You do not need to be religious to possess a moral framework

First topic message reminder :

Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
 

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon,
                You have a gene pool, many different combinations, not one the same, this makes everyone   different, it does not matter how close the combinations are, just as making a dough nut with flour is nothing like a pancake made with the same thing along with other combinations. All are entirely different. God created all things using the same method, it would be more of a problem if some genes were not close in combinations to others.    

That's complete rubbish, you really haven't even the remotest grasp of what you're talking about I'm afraid. All living things share common genes that perform similar functions. The species that are most closely related, that is it say they have a common ancestor in their recent evolutionary past, have a far higher percentage of shared genes. Humans are part of the group of great apes, and we our closest relative are chimpanzees with whom we share 98% of our genes, this is a scientific fact that evidenced beyond any reasonable refutation.

Please leave the baking and cooking analogies alone, you're trying to dumb down a subject here when it's you who is utterly ignorant of it.

All things are not entirely different again I'm not sure how anyone can be so delusional as to deny an entire scientific field like genetics, but it won't change the facts. There is no evidence that anything was created, what's more the biblical and Koranic myths of creation are entirely refuted by evolution, and despite your risible denials species evolution is a scientific fact as well evidenced as any we have.

One more time then:

"Chimpanzees, our closest living animal cousins share 98% of our human genes, meaning that for 98% of our genes, there is a similar gene in the chimpanzee genome. Even mammals that look quite different from us share a large percentage of our genes; small and furry mice share 92% our genes.

Non-mammals share a smaller, but still appreciable, percentage of our genes. Fruit flies, for instance, have their own version of approximately 44% our human genes. Many of these genes influence growth and structure in both mammals and insects. More distantly related is yeast, the one-celled organism much loved by bakers and brewers alike. Yeast share about a quarter of our genes, many of which are necessary for basic cell functions. Plants, too, share many genes with humans; one type of weed was estimated to share 18% of our genes.

DNA is what makes us unique as individuals and as the human species, and yet DNA also illustrates how connected we are to all other living organisms."

by polyglide Today at 4:04 pm
No genes are common.

by polyglide Today at 4:28 pm
Of course all animals will have some of the genes of others

by polyglide Today at 3:40 pm
Animals have some of the same genes as ours,

by polyglide Today at 3:00 pm
No other animals actually share our genes,

WOW! Seriously this latest collection of posts from you in this thread is pitiful rubbish, and it's astonishing you can't see that you're even contradicting yourself repeatedly. Do you even know the difference between a gene, the gene pool, and a genome?

HGP (The Human Genome Project)

LINK HERE

"The Mouse Genome And The Measure of Man
December 2002

WASHINGTON, DC - The international Mouse Genome Sequencing Consortium today announced the publication of a high-quality draft sequence of the mouse genome - the genetic blueprint of a mouse - together with a comparative analysis of the mouse and human genomes describing insights gleaned from the two sequences. The paper appears in the Dec. 5 issue of the journal Nature.

Mouse illustration The achievement represents a landmark advance for the Human Genome Project. It is the first time that scientists have compared and contrasted the contents of the human genome with that of another mammal. This milestone is all the more significant given that the laboratory mouse is the most important animal model and is widely used in the study of human diseases.

"Publishing the sequence in 2001 of the first mammalian genome - our own - was a remarkable and historical achievement. To sequence another mammalian genome in less than two years and to discover the treasure trove of information one can derive from a comparison of the two is beyond nearly anyone's dreams. It constitutes a tremendously exciting and defining moment for biomedical research," said Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI).

The mouse sequence provides scientists a powerful research tool to extract meaning from the human genome sequence, the "Book of Life" published in draft form last year. It allows them to recognize functionally important regions in the human genome by virtue of the fact that they are conserved through the 75 million years of evolution separating humans and mice. (See: Background on Comparative Genomic Analysis)

"This is an extraordinary milestone. For the first time we have an opportunity to see ourselves in an evolutionary mirror," says Eric Lander, Ph.D., director of the Whitehead/MIT Center for Genome Research. "The mouse genome represents a very important chapter in evolution's lab notebook. Being able to read this notebook and compare genomic information across species allows us to glean important information about ourselves."

