"I think we should throw those books in a fire"

[Gondwanaland]

And your moral sense is just an accident of birth and time. You are largely parroting what you were brought up to believe. More likely in the Christian influenced West.

Nope. But thanks for tacitly admitting I was right.

[Gondwanaland]

Nonsense, since the Creator had no beginning.

Special pleading.

As far as Occam's Razor, you would have to show that all the things I mentioned did actually come about naturally - and do it with out begging the question.

See above.

[Gondwanaland]

Even you understand the analogies here.

I understand the post-hoc rationalizations Christians try to use, sure.

The sword thing was about self defense, the peace thing between other men and within families is about the fact that our faith may cause division with others (not that we get to attack them). Of course, since you were 'almost' a pastor you already knew this. Don't be disingenuous.

I know the way CHristians try to interpret the verses when they are inconvenient to them, certainly.

So you agree that if moral relativism is true then no moral position is more correct than its opposite?

No.

Really? How is your moral opinion more than preference?

More evidence.

[seer]

Thank you for showing further you are just talking out of your butt. Atheism does not posit a morality, positive nor negative. It is literally the nonbelief in a magical sky daddy. See, this is the problem with discussing morality with extremely brainwashed Christians. You have no inkling of actual morality or how morality develops. You think it is given to you magically by your deity, and have no concept of moral thought.

And your moral sense is just an accident of birth and time. You are largely parroting what you were brought up to believe. More likely in the Christian influenced West.

[seer]

There are many reasons to assume B is more likely than A, one of which is Occam's Razor itself. For A, you need to further come up with an explanation of what or who created the Creator. You're simply shoving the 'problem' back with supernatural explanation, which then itself needs an explanation, which then itself needs explanation, etc.. All of this without a single shred of evidence that such a creator exists.

Nonsense, since the Creator had no beginning. As far as Occam's Razor, you would have to show that all the things I mentioned did actually come about naturally - and do it with out begging the question.

[seer]

Certainly. Because anyone following the Bible can pick and choose verses that support their viewpoints. An easy couple examples at the top of my head: Jesus said he came not to bring peace but a sword. He told his disciples to arm themselves with swords. He said he came to set son against father, mother in law against daughter in law, daughter against mother, man against household. Etc. etc. Etc.. You can toss a dart at a Bible with its pages being turned and more likely than not come up with something to justify such things.

Even you understand the analogies here. The sword thing was about self defense, the peace thing between other men and within families is about the fact that our faith may cause division with others (not that we get to attack them). Of course, since you were 'almost' a pastor you already knew this. Don't be disingenuous.

See above. Christian morality is no more or less morally relative than my morals or Islamic morals, or Buddhist morals, etc..

So you agree that if moral relativism is true then no moral position is more correct than its opposite?

Thank you for continuing to show your ignorance of morality.

Really? How is your moral opinion more than preference?

[Gondwanaland]

Amen and amen...

Thank you for showing further you are just talking out of your butt. Atheism does not posit a morality, positive nor negative. It is literally the nonbelief in a magical sky daddy. See, this is the problem with discussing morality with extremely brainwashed Christians. You have no inkling of actual morality or how morality develops. You think it is given to you magically by your deity, and have no concept of moral thought.

[Gondwanaland]

Well the Muslims borrowed heavily from the Jewish and Christian traditions. But it is not fantasy, it is an inference to the best explanation.

And Christians borrowed heavily from Jews and Romans. And Jews borrowed heavily from Babylonian traditions as well as their fellow Canaanite tribes. And Babylonians borrowed heavily from prior civilizations (various Sumerian civilizations IIRC). Etc. Etc. Etc.

I see no rational reason to assume that B is more plausible than A, especially in light of the fact that you have these forces of nature creating things that are completely opposite and foreign to their inherent nature.

There are many reasons to assume B is more likely than A, one of which is Occam's Razor itself. For A, you need to further come up with an explanation of what or who created the Creator. You're simply shoving the 'problem' back with supernatural explanation, which then itself needs an explanation, which then itself needs explanation, etc.. All of this without a single shred of evidence that such a creator exists.

