The Creationist's Argument and its Greatest Weakness

[BilliardsBall]

How do you know your "innate morality" is moral at all? Because it matches what the Bible says? Who says the Bible is moral? Oh right, the Bible.
Surely, your reasoning isn't that circular.

I was answering your question--not in a circular fashion--regarding how I judge the Bible, before I reread Bible passages as an adult, I had a moral code. The Bible touched that code well.

 

[syo]

In my opinion, evolution is in the Bible, the ''forbidden fruit'', it evolved people. What we eat ''speaks'' to our DNA.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I appreciate your attempt to help, but I've heard this song and dance before, and I've read the Bible.
What is described in the Bible is the owning (and treating) of other human beings as property. You can try to sugar coat it all you want, but that's slavery.

Wait, so you think it's moral to kill people for having sex publicly? Like, you find that to be a moral action? Because I don't.

What's this all about then?

"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
-Leviticus 20:13

Good for Biblical scholars, but what about the rest of the Christians? Who has been persecuting all the gay people all these years? It's not the atheists, is it?

People don't have sex in those parades. But if you don't think it's moral for children to be there, don't bring your children to one. That's reasonable to me. We can both do what we think is moral without having to impose our beliefs onto each other.

I didn't sugar coat, I contrasted just servitude/slavery with unjust. The Bible says the wicked will bow before and serve the righteous in the coming Kingdom. Does that help?

Do you think its moral for people to people to have sex publicly, where children can see them? You like the concept of laws about public sexual display, possibly prostitution/pornography also, but you find that when God says certain sins lead to death, you don't like that as much. That's your prerogative. I see the capital laws in the Bible as demonstrative, alluding to Hell.

I understand your point about Lev 20:13, but the Bible forbids things like breaking and entering your neighbor's home to catch them in homosexuality or adultery. Behind closed doors is one's own business.

When did you come to understand that there are no conservative atheists regarding sexual morals and mores? I mean, I'd LIKE to believe all atheists are also liberals, but you are not. Did you know a great many gays were opposed to gay marriage, by the way? Stop painting all Christians as persecutors, while you're at it. I voted against certain sex-related proposals at the polls. I've never persecuted anyone for being gay or atheist, quite the contrary, actually.

No, gays usually don't have sex on parade. But apart from a parade, I had to explain some sexual facts to my children years before I'd intended when two gays were demonstrative in front of my children. Prior, they'd seen only heterosexuals doing certain things. The Bible has no problem with closeted behavior for gays AND straights when children are in the balance. Severe penalties await those who harm and corrupt children.

I encourage you to advocate and stand up for children, not just libertine sexual behavior.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you mean I'm unable to provide testimonies from loved ones who know me, who know I've witnessed to numerous atheists, and that atheists often align with what I suggest here?

I seriously doubt Christians when they claim to have "witnessed". I have seen weak Christians become strong Christians, I have never seen an atheist become a Christian. Your supposed testimonies, which you can't present here at any rate, would be worthless. You made a personal attack against atheists in general, one that you cannot support.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Your experience is limited. Children don't often understand right from wrong and have not developed a moral conception fully. Many teenagers are also in that class. So its not a fair comparison. But there are plenty of quiet hard working kids and teens and eventually adults who are friendly nice and warm to everybody. I have met quite a few. I have never acted contrary to my conscience from the time it became a coherent set of principles... from 11-12, I think.

I have never quarreled with a friend, or a coworker. That is because I have difficulty in getting angry at people. Any quarrel will lead to unnecessary suffering. Then why do it? There is enough suffering already in life.

Perhaps the one fault I have is that I do not react rapidly to developing situations as I need time to think and reflect. So there are opportunities that I have missed for positive action. But its a lack I am willing to accept as the cost of not acting unwisely and in haste.

So now, you are redacting "I've never acted against conscience" to "I haven't acted against conscience since 11 or 12, and that is acceptable". Is that correct?

You've never taken the last cookie from the jar, so that friends or family couldn't get a cookie, when you knew they might also want that cookie, and your conscience nagged at you, but that cookie "called" to you, the chocolate cookie and your conscience having a little god/devil battle, and you ALWAYS listen to the angelic voice, since age 12? Is that the claim?

As a friend, I take the cookie pretty often, I must tell you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you acquire this knowledge from AtheistComplaints.com or from your own devoted, devout Bible study?

