They Are Going After The Churches:

[seer]

Prove it is circular using an actual argument.

What? There you go again! This is what I mean - then please make a non-circular for ethics!

What logic? The logic that says:

(1) Eternal conscious torment would not be just as a punishment for someone who had no libertarian free will in what they did.
(2) Justice requires fairness and libertarian free will to make any punishment of past actions logically justifiable.
(3) People have no libertarian free will.
(4) Therefore, eternal conscious torment is as a punishment is illogical.

Logic does not make any such claims, you are just making things up. You are subjectively defining fairness. Not only that you also claimed that Conditional Immortality was unjust, yet you would bring moral judgement against the slaver who also had no control over his actions. So by your definition your own theory is unjust!

What are you talking about? The issue is whether you acknowledge your views are not logically superior to mine. I am going to assume you agree with that given your answer. If I am wrong, please let me know.

And you have yet to show my ethics are circular.

Good grief man then make a non-circular argument for ethics - you couldn't in our last debate! Put up or....

(1) Given the fact that LFW is false an incoherent

We have only 2 options when it comes to moral blame:

(2) There is no moral blame at all
(3) If there is moral blame it at best can be assigned using a practical solution whereby we assign it to people whose desires arose naturally in their brain when it is clear it was not directly caused by another agent or some disease/disorder.

What is there to disagree with?

You know I don't believe that LFW is incoherent, at least no more incoherent than your argument for ethics. But above you said that God would be unjust to assign moral blame to men if their acts were determined, yet that is exactly what you are doing here! A clear double standard...

[Tassman]

Right and if totalitarian rule maintains cohesion, like with the higher primates, then that is a good thing - in your world.

As with all animals we have a purpose-driven life; one of survival and reproduction. There is no universal moral standard upon which to base value judgements.

This makes no sense Tass. How can you even judge that one society is more or less moral than another give your worldview?

That again is silly. Do all secularists agree? Do Communists agree with the Socialists, do Socialists agree with the Anarchists, do Anarchists agree with Fascists? And again, if the community decides what is superior then you have no rational ground to judge a community like Iran or China that holds different values than you. It is just your "opinion" against theirs.

[Tassman]

Except we animals, for most of our history, have maintained cohesion around the concept of a god or gods.

Strange that...

No, just wrong!

[Tassman]

Well Tassman just usually likes to declare that Christian morality doesn't make sense,

No, just that it has no basis in scientific fact.

and offers his own unscientific view of morality as superior.

[Leonhard]

A 'god-did-it' hypothesis is a scientific proposal, and rightfully decried as bad almost all cases, including the explanation for human morality which I think is above the pay-grade of science. Its belongs in the realm of philosophy. There's no problem with admitting this. Most of human knowledge is not gained by science. As useful and accurate as science is within its limited domain, it can't lift the task of explaining anything beyond the subjects and methods it limits itself to. The most obvious limitation is the inability for science to account for itself.

Do you mean to say that we are a social species with cooperative behaviour and we evolved, or that we specifically evolved this behavior because it increased our survivability? The latter proposal is not scientific in the slightest. The former reduces to the simple statement that 'humans evolved'.

[Tassman]

A 'god-did-it' hypothesis is a scientific proposal, and rightfully decried as bad almost all cases, including the explanation for human morality which I think is above the pay-grade of science. Its belongs in the realm of philosophy. There's no problem with admitting this. Most of human knowledge is not gained by science. As useful and accurate as science is within its limited domain, it can't lift the task of explaining anything beyond the subjects and methods it limits itself to. The most obvious limitation is the inability for science to account for itself.

Most knowledge is indeed gained though science. The latter provides the facts upon which philosophical theories are dependent. It is philosophy, not science that must give way if the scientific underpinning of a specific argument is subsequently shown to be wrong.

Do you mean to say that we are a social species with cooperative behaviour and we evolved, or that we specifically evolved this behavior because it increased our survivability? The latter proposal is not scientific in the slightest. The former reduces to the simple statement that 'humans evolved'.

