Scott has been on the front lines of the battle to keep creationism from being taught in public school science classes. Scott has spent the past 27 years of her career essentially starring in her own real-life version of Inherit the Wind over and over again as she and the NCSE have had "an outsize impact" in courtrooms and classrooms when it comes to teaching fact-based science—rather than faith-based theories—in schools.
She will be stepping down from her position at the NCSE at the end of this year, prompting The New York Times to profile her dedication to "advance the cause of science. Scott realized very early on that creationism is "a movement that could have really serious consequences for science and science education. It didn't matter if they didn't have the facts on their side. She understood that the approach of those opposing creationism needed to change. Scott plans to spend her impending free time writing a memoir and organizing the NCSE's archives, but not before adding the issue of climate change to its agenda.
How does an imaginary, fictitious, non-existent critter have anything to do with reality? You have to show your mythical, make-believe, hypothetical god exists before you can claim any attributes for it. Show me that your god exists. They are expected to rule justly, fairly, equitably. Condemning someone who punches the president in the nose to torture for the rest of their life would not be considered just, fair or equitable. A ruler might have absolute authority, but one who would do such things is not considered good, loving or just.
They are considered a tyrant. Infinite punishment for finite sins is not the action of a good, loving and just God; it is the action of a tyrant. The story makes no sense. The pieces of the story have to make sense if you want people to believe it. Your god is absolutely powerless outside your own imagination. Is God so sensitive? So petty? The Christian god is an insecure narcissist. According to the propaganda he needs to be continually told how great he is and otherwise have his ego stroked or else he pouts and goes into smiting mode.
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. The sarcasm must not have been evident. Am I supposed to be impressed with accusations of thought crimes? Try again, this time using logic and evidence instead of anti-humanist propaganda.
No, the sarcasm was not evident. Just a plain Biblical quote without other commentary is a common response Christians use when faced with evidence that their god is an asshole. Blood sacrifice is an obsolete technology. Remember phone books and VCRs? Obsolete too!
You make a distinction between punishing and harming. I know this because natural catastrophes the ones that insurance policies call acts of god harm countless creatures. Like us humans do all the time. Why the sacrifice needed? Why the blood shed? And oh what a sacrifice if you get to come back to life in less than 48 hours. Just forgive them all? Would that be justice?
People have limited resources and limited life spans but they can get over issues and forgive a lot better than your god thingy in many cases. The God of the Bible story drowned the world? Would you forgive him? Making him and others like Stalin pay for the countless deaths and suffering from the POV of each victim and preventing them of going insane. Once ended, if they beg pardon pardoning them in return. Also… you asked what to do with Hitler. I would have stopped him.
Punishing him after the fact does nothing for the victims. Stopping him would have. Any atheist would invent a hell far more just than what your asshole of a god created. You know, you can just stop, right?
I was an atheist once. Been there and got the T-Shirt. It comes and goes with circumstances. Indeed, Christians can expect to suffer in this life. What God does promise is peace with God and eternal life. The OT makes clear that God is an asshole. You must clear away that obstacle first. Talking to you is like shooting fish in a barrel. Hairy, you seem to have no problem making s moral judgement about God.
Where do you get moral truth from? Jesus Christ willingly gave himself as a sacrifice. He is God, just as is the Father and the Holy Spirit. In the cross of Christ we see how serious are sines are to a holy God, his love and mercy, and his justice. So rather than addressing the point I was obviously making you just spit out your religious creed like a doll with a pull string.
Jesus could have just as easily given himself as a sacrifice without requiring belief in him. What a failure! Why would a god thingy put requirements on forgiveness that only gullible people would accept? He also lets the Serpent infiltrate into the Garden and the punishment for eating the damned fruit falls into Adam and Eve when God has a lot of responsability for the mess. Fast forward. God has to sacrifice his son to fix a mess caused by Him and that could have been resolved by other means. Not a bad summary of some of the details, Alec.
