Issues of morality shut Christians up

First topic message reminder :

Issues of morality shuts Christians up.

I know I have done well in an O. P. when Christians run from a discussion.

I wrote these two posts and got almost no response. Not a usual thing for my posts. This tells me that I hit the nail right on the head and Christians have no apologetics to refute my claim.

==========================

If you accept this as universal morality, you will reject God.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

God does not follow the first rule at all.

The bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or sin.

This shows that what many thinks is our number one moral value was completely ignored by God.

Is God immoral or has man gotten morality wrong?

If God was right, then are we to believe that fathers are to bury their children instead of the way people think in that children should bury their parents?

John 6:44
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”

On earth as it is in heaven.

If you had God’s power to set the conditions for atonement, would you step up yourself or would you send your child to die?

=============================

God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott1...eature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqP_f...eature=related

I think that the notion that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty perpetrator is immoral. Be it a willing sacrifice as some believe with Jesus or unwilling victim.

I also think that God, who has a plethora of other options, would have come up with a moral way instead of an immoral and barbaric human sacrifice.

I agree with scriptures say that we are all responsible for our own righteousness as well as our own iniquity and that God cannot be bribed by sacrifice.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Psalm 49:7
None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

I believe as I do because I believe that the first rule of morality is harm/care of children.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

Do you agree that the notion of substitutionary atonement is immoral and that God’s first principle of morality is hare/harm and that this would prevent him from demanding the death of his son?

==============================

This lack of opposition to the premise given tells me that Christians may actually be more moral than what I give them credit for. They do not walk their talk in these cases and that is a plus.

Seems Christians actually recognize good morals even if they do not preach them.
I thank Christians for confirming my view that they are just following tradition, dogma and culture while not really following their God. Thank God for that. Any sane man would reject the bible God.

Regards
DL

You cannot prove YHVH Elohim did not say anything of the sort, unfortunately for you.

You also can't prove that YHVH didn't say, "Dibbity bibbity babbity boo!"

Maybe he did say that? Maybe he didn't.

You can't disprove that a real Batman somewhere didn't actually say, "I'm Batman!"

You can't disprove that a Gandalf somewhere in the universe didn't really say, "You shall not pass!"

Or that Papa Smurf on a purple planet somewhere didn't say, "We're going to have a smurfy time today!"

Maybe they said these things. Maybe not.

It's all about probability - and what are the odds that an all-powerful, supernatural entity that no one has actually seen said anything about listening to his son? *shrug*

I've never been one to gamble with long odds against me.

… I neither care what you can prove nor care what I can prove insofar as YHVH Elohim, author, creator, and sovereign of everything, is concerned.

Thank you for confirming your bare assertion, no one cares about bare assertions, they are worthless.

Anyone who believes a dialogue took place between a human and a burning bush should be taken into care.

To embrace YHVH Elohim is to embrace eternally-existent, immeasurable, incomprehensible by which existence exists.

To embrace YHVH Elohim is to embrace the eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent author, creator, and sovereign of all that is, was, and eve will be.

To embrace YHVH Elohim is to embrace our creator into whose image we, ha adama, are created.

To embrace Y’shua bar Yosef, Y’shua Moshiach, is to embrace he of whom
YHVH Elohim says, “This is my beloved Son, my Chosen One, in whom I’m well pleased; hear ye him.

This sounds like you're trying to convince yourself more than anyone else, Rock.

Sometimes, it's ok to say you got it wrong but hanging onto the argument just for the sake of it and ignoring the truth of something is...well...delusional.

This sounds like I am stating truth.

Prove it.

I cannot prove that YHVH Elohim didn’t say anything.

And you cannot prove that YHVH Elohim did say anything.

Which part of the onus being on the claimant do you not understand ?

It's a good thing the courts don't operate in this fashion.

I remember when I was a policy enforcer on a MUD back in the day. The admin, who went by the name Kamiko, wanted a rule concerning sexual harassment that would place the onus on the accused rather than the accuser. I told the admin that it was a horrible idea - it is up to the accuser (claimant) to make his case against the accused, not the other way around. But, he wouldn't listen to me.

So ... one day before the MUD actually opened to the public, over the general channel I abruptly said, "Kamiko is sexually harassing me! You can't believe the crap he's saying to me right now." And I made up a few choice sentences that made Kamiko look like a real cad.

He didn't know that I was only proving a point. Instead, he got really hyper-defensive and angry, claiming, of course, that he had said no such thing (which he actually hadn't).

I told him to prove that he was innocent. Yeah, Kamiko, prove to me that you never said those things.

Naturally he couldn't, and when he admitted that, I let him in on what I was doing. Lesson learned, and he agreed to change the sexual harassment policy. Could I "prove" that Kamiko did say those things? Absolutely. I simply had to submit a fake or doctored chat log, which was super easy to do on a MUD.

Unfortunately, this same lesson hasn't been learned by religious believers who STILL think it is up to atheists to prove God doesn't exit. It is patently absurd to assume something is true until it is proven not to be true.

