Total posts: 1,720
-->
@Tarik
How is love an objective standard?Because the God I believe in wants us to love.
Objective means 'not dependent on mind'. Love and wants are necessarily mind dependent.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Love objectifies the parts of a person that we are attracted to.
No. That's not what is meant by objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
don't you have to have a "Y" chromosome in order to be considered "male" ?
No.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
And what is your objective moral standard?Love
How is love an objective standard?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
How do you know the Bible got it right?Great question. Perhaps it got it wrong. But at least it is consistent and makes sense to me.One reason I believe (not the only one) in God is because the alternative is simply irrational.[...] Well, what is the alternative? That God created everything - but then left us to muddle on our own.
Which alternative is that? There are many definitions for god. And, I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning here - you accept the Bible because it is internally consistent (not necessarily an indication of truth) and not accepting it is irrational (I disagree - explained in more detail below).
It is totally unreasonable and implausible that everything that exists in all of its myriads of ways simple came from nowhere and without purpose.
Why limit the options to the Biblical God or 'we came from nowhere'? The former is one supernatural option among thousands, and the latter does not accurately characterize the prevailing scientific theories as I understand them. Plus, there is at least one more option: "I don't know". Why do we have to settle on unfalsifiable or incomplete?
I mean, why should I accept the Bible as authoritative regarding god?Another good question. I think in the first place - that you are an intelligent person - that is a good reason to accept it.
Thanks for the compliment, but my intelliengence is not in any way indicative of the truth of Biblical claims.
Secondly, you can't beat something with nothing.
As pointed out above, the alternative is not necessarily 'nothing'.
Thirdly, it will change your life. And respectfully, I think that is what you are hoping some one can provide you with.
There are many things which might change a life (for better or worse), but this does nothing to bolster the validity, truthfulness, or in this case, the authoritativeness of these things.
At the end of the day though, it's not just about being smart enough to understand the gospel, or wise enough to make a good decision, it's about regeneration.
It is not clear to me what you mean.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
You just said you are skeptical of all claims. That means you prejudge everyone until they convince you.
What I actually said:
I am skeptical of all claims which cannot be substantiated through reason or evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Your title defines you as the SkepticalOne. You mock everyone by being Skeptical of what anyone says.
My username has to do with skepticism, not cynicism. I am skeptical of all claims which cannot be substantiated through reason or evidence. If someone considers this mocking, that's not my problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Please don't involve me in your mocking of other users.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Jesus was the fulfillment of the prophesies in the Bible.
Harry Potter fulfills the prophecy of the Harry Potter series. All you're saying is that the Bible is internally consistent.
I'm more interested in what's actually true in the real world rather than internal consistency.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If you people don't want me to judge you by what you say then don't say it.
Funny, I'm being judged by words I haven't said and being told to watch my words. The absurdity...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
You're the ones that come across so high and mighty and you guys are perfect about everything, meanwhile your spouting off about race and trans people and women.
You obviously see what you want to see and have admitted your mind can not be changed. There is no reason for me to engage with you any longer. May you have the day you deserve.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
How do you know it’s flexible in regards to suicide?
How do you know its not? As already mentioned, it's explicit meaning isn't taken as an absolute by the deity or its followers within the Bible itself.
My religious position? Aren’t you the one that said
The context of that comment was in regards to your dismissal of my earlier criticism.
I'd be happy to hear your viewsWell I guess theirs nothing to hear since you seem to know me better than myself.
I am happy to hear your views, but I won't be disengaging skepticism, critical thinking, or allow distraction from points you've failed to address in the process. This thread is about arguments for god and in that context I consider your responses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
That is why the Bible is important. It is a record of what other eyewitnesses saw and heard during their generation. The Bible serves as a book on the history of the Jewish people.
Full disclosure: I'm not convinced the Bible represents eye-witness or literal accounts...at least not completely. Some of the 'history' didn't actually happen or can't be verified. Eg. Global flood, the Exodus, The dead rising as Jesus died, etc. Some of the purported eye-witness accounts are merely attributions added to anonymous Gospels. I think it is fair to say, the Bible represents a mixture of history and myth.
