PGA2.0

What is the ideal, the fixed reference point?

How long does your god believe exclusive copyright protections should last?

A personal Being who has revealed Himself as omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, and eternal would have what is necessary in determining what is moral because there would be a fixed measure or reference point in which a comparison can be made as to 'the good' (since there is a best).

Why can't super-puppet-master speak directly to each person in order to change their behavior?

Where's my talking donkey and holy hit-man?

If I can prevent a murder, and I just stand there and do nothing, am I not morally culpable?

This topic is about one area of atheisms reason - morality. Can atheists reasonably justify morality in comparison to Christianity/Judaism? That last statement is a nutshell of the topic of debate. 

Phenomenal.

Is it immoral for a fox to eat a rabbit?

Atheism examines life's most basic questions and comes to a conclusion from a standpoint lacking God.

Atheism examines life's most basic questions and draws absolutely no conclusions.

You can't deny something you have no idea of and SkepticalOne definitely has views about God. Thus, atheism is a worldview.

Atheism is a worldview in exactly the same way that NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.

Atheism is a worldview in exactly the same way that NOT swimming is a sport.

Atheism is a worldview in exactly the same way that NOT working is an occupation.

Atheism is a worldview in exactly the same way that NOT vandalizing public property is an artistic expression.

You are not nuetral. You undermine and reject NANABOZHO among others in many ways, as is demonstrated by your twenty posts to me alone,

let alone those to others. If I pressed you (providing you claimed to be a non-follower of NANABOZHO) I would (MIGHT) find you have views on life's ultimate questions, such as origins of life, the universe, morals or values, meaning, purpose, truth and knowledge, for starters. Again, you are not nuetral.

Do you consider yourself "neutral" regarding the existence and undeniable holy might and majesty of NANABOZHO?

Let me take a few wild guesses.

(1) origins of life = "YHWH"

(2) morals or values = "YHWH"

(3) meaning, purpose = SERVE AND OBEY "YHWH"

(4) truth and knowledge = READ THE BOOK OF "YHWH"

You can't deny something you have no idea of and SkepticalOne definitely has views about God. Thus, atheism is a worldview.

Atheism is a worldview in exactly the same way that NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.

Atheism is a worldview in exactly the same way that NOT swimming is a sport.

Atheism is a worldview in exactly the same way that NOT working is an occupation.

Atheism is a worldview in exactly the same way that NOT vandalizing public property is an artistic expression.

...yet something about God too in their denial of Him.

...yet something about NANABOZHO too in your denial of its HOLY MAGNIFICENCE.

...yet something about PANGU too in your denial of its UNDENIABLE GRACE.

...yet something about BRAHMAN too in your denial of its HYPERDIMENSIONAL OMNIPRESENCE.

Does your own "disbelief" in these god($) PROVE how much implicit FAITH you have in them?

By denying the "existence" of these god($) are you not actually AFFIRMING their undeniability?

I mean, how can you "deny" the "existence" of something that doesn't even exist??

An atheist not believing in God as Creator would have to believe something else as there cause,

Not necessarily.

It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.

(A)THEIST = (WITHOUT)THEISM = no subscription to any specific "god(s)"

(A)GNOSTIC = (WITHOUT)GNOSIS = no memory (of direct experience) of any "higher power(s)"

Finally, the argument that 'it was a different time and culture' is an appeal to moral relativism. I thought god was supposed to be the basis of an objective morality? This argumentation undercuts one of your core arguments regarding the superiority of a moral system with a god as the basis.

Anecdote, hearsay, prophecy, etc., wouldn't be sufficient to find a person guilty of murder...why would it be sufficient grounds for a person's (or god's) existence? 

Insufficient in what way?

Do you think the standards of evidence in a court of law are too high? Would you be willing to be found guilty of murder based on anecdote, hearsay, or spectral evidence? No? Then why should we accept such a low standard for gods...something arguably more important if true?

I have made a claim, that your worldview does not make sense without first presupposing God, nor can it. 

Worded differently, but this is still attempting to shift the burden, Peter. It's about substantiating your own claim of the existence of a being beyond detection.  The time to believe something is when it has been demonstrated.

No, it is an attempt to justify my worldview (what I place my faith in) as sensible and others as not by comparison and contrast. 

Again, if your proof for the Christian deity is built on the unreasonableness of all other positions, then there is no way you should have come to a conclusion.  It is simply not possible that you have evaluated all other positions.  Your reasoning is flawed and disingenuous.

Don't be so obtuse and/or dishonest. Observation lead to deference to *Occam's razor* and *methodological naturalism*...not whatever you wish to put after "Observation?"

Dishonest? 

The simplest explanation is God. The simplest explanation is that personal beings derive their existence from other personal beings.

A single super complex "explanation" (that is 'beyond our comprehension') is not more simple than multiple sensible explanations.

An object or mindless thing? How is that a person? The object of worship (what we focus on) is a Person, not a thing or inanimate object. Only a personal being can prescribe. An object like a rock or a table cannot. 

A subject can be an object? If a subject is the object in your objective morality...wouldn't that make your morality subjectivev?

Look, you as an atheist are left to a very limited view of the world, the universe, existence, morality. Since you disavow God or gods as lacking evidence you would answer ultimate questions or questions of existence and how things operate from the standpoint of naturalism and empiricism. That means that you have one option in looking at the world, the universe, through a naturalistic explanation. That is how you do look at the world. You discount God, or gods otherwise you would not be an atheist. God or chance still stands.  

Me, as a professor of faith in Jesus Christ would have a combination of options; this God alone, supernaturally, this God through natural means, or this God through both natural and supernatural means. The Bible reveals God alone, supernaturally. I argue that is the most plausible and reasonable explanation. 