In addition, if you posit such an intelligent creator, you need to explain why they created things that indicate incredibly unintelligent design.

All of these are very strong reasons to reject A in favor of B.

[Gondwanaland]

A semester away from being a pastor, huh? Given your ignorance of Christianity and the Bible, that doesn't really say much for the school you were attending.

Disagreeing with your particular beliefs and faith wrt verses =/= ignorance of Christianity and the Bible. The reason you get so upset when I bring things up wrt the Bible is because somewhere in you, you realize I'm right and that you're fooling yourself

I also can't help but notice that you have, once again, failed to address my argument and are instead relying on a link to an article to do your arguing for you, an article which doesn't do anything to refute the arguments I have presented. On the contrary, I have already conceded that it is possible for atheists to behave in a manner that could be considered moral. The problem for you, however, is thinking that there is any virtue in doing so when your worldview demands that morality is subjective. What if someone decides that the greatest good is to enrich himself with no regard for the welfare of others? If atheism is true, then you must necessarily accept that as a morally valid way to live, and yet you don't -- for instance, you place great value on empathy -- because contrary to atheism, you instinctively recognize certain behaviors as objectively immoral. You do what every atheist is forced to do: you loudly proclaim that morality is subjective while quietly borrowing Christian ethics to paper over the cracks in your own moral philosophy. And like many atheists, I'm not sure you're even aware that you're doing it.

Atheism isn't about morality. Right there you reveal you are talking right out of your behind.

Again, you didn't read the article in full, and made a kneejerk reaction, and now continue to show you didn't read the full article. I don't have to borrow from Christian ethics for anything, my dear. Nor do I. Christian ethics are filled with horrendous things that have brought great horrors to this world.

[Gondwanaland]

Those who believe they have absolute knowledge feel themselves free to destroy anything that contravenes their belief, and they invariably do precisely that.

People who purport to have absolute knowledge tend to be the same that will use that claim to justify horrendous things.

[Gondwanaland]

Were they following the teaching of Christ?

Certainly. Because anyone following the Bible can pick and choose verses that support their viewpoints. An easy couple examples at the top of my head: Jesus said he came not to bring peace but a sword. He told his disciples to arm themselves with swords. He said he came to set son against father, mother in law against daughter in law, daughter against mother, man against household. Etc. etc. Etc.. You can toss a dart at a Bible with its pages being turned and more likely than not come up with something to justify such things.

Of course not. But the point remains, if moral relativism is true no moral position is more correct than its opposite.

See above. Christian morality is no more or less morally relative than my morals or Islamic morals, or Buddhist morals, etc..

Why would that bother you? There are no universal moral wrongs in your world. Just preferences.

Thank you for continuing to show your ignorance of morality.

[Mountain Man]

You had better discuss that with Mountain Man he seems to consider that absolute knowledge is not attainable.

That's not what Mountain Man said. Not even close. I have only pointed out that your repeated declarations that absolute knowledge does not exist is self-contradictory because it is an absolute statement.

[seer]

You had better discuss that with Mountain Man he seems to consider that absolute knowledge is not attainable.

Good grief woman, that was not the point! Which was that the belief in absolute knowledge does not necessarily lead to negative consequences It could have positive effects - it all depends on the context.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That is just stupid. If one believed that she had absolute knowledge that all human beings have genuine value and worth it is unlikely that they would indiscriminately harm others. It is not the absolute knowledge per se, but the content of that knowledge.

You had better discuss that with Mountain Man he seems to consider that absolute knowledge is not attainable.

[seer]

...for instance, you place great value on empathy -- because contrary to atheism, you instinctively recognize certain behaviors as objectively immoral. You do what every atheist is forced to do: you loudly proclaim that morality is subjective while quietly borrowing Christian ethics to paper over the cracks in your own moral philosophy. And like many atheists, I'm not sure you're even aware that you're doing it.

Amen and amen...