₦airaland Forum

Dtruthspeaker:
Isn't this you living in a grave? This is a Change of Post! The issue you raised was that Moral Law Changes which I showed you that it is people who change and not The Law.

So you have gone off point to talk of something else.

Leviticus 25:44-46 is the very definition of slavery.

But to answer just a short and quick one, first change your Bible to KJV

Look what your religion has made you do: Defending to own other human beings as property! Unbelievable!
In medias res:
Nope. Why? Because it says what you want it to say? What was the word used in the original texts? Do you even know?

and see that Leviticus 25 deliberately said "bondsmen and bondsmaid" AND NOT SLAVES.

How convenient/dishonest of you to ignore the bold part and go on a tangent, trying to slap a somewhat "better" label on Slavery.
Firstoff: Even indentured servitude, your and every bad apologists evasion is called, is immoral!
Second: The text says you can buy people and that they are your property. I have bolded the parts in capital letters, because you seemed to "overlook" them. DO YOU THINK BUYING PEOPLE AND OWNING THEM AS YOUR PROPERTY IS MORALLY PERMISSIBLE(in any given context)?

AND BOND ARJSES FROM A CONTRACT ISSUE WHICH IS WHY BONDSMEN IS DEFINED AS

bondsman
/ˈbɒn(d)zmən/

1. a person who stands surety for a bond...

Oh, come on!
Do you really want to pretend you have "overlooked" the "pass them down to your children as property" and "keep them for life" part? Really?

It is an evil man as you already know people are, who will turn a bondsman to the wickedness of a slave

Please elaborate on the difference between someone you can
#1 buy
#2 own as property
#3 for life
#4 pass down to your children as property
As commanded, by your god in Leviticus (and elsewhere), and a slave.

...and i am not even talking how your god provided an inhumane loophole to enslave fellow Israelites too!

Really, please have a look in the mirror, and understand that your religion has made you defend slavery!

Endtimer:
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think it is good planes into buildings.

Quite a non-answer!
Would you hurl planes into buildings, if your god told you so? This is a question about you! Not about your god.
So please dont try the "my god never would" evasion.

I have a set of things that I think are good (getting married, giving to poor people, helping those in need for example).

Ok. Why?

Dtruthspeaker:
Morals do not change. It is the people who change by disobeying the morals as they exercise their power to obey and disobey.

Bet you never heard this statement of Law (Morals)

"A crime does not cease to be a crime simply because it's offenders have increased" eg like the crime of adultery.

Morals do not change.

What large sand dune have you stuck your head in?

Holy shit, go read your Bible. Your god condones slavery. It's in Leviticus!

Leviticus 25:44-46 is the very definition of slavery.

'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, AND THEY WILL BECOME YOUR PROPERTY. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as INHERITED PROPERTY and make them SLAVES FOR LIFE, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Look up the parts I bolded.

So this god doesn't want his special tribe owning other Israelites and making slaves out of them but he's A-OK to enslave everyone else.

The hypocracy of this god getting all pissed about Israelites being slaves in Egypt but is fine if the Israelites enslave others - is not lost on most thinking, discerning people!
Furthermore, the Biblical god slaughters several thousand "first born Egyptian sons" in order to get his favorite people out of Egypt!

Here's an ommipotent all powerful god who you probably believe created the universe and everything in it, but he cannot think of a better way of getting Israelites out of Egypt without mass genocide of innocent Egyptian babies and children!

And you find this moral? You don't think morals have changed in 2000 to 2400 years? International Human Rights organizations would have a few choice words with your Biblical god!!

You need to pull you head out of the damned sand! Geesh!

Endtimer:
This much is self-evident or properly basic. I’ll have to redirect that back to you and ask that you explain how objective morals can exist authoritatively without God.

Morals change from century to century and from culture to culture. Two thousand years ago slavery was a common and normal part of society, so common that it's included in the Bible......yes, that book written by people who claimed to have a direct line of communication with their god.
Stoning adulterous women or disobedient children was considered ok to do. If anyone did this today they'd be convicted of murder or attempted murder and sent to prison. That's because morals have changed and evolved in Western societies.


Muslims STILL stone adulterous women even though they believe in the same Abrahamic god that the Christians and Jews believe in... so that should tell you a little bit about the how flexable morals are and how widely they are interpreted from one culture to another.
If morals are driven exclusivly by Yahweh then he's either an asshole or doesn't exist.
And isn't it curious that every holy book around the world reflects exactly the very morals of the time period and culture in which they are written?

