties of their deities. Please note that science looks at the facts and religion looks at the feelings. Science is about knowledge and religion is about feeling good about yourself.

Except your argument is that it is possible to unravel God as defined by Christians with science.
For God is the Uncaused First Cause of Everything thus beyond time t=0 when energy, time and space didn't exist

FemiAjani:


What evidence is available? The archeology will say quite a lot about the day to day lives of those in the civilization. Any writings discovered will give their stories on what they think happened. Comparison of the evidence will give as good of a description as is possible. Do you think it is possible to accurately reconstruct the empires and civilizations that came before us at all? I think we can get some approximations, but there will always be questions that are unanswered. And, the only way to answer them is a scientific approach to ALL the available evidence.



I think this is clearly false. We use science all the time to help us decrypt history. It often gives us quite deep insights into the past that even the writings of those from the time cannot give. By dealing with the scientific evidence we can learn a great deal about history. Often, that scientific approach reveals a lot about the written texts, both their biases and their meaning. For many ancient civilizations, all we have is the scientific evidence to decrypt what happened. The little writing available gives very little information. Yes, history gives a frame of reference for understanding art, music, and literature. By understanding the context, we can understand the intended goals of those endeavors and their impact both on the past and on the present. But I call bullshit when it comes to religion. It was originally proposed as a way to understand the world around us by those who had not yet developed the scientific method. As such, it is full of superstition and propaganda. Eliminate those and the rest can be studied by the scientific method provided it has anything real to say.



That is, of course, an asinine argument. What is right or wrong is determined by people who want to live together to make their lives easier. The rules for a working society are not that difficult to figure out and are completely natural and based on human biology and psychology. Something is wrong when it harms human well-being. No deities required.



So many different issues here. Why identify a first cause with God (assuming there is a first cause)? What is the problem with being godless? Isn't that simply being honest?

Archeology doesn't tell a story that doesn't exist already.

By the Christian definition of God, He is the immaterial UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE of Everything. Being godless is a choice not to have the interference of the Uncaused First Cause in your life. He can't be explained away

Near1:


Wrong. I don't believe in Batman because there's zero.point.zero evidence of Batman's existence.

You should have the courtesy of asking me why I believe or don't believe something, rather than telling me my own motivations. That's very rude, but at least we've now confirmed irrefutably that you are comfortable speaking out in ignorance.



Wrong. It's about weighing the (lack of) evidence and following it to a conclusion. You have no evidence for Batman, and no evidence for your little godling.



Who cares what you think is hilarious about me or anyone else? It's almost as if you think I value your opinion of me. To answer your question directly, the Christian religion is profoundly antiscientific by its own admission and the behavior of many of its adherents. Science, on the other hand, is not terribly anti-religious.

Indeed, there are quite a few scientists who are believers. But when preachers stand up against a scientific discovery, do they present evidence? Generally, no, at least not anything that's worthy of probative value rather than "God says" bullshit.

Everything without an physical evidence doesn't exist: is this your point?

Near1:


This is begging the question. You're assuming the conclusion you're attempting to demonstrate. Simply repeating your argument doesn't lend it any more validity.

You've said NOTHING either!

1000WaysToLive:
Not opposite, just disparate. Science studies what is. Religion proclaims what ought to be.

Science is a process. Religions are ideologies.

At least it is good that you are not taking religion and science as opposites like some "educated ignorant" Atheists

1000WaysToLive:
These two claims you made are wrong by definition.

Subjective and relative moralities are distinct things, objective moralities are not absolute, and gods literally cannot be the source of an objective morality.


For a thing to be objectively good or bad, there must be something good or bad -about a thing itself- and -in fact-.

That's it, that's all, that's the only way things can be objectively good or bad.

18 year old is age of consent in the western societies is an objective moral law set by the government. Sleeping with a girl of 17 years 9 months will send you to jail as raping a child.

chryssanthe:

Clap for yourself!

You just admitted that you and, according to you, all your "brothers in Christ" will be raping your own children, pets and any animal you happen to find "attractive" and eating your neighbours and coworkers, the moment you decide there is no god!

WE, inferior, immoral atheists, do not look to our government to tell us not to rape our children and eat our parents. WE, inferior, immoral atheists, have our own moral compass, yes, informed by society and by humanity as a whole, but still our own, not IMPOSED upon us by laws and government.
You (and, apparently, all religious people) have no morals of their own and need SOMEONE ELSE to tell you not to rape children and eat other human beings.

Congratulations, you're an outstanding human being. You should be proud of yourself.

If Christians need god to be good themselves, by all means they should continue believing. If they're so unempathetic that they cannot arrive at things like altruism and sympathy by themselves, but instead need command guidance to tell them how to behave normally, please, let us not disabuse them of their faith.

All the theists here cannot see a way for morality to arise without their own brand of religious faith. Does that speak about human nature, or does that speak about their own baselines?

Tamaratonye1:

This is chronic with respect to your posts. Everyone but you doesn't get it. An objective observer might suggest you get a mirror.

In any miscommunication, there are at least two sources of the problem: the speaker and the listener. In this case, I think the speaker hasn't sized up his audience very well.

TenQ:

As for bestiality, it is highly subjective if you need no permission from an animal to kill and eat it. BTW one of the conditions is that it poses no harm to the society. Would it still be wrong?

Is there no UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE of everything that exist?
You evaded the question:
Logically, infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible. It has to terminate somewhere and that is the where the Uncaused First Cause of Everything is waiting

You are simply starting with another "thing" that needs another first cause to exist!

It has to terminate somewhere and that is the where the Uncaused First Cause of Everything is waiting

Where are the citations to support this statement?
You are simply using wishful thinking and more begging the question. Somehow you've set up your "everything" as extra special because you can't stand the thought that your "everything" isn't all that special. Your god is conveniently unprovable. (So are invisible, magical unicorns) If you were really honest with yourself and with us you'd do what most physicists say, "At this time we do not know". But theists cannot be honest and can't stand the thought that their powerful god isn't automatically the answer to gaps in scientific knowledge!

Therefore, you're bound and determined to shove your god in that gap and claim victory no matter that there is zero evidence for a god!
It's religious hubris!

Near1:


If Christians need god to be good themselves, by all means they should continue believing. If they're so unempathetic that they cannot arrive at things like altruism and sympathy by themselves, but instead need command guidance to tell them how to behave normally, please, let us not disabuse them of their faith.

All the theists here cannot see a way for morality to arise without their own brand of religious faith. Does that speak about human nature, or does that speak about their own baselines?

Yeah, it's like they have no self control and the only thing holding them back from murder, rape and robbery is belief in fairy dust.

Atheistic, secular countries have the lowest crime rates in the world.
Theistic countries have the highest crime rates and often their countries are in constant chaos.
The most religious countries in the world have the most poverty. Atheistic countries have the most social secular programs and the least poverty.

In Finland there are no religious private schools. None.... zip....nada.... All schools are secular public schools and everyone, from the very rich to the poor get the same education. About 62% of the Finish population is atheistic and it has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

From the Federal Brueau of US Prisons, in 2020 there were 139,002 people in federal prisons and 141 of them identified as atheists.
That is 0.1 percent of the federal prison population.

If atheists have no foundation for moral standards then they should be the most represented in prisons and countries with the highest atheist populations should be out murdering each other and eating babies for dinner yet this isn't the case.

YOU SAID: "The subjective code of a deity makes it objective for man."

That's not how it works, full stop. A gods subjective code is what it is.

Subjective. Subjective to god, subjective to man. Subjective to your house pet. It's subjectivity is a description of it's origin. God commands are not facts, they are opinions, according to you.


YOU SAID: "Sometimes, a government steps in to fulfill the same role."

Our government concerns itself with legality, not morality - and governments are explicitly relative - not subjective -or- objective.

As you're aware, there are many things which you would find immoral that are not illegal....as well as many things which are illegal that you would not find immoral.

YOU SAID: "The age 18 years old as a baseline for consent is an objective rule made by government. If a child is 17 years 9 months, you cannot have sex with her as an adult without the risk of legal infraction."


Sure, if the age of consent is 18, then it follows that sex with someone under 18 is illegal - but a thing being illegal does not equate to a thing being immoral.

Perhaps what you've meant to say is that you believe gods hands us laws, not an objective moral code? All fine and well, but there are more sets of laws in the world that we don't follow, than ones that do.


I have no interest in god-laws. I'm not subject to god-laws. There is no moral imperative that I follow god-laws.

TenQ:

The subjective code of a deity makes it objective for man.
Sometimes, a government steps in to fulfill the same role.

The age 18 years old as a baseline for consent is an objective rule made by government. If a child is 17 years 9 months, you cannot have sex with her as an adult without the risk of legal infraction.

You have no point dear!

YOU SAID: "Objective standard is any standard you can't bend at your whim."


That is not what an objective standard is...at all. An objective standard is one which accurately reports those facts it purports to report.

Can you bend them to your will? Absolutely..and people commonly do.

YOU SAID: "Example is legal age in most western cultures set at 18 years old. Even if it changes to 17 years old, it is still an objective standard for citizens."

A persons age is objective - it is true or false of the object (the person in question) that they are equal to or greater than 18 years old.

We do like to think our laws are based in facts. This is irrelevant to morality, however..if morality is not objective. If morality is a gods subjective code.

TenQ:

Objective standard is any standard you can't bend at your whim.

Example is legal age in most western cultures set at 18 years old. Even if it changes to 17 years old, it is still an objective standard for citizens.

A man who had sex with a 17 years 9 months old girl would be attested for rape

TenQ:

Is there no UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE of everything that exist?

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/cgi-bin/uy/webpages.cgi?/logicalfallacies/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

Logically, infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible.

When spacetime breaks down at planck-time, all scientific laws break down, space and time are no more and your logic becomes meaningless.
That is (currently) the model best fitting available data (measuring microwave background radiation and brightness of Supernovae).

It has to terminate somewhere and that is the where the Uncaused First Cause of Everything is waiting

Everything has a cause! except *inject your favourite fantasy*

Its called "special pleading", and its a logical fallacy!

But lets grant you for a moment that there WAS a (first) cause, creating everything. Please demonstrate why it has to be all powerful.

I claim it needs to be just powerful enough to create what actually WAS created. I claim that this first cause was NOT able to create anything else than the universe/multiverse we actually live in!
Prove me wrong!

Oh, and you were objectively wrong about objective morals. You know why? Because its a fact that you were wrong (according to the definition of objective morals), and this is not influenced by your opinions, feelings or interpretations, or your gods for that matter!

LoL......

How it started....

Discard God, morality becomes subjective and there would be nothing that is wrong.
Bestiality, Necromancers, Cannibalism, Incest etc. You'll be forced to replace God with your government as a standard by which all will live.

....how it's going.

The subjective code of a deity

I guess..then, according to this line of reasoning, with a god..nothing is wrong? Bestiality, necromancers (l-o-l)cannibalism, incest, etc.

TenQ:

The subjective code of a deity makes it objective for man.
Sometimes, a government steps in to fulfill the same role.

The age 18 years old as a baseline for consent is an objective rule made by government. If a child is 17 years 9 months, you cannot have sex with her as an adult without the risk of legal infraction.

You have no point dear!

chryssanthe:


Yeah, it's like they have no self control and the only thing holding them back from murder, rape and robbery is belief in fairy dust.

Atheistic, secular countries have the lowest crime rates in the world.
Theistic countries have the highest crime rates and often their countries are in constant chaos.
The most religious countries in the world have the most poverty. Atheistic countries have the most social secular programs and the least poverty.

In Finland there are no religious private schools. None.... zip....nada.... All schools are secular public schools and everyone, from the very rich to the poor get the same education. About 62% of the Finish population is atheistic and it has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

From the Federal Brueau of US Prisons, in 2020 there were 139,002 people in federal prisons and 141 of them identified as atheists.
That is 0.1 percent of the federal prison population.

If atheists have no foundation for moral standards then they should be the most represented in prisons and countries with the highest atheist populations should be out murdering each other and eating babies for dinner yet this isn't the case.

Roughly 65% of all Americans identify as Christian. If religion was such a moral lode-star, why do these same Christians complain about high crime? I'd think such a Christian country would be notably safe and loving. Yet they have these high crime rates, and a distinct refusal to help the poor even though Jesus had something to say about a camel and a needle's eye.

If you have to get your morality from command-guidance, how moral are you, really? If it takes the threat of Hell to make you behave, are you really a good person?

I'm glad I don't need that horseshit to make me a decent human. But those who need it, I say put some more Bibles out in hotel rooms. I'm sure that will solve it all.

TenQ:

Is there no UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE of everything that exist?
You evaded the question:
Logically, infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible. It has to terminate somewhere and that is the where the Uncaused First Cause of Everything is waiting

you don't know that. Absolutely not . No.
1. there are many logics... , and you don't know (nor have you justified the one you're using) which one applies to the conditions you're claiming your logic applies to . You have not demonstrated there is a universal logic that applies to all situations . Even in this universe at a singularity, your logic does not apply. Fail. Near a black hole your logic does not apply......
which logic are you using and how is it you know it applies to the reality you're talking about ? Hint: You don't . Justify the logic you're using , or stop talking about logics.
2. you know nothing except 5% of this universe . You know nothing about the reality in which your gods exist . You know nothing about anything in those conditions . Your gods are not bound by your logic . You know nothing about the reality , logic or cause and effect that would have been external to this universe... you're making claims about "has to terminate somewhere" you know nothing about..... Fail again.
3. Is this your first debate ? These are rookie errors. "Terminates" assumes space-time exists in the reality without this universe , (and contradicts the theology of an eternal/timeless God and its environment).
you know nothing about that reality , and as far as we know space-time began at the Big Bang. Using ANY temporal reference ("terminate" is unsupported/unfounded/unwarranted.
Typical Christian ignorant misrepresentations.

TenQ:

Everything without an physical evidence doesn't exist: is this your point?

When one argument has evidence, and the other does not, I know what I lend credence to. I have beliefs and I have knowledge, but I'm careful to not confuse the two. Beliefs need no evidence, but claimed "knowledge" does. And here you are asserting that humans cannot be moral without your god. If you expect me to accept that without picking your brain, you might be in for a little ride.

Is this a tacit admission that you have no evidence? If so, you should simply short-circuit a long argument and admit as much right now. Because you and I both know you do not have any. And without evidence, I am as entitled to my own perspective as you are.

That's subjectivity, my guy. If you get to make bald claims bereft of evidence, I get to say you're wrong and what can you use to argue that?

10k says you're going to try to prove your case, even as you're here trying to disparage the value of evidence.

Oh, that's right, you don't have any. No wonder.

TenQ:

Logically, infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible. It has to terminate somewhere and that is the where the Uncaused First Cause of Everything is waiting

That isn't a logical restriction. It may be the case, but it's not because of the laws of logic. And this simply leads to a paradox as something always having been is as difficult to conceive whether we call it necessary being or an infinite regress. It's essentially the same problem. So God has essentially the same problem as you think the other has in that his mode of existence doesn't make sense.

TenQ:

The subjective code of a deity makes it objective for man.
Sometimes, a government steps in to fulfill the same role.

The age 18 years old as a baseline for consent is an objective rule made by government. If a child is 17 years 9 months, you cannot have sex with her as an adult without the risk of legal infraction.

You have no point dear!

You're using subjective and objective incorrectly and essentially making up your own definitions. And the way you've done it leads to an equivocation aside from being little more than a might makes right argument. What makes you think that God subjectively deciding X makes X objective for us?

TenQ:

Objective standard is any standard you can't bend at your whim.

Example is legal age in most western cultures set at 18 years old. Even if it changes to 17 years old, it is still an objective standard for citizens.

A man who had sex with a 17 years 9 months old girl would be attested for rape

Standards aren't literal things and so they are neither bendable nor not bendable. You'll have to explain what you mean without the figurative language otherwise we can only guess at your meaning.

Tamaratonye1:

That isn't a logical restriction. It may be the case, but it's not because of the laws of logic. And this simply leads to a paradox as something always having been is as difficult to conceive whether we call it necessary being or an infinite regress. It's essentially the same problem. So God has essentially the same problem as you think the other has in that his mode of existence doesn't make sense.

The Universe originated 13.8 billion years ago from a gravitational singularity. Time, Space and Matter with ALL the Laws of Physics started simultaneously at this time.

Can you logically or scientifically prove that infinite regress of cause and effect is possible?

TenQ:

Your argument seem to say that Religion and Science are equivalent in their sphere of reference and that All religions are bad (without giving any content reason). The third point you were totally off as you didn't address the fact that Atheism is a belief system.

No, that is not my argument at all. I'm not going to restate it as I have no idea why you have such difficulty understanding the plain meaning of what I said. If you don't understand the particulars then ask some questions. You seem to be reading a lot into it that isn't there in what appears to be the consequence of motivated reasoning.

As to my claiming that all religion is bad, no I am not claiming that, and I even repeated that I didn't think there would be much change, so you appear to want to ignore what I did write in favor of what you want to believe that I believe. You're simply attributing things to me that are incorrect, possibly because you're under the influence of stereotypes about atheists that you hold. What I did say is that I thought some people might improve their behavior as a result of losing their faith. And some people, I'm sure, would be worse. I don't think there's a general, "religion is bad," though my mind is not made up on the question rather than my thinking that it is not the case that religion is bad. I'm just not sure. And anyway, the question was about Christianity, not all religion, so you've moved the goal posts here.

As to the third point not addressing your contention that atheism is a belief, since the point you raised had nothing to do with that but rather was a question about reality then there is a very simple reason for my not addressing it: it wasn't relevant. I'm beginning to suspect rather strongly that you have very poor reasoning skills, an active imagination, a bigoted outlook on atheism, and a strong need to believe that there is something inherently wrong with atheists and atheism.

As an addendum, I'll make a suggestion. When we have a strong opinion or theory about something, it's very easy to have a tendency to view any responses those views generate through the lens of that theory or opinion. Thus many of the things you've misattributed to me here appear to be because you conceive of certain problems in a certain way, and then view all responses as examples of objections you've previously considered and rejected. In this way, you're not really listening to what the other is saying and essentially only looking to confirm what you already believe. This isn't bad or shameful, I'm sure that I'm guilty of it as well many times. I don't know what to suggest other than that you try to have a more open mind.

TenQ:

Subjective morality is absolute!?

You amaze me.

Subjective moralities, plural, can be absolute.

One article defines it thus: "Moral absolutism is the position that there are universal ethical standards that apply to actions regardless of context."

Thus, if a person's subjective view of the rightness or wrongness of an act takes into account the context of the act, it is not absolute. If a subjective view of the rightness or wrongness of an act is true regardless of the context, then that person's subjective morality is absolute.

Near1:



When one argument has evidence, and the other does not, I know what I lend credence to. I have beliefs and I have knowledge, but I'm careful to not confuse the two. Beliefs need no evidence, but claimed "knowledge" does. And here you are asserting that humans cannot be moral without your god. If you expect me to accept that without picking your brain, you might be in for a little ride.

Is this a tacit admission that you have no evidence? If so, you should simply short-circuit a long argument and admit as much right now. Because you and I both know you do not have any. And without evidence, I am as entitled to my own perspective as you are.

That's subjectivity, my guy. If you get to make bald claims bereft of evidence, I get to say you're wrong and what can you use to argue that?

10k says you're going to try to prove your case, even as you're here trying to disparage the value of evidence.

Oh, that's right, you don't have any. No wonder.

Have you ever seen an intelligent communication without an intelligent source?

If you go to the beach and you see written on the sand "TenQ likes Near1", will you conclude that the waves or a crab wrote it ?

Whenever you see systems like a House with functional doors, Windows, kitchen and bedroom, do you think that the storm must have done it!

When you see the DNA (a complex library of data and information), you think this was a random coincidence?

What you are asserting is the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything?

Tamaratonye1:

Subjective moralities, plural, can be absolute.

One article defines it thus: "Moral absolutism is the position that there are universal ethical standards that apply to actions regardless of context."

Thus, if a person's subjective view of the rightness or wrongness of an act takes into account the context of the act, it is not absolute. If a subjective view of the rightness or wrongness of an act is true regardless of the context, then that person's subjective morality is absolute.

"Killing is bad" is an example of absolute morality. Killing is bad, no matter what. Now, the reality is that killing in self defense is not all that bad, isnt it?
God proclaiming "Thou shalt not kill" is subjective and absolute morality. Absolute because, see above. Subjective, because of someone proclaiming his personal view to be relevant instead of objective facts.

I am not holding my breath, tho, that Tenq will understand or admit to his mistake.