You demonstrate you do not understand atheism. For me, it is a derivation of evaluating my former beliefs and finding them wanting - not a starting place as you continue to assert. I don't reject gods as a possibility,

I just don't view them as very probable given the sad state of evidence in their favor. I also don't discount the supernatural as a possibility, but until it can be demonstrated there is little reason to build it into an epistemology and/or a life philosophy. 

As an atheist, all the options you listed are available to me as well, but I have one more: nature alone. We have only ever found what was was thought supernatural to be poorly understood nature, and never ever has the supernatural been confirmed.

If you or anyone wants me to accept their (supernatural) beliefs, then attacking well-accepted standards of evidence, knowledge, or our well-founded understanding of reality is not the way to go. You'll need to do better than that. 

The OT standards exceeds the ANE standards, for the ANE standards were the standard that Israel witnessed in the cultures around them, the standard they had experienced in Egypt, the world OT Israel lived in, the world they understood. God's best is always truth and freedom, justice and compassion for those who do right. Doing right is a problem for we all fall short of His standard, the glory that is God. Thus, He works within our fallenness. He chose a people out of the nations and cultures of that time where cruel slavery was a common practice, such as in Egypt. He worked within that system. BUT, the kind of slavery experieinced by Israel in Egypt and the chattel slavery of cruelty was not what God wanted Israel to observe and practice. God strictly spoke against such treatment. IF you read the article by Glenn Miller you would further understand this, yet you continue to act as if you did not. That article is very good in making the distinctions clear. It has a section, section 2, that covers property, a part of which I quoted from. You ignored it. Here it is again:

The notion that Biblical slavery is only indentured servitude is simply false. The Bible advocates indentured servitude only in the case of Hebrew men. Hebrew women and foreigners were subject to permanent sexual/chattel slavery (respectively) which is made clear in Exodus 21-7-8 and the very verse supplied in the article [Link]. There is a distinction made between Hebrew men, women, and the heathen of the pagan nations - different rules applicable to each and the latter two undeniably slavery.  

Another thread would be preferable.

 The bible is clear .  It is all to do with cleansing of ones sins yet here we have the son of god himself insisting John baptise him.  WHY!?

 You have  said on another thread that Jesus baptism was not a ritual of repentance or the washing away of sins but a " ordination of him as Priest, Prophet and King"  then later you qualify this claim telling us  that you  "take the view that the evidence is there [in the bible] and it is clear. " .#2 & #18 respectively.

I am still waiting for you to show us all this " very clear evidence". 

An object or mindless thing? How is that a person? The object of worship (what we focus on) is a Person, not a thing or inanimate object. Only a personal being can prescribe. An object like a rock or a table cannot. 

A subject can be an object?

If a subject is the object in your objective morality...wouldn't that make your morality subjective? 

I have made a claim, that your worldview does not make sense without first presupposing God, nor can it. 

Worded differently, but this is still attempting to shift the burden, Peter. It's about substantiating your own claim of the existence of a being beyond detection.  The time to believe something is when it has been demonstrated.

No, you have not. You have not shown how any other worldview is more viable, more reasonable.

False dichotomy: God (the Christian god) or chance. There are thousands of other options. You need to update your argument to reflect this if you mean to have an honest discussion.

Much like the Biblical god (or any god), Voldemort has never been established to exist in the real world. As such, very little is 'necessary' to judge either.

[...] many people throughout history have thought of God as self-evident. That is worth exploring. What has made them think this way?

Many people use to think the Sun revolving around the Earth was self evident...what many people think isn't exactly a strong standard of evidence. ;-)

"No evidence" is not my position.  What evidence there is... is insufficient.  Anecdote, hearsay, prophecy, etc., wouldn't be sufficient to find a person guilty of murder...why would it be sufficient grounds for a person's (or god's) existence? 

"Faith is the basis for my belief." [...] We both have faith. 

Still not an answer, unless you're admitting to faith to a poor standard of evidence.

This is still attempting to shift the burden.  You have the misguided idea that if you can disprove my views (or more correctly, what you *think* my views are), your belief will be true by default, but that's not how the burden of proof works. Your beliefs are either true or not true.  If you cannot bear the burden of showing your belief true, then you remove the burden from me and everyone else of accepting it - it get's dismissed.

I have made a claim, that your worldview does not make sense without first presupposing God, nor can it. 

Worded differently, but this is still attempting to shift the burden, Peter. It's about substantiating your own claim of the existence of a being beyond detection.  The time to believe something is when it has been demonstrated.

You're back to the false dichotomy I have already shown to be flawed thinking.

No, you have not. You have not shown how any other worldview is more viable, more reasonable.

False dichotomy: God (the Christian god) or chance. There are thousands of other options. You need to update your argument to reflect this if you mean to have an honest discussion.

Shifting the burden, again.  Substantiating your claims would be much much easier than refuting thousands of other options. 

You were the one who claimed there are other options. I claimed that other options are not reasonable and invited you to pick one and demonstrate it is more reasonable or even in the slightest bit reasonable. Now, you are welcome to believe something that is irrational or inconsistent. But once you make the claim, which you did, I ask for you to demonstrate it as reasonable.  

Pointing out errors in your reasoning is not making a claim. There ARE thousands of options for origins - this is simply a statement of fact. Hone your argument to account for this.

You seem blissfully unaware that it is observation that leads us to accept Occam's razor and methodological naturalism. I wasn't referring specifically to Biblical prophecy, but now that you mention it, Irenaeus  is additional evidence.