The Bible was not written so future generation could criticize the Jews.
The Bible was written over thousands of years by many many writers. Each probably had a different set of motivations. I would agree none probably intended to provide room for criticism, but claiming to speak for a perfect deity in an imperfect way provides ample room for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
About atheist? Absolutely nothing will. You guys are who you are your posts aren't going to change, no one's going to change my mind about what you people think.
Thanks for clarifying your position and revealing your own blatant hypocrisy and bigotry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
What would it take for you to change your mind?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I'm glad people like you don't believe. We've got enough bigots and racist and misogynist running around in the religions themselves, we certainly don't need atheists coming over and doing it.
Created:
Posted in:
'The witches have a problem with you applying skepticism and critical thinking to a religious belief. I guess they would prefer no criticism whatsoever, but let's be honest they're already angry you don't believe so they are really going to argue about anything. I guess they think that substantiating knowledge claims with evidence or reason is absurd. Or better yet you could define god in the way they do: bald assertion.'
Created:
-->
@Conservallectual
In an atheist worldview,
No such thing. Atheism isn't an epistemology, a moral framework, an ontology, a methodology, etc. Atheists' outlook on life can be shaped by any number of things, but it ain't their answer to 'Do you believe in gods'.
That's where the OP goes wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
So you accept this definition of god because the Bible says so? How do you know the Bible got it right? I mean, why should I accept the Bible as authoritative regarding god?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Suicide isn't explicitly prohibited in the Bible.Thou shall not kill.
And yet the god of the Bible commands or condones the Israelites to kill. Plus, killing is absolutely required for sacrifices and the crucifixion of Jesus.
Besides this commandment being rather flexible, there is no concrete indication suicide is disallowed by it. I don't know about you, but it seems an onminiscient being would have made it clear if he/she had an issue with suicide.
a religion built on the BibleHow can a religion be built on a book when people and their beliefs existed long before books ever did.
Sloppy wording on my part. What I mean to say is the Bible is foundational to Christianity. No one alive today could have been eye-witness to the life/death of Jesus or the destruction of the temple. No one alive during the life of Jesus could have been witness to the Exodus, the battle of Jericho, or the seige of Jerusalem.
The point being, ignorance of your holy book isn't a defense to legitimate criticism of your religious position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You didn’t address my “suicide is a sin”
Suicide isn't explicitly prohibited in the Bible.
Well first of all I’m no Bible expert
I don't expect you to be an expert, but I do think it is reasonable to expect a Christian to know their holy book. I mean, if I knew of a book written by the creator of the universe, I'd think reading and understanding it would be more important than most everything else.
Slavery is condoned: Exodus 21; there is no condemnation of slavery in the Bible.
Yahweh's chosen people: Deut. 14:2 (there are many, many verses reiterating this).
so you doubling down on scripture isn’t refuting anything because your argument is one sided
Pointing out the Bible argues against the position of a person subscribing to a religion built on the Bible is a refutation of that position. Ignorance provides no defense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
And you need to work on your observation of facts, fact of the matter is you don’t know most Christians to make bold claims about them.
I'd be happy to hear your views, but you appealed to other Christians. My response addressed that appeal and the basis of Biblical morality: obedience (not survival). Survival (and well-being) is a humanistic standard and not something explicitly found in the Bible.
I wasn’t speaking on behalf of me, and not all Christians accept The Bible as the “Word of God”.
My question was directed to you. If you accept the Bible as the inspired word of God then how do you use the Bible to justify fairness and equality when inequality and unfairness are condoned and endorsed by the main character?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
It is a reach to say survival is justified by your particular god.Not as much as it is a reach to call our wars holy
You need to work on your reading comprehension. I said, "Most all Christians would accept dying in a holy war is to the glory of God".
I don’t need to concede anything because not once have I argued in favor of The Bible.
How is it you're a Christian that rejects the 'Word of God'?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Justification by faith is provided in the Bible.
Justification of fairness and equality are not justified by the Bible as evidenced by codified slavery and a 'chosen people'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
God doesn't provide a justification for survival anyway.There are some that believe suicide is a sin.
