₦airaland Forum

jayriginal:
Your eyes are working just fine.

It's a wonder CG even continued with the explanations. I guess she has too much faith in humanity to believe that humans can actually be that dense.

This is probably true

lepasharon:
The krishna God is female?

Male, but has male and female forms, according to the choppy amount of research I've done on Hinduism.

technophile:
Hahahah!! you made me laff bro... lol!!!
I told you the Christian God is the Alpha and the Omega, and you're still telling me that 1 krishna has been around since something BC.
and do you want to know what AD mean, it meant After Death of christ. so how can Jesus Christ be born on 300 AD??

I told you the Christian God is the Alpha and the Omega,
A claim that holds no weight until evidence is provided.

and you're still telling me that 1 krishna has been around since something BC.
A fact. Also, it is speculated by some that Christianity is a copycat religion from Hinduism. Krishna & Jesus share many similarities.

and do you want to know what AD mean, it meant After Death of christ. so how can Jesus Christ be born on 300 AD??
I apologize, I mistakenly quoted the year Christianity was officially accepted as a state religion. But Krishna still came first by 1000+ years.

technophile:
Listen to me bro. God is real, and you don't need your bible to tell you before you know and believe, also if you said that the Alpha and the Omega is not worthy to be worshiped, then who is?

Why not Krishna?
https://sim03.in.com/366f08fd86f512e061c76efee7ef6d9a_ft_xl.jpg

The Supreme Being Krishna has been around longer. Since around 1000 BC. Whereas Christian God only showed up around 300 AD. Personally, I would choose Krishna, since Krishna has over a thousand years more experience than Christian God.

OP you hit the nail on the head. Not only is it a scam but it is a cruel manipulation of weak minds.

ogechieku:
I am really geting disappointed in every one of your responses. I cant believe that a scientist, a highly trained person in field of science couldnt be far better than a lady who does not have high sch certificate. Your responses are not scientific in any and alway sound like someone who lacks home training. Anyway, anyone that leaves Nigeria to that place you are becomes rude and uncultured. Many of my questions are scietific but none of your responses is scietific. If you cant be scietific and polite let stop here.

I simply stated the truth. You are convinced that the spreading of scientific knowledge is brainwashing. I responded that such an idea could only be the result of a religiously indoctrinated mind. Is that a lie? Is that even an insult if I am merely stating the truth?

Also, what about anything I posted suggested to you that I did not go to highschool? That doesn't even make sense considering that I am the one trying to explain to YOU information that you do not know and are convinced is evil. That makes me the uneducated one? Please, I really want to understand what logic process you used to conclude that because I am genuinely confused by this assertion.

I am also interested in knowing which answers I have given so far have been unscientific, because I can not recall posting anything that can not be verified easily as indeed scientific. Please show me my unscientific claims so that I can apologize for them.

Also, watch the video and tell me where in the contents you see any brainwashing. You can even post the time stamps.

theEYe21:
The things i learnt about evolution is that, life has been evolving for billions of years, climate change is natural and the extinction of species is also natural since billions of years. 150 species are being extinct everyday and also evolving, only human activities speeds up the process.

That is correct

Climate change and extinctions have occured throughout Earth's history. But never at this speed or due to unnatural causes like human industrialization.

There are many resilient species that will still survive & evolve despite climate change. But we humans may not be as lucky.

Tellemall:
So I'm not the only one who noticed.

She looks down too much, and so she's bound to hit her head.

Age doesn't equate stup.idity. As a teen she needs to check herselfherself because education isn't intelligence and even the people that she thinks are less than she is actually have higher IQs than she does. I keep emphasizing that because education cannot be brightness. There's a difference between a science student spouting science and a science student trying to spout art and design.

My experience with the shallow bigot is that she's got a lot of baggage. And lacks intelligence. And will come crying in here very soon. And will try to waste your time on her.

Show me where I ever said I was smarter than you? Show me where I ever called you unintelligent or an idiot? Show me where I even made any claims about my intelligence or IQ? Pointless, distracting victimization and neither of us are getting anywhere in this discussion because of it.

Ignorance is NOT the same as unintelligence and I have made this clear in a previous thread. Ignorance is simply not knowing certain information, which is a state anyone can be in. If you have not learned something before, you can still learn it. Doesn't mean you are stupid or slow and I never suggested that. Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of or insulted by IF one is willing to learn the information they are lacking.

My problem with you is that you have not shown any willingness at all to learn the information you yourself have been asking for, and have shown by your comments that you do not understand. How hard is it to watch a 6 minute video clip? You insist that no atheist has any reason to believe that the universe, the earth, and all the animals on it, were the natural work of natural processes rather than the creation of a supernatural entity. I bring resources that provide exactly those answers, and you ignore them and act like I am somehow being cocky, shallow, and bigoted for providing informations YOU ASKED FOR.

To me all it looks like, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that you are for some reason avoiding looking at the resources I posted, & insistent on attacking my character instead. And that is what is frustrating; it would be frustrating to anyone.

What was the point of this thread exactly? Why are you bashing atheists for not giving you the science education you should already have, and that is very difficult to present thoroughly with just a few online exchanges. Yet when we ATTEMPT to give at least a small, easily digestible amount of 100% verified information that all children in developed countries are already learning in their science classes. And what do you do with the information? You ignore it and call it a scam. WITHOUT EVEN ONE ATTEMPT TO UNDERSTAND. Where can any of us go from there? What are we supposed to do for you at that point?

It is clear that any argument here is pointless. These people have shown they are not willing to be reasonable, no amount of evidence can sway them. Instead they will do whatever they can to deflect any evidence provided, and then turn the argument into personal attacks and pretend victimization. All the while still providing no valid evidence for their side, yet pretending they are still somehow correct. (And by the way, even if all the science I posted was completely unsupported bullsh*t, the "God" or specifically the God of Abraham would still not be proven. That claim would still require legitimate evidence of its own merit, for which, no surprise, has not been presented. All I've seen so far are arguments from ignorance. "I don't know how it works so therefore GOD. And specifically my God, not Krishna or any of the thousands of others, for more reasons I haven't proven." )

Arguing with an ignorant person who is determined to stay that way is like attempting to play chess with a pigeon. Play all your pieces right and they will get on top of the board, knock all the pieces off, then strut around proudly as if they won.

Tellemall:
I'm sorry, but you're so "smart" and "educated" that I don't really read anything you say. I simply quote you and say what I want to say.

You told me I was uneducated etc, so why do you constantly follow my posts? Why are you still so sore? Why don't you follow smart atheists about? In line with your assumptions about me , I'm not obliged to pay you any heed.

Makes exaggerated self-victimizing claims to once again avoid acknowledging the evidence that has been presented to her multiple times now.

It's obvious you have no interest in learning anything. What's the point of claiming no one brings evidence, and then ignoring it any time they do? Then crying that someone is bullying you because you refuse to educate yourself, something you yourself have proven. Stop wasting people's time.

bxcode:
Seriously? Oh my word!
How can you believe succinctly what they told you happened billions of years ago without involving faith? Is there any of these observable evidence that you can point to today since scientific facts are based on test and observation.
Anyway, I respect what you believe in. Hope your day was nice.

Who said anything about belief? That is your turf. When there is evidence involved, the only options are to accept, or reject the evidence. You are rejecting it on the basis of religious indoctrination. I am accepting it, on the basis that it makes sense.

Cut the pretentious act as if you even clicked a single one of the links. You clearly watched none of the videos, because they each give multiple pieces of evidence, ranging from DNA sequences, microwaves detected by satellite, the composition of faraway stars, fossils, antibiotic resistance, the fruits of artificial selection, etc. Proving exactly what I said earlier, you will ignore any evidence I, or anyone else posts because you do not want to see it. You are committed to defending your religion regardless to what information is given to you. And since you have made that clear, there is no discussion to even be had here. You are wasting everyone's time and your own.

KingEbukasBlog:
At least an atheist agrees that she employs psychological projection . She is obviously ignorant and deluded but attribute such to the theist

No, the description applies to you, not me. You are the one who clearly appears to be projecting your flaws onto other people. That is evidenced by your posts, including this one. This response wasn't funny or witty by any stretch and it only makes you look even worse than you looked by originally posting this thread.

Every single post I have seen from you is literal 2nd grade level. Taking what the other person said and reversing it on them, regardless of whether or not doing so makes any sense. Providing only petty, low-blow, personal attack responses void of substance, and dodging all evidence brought your way. Then thinking that you are witty even though everyone else can clearly see you are a fool. It's why I stopped responding to any of your posts for so long and why I will return to ignoring you now. It is pointless and nothing less than frustrating, debating with a person who is so unaware of how ignorant and childish they make themselves appear. If you are not a troll then it boggles my mind that a real adult person thinks the way you do. Truly.

ogechieku:
I thought you said you are educated, I dont have high school certificate believe me, but my common sense is equal to some technically trained people's. Let me repeat some of the things i said in another way and pick one of them for your thesis/assertion. 1) More than a decade ago it was revealed that Nigeria is most religious country in the World 2)After the evolution theory landed in Nigeria, many Nigerian youths started claiming atheists 3) Do you know, the evolution theory is to break down degree at which third world countries believe in God? 4) evolution theory is Mind Control Techniques as it helps in changing peoples' mind from common direction 5) Some young peoples are now claiming to be wiser than everyone around them because of evolutionary theory which makes them believe in no supernatural 6) if there is no supernatural, but common sense tells us that we are inteligently designed, SO,who designed us? sooner the evolutionists will introduce us to our maker if things go as they planned. Common sense?

Only a thoroughly brainwashed mind could interpret mere science education as a mind-control technique. Any person is free to research the evidence backing evolution themselves, no one is holding a gun to anyone's head to accept it. The reason people are accepting it is because it MAKES SENSE when actually studied. Which I am certain you have not spent even 3 minutes doing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg

"Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unpleasant impulses by denying their existence while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude."

Tellemall:
I've asked one of them before and two of them responded saying that such is beyond the realm of science to prove.

Most atheists know facts but keep dragging out their belief in disbelief.

Well, good luck to you if you want to continue with them. This thread is like their paradise. They've had decades of disbelief and need some more. Don't try to stop them. If they need evidence, what happens at the end will be the evidence.

If I recall correctly I posted evidence of the big bang in this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/2947486/why-atheists-attack-mostly-christians/8 and you ignored it. Two very simple to understand, clearly-written out websites, one of them being NASA's original page.

Here is a short animated video explaining big bang that an elementary student could understand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNDGgL73ihY

And a similar one for evolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOfRN0KihOU

Lastly, 7 common myths on evolution debunked (many which most if not all nairaland christians likely hold). including "humans evolved from monkeys", and "evolution is just a theory"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFHOLe29hEk

All of this information, on the big bang and on evolution, is available FREELY on the internet from sources like Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, and basic children's education sites. It is almost overwhelming the vast amount of information there is and how laughably easy it is to find, and from so many well-researched, well-funded, reputable sites and well-known universities. But you will not research it because you don't want to, and even when it is posted easily for you on Nairaland, you ignore it. That is no fault of ours.

Preaching to the Choir. No One Else Will Listen.
"First of all, his defense of the existence of God is nothing more than a "god of the gaps" philosophy, which is shaky at best. For instance, he cannot understand why atheists are silent on the fact that they cannot explain where matter came from. His slogan is "nothing cannot produce something." His conclusion is that for this reason there must be a God. The silence of atheists is supposed to show that since atheists have no good answer as to why there is something rather than nothing, the atheist must be wrong. This cannot be considered good reason, because perhaps it is possible that there will some day be an explanation as to why matter exists that will have purely natural explanations; to use the fact that science has not produced any explanations to this point as evidence for God's existence is to set oneself up for disappointment if those explanations do come forth in the future because that will mean that one no longer has that particular evidence to use. Good evidences of God's existence have to avoid rhetorical questions like, "if God doesn't exist, how do you explain this or that?"

The other thing the author does not even seem to consider is that matter simply exists, and has done so from eternity. In fact, I am sure that is what scientists will claim is the case if they are asked to give a naturalistic explanation of why there is something rather than nothing. I have never found that positing the existence of a supernatural deity explains the question of why there is matter, rather it simply puts the focus somewhere else. Just like one might ask why is there matter rather than no matter, one might ask why there is a God rather than no God. That question is not a bit easier to answer without retreating into agnosticism by saying "I don't know why God exists, he just does." That is exactly what the scientist would say about physical matter, which is why this evidence for God's existence just does not work. It does not solve anything, just diverts one's attention to something else.

The author is also guilty of making appeals to his personal experience and the readers emotions in order to make his case against Sam Harris. I cannot argue with Ravi Zacharias' personal experience, so when he claims that he attempted suicide as a result of his despair over the apparent lack of answers in a world without God I have no choice but to believe him. What his experience does not do is prove that every person in the world must live a life of despair as an atheist simply because Ravi Zacharias did. Basically, what he is asking the reader to do is to look at his despair as indicative of how all atheists really feel, and if an atheist ever claims to have no problems despairing, then that atheist must be lying. It is an absurd double standard. We are to categorically accept the experience of the author, but question anyone else's experience if it is different.

Zacharias also declares that despair and insanity is the "logical conclusion" of atheism, because Friedrich Nietzsche died insane, and apparently Michael Foucault once had some drug induced point of despair and he died of AIDS. This is an absolute scream of Tom Cruise proportions! It totally denigrates those Christians who have at some point had to unfortunate experience to either have a mental illness or die of AIDS. It is absurd to think that mental illness or AIDS is the "logical conclusion" of any worldview. Most atheists have never went insane or acquired AIDS, but we are supposed to ignore that fact and accept that atheism leads to these sorts of things. This is not good reasoning, it is a scare tactic that I am sure most theists would be sickened by.

My last criticism for the purposes of this review, is to point out that Zacharias often critiques what he considers "atheist beliefs" (63) or "atheistic philosophy" (72). This is ridiculous, because anyone who knows anything about atheism realizes that "atheism" is a term that simply denotes one's lack of belief in God. There is literally no such thing as an "atheist belief," because atheism is a lack of belief. The only thing two atheists might share in common is the lack of belief in God. They might have opposite views on everything else. The reason that the author does this is to build up a straw man to tear down. It lumps someone like Antony Flew in the same ranks as Joseph Stalin. If you can convince the reader that the atheist at the university really has the same worldview as Joseph Stalin, then it is easy to convince that person that the atheist is really a terrible, horrible person. It is nothing more than guilt by association.

I find this book repulsive because it tries to prove the existence of God through dishonest means. He blasts Sam Harris for his methods, when in the end Ravi Zacharias' methods are not much better. If God is the epitome of all truth, then there is no reason to resort to inane emotional, ad hominem arguments to prove his existence."

Before anyone wastes their time reading this, in addition to the poster above I found more reviews of the book from purchasers on the Amazon page. This first reviewer (in addition to the one jayriginal posted) read both the original book Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris, and this book, which is an attempted clapback to that one. It includes direct quotes.

Emotional Arguments, Unsubstantiated Claims, and bad science
The forward is by Lee Strobel, author, who writes:
Together with a wave of other books promoting militant atheism, authored by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens and others, these books by Harris have confused spiritual seekers and even rocked the faith of some Christians.
* How are these authors in any way militant? As a result of their writings has anyone been tortured, killed or imprisoned?

Ravi Zacharias' (RZ's) letter opens with an imaginary story of a mother committing suicide because her son recognizes that Christianity is factually false. RZ uses the subject of suicide repeatedly to evoke strong emotions.

Elsewhere within RZ's letter, here are some excerpts (in quotes) I found significant:

"I have always found it fascinating how relativists who say they love the idea of tolerance ultimately reveal themselves to be among the most bigoted."
* 1) an unsubstantiated claim and, 2) not at all accurate in reference to the atheist authors he previously mentioned. Scientists he targets discuss at length moral behavior arising from evolutionary psychology which has shown moral and ethical behavior to be largely fixed rather than relative and is, in fact, highly predictable.

"Academic degree after degree has not removed the haunting specter of the pointlessness of existence in a random universe."
* Much of the universe isn't at all random and much of it we still don't fully understand but invention of a deity won't accomplish anything except console ourselves that a spirit inhabits our gaps in knowledge (Gap Worship). Also, how does RZ know highly trained atheist scientists live pointless lives?

"His America would ban our belief, leaving room only for the sovereignty of his materialistic or matter-driven vision of all human existence."
* This is just inflammatory and dishonest. Harris never advocates banning Christian belief.

"As I read Sam Harris's books, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, I felt as though I was being dragged through a vortex of emotion--from incredulity to outrage to a deep sadness."
* Much of RZ's objections are laced with his emotions that lend nothing to the argument.

"Is it possible, however, that Harris's disrespect is justified because in an atheistic world, love for one's fellow human beings is a foreign concept?"
* Presumptive and emotional

"Contrary to what atheists imply, the dead weight of their beliefs leads to a heartless, pointless, and hollow existence."
* Another unsubstantiated assumption that lends no explanation as to why belief in a deity makes existence more meaningful and why the lack of a deity is a dead weight.

"Atheism Led to My Suicide Attempt"
* RZ must assume that many atheists will attempt suicide because he did.

"Now, after reading the likes of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett in their anti-theistic outbursts, I have concluded that there are big bucks in the atheist racket as well."
* Not even comparable! A handful of atheist authors will make only a tiny fraction of that generated by the Protestant/Catholic religious industry. Most of Dawkins' work is in the field of biology with atheism advocacy as a sideline. Sam Harris is a neuroscientist.

"Big Bang cosmology, along with Einstein's theory of general relativity, implies that there is indeed an "in the beginning.""
* Very simplistic and dated. In the century since Einstein published his theories, physics theory has changed radically. Humans can't easily conceive of existence without a beginning because we lead time-linear, 3-dimensional lives.

"As we know it now, all order did not evolve. Nothing in science supports this contention. Something had to exist as an explanation in itself. Nothing does not produce something--and never has."
* RZ here is way outside his field of expertise which is, after all, divinity. He has a master's degree in divinity. Science shows conclusively that in many cases order evolves out of chaos. Every snowflake self-assembles in beautiful 6-point symmetry out of a chaotic mess of water vapor.

"One would have to conclude that the chance of the random ordering of organic molecules is not essentially different from a big fat zero. Perhaps that's why they call it a singularity, because it is without definition or empirical explanation."
* No, it's a singularity because it proceeds to infinity.

"If life is random, then the inescapable consequence, first and foremost, is that there can be no ultimate meaning and purpose to existence."
* Harris never said that life is random and in fact, in his book "The Moral Landscape", makes a case for limited choice.

"Not only does atheism's worldview lead to the death of meaning; it also leads to the death of moral reasoning."
* Science is all about finding meaning. Moral reasoning is well studied and even predictable.

"Has Harris read about Hitler's own spiritual journey?"
* Hitler was an opportunist who sometimes cited elements of his Christian faith as reason to exterminate Jews.

"What would he say if two hundred years from now someone says that genocide against Christians can be traced back to the anti-Christian writings of Sam Harris?"
* An incendiary statement used to evoke emotion. What about the millions of those stabbed, burned, broken on the wheel, crushed, lashed, hanged, flayed, starved and drowned by Christians through the ages. It's still happening among Christians in Africa.

"there is no logical explanation for how that intuition toward morality could develop from sheer matter and chemistry."
* Correct. It also involved evolution of Homo sapiens.

"Let me put it in philosophical terms:
- Objective moral values exist only if God exists.
- Objective moral values do exist [a point Harris concedes in his letter].
- Therefore God exists."
* This is the old apologetic "argument from morality" for the existence of God. Several scientific fields are currently studying the origins of human and other animal morality and ethics. In fact in Sam Harris' own book, "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values", his goal is to show how moral truth can be backed by "science", or more specifically, empirical knowledge, critical thinking, philosophy, but most controversially, the scientific method.

"Therefore, we must agree with the conclusion that nothing can be intrinsically prescriptively good unless there also exists a God who has fashioned the universe thus."
* This is the old apologetic "argument from degree". About it, Richard Dawkins said, 'That's an argument? You might as well say, people vary in smelliness but we can make the comparison only by reference to a perfect maximum of conceivable smelliness. Therefore there must exist a pre-eminently peerless stinker, and we call him God. Or substitute any dimension of comparison you like, and derive an equally fatuous conclusion.'

"So on his own terms as an atheist, Sam Harris is either engaging in moral reasoning that is only valid if God exists, or he is being irrational in his assertions."
* The old "Moral law requires a Lawgiver" argument.

"Even Richard Dawkins, Harris's hero, admits that science has no methods or authority for deciding what is ethical."
* Not true. In fact, Dawkins dedicates a chapter to it in "The God Delusion".

"Only in Christianity is the privilege given both to believe and to disbelieve without any enforcement."
* Not true. Eternal agony in a fiery hell is the penalty for disbelief and thus belief is rigidly enforced.

"Has he not seen the violence that takes place during trade union strikes in Europe? There were atheists present, you know. Has he not heard of the riots in the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles and in other places? There were atheists present, you know."
* RZ thinks European trade union strikes and the LA riots were atheist riots.

"When I was at Oxford recently, I was told about an article written by Richard Dawkins in which he advocated that any prospective student with a creationist point of view should be refused admittance into Oxford."
* No citation given but even if it's true, so what? Dawkins is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford and thus has the obligation to express an opinion about whether or not a prospective student should be admitted if he advocates fantasy rather than scientific theory.

"The difference between someone who calls himself or herself a Christian and yet kills and slaughters and an atheist who does the same thing is that the Christian is acting in violation of his or her own belief, while the atheist's action is the legitimate outworking of his or her belief."
* The old "No True Scotsman" defense. He: "Ian is a Scotsman." She: "Does he eat haggis?" He: "No." She: "Well no true Scotsman would refuse haggis."

"Today it may be a failing business that is in need of God's intervention. Tomorrow I may want to be healed from cancer. The day after
that, I may even want a loved one to be brought back from the dead."
* So God ignores starving Christian children in Africa but saves his failing business? Also, I'd like to see the resurrection trick.

"Sam Harris betrays a rather amazing prejudice. How he has gotten away with making slanderous statements in his book --accusing Muslim communities of "misogyny, their anti-Semitism, . . . forced marriages, honor killings, punitive gang rapes, and a homicidal loathing of homosexuals"--boggles the mind (see Letter, 84).
* RZ criticizes Harris for this but then a few pages later in his own book writes:
- "Islam is a religion that is academically bankrupt, for it fails to meet the ordinary tests of truth. Those who critique it run the risk of being obliterated."
- "Islam is a religion of power; the Christian faith is one of communion and relationship with the One. Even now, Europe is demonstrating
that its secular worldview--one that Harris applauds --cannot stand against the onslaught of Islam and is already in demise. In the end, America's choice will be between Islam and Jesus Christ."

"Think of a world where there is no ultimate justice! Think of young Seung-Hui Cho, a student at Virginia Tech University, who slaughtered thirty-two students and professors and then shot himself. He has won in a world where there is no ultimate justice. Innocent people have been randomly shot, and their families have no recourse and no closure. Are you at peace with that?"
* The old "Pascal's wager" apology coupled with delight in the eternal burning misery of the mentally ill Seung-Hui Cho.

"The mass murderer at Virginia Tech University used a question mark in reference to his name. The logical outworking of the denial of God is to question the worth of every individual."
* RZ's psychological diagnosis is that Seung-Hui Cho murdered due to atheism. According to his pastor at Centreville Korean Presbyterian Church, Cho was a smart student who understood the Bible. On the other hand an actual psychologist diagnosed Cho with selective mutism.

"I have seen statistics declaring that as many as 40 percent of scientists do believe in God."
* Among members of the National Academy of Sciences, 7.0% expressed personal belief, while 72.2% expressed disbelief and another 20.8% were agnostic concerning the existence of a personal god who answers prayer. (Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998))

"The reason Jesus was silent on the issue of slavery is very simple. He was silent on many issues that the "law" could have addressed
without changing the heart, including the overthrow of Rome--the empire that had enslaved his own beloved Jerusalem and his people."
* This is a cop-out. History might have been much kinder had Jesus simply said, 'Don't have slaves.'

"On their own scientific terms, atheists should know that we do not change people's hearts by mocking them and castigating them."
* But...RZ did this to atheists throughout his letter.

"Science is lame when it comes to moral decisions; it limps as it walks, lacking an absolute moral law for life's purpose."
* Morality as outlined by modern science is far more orderly and kind than that of the Bible or Koran. Modern science doesn't advocate slavery, rape, genocide, infanticide, misogyny, or genital mutilation.

"I must go on to say some important things about Sam Harris's implicit assertion that only religious People have a strong bias against stem cell research and cloning."
* I searched Harris' letter and he didn't mention cloning.

"Einstein also cautioned that God "does not throw dice." Make no mistake about it, Sam Harris is throwing dice, and we are the pawns in
his kind of world."
* RZ took this completely out of context. Einstein was talking about quantum mechanics.

"It boils down to this: for the follower of Jesus Christ, the fact that the universe cannot explain itself, added to the obvious intelligence behind the universe, linked to the historical and experiential verification of what Jesus taught and did, make belief
in him a very rational and existentially fulfilling reality."
* 1) For those who take the time and effort, the universe explains itself very articulately through the language of mathematics. 2) There is no evidence of obvious intelligence behind the universe. 3) The historicity of Jesus is weak and all experiential evidence is based on ungrounded individual testimony.

asalimpo:
You are simply throwing accusations.
A lot of your position and science is conjectures.

"learn how life and nature operate"!
- you said man and nature is ONE!
Then tried to substantiate.
I said, Man is DEPENDENT on Nature.
And that the planet was designed to inhabit man.
Further demonstrating that materiality was created to serve man, not otherwise.

I don't need a bible to take this position.

Brainwashed,indoctrinated? By the bible? Hunh.
You are more brainwashed by false science. Bigbang Evolution is hogwash.

Says person who has likely not read a single book on any of these topics, and has likely only heard twisted, caricatured misinformations from their pastors, of idiotic statements that no scientist has ever claimed, so that their followers can stay ignorant and distrustful of science. You have been decieved. Not a single thing I said was "conjecture", all basic, textbook science that any properly educated person would have already known. But again, you are brainwashed by your religion, you likely know little else, and your education, if you have had any, has failed you.

How can a person who has read on a variety of topics be brainwashed, but a person who has only read one book written 20 centuries ago, and does not even understand basic science, not be brainwashed? How can something be false when it has piles of evidence and research supporting it, but a patched-together collection of ancient stories be completely trustworthy, even though there is no evidence for any of it's claims & plenty of evidence against them? What you just did is called projection, reflecting your own flaws onto others to avoid facing the reality of your situation. I am not moved, because from my position you are very clearly ignorant and lacking knowledge. In a genuinely pitiable way.

Please read a book, and I am serious. Educate yourself. You can start with this free PDF, that discusses much of the science I mentioned in this discussion.


THE NATIONAL ACADEMY'S PRESS: Science, Evolution, and Creationism (2008)

Authors
Committee on Revising Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences; Institute of Medicine; National Academies

Description
How did life evolve on Earth? The answer to this question can help us understand our past and prepare for our future. Although evolution provides credible and reliable answers, polls show that many people turn away from science, seeking other explanations with which they are more comfortable.

http://www.nap.edu/read/11876/chapter/2

ogechieku:
With this your theory we can simply say 1) Advanced countries willingly use evolution theory to misslead third world countries since they know whatever advanced countries bring to them is right 2) Evolution theory targets creationists and creator 3) Theory of evolution is most known scientific theory among the communers 4) Many communers being laymen dont know if evolution theory remains unproved theory or not they just adopted it 5)Many communers accept it, trust it, believe it and see themselves as highly informed persons 6) The evolutionists get rewards and recognations from the theory that misled millions of people 6) It is almost impossible to change those who have believed it, because that is sure knolegde they can be proud of 7) The evolutionists are biased in presentation of evolution theory and other scientific theories 8.) Evolutionists use double standard 9)Evolutionists indiretly claiming to be god 10) Evolutionists using theory as Mind Control Techniques (MCT)...Am I right?

What have you been smoking? From my perspective this all sounds like deluded nonsense, and I mean that in the least insulting way possible. But assuming you are not high...

The theory of evolution was not devised on a whim as a plan to take over the world like religions are (show me anyone who is killing people in the name of evolution?) It was discovered coincidentally as brilliant thinkers were trying to answer questions that arose as they carefully observed nature. Like why there were fossils of animals that don't exist anymore. And why many animals that exist presently have no fossil evidence in lower rock layers (indicating they did not exist in the past). Why organisms are so adapted to the environments they are in, and how those adaptations came about.

Many scientists have presented different ideas throughout history, but evolution is the one that stood the test of time, serious inquiry, and evidence. There is no other theory, no other explanation that thoroughly and reliably answers those questions better than evolution. Every single thing we observe in nature (for those who actually care to observe nature, not just say "god did it" and then turn their attention back to the pastor) is exactly what we would expect to see if evolution was happening, and had been happening for the past 3.6 billion years.

If ANYONE were to present a BETTER answer and provide valid evidence that supports it, THEY WOULD WIN A NOBEL PRIZE. There are literal millions of scientific papers now describing in detail experiments and studies that support evolution. If you have a better answer that explains all of the questions I presented earlier, in addition to many others such as:
- why bacterial colonies cultured for 50,000 generations wind up with completely different trait frequencies than their ancestors
- why we don't find any human fossils in the same level of rock as dinosaur fossils
- why humans and gorillas literally share over 96% of our genetic sequences
- why human beings, as do many other animals, have organs and structures in our morphology that our species no longer uses (called vestigial structures)

If you have an answer that explains ALL of this in vivid detail, GO AND CLAIM YOUR PRIZE. Your answer would completely change the world of science, medicine, and biology as we know it and you would be famous.

Gluthatione:
Kudos but may I ask the evolutionists ,How did first protein d building block of life originate?I guess theory of evolution has no answer to this until then i won't believe this trash called evolution.

Your question is in regards to abiogenesis - a completely different topic than evolution. Evolution describes how the very first primordial life forms on earth over time gave rise to the varied and more complex life forms we see now. Abiogenesis describes the means by which those first, original life forms arose to begin with. And all present evidence points towards abiogenesis having occured by natural means - a result of physical and chemical laws that acted on early earth - not any supernatural "poofing".

But whatever questions remain about abiogenesis do not affect ANY of the facts presented by evolution. Regardless of how the first life forms got here, we still know that once they did, they evolved.

[quote author=asalimpo post=43634325][/quote]So in other words, "I won't consider any of the completely rational things you are saying because I trust my bible more than I trust sense."

It looks like I am done here. There is a wall clouding your reasoning right now and that wall is your religious indoctrination. Because of that wall, you arrongantly refuse to learn about how life and nature actually operate. Because of that wall, what would be seen by a reasonable person as a valid and convincing argument, can not get through to you. You will clearly believe what you have been brainwashed to believe no matter what I present here.

asalimpo:
Save the lesson. Oneness , is a wrong word. We humans, are part material. Part immaterial(soul and spirit). Our material part needs material sustenance. There's the ecosystem balance thing. We need cloths,food,shelter,phones etc.
On the other hand, food doesnt need us, trees dont need us, air (polluted or not doesnt need us),
as a matter of fact,you cant take all the human beings out of the planet and it will do fine. Air wont cry. Water wont die.
But you cant take the planet from man and man will survive. Because, man needs the planet.
Man isnt UNITED with the elements . They dont bond and relate.
Man has to tend the planet and mantain the balance of the system, which he isnt doing well anyway. The planet was made for man but not man for the planet.

Save the lesson.
You need it. I'm sorry but don't pretend you knew even half of that information - this entire comment proves so.

There's the ecosystem balance thing. We need cloths,food,shelter,phones etc.
On the other hand, food doesnt need us, trees dont need us, air (polluted or not doesnt need us),
Trees DO need us, as I mentioned. They intake the carbon dioxide we produce, it's vital to their metabolism. Air and water aren't living so they do not have needs. And phones do not consitute as a biological need.

Man isnt UNITED with the elements . They dont bond and relate.
How can you say this again when I just described precisely how that is so? This shows you did not process or understand what I was saying. Our bodies are carbon, oxygen, calcium, potassium, sulfur etc. There is no human being that is not completely made up of elements - which are constantly being replaced and reacted with elements of other living beings and nonliving materials.

Part immaterial(soul and spirit).
This claim requires proof. Where is it? Because there is plenty of evidence that strongly suggests this is not the case. Souls and spirits are likely nothing more than a product of human imagination. Like gnomes and fairies.

The planet was made for man but not man for the planet.
More claims which no evidence points towards. For example, why do we have dinosaur fossils dating back millions of years, before humans even walked the planet? How is the planet made for us when for over 95% of the earth's existence, we were not present? Were the archaebacteria, dinosaurs, wooly mammoths just warming it up for us?

https://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/media/2011InfoG/Images/30.05.2011/20110528_WOC974_960.jpg

[quote author=asalimpo post=43627299][/quote]When you eat, the food particles are broken down into microscopic molecules that are taken up by your cells to CREATE your body - your skin, hair, organs, fingernails, are all constantly being rebuilt using the atoms in the food you consume (animal, plant); your body is literally made of recycled animals and plants. Likewise the oxygen molecules you breath in physically become a part of the energy-generating machinery in your cells, interacting and combining with the molecules that make up you.

And the waste you produce (carbon dioxide, heat, & digestive waste) go into the environment and fuel the energy-generating machinery of plants and fungi. Also, our bodies (inside and out) are home to trillions of micro-organisms, which feed on our dead skin cells, the food remnants in our guts, and even our sweat and urogenital secretions. In turn they aid our digestion, or help protect us from pathogenic bacteria, so we also benefit from their presence (called a mutualistic relationship). This unique collection of bacteria we all house on and in our bodies is termed "The Human Microbiome." Each of us is a literal biome.

We are inextricably one with nature. Anyone who claims otherwise needs to actually learn about nature.

Image123:
No, the Bible does not promote stonings and rape and hand-chopping. i earlier questioned your ability to read, and i am tempted to question it again. Anyone who has read the Bible knows that there is an Old Testament/Agreement/Covenant, and that there is a New Testament/Agreement/Covenant. Either you were unable to read or the devil is messing with your tenses. Again, i read the Bible everyday. Most of the finest, nicest, loving most gentle and kind relatives you have, friends you know and colleagues you have met are readers of the Bible, many of them ardent and self confessed followers of the Bible. They are not inclined to stone or rape or chop hands. Evidently, the problem is with you and what you read, wake up to reality. My moral reason and that of many good people you have met is rooted and enshrined in the Bible, and in its precepts and commands of love, forgiveness, courteousness, honesty, righteousness, peace and contentment. If you require Bible verses, do not hesitate to ask for them. i know you will not require though, because you know already that i am saying the truth.



It is not about how it appears to me, it is a well known FACT that it is fickle.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
(BBE)Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles without the law have a natural desire to do the things in the law, they are a law to themselves;
Rom 2:15 Because the work of the law is seen in their hearts, their sense of right and wrong giving witness to it, while their minds are at one time judging them and at another giving them approval;

Evidently, you are not saying anything new or strange. We all have God given conscience and common sense. Although we don't all use them equally, just like our brains or muscles are not equally exerted. That is why for instance, we have national legislations and constitutions, so that there can be some form of standards, enforcement and inspection. What is commonsense and moral to you may not be to the next neighbour, creating chaos as we are not all 'evolved' to the same rate and level. Some people still find it moral to practice polygamy, homosexuality, child marriage etc. Some others have 'evolved', but the written laws and Constitution provide the standard and framework we can all live by. That is the same motive of the Bible. It doesn't negate the fact that we all have a God given system in us all.
So, you have no peak or zenith or destination of morality? That is a most confused state. In other words, you do not know where you are going, you're just going with the flow. Then you have no right to accuse others or dictate to others how they should be moral. Someone that does not know the road or the destination cannot be telling others that they are lost. This is common logic, i expect that you get it as you're the one doing the thinking while we do the believing.




This is a repetition. Try and read the Bible or get a complete one to understand its contents, or employ help like us.

What a blatant attempt at a cop-out. The things that God commanded in the Old Testament did not just disappear from history ("history" ) once the New Testament was written. The truth still stands that your God once promoted rapes, slavery, baby-killings, murder of innocents for the crimes of their ancestors (& plenty of other ill justifications) and various other heinous atrocities that would compete with the doings of today's worst terrorists. Yahweh is a murderous psychopath and his morals are not to be trusted.

And you just dug yourself into a logic trap by admitting that Old Testament Law was nullified once the New Testament came along (which is debatable anyway according to Matthew 5:17: "Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose." ). Because that would show that indeed, God's supposed perfect moral standards did change at least once. If it was perfect to begin with then changes would never have needed to be made. God apparently f*cked up the first time around.

Quoting the bible as evidence of truth is meaningless and holds no weight in discussions of this nature. I assumed you would know that. "God given common sense" is inaccurate. "Conscience", or the capacity for compassion and capability for developing a sense of right and wrong (the mental schemas I mentioned earlier), is written into our DNA as homo sapeins. We are herd animals - group functioning is vital to our survival, and so is adaptation to social environments. We NEED moral frameworks for a purpose. That purpose is so that we can live in harmony with our fellow humans and thrive - NOT so some bearded, tyrannical "creator" character in the sky can be pleased with us and not burn us for eternity.

No, morality does not have to have a "zenith" for it to be worthwhile. That is a silly idea. Every progression towards more human peace is valuable. All of these simplistic, black and white goals for human conduct are set up by religion to create a problem and then sell you the "solution". There is NO reason humanity has to be PERFECT. We are entitled to our flaws just like every other living being on this planet. The goal is to work with and improve our flaws, and learn to live and interact in harmony as much as possible as our societies progress. Organized religion does nothing but distract from and hinder that goal.

And don't give me that pretentious crap. I was Christian for most of my life, and finally reading the bible as it is, without rose-colored lenses or deceptive pastors and their "interpretations", is what led to my atheism - as many atheists & agnostics can relate to. Perhaps you should try it.

Image123:
Thanks for employing the quotes. i didn't miss your point as you had none, except you are just bringing up one. The OP's point was that his life is better because "I don’t feel guilty for doing what makes me happy", i referred to that as a case of deadened conscience. You said they were things no one needs to feel guilty for, that's your opinion, which everyone has and is entitled to.
So many thieves and sociopaths do not feel guilty but happy, regardless of religious conditioning. Some people did not feel bad killing twins and witches. It is a pointless case to say "i don't feel guilty, therefore i'm on the right path". Life is more than feelings. The OP missed it on that point, QED.

Every one should know that they are fleeting, subject to change. This is evident from the case of the OP. His opinion CHANGED from being religious to being irreligious.He had reasons for being religious, reasons for being unserious in religion, and new reasons for dropping religion. Who knows, tomorrow, he may have new reasons to be religious again. We cannot base our lives and standards on his fickleness. Now, how do you improve on morality? Where is the goal? How do we know we have arrived? What do you think are the marks and indices to show that we have at last reached the zenith of morality? Or you think we should keep on evolving? Today, action A is right, tomorrow it is wrong, 100 yrs time, it has evolved to right, and on and on, based on collective experiences of humanity and culture. That is a most irrational thing to do in my opinion. BTW, the Bible was not written by savages, that is a very ignorant position to take. Neither does it make anyone savages. The finest men and women i ever met and that you ever met were people who read and obeyed the Bible, from your grannies to your parents to your colleagues at work and school.




That's strange. You consider it okay and the only way we can do it! It is okay for people's morality to be influenced by their own level of empathy and the society and culture they are in, according to you. But you're irked when it is biblical. When morality is influenced by the Bible, you're almost vomiting but you just said it is okay to be influenced. If we are in a biblical society and culture, it is no more okay to you but barbaric and tyrannical. You've got jokes you know? See how unstable your standard is? There is a society and culture that eats strangers, a society and culture that gives out their women as sexual entertainment to visitors, a society and culture that does a lot of what you will consider barbaric to widows, but you consider it OKAY and THE ONLY WAY we can influence or determine morality. Now, if i said Jesus is the ONLY WAY, you would probably have a raised blood pressure, but you think you have a right to tell me the ONLY WAY to morality. i'm not sure if you can see the double standards. i wish you could, but i know unbelievers are content to sit in darkness, but i pray you will see the great Light. You believe morality should keep evolving, in other words morality should keep changing. i'm not arguing the fact that it has been changing, no need to bore me with examples. i'm arguing if it should change. What should make it change. So if in 50years time, it is morally okay for albinos to be killed, so be it, right? Since morality is evolving and influenced by individual empathy and society. If a Society in Asia tends towards communism for instance, it's okay, if they evolve to democracy in 100years, it is okay, in 200years they evolve to monarchy, it is fine and all good. i don't think morality is that fickle and the go the flow kind of thing.
i'm amused at your views about the Bible. Because the millions of readers and followers do not do all the stuff you conjured up there. The sweetest, most forgiving, loving, kind old people, and neighbours and work colleagues i ever met were/are followers and ardent readers of the Bible. They read it every day for many years all through their lives. In fact, they think it a duty, yet i have never seen them malbehaving or misbehaving BECAUSE of the Bible. Don't be delirious, let's talk reality.

When morality is influenced by the Bible, you're almost vomiting but you just said it is okay to be influenced.

Yes, because the bible promotes stonings and rape and hand-chopping. It is based on the viewpoints of men who lived 2,000 years ago and did not have the reasoning we have today. That is the point. If you want to argue that the bible is the ultimate moral code, you have to agree that rape, slavery and stoning is okay because the bible says it's okay. You won't though (unless you really are brainwashed), and that's because of your moral reasoning, derived NOT from the bible, but from life in a modern, non-barbaric society, and your own empathy (if you have any, which from some of your comments I'm not so sure).

No matter how fickle it appears to you, all morals whether you like it or not originated from SOME FORM of human thinking (and so did the god(s) that allegedly determined the various moral codes present in the 4,000+ different religions that have existed). The morals in the bible came from human reasoning, communist morals came from human reasoning, and modern day democracy-based morals came from human reasoning. The changes made over the years are a result of society's development and progress, and evolving viewpoints as a result of that development and progress. Who knows if there is a "peak" of morality, and why does there need to be one? Why can't we just keep getting better and see where it leads us?

If what you insist - that the bible is the ultimate moral code - then none of these changes would have had to have taken place. Everyone in the 21st century would be perfectly happy living by biblical law - where innocent women could be stoned to death for pre-marital sex or burned as witches and people could be kept as slaves. The only reason Christians no longer believe those things are okay or want to include them in their laws, is because of modern, moral reasoning. Not because of the bible. We as human beings actually came to condemn those things as a result of deviating from biblical standards. I don't see how this is hard to understand.

winner01:
cloudgoddess would disagree with you by calling Newton a pseudoscientist. Even though no 'real' scientist has ever observed a set of species changing into another (removing a key word - observation - from the defination of science), she has faith that evolution must be true. She'll solidify her points by citing several instances of adaptation (micro-evolution) - a simple characteristic of a living organism and then pass that off as macro-evolution.

I want to agree with Alvin Toffler who said "The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn"

There is no distinction between microevolution and macroevolution in biology. They are both the exact same process, on different time scales. Evolutionary processes that occur within 100 years will produce much more subtle changes than those that have had 1 million years to occur. There is nothing difficult to understand about this. There is no point where an organism stops evolving because "if it kept going it would become a different 'kind' (which also isn't a real thing in biology, species are organized by taxa which are all interrelated) and that's against the bible". Nature is not bound to the rules of your bible. Mutation, genetic inheritence, and selection do not work that way, and either you know it doesn't and are trolling, or you are genuinely lacking in some vital part of your science education.

In the case of the latter, I can direct you to several biology textbooks so that you can study this topic in further detail. If you don't want to study, and are instead interested in continuing to spread lies and mislead your fellow Nigerians, then stop mentioning me and simply continue your dishonest and/or delusional postings. You can continue on your disturbing quest for deception as the world of actual science continues on without confused ideas like yours having any impact on their research (thank goodness).

Why are you always calling my name in your threads I'm not interested in whatever pathetic pseudoscientific bs you're spreading these days. Quite frankly it's sad to watch, not even amusing anymore. The time you're spending posting this crap you could be ordering a biology textbook and studying. Use your time more wisely.

facheux:
I'll call the waaambulance

Misogynist and you're childish. Must be the Islamic way

Disgusting misogynist bull crap.

Image123:
His deadened conscience nonetheless.

Use the quote icon, it makes reading easier instead of copying and bolding. Congratulations on your ability to read and write BTW, you earlier failed to prove it. When you ignore what i say, you would likely ignore anything that does not tickle your fancy, so why waste my time? PERSONAL is very relevant because everybody has his own logic, reason and opinions for doing things. We cannot base standards on personal and fleeting opinions or reasons. We've seen many good reasons and good motives to do something bad, so reasoning/logic is not king. We've also seen. We've also observed that having the best arguments doesn't exactly make one right, though it may help in courts and talkshows.
By the way, who are thoughtful people with open minds and a minimum amount of empathy? How do we find these people? Is there a device or instrument we can use to detect them? Are you one of them, and what makes you one of them? If i gave you a list of 20 thoughtful people with open minds and a minimum amount of empathy, and you gave me your list of 20 thoughtful people with open minds and a minimum amount of empathy, what would make me righter than you? What would make me wronger than you? A poll, a throw of dice, what? You know for instance that some people consider abortion to be moral, while some do not? And they both have their reasons and logics and school of thoughts. And they both have PhDs and professors, so what exactly makes one side right and the other wrong, you tell me? Do you consider it okay for people's morality to be influenced by their own level of empathy and the society and culture they are in?
i believe that you can read that these are all questions, and if we are going to have a profitable and relevant discussion, you will do well to answer them instead of resorting to infantile frustrations and gnashing of teeth about religion and christianity.



You're yet to make much sense so far, i hope you do. i'm not threatened by your opinions. If you feel your posts are a threat, wait until i bring out real threats from the Bible, lol Then you'll start playing victim
"boring regurgitated rehashed atheist talk"(you do have access to a dictionary,right?) are what they are, boring talk that we have heard over and over. Copy and pasted thoughts that atheists make online which we have dealt with already and it has become BORING. It's not thought provoking, it's just like here we go again. Here comes the new recruit sort of.
i don't really need to "think" in the sense, i need more to believe(as a believer). My job is very easy. You who need to think up something new and germane are bringing up lazy and regurgitated copy and paste opinions of a barbaric, mythical, tyrannical, fabricated Yahweh pursuing you. So, think for yourself bro, think, you have a lot of it to do.

His deadened conscience nonetheless.

So it looks like you missed my point. If his conscience no longer pesters him about things that are not actually morally wrong and are only a result of religious conditioning, then there is nothing wrong with that whatsoever - infact it is a positive thing. What we call the "conscience" isn't some standalone entity that has exactly the same properties for everyone. It's a complex schema in our brains set up starting from birth, that takes information from our environment and experiences, and programs what is "right" and "wrong", from our perspective.

As an indoctrinated child learns from parents and preachers that certain things are "wrong" because God says so (like pre-marital sex), the child's conscience (or "good vs. bad" schema) is altered by that, and feelings of guilt now become associated with sex for him. That is not positive, or healthy, or natural, or a sign of increased morality. That is a misprogramming of guilt imbued by religion. If that "dies" that is a GOOD thing.

This does not mean his ENTIRE conscience is "deadened". It means unnececssary PARTS of that conscience were deconditioned as a result of withdrawing from tyrannical sky-daddy ideals.

PERSONAL is very relevant because everybody has his own logic, reason and opinions for doing things. We cannot base standards on personal and fleeting opinions or reasons. We've seen many good reasons and good motives to do something bad, so reasoning/logic is not king.

Who says they're fleeting? Who says they can't be based on consistencies observed throughout our experiences and the collective experiences of humanity? Who says aspects of morality can't be learned or improved upon? Just because the question of right/wrong can sometimes be tricky does not mean that we need to do away with logic altogether and turn to a 2,000 year old book written by savages instead (which recommends stoning women until their flesh tears apart for an absent hymen on their honeymoon). That is a nonsensical jump to make.

Your point is that the author is claiming to know morality from his own experience alone, and that by default makes it untrustworthy. I am arguing that NO it does not if he came to those conclusions from a sound & observant mind, willingness to learn, and empathy. If his opinions were influenced by POSITIVE, RATIONALLY THINKING sources (because all of our takes on morality are externally influenced in some way, including yours and especially including the bible's), then what is there to disagree with? What is there to distrust?

How do we find these people? Is there a device or instrument we can use to detect them? Are you one of them, and what makes you one of them? If i gave you a list of 20 thoughtful people with open minds and a minimum amount of empathy, and you gave me your list of 20 thoughtful people with open minds and a minimum amount of empathy, what would make me righter than you? What would make me wronger than you? A poll, a throw of dice, what? You know for instance that some people consider abortion to be moral, while some do not? And they both have their reasons and logics and school of thoughts. And they both have PhDs and professors, so what exactly makes one side right and the other wrong, you tell me? Do you consider it okay for people's morality to be influenced by their own level of empathy and the society and culture they are in?

Not only is it okay but it's the only way we can do it, and the only way we've been doing it for all of humankind. Everything you mention is exactly why since the dawn of civilization people's moral codes have been EVOLVING. Changing. Not in the biological sense, but regarding the accumulation of human knowledge & understanding over time, generation after generation. Ideas have been exchanged, civil rights movements have been conducted, ideologies have been proposed and tested and revised. This is why dictatorships and monarchies have been torn down in favor of democracies, and those democracies are still being revised today. Why you no longer see public beheadings in the streets of London and "witch" burnings in U.S. churchyards.

The bible and it's disturbing contents are quite literally towards the very bottom of that evolutionary totem pole. One honest read will show any thinking person that it is the product of un-evolved minds. Stoning people to death, baby killing, chopping off arms for petty theft, rape of helpless women, slavery, murder of "cursed" sons and daughters, silencing of women's free speech, were all seen as morally sound according to your bible. This is a CLEAR sign that the concepts of right and wrong held by the barbarians who wrote it were highly influenced by their time period and geographic location, no longer suitable for the modern day, and that as societies advance (unobstructed by outdated ideologies), so do our moral perceptions.

Image123:
No, about a deadened conscience, he was referring to his deadened conscience. i clearly said that.

i stated PERSONAL logic and you quoted it, except you cannot read and write properly. Everybody has their personal opinions which they call logic. That cannot be a standard. Rationalising your personal opinions and frustrations does not make them a standard. Neither does lazy regurgitations of boring rehashed atheist talk add any value to your post.

No, about a deadened conscience, he was referring to his deadened conscience. i clearly said that.
His "deadened conscience" towards things no one needs to feel guilty for in the first place, and only do so due to biblical brainwashing.

i stated PERSONAL logic and you quoted it, except you cannot read and write properly.
And yet here I am, reading and writing. Would you look at that.

I ignored "personal" because it was irrelevant, and a clear attempt to make it appear as if the author's idea of morality was arbitrary because he used his logic to arrive at it. The logic of thoughtful people with open minds and a minimum amount of empathy (alone or in groups. again, "personal" is irrelevant - rational minds arrive at similar conclusions) is enough to decide what is moral and what is immoral. With or without religious interference people ALREADY have personal standards on morality that are influenced by their own level of empathy and the society and culture they are in. The bible is full of outdated barbaric nonsense, if that's your alternative then it fails, hard. I would quicker trust a sane individual with carefully thought out ideas of what is just (who is willing to revise said ideas as needed), than the ideas of a person who worships a power-hungry, war-loving, genocide-permitting being, and values the standards of that imaginary being more than they value human life.

Neither does lazy regurgitations of boring rehashed atheist talk add any value to your post.
Ahh yes, it's so boring when people make sense and you feel threatened by it. Let me guess, "boring regurgitated rehashed atheist talk" is anything an atheist says that exposes the flaws in your dogmatic views and makes you think too hard? You have yet to make a thought-provoking point that isn't drenched in religious bigotry yet you're the one who's bored... interesting.

My thoughts are lazy and regurgitated, and yours are what... unique and well thought out? Why do I feel like this is a textbook case of psychological projection, lol.

asalimpo:
Sin is imaginary.
Is 9/11 imaginary? Because they're many people hurting as a direct consequence of a sin of another.
Is an aids victims pain imaginary?
When investors suffered loss of their assets because greedy managers played the market and failed
, is their loss imaginary?

These are the cosequences we can see , how much can we not see.
When Abraham had consensual safe sex with hagar (not a sin to you),
did he forsee the consequences?
Boko haram,9/11, the crusades etc. How much damage has that single
act of sin wrought.

The bible says, the wages of sin is death.
The only atonement for sin is shed human blood. Barbaric to you , but that's how the spiritual system works. get it.
If you used the right lens to view the bible and the spiritual framework for things like salvation (from sin),
redemption, life, judgement,justice etc. You'll find out that the bible is sound.
But you want to judge skewedly.

Who told you consensual sin has no effect ? who told you? You just can't see the consequences
. You walk by sight and science so these things are blind to you.

Norway, america etc so called developed nations you talk about are spiralling into putrid depravity.
And not knowing it. Because, of course, its all bout their notions.
In a way, Man is creating his own religion and moral codes.

I've read history books and know a lil about history.
But modern society , so called , is escalating in its degree of depravity.

"Homosexuality is not morally wrong by any moral standard" -
whose moral standard are we judging by and what authority do they have to front those standards?

Is 9/11 imaginary? Because they're many people hurting as a direct consequence of a sin of another.
Is an aids victims pain imaginary?
When investors suffered loss of their assets because greedy managers played the market and failed
, is their loss imaginary?
You conflate sin with moral wrongdoings. They are not the same thing. Sin is a made up concept from the bible & other Abrahamic scriptures. "Sins" are things that make Yahweh mad. The sin concept is not relevant to people who do not believe in Yahweh's existence.

Certainly some things that the bible classifies as sins happen to be moral wrongdoings, like murder (*with exceptions, because according to Yahweh murder is okay sometimes). But many times biblical "sins" have nothing to do with meaningful morals, and are just arbitrary activities that 1st century sex-obsessed control-hungry misogynists decided were displeasing to their made up god. For example, having sex before a ritualistic ceremony (hurts no one if every party is safe and honest, but somehow worthy of stoning if you're a woman), and sex between two consenting adults who happen to have the same genitals (again, not hurting anyone, but worthy of execution according to Yahweh).

Norway, america etc so called developed nations you talk about are spiralling into putrid depravity.
And not knowing it. Because, of course, its all bout their notions.
I've read history books and know a lil about history.
But modern society , so called , is escalating in its degree of depravity.
I don't see how. Every developed country has its problems (because every human has flaws, and maintaining harmony among a large group of people with various and sometimes competing motives is a difficult undertaking). They are working on those problems. But as a whole, developed societies today are doing exponentially better than they were for most of the past. The idea that societies as a whole are getting worse is B.S. propagated to scare people into churches. I encourage you to read a little MORE about world history. Then take a deep breath of gratitude that you weren't living in the 1400's.

In a way, Man is creating his own religion and moral codes.
Like we have been since the dawn of our existence. Christianity is also one of those "created religions". It just happens to be outdated and quite frankly barbaric by modern standards. Our moral codes improve as we advance and improve; the thriving societies that exist today independent of biblical inspiration are evidence of that.

whose moral standard are we judging by and what authority do they have to front those standards?
Our own? Authority is not needed for people to know what is right or wrong - all it requires is empathy. As a part of being human, we are innately capable of figuring out what is hurtful to others and to ourselves.

As I mentioned, stoning innocent women was once acceptable and now it is not, as were other extreme and inhumane punishments. As societies progress, we collectively come to better understand how we can improve well-being and peace for our fellow humans.