God does all this to glorify himself through the redemption of a fallen creation. Yup, in the end we are lowly creatures of rebellion who deserve to be squashed like bugs, but God displays his goodness by suffering himself for those that he chose in the very beginning to save. We are fragile, fallen creatures that live 80 years or so. The average human in history has had a miserable existence. We know of God. All of us.
Even if we deny it his laws are written into our conscience. We knowingly break those laws. So we are responsible. Our prominent sin is to reject the God that is and create one in our own image. Why would that be so? Are you your own moral authority?
Why Muslims See the Crusades So Differently from Christians
I told you more than once that I cannot solve the solipsism problem and neither can you. I can only react to the reality that is presented to me and work out what hurts and what feels good in that perceived reality. Things we like are good. Those are descriptive words in the language I know that is used in this perceived reality. That is pathologically sadistic. A person who helps old ladies cross the street but tortures children to death in his basement for fun is not a good person despite outward appearances.
You seem to have no difficulty assessing what is good and evil. But based upon what source of truth? In your worldview we are just a cosmic accident. So if I understand what you are saying, your feelings determine your morality? What if I feel differently? Who is right and who is wrong? My senses and others senses which can apparently be enhanced by technology. Senses honed by evolution would be reliable enough. If they were totally unreliable, they would not have been beneficial and would be selected against as a waste of energy.
I am right according to my morality and you are right according to your morality. If it is something that we both feel is worth fighting over, we would have to fight. If not, we respect one another and move on. There is no absolute or objective morality. If there was an objective morality, you could just show how you got the knowledge. If you say you got it by pretending you know what an imaginary thingy says is objective morality, you will be laughed at.
Picking things out of your imagination about things you cannot perceive by your senses is far less reliable than understanding things through your senses. If our senses are such a poor predictor of reality I propose a test. We stand at the edge of a busy highway and on the count of three we each do our best to cross the road.
- Michael Shermer Interview.
- New Shrines.
- CMOS: Circuit Design, Layout, and Simulation;
- See a Problem?.
- Top 20 Most Damning Bible Contradictions | Bob Seidensticker.
- Related Posts!
I can use my powers of observation and can walk down to the corner and hit crosswalk button which may or may not be imaginary and wait for the possibly imaginary lights to change and stop the potentially imaginary cars before I head across. And you can use your prayers and trust in a potentially real God to guide you safely to the other side. We carefully craft an illusion of God the surrounds us and comforts us, but when it comes right down to it, we know. People often disagree on what is right or wrong. Even self-proclaimed Christians all claiming the same source have differing opinions on right and wrong.
We decide who is wrong or right through things like social influence, debate, rules and laws. Not everyone always agrees. Asking questions so no one sees that the glaring question remains yours to answer? Yeah, you totally pulled off that rhetorical trick. Your undefended claim of objective morality is sitting there like a stinky turd. You going to take care of it? Upon what do you base this statement? Man stealing was punishable by death. The Bible makes a clear distinction between slave bought with money, indentured servants, and hired hands.
Genesis NRSV 12 Throughout your generations every male among you shall be circumcised when he is eight days old, including the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. Exodus NRSV 44 but any slave who has been purchased may eat of it after he has been circumcised; 45 no bound or hired servant may eat of it. Israelite indentured servants were not to be treated harshly but those bought with money could be.
Leviticus 44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness. Exodus 2 When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt. He shall be brought to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.
Slaves could be beaten. Exodus 20 When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. NO, rather they are men. NO, comrades. NO, they are unpretentious friends.
A Jealous God: Science's Crusade Against Religion - Pamela Winnick - Google книги
NO, they are our fellow-slaves, if one reflects that Fortune has equal rights over slaves and free men alike. That is why I smile at those who think it degrading for a man to dine with his slave. But why should they think it degrading? It is only purse-proud etiquette… All night long they must stand about hungry and dumb… They are not enemies when we acquire them; we make them enemies… This is the kernel of my advice: Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your betters.
The bible has YawehJesus ordering the enslavement of people…including virgins as sex slaves, raped. No, American slavery and biblical slavery were pretty much identical. Exodus NASB : 16He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death. Given that the Hebrews were instructed in Leviticus to obtain their slaves from the people around them, it is evident that this injunction to not abduct people referred to Hebrews and not non-Hebrews.
