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

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."

Good day Tosh,

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

Many new discoveries have been found by imagination and this is according to a well known scientist. There's obviously scientists that can only deal with what they have been taught,which may become confusing or throw them off,with the idea that something outside their references chart, does not compute.

Many new discoveries have been found by imagination and this is according to a well known scientist. There's obviously scientists that can only deal with what they have been taught,which may become confusing or throw them off,with the idea that something outside their references chart, does not compute.

I don't like the cut of your jib sir, I hope you are not suggesting I am lacking in imagination, and may I remind you not long ago all knowledge was nothing but a figment of our imagination. Are you one of these retro thinkers who mistakenly believe our primordial instincts and animalistic intuitions are worth diddly squat ?

Let me put this to you in the politest possible way, every scientist with a functioning brain concedes we inhabit a universe that is physical, there is no evidence of anything non-physical effecting anything. There is no hidden variable or missing Rosetta stone that one can plug God into, we don't know everything but nothing is going to dismantle established universal laws or theories, they are by nature( cause and effect) deterministic and symmetrical.

You are making a fine case for eugenics.

Everything that can happen will happen. That is not to say that "Anything can happen."

Anything can happen as long as you have faith or a vivid imagination.

I don't like the cut of your jib sir, I hope you are not suggesting I am lacking in imagination, and may I remind you not long ago all knowledge was nothing but a figment of our imagination. Are you one of these retro thinkers who mistakenly believe our primordial instincts and animalistic intuitions are worth diddly squat ?

No not all,(to all of the above). To make tools for science;you need to design them first. To begin to design - you need imagination. We all have this ability in one form or other,is my take on things.

You are making a fine case for eugenics.

Hahaha, Its good you still have the old Tosh humour.
And perhaps you're right!

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?

I would never claim to know everything, I don't even know a lot. My knowledge is limited to be sure but I do know that there is nothing that exists that doesn't have evidence to support it's existence. There may be things that we haven't discovered yet but until we have some evidence for their existance how would we know they exist at all? The fact is, making the assumption that some things, like God, exist is the same as making the assumption that Harry Potter, The Flying Spaghetti Monster and Russell's Cosmic Teapot exist. That is not rational or reasonable. God is imaginary like other characters of fiction, created by ancient men who were aware of their existance and knew that they would one day die. Man, in his egotism and his own self-importance, created God to make death more palatable. Belief in an afterlife was a comforting thought to those left behind.

Any psychiatrist can tell you this, Rock. Religion is all about believing in eternal life. That's the pay off. Would you believe if that wasn't the carrot on the end of the stick? Eternity praising some big-headed God just seems like such a waste of time. Is this what you really want?

Anybody claiming omniscience, whether explicit or implicit, will rapidly find themselves the only remaining participant in a debate.

A thing cannot exist until it has been proven to exist, this is an absolute fact that does not require omniscience just logic. A thing remains a thing until its properties are observed, then it no longer remains a thing and becomes an identity.

No things exist, and God is a thing, searching for a thing that has no identity is illogical, how would one know what to look for ?

To “know that there is nothing that exists that doesn't have evidence to support its existence” requires omniscience

Well, I'm pretty sure I'm not omniscient (you'd think I'd know if I was ) but I cannot think of anything in our universe that exists that doesn't have evidence for its existance. Putting God aside, can you name one thing that exists that doesn't have evidence for its existence.

I think a little common sense is all that is needed, not omniscience.

"..name one thing that exists that doesn't have evidence for its existence."

Too easy. Female logic.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, absence of reason and evidence is evidence of delusion.

Of course things can exist without proof, it is just that you do not know they are there, there will be thousands of such things within and without the universe, that is the problem with man, he thinks he knows it all.

Of course things can exist without proof, it is just that you do not know they are there, there will be thousands of such things within and without the universe, that is the problem with man, he thinks he knows it all.

A thing is an unidentified entity, it cannot exist until it has an identity, replace thing or God with Fred, " Fred can exist without evidence, it is just we do not know who Fred is ", it is a meaningless statement.

Please stop using the word proof, use the word evidence, it makes more sense.

Of course things can exist without proof, it is just that you do not know they are there, there will be thousands of such things within and without the universe, that is the problem with man, he thinks he knows it all

There may be gazillions of undiscovered things in our universe but until we have evidence of their existence we don't know they exist. Therefore, we cannot claim that they do exist.

It would be better if anything you said made sense.

You go to the doctor with an illness, he says it is something going about that caused it.

Now we know that something caused it and it must exist, prove it.

Now we know that something caused it and it must exist, prove it.

If something is going about, it's usually viral. You get a blood test that show the antibodies to whatever virus or bacteria is infecting you. Because millions of people catch colds, flus and other viruses, that are not life threatening, it would be a huge drain on NHS resources if every person had a blood test for a measly cold.

Drink plenty of water, eat properly, rest and take a couple of anadin and you will be fine in a couple of days. It's viral!