Now this is merely rude. It also demonstrates that you know that prophesies fail. Ironically it is Christians like you that denigrate prophesies to the point of being worthless.

If a prophesy is to have any value at all it needs to predict something unexpected. To defend prophecies I have seen theist after theist degrade them to the point of being the equivalent of my predicting that you will see a red car.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You might have a point here. The Bible is indeed very precise in prescribing how far you can go when you beat your slave.

Exodus 21:20
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

A nice piece of morality, proving your theory of good living conditions for slaves, lol.

And the author of such commands is the primary source of your morality.

Right?

Ciao

- viole

Have you explored or read any lines of argumentation where the proscription of Exodus 21 is a limiter, not an encouragement? For two examples:

* An eye for an eye has always been taken as a limiter by rabbinic authorities, the maximum penalty for taking a man's sheep was one sheep, not a family vendetta and bloodshed

* There is one class of person who has more capital punishment laws against them than any other--the slave owner--slave owners are warned here that an unjust beating unto death would mean they are EXECUTED BY THE STATE

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is illegal in America to have indentured servants. I hope if I had one I'd be just and a good boss. I've managed employees and students before.

Yes, I'm aware, thank you.

Are you trying to equate an employer/employee relationship with indentured servitude and slavery? You think of being a slave master as being the boss of an employee that voluntarily holds a job that they can leave whenever they choose? How are they the same?

And you wonder why people question Biblical morality?

It is a misunderstanding of a clear passage that unruly children were executed in biblical Israel--the passage says it takes both parents to drag their drunken, known-about-town as unruly "child" in for justice. It's a rebellious older "child", not a toddler or 1st grader.

And now, in your further defense of Biblical morality, you're going to point out to me that it's not unruly toddlers that deserve to be stoned to death, it's actually older children and so everything is all morally just and hunky dory. You are still defending stoning non-adults to death for minor infractions. I seriously wonder how you can think that's moral other than the apparent fact that you have to, lest you contradict Biblical "wisdom."

And you wonder why people question Biblical morality?

You can't remember the last time you knew you were in the wrong and argued anyway, with a partner or coworker, that little voice telling you that you were swimming upstream and simply enjoyed being a rapscallion, you know, the devil on your shoulder?

The last time for that was never, as I do not argue for anything if I know I am in the wrong. Why would I do that?

The devil and the angel on your shoulder tell you there is moral accountability. God will judge.

I have no beings living on my shoulders saying anything to me. And I don't believe that the God you worship exists. So maybe Thor will judge me one day. Who knows.
All I can do until I'm dead is try to be a decent person and contribute something positive to the world in the one life I know that I get for sure.

 

[viole]

Have you explored or read any lines of argumentation where the proscription of Exodus 21 is a limiter, not an encouragement? For two examples:

* An eye for an eye has always been taken as a limiter by rabbinic authorities, the maximum penalty for taking a man's sheep was one sheep, not a family vendetta and bloodshed

* There is one class of person who has more capital punishment laws against them than any other--the slave owner--slave owners are warned here that an unjust beating unto death would mean they are EXECUTED BY THE STATE

This is not the point. I understand your need to deviate from the main point, but we need to first settle that.

The point is: are there any circumstances, any, where a person is allowed to own another person as property?

I hope you answer that at least, considering your bad habit of giving no answers to direct questions.

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

I was answering your question--not in a circular fashion--regarding how I judge the Bible, before I reread Bible passages as an adult, I had a moral code. The Bible touched that code well.

Perhaps I misunderstood then.

Let me make sure I've got this straight then. So like anybody else in the world, you developed some sense of morality during your life. Then you read the Bible and realized that it seems to jive with this sense of morality you had already developed? Is that right?

So if it is right, I really, really have to wonder what you were thinking about your own moral code when you were reading passages about slavery, killing witches and stoning unruly teenage children to death, for just a few examples. Are those moral beliefs you already held, prior to reading the Bible?

 

[BilliardsBall]

And you are completely free to think so. For me the framework The Bible sets up will simply never work. Take, for example, the 10 commandments - The Bible casts as the first 3 commandments: "Have no gods before me", "Make no graven image" and "Do not take The Lord's name in vain." Those are 3 pretty useless laws when taking the wider context of the world into consideration. To my mind, they are God missing the boat on what's important in human behavior - we don't even get to the human-to-human relationship aspect of "morality" until commandment #5! God's feelings seem to trump human lives or well-being in that list - which I simply refuse to abide by.


I just want you to note the two parts I bolded in your response above. You start out saying that "just" and "fair" are two different concepts - which I assumed was an attempt to label God's assignment of children to abusive homes as "unfairness" - rather than "injustice", which is what I tried to label it. But then you go on to say that God is both just and fair. So... which of those two is He playing fast and loose with when He assigns children to abusive homes? Is that situation unjust? Is it unfair? Were those kids "given the same ball" as all of the rest of the players?

Guessing at your answer here - let's say it really is only the "free will" of the parents at play in the child's abuse - are you saying that God didn't know beforehand that the parent would abuse the child? What if this is their third child, and they have abused the other 2 already? Does God not see it coming at all? Would it interfere with the parents' free-will for God to simply make them sterile when He discovers/knows that they are abusive? Do we each, individually, need to have the ability to procreate in order to have "free will?"


In heaven you probably believe we no longer feel pain, correct? So, when a child is killed and their soul ascends, then God can welcome them with open arms and the sentiment there is something like "Come - now you will be protected from all of the evil of the world." Except the protection comes AFTER the child was already subjected to horrible pain, shame, humiliation, degradation, evil, etc. Does God also ask the child "You understand why I had to let you go through all that, don't you?" If He had the guts to ask such a question - what do you think a child might answer?


There is definitely something to what you say here. Most of the justification for abortion tends to revolve around what is considered "human", which is definitely a cop-out for the simple understanding that life is moving in that direction regardless what stage we're talking about. Let's say you target that after the first trimester the fetus is a "baby" - well... what about an hour before they have hit the first trimester? Is the fetus NOT a baby then, but it is an hour later? The fact is that any point on the line you choose to say the baby is "human" is arbitrary - and only for the convenience of having guidelines and wording for a law. It has the same potential at all stages, and all stages are intrinsically "human." Again - I remain a supporter of abortion - but only because human beings have proven themselves completely irresponsible with one another's feelings, and I feel that unwanted children often arguably bear the brunt of the worst things that can be dealt out by the world on an emotional level.

* "Those first three commandments waste time" I must interpret as "God doesn't make the world as I would, and must be wrong."

* God knows what He's doing and I trust Him with children and adults alike--He's far above us, just, fair and kind, and patient. I do know that free will is for everyone, abusive parents have it, and good parents do, along with warnings of horrible judgments for those who abuse children. You are like God, in that you intolerant of those who harm children, but you and I are nowhere as patient as God in these matters. Eternal and earthly judgment are serious things.

* Regarding sterilization of parents and so on, I must say free will isn't free unless everyone has it. God gives free will, not the illusion of it.

* I don't think you or me or children will care about past suffering in Heaven. How much memory does the body have of pain? How many mothers tell their children, "I wish you were never conceived, the memory of the pain of childbirth is overwhelming," indeed, women cuddle their children seconds after they are born, lovingly. Paul says of his own intense suffering for Chris that it's "momentary, light affliction, far beyond all comparison, while we look at unseen blessings." I myself was hesitant to convert because of children suffering, when someone said what's the worst a child undergoes and for the longest possible time?" and I came up with a multi-diseased child in a wheelchair who died at 70, and then compared to a million good years . . .

* Thanks for sharing your thoughts on abortion. Your trimester timing thoughts remind me how healthcare providers used to save babies at 26 weeks of gestation in the NICU, then 21. So should abortion have stopped at 26 weeks then rolled back to 21, making science the decider here? Abortion is a moral question, not a science project.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Women got abortions long before Roe v Wade.
Before Roe v Wade many women died during the procedure.
Before Roe v Wade many women were seriously injured during the procedure.

Repealing Roe v Wade would not end abortions. It would just make them unsafer for women.

Is that what you want?

The safest abortions are performed in hospitals, not abortion mills. I want women who are at a health risk from pregnancy to have safe, hospital abortions.

However, I do not want to make heroin abuse, homosexuality, atheism or many other things "safer and easier for those who'd do them regardless of law or Bible doctrine", as I'm not an enabler.

 

[BilliardsBall]

OK Let's see your EVIDENCE.



Your "findings" are no more than your opinion. So, no EVIDENCE here.



Your "personal experience" of interactions with an alleged, long dead, entity is not EVIDENCE.


Stating "the Bible writers had to be writing contemporaneous..." is your opinion, it is not EVIDENCE.


Agreeing with what is written in the Bible is not EVIDENCE.


Saying you have found accuracy is not presenting EVIDENCE.


Saying "the Bible seems univocal" is your opinion, it is not EVIDENCE.



So a new religion comes along, says it is going to be persecuted, predicts it will flourish and flourishes. That same EVIDENCE applies equally to The Church of Scientology, Baha'i, Islam and probably all extant religions.




All I did was point out that your seven instances of Evidence contained no EVIDENCE. I really didn't have to dig too deep.



I wouldn't seek anything from your God just as you wouldn't seek anything from Allah or Shiva or Atlas. For pretty much the same reasons.

I don't believe I ever referred to you as shallow. However, you have accused me of being intentionally shallow. Why would you consider me shallow? Why would I ask you to present evidence for your beliefs if I was just shallow.



Yet with all that background and study and knowledge, you were unable to present any evidence. Perhaps you should seriously ask yourself why. Are you afraid that you might find the answer is that there is no evidence?

Sincerely, I am disappointed, and saddened, by your response.

Repeating: "There is an intentional shallowness there, which you would accuse me of, an intentional shallowness that masks the need for God."

 

[BilliardsBall]

OK Let's see your EVIDENCE.



Your "findings" are no more than your opinion. So, no EVIDENCE here.



Your "personal experience" of interactions with an alleged, long dead, entity is not EVIDENCE.


Stating "the Bible writers had to be writing contemporaneous..." is your opinion, it is not EVIDENCE.


Agreeing with what is written in the Bible is not EVIDENCE.


Saying you have found accuracy is not presenting EVIDENCE.


Saying "the Bible seems univocal" is your opinion, it is not EVIDENCE.



So a new religion comes along, says it is going to be persecuted, predicts it will flourish and flourishes. That same EVIDENCE applies equally to The Church of Scientology, Baha'i, Islam and probably all extant religions.




All I did was point out that your seven instances of Evidence contained no EVIDENCE. I really didn't have to dig too deep.



I wouldn't seek anything from your God just as you wouldn't seek anything from Allah or Shiva or Atlas. For pretty much the same reasons.

I don't believe I ever referred to you as shallow. However, you have accused me of being intentionally shallow. Why would you consider me shallow? Why would I ask you to present evidence for your beliefs if I was just shallow.



Yet with all that background and study and knowledge, you were unable to present any evidence. Perhaps you should seriously ask yourself why. Are you afraid that you might find the answer is that there is no evidence?

Regarding shallowness, one possible response you could have made was to highlight one or two of my seven points, and say, "Interesting, I'd like to hear more on this, and as you say, specific examples, rather than a general statement such as you've made."

Don't bother now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The safest abortions are performed in hospitals, not abortion mills. I want women who are at a health risk from pregnancy to have safe, hospital abortions.

However, I do not want to make heroin abuse, homosexuality, atheism or many other things "safer and easier for those who'd do them regardless of law or Bible doctrine", as I'm not an enabler.

Show some statistics please. You appear to want to make them outrageously expensive. How many women have had serious problems when going to sites such as Planned Parenthood. And please, no name calling. No one is using derogatory terms for you, you should not be using them for others.

 

[sayak83]

So now, you are redacting "I've never acted against conscience" to "I haven't acted against conscience since 11 or 12, and that is acceptable". Is that correct?

You've never taken the last cookie from the jar, so that friends or family couldn't get a cookie, when you knew they might also want that cookie, and your conscience nagged at you, but that cookie "called" to you, the chocolate cookie and your conscience having a little god/devil battle, and you ALWAYS listen to the angelic voice, since age 12? Is that the claim?

As a friend, I take the cookie pretty often, I must tell you.

No I have not. I have no such interest. I only like to read books and study since I was 9. Also watching sky, trees, stars, birds etc. None of that involved fighting for things like cookies. Fighting, spite, anger... such silly things to waste time on. I studied the stars till I could locate thousands, watched the birds till I could identify them with their calls, I could tell rain from sun by sensing the wind and how insects behaved. Much better pursuits no?
I don't remember acting against my conscience even before 11. But memory of earlier times is spotty. So I have less confidence.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

* "Those first three commandments waste time" I must interpret as "God doesn't make the world as I would, and must be wrong."

Again, you are free to interpret it how you want, and I am free to find your interpretation entirely lacking. It's not that "God doesn't make the world as I would," it's that "God doesn't make the world with love of humans in mind the way it is told." And I find no good reason to give my loyalty to a "leader" who does not have my best interests, or the best interests of my wife and kids, in mind. I don't just give of my loyalties freely - and God has done absolutely nothing to earn them.

* God knows what He's doing and I trust Him with children and adults alike--He's far above us, just, fair and kind, and patient. I do know that free will is for everyone, abusive parents have it, and good parents do, along with warnings of horrible judgments for those who abuse children. You are like God, in that you intolerant of those who harm children, but you and I are nowhere as patient as God in these matters. Eternal and earthly judgment are serious things.

I don't know how you can be so sure that "God knows what He is doing." By the evidence - the many multiple religions in the world, the many multiple denominations/sects of even the same religion, the general confusion that permeates EVERYONE's mind at one time or another regarding spiritual matters. If you were trying to run a tight ship because you cared for the safety of every crew member on your vessel, would you leave SO MUCH to chance? Would you allow a whopping TON of interpretations of your orders? If so... why in the hell would you do that? You simply can't have a good reason. And to my mind, neither does God.

* Regarding sterilization of parents and so on, I must say free will isn't free unless everyone has it. God gives free will, not the illusion of it.

This is sort of dodging the question, and likely because it is difficult for you to admit. Here's the original question: does a human being NEED to have the ability to procreate in order to have free-will? Is that a requirement? If so... then would you say that people who can't have children for whatever reason also no longer have "free-will?" When I had my vasectomy - did I suddenly lose my free-will? And if the answer is "no" - that a human needn't have the ability to procreate in order to have free-will... well then I just solved God's problems in this area! He can easily, magically sterilize anyone who is bound to abuse or kill their children, and it doesn't interfere with their free-will. Why not? Really think about this now... what would stop Him? Considering people exist who cannot procreate - and yet have free-will (do they not?!) - I really can't see a drawback to this.

* I don't think you or me or children will care about past suffering in Heaven. How much memory does the body have of pain? How many mothers tell their children, "I wish you were never conceived, the memory of the pain of childbirth is overwhelming," indeed, women cuddle their children seconds after they are born, lovingly. Paul says of his own intense suffering for Chris that it's "momentary, light affliction, far beyond all comparison, while we look at unseen blessings." I myself was hesitant to convert because of children suffering, when someone said what's the worst a child undergoes and for the longest possible time?" and I came up with a multi-diseased child in a wheelchair who died at 70, and then compared to a million good years . . .

That "women cuddle their children seconds after they are born, lovingly" is, I think, missing the point. The mother (who loves the child, and is the knowledgeable one in the situation) undergoing pain would be what, in comparison to the scenario of a child experiencing pain on Earth? Besides that obvious lack of correlation to the God-child dynamic, there is also the fact that a mother understands the good to be had out of the situation - and the child in an abusive home that leads to death has absolutely no good to look forward to or attain out of the situation, unless "heaven" exists, AND they are slated to go there - for let's not forget, the sins of the fathers shall be punished into posterity according to "The Good Book."

* Thanks for sharing your thoughts on abortion. Your trimester timing thoughts remind me how healthcare providers used to save babies at 26 weeks of gestation in the NICU, then 21. So should abortion have stopped at 26 weeks then rolled back to 21, making science the decider here? Abortion is a moral question, not a science project.

Agreed. Talking over when it is permissible to destroy a living human fetus and when it isn't is an entirely sterile, disconnected process that is simply not ever going to reflect well on the moral understanding of the parties doing the talking in my opinion.

 

[Audie]

In my opinion, evolution is in the Bible, the ''forbidden fruit'', it evolved people. What we eat ''speaks'' to our DNA.

Why not? Everyone else makes up whatever meaning suits them.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Show some statistics please. You appear to want to make them outrageously expensive. How many women have had serious problems when going to sites such as Planned Parenthood. And please, no name calling. No one is using derogatory terms for you, you should not be using them for others.

Arrangements between abortion centers and local hospitals allow for women who die to be DOA at the hospital from the ambulance, leaving statistics under-reported. But I'm unsure why you'd want mere statistics to make such an important decision about affirming rights, life and good health.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Arrangements between abortion centers and local hospitals allow for women who die to be DOA at the hospital from the ambulance, leaving statistics under-reported. But I'm unsure why you'd want mere statistics to make such an important decision about affirming rights, life and good health.

Please, no conspiracy theory nonsense. Where is the supposed evidence for your claims?

And you appear to be against affirming rights, life, and good health