If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[Cypress]

you're a dumbfuck!!!
cooperation is objectively beneficial, even for atheists!
all human cultures exhibit enhanced cooperation and the subsequent survival benefits!

I bet you've never donated a minute of your time to working at a food bank, donated $$ to NGOs working in Gaza, never volunteered to mentor at-risk teens.

And even if you had, it was only in the most casual, infrequent, and cursory way.

When atheists like you claim that humans just naturally and easily dedicate themselves to serving others, the facts on the ground do not match your grandiose rhetoric.

 

[ZenMode]

So no defense or rationalization of moral relativism?

You are obsessed with complaining about Christianity. All I'm saying is that there seems to be a universal moral law humans cultivate which seems to somehow be more than just matter and energy, and which is more than the requirements for scientific Darwinian survival.

God didn't write either the Old testament or the NT.
They were written by men. Your complaints should be directed towards those men.


The Hebrew scribes didn't get God right, Galen didn't get medical science right, and Aristotle didn't get physics right.
But that doesn't mean they were not basically on the right track in probing the boundaries of a higher truth or higher reality.

No, I won't defend moral relativism. That's what religion brings us in the form of divine preference. That's why Muslims can take sex slaves during war and throw homosexuals off of rooftops. It's why early Christians debated the news to follow God's law, which is blatantly barbaric.

I'm not complaining about Christianity. I'm pointing out that the God of the Bible, who is supposed to be the ultimate determiner of what is/isn't moral, is barbaric by the later moral standards of the same God and of the BIBLE.

That being the case, it also seems clear that the Bible wasn't inspired by the all-knowing, all-moral creator of the universe. If such a being existed, there would be no need for God to say "whoopsie!" in regard to what behavior was endorsed in the Bible.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Well, yes. Atheist generally don't have books and other imaginary beings pushing them to do things.

Sorry, Dutch, but I have to comment here.

Zen, you "atheists" do have the "need" to pretend your position is superior to that of others because of the delusion that your joint positions are products of scientific thinking and logic. So while not codified or in books...your position IS the product of imagination...not reality.

 

[ZenMode]

Sorry, Dutch, but I have to comment here.

Zen, you "atheists" do have the "need" to pretend your position is superior to that of others because of the delusion that your joint positions are products of scientific thinking and logic. So while not codified or in books...your position IS the product of imagination...not reality.

Correct. There is a reason religion, according to its own description, is based on faith and not reason. People lower their standards for religious belief in ways that they don't for other beliefs in their lives.

 

[Cypress]

No, I won't defend moral relativism.

Because it's indefensible, and you know it.
You also know that relativism is the logical endpoint if the world is nothing but matter and energy.

That's what religion brings us in the form of divine preference. That's why Muslims can take sex slaves during war and throw homosexuals off of rooftops. It's why early Christians debated the news to follow God's law, which is blatantly barbaric.

I'm not complaining about Christianity. I'm pointing out that the God of the Bible, who is supposed to be the ultimate determiner of what is/isn't moral, is barbaric by the later moral standards of the same God and of the BIBLE.

That being the case, it also seems clear that the Bible wasn't inspired by the all-knowing, all-moral creator of the universe. If such a being existed, there would be no need for God to say "whoopsie!" in regard to what behavior was endorsed in the Bible.

You're as much a strict biblical literalist as any fundamentalist fire and brimstone Pentecostal.

Explain to me why the world's most strict and uncompromising biblical literalists are always (curiously) atheists and fundamentalist conservative Christians.

The Old Testament was not written by God, and it is not an academic historical study. The stories of mass destruction and genocide are not supported by the archeological record. The facts on the ground don't support your claim of wholesale destruction and genocide.

The Hebrew scribes who wrote the stories were almost certainly using hyperbole and literary licence when they crafted these stories. They were writing about events that happened 500 to 2,000 years before them. They obviously were not witnesses and didn't even have access to witness testimony.

There were undoubtedly skirmishes when the Israelites moved into and acquired Cananite and Amalakite territory.

But your whole case against Christianity rests on ancient Hebrew stories which aren't supported by the facts on the ground.

The fact is the Hebrew scribes didn't get god right, Aristotle didn't get physics right, Ptolemy didn't get astronomy right, but you could say they were basically on the right track in thinking about things.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Correct. There is a reason religion, according to its own description, is based on faith and not reason. People lower their standards for religious belief in ways that they don't for other beliefs in their lives.

Atheism is based on faith and belief also. So you ought really not to be faulting it for that.

 

[Cypress]

Well, yes. Atheist generally don't have books and other imaginary beings pushing them to do things.

Your whole line of argumentation doesn't add up.

You want to dismiss actual witness and primary source testimony in the NT about the resurrection as just being fabrications or hallucinations.

But then you want present ancient Hebrew stories in the OT written 500 to 1,000 years after the events they purport to describe as authoritative and reliable.

Why two different standards of literary interpretation?
Undoubtedly, your standards changed because you could use a story in the OT as a straw man.

 

[Margot]

[

Yes it is, dummy.

Cosmologists are routinely awarded the Nobel Prize in physics because their science is a branch of physics.

Your Bible thumping friends got annoyed when I said every physics and cosmology class I've ever taken discusses the universe almost exclusively in terms of matter, energy, and spacetime.

Since matter, energy, and spacetime annoyed them so much, they were obviously contemplating introducing the mystical, the paranormal, the transcendental, the existential into American science education.

Theology doesn't fall under science! Science can't comprehend true Theology, because Theology isn't subject to the laws of physics.
It's another dimension! Based in the Spirit world,that predates the Physical universe

 

[ZenMode]

Atheism is based on faith and belief also. So you ought really not to be faulting it for that.