[seer]

Nonsense, I'm speaking of human beings as we known them - with language, writing, art, etc... From the beginning of known recorded history we have religion as a powerful source for cultural cohesion.

[Tassman]

Nonsense, I'm speaking of human beings as we known them - with language, writing, art, etc... From the beginning of known recorded history we have religion as a powerful source for cultural cohesion.

Well "recorded history" only takes us back about 5,000 years, nothing compared to the 200,000 year span of anatomically modern humans. There's no reason to think that early man was very much different from the other primates in terms of belief and behaviour.

[Leonhard]

Most knowledge is indeed gained though science. The latter provides the facts upon which philosophical theories are dependent.

That would depend on what you mean by 'science'. Do you mean any and all empirical inquiries of any kind? Then you've reduced science to something trivial, separate from what's actually going on in peer-reviewed journals, laboratories or field notes.

It is philosophy, not science that must give way if the scientific underpinning of a specific argument is subsequently shown to be wrong.

If a philosophical notion was based on the veracity of certain scientific theorems, and those were disproven I agree. Though the same is true of science. However most philosophical questions are about deeper notion. The whole discussion between you and seer, or you and any Christian is usually not "Did we evolve" its more "What is morality". And you can't scientifically test for morality in any useful sense. And in fact any definition of morality used in and behavioral, social or anthropological studies would itself depend on a philosophical discussion of what morality is.

A scientist is just a certain type of philosopher working within a tightly limited set of methods and inquiries, that are set at understanding nature in a way that amends it to manipulation. Hence the tight connection between science and engineering.

I've yet to see you produce any of this fabled evidence. You seem to take it for granted even though the scientific community seems to be moving to the opposite conclusion from you.

And I'm not sure how your hypothesis is falsifiable. Behavior doesn't fossilize. It seems at best a good decent guess, and at worst a just-so story as Stephen J. Gould called those theories. The idea that evolutionary pressures explain everything about a species is a fallacy called hyper-selectionism.

As an evolutionist I happen to think our social instincts are just what they are mostly because of how parents take care of their children. Its correlated more with nuclear families than with societies. The latter result more from the former. I base this simple on the fact that kin-selection is a mostly dead theory. There's no evidence that the increased survivability of distant relatives (to say nothing of mere friends!) actually translates into genetic selection pressures of any significance.

[seer]

Well "recorded history" only takes us back about 5,000 years, nothing compared to the 200,000 year span of anatomically modern humans. There's no reason to think that early man was very much different from the other primates in terms of belief and behaviour.

Right, but we have no idea how they thought back then. We do know from our present higher primates that the alpha males dominate and control the groups and maintain cohesion often by force.

[The Thinker]

What? There you go again! This is what I mean - then please make a non-circular for ethics!

Are you admitting here that your moral views are no more logically grounded than mine?

Logic does not make any such claims, you are just making things up. You are subjectively defining fairness. Not only that you also claimed that Conditional Immortality was unjust, yet you would bring moral judgement against the slaver who also had no control over his actions. So by your definition your own theory is unjust!

Yes logic does. Otherwise the burden on you is to show how eternal conscious torment makes logical sense given no LFW.

Secondly, having moral judgement given no LFW does not entail eternal conscious torment, so nothing I said is inconsistent.

Good grief man then make a non-circular argument for ethics - you couldn't in our last debate! Put up or....

So do you admit that your moral views are not grounded in anything more logical than mine?

You know I don't believe that LFW is incoherent, at least no more incoherent than your argument for ethics. But above you said that God would be unjust to assign moral blame to men if their acts were determined, yet that is exactly what you are doing here! A clear double standard...

If you think it isn't incoherent, then you need to actually show it isn't. You can believe in square-circles for all I care, that doesn't mean they're coherent. Above I said it would be unjust for god to sentence people to eternal conscious torment given no LFW, not moral blame. Huge difference. You can have a concept of moral blame without physical punishment for past actions. Try to pay attention seer.

[The Thinker]

There is only one God. The rest is a perfectly sensible argument about what God is like.

You can't objectively confirm that. So all I have is many theists claiming their various gods are perfectly just.

