Homosexuality and Evolution: God's Will and Human Belief

[BilliardsBall]

That isn't what I said.

You could respond to what I actually did say instead of this strawman, if your line of reasoning didn't have so many problems.
Tom

What you really said/implied was just because it's in a bunch of documents from religious persons, we should disregard all those documents unless we find documents from non-religious persons. Let's go further, let's allow the 2% of the population who are atheists to decide all science questions, politics and jurisprudence. Yes, it feels so much better to have person with their finger on the nuclear button who does not beseech God above for wisdom. Genius!

 

[BilliardsBall]

What else does make sense? It certainly isn't the shifting moral sands of religious ethics. They change all the time.


The moral calculus here is pretty easy. Rape causes huge and lasting damage to the victim. The perp's benefit is tiny and fleeting. So, the right thing to do for the Human Family, as a whole, is to be really harsh with rapists.
How hard is that to grasp?
Tom

So you have objective measurements (time) to decide subjective, metaphysic questions (morality). Pretty neat, for an encore, tell us all how to measure love, spirit, the divine spark, and justice. Go on, it's not "hard to grasp" if you try...

 

[BilliardsBall]

Wow, what a cop out.

Yes, I believe atheism is.

 

[BilliardsBall]

it's subjective with an objective aspect to it.


It's about as subjective as your view, which you've failed to defend beyond " it's right because the Bible says so."


Do you disagree that that is what morality is about?


Because they don't want to be raped. Because they don't want their wife to be raped. Because they don't want their children to be raped. And if that's not enough to deter a person from raping another person and they do it anyway, our society will deem them a criminal and lock them up behind bars. Society doesn't look too kindly upon rapists. Neither do other inmates.

What does God do about rapists?

"Feeling good" and "well-being" aren't necessarily the same thing. Maybe you need to read what I said again:

Secondly, if morality is about well-being (and I think it is), then it's not as arbitrary as you make it out to be. We are all physical beings, living in a physical universe which we all navigate within. In any given situation, there are a finite number of actions that can be taken, and we can compare the consequences of each action with respect to well-being (morality). Some of those actions will be better than others (good) and some will be worse (bad). From there, we can try to determine which would be the best course of action, and go from there. To me, this sure beats blindly swallowing dictates from a being that is far removed from ourselves and that never shows itself to us.


Perhaps because that fetus is going to kill them, if carried to term.

I've never really had the chance to defend beyond "Bible says" since atheists never ask questions and solely use rhetoric here. But before you make an attempt, I don't need to defend the Bible's notions of morality and justice, since they are almost entirely yours, too!

This statement sums your subjective opinion, with its underlying subjective axioms:

"Some of those actions will be better than others (good) and some will be worse (bad)."

Now, all you need do is define "good" and "bad". You are being circular in your "argument".

 

[SkepticThinker]

What you really said/implied was just because it's in a bunch of documents from religious persons, we should disregard all those documents unless we find documents from non-religious persons. Let's go further, let's allow the 2% of the population who are atheists to decide all science questions, politics and jurisprudence. Yes, it feels so much better to have person with their finger on the nuclear button who does not beseech God above for wisdom. Genius!

I would be okay with that. I'd prefer people actually practice morality and weigh out the consequences of actions, instead of blindly following dictates from old books.

I think you might agree with me if the person with their finger on the nuclear button was someone who worships Thor, or Allah.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, I believe atheism is.

Your "answer" most definitely was a cop out. Nice try again.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I've never really had the chance to defend beyond "Bible says" since atheists never ask questions and solely use rhetoric here. But before you make an attempt, I don't need to defend the Bible's notions of morality and justice, since they are almost entirely yours, too!

I've asked you all kinds of questions as to what you think morality is. Very specfic questions, in fact. More than once. So don't even try it.

The Bible's "notions of morality and justice" are not entirely mine. I disagree with many of the Bible's moral pronouncements. Slavery being one of them.

This statement sums your subjective opinion, with its underlying subjective axioms:

"Some of those actions will be better than others (good) and some will be worse (bad)."

Now, all you need do is define "good" and "bad". You are being circular in your "argument".

Perhaps you could explain what is circular about it.

We're talking about well-being, remember. "Good" is something that contributes to human well-being. "Bad" is something that detracts from it. That value judgment is the subjective part. We are constrained by the physical rules of the physical world we live in. We cannot make decisions outside of those rules. There are a finite list of things we can decide upon, within the framework of those rules. That is the objective part. The decisions we make within those parameters can be viewed as objective.

I've heard this chess analogy before, maybe it will help. Within a game of chess, there are very specific and well-defined rules that you must follow if you want to play chess. Within those parameters, there are a number of different moves you can make while playing the game; some will be objectively "good" moves, and some will be objectively "bad" moves. Some "good" moves will be "gooder" than others and some bad moves could be "badder" than others. But whatever move you weigh out and decide to make, you're still constrained by the overall rules of the game.

 

[sealchan]

What you really said/implied was just because it's in a bunch of documents from religious persons, we should disregard all those documents unless we find documents from non-religious persons. Let's go further, let's allow the 2% of the population who are atheists to decide all science questions, politics and jurisprudence. Yes, it feels so much better to have person with their finger on the nuclear button who does not beseech God above for wisdom. Genius!

And how many mass slaughters got started because someone said, "As God is my witness"? How many are recorded in the Bible itself?

 

[columbus]

What you really said/implied was just because it's in a bunch of documents from religious persons, we should disregard all those documents unless we find documents from non-religious persons.