TenQ:
Is your argument that complexity is not relative!?

Research of early earth shows that RNA was simple and not complex. It was very, very, very, very, very simple. Strands of nucleotides that could catalyze themselves and were sucessful and worked. It was a natural process. DNA changed over time. It did not take a god to do this. DNA does this today when it mutates.
When those strands became important there was an advantage in keeping them the same from generation to generation. RNA and DNA became more complex over 3.7 billion years.
Today's DNA has evolved through trial and errors. A god was unnecessary.


The DNA you see today is not what it was billions of years. There were trillions of step taken through natural selection and environmental pressure to get to this point.
The ridiculous part of this thread is that I am not an expert. This is just basic stuff.

Go read a book, my dear!

midnight378:
LOL
No one has to show you that .
"Conscience" is nothing but "learned behaviors", (which as you were told yesterday even by all the major religious groups, is "formed" by environment) and you have no evidence there is anything called "conscience" other than learned behaviors and learned standards .
Can you please take Anthropology 101 and actually learn the BASICS of how cultures teach their children about what are proper behaviors for their members. Can you also describe for us what allowed your god-given consciences to permit child sacrifice in the many cultures that practiced it .
You're not really this stupid are you ?

Tenq can't take Anthropology 101. Tenq is "self educated", meaning Tenq will only read what Tenq has already concluded from the beginning.

midnight378:
highly complex systems have been observed to have evolved, (and replicated) with no designer .
Many highly complex systems, (for example human bodies and their components) have been shown to be very poorly designed .....
Yet another field of your ignorance.

Thank you!

Simplicity is the Hallmark of (good) design.
As someone in the engineering field I am struggling with this every single day!

Tenq is a classic example of being so ignorant, he does not realize how ignorant he is. Worse, he demonstrated unwillingness to learn after he had been corrected about objective/subjective morals.

Tenq is more than ignorant, he is willfully ignorant.

TenQ:
Does the DNA contain data?
Does the DNA contain information?
Does the DNA contain instructions?

If you don't understand the above, where does the information regarding the color of your eyes, hair type and color, etc located. In your spleen!? LOL!

Even though no where have I said the DNA is a code in this thread, but it is.

Intact if you know anything about OOP in computer science you will understand why it is a strong PARALLEL between computer code and the DNA.

No, DNA is NOT a library nor a code and if you think this you have zero scienctific understanding of what you're talking about.
You're trying to argue that "X is too unlikely to have happened therefore therefore goddiddit." Here again, in both the "library" and "code" cases, you're using an analogy to prove something and completely failing because that's not how science works. You MUST use evidence NOT analogy or speculation.

DNA and RNA evolved over billions of years and science can trace it's progression from it's simplest forms to the more complex. It did not spring up fully intact and fully formed.
If you had read my previous post (you seem to skip over my posts all the time or conveniently ignore them) scientists have had antique, simple RNA spontaneously form from the environment and chemicals known to exist in very large quantities during early earth. RNA copies itself.

Yet RNA and DNA did not just get one single chance to form from non living chemistry. It had many billions of chances (perhaps trillions of chances) to form over billions of years.
It was not just a random single chance that did it. It was randomness PLUS natural selection plus enormous amounts of time.

If I rolled some dice 2000 times and all of them came up with the number 7 you would be very skeptical.
But if I rolled the dice 2000 times and the dice came up with the number 7 about 110 times and I set those aside, then returned to the dice and rolled it another 2000 times and got another, say 130 number 7's and set those aside and continued rolling the remaining dice another 2000 times and kept setting aside all the number 7's I get aside, what I'm doing is natural selection plus randomness.
DNA and evolution requires BOTH natural selection and randomness.

Your thinking is that all 2000 dice were rolled at one time and everyone of them come up with the number 7. Since that is impossible you're invoking a god.

You are also dismissing all the junk DNA and mutations, many of which are harmful,
So your god is either too stupid or powerless to fix these problems or your god simply does not exist.

TenQ:
Complexity is relative my dear: I'm surprised you didn't know that!

In my experience, when an apologist talks about complexity they will make sure to never tell atheists how to measure it, or even what dimensions such a measurement would have!
You people always try to be clever by half!

Without that information you clowns are free to claim that X is more complex than Y when their arguments require this, then say Y is more complex then X when that is required.
Thats why you shamelessly dodged my first question about complex design!