Observation? Where do you observe personal being coming from something devoid of personhood? 

Don't be so obtuse and/or dishonest. Observation lead to deference to *Occam's razor* and *methodological naturalism*...not whatever you wish to put after "Observation?"

A object or mindless thing is descriptive, not prescriptive. It just is. 

Is your god an object or a subject?  Tell me again about your 'objective' source for morality...

Okay. My God is revealed as personal, omniscient, omnibenevolent, immutable, eternal, thus objective and the object of our worship.

You've created a special category for your god: an object that has a mind. You've found yet another broken logical path that won't get you to the destination you think it maps to. 

How is that? Support your claim and make it clearer as to what you mean.

Follow along now: You said an object or mindless thing can't be prescriptive (no ought can be derived), and then you made god into an object that can prescriptive. Cool trick, bro...special pleading (and nonsensical)...but still, cool trick.

Chattel slavery...the kind of slavery where people are treated as property rather than people. 

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

^ --- Like that. 

It seems you object to it when done by the Egyptians, but find it acceptable when codified by the god of the Bible through Moses. What a confused position. I'll ask again.  Is slavery wrong? Why, or why not?

Again, you have to understand the ANE and the practices of those times to understand the biblical narrative on this subject.

No.  A god claimed to be the basis of morality should know one person owning another as property is wrong. Embarrassingly, your argumentation is actually attempting to justify codified slavery in the Bible. 

Don't just bring in your 21st century contextualisation.  

  That's your sly and sneaky habit. 

 But I will give it a shot all the same.  "cursing " in the biblical ( Leviticus 20: 9)   sense has absolutely nothing to do with the threat to killing or the threat to murder of ones parents. No, it has to do with (no surprises)  using the name of god whilst "cursing" one or both parents.   You see it all comes back to your  god and his ego and vanity and how fkn easily he gets upset! 

"yet they enacted that the child only incurred the penalty of death when he used the ineffable name God when cursing his parent".  _ Charles J Ellicott's Bible Commentary Volume  I.

Charles John Ellicott was a distinguished English Christian theologian, academic and churchman. He briefly served as Dean of Exeter, then Bishop of the united see of Gloucester and Bristol, England.

 Ok , now your turn. Where is your evidence that cursing  in the bible as in ( Leviticus 20: 9) means " to threaten the death of the parent"?  As you claim here>>" It is effectively a death threat" #26 ???

Don't expect anytime in the near future for  this question to be answered.  Even though it is the proverbial elephant in the room, the question obviously hits too close to home to be answered and therefore I never expect it to be answered. I do however believe that by not answering the question - he has no right to actually expect others to answer his questions. And this is a very telling and revealing scenario about a particular writer. 

do you or Matt have what is necessary to judge the biblical God?

Yep, just like I have what it takes to judge Voldemort. ;-) 

No idea what that means since I have never watched or read Harry Potter. 

Much like the Biblical god (or any god), Voldemort has never been established to exist in the real world. As such, very little is 'necessary' to judge either.

"No evidence" is not my position.  What evidence there is... is insufficient.  Anecdote, hearsay, prophecy, etc., wouldn't be sufficient to find a person guilty of murder...why would it be sufficient grounds for a person's (or god's) existence? 

I am convinced your position comes from ignorance. You have probably read very little on prophecy or Preterism while I have around thirty books on the subject of Preterism alone and more on prophecy.

This doesn't answer the question.

That's literally the definition of shifting the burden.  It's not my job to disprove your claim - it's your job as the claimant to substantiate it.

It ties together. I am looking for your justification. I am contrasting my worldview with yours. I'm saying that it takes more credulous faith on your part than mine in that my position can make sense of origins, yours can't

This is still attempting to shift the burden.  You have the misguided idea that if you can disprove my views (or more correctly, what you *think* my views are), your belief will be true by default, but that's not how the burden of proof works. Your beliefs are either true or not true.  If you cannot bear the burden of showing your belief true, then you remove the burden from me and everyone else of accepting it - it get's dismissed.

I say that each one of those thousand options, of which you have not identified one as viable, are deadends that lead back to the two options - God or chance happenstance.

You're back to the false dichotomy I have already shown to be flawed thinking.

You're stuck in the script, man. This commitment to willful ignorance is why I will engage your words less and less.

Identify another option so we can discuss its reasonableness in making sense of origins and how it holds together in logical consistency. Not so easy-peasy, right? 

Shifting the burden, again.  Substantiating your claims would be much much easier than refuting thousands of other options. 

Here's one possibility that is way more likely: 'prophecy' was written after the event.  This has conforming to the laws of nature and simplicity as strong arguments in its favor.

Easy to say, but which position is more reasonable to believe based on the evidence available? It is not yours. The late date position or argument is based largely on a doubted statement by Irenaeus. 

You seem blissfully unaware that it is observation that leads us to accept Occam's razor and methodological naturalism. I wasn't referring specifically to Biblical prophecy, but now that you mention it, Irenaeus  is additional evidence.

A object or mindless thing is descriptive, not prescriptive. It just is. 

Is your god an object or a subject?  Tell me again about your 'objective' source for morality...

Okay. My God is revealed as personal, omniscient, omnibenevolent, immutable, eternal, thus objective and the object of our worship.

You've created a special category for your god: an object that has a mind. You've found yet another broken logical path that won't get you to the destination you think it maps to. 

I agree that Matt's opponent, Sye, did not present a great defence.

He literally provided *no defense* saying if he provided evidence for god he would be "putting man as the judge over god". OF course, it's not "God" that is making the claim, but (in this case) Sye. This is a cop-out answer.

I agree with Matt and Sye that we do begin with presuppositions.