Because the mouse carries virtually the same set of genes as the human but can be used in laboratory research, this information will allow scientists to experimentally test and learn more about the function of human genes, leading to better understanding of human disease and improved treatments and cures. "

Getting back on topic, if there were any validity to the statement that we need religion in order to possess a moral framework then we'd expect to see this reflected in something like crime statistics and prison demographics. Yet multiple studies have shown that atheists are underrepresented in prison demographics compared to the percentage they make up of the population at large. Some studies even show that atheists are underrepresented in those entering prison,  ruling out the oft used,  but not evidenced excuse that people are turning to religion after entering prison and so the percentage of theists in prison demographics is disproportionately large for that reason. 


There is no evidence that atheists are less moral, less law abiding, or less ethical. There is a prodigious amount of research to show that atheism increases in demographics with high levels of intelligence and education, which may be a factor of course as poverty and a lack of education are often synonymous with criminality. 

Many of the world's hotpots for sectarian violence and terrorism are actually fuelled by religion and religious beliefs. Looking solely at the three main monotheistic religions and the religious tomes on which they are based, it is impossible to avoid reading the worst kind of moral terpitude advocated and encouraged in their pages again and again. 

Finally we must look at the religious claim for moral absolutes.  As moral absolutes negate our ability to utilise the one evolved trait that helps us determine just and fair morality. That is our intellectual ability to think and to reason objectively. Religion's moral absolutes have given us thousands of years of justifying and excusing murder, theft, rapine, misogyny,  racism, slavery, infanticide, genocide and much more besides. 

I'd say that moral rectitude is hampered by religious belief, and that secularism and even atheism are far more likely to foster decent reasoned and informed morals in any free society.  The exception being the oft touted totalitarian regimes that theists love to cite as typical of atheist morality, as if decent morals are are fostered naturally by such regimes.  The lie of course can be exposed by a close look at any of the theocratic totalitarian regimes anywhere in the workd and at any time in human history.

I'll end with a quote from the Hitch.

Many religions now come before us with outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.

Christopher Hitchens

Dr, Sheldon,
If you look at previous posts you should be well aware that I understand all the4 relative facts regarding genes chromosomes, genomes etc;.

The fact is you do not know the meaning of shared.

To share anything you must start with a number and to share is to distribute that number amongst a number etc;

Because humans have some of the same constituents of animals does not mean we actually share them we just have some that ther animals have and it means nothing other than that.

Take a baker whose main ingredient is flour.

He/she can use it in a hundred different ways to produce hundreds of different items, all look and taste diffrently but all to some degree include flour, from maybe 99% to 20% etc.

None can be said to share anything, they are all entirely different, they may be made from the same basic ingredient but that is not the same as sharing.

Not one of the millions of items baked would be exactly the same.

God used the same method in creation, there is no mystery in the fact that all living things have some of the same genes just as all the things baked have flour, some will have more and some less none will be the same.

Dr,Sheldon,
You repeatedly quote Hitchens.

As far as I am aware he had no qualifications of any significance, he was just a journalist and writer, who could not accept God but had no evidence to the contrary, his, 'What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence'
is just common sense and in reality has no real meaning.

ALL LIVING THINGS SHARE GENES. 

This is a scientific fact. I even linked and quoted the latest peer reviewed research you numpty. You have embarrassed yourself in this thread time and time again. 

Please stop using these cretinous puerile baking analogies. It's only making your posts appear all the more moronic.

You even end your post by claiming all living things share some of the same genes. Ffs this is asinine garbage.Are you really resorting to semantics about sharing meaning they literally share the same genes as opposed to all living things possessing some genes that are the same? Christ almighty,  just when I thought your posts had plumbed the depths of stupidity you find another level.

polyglide wrote:Dr,Sheldon,
                You repeatedly quote Hitchens.
         
                 As far as I am aware he had no qualifications of any significance, he was just a journalist and writer, who could not accept God but had no evidence to the contrary, his, 'What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence'
is just common sense and in reality has no real meaning.

Puerile Ad hominem.  Why does so much of what Hitchen's wrote scare you god botherers into ad hominem?  Can't answer it is the only logical conclusion. So you resort to childishly attacking the author. Doubly pathetic as you've entirely ignored my expansive post attempting to draw a line under your imbecilic rantings on genetics and get us back on topic. Again you have no credible response is the only possible conclusion that can be drawn.

Here's my post again, see if you have anything approaching erudition or intelligence in response or are childish personal attacks all you have.

 by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Today at 9:45 am

Getting back on topic, if there were any validity to the statement that we need religion in order to possess a moral framework then we'd expect to see this reflected in something like crime statistics and prison demographics. Yet multiple studies have shown that atheists are underrepresented in prison demographics compared to the percentage they make up of the population at large. Some studies even show that atheists are underrepresented in those entering prison,  ruling out the oft used,  but not evidenced excuse that people are turning to religion after entering prison and so the percentage of theists in prison demographics is disproportionately large for that reason. 


There is no evidence that atheists are less moral, less law abiding, or less ethical. There is a prodigious amount of research to show that atheism increases in demographics with high levels of intelligence and education, which may be a factor of course as poverty and a lack of education are often synonymous with criminality. 

Many of the world's hotpots for sectarian violence and terrorism are actually fuelled by religion and religious beliefs. Looking solely at the three main monotheistic religions and the religious tomes on which they are based, it is impossible to avoid reading the worst kind of moral terpitude advocated and encouraged in their pages again and again. 

Finally we must look at the religious claim for moral absolutes.  As moral absolutes negate our ability to utilise the one evolved trait that helps us determine just and fair morality. That is our intellectual ability to think and to reason objectively. Religion's moral absolutes have given us thousands of years of justifying and excusing murder, theft, rapine, misogyny,  racism, slavery, infanticide, genocide and much more besides. 

I'd say that moral rectitude is hampered by religious belief, and that secularism and even atheism are far more likely to foster decent reasoned and informed morals in any free society.  The exception being the oft touted totalitarian regimes that theists love to cite as typical of atheist morality, as if decent morals are are fostered naturally by such regimes.  The lie of course can be exposed by a close look at any of the theocratic totalitarian regimes anywhere in the workd and at any time in human history.

I'll end with a quote from the Hitch.

Many religions now come before us with outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.

polyglide wrote:Dr,Sheldon, You repeatedly quote Hitchens. As far as I am aware he had no qualifications of any significance,

Your level of awareness on most things, judging by your posts, is nothing to boast on, and this rather childish, risible claim is no exception. Christopher Hitchens was a journalist, polemicist, and author of world renown, just why anyone would think this doesn't qualify him to comment on topics of public interest I'm not sure, but then your childish attack strikes me as your usual empty rhetoric.

Nor do I see what evidence one needs to reject claims for bronze age superstitions that themselves have no credible evidence, and are based on faith and self delusion. This strikes me as another idiotic attempt to reverse the burden of proof here, that theists so often resort to in desperation when they realise their "emperor has no clothes" and someone of obvious intelligence and erudition like the Hitch uses his devastating prose to succinctly dismantle their claims to moral ascendancy. As I say, these kind of puerile ad hominem attacks on educated intelligent polemicists like Hitchens and professor Dawkins speak for themselves, as they show quite compellingly that theists like yourself are entirely unable to answer their arguments with anything tangible, and so resort to these childish tactics.

Oddly ironic really for you use such a childish spiteful personal attack in a thread questioning theistic claims for moral ascendancy. I think you've shown quite convincingly that being religious doesn't negate a person being a nasty childish spiteful individual when it suits them. Given your appalling homophobic bullying of Awful truth in another thread that forced him to leave this forum you're painting quite a picture of the religious for us, and it's not very complimentary I must say.

by polyglide Today at 11:31 am

Dr, Sheldon,
If you look at previous posts you should be well aware that I understand all the4 relative facts regarding genes chromosomes, genomes etc;.

Not really, why not enlighten us, as what you've supplied here is risible nonsense, empty rhetoric, and childish semantics about the word shared. How you have the nerve to claim any kind of scientific knowledge I really don't know, you clearly don't know what the definition of a scientific theory is, and you've proved this again and again, have no idea what part falsifiability plays in the scientific process, and seem to think the peer review process is somehow an optional extra that creationists can ignore.

Couple this with your asinine attempts to suggest that species evolution isn't a scientific fact, or that shared genes don't indicate common ancestry and I think most people can see your claims for what they are. I see no evidence you have grasped even the most basic understanding of the scientific process, and you seem to just cherry pick creationist sound bites in the mistaken belief you can bluff your way through a discussion. I assure you can't, even I can see through your guff, and I'm by no means any sort of authority on this topic.

"Atheists and agnostics are more driven by compassion to help others than are highly religious people, a new study finds.

That doesn't mean highly religious people don't give, according to the research to be published in the July 2012 issue of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science. But compassion seems to drive religious people's charitable feelings less than it other groups.

"Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not," study co-author and University of California, Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer said in a statement. "The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns."

LINK HERE

"A new study suggests that religious people aren't more likely to do good than their nonreligious counterparts. "

"The morality study, which was conducted by psychologists at the University of Illinois at Chicago, the University of Cologne, in Germany, and the University of Tilburg, in the Netherlands, was published online today (Sept. 11) in the journal Science."

LINK

"In a prison study quoted below, atheists were extremely underrepresented by allreligions. Even though atheists are up to 15% of the population, only .02% of persons going into prisons said they were atheists. As for believers, roughly 75% said they were Christians – about the same as the general population. If Christians say they receive their morality from oh high, why does their behavior not reflect this higher morality?"

"And no – the question of religious affiliation was not asked after they were in prison, it was asked as they were going into prison. This is one of the few places where our government can ask a religiously-based question legally, because they do not want some religious groups intermingling. Even if there was a 10-fold increase in the reported atheists in prisons, it would only we 2% – seven times under the ration of the Christians.

I cannot say that an individual atheist is more moral than a Christian, but this study proves that overall, atheists behave better than all other religions – or they are a lot smarter so they don’t get caught!

Denise Golumbaski, Research Analyst, Federal Bureau of Prisons, compiled from up-to-the-day figures on March 5th, 1997"

LINK

QUOTE: ".... only .02% of persons going into prisons said they were atheists. As for believers, roughly 75% said they were Christians."

One can of course prove almost anything with a "statistic" and many British people will say "C of E" as a pure reflex when asked on an Official Form. Anything else might require rational thought and perhaps a reasoned debate, neither much encouraged by the circumstances of entering Prison as an active user of that service.

Of course one can never guarantee the integrity of each individual's answer, and as you say the data warrants further analysis and debate  However it would be wrong to simply dismiss what it is indicating based on what amounts to little more than supposition.  Even if that supposition is based on sound reasoning as it is here. At the very least the data doesn't show criminality is disproportionately high among atheists . Which in turn indicates moral rectitude is not negated by a lack of religion. 

What's significant here is this research was directed at those entering the prison system, as opposed to previous data collected after the subjects had entered prison.

Interesting ---

Previous studies conducted in the USA federal prison system used subjects who were already incarcerated.  Now whilst the raw data still showed that atheists were substantially underepresented in comparison to the general population, it left a question mark over the possible motives of those polled.  

Prison life is one dominated by gang culture,  and Americans are known to distrust atheists more than many types of criminal. Thus it was an obvious,though un-evidenced accusation that the subjects of the research might be claiming a religious affiliation to gain favour with parole boards, or avoid confrontation with other inmates or groups. As I say the accusations though obvious are not evidenced, and the latest research was conducted on convicted criminals who had yet to enter the prison system. This new research supported the old research as it happens,  suggesting the criticisms were unfounded.  

I'd love to know who's funding it mind,  as the USA is hardly an environment conducive to any research that takes a critical view of religious beliefs, no matter how objective the methods for gathering data.

Interesting quote here:

in a world where people must support their opinions with evidence and reason rather than faith, we would experience less conflict over issues like assisted suicide, gay rights, birth control, and sexual morality.”
― Jerry A. Coyne, Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible

I suspect Professor Coyne may make a valid point, since such prejudices and bigotries seem to emanate primarily from religious doctrine, or at the very least is fuelled by it, there seems no rational reason and no evidence whatsoever for people to hold such bigoted and prejudiced views? It does make you wonder what would happen to such prejudices if religion drifted into human history, and we derived our morality and ethics from reason, logic and universal rights and compassion for all people.

Interesting quote here again from Professor Jerry Coyne.

"The god hypothesis for marality fails to explain why behaviours like slavery, torture, , and misogyny were considered proper behaviours not too long ago, but are now seen as immoral. Surely god given morality should if true remain constant over time and space. In contrast, if morality reflects a malleable social veneer on an evolutionary base, it should change as society changes,  and it has."

Dr, Sheldon,
The examples you give are from times neither you nor I nor anyone else can understand.

What we can consider is the state the world is going towards with regard to the Bible and Babylon and the state of the people at the time of it's destruction, our whole world is heading straight towards a similar end.

You've entirely missed the point,, and simply pretended to answer with a flat rather stupid denial, followed by yet another irrelevant piece of proselytising.


Think about what Professor Coyne is saying here:

"The god hypothesis for morality fails to explain why behaviours like slavery, torture, , and misogyny were considered proper behaviours not too long ago, but are now seen as immoral. Surely god given morality should if true remain constant over time and space. In contrast, if morality reflects a malleable social veneer on an evolutionary base, it should change as society changes, and it has."

The ties these things occurred in is irrelevant to his point, as he says quite specifically, divine morality should remain constant if it were true, but that's not what we see, it changes as society changes, exactly as we would expect to happen if "morality reflects a malleable social veneer on an evolutionary base."

Dr, Sheldon,
Exactly what I have been saying all along.

The actions of the times prior to the New Testament cannot be compared to the present times, we cannot understand wey certain actions were relevent then because we do not know the circumstances.

You only have to look back less than 100 years to see the manner in which the laws of the land have changed and also look at the laws that still exists in other lands etc;

An over seventy year of age man is to have 350 lashes because he had home made wine in his car.

Two people kill one of our soldiers and lauigh about it and end up in what is a five star hotel like prison.

Some change.

Again you've not understood professor Coyne's point.  He's talking about moral absolutes that are presented as divine dictat. He rightly points out that such morals should be perfect and timeless,  yet are demonstrably neither. Which of course is precisely what you'd expect if those religions were entirely man made and no deity existed. 

I'm not sure I see the relevance of your examples as they both show religions trying to enforce moral absolutes based on faith,  just as you have done, and some of your religions beliefs are just as pernicious. So your examples seem to be something of an own goal. No one is claiming the modern world is perfect, so why you keep using this straw man argument is not clear. However posting examples of religious sectarianism and violence seems an odd tactic to try and persuade others that an omniscient omnipotent and omni benevolent deity exists.

Of course none of this addresses or alters the fact that you don't need religion to possess a moral framework.

This of course raises a salient point about the morality of Christian doctrine. The idea of redemption for those that repent seems prima facie like a just moral concept, the quality of mercy is not strained etc etc. However it takes only a moments contemplation for it to start to unravel. Consider a system of divine justice that allowed someone like Hitler or Stalin to momentarily and sincerely repent and be admitted to an eternity of bliss, while anyone who lived a decent moral life but was not a Christian would receive an eternity of torture. A system like this would be morally bankrupt, and only worthy of contempt. Then there are biblical accounts of the deity that created this system committing global genocide, how is it just to drown babies and children? When questioned the best most apologists can muster is a lame "we can't understand God" or far worse "anything god does is just and morally correct" even genocide.

I'll gladly take secular morality based on reason and equality, and enshrined in universal rights that protect and promote equality and liberty of the individual over such obscene barbarity and injustice any day.

Though parents have always invoked sanctions such as, "If you don't behave the bogey-man will get you!"

Same meat, different gravy.

Parents are fallible mammals though, not an omniscient omnipotent omni benevolent deitiy. So the father/parent analogy has always seemed incongruous to me.

Dr, Sheldon,
A moral framework towards what?.

Who decides what is moral?.

Take several different countries and their people and there will be numerous different ideas regarding morality.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, A moral framework towards what?.

Life of course, what else?

Polyglide wrote:Who decides what is moral?.

Human beings of course. The point is that humans are capable living decent moral lives without religion. In fact there is some research that suggests that atheists are more moral on the whole than theists, this research studies prison demographics and those entering the prison system.

Polyglide wrote:Take several different countries and their people and there will be numerous different ideas regarding morality.

True, that's ample proof that morals are relative, and not absolute as religions try to claim.



               

               

                       
         

               

Ivan, liked the cartoon

Dr, Sheldon,
Please tell me which country has a population that has a set of moral rules or any other rules that has provided a means of satifaction to all concerned and where the majority have equality.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Please tell me which country has a population that has a set of moral rules or any other rules that has provided a means of satifaction to all concerned and where the majority have equality.

Why? I never claimed this.Here is the last exchange, try addressing what I said instead of making up a straw man argument I never used.

Polyglide wrote:
Take several different countries and their people and there will be numerous different ideas regarding morality.
D.S. Cooper wrote: True, that's ample proof that morals are relative, and not absolute as religions try to claim.

You see my response says the opposite of your silly claim about it. Perhaps you don't know the difference between absolute and relative morality? Is that it, is that why your response is a dishonest misrepresentation of what I said?

Atheists and agnostics are more driven by compassion to help others than are highly religious people, a new study finds.

That doesn't mean highly religious people don't give, according to the research to be published in the July 2012 issue of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science. But compassion seems to drive religious people's charitable feelings less than it other groups.

"Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not," study co-author and University of California, Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer said in a statement. "The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns."

LINK

More:

Willer's co-author Laura Saslow, now a postdoctoral scholar at the University of California, San Francisco, became interested in the question of what motivates charity after a non-religious friend lamented that he donated money to earthquake recovery in Haiti only after seeing a heart-touching video of a woman being pulled from rubble, not because of a logical understanding that help was needed.

"I was interested to find that this experience – an atheist being strongly influenced by his emotions to show generosity to strangers – was replicated in three large, systematic studies," Saslow said in a statement.

In the first study, Saslow and her colleagues analyzed data from a national survey of more than 1,300 American adults taken in 2004. They found that compassionate attitudes were linked with how many generous behaviors a person was likely to report. But this link was strongest in people who were atheists or only slightly religious, compared with people who were more strongly religious.

In a second experiment, 101 adults were shown either a neutral video or an emotional video about children in poverty. They were then given 10 fake dollars and told they could give as much as they liked to a stranger. Those who were less religious gave more when they saw the emotional video first.

"The compassion-inducing video had a big effect on their generosity," Willer said. "But it did not significantly change the generosity of more religious participants."

Finally, a sample of more than 200 college students reported their current level of compassion and then played economic games in which they were given money to share or withhold from a stranger. Those who were the least religious but most momentarily compassionate shared the most.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Please tell me which country has a population that has a set of moral rules or any other rules that has provided a means of satifaction to all concerned and where the majority have equality.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Wed Oct 14, 2015 12:39 pm
No one is claiming the modern world is perfect, so why you keep using this straw man argument is not clear. Of course none of this addresses or alters the fact that you don't need religion to possess a moral framework.

Why do you ignore answers and repeat fallacious straw man arguments repeatedly after they've been exposed?

Dr, Sheldon,
To answer the question.

You do not need to have any religious belief to lead a good and honourable life.

God will judge people on the life they have lived irrespective of anything else, many people who have died thoughout the ages will never have heard of the Bible and they will be judged on the basis of how they have lived.

Others who have been exposed to the Bible and other religions will also be judged according to the circumstances involved.

John14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:John14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

The point being that that'd be difficult for the billions who lived and died in the nearly 200000 years before your deity thought it was time to step in about 2000 years ago in ancient Palestine. I'm afraid I don't find your claim remotely compelling, even if you could evidence it all, which of course you can't.

However if you don't need to be religious to possess a moral framework, and you claim your deity will still acknowledge those who've led a good life even if they don't believe, then what's the point of your religion? There is no reason not to simply follow our own reasoning and conscience.

Polyglide,

I admire your defence of your God - including the encouraging motto about loving as God loves. God's love, of course, is beyond human understanding since it is much tougher than that of ordinary human parents. God inflicts quite a lot of suffering with his love. He sent bears to ripchildren apart simply because they called somebody "bald head." But all that is easily debated away, I know.

When you say: " God will judge people on the life they have lived " you are employing reason to interpret something you cannot possibly know; in other words you are imposing upon God the characteristics you would expect God to possess were God a perfect human. The evidence from the Old Testament suggests that God is rather brutal in that he can kill in what seems a fit of pique. His much publicised offer of manna in the desert to people who had reached the end of their patience doesn't immediately strike one as being an act of love, given that God has infinite resources. He appears to like people to suffer a bit.

This statement of yours is interesting.

"As far as I am aware he had no qualifications of any significance, he was just a journalist and writer, who could not accept God but had no evidence to the contrary...."
The evidence that the Abrahamic God is a product of human minds is very clear. God acts in accordance with the tastes and morals of the era of those who write about him. It was commonly supposed that heaven was up in the air somewhere and accordingly God (like the Olympian deities) favoured mountains on which to climb from paradise. In the Koran, which was of course dictated by God, we have the writer's early view on what constitutes the necessities for flying. No predictions of supersonic jets - just a horse with wings, as if wings would lend the equine the ability to experience flight. Christ was more circumspect in his pronouncements about heaven: "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard..." So you see, Polyglide, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that God isn't really a supernatural being but a figment of nomadic imaginations. God in the Bible even has a taste for animal flesh - he WANTS sacrifices ( most primitive races believed in appeasing gods through sacrifices) - the best butcher meat available. Since you employ reason in one area it is only fair to employ it here. Reason tells us that God is a fabrication. As for deriving the Decalogue from our own home-spun morality - of course civilised people would reach the various prohibitions for a stable society. Those commands that deal with worshipping Thor, Ra, Zeus...are understandable reflections of man's basic fear of angry lightning bolts.
Go well.
                   

A well reasoned and cogent response. Unfortunately you're tilting at windmills. I know as I've dedicated a few minutes a week to this particular windmill myself. Test his certainty on theodicy, he doesn't seem to even understand the inerrant contradiction in claiming a being with omnipotence and omni-benevolence exists in a world with ubiquitous suffering. He has tried alternately to claim his deity can literally do anything, has limitless benevolence, yet allows suffering, but somehow is not malevolent and not responsible as he's struck a deal with the devil. It's in vain I've pointed out that such a deal for such a being would still involve the choice to allow suffering. Polyglide goes from each claim in a circular argument refusing to accept that they are mutually exclusive, and occasionally insulting anyone who points it out.

Several posters including me have posted the dictionary definition of omnipotence when he implies his deity is bound by a deal with Satan, he simply ignores this and goes around in the same circle, even insulting me and telling I can't understand the definition of omnipotence.

.....good luck.

Dr, Sheldon,
God will deal with all those prior to the birth of Jesus under the laws of God of the time.

Humans had sunk to the lowest deapths possible prior to the birth of Jesus and Jesus came as a means for those who believed in him to be saved from their own deprevation.

It is pointless attempting to point out your lack of understanding of omnipotence regarding God and the manner in which he has had to use his powers in accordance with his understanding and agreement, you are taking on the mantle of judge when totally unaware of the circustances.

depth, depths