Obtaining and selling non-Hebrews was evidently not a problem. Deuteronomy specifies that only the abduction of Hebrews to enslave them is a crime. And with that revelation, became stories and writings, ultimately culminating into a flawed contradictory-filled book, claiming authority over the masses and promising the defectors an eternity of flame-filled existence?
Sorry, but some of us completed 2nd grade and on the way learned that the fraudulent, gift-giving St. Nicholas was really just Mom and Dad. If something is eternal and almighty, it could create whatever it wanted. The whole thing is stupid. Man is fallen and sinful.
The last thing we want is to be held acciuntabke for our sins. God is holy and perfect in all his ways. As such, he glorified himself. God has chosen to glorify himself by the redemption of fallen man. Yeah, that smarts a bit. Go outside tonight and gaze at the billions of stars and consider what is man. Your god is supposed to be all powerful, and all perfect, and all loving.
Shop by category
So, why would that god need to be glorified? Yes, I go out and stare at the stars quite regularly. My human brain can barely comprehend it all. So what? Get a grip. Hang in there, Pofarmer for you are getting warmer. The Bible says that God spoke this universe into existence. Think of that for a moment—God is a being that powerful and amazing. Indeed, reality consists only of God and his creation. Before creation existed, only God existed.
Outside of time. He is fully and completely satisfied in himself. He needs nothing else, including our worship. For a moment, consider beauty—absolute and perfect beauty. Or any other transcendental quality such as goodness or virtue. Such things are praiseworthy. That is, they are in and if themselves worthy of praise.
God is that. Now here is what should truly blow our minds—Hid was pleased to create man in his own likeness—having a portion of his qualities. That makes mankind if incredible worth and we should rightly praise him. Fail means that it, not to mention an entity able to create something as arcane and ununderstarable as quantum mechanics plus whatever is hiding behind them quantum gravity theories plus an Universe as big as this one, maybe even infinite, would be an entity far beyond our understanding and that would certainly not behave as the typical deity or three thousand years ago, nor would take its sight on an insignificant people of cattle herders inhabiting a small part of an small planet… blah, blah.
Of course his book instead of being a work that would transmit our insignificance and at least scraps of that knowledge has all the signs of being an human creation of a time when very little was known of the Universe, with all that entails. As with so many religious people with seemingly little or not scientific knowledge, you cannot grasp the real significance of all the atributes you give to him.
Where is absolute beauty? I can admire a sunset for its beauty. Knowing how the refractions, reflections, and shadows work makes it all the more interesting. But if I was going to credit an omnipotent being with it, I would be disappointed by the grandest sunset. Is that the best omnipotence can manage? And you are assuming God…not just any God, but a specific God…one that you are trying to support with nonsense no one here thinks is rational. You are preaching a loada unsupported ballix. Give it up already, we are laughing at you at this point.
Yup, in the end we are lowly creatures of rebellion who deserve to be squashed like bugs, but God displays his goodness by suffering himself for those that he chose in the very beginning to save instead of looking for better ways to resolve the mess he created in the first time. The average human in history has had a miserable existence until scientific advancements has improved it.
The bad news is that he is good a sadistic Bronze Age deity. Very good sadistic Bronze Age deity. So good sadistic that he will not tolerate evil and will punish His creations for all eternity and destroy the world ignoring what he said at first instead of fixing what He caused. Our prominent sin is to reject the God that is and create one in our own image like the Judeo-Christian God, who we think that is.
Or better, ask Him to bring an update, better, book and not that compendium of Bronze Age leyends and historied badly plagiarized from Judaism, where the original sin does not exist, and that does not make sense from your view. The guy dies and pops back to life in a day and a half? Big deal. You can have either a miracle resurrection or a sacrifice being dead.
Christian hilariously think that they can have both. Yet your conscience tells you otherwise. For that reason you have to suppress the truth Romans 1. Quoting a holy book that I think is bullshit is not an argument. Bob, if I could prove to your satisfaction that the God of the Bible existed, would you worship him?
You hate him because you love your sin. Why would I worship that shithead? God is no different. Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge of things without parallel. The strength of my belief in things is pretty much parallel to the strength of the evidence presented to me, not my desire to believe or disbelieve.
For those of you who are struggling with your faith, take note of this tactic. You know what you are going through and how difficult your struggle is. You know that this is a lie. This is the kind of tactic they will resort to in order to keep you in the fold. All of us have known people who have struggled with losing their faith and we know that what they went through is real.
Can you see what religion does to your brain? Is this how God works? Blame you for your doubt? Would he pull this kind of vile victim shaming? My conscience pricks me when I do something wrong, and also commends me when I go the extra mile for somebody…. How stupid is this? You think God created himself to make himself a sacrifice to himself for the sins he created. I would easily to the same thing for less, like say saving World hunger or preventing all childhood cancer. Especially if I knew it would just be a bad weekend and a bunch of pain to go thru.
Especially knowing that I get to live in my fathers kingdom with the keys at hand. No biggie. If I only commit one sin, like lying, but I am perfect otherwise, then I get the same eternal sentence as a mass murderer or adulterer or thief. How is that justice? In fact was a virgin at marriage because I was so committed to Jesus, etc. I went to Promise Keepers, I was an elder at church. I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more Isaiah But according to the propaganda, your god is merciful.
Therefore evil does go unpunished. Christian theology is a Get of Hell Free card for any evil. Christian evil goes unpunished. Did you not know that? Or Islam? Or others? It denies that truth can be known. Upon what basis do you judge truth, Bob? There is nothing wrong with admitting uncertainty. Being certain of something with no good evidence is evidence of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome. The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
For instance it only took me once to learn that flame is quite hot and will cause pain. Knowing that, I worked out that other quite hot things will cause pain. It is a matter of whether my interpretation of the evidence is correct, which is probably what you meant. Some tests I use are to determine if it is objective, do others see it as I do.
If the evidence is described by others, are they reliable, what might they have to lose by not being truthful. If there are no others involved, is it a physical thing or just a mental thing, am I getting a complete sensory input, are my senses impaired? I started out without knowing anything about evidence but I learned to work out things about temperature, pressure, sounds, vision, smells, tastes.
I have learned how things interact from empirical observation enhanced by the study of others who describe how things interact and why. Nobody knows all things but God. That is. He is the only trustworthy basis if absolute truth. What is your own basis for absolute truth? First you have to show that your god exists before you can assign attributes to it.
The only people arrogant enough to claim absolute truth exists are the religious and a few politicians. If one does not acknowledge the existence of absolute truth, he has no truth at all and it is useless to discuss anything further with him. OK, for arguments sake I will acknowledge the existence of absolute truth. Now show how the truth you are asserting concerning God, specifically the Christian God, has anything to do with absolute truth.
The man who has no defense for his claim of objective moral truth is now arguing absolute truth? Are you going to defend that, or do we just have to trust you that it exists? All you have is what you imagine it to be. If you do, then tell me the six numbers that will be drawn in the MegaMillions lottery on October 23, If the combination gets all six numbers and that you provide them with sufficient time for me to purchase the ticket, I will donate a million dollars divided by however many winning tickets there are to the charity of your choice, If not, you owe me two dollars.
I would be impressed if you could give me one combination that I played for the October 16, drawing. I think that I think, therefore I am. I could be a subroutine in the Matrix or a dream of Vishnu. Everything else is probabilistic. Shall we start with a simple trivia competition, or can you maybe get your god to show up for a boxing match? Marcus must do what Elijah did against the priests of Baal and you get to use the benefits of science.
The winner gets a steak cooked to order and the loser must eat Steak Tartare. Uh, yeah. How about you? Does that not apply? What you should wonder about is why your loving god invented it. Sure, be a presuppositionalist like Markus and just declare that your views are inherently correct with no need to justify them further. It is a lot less work and mess that way.
We have been told that the soul is what has free will and that free will requires the possibility of sin, then there must be free will in heaven and the possibility of sin. We have been told that angels have been cast out of heaven because of sin, so that is confirmed. If humans are evil and sin everyday, then getting to heaven will be a short-term experience. If hell is on a first-come, first-served basis then the first ones there will be able to find the slightly cooler places while Christians who start in heaven will end up in hell to claim the hotter regions.
Just a minor variation in temperature will result in significantly more suffering over trillion year periods. That there are cultists by the zillions who explicitly condone torture in their waking minds making war crimes look like playground bullying is disturbing. Now that I think about it, a memory surfaced. It was her way to politely inform me, a practicing Catholic then, not to bring up religion with her. To think of all the time and energy wasted on these phantoms. It may or may not affect cultist minds, that hell-lust, but it does affect others. I think he has shown all the visible evidence he has.
The rest is in the damaged portion of his brain. Lol do you even see the contradiction? Man is evil. God tolerates man. One of those statements must not be true. Hi, Eric. God created man good but gave him the ability to obey or not obey him, with the warning that disobedience would result in spiritual death. Man chose, freely, to disobey, becoming evil. This is why we suffer now in a fallen world.
Physical illness, physical death and all the suffering we experience are the consequence. And we will be judged when we die. The story is not over. God will write the last chapter. Does that mean that someone made that choice for me? If so, I fail to see why I should bear any moral responsibility for that choice. Shall the creature tell his Creator what is fair?
Will God be limited to Western thoughts of individuality? God says that when Adam rebelled, we rebelled. And we prove it to be true when we show our complete inability to keep his moral laws. Yeah… No. The truth is that we have no choice over many things. We have no choice as to when or where we are born, our sex or the color of our skin, whether we are born to good parents or bad, and whether we are born into wealth or poverty.
While I accept the truths of the Bible, and have been born again by the Spirit if God, I still live in a fallen body with a fallen mind. I still am prone to hate God and my neighbor. Honestly, knowing how holy God is and how sinful I am is uncomfortable. I would, in my human nature, prefer that God just fix everything and eliminate sin and suffering. But I know that he is God and his will is different than mine.
I know that my mind and heart prefer idols and not the true God. You are not allowed to ask questions. Any doubt you feel is automatically blamed on a sinful nature, which to this ex-christian, is an imaginary concept. Your natural sense of moral and intellectual thinking are bound and gagged by that little clause. Stories that people tell. One morphing god among countless morphing gods invented by humans. And impossible to converse about your basis for those beliefs.
All you want to do is preach. You are talking to many ex-christians here. We know the story. Susan, I am not bereft of a mind. My faith is not blind but is accompanied by intellectual assent. While I believe that there it is evidence that exhorts and encourages me, I do not believe it is why I have faith because the Bible makes it clear that my faith is a gift of God. Because I believe that the Bible is foundational truth, my worldview has been shaped by it. I once thought that evidence was sufficient for conversion and it shaped my apologetics.
As my understanding of scripture has grown, I have come to understand the true source of my faith as God. God is not physical but spiritual. He is transcendent. That is, his truths transcend the material world. You ask why I believe. As a former atheist I can attest that it was not the discovery of evidence that caused my conversion.
I can tell you, for example, that I became disatisfied with my prior conclusions about God derived by my studies in science. I could tell you that I became increasingly convicted of transcendental truths such as goodness, virtue, justice, integrity and beauty. But these were merely my subjective and personal experience that accompanied my salvation. I could tell you that I became aware that the material world could no longer offer me any sound basis for truth. Experientially there was a time in which I was able to read the Bible with a new understanding that had formerly not been there.
I now understand by the revelation of scripture that I was being reborn by the Holy Spirit. I am convinced by those same scriptures that i could no more facilitate my own conversion than I could change the courses of the planets in the solar system. I was dead, spiritually, but God gave me life. Until they repent and trust in Christ, my presentation will simply be rejected.
Further I will have done wrong to my Lord by making a mortal his judge. To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true. Ok, so reality corresponds to facts. So truth is that which corresponds to reality. I can live with that definition. The problem is that if I do not know what is really then, ceteris paribus , neither do you. A definite recommend.
There is the problem of solipsism. Any one of us could be the brain in a vat or a dream of Vishnu. We can only interact with the reality presented to us. But you go way past that into wishful thinking. How do you know that you are not in the Matrix and the Bible and everything you see as correspondence is just part of the program? Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakable Zhuang Zhou. Between Zhuang Zhou and the butterfly there must be some distinction!
This is called the Transformation of Things. What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world? We, and we includes you, accept ideas as true based on evidence and logic. Sometimes we discover the evidence or the logic are faulty, so we adjust our truth to accommodate the new evidence or logic.
We can only approach truth, never achieve it. Why personalise this? So, could we be mistaken about matters of fact? Of course we could, look at the things that were considered to be fact, for example the miasma theory of diseases. However, it comes down to justification and evidential backing. Take something more modern, the fact that biosphere was formed through common descent with modification. Could this be wrong, of course it could.
However given the massive amount of evidential backing from many different lines of inquiry then this is unlikely to be overturned. Just wanted to make a quick observation. We have no choice as to when or where we are born, our sex, or the color of our skin, whether we are born to good parents or bad, and whether we are born into wealth or poverty. But if you notice, all of the above scenarios have natural explanations. There is zero need to appeal to the supernatural for meaning unlike inherited so-called sin.
As such, your reply is a category error. I agree that there are many things about our circumstances that are the result of external factors. Want to try to avoid having our discussion diverge into too many different discussions. We have to recognize that we are mere creatures and God is God. That is a cop out answer to the question. Morally we know it is wrong to punish someone for the behavior of someone else. Does God follow moral rules? How shall we judge God as wrong? What source of moral truth shall we turn to to make this judgement?
Since he is God, he is the source of all truth. And we have evidence by the laws he has written upon our conscience. We inherently know that the Ten Commandments are true—we know that murder, theft, lies, and sexual immorality are wrong, for example.
- Multicomponent Polymer Systems.
- Genomes 2.
We know on our hearts these things yet our fallen nature means that we are prone to hate God and hate our neighbor. When we strive to prove that God does not exist or we try to rationalize our sins we give evidence of our fallen nature. We strive to create a God we prefer rather than admit we are rebels who deserve to be judged and punished.
But God is not only just. He is also merciful and good…so good that he provided a way to be redeemed. Nobody will be saved against their own will. Nobody will receive forgiveness and eternal life against their will. Nobody will be in hell who would rather repent and trust in God. You make a fair point, Susan. We know he is who he is by the truth he has revealed.
He tells us. And the cross of Jesus Christ displays it. Circular reasoning is, to an extent, unavoidable. This is true in your worldview, as well. What is your source of axiomatic, absolute truth? A exists because A exists and not believing A exists can only be the work of a diabolical agent predicted by A working against A. I never claimed to have a source for those. Because I never claimed those. Or order food at a restaurant. Or buy food at a supermarket. It would make no sense to discuss things further with someone who does not even believe in absolute truth.
Just an exercise of speculation. Have a good night! You could could convince me if you could define it and support it. What are you insisting that I believe in? I was thinking about the silly absolute truth thing the other day. We can have more and less precise references when we calibrate our decisions. But no one relies on absolute truth. It just feels good for them to say it. We have Markus claiming it exists, providing no understanding of what it would look like if it did. Let us suppose that every time it was tested then it was veridical, that every consequence of the statement turned out to be veridical too.
Let us suppose that the testing went on for thousands of years and no exceptions were found. How does your world work? You believe that you can find absolute truth in past observations? Hume spoke very eloquently to the problem of induction. Of course we now know that Kant was wrong. That all our knowledge is both contingent and corrigible.
Thus, without God as transcendent truth, you are clearly incapable of having absolute truth. Which makes our discussion pointless. Good day, Sir. Conversation with you has been pointless from the get go…you just are not interested in two way conversation. Since you are driveling on like a broken record, the sooner ya get around to realising that you are nothing but a waste of time and do one.
There is nothing more to say. Yours is the incivility, you have constantly avoided answering questions that have been put to you, answered question with question or been unduly evasive. Until you can provide some justification for their existence I see no reason why I should accept either. You came here and made assertion after assertion about your god and its supposed properties, the existence of absolute truth and objective morality and so on.
However what then happened is that you were asked to justify these assertions, something I guess that your fellow religionists have never asked you to do. It has become apparent that you simply do not have the background knowledge or capabilities to actually do. Hence the refusal to continue with conversations not just with me but with several others on the site.
No ody does. You should become a monk and take a vow of silence. I do not make such a claim. My senses may or may not be reliable but they appear to be reliable enough to allow me to navigate the world that seems to be around me. I know what tends to be successful and what hurts. Taking leave of my senses and believing on faith can hurt unless what you have faith in is completely meaningless.
Without absolute truth we can only engage in speculations. As you point out, our senses, at best, appear to be reliable. We cannot know they are reliable. Yet all men know of God, even if they suppress the truth in their unrighteousness. His laws are written across our consciences. It is not enough to declare that there is an absolute truth, you have to demonstrate that your claim is in fact absolutely true. There is no absolute truth without God.
Without God you and I are nothing more than time and chance acting upon matter.
More Christian Violence and Warfare
All abstracts become meaningless. People throughout history have claimed to have spoken on behalf of God…the writers of the Bible are no different. God has no power to communicate without humans…and humans contradict each other. Your truth comes from humans. A visit that will be upon him all too soon. What is the absolute truth about whether Jesus at the passover meal before he was crucified or whether the passover was after he was dead and buried?
And who believed the human species began with a single man and woman in a magic garden created along with the whole universe in 6 days…. Nobody pretends to have absolute truth. You pretend that you have it. If you knew you had it, you could prove it. First the clown needs to define what he means by the term.
Handy when the goalposts need shifting later on. Thankfully we are not able to choose God but he chooses us. His Spirit gives life to the spiritually dead and it blows where it will. But if you have been blessed to hear the Gospel he will turn none away that respond, turn from their ways and trust in him. I know. Where do we go from here? And the person I say it to genuinely believes that the only reason I would say it is if I were a zombie or being deceived by zombies. A person who believe in zombies is proof of zombies. Who would believe such a thing unless their brain had been eaten?
He could be fed by the animals and angels and debate the serpent into submission with trite aphorisms. How can you not judge an omnipotent potter negatively when he blames the pot for how he made it and is willing to punish it forever? We can second guess and judge God all day long. We are talking about the eternal and omnipotent Creator. It is pots judging the potter for judging the pots. The latter part is the silly part.
But the silliest part is believing there is anybody being judged. I cannot make you see what you refuse to see, Greg, but I thank you for the conversation. You seem sincere. Good night. We inherently know that the Code of Hammurabi is true…. When God is just, he is not merciful. When God is merciful, he is not just. The concepts conflict like a married bachelor. According to your propaganda your god is a sadistic, narcissistic bully with the emotional maturity of a spoiled six year old.
He kills people just because he can. He orders genocide and sexual slavery. He condones rape and chattel slavery. How can a figment of the imagination be a source for anything? You have to provide evidence that your god exists before you can claim attributes for it.
Without God there is no basis for absolute morals, e. People knew horses were faster than people without knowing the speed of light. The thing that gets me is the desperation for absolutes, in terms of truth, knowledge or morality. There seems to be almost a sense of terror with some people that such things may not exist or that we do not have access to them.
My source of moral truth is my own subjective opinion. I think killing people on a whim is immoral, your god does it repeatedly. Therefore, according to my opinion, your god is immoral. So get started on the evidence, god boy. Well, there it is—subjective morality. No reason to continue. I mean, how many of the absolute YahwehJesus truths opinions, do anyone really give a shite about in this day and age?
I disagree with Michael Neville in that I think that we our morality is inter-subjectively agreed. One would need to ask those whose expertise is meta-ethics whether such a justification is possible. I have constantly asked those who make the claim to give an example and justification and never had a response. So, give us an example of something that is objectively moral, tell us why it is objectively moral and how you know that it is. Why would I bother?