I agree we begin with presuppositions.  That is something that has already been addressed in this thread.

Matt attacks Sye on the claim that God reveals things to us (everyone) in ways that we can be certain. Matt asks, how it works? I claim it works on the impossibility of the contrary, that blind indifferent chance does not have what is necessary to make sense of existence, the universe, morality, absolutes, the uniformity of nature. 

And that is where our common ground falls away.  The 'impossibility of the contrary' fails because it assumes your own claim has been substantiated (attempts to shift the burden) AND that there are only 2 options: God or chance.  This has been addressed in the thread.

I asked you how it is possible for you to be certain, in a world where God does not exist, about your beginnings, your existence, the existence of the universe, morality? 

Again, you are assuming your own conclusion true, AND suggesting ignorance regarding origins prevents one from reasonable certainty that they (or the universe) exist or that there are acts which work better/worse for making a better world. You need to substantiate your claims.

I have claimed prophecy is one reasonable and logical justification for God's existence.

True enough - you have MADE the claim and attempted to argue from a very limited view.  What you haven't done is consider how prophecy can be easily explained without a god. Your argument can't see the the forest for the trees.

I have argued that moralism needs more than moral relativism as its justification. Your subjective feelings or preferences do not explain why something is good, the ought of goodness. 

I don't subscribe to relativism (you should know this by now), AND even if your god existed you can't get an ought from "I believe God is".

And there is a moral lesson in the Bible.

Maybe there is, but why should I hold the Bible as an authority on morality?  There are many things codified, condoned, or otherwise not objected to that we (when not related to the Bible) would consider to be wrong. 

It seems this conversation has already been done:

https://youtu.be/OL8LREmbDi0

But we are talking biblical aren't we?  We are talking about a god that loves us aren't we? A god that tells us to turn the other cheek and  orders _ "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God" _.    Stop trying to contextualise vile actions of an ancient god with the  21st century practices of modern man. Muslims do this persistently to excuse  and justify the vile commands of Muhammad and Allah.

As I said, I don't have to justify anything to you or to anyone in this modern world - because the 21st century is the most vile and murderous evil killers of unborn babies - more so than any in the biblical times. 

For me to justify what God is before you justify yourself is like Hitler asking me to justify why the Americans killed german soldiers.  

The Americans might have done evil - but compared to Hitler, they were saints - and it does not matter how you attempt to spin the bible - none of the deaths in that come close to what the 21st century progressive does to justify the slaughter of unborn babies every year. You simply have no leg to stand on. Until you admit that abortion is evil - and murderous - then I will never feel the need to justify any of the horrors in the bible that you think are there. 

Yes, you have exchanged those God beliefs for other beliefs. Atheism is not a void. Your worldview now BELIEVES that "methodological naturalism" explains or is the likely explanation of origins. It believes that humanism or human thought is the authority on origins and evolution (to some extent).

What beliefs did I exchange my god-belief for? Methodological naturalism? No, I already had that. Humanism? No, I already had that.  Skepticism?  No, again, I already had that.

Just because you have a god-belief and lack these views doesn't mean they cannot co-exist in a worldview including a god. 

Atheism is a justifiable position given the inability of believers to bear the burden of their god claims - not an irrational presupposition akin to those preferred by some religious dogmatists.

Justifiable position on what? You presuppose more than the believer does. You presuppose that chance happenstance is able to do something.

This is flawed in 2 ways: 

1. Those making a claim have the burden to substantiate it.  If they cannot (or refuse), then their claim [can] be dismissed in this alone.

2. If I state "I don't know", I presuppose nothing.

Also, chance isn't the only option other than god, but I'll get into that a little more below.

What options outside of the god/chance are you willing to entertain? 

Either God, chance, or illusion. What is more reasonable?

Actually, there are many more options than that.  Even if we discount the Christian deity, there are still thousands of other 'revealed' and deistic deities.

Also, it is possible  deterministic forces explain origins (this is especially true of life) and was an inevitability of Chemistry and/or the environment.

SO, the options you allow exponentially underestimate the possibilities.

Skepticism in God is usually part of the atheists repertoire. Skepticism does not answer the worldview questions but pleads ignorance. Atheism does. Worldviews attempt to answer four or five ultimate questions. Skepticism does not. I don't think skepticism is a worldview. You can't live by 'I don't know.' Skepticism as a worldview can only say, 'I don't know' and plead ignorance. Skeptics live as if they do know. They live inconsistently with 'I don't know.' You don't know yet your comments speak of knowing. Skeptics usually reject God. You reject the biblical God. How can  an 'I don't know' skeptic believe the Bible is not true?   

I agree skepticism is not quite enough on it's own and other views like humanism help to fill out a worldview. What skepticism has going for it that faith does not is that it is a pathway to knowledge.

It is through skeptical inquiry that we learn new things or show  dubious or false claims. You love to attack "I don't know", but this is a mistake in my opinion.  The more we learn about the world around us, the more we realize how much we don't know.

I do not follow your apparent position that anything less than absolute certainty leaves an individual in some sort of black hole of ignorance. 

We all function with ignorance AND knowledge, and admitting ignorance in one limited field doesn't negate all possible knowledge. It also doesn't mean someone who claims absolute certainty gets a pass on whatever they believe to be true.

I'm not sure what ultimate questions you think atheism seeks to answer...at its core, it is a negative answer to one question: do you believe in gods?

There is no "atheist epistemology", no "atheist morality", no "atheist origins", no "atheist purpose of life".

Of course atheists can have have answers to these questions, but it's not derived from atheism.

