Atheistforums.com

10 years in jail and 2,000 lashes for tweeting that he was an atheist (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1701609/saudi-arabia-sentences-a-man-to-10-years-in-jail-and-2000-lashes-for-tweeting-that-he-was-an-atheist/)

QuoteA COURT in Saudi Arabia has sentenced a man to ten years in prison and 2,000 lashes for expressing his atheism on Twitter.

The 28-year-old reportedly refused to repent, insisting what he wrote reflected his beliefs and that he had the right to express them.

The hardline Islamic state’s religious police in charge of monitoring social networks found more than 600 tweets denying the existence of God, ridiculing Koranic verses, accusing all prophets of lies and saying their teaching fuelled hostilities.

The court also fined him around £4,000.

He was sentenced under a controversial law that defines atheism as “terrorism”.

I did not read anywhere that a terrorist who is actually following the Quran and Muhammad ever got 2000 lashes and 10 years in prison in Saudi or elsewhere.

So their understanding of "terrorist" is different from non Muslims.

No, the terrorist get  this instead  (http://nypost.com/2015/06/24/saudi-arabia-sends-convicted-terrorists-to-a-cushy-rehab-center/)

QuoteHe was sentenced under a controversial law that defines atheism as “terrorism”.

Yeah, the Saudis know terrorism when they have dinner with it.

Once again Islam shows how tolerant it is.

QuoteA dyslexic  agnostic with insomnia tossed and turned all night wondering if there was a dog after all............

Quote from: drunkenshoe on September 03, 2016, 04:53:39 AM
A dyslexic  agnostic with insomnia tossed and turned all night wondering if there was a dog after all............

I would have said, "A dyslexic, agnostic insomniac tossed and turned till dawn, while wondering if there was a dog............
Just a small change, but it renders a quadruple/triple alliteration. :weed:

Oh, and by the way, I laughed. Very funny quote :histerical:.

Islamic laws are notoriously cruel. Not that it's exclusive to Muslims, it's just that there seems to be no real progress toward changing that kind of insanity in so many various nations.

Human rights, are more than just a fancy concept for the fortunate. They are something we all owe to each other, and hope for ourselves.

They also will cut your hand off if you are caught stealing. Here is the list:

SHARI'A LAW:

• Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand (above).
• Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
• Criticizing Muhammad or denying that he is a prophet is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Allah, the god of Islam is punishable by death.
• A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
• A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
• Girls' clitoris should be cut (Muhammad's words, Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
• A woman can have 1 husband, who can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
• A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
• A man can unilaterally divorce his wife; a woman needs her husband's consent to divorce.
• A divorced wife loses custody of all children over 6 years of age or when they exceed it.
• Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
• A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
• A woman's testimony in court, allowed in property cases, carries ½ the weight of a man's.
• A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
• A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
• A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
• Meat to eat must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah - i.e., be "Halal".
• Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.

Completely barbaric and primitive. One day humans will look back on this stuff and think how stupid everyone from the past was.

Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on September 03, 2016, 10:48:56 AM
They also will cut your hand off if you are caught stealing. Here is the list:

SHARI'A LAW:

• Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand (above).
• Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
• Criticizing Muhammad or denying that he is a prophet is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Allah, the god of Islam is punishable by death.
• A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
• A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
• Girls' clitoris should be cut (Muhammad's words, Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
• A woman can have 1 husband, who can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
• A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
• A man can unilaterally divorce his wife; a woman needs her husband's consent to divorce.
• A divorced wife loses custody of all children over 6 years of age or when they exceed it.
• Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
• A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
• A woman's testimony in court, allowed in property cases, carries ½ the weight of a man's.
• A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
• A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
• A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
• Meat to eat must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah - i.e., be "Halal".
• Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.

Completely barbaric and primitive. One day humans will look back on this stuff and think how stupid everyone from the past was.

Forgive me for being an uneducated hick, but is Sharia law used as civil law in Saudi Arabia? I mean whipping is bad enough, but do they actually practice amputation? I thought they had at least outgrown that part of their religion.

