3RU7AL

Nah, I don't think there was any agreement or misunderstanding.

The book seeming "muddled and confusing" is only in your mind. To normal, unbiased, non-antitheist people, the bible is the world great work of literature.

The argument that the bible must be taken totally literally hinges on the claim that it is the 100% factually true word of a perfect god.

Then the argument that the bible must be taken totally literally is even more stupid than I thought.

Therefore the reason is always reasonable irrespective of whether or not the reason is considered to be either reasonable or unreasonable.

If you get my drift.

No sir. Your logic is shoddy. Watch.

(EITHER) the bible must be taken totally literally....

Why? The bible contains history. No sane logical person assumes it must be totally figurative

(OR) the bible must be taken totally figuratively

Ditto. The bible contains songs. Who thinks song are always completely literal?

(ELSE) you must provide some rigorous (non-subjective) framework to explain exactly WHEN you believe the bible must be taken literally and when you believe it must be taken figuratively (otherwise your framework is purely subjective and therefore logically incoherent).

Absolute nonsense.

Did Camu give a  framework to explain exactly WHEN he believe his work was to be taken literally and when it was to be taken figuratively?

Did Churchill?

Your expectation is ludicrous.

Even if we do not know which parts of a work are figurative and which parts are literal, it is none-the-less irrational to assume it must be taken all literally OR all figuratively.

..purely subjective and therefore logically incoherent.

Purely subjective does not equal logically incoherent.

...you must provide some rigorous (non-subjective) framework to explain...

No. School is enough. Notice that works of literature don't come with rigorous, non-subjective, frameworks to explain when they are literal and when they are figurative.

This is just an ad hoc illogical burden you slap onto the bible.

Have you read Lord of the Flies? The Old Man and the Sea? The Grapes of Wrath? Did you have a rigorous, non-subjective, framework to explain when they were literal and when they were figurative?

I'm going to guess you can't answer why either.

That was probably the most shameless dodge I've ever seen.

What is your litmus test (Uniform Standard Of Evidence) to determine if "biblical history" is accurate?

The same as for any ancient history book.

The bible contains history. No sane logical person assumes it must be totally figurative

"Guess the Fallacy and What is the most common?"

I just have to ask, knowing that no story truly ends, what happens when the farmer, needing a new, bigger house, because all the kids came back home with their families because they didn't understand the tree, either, and now the farmer needs a bigger house, and that big tree looks like a mighty fine resource of raw material? How quickly can this tree evolve legs?

The bible must either be taken totally literally or totally figuratively.

They never answer why.

Why won't you donate all your money to those poor kids that are starving in that country?

You're so mean and cruel if you don't give away all your money to every homeless person and starving child!

"there is absolutely no evidence for God"

that's my favorite fallacy 

If this is a satire piece preaching left-wing ethos about how ridiculous the 'I worked for what I earn' mantra by born-into-wealth people is, then I applaud it. 

The fable itself is too obviously fraught with unrealism and inaccuracies to be "good advice" or in fact advisory at any level.

Sometimes it is best to simply follow orders, especially when things need to be accomplished in a timely manner.

As does false humility, but false humility is in itself a manifestation of pride.

Rather, that their reasons are illogical.

...so much as I am talking about being rational.

As we live in an age where people's minds have been turned into mush by nihilism and its brother absurdism, reason will become less and less effective as a means of communicating. If there is no absolute truth, reason becomes indistinguishable from rhetoric. It is simply a means to achieve an end. At thisnpoint reason is little more than magic, and it ceases to be reason in any meaningful sense.

You can't reason with someone who is being unreasonable.

Unreasonable people are even unreasonable for a reason!

Wherein lies the authority of the moral agent?

I would suggest that murder maybe illegal, but is not necessarily wrong.

I agree with your conclusion, but not its premise. Murder is wrong because of a rationalization of an axiom of "right to life." It has no intrinsic authority. While I would agree with you that murder is wrong, and this doesn't depend on consensus, that is germane to the consistency of the rationalization, not "authority." Authority is a reflection of the value moral agents place on their moral concepts. Without the moral agent, moral analysis and authority is insignificant.

...in reality, it is consensus that makes the rules authoritative.

The Commentaries were long regarded as the leading work on the development of English law and played a role in the development of the American legal system. They were in fact the first methodical treatise on the common law suitable for a lay readership since at least the Middle Ages. The common law of England has relied on precedent more than statute and codifications and has been far less amenable than the civil law, developed from the Roman law, to the needs of a treatise. The Commentaries were influential largely because they were in fact readable, and because they met a need.

Everyone who desires to participate either conceives a set of rules to mutual agreement, or adopt the ones which naturally come with the game.

Well, you yelled, so you must be right.

Can your moral code give us a moral action that is empirically "bad"?

It isn't so much that it "should be" as much as it is inescapable from personal values. Morals are concepts which establish a condition in which man ought to interact with man. And when one discusses "ought to" it is fundamentally a personal judgement--hence any argument that seeks to establish a standard of general behavior is normative.

God is uncaused and not random.

I can program my computer to flash a light randomly, but the flashes are not uncaused.

As you can see, the word "empirically" refers to the "action", which someone then determines subjectively is bad.

Most of your post ex #44, your have overly sun-dried infantile brain.

...empirically "bad"?

Ok his a mind game for you. .

Before going to bed tonight, denounce your religion. 

Waking up with not a single moral is a rush. 

You then have to start learning things again like Not Eating Kids and stuff. 

If we have to do that to about 10,000 murderers and rapists nationwide, it would cost about $7.3 billion in the first year according to some numbers you generated.  The non-violent immigrants would generate about $2 trillion in sales tax revenue to pay for it and some other things, like paying our debt.

That isn't what it means to be human.

Random would imply a disregard for circumstances in action.

Choice is not random. 

wrong

Just because thoughts may be uncaused by any previous experiences, does not necessarily make them random.

A consistent moral framework incorporates the capacity of each individual to optimally (and there's a reason I continue to use this term) manifest their personal tastes. And the only moral framework I believe does this is Individualism, which is based on the posited axiom of individual sovereignty. That is, I have discretion to pursue my values especially as it concerns myself and my property so long as it does not infringe on your capacity to pursue your values as it concerns yourself and your property, and vice versa. And I use the term optimally because it implicitly suggests a standard where conflicts and disputes are diminished as much as possible.

He tried to get Warren to run in 2016, and only ran himself because she refused.