The Creationist's Argument and its Greatest Weakness

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't want to discuss what paedophiles believe, but they insist that children want their heinous behavior and they enjoy their behavior.

But that belief isn't based on empathy, because empathy is about actually attempting to understand the feelings of others rather than assuming them. So my question remains unanswered.

Your second point undermines your own argument, human sacrifice being perfectly acceptable to persons with subjective morality.

Why can you never answer my questions?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why is it an about face? It says right there in my profile that I am an atheist. Whether you could or could not convert me should have no bearing on whether or not you can demonstrate that the writers of the Gospels were honest and that the content is true. You believe it to be so. You place your own salvation on it. You should be able to list your evidence without having to think twice about it.

But you can't offer any evidence, you know it and I know it and I know you know it. So you play a silly game of "if I, would you". It's lame and it's transparent.

I would have to do more work than I care to do for you to really plumb the depths of the seven points below, though I'm trying to be friendly toward you, to pile up evidence. I can sum the evidence this way, however, if that helps you think through the issues:

1) I read the writers often and find them self-disclosing, self-limiting (little income, willing to risk persecution, limited faithful marriages, etc.) and honest

2) I have much personal experience with Jesus, and trust Him for salvation

3) Archaeology is a modern science and there was no archaeology in the ANE, so the Bible writers had to be writing contemporaneous to their events, as archaeology has unearthed countless details showing they wrote when conservatives think they wrote

4) The Bible is extraordinarily pithy, containing fabulous money, love, relationship, mental health and other advice in mere sentences--I agree with the writer who said, "No one ever spoke like this man, Jesus"

5) I have carefully and exactingly studied prophecy fulfillment, Bible codes and more, and find the Bible remarkable/unique/God-derived in its prescience, construction and accuracy

6) The Bible seems univocal to me in all its major and minor doctrines, despite being written over a millennia by 40 authors/teams of authors

7) The Bible has endured despite exceptional, specific persecution--and per prophecy, such persecution caused it to flourish!

Now if I may, if it is that important to you, you shall pick any or all of those 7 points and really dig deep for yourself--I don't care if you do so to find God or to prove me wrong--either way, if you seek you will find God IMHO--if you simply come back with snappy rhetoric, however, as a friend to you, may I say everything you've accused me of in recent posts is what is true of you--there is an intentional shallowness there, which you would accuse me of, an intentional shallowness that masks the need for God.

Am I shallow or do I simply have some kind of intense, throbbing confirmation bias? I have decades of Bible study under my belt AFTER greatly resisting conversion as a Jew (as I knew I would, I lost friends, family and community standing after conversion) AND a Bachelor's in Religion AND a year of Greek at university AND I've been discussing and debating all the related issues to Bible honesty for decades.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If your "religion" is what made you so unable
to comprehend what someone else actually said
such that it must go round and round in your
head and come out as having been stupid
and illogical, you are hardly making your
religion look very good.

Atheists love to substitute X for suffering and come up with their complaint of the moment

You may have had this kind of bigoted stereotyping
in your head all along, of course,but your
displaying it here yet again is not good
advertising for how your religion might
improve a person.

Any clue why street preachin' where people
you insult can directly access you might be risky?

But hey,do keep it up, I am not on your side.
The worse you make "Christianity" look,
the better.

I'm trying to show myself friendly. I'm being honest--it's not stereotyping or bigoted to note that my atheist contacts consistently claim they cannot trust Jesus for salvation because they nobly disrespect the suffering they believe this god would cause, not human sin, of course.

Atheists have a half-full glass of life--not my opinion but my anecdotal "research", having witnessed to many hundreds of atheists in groups and singly, for decades. If it helps you understand, I see you cursing God as a group for the suffering of children, rather than praising God for children.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I did not make any hypothesis, since I am not a moral realist (believer that there is such a thing as moral absolutes).

The question is what you think, since you presumably believe in absolute morality (not depending on the mora of the time).

So, either

1) Slavery is acceptable
2) Slavery is not acceptable

It cannot be both, can it? Unless it is one or the other depending on the times and customs, which would bring you in the field of relativists.

So, what a believer in absolute morality would say?

Ciao

- viole

Biblical indentured servitude (workers do agriculture under good living conditions to earn food/shelter/protection, and to demonstrate that the whole world will come to serve God's people in the coming age, like it or not) is acceptable.

Western, modern slavery (beatings, kidnappings, rapes, poor living conditions, starvation) is never acceptable.

Both stances are outlined in the scriptures.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That is not what I meant (ready for what, BTW, Allah judgement, or Apollos? Or some other mythological thing?).

What I meant is: if you lose your faith tomorrow, would you lose your moral compass? Would you start thinking that killing, stealing, raping, etc, is not so bad after all?

Ciao

- viole

You and I have innate moral compasses. Therefore, without faith, I would have morals. Your morals, the Bible informs us, and the fact that sometimes you sin against conscience (I'll do X to hurt person Y because I know it's immoral but it feels good to me) is a self-witness that moral accountability will come, soon.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm trying to show myself friendly. I'm being honest--it's not stereotyping or bigoted to note that my atheist contacts consistently claim they cannot trust Jesus for salvation because they nobly disrespect the suffering they believe this god would cause, not human sin, of course.

Atheists have a half-full glass of life--not my opinion but my anecdotal "research", having witnessed to many hundreds of atheists in groups and singly, for decades. If it helps you understand, I see you cursing God as a group for the suffering of children, rather than praising God for children.

This is filled with nonsense and false claims if not outright lies. At any rate, he knows that he can't support these claims so why post it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Biblical indentured servitude (workers do agriculture under good living conditions to earn food/shelter/protection, and to demonstrate that the whole world will come to serve God's people in the coming age, like it or not) is acceptable.

Western, modern slavery (beatings, kidnappings, rapes, poor living conditions, starvation) is never acceptable.

Both stances are outlined in the scriptures.

Biblical slavery also incorporated lifetime slavery where people were property as were their offspring. They could be beaten, rather severely, in fact they could be beaten to death, if they took a few days to die.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I see where you might feel that those are "objective", but even from within the biological/empathetic framework I discussed these ideas are entirely specific to human beings - and not even all human beings (take psychopaths for example). Among the other animals of Earth, it has been seen time and time again that adults of one species can feel compassion and empathy for the young of an entirely different species. And yet, it has also been seen time and time again that some of those same species will specifically prey on the young, elderly or sick when they are in need of food. All of it subjective through and through.


According to you, God gives people varying duration of life. God gives people varying circumstances. God gives people varying levels of strife. God sees to it that some children are born to abusive parents. There is a question of what is just in all of this. Is it just to send a child into a situation you know is going to be harrowing for them? How about into a situation which you know will not only be harrowing, but will ultimately end in the child's death at a very young age? All of these things have happened, and you would have to credit your God with them. Is this sort of activity just? Deciding the haves and have-nots before they even have a chance to prove themselves? Here on Earth, would you agree with a system instituted by humans that decides the career path that each individual will have before they are even born? Why or why not?


And you think this wasn't attempted? Did you forget about or ignore what I said about consensus? You just need to accept that if you are on the losing side of consensus that you don't get to just "make change." Consensus would need to change - the majority would need to vote individuals into government who would pursue and execute that change. And that's what pro-lifers have been trying to get done ever since Roe vs. Wade, have they not? You see... you (and everyone else) are bound by the idea of consensus on morality whether you say God is on your side or not. Whether you agree with it or not. Whether you believe it or not.


You don't get to inform me of what does and doesn't matter. You would do well to remember that.

Thank you, again. I appreciate the friendship you've shown me by giving detailed, thoughtful answers to my questions. My responses:

1) Okay, we both have subjective, not objective, moral codes, but I think the best friend and advisor morals can have is the Bible

2) Just and fair are different concepts--when the buzzer rings, you give the ball to the best player, no matter how much the weaker players have come to practice early and lifted weights--the Bible says that there is a lot of suffering here--like the children's situations you've described well here--that is caused by human sin and free will--if God stops paedophiles only, then paedophiles only lack true free will and we get it? That might even be just but not fair--the fair coach gives the same ball to all the players. You follow me here? God is not only just, but fair--one wants to take pleasure in hurting others (which we all do at times) than you get pleasure for a time and judgment later--just like my parents raised me.

3) I would not agree with a Communist USSR-styled program that pre-selects my career path as you wrote. I do agree with God that He has great sovereignty but gives us some free will and freedom, also. But why would I have a "problem of justice" if God lets a free will beast beat a child to death, then the child goes to Heaven? Seriously. We both feel righteous anger at the human beast. God does too, but is extremely patient and has plans.

4) Consensus on abortion will change once persons are consistent. Pro-aborts are the same as me and would NEVER murder a child. They would NEVER kill a toddler. They only allow abortion where they believe they are not taking a life, a soul. I just have a heart that people be consistent in their philosophy--I'd like to personally see more skeptics who are upset at this forum about "children suffering" not push for mothers at will to immolate their children or have them chopped apart in their wombs. You're different, I appreciate that, my friend!

 

[BilliardsBall]

No. I at least never have. Never in my life till now have my actions contrary to my conscience.
Never have I felt the need or desire or inclination to judge others either. I don't judge the rain for falling or the sun for setting, what need then to judge people for acting according to their inclinations? One simply reacts to that through appropriate actions, like using an umbrella for rain, and getting a lantern for nightfall. Same for actions of people one interacts with.

Respectfully, I find Jesus Christ morally perfect. And having had children and served as a babysitter/caretaker, I've NEVER met a child or teen who always acted in accordance with their moral conscience. You can say you are greatly, currently moral and reformed, but I wouldn't believe you, for example, if you said you never argued with a partner or colleague, knowing you were off, but it just felt good to be argumentative. I don't buy that you and Jesus both have never sinned against conscience!

 

[BilliardsBall]

@BilliardsBall
Do you think that what we are claiming is humanly impossible?

Claiming what, please? I addressed sin on another post.

 

[Audie]

I'm trying to show myself friendly. I'm being honest--it's not stereotyping or bigoted to note that my atheist contacts consistently claim they cannot trust Jesus for salvation because they nobly disrespect the suffering they believe this god would cause, not human sin, of course.

Atheists have a half-full glass of life--not my opinion but my anecdotal "research", having witnessed to many hundreds of atheists in groups and singly, for decades. If it helps you understand, I see you cursing God as a group for the suffering of children, rather than praising God for children.

There is no honesty in what you said about
"not trusting jesus blah.". It makes-no-sense.
I cant even guess how you came up with such
nonsense.

It is impossible that an atheist would "curse god".
That makes no sense. That may well be what you
(think you) see, but, there is now way you are
seeing what is there.

How you could keep it up for that long, and still
see only what you choose to see is a marvel.

You of course join the rest of the xian bigots with
that "half full" stuff.

As there is no god, and your religion is a fantasy,
you are filling your glass, if it is full (not that it
makes any sense to talk about half or full glass)
with fantasy.

If as it apparently does, suit you, fine. Not
my business.

Personally, i'd rather at least try to look out at
what is, rather than see all the time a reflection
my own mind, or if you like, a projection always
in the way of what is real.

"Kindness" and "love" by any measure that
makes sense, or is accepted by me has to
involve some sort of empathy, understanding
or the other person. And, it is shown in
action, not in "love ya babe".

You are so wide of understanding how an
atheist thinks that any empathy is impossible.
All you are seeing is what you choose to
believe in.

Your proclamations of love only make you
look smarmy and insincere, while you reach
for the moral high ground. "I love you and
everyone, but you, you, dont have it in you
to be like me, not till you fill your cup with
Jesus." You know?

I've met Christians who I admire and respect
deeply, I see them as people well worht
emulating, if that is, I wished to emulate anyone.


I dont remotely want to be anything like you.
It is too bad, for you. But I think you are only
here to preach not to get any feedback.

 

[Audie]

Am I shallow or do I simply have some kind of intense, throbbing confirmation bias? I have decades of Bible study under my belt AFTER greatly resisting conversion as a Jew .

Of course confirmation bias. You'd already accepted
the whole god bit. All you needed was a bit
of tweaking, profound as it may seem to you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Trying to "harmonize" the Bible is quite often merely lying to oneself. Rather than acknowledging that errors exist and that the Bible is a work of man too many of them simply lie to themselves. And do you know why the date of Jesus is not sure? It is due largely to the varying tales of his death. The year 30 AD is not written in stone, nor is the age of Jesus at the time of his death. He may have died as early as the year 30 CE or as late as 33 CE. The time of his death during the day is not even consistent. Mark has him nailed up at nine AM and John has him still before Pontius Pilate at noon. Harmonizing the Bible is an impossible task due to the fact that it is far from being the "word of God".

Respectfully, based on looking at history and prophecy, Jesus died at 30 AD. Your other points were off, and you must remember that Roman and Jewish renderings of time differed. It harmonizes.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I asked before and I'll ask you again to elaborate. Why must we have a god to have morality?

We don't. You and I have an innate morality:

1) Mine is informed by the Bible, but if I lost faith, I'd still have innate morality

2) Per the Bible, since you have innate morality, when you sin against conscience as we all do (hurt another because it feels good to do so despite the protests of conscience) that witnesses to you the moral accountability that will come someday

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, he was a brilliant man.

We've already had this discussion before. I'm more interested in addressing what we were talking about.

Perhaps you could explain why you think people need to believe in the existence of some God(s) as an absolute moral giver in order to exercise morality. I wonder why you think human beings are incapable of coming up with some kind of moral system on their own.

Also, how do you know God's moral code is moral at all? Just because the Bible says so? Do you think following orders is the same thing as exercising morality?

People are moral to an extant, innately, in the most pagan and atheist cultures, far removed from the Bible, sure.

I know God's moral code is moral in that it "speaks" both to my innate morality and where I fall short.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Again, you have not addressed the point at all.

But since you say so, what part of your innate moral code tells you that owning human beings as property is acceptable, like the Bible says? Because I have to say, I don't have any innate moral code telling me that it's okay to enslave people or stone gay people to death.

Can I help you with that, as a friend?

1) Indentured servitude (work for protection and food in safe, clean conditions) is biblical and a type of how all will serve the meek in the next world, willingly or no. Modern slavery (rape, kidnapping, random beatings, intolerable conditions) is wrong, of course.

2) The Bible does not proscribe killing all gay persons. The OT proscribes killing two gays found having sex publicly. It would condone the same thing for straight adulterers caught having sex not behind closed doors, too. Most biblical Christians are fine with gays behind closed doors, just like they're fine with married straights having sex behind closed doors only. Public parades where children watch, less so. Is that reasonable to you?

 

[BilliardsBall]

You know what would be awesome? If you spent more time talking about your own feelings in these discussions and less time trying to tell other people what they think.

Just a suggestion.

My feelings are suffering sucks, unless there is a reason we can safely, wisely put to it, and that the atheists I know are confronting the meaninglessness "of it all" as best as they can cope.

100 years from now, I will be remembered, and even alive!

 

[BilliardsBall]

But that belief isn't based on empathy, because empathy is about actually attempting to understand the feelings of others rather than assuming them. So my question remains unanswered.


Why can you never answer my questions?

I always answer your questions, just sometimes Socratically.

What does empathy have to do with your question, and where do people, who are biological machines struggling to survive the same as other species, empathetic in general?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not when the world is governed by an all-powerful being who can make suffering unnecessary in any instance.

Once again, you miss the main point of the actual argument. Why would a loving, all-powerful being make suffering a necessary part of any creation?

Good question! Per the scriptures:

1) Suffering was utterly out of the original Garden of Eden equation
2) Suffering became implicit with giving people free will
3) Suffering has dozens of specific purposes, per the scriptures
4) You will agree some suffering is good (learning, training muscles with weights, hope fulfilled after an engagement/commitment, etc.)

And I will curse my God for making children suffer as soon as you praise Him for making children.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Respectfully, based on looking at history and prophecy, Jesus died at 30 AD. Your other points were off, and you must remember that Roman and Jewish renderings of time differed. It harmonizes.

You are far from an expert and even the experts do not agree on the date of Jesus death. And all so called prophecies that I have seen failed so I do not know how they could support you. You are probably merely cherry picking again.

And no, the Bible does not even harmonize with itself. For example Mark and John have different times of the day for Jesus's crucifixion. And Luke does not harmonize with history. He says that Jesus was born in both roughly 4 BCE and 6 CE.