When you don’t believe God exists, and a conversation veers into ‘right’ and ‘wrong’…
…you should shut up.
…you have nothing of value to add.
…you’re just making noise.
Consider my exchange with several enlightened Brights.*
If you’re up for some intellectual self-flagellation, you can read the whole thing here.
I’ll summarize the context for you who don’t enjoy suffering:
- Atheist blogger writes a critical article about David McDonnough.
- McDonnough is an outspoken proponent of anti-homosexual laws.
- Atheist describes McDonnough’s views as, “…hate-filled, factually laughable, scientifically-illiterate, mean-spirited, aggressively absurd right-wing…”
And now you’re up to speed.
I asked a single question:
On what basis does an atheist say that a law is ‘good’ or ‘bad’?
If you are an atheist, this isn’t a tough question…
…it’s an impossible question.
But atheists don’t always realize that they can’t answer a question.
So they say stuff like this:
… I didn’t tell him about my grandkids so as not to worry him.
Relentlessly reforming and asking my question eventually yielded an answer.
Slavery is bad because of empathy.
Empathy evolved ‘quite naturally’.
(Is that so difficult to understand?)
It’s why we outlawed slavery in the US.
Slavery became bad when we evolved to understand it as bad.
(Is that so genuinely difficult to understand. Seriously?)
I understand completely.
But…
…what about countries where slavery still exists?
If they haven’t evolved as we have then slavery isn’t wrong in those places.
A plucky atheist continues to passionately defend his position…
…even after that position is demonstrated untenable.
…see what I mean?
Q: Why should YOUR opinion win out over OTHER opinions?
A: Why shouldn’t it?
A: …and you’re boring me.
My apologies!
Didn’t expect you’d lose interest in your own thesis!
Let me quickly throw this out before your limitless intellect nods off to sleep…
If God doesn’t exist…right and wrong don’t exist.
If atheism was a football game…
…each player would decide on his own set of rules.
One player gets points for touching the ball.
Another gets points for drinking Gatorade.
Another player declares victory because his uniform is the cleanest.
The only absolutely true thing about this game is…
…it is irrational for any player to say, “That’s cheating!”
Morality, like football, requires objective rules.
This is how I explained it to my intrepid, godless acquaintances:
Knowledge of good and evil came to mankind when Adam and Eve broke the only law God issued. Prior to that first fateful act of rebellion, there was no such thing as ‘bad’. Bad stuff (slavery, theft, genocide) resulted when sin entered God’s perfect creation. It was not God’s intention that mankind rebel but it was His will to allow us to do so if we choose.If there is no God, then good and evil are illusions. Empathy is a mixture of chemicals and bio-electric impulses with no more meaning than a belch. People are just animals who make better tools than the other species.
“You are boring me to tears.”
461 Responses
Ark..
You have the theological chops of a two year old
Back out before you really look stupid
It’s way to late for that, Wally.
Well just trying to help the poor guy John
But now we know where Mike took his moron lessons for sure
When you ask us to explain why a law is “good” or “bad”, what do you mean? A law can be bad because it is poorly written as to contain loophole or not achieve its implicit goal, or can be good because it contains sufficient foresight to take account of possible changes in technology or social structures.
Needless to say, that you mean “morally” good or bad is apparent. But, not actually stating that clearly gives you all the wiggle room in the world.
Now, I’ve delved into this water many times. It’s cold. I know now to wade in slowly. So let’s start with point of clarification:
What kinds of things or themes do you think are included in the idea of “moral”? Is there anything in the definition of “moral” you think must be contained, and failing to include them is abject moral failure? If so, what are those things?
“The more talk, the less truth.” – Prov. 10:19 MSG
This verse was just proven 236 times.
Hey, Jasmine. I’m replying to this comment you left last April, which is exactly what I did to Ark early today.
I’ve been talking to him on this old thread all day, and he hasn’t even noticed! Lol.
Hahahahaha!! He doesn’t care where or what it is, he just has to keep grinding out the same tune!
That was my suspicion! I thought, “I bet he doesn’t even go back and read the thread… I bet it makes no difference what anyone says or what the original post is about.” Turns out, that’s true. (Now he’s going on and on about how I don’t know what Jesus looks like. You can scroll up if you want to see it. lol!)
So, now, I will just bring him back to this old post (“Why Should I Be Nice To You”) whenever he shows up! And we’ll see if the comments reach over 1000 at some point.
You can probably do the same thing.
Just respond to one of Ark’s comments on the “Why Should I Be Nice To You” thread. Reference his latest comment and you’re off to the races…
Yeah, here’s one, Jasmine:
https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2016/04/06/why-should-i-be-nice-to-you/comment-page-1/#comment-1285
Feel free to bring Ark back here, whenever you want. It’s like putting him in the corner. LOL!
This is so perfect I want to cry. The irony of the original post too; sheer brilliance.
Is there a way to sidetrack him from the current post? Maybe Jasmine could respond from here too?
It would be HILARIOUS if all of us started responding to him from this thread.
Don’t respond to him on the newest posts. Only talk to each other there. But, if Ark talks to one of us, we come back here to hit “reply.”
I’m down with that.
CQW will do it too.
We can send emails to the ‘usual suspects’ when they engage Ark and let them in on the plan.
Here’s a link to one of Ark’s comments on this thread. They can all “reply” to this one.
https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2016/04/06/why-should-i-be-nice-to-you/comment-page-1/#comment-1285
This is hysterical. I thought I was really confused, until I realized what you all had done. Classic.
I don’t have anything to actually say here, just a toodles to you all for a couple of weeks.
I am bound for the Holy Land tomorrow, and while this is so fascinating I’d love to stay around and spin in circles with you all; I think I’ll pass.
I’ll be thinking of you all and praying you reach some hardened hearts as I get a wonderful chance to shadow the footsteps of our Lord as He walked the places He walked.
Peace and blessing to you all! Keep up the good work here.
Have a great trip, Wally! And, if you want to help us pull all of Ark’s comments back to this old thread when you get back, just let me know!
We’ll see how long we can get away with it…
I’ll have you email Kevin. I’ll Facebook message Matt. (And Jasmine and Wally are already in on it.)
I sent an email to everybody except James! I forgot James!
And me! You forgot me! 🙂
A conversation I once had with a hippie musician.
HM: There’s no such thing as “good” or “bad”. There are only positive and negative reactions.
ME: Sooo… Hitler just had a negative reaction to the Jews?
HM: Um. Well. Yes. Yes, it was a negative reaction.
ME: That’s a pretty serious negative reaction.
HM: Well. Yes.
ME: In describing Hitler’s actions, would YOU use the word… “bad”?
HM: Well… uh… I…. (sigh) Yes. I would use the word “bad”.
ME: OK! In my world, we call that Sin. We all do it, and there are consequences.
HM: Talking to you is like talking to an alien in my backyard.
I took that as a compliment.
Q: Why Should I Be Nice To You?
A: It will favorably induce me to respond in like manner. 🙂
Q: On what basis does an atheist say that a law is ‘good’ or ‘bad’?
A: Well, this particular non-believer-in-deities (NBID) considers a law ‘good’ if it meets the following criteria:
– it fulfills a common objective
– it is equitable (i.e., fair and impartial) and consistent
– it is communicated clearly
– it is open to revision or repeal if it no longer satisfies the previous criteria
And by corollary, a ‘bad’ law would violate some or all of the above.
@Mrsmcmommy
Would you be able to qualify/expand on this comment please. I am a little confused by it statement and want to understand if there is any context that I may be missing.
Thanks
I have first had experience of working with tribal African villages. Human Babies have been abducted by monkeys and killed in these villages. In fact, here is a news article of a 2 year old that was killed by a chimp
http://www.newvision.co.ug/new_vision/news/1303425/chimpanzee-kidnaps-kills-boy
Which is the proper response for a chimp? Is one response right or wrong? If so, who decides? I am sure if you asked the monkey he would state that he did nothing wrong =-)…
Wow, that sort of blew up. I’ve found that simple answers and explanations are often merely convenient, and as one learns about a topic it often turns out to be much more difficult than one first suspected.
And… do you think that the chimp did something morally wrong? Was the child’s death a moral wrong in and of itself? Is the simple fact of any child’s death a moral wrong, in and of itself? If so what is it about the child’s death that makes it wrong, I mean specifically? The particular age or developmental stage or relationship of the child to the family and community?
There is no recourse to the rule book in this sort of case either. If it is simply given in law that a child’s death is wrong, to what does the rule apply? How do we know when it is in effect? How tall must one be to ride the dread deontologicus?
The same is true if you do not think that a child’s death is wrong in and of itself, for then there must be circumstances under which it is wrong – and so the same spiral begins.
My poor utilitarian friends are easily discomfited by Hume’s is/ought problem in the comments above. But the would-be deontologists and naïve moral realists founder as easily on Moore’s open question.
Intuition solves it, you say? Now you must demonstrate the epistemology of intuition. Yikes!
What this thread really demonstrates: “Through ethical argument and moral principle, the greatest ‘crimes’ are eventually shown to have been necessary, and in fact, a signal benefit to mankind.”
The turd is tossed, juggle it if you will.
Recover well.
What if one isn’t a utilitarian OR a deontologist…? What if one argues that MOTIVE is even more important than the action or the outcome…
🙂
(Just curious about your thoughts…)
(And since you seem to understand what’s wrong with the “evolving/changing morality” stance above, I’m eager to talk about something slightly different…)
I don’t think an appeal to motive helps. Motives are linked to intentionality – they are about something in particular – so you are quickly back to those pesky circumstances and what it is about them that lends those circumstances a moral property.
In other words, loving your neighbor is good, but is it Good (does it explain moral goodness)? The problems multiply from there, e.g. what constitutes ‘love’…it is tempting to say, “Oh, you know what I mean”, but I think most of us have seen how that can end badly.
Hello Keithnoback! I sense wisdom and professionalism in your thoughts and responses. Much appreciated! Thanks also for your wishes in recovery!!! Best of luck your way…
Question for either/both JB and Mrs.MacMommy.
Is the deity you worship the same deity as described in the Pentateuch?
Hey, Ark. I’m not sure if you’ve been following my discussion with JZ. But I have established with him that I won’t answer direct questions about what I believe until we can agree that “subjective morality” makes right/wrong meaningless.
If he tells me, “We need a fixed standard” THEN we can discuss what I believe the Objective Standard is…
Drummer provided a great example that I’m afraid no one saw. (It’s the last post on the page right now.) How about this: if the two of you can agree about whether the monkey was “right/wrong” (and why), then I will discuss the God of the Pentateuch…
🙂
I believe all ethics and morality were/are part of the evolutionary process.
This is a belief based in the qualified work of the relevant experts in the field.
I am not a scientist so do not ask me to qualify this statement. You have the internet, same as me.
As far as I know,there is no evidence to support any other assertion.
Do not offer Ken Ham as an expert. He is a Dickhead.
This has nothing to do with the Pentateuch. To claim such is merely a straw man/diversionary tactic.
Archaeology has demonstrated beyond doubt that the Pentateuch is historical fiction and Yahweh was a Canaanite deity.
Furthermore, science through the Human Genome Project has established that there was no biblical Adam and Eve.
Thus,if you believe we are not products of evolution then your task is to demonstrate that our morality etc is derived from a creator.
As the Pentateuch is historical fiction then to my mind this is going to be a bit difficult.
And even if you believe you have the ammo to demonstrate a creator – fine- tuning eg – your work to prove any other claim pertaining to this creator lays before you. Best of luck with that job!
But any time you’re up to it, I’ll be here ….
And if you wish to tackle this task I prefer something that is evidence based, not philosophical in nature, and most definitely not theological.
Over to you, Mrsmcmommy.
🙂
“I prefer something evidence based and not philosophical.”
Well, I prefer philosophical dialog, since laboratory-testing is so terribly limited in helping us understand all of the things human experience…
So, I guess we’re at an impasse. 🙂 I’ll let JB travel that road with you when he hears back from his biblical scholar friend…
As you wish.
May I ask, two questions?
You don’t have to answer, of course, but I am curious.
On what grounds do you dispute the archaeology that has established the Pentateuch is historical fiction?
(Including the unequivocal scientific evidence of the Human Genome Project)
and, why you chose to become a Christian?
You’re embarrassing yourself.
*Smile*Have you read what you dad is writing over at Violet’s spot?
Shine a blinking light! Your old man is enough to make even Satan and the Pope hold hands and cringe.
You should have a word with him.
And how come you let him out of his pen again? I thought he only played in his own kitty litter?
This is PRECISELY what I mean by embarrassing yourself.
What I learned in school: kids who struggle with the intellectual usually become bullies instead. That’s what you’re doing. Compensating.
You have no idea what’s being discussed most of the times, so you sit on the sidelines and cheer for your favorite team, while hurling insults at the others.
Go watch soccer, Ark. It’s more your intellectual speed.
I am not actually part of the thread between your old man and JZ and Violet.
He’s simply ranting on like someone who forgot to take his medication; one minute he’s all deconverted the next it’s god this and god that.
He even expressed surprise that we have no culture that handed out medals for butchering children … quite forgetting that Christianity was, at one point, right there when it came to child sacrifice.
And he told Violet to stick her faux apology up her ass-how very Christian(sic)
He’s really not making a good case for Comedy or the Branyan’s. You really should pull him aside and have a quiet chat. For his own good.
I don’t really care what’s happening at Violet’s blog. She links back when she quotes us. So, that’s all I care about. She’s more honest than you.
Dig Dug told Jasmine, and I quote, “Atheism is simply the belief that gods do not exist.”
Apparently, atheism is, as we have always claimed, a belief. Not a void. Not ‘content free’. It is, absolutely, a belief.
Oh, I am sure she is, and certainly more honest than your dad who is displaying all the hallmarks of an inveterate liar.
I am surprised he hasn’t been emailing you saying how wonderfully Christian he is behaving.
Seriously, you should go read, he really sounds a bit off the rails.
I’ve already told Violet everything I need to say HERE, thanks. And when someone like you thinks my dad has gone nuts, that’s a good thing.
Now, would you like to say anything worth reading?
Hmm, well as he is ranting about awarding medals for butchering kids, what have you got to say about Christians back in the day, practicing child sacrifice?
You’re not going to deny this went on I hope?
Of course Christians didn’t sacrifice children. God was AGAINST child-sacrifice. (Now go ahead and link to whatever Atheist propaganda you’ve been reading this week. Everyone is super interested! /sarcasm)
You know we don’t censor here, so really let me have it!
You seriously mean you are unaware of the practice of burying children alive in the the foundations of certain building to keep demons away?
Maybe you are not so clued up about your”faith” as you thought?
With everyone reading, go ahead and demonstrate how you know more about “my faith” than I do.
What would you like to know?
Why you’re here.
Where? Johannesburg?
Are you just trying to fill up the comment section, so people won’t read the thoughtful things the Christians say–and, instead, get sidetracked by the thoughtless things you do?
Probably… I am bust with some word documents. Can’t multi task. What was the question again? Be specific.
Focus on your word documents. You have nothing to say, even when you’re paying attention… you just get off on disagreement.
You wouldn’t even notice if I started deleting your comments.
So why are you here?
WHERE? Earth Johannesburg or you silly blog…?
You have no answer for either.
Probably true …
Yahweh, perhaps?
See ya next time.
God willing … right?
“We ARE superior.”
You’ve had plenty of chances to prove it.
Ad-hominem isn’t superior.
Oh … that’s just for effect.
Theism cannot hold a candle to secular humanism.
I’m supposed to just take your word for it? You’ve never provided anything to back up those claims.
Well, you believe a man rose from the dead and that he thought the universe into existence.
I call BS on that …and compared to anything I may have written that is one claim you will go to your grave never being able to show a shred of evidence for.
Unless you have been keeping something from the rest of the world?
Has Jesus been talking to you, amanda?
I’ve asked before what sort of evidence you’d accept.
Are you saying you’d be convinced if Jesus himself came and told you he rose from the dead?
That would be unusual for you! In actual fact, you would come up with a reason to disbelieve that, too. There IS NO evidence which will convince you.
Tell, me if ”Jesus” actually returned, a la second coming, how on earth would you even recognise him?
Exactly what evidence would convince you /em> that he was who he claimed he was?
Now let’s see just how must intellectual savoir faire you actually possess, shall we?
Your up, Miss Christian.
Tell it like it is ….
Off you go .
I have a theory you don’t even need to read my responses to compose your next rambling comment.
You’re up, Mr. Atheist.
Off you go.
You see, you are nothing but a raving hypocrite.