Atheism is based on a lack of evidence of gods.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Atheism is based on a lack of evidence of gods.

No it isn't. Atheism essentially is based on a human choice. One has to choose to be identified as an atheist...and that choice is predicated on several things...of which "a lack of evidence of gods" sees to play an insignificant part.
On the other hand, a significant part of the choice is made by the blind guess of either a) There are no gods...or b) It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

YOU are attempting to persuade me that the blind guess "b" is what is operating with you, but listening to the words you exchange with the religionists here convinces me that both "a" and "b" are major ingredients in why you made the choice to use "atheist" as a self-descriptor. The fact that there is a lack of evidence of gods is almost incidental...an excuse, if you will, for making that choice.

 

[ZenMode]

No it isn't.

It actually is. I've never seen, touched, talked to or had any type of interaction with a God....ever.

Atheism essentially is based on a human choice. One has to choose to be identified as an atheist...and that choice is predicated on several things...of which "a lack of evidence of gods" sees to play an insignificant part.
On the other hand, a significant part of the choice is made by the blind guess of either a) There are no gods...or b) It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

One just has to look at what I said above and consider that the people who did claim to interact with God's were uneducated and very confused and scared of the world around them.

YOU are attempting to persuade me that the blind guess "b" is what is operating with you, but listening to the words you exchange with the religionists here convinces me that both "a" and "b" are major ingredients in why you made the choice to use "atheist" as a self-descriptor. The fact that there is a lack of evidence of gods is almost incidental...an excuse, if you will, for making that choice.

It's not a blind guess... it's a lack of evidence.

 

[Ross Dolan]

It actually is. I've never seen, touched, talked to or had any type of interaction with a God....ever.

So what? Are you saying the only things that exist are things you (or anyone else) can see, touch, talk to, or interact with?

C'mon.

One just has to look at what I said above and consider that the people who did claim to interact with God's were uneducated and very confused and scared of the world around them.

Without a doubt, the people who assert that a god exists...need to meet the burden of proof...and they cannot...mostly because they are merely blindly guessing.

That has nothing to do with why you identify as an atheist.

It's not a blind guess... it's a lack of evidence.

If you are asserting "there are no gods"...or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...then IT IS A BLIND GUESS. (It may be correct...and it may not be correct. I wonder which it is.)

If you are claiming you are not asserting "there are no gods"...and "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...why are you designating yourself "atheist?" Why are you choosing that designation?

You wouldn't.

As for lack of evidence...there might be a universe full of evidence. But we do not know if any gods exist. BUT IF ONE DOES...then EVERYTHING is evidence.

Why can you not get that through you head?

 

[Into the Night]

RQAA

Lie.

 

[Into the Night]

Derp

Obviously not and obviously not.

Stop asking dumb questions.

So you have some weird hatred of potatoes and you don't want to explain it. Gotit.
You can't blame your repetitious problems on anybody else, Void.

 

[Into the Night]

It actually is. I've never seen, touched, talked to or had any type of interaction with a God....ever.

So? Argument from ignorance fallacy.

One just has to look at what I said above and consider that the people who did claim to interact with God's were uneducated and very confused and scared of the world around them.

You don't get to speak for everybody. Omniscience fallacy.

It's not a blind guess... it's a lack of evidence.

You can't make any evidence just disappear, Void. Attempted negative proof fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

I bet you've never donated a minute of your time to working at a food bank, donated $$ to NGOs working in Gaza, never volunteered to mentor at-risk teens.

And even if you had, it was only in the most casual, infrequent, and cursory way.

When atheists like you claim that humans just naturally and easily dedicate themselves to serving others, the facts on the ground do not match your grandiose rhetoric.

He is not an atheist.

 

[Into the Night]

Theology doesn't fall under science! Science can't comprehend true Theology, because Theology isn't subject to the laws of physics.
It's another dimension! Based in the Spirit world,that predates the Physical universe

There is only one Universe. There is no 'outside' because there is no 'inside'.

 

[Into the Night]

Atheism is based on a lack of evidence of gods.

Redefinition fallacy. You cannot make any evidence just disappear, Void.
You are not an atheist. You are a fundamentalist in your various religions. The Church of No God is one of your religions.

 

[Into the Night]

No, I won't defend moral relativism.

There is no such thing as 'moral relativism'. Buzzword fallacy.

That's what religion brings us in the form of divine preference.

Religions contain morals. Even your religions contain morals.

That's why Muslims can take sex slaves during war and throw homosexuals off of rooftops. It's why early Christians debated the news to follow God's law, which is blatantly barbaric.

So you deny all morals?

I'm not complaining about Christianity.

Lie. Yes you are.

I'm pointing out that the God of the Bible, who is supposed to be the ultimate determiner of what is/isn't moral, is barbaric by the later moral standards of the same God and of the BIBLE.

Neither God nor His gospel has changed.

That being the case, it also seems clear that the Bible wasn't inspired by the all-knowing, all-moral creator of the universe.

Attempted proof by synthesis.

If such a being existed, there would be no need for God to say "whoopsie!" in regard to what behavior was endorsed in the Bible.

Attempted proof by synthesis. That's a fallacy, dude.

 

[Monad Portal]

I bet you've never donated a minute of your time to working at a food bank, donated $$ to NGOs working in Gaza, never volunteered to mentor at-risk teens.

And even if you had, it was only in the most casual, infrequent, and cursory way.

When atheists like you claim that humans just naturally and easily dedicate themselves to serving others, the facts on the ground do not match your grandiose rhetoric.

you have presented no argument against cooperation being universally good and the reason for morality, to facilitate cooperation.