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

[seer]

Nor are yours. Especially so, given that your religion has killed more than any murderous Maoist.

Were they following the teaching of Christ? Of course not. But the point remains, if moral relativism is true no moral position is more correct than its opposite.

Like I said, that you are not able to understand it, is your personal defect. I only hope you never lose your faith, since that appears the only thing keeping you somewhat moral.

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

[Mountain Man]

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

Are you absolutely sure there is no absolute knowledge?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Unsubstantiated claims like "There is no absolute knowledge."

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

[tabibito]

And if you want to just copypasta, well: https://www.atheistalliance.org/abou...theists-moral/

From a purely academic perspective, it is a surprisingly well reasoned article.

I note however, one particular point that is relevant to God's so called immoral actions in the Old Testament, viz:

when an action affects many people and results in harm to some and benefits to others, it is difficult to determine its moral value. In other cases, the moral value of an action is difficult to determine because its long-term consequences are hard to predict.

I have landed myself in hot water on theological issues in the past, one reason being that I have refused to rewrite the nastier sections dealing with God's actions. That section of your citation reflects the reason that I have advanced for acknowledging the actions, and why they cannot be said to demonstrate inconsistency or immorality on God's part.

[Gondwanaland]

I have to wonder how familiar you really are with the Bible

Literally a semester away from being a pastor, hun.

if you think it is nothing more than "a jumble of bronze age laws".

Or rather, you are blinded by your brainwashing much as the Branch Covidians are by theirs, and cannot see it for what it is. Just repeating and believing what your herdmasters told you.

I sometimes get the impression that you stopped reading at Leviticus. And God breaking his own laws? I'm not sure I even want to get into the confusion of ideas that leads you to that conclusion.

He regularly breaks his own laws. You simply handwave it away, and pretend it's okay.

As for your article, I did read it, and it immediately launched into the "you don't need to believe in God to be moral" song and dance which is an argument Craig never made. On the contrary, an atheist can behave in a way that we have come to recognize as moral, but if there is no objective mortality, then there is nothing virtuous about it, just as it is not lacking in virtue to behave in a way that we have come to recognize as immoral. If morality is subjective, then society is nothing more then "a jumble of contemporary laws" that we have no obligation to observe. This is perfectly consistent with atheism, and in fact is the logical conclusion of your worldview, so I'm not sure why you so strongly object.

So you didn't read it, you just started and then stopped when it said something you didn't like. Gotcha. I've played that game with H_A too many times, not accepting it from you, so, so long.

[Gondwanaland]

Quite an interesting perception, but what makes it Mountain Man's religion?

His adherence to said religion and regular defense of and apologetics for said religion, including many of the nasty parts of it and the Bible.

That would only be a valid observation if Mountain Man subscribed to the same precepts. Or would you consider being yourself classed as one with Maoists a valid criticism? or as one with the Tatars, perhaps?

What makes it any single Maoist's Maoism?

And no, I would not consider myself classed as one with Maoists because I do not Follow any Maoist precepts.Unlike the Christian who follows Christian precepts

[tabibito]

Nor are yours. Especially so, given that your religion has killed more than any murderous Maoist.

Quite an interesting perception, but what makes it Mountain Man's religion? That would only be a valid observation if Mountain Man subscribed to the same precepts. Or would you consider being yourself classed as one with Maoists a valid criticism? or as one with the Tatars, perhaps?

[Mountain Man]

It directly addresses his argument. I never said he argues that atheists can't be moral. Thanks for following that with a direct indication that you did not read the link.


I sneer at the 'laws of God' because they are a jumble of local bronze aged laws created by the society at the time, that people like you revere (but only certain ones - others you discard when they are inconvenient, like when you want to eat bacon, or when you realize that stoning witches and gays would not go over well in the Western world today - we see the opposite of that play out in Africa where such things aren't so looked down on, and Christians do such things) and act as if they are 'moral absolutes', even though they shift wildly throughout the Bible, and your own deity breaks his own laws. That, my dear, is why I 'sneer at the laws of God as recorded in the Bible.

I have to wonder how familiar you really are with the Bible if you think it is nothing more than "a jumble of bronze age laws". I sometimes get the impression that you stopped reading at Leviticus. And God breaking his own laws? I'm not sure I even want to get into the confusion of ideas that leads you to that conclusion.

As for your article, I did read it, and it immediately launched into the "you don't need to believe in God to be moral" song and dance which is an argument Craig never made. On the contrary, an atheist can behave in a way that we have come to recognize as moral, but if there is no objective mortality, then there is nothing virtuous about it, just as it is not lacking in virtue to behave in a way that we have come to recognize as immoral. If morality is subjective, then society is nothing more then "a jumble of contemporary laws" that we have no obligation to observe. This is perfectly consistent with atheism, and in fact is the logical conclusion of your worldview, so I'm not sure why you so strongly object.