I think amputation is still used in SA, as well as alot of the Middle East and Africa (and some parts of Asia).

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on September 03, 2016, 01:00:09 PM
Forgive me for being an uneducated hick, but is Sharia law used as civil law in Saudi Arabia? I mean whipping is bad enough, but do they actually practice amputation? I thought they had at least outgrown that part of their religion.

Amputations all the way. The same guy who beheads people does the amputations.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on September 03, 2016, 09:12:14 AM
Islamic laws are notoriously cruel. Not that it's exclusive to Muslims, it's just that there seems to be no real progress toward changing that kind of insanity in so many various nations.

Human rights, are more than just a fancy concept for the fortunate. They are something we all owe to each other, and hope for ourselves.

What are human rights?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 03, 2016, 02:27:50 PM
What are human rights?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Things each human deserves. They don't objectively but are part of our biological instincts.

Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on September 03, 2016, 02:31:36 PM
Things each human deserves. They don't objectively but are part of our biological instincts.

How does our biological makeup say what you or I deserve?

  If our bodies are made up of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus which one of these tell us as a human race what our rights are?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 03, 2016, 02:27:50 PM
What are human rights?

For starters:

Quote from: MeHuman rights, are more than just a fancy concept for the fortunate. They are something we all owe to each other, and hope for ourselves.

If that's not enough, perhaps you've heard of this principle:

"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." â€" Confucius (c. 500 BC)

"If people regarded other people's families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself." â€" Mozi (c. 400 BC)

"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." â€" Laozi (c. 500 BC)

"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." â€" Thales (c. 624 BC â€" c. 546 BC)

"Do not do to others that which angers you when they do it to you." â€" Isocrates (436â€"338 BC)

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." -Mom and Dad

I figure you already know the Biblical ones of note.

The principle is common enough, it's application is not. But it is the starting place, for any rational assesment of specific rights.

I might say, human rights are an appropriately high value humans assign to other humans. Defining them, is just the application of the principles outlined above.

We can also feel human rights when we hear about other humans predicaments. We have empathy.


Going back to the topic though, I find it hard to accept, that amputation as a form of punishment is not an outrage, to the people of any country subjected to it.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on September 03, 2016, 05:01:58 PM
For starters:

If that's not enough, perhaps you've heard of this principle:

"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." â€" Confucius (c. 500 BC)

"If people regarded other people's families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself." â€" Mozi (c. 400 BC)

"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." â€" Laozi (c. 500 BC)

"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." â€" Thales (c. 624 BC â€" c. 546 BC)

"Do not do to others that which angers you when they do it to you." â€" Isocrates (436â€"338 BC)

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." -Mom and Dad

I figure you already know the Biblical ones of note.

The principle is common enough, it's application is not. But it is the starting place, for any rational assesment of specific rights.

I might say, human rights are an appropriately high value humans assign to other humans. Defining them, is just the application of the principles outlined above.

We can also feel human rights when we hear about other humans predicaments. We have empathy.


Going back to the topic though, I find it hard to accept, that amputation as a form of punishment is not an outrage, to the people of any country subjected to it.

The quotes you provided are all great and I agree. But what if someone else's idea for human rights is different then yours? Are yours right or theirs?

  I would agree that some have empathy. Like I feel awful when a cop is murdered for being a cop. But a black lives matter person may see that as a victory. So who is right?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 03, 2016, 05:22:39 PM

The quotes you provided are all great and I agree. But what if someone else's idea for human rights is different then yours?

Then they are wrong.

QuoteAre yours right or theirs?

Mine.

QuoteI would agree that some have empathy.

There's a war on, between those who do and those who don't.

QuoteLike I feel awful when a cop is murdered for being a cop. But a black lives matter person may see that as a victory. So who is right?

Go find sheep, Mr. Shepherd, I don't like where this conversation is being led. Perhaps you could pick a less controversial example to use?