Now we know that something caused it and it must exist, prove it.

If only believers were so diligent in their proof. Instead, to them, religious belief is the default position and everyone else must prove God does not exist. Until that happens, God exists.

I really wish defending your doctoral thesis was so easy.

"My thesis is true until you prove it wrong." (And if it is proven wrong, I just have to say "nuh uh!" and I win the debate).

The point Shirina is that you never admit you are wrong.

Just one example of several.

You say you cannot know something without understanding it, I give several examples proving you can.

You start using algebra in a sarcastic manner.

Well algebra, calculus and trigonometry were my favourite subjects.

An example of algebra.

Si + Sn = I with a mantissa of 2.

If Si represents Bill and Sn represents Ben and I represents idiot then Bill and Ben are both idiots.


The basics are simple, you use sybols, letters and numbers to represent certain components, you change the side you change the sign and when coming to a conclusion you deal with the brackets first.

The x factor is used to try and determine the unknown from the known.

So please stick to what you think you know and the point of the debate.

The point Shirina is that you never admit you are wrong.

I'll admit that I'm wrong when I'm actually wrong. I'm not going to admit I'm wrong just because you want me to. If you want me to be wrong, you have to PROVE that I'm wrong. You've yet to do so.

You say you cannot know something without understanding it, I give several examples proving you can.

That's not what I said.

What I said is that not understanding something doesn't mean the knowledge is inherently incomprehensible. You used the example of writing something in Japanese and how I could be taught to write the same words without understanding their meaning. Yeah, I agree ... but that wasn't the original point. What I said is that, if I wanted to know what the words meant, I am capable of learning Japanese. Which means that I can also learn about science and come to understand it. I am not doomed to ignorance.

You start using algebra in a sarcastic manner.

I never did any such thing that I recall.

The x factor is used to try and determine the unknown from the known.

LOL! Yes, and to people like you, x = God. Teehee!

So please stick to what you think you know and the point of the debate.

Seriously?

I feel another poll coming on.

Now we know that something caused it and it must exist, prove it.

This analogy is beyond me, what am I being asked to prove ?

The main reason why I think polyglide is a wind up is because he talks unbelievable mince, he thinks funny as in funny strange not ha ha, although his posts do make me snigger.

All this shit about butterflies baffles me, what is it supposed to prove, is it supposed to be evidence against evolution ?

polyglide wrote:Of course things can exist without proof, it is just that you do not know they are there, there will be thousands of such things within and without the universe, that is the problem with man, he thinks he knows it all.

Whilst strictly speaking this correct, the assertion that something specific exists without proof or even a shred of empirical evidence is obviously nonsense. Unless you want to wave unicorns, mermaids, Thor, Wotan, Zeus and leprechauns etc etc., through as well of course. As man thinking he knows it all, the only humans I've ever encountered who deal in absolutes are theists, and yes they do seem to think they know things which they clearly don't.

polyglide wrote:It would be better if anything you said made sense.

You go to the doctor with an illness, he says it is something going about that caused it.

Now we know that something caused it and it must exist, prove it.

That's risible, is this a witch doctor you're talking about? Seriously you need to change your doctor. I find it hard to believe you're being serious, if you are however then yet again we have a theist without even the remotest idea of how scientific empiricism works. I do however love it when theists stamp their foot and ask for proof from scientists who are a group who recognise the intellectual integrity of saying "I don't know" when it's appropriate, unlike theists of course, who deal in absolutes.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

polyglide wrote:Of course things can exist without proof, it is just that you do not know they are there, there will be thousands of such things within and without the universe, that is the problem with man, he thinks he knows it all.

Whilst strictly speaking this correct, the assertion that something specific exists without proof or even a shred of empirical evidence is obviously nonsense. Unless you want to wave unicorns, mermaids, Thor, Wotan, Zeus and leprechauns etc etc., through as well of course. As man thinking he knows it all, the only humans I've ever encountered who deal in absolutes are theists, and yes they do seem to think they know things which they clearly don't.

The problem of positing things that exist without proof is that you always end up with the expression

P(t<=X) = {¬V & X}/{¬V}

which states really that "the probability that such a thing exists is equal to the number of uneVidenced things that exists DIVIDED BY the total number of things that do not exist."

but we know that {¬V} is infinite which makes the probability of anything that is unevidenced is zero! All you have now is the somewhat nuanced question of what constitutes evidence!

Bellatori wrote:

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

polyglide wrote:Of course things can exist without proof, it is just that you do not know they are there, there will be thousands of such things within and without the universe, that is the problem with man, he thinks he knows it all.

Whilst strictly speaking this correct, the assertion that something specific exists without proof or even a shred of empirical evidence is obviously nonsense. Unless you want to wave unicorns, mermaids, Thor, Wotan, Zeus and leprechauns etc etc., through as well of course. As man thinking he knows it all, the only humans I've ever encountered who deal in absolutes are theists, and yes they do seem to think they know things which they clearly don't.