Also, I was a skeptic before I was an atheist, so that rant about skepticism and ignorance lacks some nuance unless you're mean to have it apply to Christian skeptics as well....

Worldviews weigh evidence. Do you have no belief about God? You have all kinds of beliefs about God. 

Yes, but not because of atheism. Atheism (for me) is something I have arrived at by evaluating my previous beliefs and the claims of believers.

Atheism is a justifiable position given the inability of believers to bear the burden of their god claims - not an irrational presupposition akin to those preferred by some religious dogmatists.

BS. I did not say they were the only two. What does skepticism have to do with the two main paradigms? You have stated that you fit into one of those two camps - you identify with atheism. That means you look to and have adopted naturalistic means in explaining origins.  

What options outside of the god/chance are you willing to entertain? 

Skepticism is a worldview (unlike atheism).

I haven't "adopted naturalistic means" to explain origins.

"I don't know" isn't an explanation. I do think it will likely be explained through natural processes and not magic, but there's still hope for ya! :-p

One side can and does make better sense of life's ultimate questions/origins. 

Magic can explain anything and (because of this) nothing.

That is the very reason why conclusions derived from methodological naturalism makes so much more sense. 

Yet you stick your nose into it then back away. It is not that we always agree as believers, it is whether there is a correct interpretation that can be demonstrated from the text, not from what one reads into the text. 

How did the Bereans check to see if what Paul said was true? They went to Scripture. You should do the same when you are speaking of how to interpret it.

I'm not speaking of how to interpret the Bible.

That's your cross to bear (pun intended). I have been saying prophecy is weak evidence for god because of (better sit down for this) non-Biblical reasons...

 I still have no interest debating interpretation of your Holy book. That is a debate for believers. When you can all agree on one interpretation, let me know - I'll debate that. :-)

It may not be the principle you first started with but it is the starting principle of a worldview, the foundation on which you build a worldview, the cornerstone or core that everything rests upon.

Worldviews are not built on non-beliefs. Sheesh, Peter, you've really gone off the deep end haven't you?

You sift everything through that paradigm. You can start in two main ways - God/gods or chance happenstance.

False dichotomy.  Skepticism, for example, works with both (or neither) options.

And to have that skepticism you have to have beliefs about God or else you would not be skeptical and would be building on total ignorance. It is hard to be skeptical of nothing or alternatively everything.

Having a belief built on insufficient evidence doesn't make one knowledgeable. It makes them credulous.

I think atheism can be viewed as silence and the various god beliefs as particular pitches. Not believing C to be the correct pitch does not mean F# is. It means you need to study the music a little more (in silence).

Silence? You are not silent. You fight against Christianity and religious beliefs. You have to believe something about them to voice an opinion against them. And you have lots of opinions. 

Its an analogy, Peter. I'm not actually silent. You should be familiar with this concept as an interpreter of Biblical passages and prophecy.

You think there is no correct interpretation. Try debating that, will you. Put your money where your mouth is. 

For the record, I think there might be thousands of 'correct interpretations', and I see no reason to favor one over another, at least, not in any objective sense.  I still have no interest debating interpretation of your Holy book. That is a debate for believers. When you can all agree on one interpretation, let me know - I'll debate that. :-)

Here is your starting principle, you do not believe in God or gods. 

Well, its not a "starting principle" necessarily, but I agree to the rest which you clearly understand as "not belief". Not belief=/=belief. You're agreeing with me.

Do atheists have beliefs? Yes, of course, but not because of atheism. For me, atheism is a result of skepticism, not the other way around.

I think atheism can be viewed as silence and the various god beliefs as particular pitches. Not believing C to be the correct pitch does not mean F# is. It means you need to study the music a little more (in silence).

Convince you that your interpretation of scripture is wrong?  It seems to me that by admitting "the Word of God" needs to be interpreted by you, you've already conceded the basis of pretty much everything you argue for...

If you think you can make a case that I misinterpret Scripture I invite you to demonstrate I have done so. I remind you that your previous attempt was pathetic. [...] IMO, the reason you won our debate on the subject of prophecy is because of the mindset of the judges. You have many like-minded people who cannot divorce reason from herd-mentality and group-think, in spite of the arguments put forth.

You acknowledge the necessity of interpretation and place yourself as the arbiter of it. Again, you're agreeing with me.

Subjective interpretation! Says you. Do you believe there is no objective interpretation of the Bible? 

Who on Earth determines an objective interpretation of the Bible? How could we test that interpretation for validity without more interpretation? Interpretation is necessarily subjective. What methodology can be used to determine your interpretation is the correct one? 

Objective evidence? What scientist was there at the beginning?

Objective evidence is something that can be dispassionately tested by others which points strongly to one conclusion over another. The age of the Earth and life evolving by natural selection are backed by objective evidence. On the other hand, the 'creation of the universe' is not, and cannot pass even your own standard - no human existed to witness the claimed creation event.

It is obvious to those who use their brains that one interpretation is confirmed by the pages of Scripture. I challenged you to back up your position that Scripture is not its own interpreter. 

That's not my position.  My position is that the Bible is essentially a literary rorschach.  Finding support for a particular view is not all that surprising or impressive.

I see we've arrived at the point where YOU tell someone else what their beliefs are in a confused understanding of agnosticism and atheism. Atheism is not a belief system (it is a lack of a god-belief), and agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive positions (one can be an agnostic atheist).

They are belief systems. They are not formed in a vacuum. You have to believe something to be an atheist. Your belief negates some other belief. 

You don't have to believe anything to be an atheist. 

Atheism has no doctrines or popes and is not meant to be a replacement for theism or a worldview. Atheism is nothing more than 'a (not) - theism'...

there is no belief involved, at least not an "atheism" that applies to all atheists. You are confused.

