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

[ZenMode]

So?

So it's self explanatory.

 

[Into the Night]

This pastor needs to go back to divinity school, assuming he ever attended one. Or get a refund if he did.

Why? He chose to apostate.

 

[ZenMode]

You're the one who kept insisting your morality is superior to Christianity.

I'm insist that the Bible has made it clear that it should not be considered a source for morality, because it blatantly endorses things that are immoral.

But if you are an atheist and a materialist, then your morality is subjective, it doesn't point to any objective truth, and humans do not actually have any inherent innate value, because we are nothing but electrons and quarks.

Again, a discussion about a scientific basis for morality is something different.

 

[Into the Night]

You prove his point by you needing scripture to make yours.

Nope. Neither you nor he are making a point.
You are just denying what already exists. You cannot make it just disappear.

 

[IBDaMann]

Organized universal, points at intelligent design!

"Random dust cloud" universe points to something superhuman that can actually create true randomness.

Who is that intelligent designer?

Probably a previous incarnation of Kurt Godel.

 

[Into the Night]

You're the one who kept insisting your morality is superior to Christianity.

But if you are an atheist and a materialist, then your morality is subjective, it doesn't point to any objective truth, it doesn't have an objective standard of absolute right and wrong, and humans do not actually have any inherent innate value because we are nothing but electrons and quarks.

He is not an atheist. He is a fundamentalist in several religions.

 

[Into the Night]

Only if the manual makes sense so that one can rely upon it. No contradictions. Everything clear and straightforward. Minimal or no errors. Written by experts.

The Bible meets none of those requirements.

Courtier's fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

So it's self explanatory.

Incomplete argument. Try again.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm insist that the Bible has made it clear that it should not be considered a source for morality,

Regardless of how you feel, it is.

because it blatantly endorses things that are immoral.

Void argument fallacy. Be specific.

Again, a discussion about a scientific basis for morality is something different.

Science isn't a religion.
Science isn't a morality.

 

[Cypress]

Militant atheists harbor a lot of anger. IDK why.

To have faith, the line people have to cross is believing there is something outside our universe just like there was something before it.

When I was flirting with atheism I never could convince myself that nothing existed but matter and energy, that a lawful universe could pop into existence by random chance, that imagination, love freely given, creativity, and conscience were nothing but the electrochemical reactions between electrons in the head.

The belligerent atheist is a bit of a mystery, as much as the Bible thumping Christian nationalist.

 

[ZenMode]

Incomplete argument. Try again.

Nope. It's self explanatory.

 

[ZenMode]

Regardless of how you feel, it is.

Void argument fallacy. Be specific.

I already have. Learn English.

Science isn't a religion.
Science isn't a morality.

I never said it was. Stop lying.

 

[IBDaMann]

Every astronomy and cosmology class I took, book I've read, podcast I watched talks about the universe almost exclusively in terms of matter, spacetime, and energy.

You deliberately limit your exposure to new ideas. You only entertain concepts that completely align with OBEDIENCE to the Holy Church of Latter Day Quantum Witnesses. Your religion demands that you maintain faith to bizarre concepts that have nothing to do with science, but that are nonetheless called "science."

You are one of the scientifically illiterate left who don't know what science is, who don't know what religion is, and who thus don't know the difference between the two. You publicly admit to thinking that a meaningless wall poster is the greatest truth to ever befall humanity. You can't make this shit up. You will only regurgitate what your church orders you to think and allows you to repeat.

I'll give you this little tidbit for free. Science is a logical model. It is entirely a "Think of it this way ..." You treat science as somehow being a physical model. Nobody has ever observed a quark, and thus no quark has ever been discovered, confirmed, detected, noted, etc. The fact that you can't get this into your head should make you wonder why you are too stupid to learn this material.

You are immersed in a strange religion that has convinced you that it is somehow science. Ditch your religion at first opportunity.

Explain precisely what you think the universe is,

There's no way he can express in a post what he perceives of the universe, which isn't what you perceive, because everyone's reality differs. Suffice to say that no one has ever observed the inobservable components of the physical universe, so no one knows. Why you believe that there exist people who have somehow observed these inobservable things is beyond me, but what is clear is that you can't be shaken from your WACKY beliefs.

leaving out any reference to or mention of matter, spacetime, and energy.

You don't even realize that you just demanded that three specific labels not be used, and that three different labels be used in their place.

 

[IBDaMann]

You're the one who kept insisting your morality is superior to Christianity.

All members of the Congregation of the Holy Climate think their HATRED for science is what makes their faith superior to all other religions.

But if you are an atheist and a materialist, ...

Whoa ... easy there Tiger. Who ever said that ZenMode was somehow an atheist? He is a devout minister of Climate; atheism is summarily precluded in his case.

... then your morality is subjective,

Have you ever defined "morality"? I'm just asking. Do you know what "subjective" means versus "objective"?

it doesn't point to any objective truth,

Have you ever defined objective truth? I'm just asking.

... it doesn't have an objective standard of absolute right and wrong,

I just checked. You haven't ever offered any clear, unambiguous, objectove standard for right and wrong. Were you going to get to that?

... and humans do not actually have any inherent innate value because we are nothing but electrons and quarks.

There you go again with your "humans are nothing more than Easter Bunnies, Chupacabras, quarks, UFOs and Lovely Little Lavendar Lunar Leprechauns. Your religion is WACKY!

So you admit on the official public record that you have no concept of either synergy or emergence. Thank you.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope. It's self explanatory.

An incomplete argument is not self explanatory. Either complete your argument or give up.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm insist that the Bible has made it clear that it should not be considered a source for morality,

It is, whether you like it or not.

because it blatantly endorses things that are immoral.

Void argument fallacy. You keep chanting this meaningless phrase.

Again, a discussion about a scientific basis for morality is something different.

Science is not religion.

 

[Into the Night]

I already have. Learn English.

Lie.

I never said it was. Stop lying.

DON'T TRY TO DENY OUR OWN POSTS!

 

[ZenMode]

It is, whether you like it or not.

So, you believe it's moral to kill your kids for back talk? You believe it's moral to kill your neighbor for working on the Sabbath? You believe it's moral to kill your wife for not being a virgin on your wedding night?