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on September 03, 2016, 05:54:50 PM
Then they are wrong.

Mine.
There's a war on, between those who do and those who don't.
Go find sheep, Mr. Shepherd, I don't like where this conversation is being led. Perhaps you could pick a less controversial example to use?

How do you know you are right and they are wrong?

  What do you have to compare your rightness to?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 03, 2016, 06:44:04 PM
How do you know you are right and they are wrong?

Because, they can't provide a better description, of the essence of how we have evolved to measure right, and wrong.

QuoteWhat do you have to compare your rightness to?

Only your wrongness.

What are the motives for good behavior? I can say this: if your doing it to please God, then your motive is not pure; if you're doing it out of a sense of communion with your fellow man, you are more likely to do the right thing.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on September 03, 2016, 07:17:35 PM
Because, they can't provide a better description, of the essence of how we have evolved to measure right, and wrong.
Only your wrongness.

Who is they?

  Have we evolved to measure right and wrong or has it always been and we just had and have it twisted?

  How do you know I am wrong?

I have not said what I think is right or how one should measure rightness.

  I was simply asking you questions to try and understand why you believed what you what you believe.

   Am I right in that you think your right because you don't like anyone else's version of right?

  Just because you think a certain way is right does that make it true or just true for you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on September 03, 2016, 07:27:00 PM
What are the motives for good behavior? I can say this: if your doing it to please God, then your motive is not pure; if you're doing it out of a sense of communion with your fellow man, you are more likely to do the right thing.

Why can't it be both for people who believe in a God?

 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Kaleb5000
How do you know you are right and they are wrong?

Quote from: Kaleb5000
Who is they?

You tell me.

Quote from: Kaleb5000
How do you know I am wrong?

Because I've had this conversation before, Shepherd, so go find some sheep to lead, because I'm not going to follow you through a series of leading questions, designed to show how morality must come from some divine mandate, or it can't be morality. You are wrong. Moral behavior is observable in all cultures. Even the ones who could care shit about your particular holy book.

QuoteThe quotes you provided are all great and I agree. But what if someone else's idea for human rights is different then yours? Are yours right or theirs?

Asking this question in the abstract is a cheap stunt. Provide two or more different ideas for what human rights should be and we can compare them.

QuoteLike I feel awful when a cop is murdered for being a cop. But a black lives matter person may see that as a victory. So who is right?

Going to go out on a limb here and say that the guy who is happy someone got murdered is wrong.

QuoteHow do you know you are right and they are wrong?

I picture these bad things happening to me, and if I feel negatively about it I know it is wrong.

QuoteWhat do you have to compare your rightness to?

No need for that. At all.

QuoteWhy can't it be both for people who believe in a God?

Because believers do not hold their fellow man in the same esteem that they hold god. In fact, they view their fellow man as wretches that only god can save. In the midst of such a dismal view of humanity, believers only move in favor of their fellow man to appease god in the hopes of being granted an afterlife.

Acting to appease god is incompatible with acting out of a sense of compassion for your fellow man. Once you act to appease god, the act becomes solely about you and your own self aggrandizement. Essentially, resume building for getting that sweet position behind the pearly gates.

We have the United Nations Universal Human Rights.

Muslims have THE CAIRO DECLARATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN ISLAM  (http://www.oic-oci.org/english/article/human.htm) which is similar until you get to article 24 and 25, which in effect negates all previous articles by declaring thus:

QuoteARTICLE 24:

All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah.

ARTICLE 25:

The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.

Also, the "Golden Rule" concept does not exist in Islam.

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 03, 2016, 03:36:54 PM
How does our biological makeup say what you or I deserve?

  If our bodies are made up of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus which one of these tell us as a human race what our rights are?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is one of the stupidest questions I've been asked. One element alone doesn't tell us what are morals, that is moronic. It is a combination of these that make DNA, it's natural selection which responsible for are morals therefore responsible for what our rights are.

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 03, 2016, 05:22:39 PM

The quotes you provided are all great and I agree. But what if someone else's idea for human rights is different then yours? Are yours right or theirs?

  I would agree that some have empathy. Like I feel awful when a cop is murdered for being a cop. But a black lives matter person may see that as a victory. So who is right?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

None of them are right per se. Morals don't really exist. They're just convenient because they ensure a much more stable human society. I really don't want to get into epistemology and the philosophy about what exists.

Quote from: pr126 on September 04, 2016, 12:21:41 AMAlso, the "Golden Rule" concept does not exist in Islam.

I don't think it's codified, but I also don't think it's absent from individual Muslims, or they would not be able to function. It's that basic to the human condition.

The problem is just getting any religious believer to elevate the golden rule, above the contrary laws of their holy books. Those books are always going to be an impediment to human progress.

The golden rule is not a holy decree, just an observable pattern, showing the social benefits of it's application, and how the most anti-social and anti-life actions, can be seen as gross violations of this principle. The best thing I can do, is apply the principle in my little corner of the world, and try to teach others do the same.

As John Lennon said: "All you need is love." While I think that needs to be balanced by competition, love is the thing that keeps our competitive struggles from becoming destructive.

That is the ideal. The concept. But when love fails, a strong military helps keep us safe.

Solomon Zorn wrote:

QuoteI don't think it's codified, but I also don't think it's absent from individual Muslims, or they would not be able to function. It's that basic to the human condition.

Yusuf Ali:
Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.
Quran 48:29

This doesn't sound like the golden rule.

You are making the mistake by judging different cultures (religions) by your own standards.

I really wonder how many other topics someone could get away with blatantly lying in 90% of his posts...

Quote from: Pr126Also, the "Golden Rule" concept does not exist in Islam.

Quote"Woe to those... who, when they have to receive by measure from men, they demand exact full measure, but when they have to give by measure or weight to men, give less than due"
â€" Quran (Surah 83, "The Dealers in Fraud", vv. 1â€"4)

A Bedouin came to the prophet, grabbed the stirrup of his camel and said: O the messenger of God! Teach me something to go to heaven with it. Prophet said: "As you would have people do to you, do to them; and what you dislike to be done to you, don't do to them. Now let the stirrup go! [This maxim is enough for you; go and act in accordance with it!]"
â€" Kitab al-Kafi, vol. 2, p. 146

"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself."
â€" An-Nawawi's Forty Hadith 13 (p. 56)[36]

Seek for mankind that of which you are desirous for yourself, that you may be a believer."
â€" Sukhanan-i-Muhammad (Teheran, 1938)[37]

"That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind."[37]
"The most righteous person is the one who consents for other people what he consents for himself, and who dislikes for them what he dislikes for himself."[37]

“None of you has faith until he loves for his brother or his neighbor what he loves for himself.” [Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 72]

By Him in whose Hand is my soul, a servant does not believe until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself of goodness.”[Musnad Ahmad, Number 12734, Sahih]

“None of you has faith until he loves for the people what he loves for himself; and until he loves a person only for the sake of Allah the Exalted.”[Musnad Ahmad, Number 13463, Sahih]

“Whoever would love to be delivered from the Hellfire and entered into Paradise, then let him die with faith in Allah and the Last Day, and let him treat the people the way he would love to be treated.”[Musnad Ahmad, Number 6768, Sahih]

“You will not enter Paradise until you believe and you will not believe until you love each other. Shall I show you something that, if you did, you would love each other? Spread peace between yourselves.”  [Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 96]

“Be kind to your neighbor and you will be a believer; love for the people what you love for yourself and you will be a Muslim.”[Sunan At-Tirmidhi, Book of Asceticism, Number 2305, Sahih]

“Worship Allah and do not associate anything with Him; establish the prescribed prayers; give the obligatory charity; (and I think he said) fast the month of Ramadan; and however you love for the people to treat you, then treat them that way; and however you hate for the people to treat you, then do not treat them that way.”[At-Tabarani, Al-Ma’jam Al-Kabeer, Number 15833, Sahih]

“That you love for the people what you love for yourself, and you hate for the people what you hate for yourself, and that you speak goodness or remain silent.”[Musnad Ahmad, Number 21627, Hasan]

It's almost like the Qu'ran is not one unified text but made of multiple opinions of multiple writers and thus open to interpretation and cherry picking... hmm... but that doesn't fit the narrative, so that can't be it.