You tried to divert to complex SYSTEMS, as if the problem is not the same on every level. Components make a design. Designs make subsystems, subsystems make systems, systems make higher level systems.
On every level its the same problem for you: If "stuff seems to work together" how do you know it was design and didnt work according to the laws of Physics?
Thats by the way sha.

The second BS argument you people love to smuggle in: Its either DESIGN or ACCIDENT.
NO ONE is arguing something is an accident! We are arguing its "according to the laws of physics". Water falling down from the sky and filling an (proverbial) empty puddle is not an accident, its the result of gravity (amongst others) at work.

TenQ:
You should have directed your venom to your fellow atheist who made the claims!

See what Atheism is morphing you into in RED!

No, my dear. You are making the god and intelligent design claim.

Please list the science book you have read. Specifically books written by evolutionary biologists and accredited anthropologists.

TenQ:
So, the environment is intelligent!?

And ants and bees are not intelligent!?

SMH!!

Environmental pressure determines which individual species will succeed and which will not; which will reproduce and which will not and which will survive in a given envrionment and which will die out. As much as 99.9% of all the species that have ever lived on this planet have died out. That's 99.9 PERCENT !!!

The reason all those species do not exist anymore is because the environment changed drastically

The envirionment is not intelligent in and of itself, you fucking idiot.

Jeeeeez! Go read a science book!

TenQ:
Have you ever seen an intelligent communication without an intelligent source?

If you go to the beach and you see written on the sand "TenQ likes Near1", will you conclude that the waves or a crab wrote it ?

Whenever you see systems like a House with functional doors, Windows, kitchen and bedroom, do you think that the storm must have done it!

When you see the DNA (a complex library of data and information), you think this was a random coincidence?

What you are asserting is the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything?

You DO realize that DNA is not a code, don't you? You are trying to use an analogy in an attempt to prove something. You cannot prove something using an analogy. It doesn't work that way.
To take it a step further, you are trying to use philosophy as a premise for your assertions instead of science. That way you don't have to get all tangled up explaining molecular science. Go read a science book. DNA are chemicals and no more a code than fire and gasoline are codes.

Scientists have succeeded having antique RNA form spontaneously from the known chemicals and environment that were present in early earth.
It happened naturally and spontaneously. No god was necessary. Simple antique RNA is an ancient precurser to DNA.

TenQ:
A System is the hallmark of intelligent design.

A complex system or a simple system?

TenQ:
See how when their defences are the disarray they start finding just anything to grapple on like a drowning man.

Mary was so young and she has a Fiancé!?

See how reprobate your heart is:!?

At least it's commendable that you recognize it as a myth!

I like how you skirt around specific problems and sink into nonsensical nebulous posts!

You do realize that what you term as "objective morality" is based on your own judgment and interpretation of the bible or whatever god you believe in. There are thousands of different Christian denominations each interpreting the Bible differently and the objective moralities of one denomination's version of god is a different objective moralities than another denomination's and also different than yours.
There are evangelical denominations who believe in beating children per Deut. 21:18 -21. I know, I had to deal with one of these insane groups.
Other deniminations are horrified by this.

There is no such thing as objective morality when you have a god who hides and relies on biased, flawed human beings writing down what he wants people to do!

TenQ:
Does it matter if a law is Legal rather than moral?
Infraction of God's legal laws is called SIN of which immorality is a subset.


Example is legal age in most western cultures set at 18 years old. Even if it changes to 17 years old, it is still an objective standard for citizens.

A man who had sex with a 17 years 9 months old girl would be attested for rape.

Yet your god impregnates 13 or 14 year old little Mary without her fathers consent!
The age of consent in Hebrew culture 2000 years ago was 12 or sometime after her first period!

She was subject to the rule and legal control of her father which was based on the laws of the Talmud which was based on the laws handed down by their god, the same god you believe in.

According to Christian myth Jesus is the result of impregnating a child which today would be consider statitory rape!
As a secular society we've decided that a 12 year old girl is still a child yet in objective religious standards set up by your god it's perfectly fine to deposit magical sperm in a child.

Tell me again about these objective moral standards!

Morality developes and changes through time and experience. We don't stone children today as is condoned in the bible. Anyone stoning a child today would be in prison!

TenQ:
Cool down and learn!

Logic is a step above experience and experiments.

Logic is very simple
If A>B (Postulate 1)
and
If B>C (Postulate 2)
THEN
C>A (Conclusion)

The conclusion can only be wrong if either of the two postulates are wrong.
From the knowledge, we have are the postulates surrounding infinite regress false?

Until they are PROVEN FALSE, the CONCLUSION is TRUE

You can't beat logic: only if the postulates are wrong can the conclusion be invalidated

Show logically or scientifically that infinite regress of cause and effect is possible?


Time, Space, Matter and all the laws of Physics occured simultaneously at/after big bang.
You know the implication!?

It means that however we try Scientifically, we cannot probe beyond (before) the big bang.

The Uncaused First cause must of course be beyond (before/ the big bang) meaning that He cannot be subject either to the laws of physics nor be of material/matter origin.

The Uncaused First cause is an ENIGMA!

"Until they are PROVEN FALSE, the CONCLUSION is TRUE"

What world do you come from?

A statement has to be proven to be true to have any validity!

Tamaratonye1:
Subjective moralities, plural, can be absolute.

One article defines it thus: "Moral absolutism is the position that there are universal ethical standards that apply to actions regardless of context."

Thus, if a person's subjective view of the rightness or wrongness of an act takes into account the context of the act, it is not absolute. If a subjective view of the rightness or wrongness of an act is true regardless of the context, then that person's subjective morality is absolute.

"Killing is bad" is an example of absolute morality. Killing is bad, no matter what. Now, the reality is that killing in self defense is not all that bad, isnt it?
God proclaiming "Thou shalt not kill" is subjective and absolute morality. Absolute because, see above. Subjective, because of someone proclaiming his personal view to be relevant instead of objective facts.

I am not holding my breath, tho, that Tenq will understand or admit to his mistake.

TenQ:
Is there no UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE of everything that exist?

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/cgi-bin/uy/webpages.cgi?/logicalfallacies/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

Logically, infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible.

When spacetime breaks down at planck-time, all scientific laws break down, space and time are no more and your logic becomes meaningless.
That is (currently) the model best fitting available data (measuring microwave background radiation and brightness of Supernovae).

It has to terminate somewhere and that is the where the Uncaused First Cause of Everything is waiting

Everything has a cause! except *inject your favourite fantasy*

Its called "special pleading", and its a logical fallacy!

But lets grant you for a moment that there WAS a (first) cause, creating everything. Please demonstrate why it has to be all powerful.

I claim it needs to be just powerful enough to create what actually WAS created. I claim that this first cause was NOT able to create anything else than the universe/multiverse we actually live in!
Prove me wrong!

Oh, and you were objectively wrong about objective morals. You know why? Because its a fact that you were wrong (according to the definition of objective morals), and this is not influenced by your opinions, feelings or interpretations, or your gods for that matter!

Near1:
If Christians need god to be good themselves, by all means they should continue believing. If they're so unempathetic that they cannot arrive at things like altruism and sympathy by themselves, but instead need command guidance to tell them how to behave normally, please, let us not disabuse them of their faith.

All the theists here cannot see a way for morality to arise without their own brand of religious faith. Does that speak about human nature, or does that speak about their own baselines?

Yeah, it's like they have no self control and the only thing holding them back from murder, rape and robbery is belief in fairy dust.

Atheistic, secular countries have the lowest crime rates in the world.
Theistic countries have the highest crime rates and often their countries are in constant chaos.
The most religious countries in the world have the most poverty. Atheistic countries have the most social secular programs and the least poverty.

In Finland there are no religious private schools. None.... zip....nada.... All schools are secular public schools and everyone, from the very rich to the poor get the same education. About 62% of the Finish population is atheistic and it has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

From the Federal Brueau of US Prisons, in 2020 there were 139,002 people in federal prisons and 141 of them identified as atheists.
That is 0.1 percent of the federal prison population.

If atheists have no foundation for moral standards then they should be the most represented in prisons and countries with the highest atheist populations should be out murdering each other and eating babies for dinner yet this isn't the case.

TenQ:
As for bestiality, it is highly subjective if you need no permission from an animal to kill and eat it. BTW one of the conditions is that it poses no harm to the society. Would it still be wrong?

Is there no UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE of everything that exist?
You evaded the question:
Logically, infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible. It has to terminate somewhere and that is the where the Uncaused First Cause of Everything is waiting

You are simply starting with another "thing" that needs another first cause to exist!

It has to terminate somewhere and that is the where the Uncaused First Cause of Everything is waiting

Where are the citations to support this statement?
You are simply using wishful thinking and more begging the question. Somehow you've set up your "everything" as extra special because you can't stand the thought that your "everything" isn't all that special. Your god is conveniently unprovable. (So are invisible, magical unicorns) If you were really honest with yourself and with us you'd do what most physicists say, "At this time we do not know". But theists cannot be honest and can't stand the thought that their powerful god isn't automatically the answer to gaps in scientific knowledge!

Therefore, you're bound and determined to shove your god in that gap and claim victory no matter that there is zero evidence for a god!
It's religious hubris!

efficiencie:
Somewhere in this thread I posted this but I'll type it out again: Scientists have found malaria pathogens preserved in drops of amber that are 15 to 40 million years old. Is your intelligent god responsible this?
If so he's the murderer of 2 or more billion people from prehistoric human history to modern times!
Most of the dead are children!

Intelligence breeds intelligence and where there are free moral agents there will be never be a lack of calamities and solutions. I trust you are sensible enough to discern this. People today have created machines that learn and are intelligent. God didn't do that, man did but your post seems to attribute all forms of intelligence to God without acknowledging the reproductive capacity of intelligence.

Prior to the big bang time and space did not exits. No one knows what came before or made the big bang occur and you DO NOT EITHER!
Well, news flash, the James Webb Telescope just destroyed your beloved big bang theory. Some galaxies have been spotted that seemed too old to be real with some dating back to within 200 million light years after the so called big bang. Lol, find another theory.


Putting your god-did-it rubbish into a scientific unknown is the ultimate in self entitlement, privilege and ego.
But it is not self-entitlement or ego when Steve Hawkings claimed that the universe could spontaneously bring itself to existence. Lol. It is amazing how extremely brilliant minds can spout stuff that challenge the basest levels of intuition and commonsense. Imagine getting home and your kid tells you the food you left behind ate itself. Lol. But Steve Hawkings, one of the world's foremost theoretical physicists claims the universe caused itself and folks like you will immediately swallow that piece of crap and use it in arguments. How are you different from the religious folks you so accuse of being self entitled. Scientists say stuff and you swallow it without thought.

It is Christians who believe that something came from nothing!
Wrong! Steve Hawking also believes the same.

Yet if your claim is that everything existing needs a first cause and your god exists then where did your god come from? If your god needs no first cause, why does the universe? Again, you can use religious entitlement but it is a flawed proposal from the get-go.. Yet in a bid to solve an equation that does not yield to algebraic manipulations using numerical approaches or to estimate a ensemble/classifier model you can easily assume initial conditions without questioning the philosophy behind such an approach but you find it impossible assuming an uncaused first cause. Lol. You are entitled to your beliefs though.

You are making the claim of a magical "first cause" though you're giving it the name "intelligence".
It does not matter the name, what matters is....where did your intelligent being come from. You are begging the question once again. You are the one who is claiming something came from nothing, not I. Where did your deity get all the material to make the stars and planets?

The James Webb Telescope just destroyed your beloved big bang theory

No, sweety pie. What has been observerd has NOT destroyed the big bang theory. It has shifted some of the data but the big bang is still intact. The JWTelescope is relaying raw information and is only weeks old.
The information it has not fully been studies or accessed, so untwist your panties and check back in two years!

Prior to the big bang physics, as we know it, does not apply, so again untwist your knotted up panties!

Instead, answer the question.
Why would your "intelligent" omniscient thing, whatever the hell you want to call it, create microscopic malaria pathogens 14 to 40 million years ago before humans evolved knowing full well it would kill 2 billion people or more in the future?
Humans did not cause or create this calamity, nor did they have a choice in the matter, your deity pre-created malaria and murdered billions with the disease. It still kills 440,000 every year despite every human effort to curb the deaths.

Spontaneous abortions naturally happen in unknown pregnancies. This means that most spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) happen even when the woman is not aware she is pregnant. These sponteneous abortions means your god is responsible for naturally aborting millions of fetuses.

Speaking of baby murder and mayhem, your god, whom you claim created the entire universe and everything in it, cannot seem to distinguish the difference between the houses of his favorite tribe from those of Egyptians. He is so befuddled by this problem that he requests blood be smeared on the Jewish houses so his special angel doesn't kill all the wrong babies. It's pathetic that this is the god you hold up as moral.

Let's discuss the mass annihilation and genocide commanded, condoned and assisted by your god.

Deuteronomy 7:2 ...

and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

Deuteronomy 2:34 ...

And the LORD our God delivered him over to us, and we defeated him and his sons and his whole army. At that time we captured all his cities and devoted to destruction the people of every city, including women and children. We left no survivors. We carried off for ourselves only the livestock and the plunder from the cities we captured.…

There are many more genocidal biblical events condoned and assisted by your god but I don't have time to post them all.
Frankly, the biblical deity makes Hitler look like a little girl at a tea party so don't talk to me about your god and morality.

efficiencie:
Someone does the dumping. Intelligence. Someone provides an empty box. Intelligence. Someone tilts the box at a well defined angle. Intelligence. Someone designed the patterned bottom. Intelligence. Your response reeks of intelligence yet in some oddly convoluted manner you believe your response implies that order comes from chaos without the intervention of intelligent agents.

Somewhere in this thread I posted this but I'll type it out again: Scientists have found malaria pathogens preserved in drops of amber that are 15 to 40 million years old. Is your intelligent god responsible this?
If so he's the murderer of 2 or more billion people from prehistoric human history to modern times!
Most of the dead are children!

Prior to the big bang time and space did not exits. No one knows what came before or made the big bang occur and you DO NOT EITHER!
Putting your god-did-it rubbish into a scientific unknown is the ultimate in self entitlement, privilege and ego.

You are also begging the question...where did your god come from? It is Christians who believe that something came from nothing!
Yet if your claim is that everything existing needs a first cause and your god exists then where did your god come from? If your god needs no first cause, why does the universe? Again, you can use religious entitlement but it is a flawed proposal from the get-go..

Endtimer:
Regardless of how many times you claim that sleeping with children isn’t good for society,

Yet your god impregnates a 14 year old virginal girl. And I'm being lenient here. The age of concent in the Hebrew culture 2000 years ago was 12 or 13. The bible is a vile, immoral book that no thinking person should ever hold up as a source of morality!

midnight378:
.....just wondering if there are any recommendations for which theist system any of the pro-religion posters have for me ?
all of you seem to be implying I'm supposed to try to convince myself (dishonestly) that a faith I could never believe in,.... would be best to embrace seriously , and attempt to LIE to myself about . That sounds like a great idea. (LOL). actually many of the major religions have exceptions (for example the Catholics for those who "follow their conscience", as in their system, still also being "saved".

I will be happy to "convert". (LMAO) I am more than happy, to consider any statistically sound study, (and the studies referenced do not say ALL, and are actually not statistically sound, or representative. Should I consider Islam, and turn into a terrorist, or turn into a Christian and organize an Inquisition, and murder/kill people who don't agree with me ? Let me know . which is it, Jesus, Mohammed, or Baal ?

being in a science field , what I need to know is which faith system releases the most beta-endorphins.
please provide a graph and references.......

Morality is objective and subjective according to theists.
It's objective when they're trying to prove that a god exists and subjective when they're defending their gods actions.
Can't really make their minds up. Much like their god.

TenQ:
Discard God, morality becomes subjective and there would be nothing that is wrong.
Bestiality, Necromancers, Cannibalism, Incest etc. You'll be forced to replace God with your government as a standard by which all will live.
I cringe at your offering

Clap for yourself!

You just admitted that you and, according to you, all your "brothers in Christ" will be raping your own children, pets and any animal you happen to find "attractive" and eating your neighbours and coworkers, the moment you decide there is no god!

WE, inferior, immoral atheists, do not look to our government to tell us not to rape our children and eat our parents. WE, inferior, immoral atheists, have our own moral compass, yes, informed by society and by humanity as a whole, but still our own, not IMPOSED upon us by laws and government.
You (and, apparently, all religious people) have no morals of their own and need SOMEONE ELSE to tell you not to rape children and eat other human beings.

Congratulations, you're an outstanding human being. You should be proud of yourself.

TenQ:
Till now, physics is still grappling with what gravity truely is my dear!

Till now, christians are still grappling what god really is!
Are you done with moving goalposts and gish gallopping now?

Your point was about certainty (namely the fallibility of science and thus its inability to detect your god), and i exposed your fallacious thinking about certainty of scientific discoveries.

Can science prove or disprove God!? It's a question you've not answered!

It should be able to provide evidence for a god that interacts with reality.
Got some evidence for your god interacting with reality?
No? Until then, i am going to "choose my belief system of disbelief in your god", as you would put it!

Exactly the point, you don't even know how to distinguish between believing and knowing.

Point, what point? You confused belief with disbelief. This point went completely over your head! What you are doing now, is pretending you never said what you have said!

I can distinguish between believing and knowing, can you?
You cant even distinguish between believing and not-believing, thinking that disbelief is a belief (system)
So, please explain what the difference is between belief and knowledge. I am all ears.

I asked you a simple question:
Do you know or believe in the existence of not of Batman or Superman!

No, you were confused about belief, disbelief and knowledge, by saying

I don't disbelieve in the existence of Superman or Batman.

and now repeating it again (in your confusion)

One choice has to do with certainty and the other has to do with reasonable evidence!

Please enlighten me
But my reading is you are thinking knowledge = certainty and belief = reasonable evidence
And that, my dear, is the confusion i was talking about earlier!

How can "++ism" be a thing?

I didnt bring that nonsense to the table, you did! So please define "spiritism".

Seems you don't know the difference between objective and subjective morality.

Objective morality means ABSOLUTE code of living
Subjective morality is a RELATIVE code of living.

Can you imagine? Thank you for demonstrating that you have no idea of what you are talking about (again). Your gods commandments are not objective, but absolute!
Thats why, uhm, you used the very word in BOLD letters!
Objective morality would be not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Not influenced by feelings of anyone, including your god!

Endtimer:
You missed the point again. I’m not talking about society based on murder. I’m talking about atheists like you saying that we should all do good and one bad egg decides that it is in his best interests to organize large numbers of people to live contrary to whatever social order you want to authoritatively impose.

For instance, you are probably against bestiality and pedophilia. In your hypothetical society someone might decide that he loves children and animals and demands that their relationship be made legal. Regardless of how many times you claim that sleeping with children isn’t good for society, he may remark that good is a social construct or that he cares only for himself rather than society. There is no cohesive ideology to prevent him from carrying out his wishes other than authoritarianism based on what you, his fellow man, thinks is right. I’m only saying that that is a slippery slope to allow any kind of behavior.

In fact, I suspect that the prisons in such a society would be filled with people who dared question other people’s ability to do whatever they please. Filled with the exact kind of person who thinks that we all lose if one guy gets to enjoy his fun with a few toddlers. Filled with people who dare tell others what to do even after breaking free of the oppressive shackles of religion.

And how many societies do you know that have legalised pedophilia (and btw, I'd suggest you thread extremely lightly if you're going to be making this about child abuse. Though you seem exactly the type of nasty creature who'd go this way, just for shock value) because of one "bad egg"?
If anything, it is religion, the claim that you have some sort of divine, larger-than-humans truth that is more likely to make masses of people blindly follow someone, even if it goes against their own moral compasses.

For all your puerile onanism here (seriously, have you tried maybe saying something of substance, instead of drowning us in your I'm-12-and-this-is-smart ejaculate?), YOU are missing the point (well, a whole lot of points, really). This is the whole point of secular (or human, they are the same, as opposed to the often hateful "god-given" edicts of religion) morality.

It is NOT about what one person wants. We HAVE morality because we're a SOCIAL species (capable of empathy) that, for all its selfishness, ultimately cares about the survival of the group. This is literally all it takes.

Of course, judging by the effluvia you've smeared all over this place, if most people were like you, if they needed an external factor to tell them not to sleep with kids and animals, we'd be screwed.

TenQ:
Same with Religion/ Spiritism and Science. It's a parallel world of view which may cross once in a while.

Provide evidence that "Spiritism" is a thing

Discard God, morality becomes subjective and there would be nothing that is wrong.

With god, morality is still subjective, from gods view!
You really dont know the basics my dear.

Bestiality, Necromancers, Cannibalism, Incest etc. You'll be forced to replace God with your government as a standard by which all will live.

So you need a god to keep you from Bestiality and Cannibalism? Hehehehe

By your definition,
Atheism is godlessness!

Duh. It is obvious! You have not said anything profound here.
And you say that as if it was something bad.

It is impossible to lack trust in the integrity of a personality who doesn't exist

God does not exist. Therefore, i do not have any trust in him. Like i dont have trust in anything else that does not exist.
What is so hard about that to understand?
Oh, i see, you need to make mental gymnastics, in order to drag down disbelief to the level to your unfounded belief. If you had any good reasons for your belief, then you would give those reason instead of this mental bend backwards!

In other words, Atheism is a Rejection of an Uncaused First-Cause of Everything! This makes Atheists godless! This covers both Gnostic -Atheists and Agnostic -Atheists.

Yeah, gnostic and agnostic atheists dont believe in your god
Duh!
And water is wet.

Oh, and you present that "uncaused first cause of everything" as if it was real. Got any evidence to support your claim?

TenQ:
Unfortunately, Atheism is a belief system of choosing to disbelief in Deities.

Lean back a minute and re-read what you just wrote.
By your own logic, every disbelief in something is a belief system. LOL

But reading your next paragraph pretty much tells us why you are so confused. You choose to believe and think everyone else does as well, and you are most probably interpreting this "choice" (to not believe) as a belief. You are utterly confused!


[quote]I don't disbelieve in the existence of Superman or Batman. I know both do not exist.[quote]There are two states of belief. Positive (belief) and negative (disbelief). If you dont disbelief in Superman, then you do believe in Superman. Why do you believe in Superman, although you know he does not exist?
Did you "choose" to believe in him contrary to evidence, like in god? *sarcasm off*.

Seriously. You dont know what constitutes a belief, you dont know how to properly arrive at the according states (definitly not by "choosing", and you dont know shit about knowledge.
I recommend you get yourself informed about some basics, before you participate in more advanced discussions!

TenQ:
Unfortunately, Atheism is a belief system of choosing to disbelief in Deities.

How can one believe or Disbelief something you have sufficient evidence for.

I don't disbelieve in the existence of Superman or Batman. I know both do not exist.

The question is:
Do you know if God exists or not!?


Exactly the point!
The OP is using a Strawman here: how can a fallible science prove or disprove the existence of God with certainty?

If science is fallible, then how do you suppose it can prove or disprove the existence of gravity with certainty?
Hint: Your certainty is a strawman!

TenQ:
1. It would be impossible for science to prove or disprove God because the frame of reference or operations are completely different.
2. What would be your gain if a Christian converts to Atheism?
3. You seem to believe in the infallibility of science to your peril. Science is subject to the bias of the interpreter of available data.

Ah yes, your god is conveniently too mysterious for science to detect......but so are invisible leprechauns and mysterious magical fairies!.
You're arguing the classic god of the gaps nonsense. Or the other trope you're presenting; a god that is outside of space and time so science can't detect your god in this mysterious place. Amazingly, I have an invisible magical donut outside of space and time which created your god out of powdered sugar and there is no way you could prove or disprove my assertion.

The bible can be interpreted a hundred-thousand different ways, depending on the readers bias. Religious bias is actually the basis of your beliefs as it is with Hindus and Muslims.
The bible is a book that claims a god exists, it is certainly NOT a book that proves a god exists. It is a tribal book full of ancient unproven myths and old family lore. It's a book that is a product the time period it was written in. Slavery is condoned. Rape is condoned. Stoning adulterous women is condoned. Stoning disobedient children is condoned. This reflects the dreadful morals of the time period 2500 years ago.

Here you are arguing against science but using a computer which was developed using many scientific theories! probably you drive a car which uses numerous scientific theories, you most likely have taken modern medicines, including anti-biotics or vaccines which directly use the germ theory of disease and the theory of evolution. These medicines would not work at all if evolution were not a fact.

Yeah, you don't seem to know how science works, do you?
By the way, nothing you have posted is new. Your arguments are old and tired.

efficiencie:
If we are programmed to be good then there must be a programmer. You may want to say that the programme evolved but that would be you shooting yourself in the foot because that would mean that the programme in humans defining their behavioral patterns is capable of learning. A programme that learns is much more sophisticated than a mere set of instructions that would most certainly necessitate a highly intelligent designer. So you just refuted yourself with this statement.

"If we are programmed to be good then there must be a programmer"

What a load of bunk!
We see morality in humans going back 400,000 years when humans had to cooperate with each other to hunt and gather.
It was a necessary to work together to sustain life and pass on their genes. It was evolution at it's finest. Cooperating became a social norm. When one person depends on another person for survival the tribe also survives and anthropoligists can trace this in human development. This was a moral "order" that showed up during evolutiion and there was no need for a god.

On the other hand, perhaps you can explain to us why your "programmer" created malaria pathogens 15 million years ago (preserved in amber drops) that have killed a few billion people (mostly children) over the course of human history? Do tell!
Explain to me the morality of a god who would do such a horrific thing.


I'll wait.