Is this meant to be a formal argument? You've put numbers next to the sentences, but they don't seem to connect properly. Most Christians would disagree with (3) but not all, as there's a school of compatibalists who espouse a soft determinism, and from where did you derive (1)? As a Catholic I do disagree with (3).

This is not intended to prove there is no LFW. This is to show given no LFW what entails.

On the contrary, God is not arbitrary. He's the sustainer of being, which is done continuously and consistently. He's the cause of everything with any quality, and purpose down to even anything that has a direction, even that's merely a raindrop falling falling from a cloud towards the ground, up to something as complex as a boy and a girl falling in love with each other. None of these events are arbitrary but fall within a logically ordered universe.

You've just negated the free will you claimed you believed in above. You cannot believe in the Aristotelian principle that "Whatever is changed is changed by another," or, in its more traditional formulation, "Whatever is moved is moved by another," without negating free will since the change in your brain and your consciousness must be changed by something outside of it which you had no control.

Unless God contradicts himself, why would issuing more commands require God to be mutable?

Because most Christians like seer think we've progressed past much of biblical morality, but since he ties what is right and wrong to god's commands, god has not issued new commands that allow this new progressive goodness. He cannot hold both views consistently.

[lilpixieofterror]

Then point to the exact line in your source that says Mosaic law could not under any circumstances allow for a situation where someone can be forced into labor, like being acquired by war, and be eligible to serve for life? Unless you can do that you have no right to call me an incompetent moron. That title belongs to you.

Why did you shift from slavery to 'war slavery'?

LOl. That you think I'm in over my head is hilar...

Yeah I have. The problem is you're a stupid troll that can't refute anything brought forth, so he needs to lie and ignore answers he's already been given because if you repeat a lie long enough and hard enough, others ight start to believe it. Sorry, non-thinker, but repeating that your idiocy was not answered (when it clearly was) will not work around here because I'm not stupid nor are the Christians around here. Please do atheism a favor, shut up and stop embarrassing atheism with your stupidity.

Let me ask you this - what is it that you think I actually believe regarding slavery and the Bible? Tell me what you think I believe.

Are you saying you don't believe that the Bible supports lifelong slavery, as you've been screaming about for the past few weeks, like a banshee? It's not hard to tell you what you want to believe the Bible says, non thinker. You repeat yourself over and over again, while slamming your fist into the table again and again in the sad hopes that others buy into the snake oil that you're telling to sell them. Your points are quite clear and show how big of a fundy atheist moron you truly are. Do you seriously think I don't know what your point is or do you assume everybody is as stupid as you?

My questions are not for all Christi....

And yet:

Then answer them! Stop being a coward and answer them already. The more you wait the more you look like a scared lil coward. You claim these are "easy" to answer, then you don't answer them, like a coward would do.

You can't even stop contradicting yourself, in the same post! Can you please tell me what side of your mouth your speaking out of this time? Am I allowed to not answer questions that don't meet the premise or not? Let me guess, that 'disclaimer' is not what you really believe, but was put in there so you can pretend to be honest and get out of having to deal with answers to your loaded questions, that deal with the premise of the question to begin with? Your dishonesty is showing again, non thinker.

Ignore answers I don't like? Believe me, if you answer every question on that page in the comments section, I will respond to every single one of them.

No you won't because you've shown here that you ignore things you can't refute. Sorry non thinker, but I have a life beyond dealing with you and your rabid fans on your fundy blog. You can answer here or don't bother. I don't care because this is the only place I debate people since my time is very limited. You might have the time to waste, but I don't.

And you can keep claiming I can't figure it out, but in reality your saying that to the make believe atheist in your head.

You keep saying that, but you keep proving that I'm dead right about you and that seems to be what makes you so angry. You're a dishonest fundy atheist, who hates Christians and Christianity, so you play little games with Christians all day where you try to trap less observant Christians, so you can tear down their faith. Why do you keep obsessing over a faith, you don't even believe is true, to start with?

The first 4 questions are things many Christians care about. Who is saying 'emotionally disturbing' means not true? I said no such thing. You are again making up an atheist in your head.

They do? Like who? I don't know very many Christian who think atheist are evil and even than, many may very will think both atheist and Islam sucks and wouldn't want either one of them to be true or are you just doing what you accuse me of doing? Debating Christians that exist in your head?

These questi...

And yet you say, in this very thread:

Then answer them! Stop being a coward and answer them already. The more you wait the more you look like a scared lil coward. You claim these are "easy" to answer, then you don't answer them, like a coward would do.

Which shows you disclaimer is a lie that you posted to make you sound honest vs the dishonest fundy atheist that you truly are. Your hatred, shines though again. Good job contradicting yourself, so please tell me what one of these things are true. The one where you claim Christians don't need to answer ones they disagree with the premise or the one you called e a 'coward' for not answer them in the way you wanted them answered?

I never said god needs a tiny universe to exist, I was merely asking a Christian what justification they have for why god would create a large universe.

What does the size of the universe have to do with the idea that God exist or doesn't exist? You made the claim, not back it up or do you buy into the delusion that 'questions' do not assume a premise?

I never said god will answer every question I want to know, my 7th question is asking a simple question to the Christian about the nature of heaven. If you cannot answer it, say "I can't answer that." Very simple.

Where does the Bible assume God will answer everything you ask him? Likewise, where are you getting this idea that most people seek answers to questions? I know you don't like it when people don't answer your loaded questions, in ways you want to hear, but your question is assuming things. Where is the bases of your assumptions and where do they come from?

The 8th question challenges the common view that morality is grounded in god and asks a very fair question. If you cannot answer it, just say so.

No, it's yet again the same question as your others in which you are assuming that those answering your questions, believe atheist are evil. Can't you ask a question once, without asking it in 5 different ways?

For the 9th que....

In other words, you don't care what the answer is and will keep asking the same question over and over again because you're a dishonest hack that hates Christians/Christianity and will do anything to rob Christians of their faith, even flat out ignoring that your 'question' was already answered, centuries ago, but you don't like the answer you were given so you go and ask somebody else the same question. Yep, the dishonest approach. I see just what your point is, you're a dishonest hack that doesn't care if your 'questions' were answered before or not.

My 10th question touches on a point many Christians actually believe - and it has nothing to do with ath...

In other words, you ask the same question, yet again, another way. Like I said, 6 of your questions are dedicated to the same thing, where you ask the same question, several times over. Only 4 of them cover anything new, 1 of them you knew an answer exist, but pretends the answer didn't exist because you don't like the answer. Yep, you're as dishonest as can be and just keep showing how big of a hack you truly are.

Then answer them! Stop being a coward and answer them already. The more you wait the more you look like a scared lil coward. You claim these are "easy" to answer, then you don't answer them, like a coward would do.

So non thinker, can I not answer the question or not? Do make up your mind on what side of your mouth you're going to talk out of next.

Go ahead and try to seriously answer them in the comments on my blog, you will find some may not be easy to answer. And I will definitely respond to every answer you make.

Sorry non thinker, but I debate here and only here. Don't like my policy, I don't care. I have a life outside of internet debates and getting myself wrapped up with a dishonest hack, like you, is a waste of my time.

I have proven you wrong. Do you maintain that the Mosaic law did not allow for any conditions where someone could be forced into servitude for up to life? Please be clear on this.

Already answered. I keep asking you to tell me why this is objectively wrong and you can't seem to give an answer. Do you think repeating yourself over and over again, will make that disappear into a puff of smoke?

Wait, you mean machines didn't exist in the ANE? Woa. I didn't know that.

To the extent they did today? Nope. While it's cute to watch you warp my view into a new strawman for you to distort, like the dishonest hack you truly are, I am well aware that many of the simple machines date from antiquity my fundy atheist friend.

Your answer is BS on so many levels. So all labl...

My answer is not 'BS' at all, but shows how much of a dishonest hack you truly are and why I should keep laughing at you every time that fat pie hole of yours, opens. See non thinker, men were busy doing things like plowing land, working metal into shapes, or doing other extremely physically demanding work that women are less able to do. Being a lady myself and growing up with my brothers and working in a male dominated career field, I am well aware of the physical differences between men and women. I'm in pretty decent shape, but I can't run a 5 minute mile like some of the guys can. I sure can't dead lift 200lbs. Nor can I knock out 60+ push ups in a minute. I'm well aware that men have a massive physical advantage over women and the reason men were doing the physically hard work while women were not is not because of "WAA! SEXISM!" as you keep screaming, at the top of your lungs, but is simply that it was simpler to have women doing less demanding work and let the men do the more demanding since machinery that made it possible for women to do those things, didn't exist yet. As for you next rant, I love a black/white thinker who seems to think that morality must either be absolute or subjective and can't think beyond those extremes. Sorry non thinker, but the Bible makes it quite clear that morality is all dependent on the situation at hand. Of course, why would you want morality to be in these black and white terms? That's easy, you're a hack that wants to paint Christians into a ridiculous moral position, that can't exist in reality, so you can paint yourself as having a superior position. Too bad so few Christians are morally absolutist, as you try to pretend we all are.

Additionally, where in the bible does it say you can ignore its morality once conditions change? When did slavery, indentured servitude, child marriage, forcing women to do domestic work, and the like, become wrong? What standard do you use to determine when we can say "We don't need this biblical moral anymore"?

It's so cute to watch your black/white fundy brain overloading with having to deal with reality:

1. Where does the Bible say to marry children? Child is a concept that is linked to culture you dumb twit. Many cultures considered people 'adults' when they pass puberty.
2. We've already dealt with the slave issue, you dumb hack. Was it Christians that fought against slavery and made slavery illegal in the west?
3. Where does the Bible 'force' women to do domestic work? Can you actually point out where the Bible specifically says women MUST do domestic work or else?

Your fundy thought process is so cute, when you're over your head, but unable to admit defeat.

This is exactly what I mean by how m...

Too bad that wasn't my argument at all, liar. What my actually actually is is:

1. In the Christian world, the stats of women improved and continues to improve.
2. In the non-Christian world, the status of women hasn't improved and often ends up being way behind the Christian world.
3. Therefore, Christianity 'sexist' charge is dubious, at best.

You left out that middle point, you dishonest hack. No wonder you repeat yourself, you don't even understand what your opponents actually say and argue for or against and leave out critical parts of their arguments.

It doesn't make sense. First you'd have to show that the increase in status of women is due to Christianity specifically, and not something else, like enlightenment progression that is secular.

It's so cute to watch fundy atheist pretending as though the 'enlightenment' is somehow where everything suddenly got better and ignore the centuries that existed before that. Sorry non thinker but many 'enlightenment thinkers' were Christians too you stupid twit. Do keep trying to downplay the Christian rule in the uplifting of women in the west though. Just goes to show that you can't give Christians credit for anything good because your hatred prevents you from doing so.

There is data that the less religious a society becomes, the greater the status of women in them is. The "Christian world" (whatever that is) has many secular people in it.

I love it when the fundy atheist whines about 'assertions' from Christians and goes on to make assertions of their own. You mean like how many 'secular' men peddle the feminist talking points, while coming up with excuses to sleep with lots of women? Yeah because treating women like sex objects is so uplifting to women.

Second, that there were Christians who were in favor of increased women's status does not entail Christianity isn't sexist. We're debating Christianity, not Christians. You would never accept as an argument:

(1) In the Christian world, slavery persisted well into the 19th century.
(2) Therefore Christianity supports slavery.

And such an argument, is merely a strawman of my argument but when you're too stupid to debate your opponents true arguments, making up ones to refute is a nice alternative.

If this is a bad argument, so is yours. What matters is what the Bible says about slavery, not what Christians have done, since Christians can do whatever they want, regardless of what the Bible says.

Too bad that wasn't my argument and you made up one to refute because you were too stupid to refute the one that I actually made. Once a fundy atheist moron, always one, eh non thinker?

Prove it by turning it into a formal logical argument.

Already did above. Your failure above demonstrates that you don't understand what I have actually argued. So cute, to watch you keep failing and pretending that you haven't.