[Gondwanaland]

Not ignorance, fact. Your ethical conclusions are no more valid or correct that of the murderous Maoist.

Nor are yours. Especially so, given that your religion has killed more than any murderous Maoist.

He used reason to further his moral ideals, as you used reason to develop your position. So like I said, reason tells us nothing about what is moral or not.

Like I said, that you are not able to understand it, is your personal defect. I only hope you never lose your faith, since that appears the only thing keeping you somewhat moral.

[Gondwanaland]

The very creation points to God, your moral sense points to God, your rational abilities points to God.

There as not creation, my dude. Nothing points to your fantasy. The literal same things are said by Muslims about their own God and are just as convincing (i.e. not at all).

SO again, If you could prove your God exists, that he revealed such a law to man (I sure hope you're not referring to the jumble of contradictory nonsense in the Bible), and that he is moral himself, then we might be able to go down such a line of reasoning. But you, and every other theist, has failed to do so.

[Gondwanaland]

Your link doesn't address Craig's argument, because at no point does he argue that atheists can't be moral. Craig's point is that once objective morality is removed from the equation, then nothing can actually be wrong, and things like empathy, and understanding how your actions can harm others are no longer virtues. You're simply doing what society has taught you to do, but what if you decided to rebel against societal norms and carve a new moral path of maximizing your own wealth and pleasure with no regard for others? If morality is subjective, as you insist, then how could that be wrong?

It directly addresses his argument. I never said he argues that atheists can't be moral. Thanks for following that with a direct indication that you did not read the link.

And I find it curious that you would sneer at the laws of God as recorded in the Bible but apparently have no problem with secular laws against murder or theft. If we follow your argument, we may as well strike all laws from the books, because surely we don't need the government telling us it's wrong to arbitrarily kill our neighbor.

I sneer at the 'laws of God' because they are a jumble of local bronze aged laws created by the society at the time, that people like you revere (but only certain ones - others you discard when they are inconvenient, like when you want to eat bacon, or when you realize that stoning witches and gays would not go over well in the Western world today - we see the opposite of that play out in Africa where such things aren't so looked down on, and Christians do such things) and act as if they are 'moral absolutes', even though they shift wildly throughout the Bible, and your own deity breaks his own laws. That, my dear, is why I 'sneer at the laws of God as recorded in the Bible.

[seer]

Not particularly. That you don't understand how morals develop and think that your deity handed your morals to you, does not make morals developed through reason, biology, and empathy, invalid. Your ignorance does not mean anything.

Not ignorance, fact. Your ethical conclusions are no more valid or correct that of the murderous Maoist. He used reason to further his moral ideals, as you used reason to develop your position. So like I said, reason tells us nothing about what is moral or not.

[seer]

If you could prove your God exists, that he revealed such a law to man (I sure hope you're not referring to the jumble of contradictory nonsense in the Bible), and that he is moral himself, then we might be able to go down such a line of reasoning. But you, and every other theist, has failed to do so.

The very creation points to God, your moral sense points to God, your rational abilities points to God.

[Mountain Man]

I do have a moral foundation. I don't need some deity up in the sky to tell me how to be moral. I, like most everyone on the planet, am capable of empathy, understanding how actions can harm others, etc.. we don't need a book to tell us that. Honestly it's the people that insist that the only way to be moral is to follow the zbible that scare me because that implies that if they lose their faith in said book or deity, they will go on mass raping, stealing, and killing sprees.

Now, I Know reasonably they won't because despite their words, they too are just as capable of moral thought, with or without their religious faith. But the way y'all try to hype it up makes it sound previsely like i described.

And if you want to just copypasta, well: https://www.atheistalliance.org/abou...theists-moral/

Your link doesn't address Craig's argument, because at no point does he argue that atheists can't be moral. Craig's point is that once objective morality is removed from the equation, then nothing can actually be wrong, and things like empathy, and understanding how your actions can harm others are no longer virtues. You're simply doing what society has taught you to do, but what if you decided to rebel against societal norms and carve a new moral path of maximizing your own wealth and pleasure with no regard for others? If morality is subjective, as you insist, then how could that be wrong?

And I find it curious that you would sneer at the laws of God as recorded in the Bible but apparently have no problem with secular laws against murder or theft. If we follow your argument, we may as well strike all laws from the books, because surely we don't need the government telling us it's wrong to arbitrarily kill our neighbor.

[Gondwanaland]

But the murderous Maoists also used reason to implement social cohesion, and did it rather successfully. So reason itself does not tell us what is moral or not.

Given what I just said, reason is a non-starter.

Not particularly. That you don't understand how morals develop and think that your deity handed your morals to you, does not make morals developed through reason, biology, and empathy, invalid. Your ignorance does not mean anything.