Most all would Christians would accept dying in a holy war is to the glory of God. It is a reach to say survival is justified by your particular god. Obedience seems to be a much higher priority.
How do you justify values like fairness and equality with your particular god?By believing in a God that’s fair and equal.According to your holy book, your god condoned slavery and has/had a chosen people. You have a twisted notion of fair and equal. Again, your particular deity does not justify fair and equal.The Bible can be interpreted in many different ways, nonetheless there are some people that would classify themself as religious but don’t believe in the God depicted in The Bible.
No interpretation is required to see fair and equal are not justified by the basis of your beliefs. I can submit the verses if you dispute this.
You'll need to provide a different basis for your beliefs or concede no justification can be provided from the Bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
except that the mother has the ability to "opt out" and the father apparently does not
Every father ever has 'opted out' of being pregnant.
we agree the father does NOT have a choice
*Does not have a choice to opt in or out....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
If it is the case that women can willingly engage in sex and subsequently abort the fetus because "her body is her choice", does it then follow that a male can impregnate a female and subsequently not pay child support because "his body his choice"? It is
No, it doesn't follow. A man's bodily integrity isn't in question during pregnancy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
How do you justify the value of survival without God?
How many times do you plan to move the goalposts? God doesn't provide a justification for survival anyway. People literally die in the name of gods. You're asking for something your own view does not justify.
How do you justify values like fairness and equality with your particular god?By believing in a God that’s fair and equal.
According to your holy book, your god condoned slavery and has/had a chosen people. You have a twisted notion of fair and equal. Again, your particular deity does not justify fair and equal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
I find it a silly semantic game to say "atheism simply means lack of belief" that's literally what agnostic means too. So what is the dividing factor?
Agnostic means without knowledge. Atheistic means without belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
How do you justify the value of said “Groups” without God?
I take it you accept my last justification. Kicking the can down the road, eh? Groups are beneficial to individual survival (among other things).
My turn: How do you justify values like fairness and equality with your particular god?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
cooperation and smooth social interactionsHow do you justify the value of those concepts without God?
Groups without cooperation and smooth social interactions are less likely to remain Groups.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
yep
There you have it folks - GP admits to being a rich white liberal. ;-)
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Would you accept that from me?Nope
Good. Now hold yourself to that same standard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The device you used to type this post most likely has cobalt in it....
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Yet that’s what you decided to critique my argument on 🤦🏾♂️
Even if someone thought personhood was key to the abortion argument, your position of unborn personhood relies on broken thinking. You have no foundation other than bald assertion. Would you accept that from me? If so, I guess the discussion ends with this counter assertion:
'No scientific system can define what is and isn’t a person, only law can do that, read a book.'
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Nowhere in that link does it say science is a false authority
Scientists are the appropriate authority for science. Scientists are not the proper authority on *not science*. That's just how expertise works.
and what makes you so sure the capricious legal system is correct
As far as I am concerned, personhood of the unborn is a distraction to the abortion debate - the definition is unimportant. No person has the right to use the body of another without consent. Consent can mark the difference between sex and rape, cooperation and slavery, or organ donation and abuse of a corpse. If you toss out consent, you might as well toss out personhood.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
I typically use a phone and don't have those issues. I use an android through Chrome. Maybe it is an iPhone or browser issue?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
No, apparently you’re not learning from theirs, if the argument was counterproductive on their part what makes you think you’re special? I mean your literally putting emphasis on the title of this thread right now.
I pointed out the fallacious appeal to authority (scientists obviously aren't the go-to gurus on legal issues). An honest interlocutor would refute the objection, acknowledge ignorance, or admit to an honest mistake. As for the OP, I've provided rebuttal [Link]. Feel free to chime in, but don't think I won't call out broken thinking in your rebuttal.
I’m still not convinced your repetitions are corrections in the first place, perhaps a substantial original argument would do the trick.
Nothing substantial is required to point out your logic ain't logic-ing.
Created:
-->
@Vici
self ownership doesn't trump an individual human life which you brought into existence.