It’s different when the boot is on the other foot isn’t it?
You all claim you are followers of Jesus but you have no damn clue what this bloke even looked like!
So when he returns, if he convinces you then one can presume he would convince everyone as it was basically End of Days Time.
Of course, this is not something you have ever likely considered, as it is so much easier to use your ridiculous ”I told you” so style arguments to convince yourself that atheists would not be satisfied with any evidence.
And if you have not the integrity to tell me how you would recognise your Lord then, ms smarty pants, it is clear as day you have no argument to put forward, and you are nothing but a disingenuous little fraud.
So, I was right.
You’ll post exactly the same nonsense, no matter who (if anyone) is reading.
LOL!
And you demonstrate exactly why your faith </em< is a crock of shit and you, I am sad to say, are a blathering, ignorant woman with no sense of integrity whatsoever.
Exactly what you would have said, no matter what my last comment was! Very good, Ark.
You’ve hit your stride.
Like your father, you truly are a despicable person, amanda. The apple does not fall far from the tree.
Aaaaaaand, there’s another “response” which could fit on literally ANY thread! Excellent.
Do you have another one?
Simpy because including your character description is suitable on literally ANY thread.
So, tell me, exactly how would you recognise he character, Jesus of Nazareth if he re- appeared in 21st century USA?
What a stupid question.
And, considering you don’t believe he really existed and wouldn’t even believe if he talked to you directly, it’s irrelevant.
Now–call me a name. 🙂
Why is it a stupid question?
It gets right to the core of your faith.
And how would you know it was him of he talked to you directly?
Or is that also a secret?
It’s a stupid question because it’s a Professional Skeptic who’s asking.
As Christians are forever taunting atheists that No. Evidence. Will Suffice. it is therefore a perfectly legitimate question and under such circumstances one can naturally presume that you, the Professional Believer will know exactly what Jesus of Nazareth would look like. If not then at the very least, be in possession of some way of identifying him instantly .
Therefore, instead of behaving like a pissy little histrionic why not demonstrate the integrity you believe you have and tell us what evidence or inner knowledge you possess that you could pick him out across a crowded room, in a line-up or at your front door?
Jesus will have to provide evidence.
What sort of evidence would YOU accept?
(Answer: none.)
Therefore, I will taunt you whenever I please. You deserve it.
If Jesus is responsible for providing evidence then I don’t have to worry, now do I? Which is exactly what one would expect from a god, is it not?
Therefore, if Jesus did NOT provide evidence and it was all based on faith then you would be in the same boat as me.
And the fact you are not prepared to state how you would know who Jesus was or what he looked like should he turn up on your doorstep demonstrates you have no frakking idea what evidence would convince you either.
Oh, the sweet irony.
It’s Jesus’ fault you don’t believe in him.
Got it.
But, thanks for answering my question for me… I don’t need to worry. He’ll make it very obvious. Great answer!
Not at all. That you have no idea of how to recognise him merely demonstrates the sheer hypocrisy of your position when claiming no evidence would convince an atheist when no evidence would convince you either!
It is actually hysterical when you think about it.
And you truly don’t know how you would recognize him, now do you amanda? You have absolutely no clue at all. You can’t even hazard a guess.
I mean, what a slap in the face for Jesus when even his loyal followers are thick as two short planks and would demand evidence just like their atheist brethren.
I don’t know whether you’re seriously stupid enough to keep asking this question–or just talking without thought (as usual).
It’s something I would expect a 5-year-old to ask. Not a supposedly grown man. I’m expecting Jesus to return and will use evidence to figure out if it’s really him. You are NOT expecting him. Therefore, it’s like asking, “How will you know when Santa gets here?” You will ALWAYS have a way to rationalize.
Like this Atheist, John Smart:
I am neither stupid not ignorant, but a rather intelligent man, thank you very much.
I would always look to a natural answer first and foremost, so therefore it is asinine and disingenuous of you , or any theist to demand a response when you cannot even answer the question yourself.
And if your answer would be along the lines that Jesus would quite simply make himself known by supernatural means then he would do the same for me.
And if he did not and you truly believe that you and your fellow Christians are really so special that he would reveal himself only to believers then it doesn’t say much for your god man now does it?
“I would always look to a natural answer first and foremost.”
Excellent.
Thank you for your honesty.
You can ALWAYS tell yourself you are dreaming, hallucinating, going insane, etc. There is no evidence that would convince you. Thanks!
Of course, being the disingenuous, ignorant person you are .. I am actually surprised you don’t have ulcer problems with all that bile inside you simply refuse to acknowledge that regarding Jesus identity you are as much in the dark as I am.
Whether I beleive he existed or not is neither here not there.
If he did, and he returned, the question remains:
How would you recognise him?
And the fact that you cannot even hazard a guess demonstrates you have absolutely no clue whatsoever and your shallowness is laid bare.
Of course, being the disingenuous, ignorant person you are…I am actually surprised you don’t have ulcer problems with all that bile inside you…you simply refuse to acknowledge that Jesus’ second coming is a topic for people who believe he game the FIRST time. Duh.
“Whether I believe he existed or not is neither here nor there.”
That made me lol. HAHAHA!
It’s a good thing no one is reading this. How embarrassing. God isn’t going to rewire your brain to make you believe, Ark. It’s your own stubborn CHOICE to slap away whatever evidence is presented. And it’s your own stubborn CHOICE to cast all religious people as unintelligent, indoctrinated idiots. Jesus won’t MAKE you believe in him. (Thankfully.) And you can spend all of eternity screaming about how unfair all of it was. No one will listen.
Who ever said I would ever think it was unfair
You truly are suffering from some sever delusion here.
That you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge you have absolutely no way of recognizing Jesus of Nazareth should he return demonstrates the shallowness of your position, not only of your so-called faith, but also that you claim there is no evidence that would satisfy an atheist.
You have no evidence, are completely in the dark ,and are reliant solely on this man god revealing himself to you should he ever return.
And if he exits and does come back in our lifetimes then he will reveal himself to everyone, for if he did not then he would not be worth even acknowledging.
I have a way or recognizing Jesus. I’ll make sure it matches up with what he said and did the first time… the time you deny happened in the first place.
LOL!
He’s NOT going to convince you. There’s NOTHING he can do to convince you, unless he turns you into a robot, which he won’t do. And that’s fine. I’m at peace about that. I don’t think God likes you any more than you like him. (Can you blame him? You’re a jerk.)
Oh, really? So please enlighten us then …. will you crucify him once more as well?
What a hypocrite you are.
HAHAHAHA!
You mean the guy you don’t believe in?
Is that the one you’re calling me a “hypocrite” over?
LOL!
I am calling you a hypocrite because you say that Jesus will reveal himself as he did once before. And that was to a tiny group of people in a shitty backwater.
You are simply too scared to actually tell the truth and admit that you have no idea how you would recognise him if he returned and afraid that all your ”faith” has been for nothing.
And it has …
Yeah…it’s really unfair the way Jesus revealed himself in such a way that no one has ever heard of him. (*sad face*)
LOL!
Are you embarrassed yet?
Not in the least. But your dishonesty in the way you carefully phrase your replies shows you most certainly are.
Go to bed, Ark. There will be plenty of time to launch your personal attacks in the morning.
There are many standards, and many have already been given. You just keep ignoring them, like reducing suffering
There, a standard to which goals can be set and progress measured.
Can’t ignore it anymore, my friend.
So, answer my questions…
Right…when you offer a standard, then I ask “Why is that standard better than another”
…and then I say, “What happens when people realize how ultimately pointless survival is, and so they reject that standard?”
And the answer you’ve given is, “We lock them up in jail.”
…proving that you feel very, very strongly that your standard is the right way. But NOT proving that it is, objectively, the “right” way…
You CAN’T talk about right/wrong so long as you believe that there is no fixed standard.
“What happens when people realize how ultimately pointless survival is….”
As difficult as life may be, very few people ever decide that – that’s why they invented a heaven, so they could delude themselves all the way to the grave, that they will live forever.
“You CAN’T talk about right/wrong so long as you believe that there is no fixed standard.”
I’ve explained repeatedly (and can’t believe you’re really that obtuse), that there ARE ‘fixed’ standards, but they occur within groups and are not ‘fixed’ universally, which is why the US has same-sex marriage and Uganda kills homosexuals. Try convincing a devotee of Red Lobster that the Jewish prohibition against eating shellfish must be obeyed.
You can’t put fixed in quotations, Archaeo. That’s not what I’m talking about. Standard(s) with an s doesn’t work either. There must be one, actual TRUTH for you to be able to say that the US standard is better than the Ugandan’s. (For example.) If there’s no such thing as actual TRUTH, universally, that all people must abide by, then there’s no point having a conversation about right/wrong.
I’ll say it again a different way, if you still need me to…
Well, there isn’t, so….
You don’t think reducing suffering is a good standard to use against which we can gauge our successes and failures as societies?
Interesting.
Very interesting.
I’m certain now that you’re just joking. That, or you’re so dangerously mentally deranged that your children should be removed from your “care” immediately.
Which one is it?
She DOES strike me as being more than a little kinky – maybe she and Taboo should have a long, private chat —
“You CAN’T talk about right/wrong so long as you believe that there is no fixed standard”
I’m curious… What is this fixed standard you are talking about?
Give me an example of it.
Is slavery bad or good by this “fixed standard” of yours?
“But I have established with him that I won’t answer direct questions about what I believe until we can agree that ‘subjective morality’ makes right/wrong meaningless.”
Interesting. You’ve taken what I’ve said about subjective morality and twisted it almost beyond recognition. I said that morality evolved among groups, that possibly pooled their subjective moralities to decide which among them best resolved the greatest health and safety issues among them – this became the group’s objective morality, and they were free to punish those who violated it and placed their tribe in danger. It did not come from the clouds, nor from ‘beyond time and space,’ or wherever your god’s dwelling this week, but from within the group.
“How about this: if the two of you can agree about whether the monkey was ‘right/wrong’ (and why), then I will discuss the God of the Pentateuch…”
First of all, I saw no stories involving monkeys – clearly taxonomy is not your strong suit – as I read it, the story indicated that it was an ape, related to the other four ape families: orangutans, gorillas, bonobos and humans. As for the ‘right/wrong’ of it, I would have to have FAR more details than are presented, in order to intelligently discuss it – was it starving, rabid, insane, etc.? But as I don’t sense that having all of the facts is a priority for you, I’m sure you’ll go ahead without me.
“…this became the group’s objective morality…”
I don’t think you understand what I mean by objective. Objective things don’t aren’t put up to a vote. Objective things are true, even if everyone on earth is mistaken…
Now that we’ve evolved so far that we recognize all of life is just a perpetual fight to exist for existence’s sake, we have no right to tell others how to think or feel or act. If someone says, “I no longer care about existing,” you have no further arguments to make. You can try to control them by appealing to “survival.” But, if that’s not important to them, you have no course of action.
Well, you can still control the free-thinkers physically. You can impose your will on them by caging or killing people who don’t agree with your subjective standards. But if more and more and more people start evolving like the Ballpeen Hammer Guy–with no concern for survival, then suddenly there will be a new “standard” majority. YOUR version of what “should” be done will no longer exist. And they will exterminate you…and probably themselves… But so what?
So, you can call the Ballpeen Hammer Guy “mentally ill.” But, what you really mean (practically) is, “He doesn’t think like most of us.” But, someday, he may be the majority. And it’s very contradictory for you to label him and throw him in jail, to keep his very logical conclusion from becoming the majority. I mean, that’s what animals do…the conquer each other. But you can’t be mad at the Ugandans for conquering the homosexuals, because that’s exactly what you’re doing with the people you call “mentally ill” for thinking differently.
“Objective things are true, even if everyone on earth is mistaken…”
E = mc 2
Right… Now you’re getting it.
Even if everyone else believes that the equation should be E=mc^3….they are ALL wrong. Even if they vote. Even if they evolve to believe that it should be cubed instead of squared, they are objectively wrong.
Your “reduce suffering” standard doesn’t work that way. If someone else’s goal were to be the Last Person on Earth, then the “right” thing to do would be kill everyone…
And, yes, they would be right to do so. By their own standard.
But as I have very patiently tried explaining to you, we don’t live by individual standards, we live by the evolved moral standards of our group. Part of that standard is to remove from our group those whose behavior endangers it.
1. “Group standards are right.”
(What do you mean by right?)
2. “Right is whatever the group says.”
(So, if it’s subjective, then what happens if another group starts to evolve a different standard?)
3. “Then we’ll tell them they’re wrong.”
(Why is your group’s opinion more right than another’s?)
4. “Because group standards are right.”
(Start at the top again…)
Your first premise is dead wrong, although I understand why you have to paint this pantomime.
1. “Group standards are right.”
In the larger human narrative, were the Nazi’s standards right?
In the larger human narrative, were the southern slave traders standards right?
Those aren’t her premises, John – she’s pretending to be quoting me, while misquoting me entirely.
I figured as much. This has to be comedy, right?
“This has to be comedy, right?”
OR —
http://i887.photobucket.com/albums/ac73/archaeopteryx1/Stupid.jpg
Depends on their goals… They were trying to gain power and become kings of the planet.
So, yes. They were right.
I’ve tried as hard as I know how to give you every benefit of the doubt – I’ve tried believing you’re not actually obtuse, it’s all an act, but you’re beginning to cause me to doubt I was right in that instance.
I didn’t say, “Group standards are right.” – I said that those standards are the ones that that group has decided best suit the needs of the group.
Do you live in a bubble? The world is filled with groups, each believing that their chosen standards are best for them.
I didn’t say that either, I simply said that they would likely be excluded from groups who believe differently, and this has in fact happened – look around you.
“Because group standards are right.” – As usual with you, I didn’t say that, I said that the group selects those behaviors that it collectively believes best serves it’s purpose.
Is your Mommy home? Maybe she could come to the computer —
The Ugandans have chosen the standards they believe in.
Leave them alone.
You’re not part of their group.
Absolutely – it would appear that you actually are beginning to get it. However, in a free country, there is nothing preventing me from expressing my opinion of the behavior of the Ugandans, and I have.
Which is exactly what straight people who kill homosexuals are doing…
Look, you can believe what you want to believe. I just wish you saw how inconsistently you apply it…
“Which is exactly what straight people who kill homosexuals are doing…”
Yes, it is, because that’s what the mores of their group decrees, just as the mores of our group decrees that it’s wrong. It would seem you are finally beginning to get it.
No inconsistency – the inconsistency would seem to lie in your ability to follow a train of thought.
Hi Ark. Since you’ve brought up the Human Genome Project … you should ask Francis Collins why he’s a Christian.
Collins is a Christian because he was hiking in the woods one day and came across a beautiful triple waterfall. Ergo, Jesus. Very rational.
tildeb –
Your teammate, Ark, brought up the “unequivocal scientific evidence of the Human Genome Project” – that was led by Collins (a Christian). And you shot your teammate down. You’re beginning to turn on each other. That’s not cool. Or maybe it is cool. Hard to say without the Moral Law Giver.
“Hard to say without the Moral Law Giver.”
Really? Do you support slavery, Kevin?
Get a grip, Kev; I didn’t shoot Ark down.
Yes, Collins headed up the HGP and yes, he’s a Christian. He also heads up the NIH and also co-founded BioLogos to teach flat earthers – sorry, creationists – that evolution and Christianity were supposedly compatible. They’re not, which is why the attempt has failed so spectacularly.
So what?
The guy is an excellent scientist when he sticks to science. If he ever tried to insert his theology into his science, he’d be a lousy scientist and a laughing stock to his peers. He’s been very careful not to do that. it must be very challenging.
The genome is what it is and Collin’s religious belief has nothing whatsoever to do with it… as he well knows. And he also knows that the genome clearly demonstrates evolution. Hence, his failed attempt to educate his fellow creationists (including the flat earthers); the two – evolution and creationism in any form – are not compatible. That’s why Collins – like any other scientifically literate religious believer – must necessarily compartmentalize the two incompatible beliefs. His dodge is to claim his god must be a moral law giver because it’s still early days in the neuroscience and so there’s a knowledge gap in which he can lodge this doomed Titanic of an idea… for now. Not to worry, though… the fatal iceberg – knowledge – isn’t going anywhere; it’s just waiting to be correctly modeled.
Really JZ? You can’t claim that slavery is absolutely evil (or even a little bad for that matter) because you claim that there is NOT an absolute good. You can’t have one without the other. It’s only your opinion that slavery is bad without an absolute good to measure it against. Some cultures are okay with slavery – so where’s your tolerance (buzzword) for those cultures?
And to answer in advance, the Moral Law Giver (or the Absolute Good if you will) doesn’t condone the slave trade (see Exodus 21:16) or forced slavery. But He did establish rules for indentured servants to work off debt – perhaps as a way to prevent something akin to the soft bigotry and low expectations of indefinite welfare and similar programs.
Btw – your computer, your phone, your clothing, etc. are all brought to you in part by cheap labor (modern day slaves paid a pittance at best). So your (and admittedly my) use of the those items can be argued as support of slavery (intentional or unintentional). But fear not – it’s a survival of the fittest thing I suppose. Perhaps slaves just aren’t fit?
There are more slaves today (upwards of 30 million) than ever before (according to the UN) – so maybe society is actually devolving. I guess can argue that percentage wise – we’ve improved. Perhaps we should pat ourselves on the back.
Anyway – it’s a fallen world full of unimaginable evil. I readily admit that I need the Savior for any negative impact (big or small) that I have in the world.
It boils down to this question. When we come to a fork in the road (deciding if something is good or bad) – which road do we take? It does not matter – especially without an ultimate destination. Unless – and only if – there is the Absolute Good. Then the road we choose matters. The road is straight and narrow.
I’ll stop rambling. To you and the others I yield the last word (I can only play Pong for so long). Thanks and blessings.
Really JZ? You can’t claim that slavery is absolutely evil (or even a little bad for that matter) because you claim that there is NOT an absolute good.
You can’t determine for yourself whether something increases or decreases suffering without someone first telling you?
That’s interesting. Sad, but interesting.
So, you believe owning and selling a human being is morally fine?
It’s only your opinion that slavery is bad
My opinion? I see.
By all means, show me a slave who’s having fun.
And to answer in advance, the Moral Law Giver (or the Absolute Good if you will) doesn’t condone the slave trade (see Exodus 21:16) or forced slavery. But He did establish rules for indentured servants to work off debt – perhaps as a way to prevent something akin to the soft bigotry and low expectations of indefinite welfare and similar programs.
Perhaps you should actually read your bible, Kevin. It might save you future embarrassment.
Exodus 21:16 only concerns Hebrews abducting Hebrews. Female Hebrews, however, could be sold by their fathers and enslaved for life with some restrictions (Exodus 21:7-11). Abducting and selling non-Hebrews was sanctioned and encouraged (Deuteronomy 24:7), and slaves from surrounding countries could be kept as property forever (Leviticus 25:44-46). Indeed, the children of slaves were born into slavery (Exodus 21:4). And Deuteronomy 20:10-15 details how captives of war can be thrown into slavery, including all the women and children of the conquered.
All the women and children. That’s nice, isn’t it?
Honestly Kevin, does it make you feel proud to lie?
Why lie? It really doesn’t reflect very well on you.
And Kevin, any particular reason why you avoided answering my rather simple question?
Yes, or No: Do you support slavery?
Yes, or No?
So, again, you never get bored of making every thread sound exactly the same? Got it.
Maybe if the yappy dog learned to bark a different tune?
And you’re perfectly okay with letting him do all the thinking?
Absolutely. As he is a recent deconvert it is obviously such a novelty for him, so why not let him yap away?
Okay.
Woof!
I’m simply calling you out on your objectivity, Ark. You believe truth is either objective, or subjective. You can’t on one hand claim a lack of belief, and then call it a belief. It’s got to be all or nothing. Atheism is either a lack of belief, therefore believing is something you DON’T do, or it’s a belief, and it requires you believing it.
I refuse to argue semantics with someone who wishes solely to bait.
You are fully aware of the atheist position.
To suggest my word use means you can now hug yourself and gloat is simply childish behaviour.
Atheist do not believe on the existence of gods, neither your god or anyone else’s.
I sincerely hope this is clear enough for you … once and for all.
Only returning the favour, Ark. You’ve hugged yourself and gloated over the semantics of my words plenty of times. You can argue over what I call my God, but I can’t argue the legitimacy of your objectivity in calling something a belief? You may refuse the topic of semantics, but you will never refuse to argue. That is always a certainty.
Have it your way … you will always know the hypocrisy of your position and the intent with which you phrase your comments.
I, at least, am always honest with my intent.
I doubt you can say the same thing.
Go on, please: tell me how much better you know me than I know myself.
Do you not understand what I said?
Oh I understood perfectly.
Hey Ark, how come when you get proven stupid, you always resort to name calling an bullying.
I sure would not let you near MY Kids
Grow up. Get some testosterone injections or something.
Did you not just berate me for name calling then immediately insult me?
Fuck, you are amazing , Wally.
I thought your children were atheist?
Would you worry I would convert them to being More atheist? How does that work, Wally?
You should eat your greens, Wally. It might help with your cognitive processes.
You are a blow hard and a bully
Truth there.
I suggest medication or counseling.
Seriously
Off you go
Google “mental health counselors.”
Oh, take a chill pill, Wally, you sanctimonious fundamentalist.
By the way, I have been meaning to ask, how do you feel knowing that your atheist children will be burning in hell for eternity and you will get to look down on them while you sip cold beers and margaritas with Jesus ?
That must really suck, big time!
Tell you what … I’ll look em up when get there and tell ’em you’re real sorry, an’ all okay?
Or would you rather I tell them, Dad says: ”See, I told you so!”
Seriously
Google it
Fast before you harm yourself
Maybe I should ask the Branyans which one they use?
Wally’s kids are atheists? LOL! That’s priceless.
Great question about his kids burning in Hell, and I’d like to hear Wally’s answer.
He can correct me: His children from his first marriage are atheist. He holds himself responsible for their lack of faith.
I doubt he will give you an answer, rather simply write about us being horrible bullies or something.
You mean Wally’s also divorced!?!
Jesus doesn’t like divorce.
Again .. I may be off the rails here, but I seem to remember reading this.
I dunno… I’m 96 in the shade so who knows what I read! 😉
Wally… are you there, mate?
I need help before I am accused of telling porky pies …
John Zande is way more religious than me
“John Zande is way more religious than me.”
THAT’S for sure! lol.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
Jesus is a narrative construct, you Dolt!
Dig-Dug! Are you going to let JZ talk about Jesus?
Remind JZ that Jesus isn’t real!
LOL! What’s priceless is you pretending to still be an atheist and ARK is too stupid to call you out on it!
LOLOLOLOLOLOL!
What is/was your dad like, JZ?
Sorry, derives from Yahweh
Pipe down, Ark. Actual conversation going on here.
Hello, Jasmine. Pop over to Branyan’s new post .I value your opinion.
You don’t value my opinion, you’ve already told me it’s worthless.
I am giving you a reprieve … surprise me!
How very… Subjective of you.
If the … Objective is to get to the truth, well I am a reasonable bloke.
How’s Oz today?
I am confused as to why you think you—an adamantly professing atheist—believe that you have any authority on Scripture, and can “call me out” on so called “mistakes” that only transgress YOUR understanding of it.
Well, because the likelihood is that, like most atheists I probably understand the Bible better than you.
And if you are still confused as to why you ought to reconsider your comment then maybe you should read your bible more often?
LOL!
Yes, it is funny.
But you will find most atheists are generally more clued up than the average christian, many of whom seldom study their bible.
I suspect they might deconvert if they did.
Rather be spoon fed by the pastor or AIG.
Probably like you, amanda.
I deconverted!
Best decision evolution ever made for me!
Isn’t it a sin to lie, Branyan?
You seem to be doing an awful lot of it.
There is no sin!
Evolution doesn’t care how I behave.
Don’t tell me YOU got religion like JZ!
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
At last, something we agree on.
Evolution does not care how you behave, but it will let you know in no uncertain terms if your continue to act like a complete arsehole.
I was referring to your penchant for lies, in continuing to state you have rejected Christianity.
“Evolution…will let you know…if you continue to act like a complete areshole.”
LOL!!!!
Oh, it will.
Look what it’s done to you, amanda.
HAHAHAHA!!!
This is awesome!
Referring to evolution like it makes choices. SO FUNNY!
Douglas found faith!
He’s lost his lack of religion.
I wonder what the voice of Evolution sounds like, when it tells Ark: “Amanda is an areshole.”
It whispers in a still small voice, “Amanda is an areshole.”
“Douglas, this is Evolution speaking…let me tell you something in no uncertain terms…”
Choices?
I dunno about evolution making choices, but if you behave like an arsehole then this is how your life will turn out.
Surely you as a lil ol’ gunslinger knows this only too well?
“Douglas, this is evolution speaking…let me tell you something very clearly…”
LOL!!!!
Evolution. doesn’t. speak. to. us. amanda.
But is this how Jesus communicates with you, amanda?
”Put the gun down …. slowly.”
Hahahaha!!!!
It’s even funnier when you try to zing me with the EXACT SAME CONCEPT I just said to you! LOL!!!
“Douglas…here’s something in no uncertain terms: Amanda is an arsehole.”
“Douglas…here’s something in no uncertain terms: Amanda is an arsehole.”
You took the words right out of my mouth!
Naughty mind reader, you!
Aren’t you supposed to be looking after kids or something?
LOL!
You said EVOLUTION would tell me in no uncertain terms… I wonder, does evolution have a tenor voice? Or maybe a bass?
In your case, just for you a high pitched whine.
Your false interpretation of my comment on evolution rather highlights my point.
Obviously, you should not expect to hear voices … only the delusional would succumb to this ,( so maybe you would hear voices?) but rather when I said Evolution would let you know in no uncertain terms, I simply meant it would eventually cull out idiots like you.
HAHAHAHA!!!!
How can you be sure evolution will do that, when it doesn’t make choices?!?!
So when Amanda dies, then she’ll know.
Will she?
Know what exactly?
LOL!
Please go on! hahaha!
You really are hilarious.
Well I am glad you think one of us on this blog is, because the host doesn’t cut it.
However, this doesn’t change the fact that your comment flies in the face of what the bible says … what the character Jesus of Nazareth is supposed to have said.
How come you do not know this?
Well it does flies in the face of scripture if you’re interpreting it with only half a brain.
And which half where you using Jasmine?
Evidently a bigger half than yours.
A half is exactly 50% of the whole.
There is no ”bigger half”, Jasmine.
If you are this confused with basic mathematics how on earth do you expect to come to an accurate understanding of Christian dogma/doctrine,the biblical text, and especially the words put into the mouth of the character Jesus of
NazarethNowhere by the unknown writers of the gospels?And you surely cannot want me, an outright atheist, to make your ears burn and offer up the specific verses, now do you?
Come on … you now the text. You made a boo boo. It happens t0 the best of us.
Own it, and move on. (unless of course you did it on purpose hoping I would not know the bible?
Oooh, now that would be devious!
😉
Sarcasm is a foreign language to you, isn’t it? Even so, I didn’t make a mistake. The end.
I can’t see where your opinion on the topic was requested, Ark.
He is going to start a conversation about Adam and Eve never existing.
Because he forgets that he has mentioned that a million times already.
Plus, he is a nitwit.
Of course you’re right. One cannot presume to think for another when they’re flat out doing it for themselves. And if the only way you decide a person is thinking is by them being exactly like you, it’s going to be very difficult to find. I’d suggest a mirror. That should satisfy you more than we are able.
Actually, even my lowly level of education equipped me with the tools to recognise when someone is actually thinking for themselves, this is why I recognize it isn’t happening among most of the god-botherers, and certainly not among those god botherers that frequent blogs such as this.
And apparently I am not alone in this view as is evidenced by the amount of Creationism taught in public schools across most of the ”Westernized” world … and even in Australia.
Actually, all available verifiable evidence indicates that your gauge for non thinking is, in fact, disagreement with your position.
This is verifiable by the fact that some of your friends are morons, yet you never accuse them of not thinking. The only conclusion is even a moron thinks, as long as he agrees.
Just sayin
I actual fact , my WorIdview regarding these matters is generally garnered from several sources, all of which are , meticulously researched, based on solid foundations of scientific inquiry, and all peer reviewed.
Whereas you on the other hand, stick your finger in your ear – or whichever orifice is currently available – give it a couple of twists, pull it out, lick it, hold it up to the prevailing Apologetic Fundamentalist Creationist Wind and go with that; be it idiots like the Branyans of a complete Dickhead like Ken Ham.
LOL..yeah ok
Preach it
Teach it
LOL
Do you still have your Ark Encounter T- Shirt, by the way?
Never been
Moron
If you are going to call me a moron, let me teach you how it is supposed to be written.
You need to put a comma after the word ‘been’ … like so – Never been, moron.
See, not so difficult is it, Dickhead?
Hey moron(exclamation point) (space here) That was written on two lines.
(line break here). Moron
(line break) LOL
Because I have bad grammar I renounce my faith. You have convinced me. I want to join the holy order of lying morons.
No, you have bad grammar because you are so keen to fire off ridiculous insults that would not even merit the back of a Cheerios packet that you can’t be bothered to ensure you are not insulting yourself … you Dickhead.
Got it. Moron is a stupid insult. Dickhead is a good insult
Lol
Arkemoron
The word moron is a fine insult.
You just have to remember that, when you use it in a sentence you ensure the grammar is correct; otherwise you are insulting yourself, Dickhead.
I have bad grammar. I renounce my faith.Thanks.
You are beginning to sound like a Branyan Clone.
You used to sound like a James Clone.
Why not try to think for yourself, and be at least a little original?
I honestly thought sounding like all of the others was part of renouncing faith
I mean, you and all the other God haters all say the same things. I don’t see the problem.
BTW, you need to entertain me quick or I am leaving. I find you boring.
None of us hate your god. Or anyone else’s for that matter. To hate something we do not believe in would make us as ridiculous as you are.
I find you boring.
Well, as long as you find me ….
If you want entertainment, take all your clothes off and stand in front of a full length mirror or an open window looking out onto the street.
That should you bring a barrel of laughs within a few minutes.
Kind of weird that me naked is part of this conversation.
It’s creepy
You mentioned you wanted entertainment.
I am sure that a few moments spent in the ”public eye” without your clothes on will provide you with all the entertainment you could possibly need for quite a while.
They rely … or have faith even, on your willful ignorance that you won’t renounce it!
It is why they have a saying in Israel:
”Christ, these people as so gullible. Thank god for Jesus.”
Really? They have that saying? I must have missed it
Were you?
Trying to be funny?
Lying?
To moronic to understand?
I suspect you are a lying, moronic, not very funny joke maker.
Why would I lie? I am not a Christian.
I may be pulling your leg a little, but there is no question that they will milk Christian gullibility until the cow runs dry.
Are you aware how much money has been donated to the restoration of the Nazareth Village Project among other things by thoroughly dense Christians who contunue to swallow this nonsense hook line and sinker?
Makes Disneyland look like a frakking backwater hick project.
Yeah
You are smart
A recreated village is all there is there. Nothing real ever happened or has been found
I renounce my Faith
Thank you Arkemoron
No, there is more, as I mentioned in the comment. Did you fail to notice or are you simply being a Dickhead as usual?
No, Ark. I didn’t read your comment. Since you are leading me along the path to renouncing my faith, I just assumed I should emulate you in all areas. That means I have to not read what others say, make unrelated comments, and repeat myself over and over.
Then make an intelligent statement or comment then maybe we can have a stimulating conversation?
Of course. Only people who disbelieve like you can think. If you doubt the presence of thinking on this blog so strongly, it’s a wonder why you continue to hang around here, since it would surely begin to reflect badly on you.
You might ask the same question to Branyan, as he seems to hand around quite a variety of atheist blogs.
I’m not writing any posts about Jesus being nothing but an itinerant rabbi.
I’m going to keep lying about Jesus being the Son of God.
The major benefit of my de-conversion is that I don’t have to adhere to stupid beliefs about evil. There is no sin.
It bothers you and JZ when I talk about Jesus as a real person. Annoying you makes me happy.
You know what I’m talking about! It makes you happy to annoy Christians!
Not on the least. I am just interested to read your full repudiation of Jesus being your god/ the son of god.
You made some sort of testimony when you became a Christian, surely you are not afraid to make a similar statement no that you have deconverted.
Why do you care? An ego stroke?
Not in the least. I think it is wonderful when Christians deconvert and truly believe their testimony can go a long way in helping others come forward and acknowledge just how corrupt and fallacious Christianity is.
Your testimony might help many people, JB. You should share it.
In fact it would make a marvelous post or two.
I don’t give a shit about helping other people. Why do you?
No problem. But it would still be interesting to read how you came to the realization that Christianity was false.
“You are simply tacitly defending the indefensible.”