The best the creationist wackos can do is to muddy the waters so much the debate appears as a stalemate, its not.

Anyone who thinks an unsupported hypothesis( bare assertion) is as equally valid as a scientific theory( evidence based fact ), is wired up wrong.

snowyflake wrote:
This sounds like I am stating truth.

Prove it.

Prove otherwise.

I can't see, hear, smell, taste or touch God/god/gods. Therefore he does not exist. If you can see, hear, smell, taste or touch God, Rock, please provide the evidence of such. If you cannot provide the evidence then he does not exist.

I can't see, hear, smell, taste or touch Harry Potter. Therefore he does not exist. If you can see, hear, smell, taste or touch Harry Potter, Rock, please provide the evidence of such. If you cannot provide the evidence then he does not exist.

It really is that simple.

I cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch carbon monoxide. Therefore it does not exist. Yet carbon monoxide kills.

You can see carbon monoxide damage in a brain scan. You can see it in blood tests. We know that carbon monoxide exists because we have evidence of its existence.

I cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch life. Therefore it does not exist. Yet life enables our bodies to function.

Life is an abstract concept. Life does not enable our bodies to function. Cells do that.

I cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch protons. Therefore they do not exist. Yet without protons atoms, and thus mass, cannot be.

You are tasting, touching, seeing, hearing, smelling protons all the time. Everything that has mass has protons. There is evidence for protons.

I cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch sub-atomic particles. Therefore they do not exist. Yet without them existence does not exist.

We have evidence for the existence of sub atomic particles. We have the great Hardon Collider in Switzerland that has possibly found the Higgs-Boson particle.

We have no evidence for the existence of God.

The human envelope has so many weaknesses that it must obviously be a random creation. No sentient being could have deliberately designed this form we inhabit.

There are two types of existence, things and ideas or entities and concepts, the Bible is evidence that the concept of God exists, there is no evidence whatsoever to support God's existence.

The human envelope has so many weaknesses that it must obviously be a random creation. No sentient being could have deliberately designed this form we inhabit.

God is unknowable/unfathomable takes care of all vagaries.

Plus Genesis 1.1 in Hebrew proves M-theory if you add a " who " and a " what " to the how, when and where, although it is not evidence.

Quote Tosh: there is no evidence whatsoever to support God's existence.

.... and there we were believing that you were His living embodiment on Earth. What a let-down.

So you affirm that something need not be seeable, hearable, smell-able, taste-able, or touchable to be real.

Ahem tap tap tap...its just not your day is it, the lady mentioned evidence on each occasion, we need to see the evidence and hear concepts for them to be real.

Stick to semantic games you become unglued when you try and debate using reason.

Next patient.

.... and there we were believing that you were His living embodiment on Earth. What a let-down.

" WE.... ? Is that you and your mirror ?

:affraid:

Once again you affirm that something need not be seeable, hearable, smell-able, taste-able, or touchable to be real.

For something to exist there has to be evidence. The evidence has to be seeable, hearable, smellable, tasteable or touchable. Some things, the evidence is obvious, like a tree. Other things it's not so obvious but the evidence is there, like carbon monoxide, protons and subatomic particles.

There is no evidence for the existence of God.

I am not.

Every time you eat a big fat cheeseburger, you are smelling, touching, tasting, seeing protons.

I await your seeable, hearable, smellable, tasteable, or touchable not-so-obvious evidence of love.

Love is an abstract concept, it exists as a concept, in reality it is a electro-chemical response, one we have identified to certain portions of our brain, in time neuroscience will have all the evidence one needs to identify the physical properties of all our sensations.

God is a concept much like love, unlike love we cannot physically observe God.

I have never put my hand in the fire. Not ever, even though I have no PROOF that it would hurt me.

I have never put my hand in the fire. Not ever, even though I have no PROOF that it would hurt me.

ITS CALLED RATIONAL THINKING, PRECISE THINKERS GET BURNED A LOT.

The human envelope has so many weaknesses that it must obviously be a random creation. No sentient being could have deliberately designed this form we inhabit.

The human body is a horrible shell for our brains. For instance, the idea that we must eat and breathe through the same pipe is a really bad design as it causes choking and suffocation. The need to excrete waste is another bad design flaw that has killed more people through disease than all the wars combined. The fact that our teeth do not regenerate, the need for sleep, the inability to process fats efficiently without a lot of exercise, etc. etc.

God must really be laughing by now.

That may be why He gave us sex, in atonement.

That may be why He gave us sex, in atonement.

No, sex was just another joke.

He gave us sex, made us horny ALL of the time (no rutting period), made women able to get pregnant MOST of the time, made sex an almost compelling urge, made it super-enjoyable .... and then ...

And then ... told us it was a sin in every context except for procreation.

What a cad. Like I said, that laughter you hear off in the distance ... uh huh, you know whose it is.

Greetings Snowflake et al

We have evidence for the existence of sub atomic particles. We have the great Hardon Collider in Switzerland that has possibly found the Higgs-Boson particle.
We have no evidence for the existence of God.