No, I am pointing out that a momentous event, happening in a small time frame, should have some record outside of a couple of stories by nearly anonymous authors.
The fact that there are no such records is evidence in itself.
Tom

 

[columbus]

And how many mass slaughters got started because someone said, "As God is my witness"? How many are recorded in the Bible itself?

One need not go back that far.

When the Civil War, known as "The War of Northern Aggression" in some circles, both sides were certain that God Was on their side. But the Southerners had A Lot more Scriptures backing up their confidence.
Tom

 

[sealchan]

No, I am pointing out that a momentous event, happening in a small time frame, should have some record outside of a couple of stories by nearly anonymous authors.
The fact that there are no such records is evidence in itself.
Tom

Let's not forget about archeological evidence where it contradicts and where it doesn't support by absence. Also, it can be readily argued that the Jewish Testament indicates contradicting views of historical events, specifically how wholly the worship of other gods was eliminated from the promised land.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I would be okay with that. I'd prefer people actually practice morality and weigh out the consequences of actions, instead of blindly following dictates from old books.

I think you might agree with me if the person with their finger on the nuclear button was someone who worships Thor, or Allah.

"PLEASE, JESUS! HELP ME HAVE WISDOM, HELP ME NOT TO ESCALATE THIS CONFLICT!!!" is not "following dictates from old books."

 

[BilliardsBall]

Your "answer" most definitely was a cop out. Nice try again.

Please don't confuse sarcasm with a cop out.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I've asked you all kinds of questions as to what you think morality is. Very specfic questions, in fact. More than once. So don't even try it.

The Bible's "notions of morality and justice" are not entirely mine. I disagree with many of the Bible's moral pronouncements. Slavery being one of them.


Perhaps you could explain what is circular about it.

We're talking about well-being, remember. "Good" is something that contributes to human well-being. "Bad" is something that detracts from it. That value judgment is the subjective part. We are constrained by the physical rules of the physical world we live in. We cannot make decisions outside of those rules. There are a finite list of things we can decide upon, within the framework of those rules. That is the objective part. The decisions we make within those parameters can be viewed as objective.

I've heard this chess analogy before, maybe it will help. Within a game of chess, there are very specific and well-defined rules that you must follow if you want to play chess. Within those parameters, there are a number of different moves you can make while playing the game; some will be objectively "good" moves, and some will be objectively "bad" moves. Some "good" moves will be "gooder" than others and some bad moves could be "badder" than others. But whatever move you weigh out and decide to make, you're still constrained by the overall rules of the game.

It's simple, really, since I used to play chess competitively. Are you trying to win the game per the rules? Show off? Crush the opponent? Throw the game? Delay the game for a brilliancy you want to work toward?

You seem to think that good and bad are universals. They are not to all persons, all places and all times.

The circular reasoning of yours involved saying X is good and Y is bad, therefore the Bible has flawed morality. Your syllogism:

All slavery is bad.
The Bible advocates slavery.
The Bible is bad.

Other than the obvious fact that I believe the Bible teaches a feudal style of indentured servitude that is not Western slavery, invalidating and eroding your second premise, you have to defend why slavery is bad, why bad is a "thing", since "bad" is subjective and also a metaphysical concept. BE CONSISTENT. Explain how you believe "bad" is a metaphysical reality OR how slavery is "bad" or how "you know the rules of goodness and badness, and how they're obvious and universal, like some set of FIDE chess rules," or stop playing in the religionist's sandbox, where the syllogism is:

If objective moral values exist,then God exists.
Objective moral values exist.
Therefore,God exists.

Your very argument against the scriptures, "their are clear moral lines the Bible transgresses," is a support of my syllogism that moral values underscore the divine reality.

 

[columbus]

"PLEASE, JESUS! HELP ME HAVE WISDOM, HELP ME NOT TO ESCALATE THIS CONFLICT!!!" is not "following dictates from old books."

Ironically, Donald "the Baby Christian" Trump is the least likely President in my adult life to do that.

And the last time I remember a president saying that he had prayed over a conflict decision it was Bush II in the lead up to the Invasion of Iraq.
Tom

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, I am pointing out that a momentous event, happening in a small time frame, should have some record outside of a couple of stories by nearly anonymous authors.
The fact that there are no such records is evidence in itself.
Tom

May I respectfully point out that the NT writers are not so much anonymous as the MOST READ AUTHORS IN HUMAN HISTORY.

There are far more records available to us about the truth of Jesus Christ than there are of your birth, or my existence. Stop.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And how many mass slaughters got started because someone said, "As God is my witness"? How many are recorded in the Bible itself?

God IS our witness. True.

 

[columbus]

May I respectfully point out that the NT writers are not so much anonymous as the MOST READ AUTHORS IN HUMAN HISTORY.

That doesn't change the fact that they were anonymous.
Frankly, I think that they are mainly popular because the NT is so vague people can justify almost anything with it.
But you'd be surprised to learn how few Christians have actually read a significant amount of it. Having a copy and talking about what someone says it means aren't the same.
Tom

 

[columbus]

There are far more records available to us about the truth of Jesus Christ than there are of your birth, or my existence. Stop.

Nonsense. People can, and have, made up all kinds of stuff and put it in Jesus's mouth. Because there is no reliable source of information. Just people talking about what they're sure He must have meant.
Tom

 

[SkepticThinker]

Please don't confuse sarcasm with a cop out.

You avoided answering the question and addressing the point. That's a cop out.