There is no such thing as sin!
Why do you keep talking about Amanda’s bad behavior? You sound like a church lady.
Of course there isn’t it is a religious concept.
What is your point, Branyan?
The point is that you’re talking like finger-wagging, pearl-clutching, Bible-thumping church lady.
If there’s no sin, why can’t you just let people live how they want?
Because religious people believe there is ”sin” and like to spread it around like an unwanted STD.
Obviously not you anymore as you are a deconvert, right?
In fact, you should start telling these people to Park It and stop corrupting kids.
“In fact, you should start telling these people to Park It and stop corrupting kids.”
Should?
You’re telling me what I ‘should’ do?
I’m obviously a much more evolved atheist than you.
Probably. But in the overall interest of atheism per se, it can’t do any harm surely?
“…overall interest of atheism per se”
I don’t give a shit about the interest of atheism. You guys gonna design a flag and start have weekly meetings? You gonna print up some brochures and go door-to-door telling people how great it is to be enlightened?
Hmmm. Where have I seen that before…?
Shame, JB. Christianity shafted you and now that you are still smarting from a sore arse you are beginning to sound a little petulant like amanda, I understand.
You are in the throes of deconversion.
Some get depressed some get angry.
It will take time. Ans you have every right to get angry.
The indoctrination you have suffered takes its toll.
Don’t rush. Just be patient.
For now, it is enough you have acknowledged that Jesus of Nazareth was simply an itinerant 1st century Rabbi… and nothing more.
The rest will come over time.
At least you have taken that first step.
Good for you.
You really aren’t very bright.
Christianity didn’t ‘shaft’ me. There is nothing but evolution. I evolved exactly the way I was supposed to evolve. I am not ‘angry’. That is completely irrational.
And the bit of encouragement at the end was utterly meaningless.
Are you gonna send a plate of cookies over to the house? That’s what the other fundamentalists do.
You’re right, I’m probably not very bright at all. But I am really trying.
I thought that, under the circumstances Vaseline might be more appropriate than cookies. And maybe some burn cream?
Well, proper Christians believe in evolution. At least, the ones that invented Christianity, do.
But I am getting a little confused here, Johnny. Have you flipped Christianity the bird or not?
Which Christianity?
The one you belonged to?
I de-converted from your version of Christianity.
And which one is that?
…your version. Whatever you think Christianity is. Nitwit.
Ah … so you publicly renounce the Jesus Christ as your god, yes?
No.
And I’m very tired of answering your questions. Why the hell do you care?
Really? Why is it so damned important to you that I specify the details of what I don’t believe?
Go photograph some insects.
So you don’t renounce Jesus Christ as your god. Why not?
You have deconverted and any Christian deconvert will automatically renounce Jesus Christ as their god.
Hell, even the character Peter denied him.
One would think a minor league former Christian like you would have no problem.
Come on, John B. You can say it.
After all, you’ve spent I don’t know how long being delusional and quite probably a hypocrite.
Now’s your real chance to wipe the slate clean and join the ranks of the non-superstitious.
Do you need me to help you with the words?
Let’s say them together, okay?
”I, John Branyan, firmly believe that the biblical Character, Jesus of Nazareth is not a god, or the Creator of the Universe.
I no longer worship him.
You can do it John… really, I have belief in you.
This is the beginning of your new life.
Step into the light …
“Now’s your real chance to wipe the slate clean and join the ranks of the non-superstitious.”
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! It really IS a new religion for you! I thought you were joking!
You gonna send me a certificate? Will you teach me the secret handshake? LOLOLOLOLOLOL!
Seriously. Go do something that matters.
Oh dear, JB. You mean you will not renounce the character jesus of Nazareth?
Are you telling me that all this time since your deconversion you have been simply lying your frakking arse off?
How will you live with yourself?
I suspect this has all been a ruse, hasn’t it, JB and you never really deconverted did you?
I am so dissapointed.
Tsk tsk
You are still indoctrinated & delusional .
Amen to that, right?
“The subject of original sin…”
Interrupting the grown-ups again? The CONCEPT of Original Sin is only tangentially related to whether Adam and Eve were literal people who lived at the same time. Debating the CONCEPT of Original Sin is still possible, regardless of what you think the HGP has proven concretely (yet have never quoted Collins to back up).
Please stop interruption when a conversation is over your head.
Oh my gosh! Ark read something that another Atheist wrote about Augustine! Now everything I believe is a lie!!!
AGGHH!!!! FAITH CRISIS!
… Uh, Arkenwald, in case you haven’t noticed, I’m not talking to you when you crawl out of your playpen.
So, if you continue posting on the newest thread, we’ll simply ignore you EVERYWHERE. Choose wisely.
Also, JB, you need to say “Amen” after you’re done reciting. 🙂 And light a few candles.
Ahhh….it’s so nice to let go of religion. 😉
Seriously. What is he planning to do with my ‘confession of non-faith’? Does he get credit for his work in my de-conversion? Does he get to make a speech at the Reason Rally?
Everything he writes is weird and creepy.
lol.
The other Atheists will tell him, “Well done, good and trustful servant.”
“…enter into eternal nothingness.”
Not an assumption.
Scripture says that.
Ravi will be CRUSHED to learn he’s lost credibility with you, Dig-Dug!
Late here.
Are you, JB, stating that the source of human morality drives from Yahweh and without god we no objective reason to be ethical and moral?
Am I reading this correctly?
That is exactly what he is saying here and has said elsewhere. I don’t know how he explains the success of the Scandinavian countries; one would think there’d by nothing but atrocities and bloodbaths on a daily basis. . .
Ah … I thought so but they do tend to ramble, so I wanted to be absolutely clear on the issue.
Can I presume also, that Mrs Mcmommy is on the Yahweh derived morality trip, as well?
‘Two peas in a pod’ would be my take.
Okay. Thanks. Then I shall pose a question to both either of them and hope they will answer without any sort of flim-flamming.
I get the impression, Ark, that that’s his wife – she seemed to know, yesterday, that he had gone somewhere but would be back – she filled in for him.
Hello, Ark.
I am suggesting that there must exist some transcendent objective law maker behind mankind’s universal sense of morality. If our morals are nothing more than chemical reactions in our brains, then ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ become arbitrary matters of opinion. But, humans don’t behave as though our moral instincts are just opinion. We believe our morality actually matters. We believe our morals are objectively true. The passion in all these posts is evidence of that. 🙂
Whether or not this transcendent law giver is Yahweh or something else is a discussion that can only take place when the possibility of a supernatural reality is allowed for consideration.
No problem with this belief.
I don’t agree woth it but that’s choice, right?
Now to my question:
Do you worship the deity found in the Pentateuch?
“Well, manipulating disingenuous people like you and daddy have a fascinating appeal
I am always a little surprised – and that is a surprise in itself, right! – that when I think you have sunk as far as you could go … bingo! Up pops Daddy with another piece of polished filth…”
Blah, blah blah.
Anything else?
Fear not, my little gunslinger! The night is young!
Let’s go to the new post shall we ….
🙂
I will ignore you there, and so will everyone else who regularly comments.
Oh, goody!
Then I won’t have to suffer your petulance for at least one night. What a blessing!
You’re on my blog, jackass.
If you don’t want to “suffer my petulance” get out of my living room. I don’t stalk over to your place and put my feet up.
Oh, I’m dreadfully sorry. I really thought it was Daddy’s blog and you merely had admin rights?
No … you just stalk over at Mike’s blog. Mine usually only has spider photos and the like and my occasional religious posts are just a tad too near the bone for you?
Mike is an easy target, I guess, right?
I reckon you won’t come play at the Ark’s blog because you are afraid of being the lessor of two evils.
But we love petulance… you should pop over and pout and whine sometimes.
I mean, you are so good at it.
Take your meds. You’re spinning.
Really!
Come play n the new post.
I really want to read your defense to my comment and I know you have read it already.
Let me go get a cup of tea.
And where’s Daddy?
You couldn’t pay me enough to come to your blog. I get more than enough of your nothing-saying here.
Well at least you won’t take money showing everyone your metaphoric backside. That’s a good sign, right?
But I just think you’s a liddle scaredy puddy tat, amanda.
Go on, be a sport.
Come play . I’ll even let you pick the topic of the post I write.
What would you like?
No means no, Ark.
I think I might pout …
Help, Feminists!
I said no, and he’s still here! What should I do?
I’m pouting already. You are a mean lady. No, probably not a lady , woman then.
Sorry, JB, have you left the discussion so quickly or are you unwilling to answer my question?
@ JB:
If our morals are nothing more than chemical reactions in our brains, then ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ become arbitrary matters of opinion.
How about If our height is nothing more than chemical reactions in our brains, then ‘high’ and ‘low’ become arbitrary matters of opinion.
Or If our weight is nothing more than chemical reactions in our brains, then ‘heavy’ and ‘light’ become arbitrary matters of opinion.
Do you see how you’re pretending morality is a real thing, something independent of our brains? By making this assumption, you are making a fundamental thinking error that is revealed by substituting other kinds of comparative evaluations. Just because these other comparisons don;t have a universal and independent standard doesn’t mean they are false. As long as the standard being used maintains the same units of measurement, we really can compare and contrast value statements we call ‘morality’. But having no units is equivalent to measuring nothing because the standard doesn’t mean anything. Morality is an empty conceptual construct until we supply (that means ‘subjective’) the units. John Z is supplying well being in order to comparatively measure the effects of certain behaviours. Those that improve human well being are considered ‘right’ while those that reduce human well being are considered ‘wrong’. Those terms – right and wrong – require the same units. He’s pointing out that scripture does not provide us with the same units and so we end up with something akin to Divine Command Theory that allows for slavery and calls it good… not by any reasonable standard of effect but solely because the divine Dear Leader permits it. This is no different in principle than Himmler’s presentation of Nazi atrocities by order of the Dear Leader as therefore ‘good.’ Same reasoning.
So your claim about some universal and objective morality – rather than the capricious decisions of a juvenile and petulant god – derived from scripture is a load of crap.
I don’t think we are terribly far apart on this subject. I think we almost agree.
Height and weight can only be described when we agree on the units that will be used to measure them. The units are the objective standard.
The difficulty arises (potentially) when we try to define terms like “heavy” or “tall”. A child may correctly call his 5 foot 2 mother “tall”. A 7 foot tall NBA player would not. Which one is right? Each one is correct from their point of reference. The result is that the word “tall” becomes vague at best and meaningless at worst.
To determine whether or not the child’s mother is tall, we must assign a fixed standard. Often we consider height based on averages. At 5’2, the child’s mother is shorter than the average woman. She isn’t tall.
I readily agree with you that “good” behavior improves human well being. But who’s well being are we talking about? Describing tall and short is as easy as agreeing on how many centimeters an object needs to measure to earn the appropriate label. Describing good and bad is much more complicated.
And you are correct that Himmler believed himself to be doing a good work. We cannot accuse him of evil unless we have an objective way of describing evil. Just like we can’t say Himmler was tall until we define what tall is.
Question, JB – was your “transcendent objective law maker” responsible for the maternal treatment of this injured little girl, or was there an evolved sense of morality at play? An evolved desire to help others less fortunate than ourselves?
http://i887.photobucket.com/albums/ac73/archaeopteryx1/BintiRescue.jpg
What about the deep concern these guys are showing for the welfare of their ill or injured companion? transcendent objective law maker again?
http://i887.photobucket.com/albums/ac73/archaeopteryx1/ApeEmpathy.jpg
And what of the compassion these two are showing for each other? Transcendent objective law maker?
http://i887.photobucket.com/albums/ac73/archaeopteryx1/ManGorilla.jpg
A basic, evolved moral sense was with us long before your Yahweh was out of diapers.
“Why Should I Be Nice to You?” …
Answer: Not really like this post portrays! Despite the arguements here, to answer the question, the very FIRST reason that comes to mind for me is Colossians 4:5-6… where the words/concepts of sympathy, compassion, humility, love, patience, WHEN TO BE SILENT, and stoic (Godly?) wisdom… all are SEVEN initial words/concepts that leap out to me from this passage!
Where is the Christ-like behaviour and witnessing to the unbelieving world exhibited here???
If the OP is really interested, may I suggest a book called “Contemporary Metaethics”. You haven’t got the background to engage in this conversation, and that resource would help. Moore’s Principia and Hume’s Treatise would also be good (at the risk of using that word). Sorry, I am not claiming authority myself; it is just much more complicated that laid out here…
Hello Keithnoback! I will have to disagree that anyone without the proper “background” does not have the capability or right to engage in these type of discussions. I am a school teacher and of the belief that if a person does not have the ability to explain arguments simply (to even less educated people), then they might not understand things so well themselves.
While I do agree that there is great benefit to engaging in study and research like that of Miller’s book on Metaethics, at some point it simply comes down to personal belief and faith. The theist has faith that their is a God and comes to this conclusion from personal experience and reasoning that sometimes science can/cannot explain. The atheist has faith that there is no God and that even though things might not always make sense, there is natural and scientific rational (even if undiscovered at the moment) behind those experiences on both sides of the debate.
I have some education in philosophy and have debated with people from different countries and backgrounds in the past. In doing so I have realized that there are brilliant minds out there on both sides of the debate and it comes down to the matter of which world view or experts one is going to put faith in. For example the renowned English Philosopher Antony Flew, who was a lifelong expert on David Hume (in which your referenced), spent his entire life as one of atheisms leading philosophers only to come to belief in a creator/God late in life (just a few years before his death at 87). He cited science, the teleological argument and the problem of evil as main motivations for this change .
Whether you agree or not, Flew came to put his faith (non-religious) in a creator as it seemed to make more sense than what his atheist philosophy career of 70 years could offer. does this mean he was any more or less educated because of his conclusion? Does this mean he had all of the answers finally? No, it just meant that he chose to put his faith in an intelligent designer, despite not having all of the answers.
We all take that step of faith regardless of our beliefs. Thanks for your time…
Speaking of Anthony Flew, I found this, by his longtime friend and associate, R. Joseph Hoffman, to be interesting: Theology and Falsification: The Hijacking of Antony Flew.
Of this hijacking, by Gary Habermas and his “Christian Research Institute,” Hoffman had this to say of his friend and associate:
Oh, good grief. And from a teacher?
The atheist has faith that there is no God…
PRATT
Flew came to put his faith (non-religious) in a creator as it seemed to make more sense than what his atheist philosophy career of 70 years could offer.
PRATT
Whatever happened to teachers capable of teaching, and able to demonstrate, critical and creative thinking? This kind of comment is exactly what not to do if one wishes to present one’s self as reasonable. This is religious apologetics utilizing PRATT straight up. How very disappointing sucvh a person has influence over the young and vulnerable.
I saw those grammatical errors which, with a family filled with teachers, no one I know would make, but decided to give him a pass for the greater good of the Flew article.
Notice my statement of “(non-religious)” in regards to Flew’s beliefs. Many atheist have argued that Flew’s PUBLISHED statements of belief in an intelligent designer (God) have been misconstrued into belief of a Christian God by Christians like Gary Habermas. I don’t believe that is the case with Flew and he did not believe in a Christian God. I was simply proving a point that at the very least one can concur that Flew relinquished many of his atheist beliefs in which he had supported his entire life.
Some 84-year olds with dementia have been known to relinquish their pants.
I sense a bit of a sophomoric tone? Forgive my grammatical errors. The last time I checked this is not published work. Simply a non-formal blog. Guess I was wrong??? – shoot more grammatical errors =-)…
archaeopteryx1, Maybe you should proofread some of your previous posts. Can’t we have a friendly discussion without personal attacks or put downs. I’ve seen plenty of those before I decided to chime in. BTW, I am not an English teacher =-)…
tildeb – “How very disappointing sucvh a person has influence over the young and vulnerable.” Maybe I should ignore your comment because it has a grammatical error =-). Many would feel the same about your atheistic stance. Remember the overwhelming majority of people throughout history and today have belief in God of some sort. There are Brilliant minds on both sides of the issue and many (even atheist) choose to send their children to institutions with professors of religious backing.
Even though I still back my stance that atheists have faith that their is no God, some support might help:
– Faith is not a bad word. This is not reference to “Christian” faith – more the assertion that atheist have some beliefs that are not always based in proof. Beliefs that cannot be explained by science. And maybe there are some arguments that merit evidence of God. Does not mean one has to believe in those arguments, but I would be arrogant to not ascertain the stance that both sides of the debate have strengths and weaknesses in evidence.
– Science hast not and cannot answer everything – yet an atheist still has faith that there must be scientific or natural explanations even if undiscovered. A good scientist will admit that not everything can be proven with scientific proofs and that there are a plethora of questions about our universe and world that science cannot answer. for example: Is there proof that the material world is all that exists?
Cheers to exercising the mind, and thanks for your time…
It’s not a grammatical error; it’s a spelling error (a common occurrence given a small keyboard). And, yes, many big brained people have made the same mistake using a method of inquiry into reality and not allowing (or having the means to allow) reality to arbitrate them. That is a guaranteed method to mistake faith-based claims to be (pseudo-)answers. This is exactly what you demonstrate confusing ‘proofs’ (available only to axiomatic systems) with understand how evidence and not beliefs inform confidence in likelihood and probability of claims reflecting and describing reality. A good rule of thumb is that if the method of science cannot answer a question about reality, then the question is a really poor one. But any good teacher knows this.
It is not arrogance to understand why imposing belief on reality is a very poor way to gain any insight into it. That’s why religious belief never has, does not, and probably never shall offer us any insight into reality we can call ‘knowledge’. It’s empty of knowledge value and this is demonstrable by it’s complete lack of applications, therapies, and technologies that work. Now – as any good teacher would – compare and contrast that with science and one sees all the evidence on the scientific side of the comparison and zero of the religious side. This is the evidence that links each method to its claims to produce knowledge: reality. There is no support for the religious side doing what it advertises to do: ‘answer’ questions. It inserts more empty claims as if these were equivalent answers and tries to justify them by believing them to be true rather than allowing reality to demonstrate their knowledge value. This is not arrogance. This is reality arbitrating the value of faith-based beliefs.
What is arrogant is pretending the religious method of applying faith for confidence in claims about reality is somehow equivalent to one that does.
If one extrapolates from this preponderance of evidence regarding questions into how reality operates, by what mechanisms, what it contains, and so on, to which we do not have any good answers (meaning in scientific terms explanatory models that seem to work for everyone everywhere all the time), then it is folly to assume that faith-based belief is as likely to produce equivalent insight. It never has. It does not. It is poor thinking to expect this result to change. What is not folly is to presume that science offers us the best method to inquire into these great swaths of the unknown and produce models of understanding upon which we can continue to produce applications, therapies, and technologies that seem to work for everyone everywhere all the time. In any honest comparison, the method of insight that utilizes faith-based belief – religion being the Mother Ship – is an utter failure. To teach children that this faith-based method is equivalent for producing knowledge into the unknown as the method that allows reality to arbitrate our beliefs about it is straight up indoctrination that mistakes lies and deceit as virtues.
Some 84-year olds with dementia have been known to relinquish their pants… =-) Funny, sounds like something I might say… I would argue that at that age he was still at least twice the philosopher that I am today!
I am sitting in my hospital bed right now recovering from surgery related to abuse from sports. This has provided me with some time to reflect on this site that I normally would not have. Going home soon, so not sure how much more time I will be able to devote to this.
Since me being a teacher, or a good one at that, is in question maybe we should explore the reality in which we (including you guys) live. Science is about observable reality correct? I am a teacher. Must be a pretty decent one since I just received state recognition indicating so (1 award given out of thousands of teachers). Arch and Tildeb, how do you apply your masterful thinking in reality? Are your thoughts and mental capacities appreciated, or only behind the computer screen? What credentials do you have indicating your supremacy in thinking? It appears that your world view is so full proof, with no holes, and doubts that people would be knocking down the door to learn from you. For your sake I hope that is the case.
There are scientists in this world with more initials behind their name that one can imagine that believe in God. And many that don’t! Most hold proof to the argument that science cannot prove God does not exist. I think it’s fair to conclude that maybe there’s a chance that God could exist??? Maybe I don’t have all of the answers? That’s where I believe the atheist demonstrates faith…
All I’ve ever said, Drummer, and I stand by it, is that I have seen no evidence that a god or gods exist.
Because your thinking is so very muddled, you cannot be a good teacher. You may be a popular teacher. You may even be an award winning teacher. But you’re not a good teacher when your thinking processes that you’ve demonstrated here and then repeated even after an explanation why this is the case has been displayed are so very poor.
For example, you use the PRATT that many good scientists are religious and hold some level of confidence in some faith-based religious tenet so this indicates that the faith-based belief method is compatible with science. That’s like saying because many priests are child rapists, pedophilia is compatible with the priests’ religion. It’s so obviously poor that it boggles the mind of even any third-rate thinker.
Of course the thinking isn’t just poor here. It’s broken. That’s what you use, what you rely on for your apologetics – broken thinking… but will not self-correct even though you are clearly and demonstrably wrong to maintain it.
Any scientist who holds confidence in some faith-based belief does so only by segregating this belief from the rigorous method of science, and so their scientific credentials do not play any part in supporting their religious beliefs. Trying to use their scientific credentials in this way as you continue to do is not clear thinking. It’s broken thinking. It is religious apologetics in action (ie “Most (scientists) hold proof to the argument that science cannot prove God does not exist”) that then negatively influences not just your thinking ability but cannot help but undermine your ability to teach young minds how to think well when you can’t… no matter how many awards you say you have won in recognition of your supposedly fine teaching. Obviously, and if true, those who awarded you don’t understand why you should not receive any such award but instead should have to return to remedial teacher’s college. You’ve lost the thread of what it is you’re supposed to be doing as an educator (and it’s not as an indoctrinator). Spewing such bad thinking and believing it to be justifiably correct demonstrates your lack of ability to think clearly. A confused teacher pretending no confusion exists on the basis of believing it doesn’t in the face of compelling contrary evidence is a very poor teacher. That describes you.
OK Guys! Still a lot of rambling. I’ve put myself out there. allowed you to ridicule me and my profession. You label me a poor teacher and not qualified to do what I’m doing (even though people more qualified than you state otherwise). Still waiting to see where your brilliance has gotten you. Maybe you are not comfortable with this and would rather throw dirt on others???
To: Arch and Tildeb
from: The not good teacher with poor grammar
Still unwilling to state where your brilliance has gotten you. Easy to throw dirt from behind a computer screen. Maybe I should make false assumptions, as you guys have often on this site about others, in regards to your occupation and educational background or lack there of??? I won’t though, because I don’t want to practice the dirt throwing tactics that you guys live off of.
Studied these issues a lot from both perspectives and to be honest I eventually got bored. I even considered getting a doctorate in philosophy. I was studying it a lot. Debating with still close friends that are catholic, Buddhist, atheist, Christian, etc… At the end of the day I decided that I could study till I was blue in the face and there would still always be unanswered questions. Again, I will stick to that’s where faith comes in for all regardless of which side of the line you are on. There will always be holes/gaps and strengths and weaknesses in any world view. Even the best of atheistic and religious experts and philosophers will admit this. It surprises me with your profound and error free brilliance that you guys have has not enabled you to come to this conclusion.
There is nothing wrong with exhibiting faith. I did it with my recent surgery. I have studied my issue for years and would consider myself to be very knowledgeable, but still don’t have the ability or know how to perform the surgery myself. I put my faith in my doctor. I have the same feelings for my car. I have faith that my brakes will work, and did not come to this conclusion from my mechanical abilities. Knowing that I don’t have a desire to extend my education in philosophy, I am OK with saying that I’ve studied it a lot, know there will always be unanswered questions, will put my faith in experts that have more merit in the matters, and then come to my conclusion on which world view I want to live by.
Again, waiting to hear where your brilliance has gotten you. Especially considering you have taken the authority to question mine…
It is common knowledge – or should be for a teacher who uses the English language in some critical capacity – that the term ‘faith’ has two very distinct meanings. You are using the PRATT that conflates them so that you can pretend faith of the religious kind – imposing a belief on reality – is equivalent to a level of confidence earned by reality’s arbitration of claims made about it – adducing belief from reality. These are not equivalent and you should know this if you really are a professional teacher. I sincerely doubt it… unless you’ve undergone brain injury since earning your professional accreditation.
And again, the stupidity of this argument demonstrates the tremendous lack of intellect that finds it compelling. It’s not. Ar all. And even a cursory examination of it reveals why. For an award winning teacher who considered getting a PhD in philosophy, you seem unable to muster coherent thinking. This shows me a trend that lacks disciplined thinking. And if this true here, then it will be likely be the same in your professional life no matter what it actually is. And it would have proven a fatal liability to earning a doctorate outside of some religious faux-school where it can be purchased with your tuition.
to: Tildeb
from: Not a good teacher, with poor grammar, that must have had a brain injury since my professional accreditation
Strike 3, your out. Once again more rambling and dirt throwing without any credentials.
I am guessing reality is tough on you. you have few friends. Maybe no job or if so one that requires little to no accreditation. People don’t see things the way you do so you have to lash out online and prove your supreme intelligence behind the computer because it does not work in the real world. Prove me otherwise and I will give you my bosses phone number and you can call him to a) see that I am a professional teacher not living lies behind a computer like you do and b) you can recommend to him why I should not be teaching anymore. I would love to hear what he would have to say about this, and I am sure he would find your efforts quite comical!
Anyways, I hope the reality in which you live is pleasing to you. it’s sad to say though that it’s likely not. I hate to be harsh, but I gave you multiple chances to converse professionally and throwing dirt on me is all you want to do. This is a taste of your own medicine!
Why are we debating if there is no such thing as objective laws or thruths or “right or wrong”.
How do we know who wins a football game?
Good sportsmanship please! Thanks…
Btw … as far as JZ saying to JB, “I’m taking it that you support slavery” … it’s quite the opposite. JB is explaining that Club actually, though perhaps unintentionally, supports slavery because she states “Good and evil are quite real. They are JUST subjective.”
In other words … Club can’t definitively claim that slavery is evil … because evil is “subjective.” It’s only her opinion. After all, she takes pleasure in the misfortune of others (perhaps someone subjected to slavery) … which seems evil in and of itself. So Club actually supports slavery … even though she doesn’t wish to be a slave herself. If good and evil weren’t subjective … that would clearly be evil.
You seem confused, Kevin – while evil may be subjective, if a group, each operating subjectively, agrees that a particular act operates against the general consensus of the group’s subjective belief that the behavior is detrimental to the group, that group can agree that that particular behavior is wrong. Actually, the god of the Bible not only permits slavery but even provides rules governing the institution. So much for god-given morality.
Majority rules, eh?
So, why do Club and JZ get to argue against the Ugandans–who have simply arrived at a consensus that homosexual behavior is detrimental to their group?
I’m saying that the majority of morality is cultural, that each culture has it’s own rules of morality, or mores. You’re a Christian (I presume) – you would feel that the Muslim reverence of Mohammed is immoral, yet to the Muslim, your reverence for Jesus is equally immoral – granted, the Muslims lend more credence to Jesus as a prophet, than the Christian faith is willing to grant to Mohammed, but you are Christian not because of what the Bible says, but because you were raised that way, just as I can say the same thing about Muslims and the Quran.
Of course I say that discrimination against homosexuality is wrong, but the Ugandans likely feel the same way about same-sex marriage.
There are basic moral rules that humankind and other more intellectual animals have evolved so that we can get along with each other as we band together for protection from forces outside of our respective group. All groups share these rules, or they couldn’t have survived. This is exactly how the ‘Golden Rule’ came to be, treat others as you would be treated – established hundreds of years before the time of your Jesus. But as groups began to separate by time and distance, other rules have been added to those basic ones, rules that are not necessarily common to all groups, and these represent the cultural morality of which I speak.
So, morality is cultural. And it changes. And it’s a utilitarian thing–not an absolute thing. Right?
So, then you agree that JZ and Club are off base to be scolding the Ugandans for their laws about homosexuality? Would you agree they have no right to talk about a universal right/wrong–so long as the Ugandans agree that homosexual behavior doesn’t fit their group goals?
I didn’t say that, and assuming you’re literate, you know I didn’t. I said that a universal morality evolved to allow bands of early or proto-humans to band together for protection and survival. I said that as distance and time separated those bands, cultural mores arose that were not universal, but rather applied only to the subjective views of that given group, and not necessarily to any others.
JZ and Club are not at all off base to be scolding the Ugandans for their laws about homosexuality, as they are responding to the morals of their culture, as are the Ugandans.
However, as I said, there ARE universal mores – to repeat, so you’ll be clear that I said it this time – that evolved to help us humans survive. One of these became part of the Hippocratic Oath: “First, do no harm.” Another, is, again as I mentioned, the age-old Golden Rule, “treat others as you would yourself wish to be treated.” The Ugandan laws against homosexuality hurt others, do they not? Ergo, they violate the premise of that basic human law. You could call that law universal if you like, but it holds humans together like the strong force holds elementary particles together in an atomic nucleus.
Your god, himself (or rather, the anonymous authors who created him), violated those same basic laws when he (or they) decided that women should be treated as commodities to be traded, bought and sold, when he (they) decided that genocide was not wrong, and not only permitted it, but encouraged it, even urged it, when he (they) decided that slavery was not wrong and not only permitted it but even provided rules governing the institution, when he (they) discounted the idea of religious freedom, but dictated slaughter for anyone who would dare worship another god.
Now, should I copy this so I can paste it in another comment, in the event that, like my earlier one, you don’t understand this one either?
We now know that rules about doing no harm only evolved for our survival many, many years ago. But now that the world is positively bursting with humans–wouldn’t it be moral to thin the herd a little?
That’s why we invented birth control.
Yeah, that’s working wonders…
Why not just euthanize the especially prolific people? The uneducated tend to strain society’s resources the most–and also procreate the most.
Forced sterilization at the very least?
And exactly how would you try to work treating others as you’d like to be treated into that scenario?
I think JB gave each of you the last word.
So let me get this straight… the people who believe that morality is a product of POOF!ism by an agency of Oogity Boogity! are the ones who get to ‘keep their brains’ while Those People, who understand the surprising amount of compelling evidence that behaviours indicative of reciprocity awareness are a biological product, are what… the ones who have lost their brains?
Riiiight.
And then JB has the temerity to state “I’m honestly curious about how a staunch naturalist rationlizes morality.” Now, where did my jaw just go? I heard it hit the floor here somewhere…
There, that’s better. Back in place.
As one of Those People supposedly bereft of a brain, methinks such use of a pretty blatant falsehood is, in fact, rather good evidence for the willingness of the blog author to break a commandment from said divine agency of Oogity Boogity!…. which raises the interesting question if he was absent the day this divine morality was handed out or if he’s lying in spite of knowing better? Where’s this vaunted objective morality now, I wonder?
To be clear, you’re appealing to the transcendent moral code of Oogity Boogity in order to accuse me of wrong doing? Shouldn’t you be shaming me for not adhering to the standards of reciprocity behavior?
No, that’s not it. Want to try again?
I don’t want to be accused of erecting a strawman. What do I Misunderstand? (…and I know I’ve left the door wide open for a barrage of snark with that question. Consider it a gift.)
I’m pointing out that if what you said about objective morality granting you this moral sense was actually true (independent of your belief that it is), then you would have and should have had the moral sense not to lie about being “honestly curious about how a staunch naturalist rationlizes morality.”
You assume ‘the staunch naturalist” (a group that includes all of us almost all of the time with specific exemptions to incorporate beliefs about reality that reality fails to support) is wrong when it comes to claims about morality and substitute a false certainty that your preferred version of some divine causal agent was and is responsible for it. Yet here you are either deciding to pay no attention to this ‘honest curiosity’ you claim to have, or perhaps you weren’t around when this moral sense you have failed to act upon here was bequeathed to you… which, in either case, demonstrates why your claim is factually wrong.
First, research into moral psychology shows that, like language, though there’s an innate capacity for altruism, fairness, justice, and cooperation, there’s a developmental path from infancy through childhood and into adolescence to an understanding of right and wrong – no, we aren’t born with a sense of right and wrong.
Second, if we get our morality from God, why is it that our moral intuitions are so radically different from his? Why do we agree that women are entitled to equal rights and opportunities and yet God views them as property, as a commodity to be traded, bought and sold? Why do we agree that genocide is wrong while he not only permits it, but encourages it, even urges it? Why do we agree that slavery is wrong and yet he not only permits it but even provides rules governing the institution? Why do we agree on the value of religious freedom and yet he dictates slaughter for anyone that would dare worship another god than he?
Third, evidence from behavior of other species and from research into moral psychology in humans shows that morality is an evolved behavior, with precursor (proto-morality) behaviors like altruism, reciprocity, fairness, justice, empathy and others existing in other species with an understanding of these basic concepts in babies as young as only a few months. This means that morality was around way before religion was, and certainly way before the Yahwist cult or its subsequent permutations in Christianity and Islam were around.
So, as a theist, if you would argue that way, you would be, and are, wrong.
. . or perhaps Slightly Sarcastic would care to answer that question of yours, John Z. You know, to these PEOPLE. . we’re waiting. .
We will wait and see, Carmen. For now though, i’m off to watch a fantastic bossa nova band. Will see if anything comes tomorrow.
Hi John
Curious, why did you ignore the whole “cognitive capacity” part? The cognitive capacity evolved… you know, the brain with all its billions upon billions of neurons which enabled abstract/predictive thought, which is an element in “empathy”?
I did already explain this to you quite clearly when you made this mistake earlier: empathy does not evolve.
I did tell you that, didn’t I?
Willful ignorance again, I see.
Now, you’ve made some tremendously embarrassing errors here. My post on David concerned lying: creating a false narrative erected on a laughable appeal to authority. It seems Club was positively spot on in saying you spend a great deal of your time erecting straw men. You’re quite skilled at it.
So, from this post I’m taking it that you support slavery. That’s an interesting position to hold. I can, however, understand your stance, considering slavery is supported by your religion.
And you never did answer me. I asked this five times, but you evaded it. Maybe the 6th time will be the charm?
Just one.
You can name one thing, can’t you?
John’s traveling, JZ, So let ME attempt to explain how debate works:
First you make a claim in the “affirmative.” And then, you try to support that claim with a series of arguments. Then, the opposing side rebuts in an attempt to poke holes in your theory. And–if you still haven’t proven YOUR case at the end of the debate, you lose. (Typically the opposing side gets the last word. But John graciously allows you to have the first AND last.)
If you say, for example, “It’s WRONG for the Ugandan leaders to write anti-homosexual laws!” then someone like John asks, “Why is your version of right/wrong better than theirs?” (Note: he is encouraging you to make YOUR case. This would be your opportunity to defend YOUR opening statement.) But, if you jump tracks and start demanding he defend a different affirmative statement, you lose. John doesn’t have to prove Jesus was unique (all though he was). John doesn’t have to answer your questions about the Bible, or Christianity, and he doesn’t even have to supply evidence that morality is a SUPERnatural phenomenon that science can’t speak to (although it is).
I don’t care whether John gets his beliefs from a hobo reading fortune cookies. John wasn’t the one who made the first absolute claim. The minute you stop making your case and try to put John on the defensive instead, YOU LOSE. He’s not the one on trial here. Your claim that you know what’s best for Uganda is the statement we’re examining.
You started it.
Now finish it.
What gives you the right to lecture another pack of humans about its social hierarchy?
mrsmcmommy,
you’re confused. JB asked regarding the harm done to LGBTQ from the toxicity of Christianity, “Who is being harmed? And How?”
So John answered “Are you aware of the Kill Homosexual laws written by American evangelicals in countries like in Uganda?” Victoria helped with FBI stats to show increased levels of harm done to LGBTQ compared to all other vulnerable minorities in the States. So JB pretended to be concerned about the source of those stats as if they were in question. That’s dishonest. He then said, “I was not aware that American evangelicals are empowered to make law in Uganda, ” to which I directed him to The Family written by Sharlet that outlines exactly who is harmed and how and by whom… a book that squarely points the finger at American evangelicals who form the Family and backs it up with very compelling evidence.
Of course, JB waved away this discourse and altered his approach.
He asked “Why blame a handful of religious activists for the passing of laws in other countries instead of the country’s law-makers?” This was already answered so it’s merely a delaying tactic in order to raise his next issue by asking, “On what basis can you argue that any law is immoral?”
So John countered “Do you think someone should be killed for their sexual preference? If so, please give me the moral justification for that.” He asked that because gays in Uganda are being killed for their sexual preference and so it seems that JB might somehow be okay with the evangelical influence being enacted into law but not okay with someone like John questioning it on moral grounds. JB clarified by saying “I don’t think people should be killed for their sexual preference but that opinion is based on my religious convictions.”
There’s the claim, mrsmcmommy. JB makes it and opens the door to examining JB’s specific claim.
So that is why John asked specifically about slavery… to point out the hypocrisy necessary to suggest that JB’s moral opinion is based on his religious convictions. Obviously, and truthfully, they are not or he would support biblically sanctioned slavery. John quite rightly points out, “You are contravening your own religion by saying people should not be killed for their sexual preference.” He continues:
“Your religion says kill homosexuals. That is your “Gods Law.” It’s in black and white. That is the command being taken to African nations by members of your own religion. It is being taken to Africa only because secular governments (like in the US) won’t hear a jot of such nonsense. I have shown you how David McDonnough says the OT laws apply to you, John. I can show you many, many more captains of Christianity (theologians) who think the same, like Gary North. Rev. Rick Warren, one of your leading evangelical voices, was in Uganda publically supporting the Kill Gay Law.”
Rather than deal with his uncomfortable hypocrisy, and scripture contrary to his assertion about the source of his morality, JB switches to attack mode and says “My questions were seeking insight about how non-religious people justify telling law-makers in other countries that their laws are wrong.” This is another diversion. John’s question is very much in the format of the debate that JB started.
John Z still answered this diversion:
“And in answer to your question: Enlightened self-interest. I would not like to be a slave, so, thanks to the giant processing plant sitting above my eyes, I can project that same abstraction onto others and appreciate how they would feel in the same position. It’s called empathy, and as a cognitive capacity, it arose quite naturally through the evolutionary paradigm.
Is that so genuinely difficult for you to understand? Seriously?”
JB reaffirms: “Religion is the ONLY source of moral absolutes. In the United States, religion is responsible for the idea that all people are endowed with certain rights.”
Because JB is illiterate in the language used to elighten him with the historical understanding of the Declaration, he falsely equates the deistic view of Nature as the source of certain rights to be equivalent to belief that his evangelical god sewed humanity with these rights. This is so wrong it isn’t even wrong. It’s very ignorant. But that’s a different topic.
Nevertheless, you ask “What gives you the right to lecture another pack of humans about its social hierarchy?” And to this question we have already provided a mountain of compelling evidence that any reasonable person who cares at all about the well being of others can clearly see that it’s a really bad idea. That you even have to ask demonstrates the scope of your own religious bias that presumes that JB’s claim about the source of morality is true and ignores the devastating argument against it that John Z has already made.
Sorry, tildeb. I have small children. When I get a few free minutes to chat, I have to keep my reading to less than 100,000,000 characters.
I’ll repeat. My beliefs (and JBs) are not on trial here. I know you atheists are only comfortable asking the questions about silly, mythical Christianity. But you need to get better at defending hopeless, miserable atheism if you want to be convincing.
What would you say to a sociopath who said, “I don’t feel the empathy that you say I SHOULD. But I think it’s because I’m a more evolved human than you. I think the next stage of our species will be the thinning-of-the-herd stage, where the strong dominate the weak until our populations are more controlled.”
How would you convince him that’s WRONG?
Sociopaths aren’t noted for hurting people, in fact, they can become useful members of our society, such as lawyers ministers and politicians. I believe you are thinking of psychopaths.
Semantics, Dude. What would you say to ANYONE who argued, “We’ve moved on from your version of morality. There’s a new, better way now…and it involves me following my instinct to dominate.” ?
Semantics? No, actually those are classifications of mental disorders as listed in the DSM-IV – possibly you should look into those.
“What would you say to ANYONE who argued, “We’ve moved on from your version of morality. There’s a new, better way now…and it involves me following my instinct to dominate.” ?”
I believe we already have one of those. My solution is to vote against Donald Trump.
Argue from the principle of reciprocity, which is much better informed by compelling evidence from reality than arguing from divine yet arbitrary rules supposedly from an agency Oogity Boogity! If reality isn’t persuasive or is dismissed as irrelevant, then we’re not talking to a rational person, and turning to magical thinking isn’t going to improve anything.
And here I was trying to lighten your workload from the long thread you’re confused about to a manageable 872 words – more than half of which are quotes you obviously had difficulty following. My bad.
Hi mrsmcmommy
Thanks for the notes on how a debate should proceed. If you follow this conversation back to the linked thread you’ll see we’ve already been through these phases. Clear, demonstrable examples where provided for John, yet he ignored them. He’s still ignoring them, as this post demonstrates.
So, to answer your question, as it has already been answered: Enlightened social ideas (memes) urge me to lift the general human condition. We have clear evidence of neurological processing power correlating directly to evermore complex social structures. Once we enter the cultural paradigm, memes, not genes, take precedence. This is exampled in the development of laws, human rights, women’s rights, anti-slavery movements, etc.
If you’d like a longer version of this, I would suggest you actually read the linked thread where this subject has already been thoroughly covered.
And I’m sorry, but there is no “jumping tracks.” You see, apart from John’s stunningly disingenuous willingness to simply ignore what is presented to him in a calm and coherent manner, he wanders off in baffling directions. That’s fine. I’m not criticising that, but one of those directions was to his concept of god. Now, first up, John couldn’t even name what god he was even talking about, which was rather odd. Then he made a claim about Jesus (to paraphrase) being the greatest character in all of human history, and that all morality stems from him and him alone.
This is quite a claim, and, following the rules you have so clearly laid out above, I asked John to defend it. Hence the question:
I have asked this question six times already. Seven now. If what John claims is true, I would assume it is the easiest question in all of history to answer.
Perhaps you can answer it?
Just one.
I look forward to reading your answer.
And just out of curiosity, why do you think slavery, for example, is wrong?
Where did you get this idea from?
I asked John this same question numerous times, but he kept evading it.
Maybe you wont…?
JZ, after all that, you’re actually trying to direct your questions at me? lol. It’s hard having a discussion when you’re not allowed to be the Demander of Answers, isn’t it? (So hard that you literally can’t do it.) Those Christians who feel they owe you a thousand explanations are muuuuuuuuch easier to handle, aren’t they?
No, I won’t answer your questions.
Because I still don’t understant YOUR position. So, you have some more contraditory conclusions to explain to me…
Honestly, I thought I read all of the comments. But 160+ is a lot. So, I’m sorry I missed your sermon about how complex social structures evolved. That still doesn’t explain how you can make claims that the Western structure is BETTER than the one that evolved in Uganda.
You atheists are in over your head with this philosophy stuff. You want to talk all day about chemicals and electricity, but you can’t wrap your mind around the fact that–now that we’ve discovered “empathy” and “goodness” are just subjective interpretations of whatever helps us propagate–we have no reason to keep obeying those instincts.
“Better” and “best” are meaningless unless you define the goal. And, why should I care about the rest of nature’s goal of survival? Why should I care about YOUR survival? Or even my own?
Even if you and I could agree that cooperation and empathy are the “best” ways for a species to survive. (Which we can’t–because it’s always easier to exterminate or lock up people we see as a threat, rather than trying to reason with them for weeks, as we’re doing…) But let’s say the Golden Rule is a good MECHANISM of survival.
So what?
They may have been convincing to humans who couldn’t reason BEYOND that, or who didn’t know what we do about social constructs and the evolution of morality. But now that we know that, why keep playing by those rules?
You STILL can’t explain why your desire to survive is BETTER than my desire to extinguish. You can’t argue that existence is BETTER than non-existence.
Both are neutral–and your behavior will depend on your goals.
Hi mrsmcmommy
”That still doesn’t explain how you can make claims that the Western structure is BETTER than the one that evolved in Uganda.”
Do you believe people should be killed for their sexual preference? If no, then I think you already know the answer to that question.
“Better” and “best” are meaningless unless you define the goal.
Yes, and the reduction of suffering is such a defined goal, is it not?
Okay, so you won’t/can’t answer the question:
That’s fine. It’s baffling why you won’t, but I won’t push you if it makes you feel uncomfortable or a little embarrassed.
@ mrsmcmommy,
Have you ever tried to measure something? Have you ever succeeded (instructions for weights and measures and speeds and time can be so demanding and time consuming, I know, but still…)?
Gird thy loins.
Trigger warning: the requirement to think is about to be made
(Maybe a deep breath, at least…)
What is being measured? (The ‘what’ indicates the requirement for a thing that has measurable properties. Lacking a ‘thing’ itself we can also measure the difference between conceptualized things by comparing and contrasting… as long as the units remain the same. Think math)
Now, must there be some universal objective set of units for each of these measurable things or comparative concepts? Must there be some nebulous ‘foot’ or ‘meter’ or ‘pound’ or ‘minute’ et al hovering in some transcendental realm? Must there be a divine agency bequeathing these god-approved standards?
This requirement for a universal objective ‘source’ for these units you pretend must be the case is so stupid it boggles the mind.
Measurement of any kind is a comparative one based on a mutually agreeable, artificial, subjective standard. This is self evident. That’s all you need to arrive at remarkably accurate measurements… measurements down to the subatomic and up to the near infinite.
The same is true for comparatively measuring what we call ‘morality’… by using differences of effects from behaviour contrasted to a standard.
But we don’t have a mutually agreeable standard, darling. You keep trying to get me interested in your survival, when I’m just NOT. You appeal to the fact that I should have evolved to be empathetic. But I just DIDN’T.
So, now what?
“You keep trying to get me interested in your survival, when I’m just NOT.”
Do you follow road rules? Then you are, in fact, interested.
Do you steal from your neighbours or poison water supplies? Then you are, in fact, interested.
Do you pay taxes? Then you are, in fact, interested.
Do you report a crime or a fire if you see it? Then you are, in fact, interested.
In every single way you act in a socially responsible manner you are demonstrating that you are, in fact, interested in others survival. Why? Enlightened self-interest. Put simply, you behave because you want others to behave.
That’s not why I, personally, behave. But I’ll get to that when I ready to let you off the hook…
There is an increasing number of people who do NOT follow road rules. Sometimes people DO poison water supplies. And lots (and lots and lots) of people evade taxes.
YOU are the one who can’t explain why they should stop doing those things and start following society’s rules, even if they don’t care what the consequences are. There are people who march into crowded malls and movie theaters just to gun down random strangers. It makes them feel powerful. It’s fun. And they don’t want ANYONE telling them what they can/can’t do.
A naturalist philosophy can’t stop them. Because they don’t care about your (or their) survival no matter how much you insist they should.
“There is an increasing number of people who do NOT follow road rules. Sometimes people DO poison water supplies. And lots (and lots and lots) of people evade taxes.”
I don’t know about increasing, but yes, and they get removed from society.
“A naturalist philosophy can’t stop them. Because they don’t care about your (or their) survival no matter how much you insist they should.”
I just explained (and demonstrated) how this statement is wrong.
Now, are you going to name a single genuinely new or original thing Jesus said or did?
That’s the eight time the question has been asked.
Is it really that difficult?
I see what this is…
Your animal instincts are so powerful–they are so deeply ingrained–that you can’t even imagine what it’s like to be someone who ISN’T a slave to nature, the way you are.
It would be like trying to explain to a cat that they don’t actually HAVE to sit in every box they find. They’ve literally never considered NOT sitting in a box, because their instinct has them convinced that it’s just RIGHT and GOOD for cats to do that…
I’d point out that some cats aren’t quite so drawn to boxes. (And some weirdo cats enjoy water! GASP!) But your response would be that those water-lovers ought to be removed from society to preserve the notion that ALL GOOD CATS know how bad and evil water is…
I’m sorry, but I can’t make heads nor tails of this comment. If it was important, perhaps you could try again?
Now, for the ninth time:
Just one.
You can name one thing, can’t you?
…To the majority of the cat population, it’s crazy not to sit in boxes. (And hating water is what you are supposed to do. It’s RIGHT! Right???)
“WE ARE CATS!” They say. “We have evolved to avoid water and love boxes–with very few exceptions!”
But the exceptional cat replies, “Great! But I am an exception! So leave me alone to do whatever I want.”
The other cats keep pushing. “No–we can’t leave you alone, because you’re violating our Cat Rules. The RIGHT thing for cats to do is to sit in boxes!”
And the loner cat says, “No. It’s just what most cats have evolved to feel like doing. That doesn’t make it ‘right.’ It’s just a cat thing.”
They literally do not comprehend what he is saying. Because their instinct is so ingrained, they can’t follow. So they argue, “Deep down, you really know box-sitting is the correct way for animals to behave. Doesn’t it make you feel WONDERFUL to do such a GOOD thing?”
And Loner cat answers: “No. It actually seems pretty pointless to me… I’ve evolved to the point where I know that what used to be called right/wrong is just chemicals and evolved impulses in our feline brains. It’s not good or bad.”
Does the loner cats actions endanger the well-being of the other cats?
I would say, no.
The Loner Cat doesn’t care whether he puts the others in danger.
Not being able to put others in danger is just another of those Cat Rules that he doesn’t feel obligated to obey.
With all due respect, stupid argument. You are talking about taste and personal preference. If the cats actions don’t unduly affect the other cats then there’s no problem. He can do what he wants.
Now, for the tenth time:
And honestly, I’d like you to tell me why you behave in a socially responsible manner. You made the statement, so please explain it.
I’m saying that your belief that right/wrong has to do with an action’s impact on others is a HUMAN instinct. But it’s just as pointless as the cat instinct to sit in boxes.
Still not understanding?
You believe that it’s right/wrong not to harm others because that is what you have evolved to believe. (And you call yourself a free-thinker. You’re a slave to your evolved instincts…)
Oh, I understand… I understand its about the stupidest argument I’ve ever heard.
Do we remove people from society for their taste in clothing? Do we imprison people for enjoying scrabble?
Eleventh time:
And do please explain to me why you behave in a socially responsible manner.
Are you regretting making that statement above?
It appears you might be. If you want me to drop it, just say so. I’ll understand.
Seriously, JZ, you can ask all you want, but you’re not proving some amazing point. I’m not telling you what *I* believe, because it’s not fair for you to hold me to MY standard. The only way atheists like you can talk about morality is if they borrow from religion. And, since I’m a religious person, you don’t get to cheat… You have to make your point about your beliefs on your own. And we’re not done yet.
You DO throw people in jail for harming others. And I’m saying that harming others is exactly like not sitting in boxes. The ONLY reason you think it’s “worse” and the ONLY reason you want to punish violent people is because you are a human whose human brain tingles when he sits in the “justice” box. But justice is an illusion. It’s an electrochemical process in your human brain. And, if you could let go of your instincts, you would see how pointless it is.
Please explain to me why you behave in a socially responsible manner…
So anyway, to make a long cat story short, before the Majority tosses the Loner into a Psych Hospital for Kitties, they try one more time to reason with that ridiculous Loner Cat: “We sit in boxes because it’s RIGHT, and we know it’s right because most cats sit in boxes!”
And the loner cat finally figures out what’s happening… He explains they are literally too dense to see how dense they are: “You can’t understand what I’m saying about cats because you’re still thinking like one. I’ve managed to break away from Cat Rules–which means I’m the only true Free Thinker here. And, if you weren’t such a slave to your tiny cat-brains, you would be able to stop jumping through nature’s hoops, too. Boxes don’t matter. MURDER doesn’t even matter. It’s just a set of really strong instincts, which can and will slowly evolve OUT of us, the same way they evolved in… Box-sitting isn’t good. It’s not bad, either. It’s just what most cats do–except the free ones (like me) that don’t.”
The other cats can’t tolerate the craziness–so they throw the One Who Doesn’t Conform into an asylum.
Please explain to me why you behave in a socially responsible manner…
And when you’re up for it:
You atheists cling to the idea that you’re “good” humans for obeying those evolved instincts that our great- grand-apes called “right.” But things like compassion and empathy are just human-boxes. (It feels so good to sit in that “empathy” box, doesn’t it? You’re such a good person when you’re sitting in the “Justice” box!)
But, if you actually believe there’s no objective good/evil, and if the only point of morality is survival, and if you make that claim to others, then you have nothing to say against those who realize how pointless that circle of survival is. You have nothing to prevent me from saying, “Well, screw our survival. I’ll do whatever I want.”
Plus, you’re living a lie. You know good and evil don’t exist, but it makes you feel good to criticize the cats in Uganda who won’t sit in the boxes with you.
Well, at the end of the day, you can believe whatever you want. But don’t try passing as free-thinkers. You’re actually a slave to ancient morality, and you believe survival is super, duper important because nature made you think that!
So, whenever you talk about what humans should/shouldn’t do–even MURDER–you are trying to force them to sit in stupid, worthless boxes, and be slaves survival instinct along with you.
Please explain to me why you behave in a socially responsible manner…
Game over, JZ. 😀
Okay, be sure to get back to me when you can actually explain yourself in a coherent and adult manner.
And if you can ever name a single genuinely new or original thing Jesus said or did, then I’ll be tremendously interested to review it.
Haha, will do, JZ!
You sure have me trapped!
That’s probably pretty obvious to everybody reading…
I just don’t know what to do with towering intellect like yours.
Aspire to develop one yourself?
Do you need a break, Arch? 🙂 You seem tense…
ME? Nope, loose as a goose —
Oh, but here’s one of the most consistent atheists I’ve ever heard of…
Ark, remember that ‘peas in a pod’ comment. . . phew!
“if you could let go of your instincts, you would see how pointless it is.”
Here’s an idea – try letting go of your instinct to breathe and let’s see how long that lasts —
There are many people who have stopped their own breathing. I assume you believe they have the right to do so, if they don’t want to live in a world where everything they thought they cared about as children turns out to just be electricity and chemicals trying to keep that endless cycle of life going…
Honestly, if I had your worldview, I WOULD make sure I stopped breathing…
I’m beginning to sense that the crux of many of your comments are indicative of your own childhood disillusionment. That must be very painful for you.
mrsmcmommy has a coherence problem. I’m sure she thinks she’s really on to something but she seems incapable of comprehending any criticism of it.
She has also failed to address my alternative to her suggestions of genocide and euthanasia to resolve the world population problem – having her missionaries dispense condoms and IUD’s instead of sermons.
She doesn’t care about any of that. She cares to maintain her belief that one requires obedience to some god in order to claim to be a moral agent. Atheists by her definition cannot make any moral claim… no matter how many times and ways she’s shown to be factually wrong, that they not only do but can support that moral claim without her god. Her definition stands, you see, because she believes it does. Reality and comprehending examples offered to her from reality contrary to her belief are useless. They don;t matter. That’s why she appears unable and unwilling to comprehend anything other than what maintains her unsupported confidence in her belief. She can’t think straight except through the polaroid filter of her religious beliefs and what doesn’t align is simply blocked from legitimate and critical consideration, which is why her reading comprehension seems so poor.
You’re determined to continue with the fallacious thinking, aren’t you? Maybe it really isn’t an act —
What part of liking water or declining to sit in boxes hurts other cats in any way?
Maybe you missed the part where I explained that being worried about “hurting others” is a human sacred cow. You think that hurting others is important because you have a human brain with human instincts that you can’t let go of. Hurting others or not hurting others doesn’t really matter any more than sitting or not sitting in boxes. It’s just what society has programmed you into thinking is GOOD, in order to control your behavior…
I’ve demonstrated that other species of apes also share those behaviors – are they programmed by human society as well? If I were you, I wouldn’t choose an avocation in any field in which debate is required.
They’re programmed by ape society, which is driven by the same relentless drive to survive as we are.
(Hey, maybe they’ll take over as kings of the planet when humans finally realize how pointless all of these instinctual hoops are and commit mass suicide! Then the apes can spend a few millenia evolving and thinking life is important, until they discover that–nope–chemicals and cells are all there is…)
#CircleOfLife #AndDeath
“They’re
programmedevolved by ape society, which is driven by the same relentless drive to survive as we are.” – With only a slight alteration in your terminology, I’d have to say I think you’re beginning to get it! There may be hope for you yet.You didn’t have any criticism for the video I posted?
Truth is, I didn’t see it – I’ll go back later tonight and check it out, depending on how long it is.
Six minutes… So, roughly 1/8 the length of a Tildeb sermon.
That’s the first funny thing you’ve said —
(Sorry, Tildeb)
OK, I watched it – so what am I supposed to say now, that I see the light and accept Jesus into my heart?
Sorry.
I noticed he said that he read the Bible and was impressed with the character of Jesus, but the truth is, he was impressed by the description of Jesus, rendered by anonymous authors, writing half-a-century+ later, who never met him and had to rely on 40-75-year old hearsay testimony from others who never met him either. I’m afraid that just wouldn’t be enough to turn me around. But thanks for playing.
Further, I was bothered greatly by his compulsion to tell his Dad that he had injured him – after all, his Dad had no memory of it. A true Sociopath would never have felt such a compulsion, he simply wouldn’t have cared. That the man was mentally ill, I have no doubt, and I suspect some deep-seated familial issues that resulted in a long-held resentment that finally erupted in violence, but I suspect that the diagnosis of sociopathy, if there was one, was a misdiagnosis.
I actually wished I could cut the video BEFORE he started talking about Jesus… (It’s not about him right now, remember?)
I just wanted to show you a guy who actually lived a consistent, naturalist worldview. “None of this really matters, and I don’t want to be told what to do,” basically. So he proved he was a free-thinker–not brainwashed by what he’s “supposed” to do.
Just fascinates me…
mrsmcmommy
“I just wanted to show you a guy who actually lived a consistent, naturalist worldview.”
Here are some people who lived a consistent, Christian worldview:
Dena Schlosser, who while listening to church hymns in 2004 cut off the arms of her 11 month year old baby girl because she claimed God had wanted her to do it as “an offering” before the apocalypse.
Deanna Lajune LeNay who in 2003 bludgeoned her two boys to death because “God was testing her faith.”
Andrea Yates who in 2001 drowned her five children because “Satan had possessed her” and she wanted to “save them from Hell.”
Otty Sanchez who in May, 2012, beheaded her three week old son and ate part of his brain because God told her to.
Julia Lovemore who in June, 2012, killed her 6 week old daughter by shoving pages of the bible down the child’s throat because she wanted her to ‘absorb’ the books message of love.
Victoria Soliz who in 2013 tried to drown her child because “Jesus told her to”
Levi Daniel Staver who in 2013 stabbed his grandmother to death because “Archangel Michael told him to do it.”
Tammi Estep who in 2013 stabbed her husband to death because “Jesus and Mary told me to kill him because he is Satan’s spawn!”
Ashby Nickell Boulware who in 2015 choked his three dogs to death because “Yhwh told him to do it”
Stephon Lindsay who in 2016 murdered his baby daughter because:
Don’t you find that “fascinating,” too?
As I said…the only way you, as Atheists, are allowed to be outraged is if you borrow from a religious standard first.
Remember when I mentioned I wasn’t ready to let you cheat?
Well, I think I made my point now. The only way you can tell those people how badly they’re behaving is if you appeal to THEIR God. (When you try to argue from your own “morality” it eventually falls flat.)
If you REALLY want to talk about Christianity now because it’s obvious that your worldview is inferior, I’ll be happy to start taking questions about God now. 🙂 (BUT, only if you’re willing to admit that appealing to God is your last recourse.)
What religious standard? Your own religion calls for the murder of numerous people:
Kill People Who Don’t Listen to Priests
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
Kill Homosexuals
“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
Kill Fortunetellers
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
Death for Cursing Parents
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
Death for Adultery
If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
Death for Fornication
A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
Death to Followers of Other Religions
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)
It would seem that if I am outraged by these religious killings, as any sane person should be, then it’s because I’m not stained by your particular religion.
But let’s explore this another way… back to slavery.
Do you support slavery?
If not, why not? Why are you contravening the clear commands of your god?
You didn’t say the magic words, JZ.
“I need to point to religious standards before I can talk about right/wrong.”
Do you support slavery:
Yes or No?
It’s a really simple question.
As a free-thinker, I support giving the finger to society and doing whatever they say I’m not supposed to do.
Why not?
Sure, why not. You’re certainly free to act in that way.
…And be sure to enjoy your time in jail.
Bigot.
You just have no tolerance for people who disagree…
I don’t care if you disagree with anything I believe. In secular countries (like the US) you don’t go to jail for disagreeing with another.
Yes you do…
I will go to jail if I disagree with you about murder. We’ve already established this.
And the ONLY way you can “prove” to me that murder is objectively wrong is if you hold me to my RELIGIOUS standard.
This is complicated…but not THAT complicated.
“I will go to jail if I disagree with you about murder. We’ve already established this.”
OK, I’m calling Poe’s Law on you.
You simply cannot be serious. You simply cannot, by any stretch of the rational imagination, be this ignorant.
Well played. I’m actually relieved this is a joke. You had me worried there.
It’s annoying when someone won’t talk about their own Standard of Morality and just keeps poking holes in your insufficient one, isn’t it?
Quite on the contrary, let’s talk about your “fixed standard.”
If you are serious, and this isn’t actually a joke (which i suspect it all is), then tell me what this fixed standard is. Give me an example of it.
In other words, defend what you are claiming.
She’s doing the ‘rope-a-dope,’ John, and thinks she’s being clever about it.
Is slavery good or bad by this “fixed standard”?
Wait… is this your way of agreeing that we HAVE to have an absolute, unchanging standard of morality to have a coherent discussion about right/wrong?
If so, we can move on.
But the entire conversation so far has been my attempt to prove the atheist worldview is subjective, and therefore, worthless. Christians are the ones who believe the Creator made some things RIGHT and some things WRONG objectively. “So we can actually have a coherent discussion about which one slavery is.”
If you agree, then we can discuss what I think about right/wrong. But you have to admit there has to be an objective standard, that transcends human feelings and majority vote, in order to have a conversation about morality.
Could you please stop evading simple questions put to you?
Is slavery good or bad by your “fixed standard”
I told you point-blank I won’t answer you until you can explain your contradictions. I’m not just going to forget that I said that.
Contradictions? LOL!
I have given you my standard (one standard, at least), by which I can easily answer the question: is slavery good or bad.
Please, can you answer the same question:
Is slavery good or bad by your “fixed standard”?
And in case you’ve forgotten, I’ve given you one of my standards by which we measure societal success or failure: reducing suffering.
So, I can answer this question quite easily.
Obviously, the question is not so easy for you…. which is telling.
“I’ve given you one standard…reducing suffering.”
And I rejected that standard of yours. (Which is exactly what you will do with mine.) The difference is, you are the one claiming you have some type of authority to tell the Ugandans that THEIR standard is absolutely wrong…
You reject that?
OK, explain yourself… Why?
I have explained that “reducing suffering” is just what you’ve evolved to care about–
And there is a growing number of people who don’t want to be puppets of evolution.
There are plenty of people who don’t want to be told what to do. And your ONLY response to them is to jail or kill them. Or you can call them mentally ill, so you don’t have to deal with the fact that their subjective standard and yours are BOTH capable of being “right” in a world where everything just happens naturally…
”I have explained that “reducing suffering” is just what you’ve evolved to care about–“
Bingo! Yes, that is a statement of fact. Isn’t it great! We can look back today at the writers of the bible, for example, and be utterly appalled at their demands for animal sacrifice and their sanctioning of slavery.
We have lifted the human condition.
Aren’t we clever!
”And there is a growing number of people who don’t want to be puppets of evolution.”
What an utterly bizarre statement. What does that even mean?
”There are plenty of people who don’t want to be told what to do.”
What are you, some sort of Doomsday survivalist?
Listen, do what you like. Run naked through the words hollering JESUS IS HERE!! for all I care. I’m just saying, the moment you cross what society calls normal civil behaviour you will be removed from society.
Now, the good thing about secular states is that we have peaceful mechanisms in place through which you can effect change, if you’re so motivated to do so. These efforts are called “laws.” You’re free to fight for them, or against them.
And there’s another example of “what we’ve evolved to care about”… Peaceful, ordered governance.
So, once again:
Is slavery is good or bad by your “fixed standard”?
You keep mentioning this thing, but you don’t seem to confident in talking about it.
Does it make embarrassed?
And no, it’s not just me, but the author of this blog, John, also agrees with me. He’s clearly stated they are wrong.
Why, do you think killing gays is right?
Rephrasing your question won’t get me to answer it.
Because you can’t answer it, obviously.
I’m guessing that’s because you’re embarrassed by your answer.
I said it earlier, and I stand by it: it’s fine to say you support slavery. At least you will be being honest… and you can support your position by pointing to the bible. Now, while I won’t agree with that position, I can at least say you’re being consistent.
So, you do support slavery, huh?
OK.
Supporting indentured servitude under certain conditions could be consistent with a biblical worldview…
Supporting mass genocide in a world where morality is subjective is a REQUIREMENT to be consistent…
”Supporting indentured servitude under certain conditions could be consistent with a biblical worldview…”
OK, so you support the trafficking and sale of human beings. Thank you for finally being honest. And you’re right; the bible does support you here, so you’re simply being consistent. I salute that.
I guess you lament the north winning your civil war, eh?
”Supporting mass genocide in a world where morality is subjective is a requirement to be consistent…”
Well, as you say morality isn’t subjective, then I’m to read this as you supporting genocide, as commanded in the bible.
That is also being consistent, so I salute your honesty.
OK, so you support slavery and genocide. By your “fixed standard” both of these blights are, in fact, perfectly moral.
Curious, do your friends and family and work colleagues know you’re pro-slavery and pro-genocide?
Is it something you speak about openly and confidently in front of, say, your children’s friends’ parents?
(That should say “is a requirement to be consistent”)
But that’s exactly how we measure anything… and to a remarkable degree of accuracy. But the entire conversation so far has been my attempt to prove the atheist worldview is subjective, and therefore, worthless.
This was shown to be factually wrong. In fact and explained by me in one of my ‘sermons’ upthread, this is exactly how we measure anything: agreeing to use an arbitrary unfixed subjective standard.
I can’t believe I have to say this to someone who believes she is rational, but just because the US uses the Customary Standard doesn’t mean the metric standard is “worthless”. You have to be an idiot to think this must be so. What they are measuring are the same differences even though the units are dissimilar.
Change the term ‘measurement’ with ‘morality’ and maybe, just maybe, you’ll begin to glean a hint of understanding why you are so very wrong and stupid for sticking to your beliefs when they are shown to be factually wrong.
But of course, if you stay true to form you won’t care about inconvenient facts and what’s actually the case because this ‘entire conversation’ is really all about you vilifying atheists and you care not at all if anything you say has any truth value whatsoever. You’re just another manufactured Liar for Jesus with zero regard for how much harm you cause, self-wrapped as you are in your belief that you represent pious righteousness, to those who aren’t locked into your theological marching orders. That’s not some god’s morality your exercising here: it’s your own dishonesty cloaked by lies and deceit as if it comes from some god. Nice try. But if you really are a Christian, the very least you should feel is shame for breaking a commandment or two in your zeal to vilify non believers.
So, Yes or No:
Do you support slavery?
Yes, or, No?
John Z, mrsmcmommy either doesn’t get that your question fits her demand or she refuses to admit that its answer undermines her thesis completely and it seems obvious she refuses to be responsible for doing that to her own beliefs. She cowers before you.
She’s an intellectual coward that cares not one whit about seeking what’s true nor has any interest in coming to a better understanding of those whose character she’s so eager to malign in the name of her defense of JB’s silly claim. Imagine the distortion to one’s intellectual development being raised by such a trivial and conceited person. I feel for her kids.
Tildeb,
You forgot the word, “petulant” in your list of adjectives.
See, that’s why I need a proper editor. You’re right, of course. Petulant OED: childishly sulky or bad-tempered, see mrsmcmommy commenting style)
I mean, seriously, why be nice to someone who refuses to reciprocate on that basis alone but insists one must first agree to admit an agency of Oogity Boogity! must be its source of niceness or one doesn’t deserve to be treated nicely?
Imagine the foot-stomping, now that John Z. has her ‘pegged’?? 😉
It’s a brilliant example of Poe’s Law, Tildeb.
She can’t be serious… and it even explains John’s outlandishly odd style.
As a practitioner of the Law myself, I must say I’m quite impressed.
Good call, John. I think the compiled evidence speaks for itself.
And don’t worry, you can say “Yes, I do support slavery.”
I won’t jump down your throat for any honest answer.
And if it’s not asking too much, I would be generally interested to hear why, exactly, you behave in a socially responsible manner.
Is your thinking normally this fallacious, or are you just putting on an act for JZ?
And if “That’s not why I, personally, behave” then could you explain why you act in a socially responsible manner?
@ mrsmcmommy
You skipped the idea I’ve already given about the principle of reciprocity. So… if you’re not interested in my survival then you are agreeing to the idea that I should not be interested in yours. If you wish me to be empathetic to your wants and needs then, according to the same principle, you must be empathetic to mine. So, if we play this out over time, we’ll see that such people who do not adhere to the principle of reciprocity end up producing fewer offspring than those who do. This is not a difficult concept to appreciate how reciprocity fuels moral reasoning.
Tildeb. Feel free to reciprocate. Who cares? It might be fun to see which one of us has the faster trigger finger, right?
Well, obviously you do and, surprising absolutely no one, for the same reciprocal considerations I have. That’s why drive on the right side of the road. It’s not belief in some god ordering you to do so that convinces you: you know perfectly well that your time alive is shortened considerably if you don’t.
So why are you continuing to pretend that you are magically exempt from the same reciprocal considerations I have?
I’m not. But people who don’t care whether they live or die ARE exempt from the rules you impose on them. You don’t have to obey God. And they don’t have to obey you.
I’m not suggesting anyone should do what I tell them to do. If they feel they are exempt from moral considerations, then we can quite correctly identify them as immoral… unconcerned with the reciprocal considerations necessary for morality to mean anything. Again, no god is required. You mistakenly assume that because you believe your morality derives from some god, only you have a basis for moral considerations. This is patently incorrect: reciprocal considerations must be its basis for morality to have any shared meaning regardless of who is suggesting any specifics or what you may believe is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. If your belief is contrary to this, then you’re not talking about morality.
If you tell people not to murder, and send them to jail when they do, then you are telling them what to do.
You’re right that no god is required for you to do that. (In that case, you’ve made yourself and/or the majority a type of god.) What you say goes!
That syndrome is covered in the terms, ‘sociopath’ and ‘psychopath’ – which do you consider you are –?
Yeah…see, I told you eventually they throw the question-askers into jail or a hospital. 🙂
Your morality doesn’t tolerate scrutiny well, does it?
You seem entirely incapable of logical thought – if it’s an act, it certainly isn’t helping your end of the discussion. No one is thrown into jail for asking questions, only for interfering with the rights of others. Either you don’t get that – vis a vis your story of water-loving, box-hating cats – or you’re genuinely obtuse.
JB has warned me before that the cat analogy is over the heads of most atheists…
I still like it though.
(And there’s the word “rights” again. “HUMANS HAVE RIGHTS!!!” lol.) That’s just an idea that weak people evolved, so that the stronger ones would think twice before wiping them out…
It would seem that the reason why the analogy fails miserably, is well over YOUR head, and clearly, JB’s as well.
Oh, and the Kill the Gay Laws of Uganda and other African nations were inspired (written) by American Evangelical Christians.
Mrs-whatever-her-name-was mentioned the world’s population problem, suggesting genocide or euthanasia – I suggest that if Christian missionaries passed out condoms instead of sermons, a lot of the problem of crowding could be alleviated.
Ark just told Jasmine: “Atheism is simply the belief that gods do not exist.”
Yes. He said it was ‘belief’.
If this gets back to Dear Leader or Windbag, heads will roll!
Hi John,
I didn’t ignore your explanation about empathy. It is a fine explanation. But it doesn’t answer the persistent question, “What makes YOUR abstract/predictive thought more right than MY abstract/predictive thought?”
We’re getting closer to being able to have a discussion because you’re talking about ‘memes’ now. Unless I’m misunderstanding (and I trust you’ll quickly and gently point it out to me if I am) ‘memes’ are a theoretical, immaterial explanation for natural phenomenon. I’m certainly willing to explore that possibility.
And finally, as a gesture of goodwill, I will again answer your question about the uniqueness of Jesus.
Mankind refers to time itself in reference to the birth of Jesus Christ. Dates prior to Christ are marked as B. C. while dates after his birth are marked as A. D. This is just one unique thing that Jesus did.
We both know that my answer changes nothing. You are still unconvinced.
“Mankind refers to time itself in reference to the birth of Jesus Christ. Dates prior to Christ are marked as B. C. while dates after his birth are marked as A. D. This is just one unique thing that Jesus did.”
Yeshua didn’t do that, the Church did – the dating system was devised in 525, but was not widely used until after 800. Yeshua was wormfood long before that.
” “What makes YOUR abstract/predictive thought more right than MY abstract/predictive thought?”
That can be measured. Whose reduces suffering more? Whose improves the human condition?
“memes’ are a theoretical, immaterial explanation for natural phenomenon.”
Cultural, not natural. A meme is word coined to express the development/evolution of ideas inside a society/culture, much like genes express the development/evolution of an organic body. I can demonstrate this, if you like… although from your past performance I suspect it’s just going to be ignored.
The meme for human rights, for example, can be formally traced back to Cyrus the Great who in 539 B.C.E wrote the first charter of human rights: the Cyrus Cylinder. It is translated into all six official languages of the United Nations and its provisions parallel the first four Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. From Babylon, the idea of human rights spread quickly to India, Greece and eventually Rome. There the concept of “natural law” arose, in observation of the fact that people tended to follow certain unwritten laws in the course of life, and Roman law was based on rational ideas derived from the nature of things. Documents asserting individual rights, such as the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), the US Constitution (1787), the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), and the US Bill of Rights (1791) are the written precursors to many of today’s human rights documents.
“Mankind refers to time itself in reference to the birth of Jesus Christ. Dates prior to Christ are marked as B. C. while dates after his birth are marked as A. D. This is just one unique thing that Jesus did.”
Um, Jesus didn’t set the calendar, and Anno Domini dating was only introduced to the Julian calendar in 525 CE.
So, sorry, but that’s not even remotely something new or original Jesus said or did.
Shall we try again?
JZ – With full knowledge that this will not satisfy you … here it goes anyway. Jesus conquered death and offers eternal salvation / everlasting life as a free gift (that we could never repay). That’s two original and new things. I believe. You don’t. It’s part of that whole free will thing.
“Jesus conquered death and offers eternal salvation / everlasting life as a free gift”
According to anonymous authors who wrote 40 to 70 years after the fact and never met the man.
Hi Kevin
Thanks for that. Unfortunately, what you have offered here is really nothing but a theological opinion, a promise of heaven, and as far as promises go, it was anything but new or original. Zoroastrians had a detailed concept of heaven, with the dead person’s spirit being escorted to heaven by the guardian spirit, Daena, where the spirit is shown their life (thoughts, words and actions). An angel at the Chinawod Bridge would then determine if the dead person would go on to heaven, hell, or a third destination (purgatory) where it would wait until the Judgment Day. The Egyptian Book of the Dead is dedicated to heaven, the Hittite’s had a very clear idea of it, Buddhists have five heavens, Hindus have Svargam where the Gods and good people reside after death, and Judaism was centrally focused on Shamayim (heaven): the dwelling place of God.
Even the role Jesus said he was playing, that of messiah, was anything but new. As early as a thousand years before, Zoroaster (who also taught equality irrespective of gender, race, or religion) had spoken of the Saoshyant; the saviour figure who was referred to as the World Renovator and Victorious Benefactor who will defeat “the evil of the progeny of the biped” and establish the Kingdom of Good Thought (righteousness).
Jesus was also far from being the first to “conquer death.”
In the Old Testament alone Elijah resurrected the son of Zarephath’s widow, Elisha resurrected the son of the great Shunammite woman, and a dead man comes back to life when he touches Elisha’s bones. In Judaism we also have Elijah himself, Enoch, Eliezer (the servant of Abraham), Hiram, Ebed-Melech, and Bithiah who all conqured death. In Buddhism, Bodhidharma conquers death and is resurrected. Peshotanu ascends to heaven alive in Zoroastrianism. Hercules and Apollonius of Tyana ascend to heaven alive. Yudhishthira (in the Mahabharata) is said to be the only human to cross the plane between mortals and heaven in his mortal body. Also in Hinduism we have the stories of Sant Tukara, Sant Tukaram, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Mirra Alfassa, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, and Ramalinga
who attained the Supreme Body of the Godhead (the Trinity) when Divinity itself merged with him.
Kevin, the idea had been told for millennia before Jesus, like this story concerning the Chinese Chan master Puhua:
Even the concept of a sacrifice and return to life is the central plot of numerous demigods, just like Jesus, only far, far older: Baal, Melqart, Adonis, Eshmun, Osiris and Dumuzi to name just a handful.
Indeed, just a generation before Jesus there was Simon of Peraea, a Jewish Messiah killed by the Romans in 4 BCE, and who was commanded by Gabriel “to rise from the dead in three days”
Many of the people alive in Jesus’ day knew this death-conquering story first hand…. In a manner of speaking.
As you can see, there is positively nothing new or original in what you have offered.
But, thank you for trying.
And again, I’m asking you (or anyone) to name just a single genuinely new or original thing Jesus said or did.
Just one.
John, you neglected to mention that the Saoshyant would also be born of a virgin, who would become pregnant while bathing in a pool.
I didn’t know that part of the story. Fairly common theme, though.
Interestingly, it’s not Mazda who impregnates her – somehow, it’s the prophet Zoroaster himself. Look it up!
Forgot to mention, the whole Free Will narrative is found first in Zoroastrianism, as is the entire concept of a universe divided between forces of good and bad. Ahura-Mazda gave man free will so he can choose to follow the teachings of Zoroaster and attain salvation, or not.
Arch –
Yep – it’s cool to quote each other. I’m game.
“According to anonymous authors who wrote 40 to 70 years after THE FACT and never met the man.”
At least you admit it’s a fact. Thank you. John the Apostle was witness to the crucifixion and the resurrection and the ascension – and wrote about it. Word on the streets is that he met Jesus too.
JZ –
This is fun. Jesus is the ONLY one who conquered death for me (and you) and the ONLY one to offer eternal salvation to me (and you). Your understanding of conquering death is short sighted at best. None of the other OT resurrections without God the Father and God the Son (Jesus was there from the beginning as you know). You’re obviously well read – and VERY obviously searching for some meaning in a seemingly meaningless life. Keep it up and you’ll hopefully find meaning.
I gave you plenty of characters outside Judaism who’d “conquered death,” including Baal, Melqart, Adonis, Eshmun, Osiris and Dumuzi. In the Mahabharata Yudhishthira is said to be the only human to cross the plane between mortals and heaven in his mortal body. Also in Hinduism there is Ramalinga who attained the Supreme Body of the Godhead (the Trinity) when Divinity itself merged with him.
The plot line presented in the Jesus story is anything but original.
So, no, sorry, but you haven’t yet named a single new or original thing Jesus said or did.
Surely there’s one thing you can think of that was genuinely new or original…?
Here’s your pingback. Make sure to note that what JB claims happened didn’t happen at all. It’s a shame that a Christian must rely on telling falsehoods about others aka bearing false witness. I’m sure quite a few of your fellow Christians won’t take a look. That’s how willful ignorance works. It shows how weak Christian faith is, when it can’t take reading something a puny human says, eh?
For someone who has “tenacious” as a middle name, you’ve ran away from multiple threads of comments and have yet to show any evidence for your claims. We’re still waiting for your evidence. Funny how you have yet to provide any that your god exists, is the creator of the universe that your god is a font of objective morality and that your religion has said or done anything unique.
I’m quite sure you’ll remove this comment, JB. I do hope you’ll prove me wrong.
Does John censor his threads? Does he delete and edit comments?
who knows with him? From his intentional lies told in his comments, I would put nothing past him. I’ve of course posted something to that blog post. We’ll see if it stays or if he is the coward we’ve seen.
I hope he doesn’t delete, alter, edit people’s comments. I wouldn’t be surprised, though.
I’ve never removed any of your comments, Club.
In what can only be called an unprecedented display of sportsmanship, I’ve always given you the last word.
Whether you believe it or not, I feel no animosity toward you. I’m honestly curious about how a staunch naturalist rationlizes morality.
You are always welcome to comment here. But try to be nice… 🙂
No, you’ve not given the last word. You’ve run away when asked for evidence for your claims. But please do keep making false claism to try to present yourself in a favorably light. Still waiting for your evidence for your claims
There is no evidence that you are interested in how naturalists know morality exists. You’ve ignored everything we’ve written about it, always going back to your false claims that your god is required for morality. Please do give evidence for this, JB. Explain why human morality doesn’t match the supposedly objective morality your god supposedly put in the bible. You have refused to tell me if you agree with McDonnough with his claims that homosexuals should be murdered for what they are, as per the bible. Will you tell me here?
Please read the following links. they show how moralistic behavior can have its start:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/jailbreak-rat/
http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2014/02/27/283348422/that-s-unfair-you-say-this-monkey-can-relate
Is your god giving animals this? Or is it something that animals, including us, simply do?
Dude, I couldn’t even see the scroll bar on that article, the comments went for that long.
Hooray for all us idiots! If being an idiot means I get to keep my brain, I’m happy to be one.
How on Earth did you manage to go that far with these people, John? I think I would’ve passed out about a quarter of the way through with these… People.
Tenacious is my middle name.
Bless you John and thank you God for reminding me there are a few sane people left even though lately I seem to be running up against too many who are not. Thinking, logic, and laughing are proof of sanity, right???
I don’t know. I’m an exceptional idiot…