So you know for a fact I have no respect for women? Prove it.

Do you try to have sex with lots of women or not?

Your argument in full makes no difference. It still is: Christian man acts nice to women, therefore Christianity isn't sexist. Do you deny there is anything sexist in the Bible? Is that a claim you could actually defend?

Too bad that isn't my argument either, you stupid hack. My actual augment is:

Christian men treat women with respect because it is in accordance with Christianity and their belief system.

I notice though that you haven't answered the question:

Do you try to have lots of sex, with lots of women, yes or no? Do you think treating women, like objects to sleep with vs people with thoughts and feeling is uplifting to women?

I notice you keep avoiding this, why?

"Dealt with" doesn't according to the Israelites. So the Israelites were able to confront people on their Promised Land who they offered the option of submitting to forced labor (i.e. slavery) in lieu of wholesale slaughter (for the men at least.) With that his objection to Mosaic slavery disappears.

Don't worry, I sent off messages (that you apparently didn't bother to do first) to see what the response is. I'll be waiting for the response back to see just how badly you screwed this one up like you've screwed up the rest of what you've said around here. Should be entertaining.

LOL. Keep telling that to yourself. OK, tell me, could the Israelites force other people into servitude at the threat of death? And could those people serve for life? If no, tell me exactly why this was the case with actual evidence. I'm beginning to suspect you haven't even read your own source since you've been avoiding this so much.

Don't worry, I did what you didn't do and sent off a question, to see what the answer is. While it's cute to watch you pretend that you 'refuted' the source... did you send off that e mail to Glenn Miller and see if he had a response? Did you write JPH (who is an expert on this topic) to see if there is an answer? I've already answered your question, non thinker, now can you give me the objective reason that is wrong. Yes or no?

You really don't know how to argue. Or anything about logic. You asked me to find a reason "that God should have turned the ancient world into the modern world" and I gave you several. This is not a matter of personal "incredibility" - this is a matter of showing how your god is less than perfect because it's actions are substandard even given the nature of the ancient world. Nothing about the way the ancient world was forced god to allow permanent slavery, child marriage, and killing gays. If you think there is a logical reason why it must be this way, go ahead and make a logical argument.

It's so cute to watch you show how above your head you really are and just watch you keep screaming, "WAAA! GOD DOESN'T DO WHAT I WANT TO EXIST!" Sorry non thinker, but is clear that you somehow think that it is the job of God to wipe your behind for you and do everything for you. Just as that video showed, you want a world in which God does everything for you and rids the world of personal responsibility! Yeah, it is just what I said it was and while it's also cute to watch you make fun of me. You are aware that I am dyslexic and it's quite common for dyslexics to mix up words that look the same, right? Notice how incredibility and incredulity end and begin with the same two letters. Gosh, you just can't stop looking like a total jack ass can you (here comes arguments about how God should have 'cured' me of my condition in 3...2...1...)?

Already refuted? Where? I see no refutation. This must be made up like your god. Your link didn't refute slavery. Miller is flat out wrong when he says "The first case is that of war captives in Deut 20. The scenario painted in this chapter is a theoretical one, that apparently never materialized in ancient Israel. It concerns war by Israel against nations NOT within the promised land." The Canaanites are living in the promised land that god says he gave to the Israelites.

It's so cute to watch non-thinker think he has 'refuted' it because he's too stupid to understand what was said. Don't worry, I wrote several people your 'answer' and we'll see what they have to say. Judging by how you hack up my words and arguments to make me say things I never said, I can't wait to see what the response will be.

Right, except your arguments make no sense, but to you they do.

Sure, they make 'no sense' because you dishonestly misrepresented them and ignored critical parts of the argument. Once a dishonest hack, always a dishonest hack, eh non thinker?

Right, so are so sure that the Canaanites do not live in the promised land that god gave to the Israelites? Or that if the Canaanites surrender, they can be forced into servitude? Do you deny this?

Already answered this question, countless times. Do you think in repeating a question that I already answered, you'll get a new answer? It was done, in accordance with the the common practices of the era. Again, the article already dealt with this and beyond not like the answer, do you have an actual argument here or do you think screaming, "WAAAAA!!! FORCED SLAVERY!" Over and over again, makes your ranting my valid? Don't worry, since you were so unwilling to write others and see if your 'arguments' are representing their words correctly, I did it and wrote them myself. I look forward to their responses. Judging by how badly you misrepresenting everything I have said though, I should be in for some great entertainment.

LOL. The whole purpose of this debate is that what seer says there is inconsistent with the view that morality is grounded in an unchanging immutable god's commands!!!!!!!! Wow. Utter stupidity on your behalf. You are merely talking one thing he said and saying that's all he said.

Nope, the debate is actually about how stupid you really are. Both him and I are in full agreement. The problem is, you misrepresent him and his argument because you're either very stupid, a dishonest hack, or both. What is the answer because it took me 2 minutes to find out that seer and I are in full agreement on these points.

And by the way I responded to him here:

Seer's views on this site are clear. He is a divine command theorist who thinks morality is grounded in god's commands and unchanging immutable nature. That is the very thing inconsistent with his other espoused view that morality evolves and progresses - which is the thing you quoted. Jesus H. Christ you are stupid.

Yeah, his views are quite clear. You're an idiot that doesn't understand his views at all, but pretends he does because you're a dishonest hack, a liar, stupid, and has an all consuming hatred of Christianity, that means you can't have Christians having credit for anything good. Once a fundy moron, always a fundy moron? Eh non thinker?

If you read the above of what I wrote you'll see you're retarded.

Actually, you're an even bigger idiot than I thought. You didn't respond to anything you said. You screamed, ranted, and raved, but showed you're just plain stupid and should be laughed at everytime your fat mouth opens.

blah blah blah...

Sorry, got tired of dealing with your ranting and showing how you don't understand what your opponents believe, but keep making up things you want your opponents to believe because you don't care what they believe anyway. You're just debating Christians you've made up and projecting your flaws upon the rest of us.

[seer]

Are you admitting here that your moral views are no more logically grounded than mine?

No Thinker, I'm saying what I have been saying. There is no non-circular argument for ethics. The question of what is right or wrong has to stop somewhere. Either with the individual, or with the culture, or with God.

Yes logic does. Otherwise the burden on you is to show how eternal conscious torment makes logical sense given no LFW.

Again Thinker that is completely subjective. The laws of logic do not define what is just or unjust - YOU do. And that is subjective. It could be that God is just mean - that would not make His acts illogical.

Secondly, having moral judgement given no LFW does not entail eternal conscious torment, so nothing I said is inconsistent.

But you are merely speaking of degrees. I'm sure you would jail the bank robber, even though the bank robber could not help himself. And that is what God would do - remove the criminals from civil society.

So do you admit that your moral views are not grounded in anything more logical than mine?

See above.

If you think it isn't incoherent, then you need to actually show it isn't. You can believe in square-circles for all I care, that doesn't mean they're coherent. Above I said it would be unjust for god to sentence people to eternal conscious torment given no LFW, not moral blame. Huge difference.

Yet I assume that you support putting criminals in prison even though they could not help themselves. And as we discussed in the past, you, we, must use circular logic to even approach reality - as Descartes so clearly demonstrated. Yet on this fundamental level you are will to accept circular reasoning. As you would with any theory of ethics. So spare me the incoherent rant...

You can have a concept of moral blame without physical punishment for past actions. Try to pay attention seer.

I have no idea what this means. If we catch a murderer ten yeas after the fact you would not jail him?

[seer]

Because most Christians like seer think we've progressed past much of biblical morality, but since he ties what is right and wrong to god's commands, god has not issued new commands that allow this new progressive goodness. He cannot hold both views consistently.

That simply does not follow Thinker. I have made it clear that God's moral nature does not change, that there is a teleology for humankind, and that has not changed. That progressing towards that end does not change the character of God. I had some different rules for my son when he was five than when he was sixteen, though many rules remained the same. These progressive rules in no way changed my character, nor did it change the desired end I had for my son - to become a good man.