I would wonder myself - what is it..we would be looking for? An entity the size of a microbe would not see evidence for a human even if this micro being was on a persons nose.

"....that laughter you hear off in the distance ... uh huh, you know whose it is."

Sure

Hello Shirina,

The human body is a horrible shell for our brains. For instance, the idea that we must eat and breathe through the same pipe is a really bad design as it causes choking and suffocation. The need to excrete waste is another bad design flaw that has killed more people through disease than all the wars combined. The fact that our teeth do not regenerate, the need for sleep, the inability to process fats efficiently without a lot of exercise, etc. etc.

We should all know how to look after our bodies well, alas we love the taste of teeth rot candy and artery clotting burgers. It is indeed difficult at times to maintain this body design. For arguments sake - limitations to this design being quite fragile with a limited time scale to life,may still be sensible to those who think there is also another level to physical life. Yes, I would mean after life. Creation then by 'this understanding' would not be a wasted flaw.

God is a concept much like love, unlike love we cannot physically observe God.

So there you are ! Makes sense though.

Fact: I have meticulously exposited.

True

Fact I have extracted truth.

Not true.

Engrossing debating style you have there Texas, box office stuff.

Fact I have extracted truth.

You haven't Rock. If you had spoken truth then Richard Dawkins would be a theist and he isn't. Therefore, you haven't extracted truth and your statement is an untruth.

We should all know how to look after our bodies well, alas we love the taste of teeth rot candy and artery clotting burgers.

Actually, teeth go bad regardless of what you eat. Sure, with modern inventions such as toothbrushes and toothpaste, we can make teeth last longer, but MANY people still lose them as they get older. But what about prior to those inventions? Ancient Egyptian mummies, for instance, often show incredible wear on the teeth and a mouth full of abscesses because sand would get into their food - and as they chewed, the sand eroded away the enamel like a grinding wheel. Now, keep in mind that three major world religions - Christianity, Islam, and Judaism - were founded in the desert. One would almost have to believe that living your adult life in constant tooth agony was part of God's plan. But that's a little detail no one really thinks about.

When your life is short, as it was until very recently, and filled with superstition and the paranormal, it only stands to reason that you constantly look over the horizon to the next life. I sometimes view this vision of a beaucolic afterlife as one of the worst travesties religion has dangled in our faces. The more we sit and stare at what is to be, the less attention we give to what is NOW. When Osama bin Laden was asked if he knew he had killed fellow Muslims on 9/11 he said, "Yes, I know. Those good Muslims should have been in a mosque. I did them all a favor by sending them to paradise."

Perhaps if we treated this life as the only one we'll get, we would treat it with more respect.

I can't help but be boggled by the Pyramids of Giza where workers wasted half their lives building one man a tomb.

In fact I have spoken truth. I quoted Dawkins speaking of something which mirrors Norse mythology

I've already showed you how you didn't. Thus far you have YET to show me how an alien civilization seeding life on earth using scientific principles mirrors ANY religion, much less the specifics of the Norse religion. Just like you want the scientific Big Bang to mirror the Bible, you want every non-religious belief to actually be religious.

You have made an absolute statement. You have presented neither proof nor evidence of your absolute claim. How do you know?

Take anything in the universe. If it exists there will be evidence for its existence. If it doesn't exist there won't be any evidence. There is no evidence for God and there never has been.

Even in science, things like the Higgs-Boson which were theoretical concepts still had to have other evidence to support them. Now, with CERN we think we have discovered this particle....interestingly named the God particle.

I was a great fan of Thor, Loki and Odin, and they did not evolve through natural selection, to suggest otherwise is comical.

It's going to get weirder before it gets better!

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

You have made two absolute statements. How do you know that “[if] it exists there will be evidence for its existence” and that “If it doesn't exist there won’t be any evidence” for its existence? If evidence for its existence exists, how do you know that you have found this evidence? If evidence for its existence exists, how do you know that you are capable of finding this evidence?

Knowledge is not an absolute claim, it is a provisional claim, the only people I know who are obsessed with absolutes are mathematicians and religious wackos.

The rest of the world operate on the rational principle of probabilities, macro evolution is most likely true and your literal interpretation of Genesis is most likely false, they both cannot be probably true.

There is no intellectual argument, divine creation lacks evidence and logic, there are simply no reasons to believe it except cognitive bias.

Why is it when there is no evidence for anything else we just accept it, but when it comes to bronze age myths there must be something lacking in our tool set or methodology.

In that case,we will be agnostic about every bare assertion in history, it all could probably be true, its just philosophical irrationality.

I do not believe that all things are possible. Some things, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster drinking from the Cosmic Teapot, are too ludicrous to consider as having any validity.

But there are people who believe that all and any thing is possible. Royston of the pretentious prose thought like this and marcus used to get so depressed at the thought that this life is all there is. There is a certain amount of arrogance amongst believers (and some agnostics) that their lives are so important that how could this just be it.

Professor Brian Cox has written a book: The Quantum Universe: Everything that can happen will happen. That is not to say that "Anything can happen."