Actually it does. There is no right to use the body of another against their will because...self ownership. Absent consent, there is no circumstance where I can use your body and that applies across the board to everyone.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Your question could be interpreted many ways. You'll need to be more clear...And you need to be more original in your arguments, your not contributing anything new to this discussion.
Well, apparently you're not learning from your mistakes If someone else has pointed out science doesn't determine legal status and you're still appealing to science.
A simple "my mistake" would prevent repitious corrections.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
My good man, just ....stop. You're embarrassing your self. Personhood is a legal distiction. Science has no authority here.Why are you starting a circle here?
Your question could be interpreted many ways. You'll need to be more clear...
Created:
-->
@Vici
There is simply no good pro-choice argument
I can't imagine an argument stronger than self-ownership as it is the basis of all rights.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
No legal system can define what is and isn’t a person, only science can do that, read a book.
My good man, just ....stop. You're embarrassing your self. Personhood is a legal distiction. Science has no authority here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Oh bull shit. You guys say all the time the fact that this tried to pass religion on to their children is abuse. Play that game somewhere else.
"You guys"? I dont speak for all atheists and they dont speak for me. Find one instance where I have claimed exposing children to religion is child abuse. FYI, you won't find it.
This is a distraction from the arguments presented. Either you agree or disagree. Engage and make your case or rant by yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If a religious sect is built on ignorance, intolerance, hatred, etcThat's every religion to atheists so why bother stating it? LOL.
My view of religion entertains nuance and is quite unlike your apparent view of atheists.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Argument 1: A zygote isn’t a human being.Me response: That opinion goes against the opinions of 95% of biologists.
I think the argument would be about personhood which biologists have no legitimate authority to weigh in on. Plus, person or not, a zygote has no right to use the body of another against their will.
Argument 2: A zygote is a human being, but bodily autonomy outweighs the right to life.My response: If that’s what you believe, then you would have to be fine with a conjoined twin killing their twin in the name of bodily autonomy.
False analogy. Conjoined twins have equal claim the body in which their minds reside. A zygote doesn't have a mind nor does it have any claim to the body in which it resides.
Argument 3: A kid set up for adoption gets messed up so badly it’s worse than death.Response: The vast majority of foster kids get adopted within 5 years and the foster system makes sure the parents are competent and not child rapists or abusers.
That's not an argument I've ever seen. If all unwanted pregancies were sent to adoption rather than aborted, adoptions agencies would be overwhelmed (and not just by a little bit). The efficiency claim of '5 years for most kids' would be extremely unlikely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
So the separation of State and Church in the Constitution is a big lie.
No. There are groups who seek to undermine it though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
taxpaying parents have to pay for public schools while they're not allowed to receive a penny for religious private school.
A secular government paying for religious educations? You don't think that crosses a line?
quasi-public institutions, considered authoritative by the government and society alike, are waging constant psychological warfare against this country's Christian population.
That's probably not as clear as you think...
rainbow flag is flown on the grounds of American embassies.
Acknowledging an historically marginalized segment of our society is an attack on religion?
There's also a conflict of interest when the government favors ideologies that harm religion. Why don't we get rid of all conflicts of interest?
Some religious views conflict with facts of reality. Government should never be about appeasing fragile ideologies. If a religious sect is built on ignorance, intolerance, hatred, etc. that is not something government has any interest in protecting. The state has an obligation to society in general over the insular tribe within it.
State promotion of any religious view, including strong atheism, would not be neutralityI'm glad we agree. But that applies to "weak" atheism as much as it does "strong" atheism
Weak atheism is lack of belief. It is to religious view like silence is music. Silence is neutrality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Isn’t that what happened to Abortion Rights?The Supreme Court threw out Roe V Wade because the Christian Conservatives packed the court with conservative judges.
Yes, I would say so. Although I doubt Scotus would openly agree with that description.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
How is the State protected from religion when the population in the State are mostly Christians.
One of the duties of the state is to protect religious freedom. Religious freedom isn't only applicable to Christianity- it applies to all religious views. The personal views of government officials are irrelevant to their governmental obligation. Using the power of the people to advance their religion would be a betrayal of the trust the governed places in them.
Created: