Thats all i need to know from you
So that is the end of the road?
You wanted to hear me say that killing someone is not absolutely immoral?
Is killing Hitler immoral? What if a guy comes in to my home tonight with a gun, and I kill him first - is that moral?
What point did you make?
From all of this, I find the most interesting nugget to take away is the assumption that humanity needs ABSOLUTE morality from someone other than humans to be a moral society.
It is a common tennet of religion, that humans cant be good unless they are told by an authority to be good.
To say that morality hasnt changed over time and circumstances is simply ignoring history. Slavery was moral 2000 years ago, and today immoral - how can you ignore that single example? How does that one example not blow up your theory of absolute morality? If morals change over time, how can they be absolute?
vanzack
first, lets get the critera inline with the program. i am not standing infront of christianity asking you to respect it, its servants, or its message. and certainly never did i administer the gospel to the board. so what exactly do you assume i base my life on? christianity? to who do you assume i surrender + become a robot in thinking too? pseudoscience dogma?
now i will address our guest star to the conversation, mr james bartley (applause). like you made an assumption, as did i with the fact that you would be familar with his name, and in the case you were not, it was made the only passage that gave reference to names in the post, naming the apprentice seaman, + scientist, so you would emphasize it. though, was seeking something deeper than wikipedia.
the james bartley story is a common tale with a variety of versions, but the message almost always reamains the same. wikipedia gives a overview with a direct verdict that its a urban tale. wiki doesnt measure up to a standard of reliable evidence with it errors, but you can certainly expect its core to be truth + take it on face value, that the whale of tale is a "fable". now, at the same time the records of the british admiralty tesify to james bartley being swallowed. which has more merit. or should we just make it the best of three and see what snopes suggests.
without a doubt a sector of christianity was going use this case as a defence for reliability of scripture against biblical critics. but, if we confine the account to its literal meaning, logic tells myself i would be have to be gulliable to be guided to holding its hand in truth. but on the basis of science it is plausiable with a window possibility for the event. though, suspicious of motive for some of the creationist who echoed and promoted the story at the time.
what i was trying to say vanzack, i sampled your jonah example which seems to be one of the most exagerated accounts within the bible, and matched it with what seems to be the most exagerated story outside the gospel with an identical theme.
bartley, was his account a reality? jesus walked the earth, but did he spend three days in the grave like jonah in the belly of the whale? or was he from heaven? can it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for the christian or the athsiest, no. but if man can make a submarine that can submerge for three days, and then rise to the surface hosting a safe journey for its crew, i cant tell a christian that his god cant do the same when they labeled their god head omnipotent, and i dont have a single fact to prove him not to be. but you cant see him right, so i should buy into that. but a christian will tell me i see his work. either way, one has a mind, but i cant see it and for the christians they dont need to see it to use it.
as for the flood, that is a good question. i've heard arguments from christians who suggest it was a global event, while for other christians, the deluge was a local occurance. i would ask the father how art thee do thy flood, though, i dont have the ark of covenant as part of my art deco. but will be sure to purchase the original if it ever hits the black-market.
dont have the answer, but why is it necessary, because you can prove it beyond doubt it is impossible. you should ask a christian this, if they cant respond, educate them exactly why it is impossible and set them free.
a previous post form someone, cited that basically life as we know it is nothing more than a blip on the earth or universe time line. well, if thats the case, the forces of nature went to enormous detail for the privilege of life as we know it. artists sign paintings and it seem the only thing missing from this solar system is a signature. where do you live in atheism vanzack?
i am of the highest delight i could breath new life into your thread and thankyou for the encore request. though, it is now that i must leave you, and will do so with a message to you my socialst colleague, that has cast myself in the role as defence secretary for the bible.
the forum would be a ghetto of degenerate gamblers right? basically arent religious folks in your state of mind gambling with their life on heaven @ infinite odds for a return of eternal life. where else would they be. man created god right? well man created science books too. the army is called the defence force., not attack corps. so if your going to go to war starting it, my suggestion, approach it with an informed attitude. otherwise your just another athiest terrorist that gives the rest of the group of non-believers a dirty name.
though the bat and ball season has returned, that should kill your bordom you glorifed rhetorical read enough to talk about it hell bound self worshipping god spinner.
To be fair, I would like to give you a chance here because you have presented some evidence for your side of this debate.
So please source each one of your claims.
What prophecies? What scientific claims do you speak of? Who are the "independent respected scholars" of history you speak of? What exactly are you talking about in your last statement?
Source them please. You present them as facts, I would like you to source your facts. Then we might be getting somewhere.
Why cant you acknowledge that you are also taking an enormous risk if your god is not the right god? Why do you constantly only assume it is you and your christian beliefs OR atheism that is right?
You are taking a huge risk on the afterlife too. If the muslims, person, or scientoligists are right, then you picked the wrong god and you will pay the consequences.
Stop just repeating yourself and think about what I am saying.
I have no idea how to respond to hoodwinks post.
I would answer your point by saying that if you think an all knowing, all powerful, all loving TIMELESS god would enact rules of slavery, rape, torture, and murder because it was the "old days" - then you are greatly selling short your gods abilities to foresee what is really right and wrong.
In fact, I found your comments so insulting to a rational persons intelligence, I didnt even respond. But you asked - so there it is. Your point is that the specific rules for slavery are progressive for that time - even if I am to assume that is true - it would seem to me that god would tell those people that slavery and rape are wrong rather than put out rules to govern it - but hey - thats just me.
Jeesh.
BTW - just so you know - these are the verses you are calling "progressive", and also called them "the first civil rights movement, before there was civil rights". That is so funny I literally spit snot out of my nose while typing it.
OLD TESTAMENT:
Leviticus 25: 44-46
As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.
Exodus 21: 20-21
When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property.
And for the nutjobs who say that is only in the old testament, here is some new testament for you:
Ephesians 6:5-9
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. Render service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not to men and women, knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are slaves or free. And, masters, do the same to them. Stop threatening them, for you know that both of you have the same Master in heaven, and with him there is no partiality.
Titus 2: 9-10
Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. … Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one look down on you.
Very progressive indeed. And that is just slavery!!! Dont get me started on Rape and Murder!! Oh, the fun in the Bible!!
Sounds exactly like the first civil rights movement!!
This one in particular, is very progressive. It reminds me of something Dr Martin Luther King would say. It reeks of civil rights.
When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property.
So in other words, beat your slaves senseless, just dont kill them.
Very progressive, exegesis, and hermeneutic.
And to try to respond to hoodwinkeds post - I believe he is trying to say that I cant disprove that a man lived in a whale or that there was a flood, or that the earth is 6k years old.
To respond - I never said I could disprove those things, or attempt to disprove them. I attempted to create a conversation about the LIKELIHOOD of those events. The problem with is post, and lots of posts in this thread - are not the possibility of certain events happening - but probabilities.
Is it possible for a man to live in a whale for 3 days? I guess. Is it probable? Maybe a billion to one. Now, combine that billion to one with all of the other billion to ones in the bible, and a rational person can look at all options and choose the most likely. Is science always right? No. But one can certainly make a decision based on intelligence of probabiliities. Just because something is possible doesnt mean it is probable.
I never once tried to disprove anything in this thread about the existence of god. I stated already that was a debate that is illogical. I have stated that is very unlikely (in my calculations) that a man can live in a whale, or that the world is indeed 6k years old and men rode dinosaurs like cowboys. I dont think that is likely, I think it is much more likely that the bible is a collections of stories that served a purpose, written by man, and abused by man for different reasons.
So that is what I believe hoodwinked was saying.
Yes, what you are saying is absolutely 100% correct. if this tea pot is 100% absolutely invisible, then i cannot prove that it exists and i also cannot prove that it doesnt exist.
When you isolate this particular case by itself, it sounds nuts, AGREE?
But when you look at God, if you just isolate God on its own, it doesnt sound right, just like the tea pot, correct?
But when you get God and you attach it to the bible, arguments for the origins of the universe and the fine tuning tuning of the universe, creation of mankind, the explosion of churches soon after the ressrection, Man (priests) giving up there lives to serve God just to name a few, it becomes a completely more palusible to believe and a different proposition to when you compare it to the Tea Pot.....Do you agree?
So that is the end of the road?
You wanted to hear me say that killing someone is not absolutely immoral?
Is killing Hitler immoral? What if a guy comes in to my home tonight with a gun, and I kill him first - is that moral?
What point did you make?
Again, that is all i need to know, i didnt mention anything regarding revenge, capital punishment etc etc. My example was, in tribes, man kill and eat each other because there customs tell them to.
Now just listen to yourself when you say, it is NOT ABSOLUTELY IMMORAL to
Kill and eat each other
Rape a little boy then cut his genitals off after
Going around and being a massive racist
Remember, these are NOT ABSOLUTELY IMMORAL according to you.
That tells me all i need to know
From all of this, I find the most interesting nugget to take away is the assumption that humanity needs ABSOLUTE morality from someone other than humans to be a moral society.
It is a common tennet of religion, that humans cant be good unless they are told by an authority to be good.
To say that morality hasnt changed over time and circumstances is simply ignoring history. Slavery was moral 2000 years ago, and today immoral - how can you ignore that single example? How does that one example not blow up your theory of absolute morality? If morals change over time, how can they be absolute?
Under your model, the following scenario is very possible.
Hypothetically, A boy got gang raped by a group of men, afterwards, they shat on his face then cut his balls off,
You say, that is absolutely disgusting, i hope they get punished , rot etc etc etc. What they did was so wrong, i hope what they get is bad.
Then i say, to me, that is fine what that group of men did. I have no problem with it at all, good on them.
Therefore, IF MORALS ARE NOT ABSOLUTE, then you or anyone else is in NO position to say that what i just said is ABSOLUTELY WRONG. You can call me whatever name you want under the sun, but you cannot say my view about the scenario is wrong. Remember to you it is wrong, but what is right or wrong is not absolute.
Do u agree or not?
Disagree, when you put the claims of the origins of the universe, fine tuning of the universe, the bible all together, then the arguments for te supernatural are very plausible.
Its just that it cannot be proved or DISPROVED.
Disagree, when you put the claims of the origins of the universe, fine tuning of the universe, the bible all together, then the arguments for te supernatural are very plausible.
Its just that it cannot be proved or DISPROVED.
We are talking about one of mans deepest questions questions in the history of mankind. You need to be 100% accurate.
What if we said, there is a part of the air which we breath, scientists DONT know what it is, it cant be attributed to anything that we know, hear or see. Scientists dont know what it is and likely will never figure it out, THEN your example would become much more valid. In fact it wont be able to be disproven. Whether you say it is wrong or not, you dont know.
I will repeat it, u either believe the bible OR u believe the authors are one of the greatest cappers that ever lived.
The bible has come under the most intense scrutiny of any book in mankind over 2000 years and has survived this. Furthermore, the most respected historical scholars claim the holy book to be true.
If you dont want to believe it, let me add, u ahave NO evidence that the events in the bible did not happen.
Again, faith v non faith, its as simple as that.
This one in particular, is very progressive. It reminds me of something Dr Martin Luther King would say. It reeks of civil rights.
When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property.
So in other words, beat your slaves senseless, just dont kill them.
Very progressive, exegesis, and hermeneutic.
Think about these when u go to bed tonight mate
1. Origins of the universe, Einsteins theory of relativity shows that the universe is expanding. Furthermore discoveries by Hubble have confirmed that the UNIVERSE BEGAN TO EXIST. When the universe began to exist, time, space and matter began to exist. Therefore, prior to the beginning of the universe, time, space and matter began to exist.
Now here is the crunch line, i am afraid you will be backed into a corner here. "SOMETHING CANNOT COME FROM NOTHING". Therefore as we know the universe began to exist, the universe must have a cause. This cause must be timeless (Eternal), materialess and speceless. You can try and determine what that is satrting to shape like.
Now, u must either believe, the UNIVERSE popped into being FROM NOTHING by Nothing (u are very free to believe that) or something outside of space, time, energy and matter created it.
YOU DECIDE.
2. The fine tuning, did you know that, if you changed any of the conditions by the slightest, the earth would not be conducive to life. ie, the distance from the sun to the moon, earth to the sun, moon to earth etc etc, electro magnetic fields, if any of these conditions were changed by the slightest, we would not have life. Now, u must either believe, this all happened by luck and chance OR a creator is behind this.
I am only touching the surface, did u know that when the big bang happened, if the rate of expansion of energy was slower by like a ridicolous small amount, the the universe would have collapsed.
Anyways this is a massive topic, it is really amazing, U either believe a creator was behind it with an intention OR you believe it was all pure luck and chance
3. The Bible is God's word. Men were used as an instrument for God to convery his thoughts.
The Bible is a compilation of 66 books written over 1500 years by 40 DIFFERENT authors.
They were written in 3 different languages in 3 different continents.
Let me ask you a question,
If you got 5 people working in the same organisation, same nationality, in the same year and you asked them to speak there mind on ONE controversial subject, say abortion, what are the chances that they are all going to agree? Yet, despite all the differences in geographical locations of the authors, nationalities etc etc, the Bible is absolutely HARMONEOUS on the controversial subjects from beginning to end. If one person wasnt speaking through different people, what are the chances of that happening.
Scientists and many people thought the earth was flat, the bible describes it as a circle, furthermore, the common belief back then was that the earth rested on 3 large tourteses, where as the bible clearly states that the earth does not rest of anything, (how do you know that without the technoclogy of the last few hundred years?)
Furthermore, before the oceans were explored, how does the bible know of the springs and valleys of the ocean?
It even knew of the great hydrologic cycle with tremendous clarity thousands of years before scientistsand confirm this.
It is the only spiritual book THAT HAS FULFILLED PROPHECY.
Either you believe in the bible or you have to think that the authors were the greatest cappers to ever live on the earth with a 100% strike rate.
It also clearly states that the Messiah will come, born of a virgin and that he will be rejected by his own people. That is where that Zeitgest came into it, those fairy tales were trying to claim that they were the messiah' etc, Horus etc......
The bible does not have contradictions, but it does have 1 mistake, the biggest one is when when Adam and Eve in the garden rejected God, please dont do the same.
This one in particular, is very progressive. It reminds me of something Dr Martin Luther King would say. It reeks of civil rights.
When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property.
So in other words, beat your slaves senseless, just dont kill them.
Very progressive, exegesis, and hermeneutic.
Think about these when u go to bed tonight mate
1. Origins of the universe, Einsteins theory of relativity shows that the universe is expanding. Furthermore discoveries by Hubble have confirmed that the UNIVERSE BEGAN TO EXIST. When the universe began to exist, time, space and matter began to exist. Therefore, prior to the beginning of the universe, time, space and matter began to exist.
Now here is the crunch line, i am afraid you will be backed into a corner here. "SOMETHING CANNOT COME FROM NOTHING". Therefore as we know the universe began to exist, the universe must have a cause. This cause must be timeless (Eternal), materialess and speceless. You can try and determine what that is satrting to shape like.
Now, u must either believe, the UNIVERSE popped into being FROM NOTHING by Nothing (u are very free to believe that) or something outside of space, time, energy and matter created it.
YOU DECIDE.
2. The fine tuning, did you know that, if you changed any of the conditions by the slightest, the earth would not be conducive to life. ie, the distance from the sun to the moon, earth to the sun, moon to earth etc etc, electro magnetic fields, if any of these conditions were changed by the slightest, we would not have life. Now, u must either believe, this all happened by luck and chance OR a creator is behind this.
I am only touching the surface, did u know that when the big bang happened, if the rate of expansion of energy was slower by like a ridicolous small amount, the the universe would have collapsed.
Anyways this is a massive topic, it is really amazing, U either believe a creator was behind it with an intention OR you believe it was all pure luck and chance
3. The Bible is God's word. Men were used as an instrument for God to convery his thoughts.
The Bible is a compilation of 66 books written over 1500 years by 40 DIFFERENT authors.
They were written in 3 different languages in 3 different continents.
Let me ask you a question,
If you got 5 people working in the same organisation, same nationality, in the same year and you asked them to speak there mind on ONE controversial subject, say abortion, what are the chances that they are all going to agree? Yet, despite all the differences in geographical locations of the authors, nationalities etc etc, the Bible is absolutely HARMONEOUS on the controversial subjects from beginning to end. If one person wasnt speaking through different people, what are the chances of that happening.
Scientists and many people thought the earth was flat, the bible describes it as a circle, furthermore, the common belief back then was that the earth rested on 3 large tourteses, where as the bible clearly states that the earth does not rest of anything, (how do you know that without the technoclogy of the last few hundred years?)
Furthermore, before the oceans were explored, how does the bible know of the springs and valleys of the ocean?
It even knew of the great hydrologic cycle with tremendous clarity thousands of years before scientistsand confirm this.
It is the only spiritual book THAT HAS FULFILLED PROPHECY.
Either you believe in the bible or you have to think that the authors were the greatest cappers to ever live on the earth with a 100% strike rate.
It also clearly states that the Messiah will come, born of a virgin and that he will be rejected by his own people. That is where that Zeitgest came into it, those fairy tales were trying to claim that they were the messiah' etc, Horus etc......
The bible does not have contradictions, but it does have 1 mistake, the biggest one is when when Adam and Eve in the garden rejected God, please dont do the same.
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