If you want to know my beliefs, just ask specific (and coherent) questions.

What kind of atheist are you?

Is this you asking about my beliefs or trying to argue about labels? Let me help you - I am a skeptic.  Skepticism is the part of my worldview which led to my atheism. 

Ok.  Not that this makes any difference -  A worldwide flood didn't *cause* all the rock layers either. Your sources only mention one type of rock (sedimentary) and neglect igneous and metamorphic rock. Polystrate fossils are explained by the source you provided.

Dogmatic of you.

So what, to that statement?

"Fossils, the preserved remains of animal and plant life, are mostly found embedded in sedimentary rocks. Of the sedimentary rocks, most fossils occur in shale, limestone and sandstone." 

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/rock-cycle/

"Sedimentary and igneous rocks began as something other than rock. Sedimentary rocks were originally sediments, which were compacted under high pressure. Igneous rocks formed when liquid magma or lava—magma that has emerged onto the surface of the Earth—cooled and hardened. A metamorphic rock, on the other hand, began as a rock—either a sedimentary, igneous, or even a different sort of metamorphic rock. Then, due to various conditions within the Earth, the existing rock was changed into a new kind of metamorphic rock."

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/metamorphic-rocks/?utm_source=BibblioRCM_Row

What's your point here? You've admitted the Bible is your authority...

I said I favour a young earth interpretation of Scripture just as I favour full Preterism. If you can convince me long periods of time is reasonable to believe go ahead. You are not my authority, Scripture is, so convince me from Scripture that I wrongly interpret it. 

Convince you that your interpretation of scripture is wrong?  It seems to me that by admitting "the Word of God" needs to be interpreted by you, you've already conceded the basis of pretty much everything you argue for...

What we are mainly debating is which position, Christianity or atheism is reasonable to believe. 

No. At most it would be a debate over Christianity or not-Christianity, but that doesn't describe this discussion - I'm not arguing against Christianity, but rather a particular belief of some Christians which puts priority on a subjective interpretation of the Bible over objective evidence of the world.

If you researched Pastafarianism (or listened to what I've said multiple times) you would understand that it is meant to be absurd to make the point that what someone believes (sincerely or not) in the absence of objective evidence has no place in public school science curriculum. Additionally, Pastafarianism is no mask - I openly admit to being an atheist (*eye roll*). 

Do you actaully hold to the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the creator? No, you use it to lampoon Christianity. Behind this label use, you are an atheist. That is your true belief. Are you still a soft atheist (agnostic) or are you now a hard atheist? 

You're basically saying the same thing I just said, except you seem to think Pastafarianism is in opposition to Christianity. I'd say that is a view completely discounting any nuance regarding objection to other religions being injected into science curriculum and/or the appropriate consideration of religious texts and its affect on literature or culture in relevant subjects, but whatever - it's all about YOUR beliefs. 

I see we've arrived at the point where YOU tell someone else what their beliefs are in a confused understanding of agnosticism and atheism. Atheism is not a belief system (it is a lack of a god-belief), and agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive positions (one can be an agnostic atheist).

If you want to know my beliefs, just ask specific (and coherent) questions.

Yes.  Floods do not organize rocks into layers. 

That is not what I said. I said, "a worldwide flood (catastrophism) caused the rock layers." I said the Flood CAUSED the rock layers to form, not organize rocks into layers. 

Ok.  Not that this makes any difference -  A worldwide flood didn't *cause* all the rock layers either. Your sources only mention one type of rock (sedimentary) and neglect igneous and metamorphic rock. Polystrate fossils are explained by the source you provided.

Looking over your sources, I see some that you're using presumably endorse an ancient Earth.  Clearly, those sources don't agree with your conclusions.

Other sources hold the Bible as the ultimate authority and all scientific conclusions must conform to it.

[Statement of Faith] The priority is not following the evidence, but following the belief. I believe this to be your position as well which makes addressing this 'evidence' pointless because it does not inform your beliefs. Your beliefs inform your evidence.

This brings to mind a quote from Sam Harris: 'If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it?". Seriously.  What point could continuing this discussion serve if you have no interest in evidence?

I'm intrigued by the absurdity of this argument. 'Naturalistic origins can be tested, but not observed'...which is still superior to a position which cannot be tested or observed.

Not in the case of origins. We can watch and test natural processes in the present and near past, but not in the distant past. Origins spose the same problem for both of us. You have to construct a model and then test its feasibility. 

Again, only one of our views is interested in being tested. Secondly, I'm surprised to see you concede the "near past" as testable.  How do you determine that the near past is different than the distant past ...other than your incredulity at a distant past?

I  find your faith amusing too! Pastafarianism is downright absurd and I would debate you on its absurdity if I cared or wanted to do the research on it. From the little I have read I do not find it reasonable enough to spend much time on. It is an adjusted copy-cat with major flaws, IMO. It does not interest me as a credible worldview. I think it is a shield or tag you hide behind that masks your agnosticism or soft atheism.  

If you researched Pastafarianism (or listened to what I've said multiple times) you would understand that it is meant to be absurd to make the point that what someone believes (sincerely or not) in the absence of objective evidence has no place in public school science curriculum. Additionally, Pastafarianism is no mask - I openly admit to being an atheist (*eye roll*). 

Is it unreasonable to believe that a worldwide flood (catastrophism) caused the rock layers and fossil record quickly, rather than gradually? 

Yes.  Floods do not organize rocks into layers. 

They especially don't organize fossils (or extant life) from simple to complex. There are a number of problems with a worldwide flood (especially within the last few thousand years), but these are a few that come to mind off the top of my head. 

Origins can be explained in more than one way yet it is only naturalism that is examined or considered valid. Although the claims can be tested they cannot be verified through observation of the occurrence.

I'm intrigued by the absurdity of this argument. 'Naturalistic origins can be tested, but not observed'...which is still superior to a position which cannot be tested or observed.

As I understood it, there were two debates being discussed. One regarding the 'reasonableness of prophecy as evidence' and one over interpretation of prophecy. The former I dislike the proposition; the latter I'm not interested in.

You can't have the one without the other. You need a correct interpretation that is verifiable by Scripture (and to some extent history) for prophecy to be reasonable. 

Scripture needs to be consistent with scripture? Nice tautology. "Reasonable" is the least relevant word in that sentence.

Your beliefs have already been revealed to be (at least partially) false in regards to the age of the Earth and evolution.

You are creating a narrative again, that what I believe is false, based on your assertion.

These particular beliefs of yours run contrary to facts of the world.  That's not my narrative, but your beliefs literally running against reality as we know it.

There is only certainty in origins if God has revealed. God is not inconsistent with what is necessary for certainty. 

Universe creating pixies is not inconsistent with what is necessary for certainty....magic makes everything plug and play.  Be absolutely certain if you must, but this reasoning does not warrant it.

So where is you  "clear evidence"  that the Baptist baptised Jesus a  Priest and  King? 

Again I refer to my initial post in this topic.  Yet, I also add, that for me this is clear evidence. Hence I did not lie. It may be that I was hasty in my conclusions. That is certainly a possibility. But also it would take more time to gather all of the evidence I have to suggest otherwise - and I simply can't be bothered at the moment do that. SO enjoy your win. Enjoy the pleasure you have at demonstrating that I could not find the evidence - that you too must have seen to make you come to the same conclusion. 

Here we have in the 1st century of Israel, a man, performing a water ceremony - calling for repentant of sins and preparing the way as it were for the Messiah who would come. 

What is curious is whether John  started a new type of ceremony without revelation from God.  Or whether he  intentionally borrowed from the sects around that time - such as the Essenes.  Or whether in fact he was in fact following on from the true and tried traditions of the OT. 

I say the latter.  

What we need to recognize about John is that he was a Levite. His father had been the high priest - or if not the high priest - certainly the priest whom had been selected to enter the Holy of Holies on behalf of Israel.  That was where he had been struck dumb for not believing God. 

So we have not just a prophet - dressed in similar clothes to Elijah, but also a Levite priest, performing a water ceremony - and something to do with the sins of the people. 

We also have Jesus, a Son of David, born in Bethlehem, at the age of 30 coming to John to be baptized.  How old was David when he was coronated? How old were the OT priests when they were ordained? And interestingly, how many eldest sons of tribes not belonging to Levi were given to the Levites as priests? 

What OT water ceremonies do we know about? And please don't think of  submersion, think of other methods?

I suggest that for Jesus to be anointed as king - he needed to be anointed by a prophet. 

To be anointed to be a priest - he needs to be anointed by a Levite priest. 

To be anointed as a prophet - like Elijah to Elisha - the hands of a prophet were suitable.  

Marry all of this with the fact that God the Father was present in voice - God the Holy Spirit ascended either as or like a dove - and we have the two fold - or three fold witness required of all of these events.  

It was to fulfill all righteousness - 

This is of course my opinion - and also the opinion of many others. 

Baptists - tend to think it is about identification with humanity. And I note that this is probably the case as well. 

What we do know is that Jesus was sinless. Although I might note that I am not yet of the view to dismiss the fact that he might have been born with original sin. He was born of Mary - a human after all. Even if it is the case that he also conceived by the Holy Spirit.  I am still considering my view about that thought.  Yet it does not change my view about the fact that he JESUS was sinless whilst on earth - otherwise his resurrection would not taken place.   It was only because of this truth that we have the resurrection. 

See here, The coming Coup

Dis and misinformation? If this is what informs your views, you're aiming that description in the wrong direction:

Dan Bongino

• Overall, we rate Bongino.com Questionable based on far right wing bias, promotion of propaganda and unproven conspiracies, as well as a complete lack of transparency and a few failed fact checks.
  

Detailed Report

Reasoning: Right Bias, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Lack of Transparency, Failed Fact Checks

Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 48/180

History

Founded in 2015, Bongino.com is the website for the Dan Bongino podcast show. Dan Bongino is an American conservative commentator, radio show host, author, former congressional candidate, and former Secret Service agent. He is a member of the Republican Party and ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 2012, 2014, and 2016. The website does not feature an about page, mission statement, author names or ownership, thereby demonstrating a complete lack of transparency.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mediabiasfactcheck.com/bongino-com/%3famp

You ASSUME that rational or reasoning faith cannot be a justified true belief (knowledge). Says you. Why are you the arbitrator of what is knowledge? 

That's amusing. 

Faith in a young Earth (for example) is not a justified true belief.

  If you take issue with that particular belief not being considered knowledge, then simply show it's validity exists outside your head to the wider world.  It's not about what I consider knowledge, but about belief making it above a minimum standard established long ago. It shouldn't be about bringing standards of knowledge down, but bringing the quality of our beliefs up.

I continually argue that the Bible God is knowable and knowledge in Him is reasonable, what He says is justifiable. I gave you the opportunity to argue against this knowledge in the form of prophecy and how reasonable it is to believe. You declined. So, how can I demonstrate to you something you are not willing to explore or reason against?

As I understood it, there were two debates being discussed. One regarding the 'reasonableness of prophecy as evidence' and one over interpretation of prophecy. The former I dislike the proposition; the latter I'm not interested in.

You continually say, as does ludofl3x, I don't know, I don't care. Thus you have created the impass, not me. I am willing to discuss whether what I believe is reasonable and whether I have knowledge of such a God.

Your beliefs have already been revealed to be (at least partially) false in regards to the age of the Earth and evolution.

It is interesting to note the certainty with which you hold these known false beliefs matches the certainty with which you hold your other less testable claims. Absolute certainty so often seems to run hand in hand with ignorance and flawed epistemologies.

If it were, I'd be there, wouldn't I? The answer is no. 

Take it t o the politics forum. Wrong topic. 

 Scientifically, an eternal universe is not well supported. 

Right, but it's still better supported than invisible supernatural universe creating agent who shows up in a book from 2000 years ago and no where else.

How? (A) The universe is observable and (b) the laws of conservation are tested and proven.

The rest of your post looks to me like questions I've already answered with "I don't know" and / or "the answers make no difference to how I live my life, at all." I'll go on not raping, not stealing and not murdering, somehow, while still being pretty sure there's no god watching me and keeping track of how often I jerk off. It's ironic that you mock my worldview because it doesn't 'make sense' of how life started, which it doesn't even attempt to do, as that information is totally immaterial to my life, but you think "magical invisible being did all of this" is somehow sensible. In any case, whatever it is that's keeping you from descending into a murder rampage, keep on believing it. Your testimony, I've heard it, it is completely banal. 

How many posts until you go full Qanon?

Prove it.

You come from a position of "I don't know."  You have demonstrated you do not have what is necessary to know. You can point to many people, scientists, who propose a reason for origins, but their opinions are conflicted. The origin of the universe is built on models that best fit the data available but there are many anomalies within these models. So, there is no surety as to what actually happened. 

For surety of origins, we are not necessary beings. We were not there. We assume that the present is the key to the past because that is our gauge to the distant past. We look at data and interpret it from the present (the past four hundred years). It is a relatively recent 'science.' Human history and records is a relatively short time frame in a supposed 14 billion year universe, if that is your paradigm you build from. 

What would be necessary? The being would have to be a personal being who was there and transcends the time, space, matter universe, who created the universe and understands it in all it aspects. If that being has revealed we can know. Now if that being was omniscient but changing could we then know? How would we be sure that being was not lying to us? Thus, that being would have to be immutable, without change. That being would have to be omnibenevolent or else there would be no guarantee that the being would lie. 

That's interesting. You're suggesting justified true beliefs (knowledge) must be built on an unjustified belief (faith).  In other words, what can be demonstrated is built on something that cannot be demonstrated.  

We both work from core presuppositions.

I assume we both presuppose logical absolutes. You go a step further and presuppose a god as the basis of the absolutes...which is unnecessary if we  presuppose logical absolutes. Isn't it entirely possible that some things just are without a reason why?

Once again, you never answered my question. Do you believe self-creation is possible? Do you believe a non-existent thing can create itself? Do you believe that nothing can become something? If so, please demonstrate how. 

I don't know is the answer to these. Though I struggle to figure out a 'non'existent' something. You either occupy space and time or you don't, that's what existence is.

f you say the universe is eternal I ask how you get to the present? 

This and the whole paragraph it leads into is beyond obtuse. The current presentation of the cosmos, including time, started at the big bang, per a preponderance of evidence. The matter that it's made of might be eternal, for all I know. The laws of conservation would sort of point in this direction. 

If the universe comes in and out of existence, what causes such a phenomenon? 

Don't know. I'm saying it's possible based on the laws of conservation and gravity. Some scholars agree, some haven't made up their minds, some disagree. In any case, I DON't CARE enough about this to do independent research on it, nor am I qualified to do so. I read the books I'm intrigued by. 

 The universe is indifferent to your existence or the existence of anything else. IT DOES NOT MATTER. 

Agree! To the universe my existence is less than immaterial. It only matters to me. I guess that makes me inconsistent with the universe, but that changes literally nothing, anywhere. Now my turn for a question you've skipped three times: if Jesus were proven not to have existed, and the lack of a supernatural deity were confirmed beyond question, would your first reaction be to go find someone to murder? A rape victim? A store to rob? I bet no. Why not though? There's no universal source of judgement! No moral center! Why not just pillage your way around town since there isn't a heaven to go to or a god to get mad about it?

. If there is no God, why is your subjective view any BETTER than the next person's subjective view?

Whichever causes less human suffering is better. Pretty simple.

Keep bringing up Hitler though, I mean (a) god created him, (b) god planned for him to exterminate 6M jews (c) god made sure he was able to do it (D) he was not caught, (e) if Hitler was sincerely sorry and accepted jesus right before he died, he's going to be your cohabitant in heaven.

Justice? The other thing you folks always miss is how big a boner you have for "mercy' and "grace," both of which are by definition departures from actual justice.

 After all, he was just doing what he thought was right and good, same as you.

He was causing massive human suffering. Pretty easy to discern he's not good.

When you or your family comes against grave injustice, will you still be indifferent? 

What's this have to do with morality, yours or mine? If someone is unjust toward my family, I will seek out proper and equal remediation. Not pray about it.

 These disciples go to their deaths in excruciating ways because they will not renounce Him of His resurrection. For what, a lie?

So did the 9/11 hijackers. Did they do it for a lie? 

The rest of this stuff is mostly your usual "claim (bible) as evidence for truth of itself." It's never been compelling, because very other religoin claims exactly the same thing. You even admit the only reason you care so much about this one is because it's the one you like most.