The problem of positing things that exist without proof is that you always end up with the expression

P(t<=X) = {¬V & X}/{¬V}

which states really that "the probability that such a thing exists is equal to the number of uneVidenced things that exists DIVIDED BY the total number of things that do not exist."

but we know that {¬V} is infinite which makes the probability of anything that is unevidenced is zero! All you have now is the somewhat nuanced question of what constitutes evidence!

You mean like suggesting the moon is made of cream cheese, and citing as evidence it's creamy cheese like appearance?

There is lots of evidence the Moon is made of cheese. It is all around you. If you are too blind to see it or choose not to then that is your problem.

The science museum were quite dismissive when I asked if I could have a bit of their moon dust for a taste test  

Bellatori wrote:The science museum were quite dismissive when I asked if I could have a bit of their moon dust for a taste test  

QED then..... 

Is God a just judge?

This speaks of Jesus.
He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

The above quote shows this as Gods first actual judgement and shows his setting and accepting a bribe of a human sacrifice to corrupt or alter his justice and judgement.

Justice usually states that only the punishment of the guilty is acceptable to justice and that it would be unjust to punish the innocent.

God’s corruption of this usual justice is what the bribe or sacrifice of Jesus bought. Injustice.

If you elect your judges in your country, would you vote God in as a fair and just judge knowing that he can be bribed?

Is God a just judge?

Regards
DL

jesus was gods supposed son, according to all the rubbish written in the bible that can be misproven.
bible written by man, long after the event.
jesus was just a preacher. the supposed son of the holy spirit.
spirits cannot get women pregnant.

stuart torr wrote:jesus was gods supposed son, according to all the rubbish written in the bible that can be misproven.
bible written by man, long after the event.
jesus was just a preacher. the supposed son of the holy spirit.
spirits cannot get women pregnant.

No argument.

Care to opine on what Christians believe in terms of the O. P.?

Do you think God to be a just judge?

Regards
DL

No I don't think so GIa, when he lets young people die of cancer or other illnesses what sins have they committed?

God is a worse judge than any evil mortal in all of human history. After all, no mortal has the power to sentence someone to eternal torture, and that's what most Christians believe.

What's more is WHAT God judges you for. Is it living a good life? Yes, but not really. The most important qualification for getting past the bouncers at the Pearly Gates is whether or not you love God and sufficiently worshiped, praised, and glorified him during your lifetime. That's not a judge, that's an egomaniac throwing a tantrum, thus off you go to the Lake of Fire.

God should not even be part of the equation - just like judges are not allowed to preside over trials that he was involved in. God's judgment should be impassive in the sense that how much you glorify the judge shouldn't matter. It is what you did, how you lived your life, that should be the central focus.

Yet any judge who would sentence 42 little children to death simply for calling someone "old baldhead" is NOT a fair or just judge at all.

As usual Shirina perfectly well put.

stuart torr wrote:No I don't think so GIa, when he lets young people die of cancer or other illnesses what sins have they committed?

Only about 10 million a year of those 10 years of age and younger. Not too bad that.

I am not serious of course and agree with you. That number, unfortunately, is quite real and we see it yearly.

Regards
DL

Shirina wrote:God is a worse judge than any evil mortal in all of human history. After all, no mortal has the power to sentence someone to eternal torture, and that's what most Christians believe.

What's more is WHAT God judges you for. Is it living a good life? Yes, but not really. The most important qualification for getting past the bouncers at the Pearly Gates is whether or not you love God and sufficiently worshiped, praised, and glorified him during your lifetime. That's not a judge, that's an egomaniac throwing a tantrum, thus off you go to the Lake of Fire.

God should not even be part of the equation - just like judges are not allowed to preside over trials that he was involved in. God's judgment should be impassive in the sense that how much you glorify the judge shouldn't matter. It is what you did, how you lived your life, that should be the central focus.

Yet any judge who would sentence 42 little children to death simply for calling someone "old baldhead" is NOT a fair or just judge at all.

What can I say to your usual.

You are hell on wheels girl. Lady that is.

You see 20/20.

Regards
DL

You see GIa we judge god.

stuart torr wrote:You see GIa we judge god.

As all intelligent people should. That one factor seems to be what separates the sheep from the goats.

Regards
DL

The only time God will judge, is on judgement day, when mankind has had a chance to choose good or evil.

God is supposed to help you every day and look after his own is he not? so why let them die so young when they have not committed any sin. don't think much of this supposed being of yours PG.
Why hasn't he taken me for the sins that I committed when I was in my youth instead of babies who have seen no life? I would gladly swap places but the thing is there is no god is there to save these poor mites.

polyglide wrote:The only time God will judge, is on judgement day, when mankind has had a chance to choose good or evil.

Are you saying that he did not judge man when he used genocide on us in Noah's day?

If that is not what you are saying then get the quote to make your case please.

Regards
DL