Quote from: Nonsensei on September 03, 2016, 10:22:48 PM
Asking this question in the abstract is a cheap stunt. Provide two or more different ideas for what human rights should be and we can compare them.

But what if your comparison is different then someone else's? Who is right?

Going to go out on a limb here and say that the guy who is happy someone got murdered is wrong.

Who says he is wrong though? There has to be a rightness to compare the wrong to. Otherwise how would we know he is wrong.

I picture these bad things happening to me, and if I feel negatively about it I know it is wrong.

That's good that means you have a heart. But that doesn't make it wrong. You think it's wrong but the other guy doesn't so who is right.

No need for that. At all.

Because believers do not hold their fellow man in the same esteem that they hold god. In fact, they view their fellow man as wretches that only god can save. In the midst of such a dismal view of humanity, believers only move in favor of their fellow man to appease god in the hopes of being granted an afterlife.

Acting to appease god is incompatible with acting out of a sense of compassion for your fellow man. Once you act to appease god, the act becomes solely about you and your own self aggrandizement. Essentially, resume building for getting that sweet position behind the pearly gates.

   For Islam this may be true.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on September 04, 2016, 08:55:13 AM
None of them are right per se. Morals don't really exist. They're just convenient because they ensure a much more stable human society. I really don't want to get into epistemology and the philosophy about what exists.

Morals don't exist? Why when we are toddlers and do something wrong we know it without being told its wrong?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on September 04, 2016, 08:48:54 AM
That is one of the stupidest questions I've been asked. One element alone doesn't tell us what are morals, that is moronic. It is a combination of these that make DNA, it's natural selection which responsible for are morals therefore responsible for what our rights are.

I'm honestly trying to understand how you think. Could you explain how you know that it is our genetic makeup that gives us our morals? If it is our genetic makeup that gives us morals then why is what's morally good for one person may not be for the next?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Here is just one example of Islamic "golden rule".

Zakat  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakat)(charity) which is one of the 5 pillars of Islam.

It can only be distributed to Muslims, and no others.
Except when it is in the service of Islam i.e. persuade an infidel to convert. (see #4)

QuoteScholars have traditionally interpreted this verse as identifying the following eight categories of Muslim causes to be the proper recipients of zakat:[18][51]

1   Those living without means of livelihood (Al-Fuqarā'),[18] the poor[51]
2   Those who cannot meet their basic needs (Al-MasākÄ«n),[18] the needy[51]
3   To zakat collectors (Al-Ä€milÄ«yn 'Alihā)[18][51]
4   To persuade those sympathetic to or expected to convert to Islam (Al-Mu'allafatu QulÅ«buhum),[18] recent converts to Islam[17][51][52] and potential allies in the cause of Islam[51][53]
5   To free from slavery or servitude (Fir-Riqāb),[18] slaves of Muslims who have or intend to free from their master by means of a kitabah contract[51][53]
6   Those who have incurred overwhelming debts while attempting to satisfy their basic needs (Al-GhārimÄ«n),[18] debtors who in pursuit of a worthy goal incurred a debt[51]
7   Those fighting for a religious cause or a cause of God (FÄ« SabÄ«lillāh),[18] or for Jihad in the way of Allah by means of pen, word, or sword,[54] or for Islamic warriors who fight against the unbelievers but are not part of salaried soldiers.[51][53][55]:h8.17
8    Wayfarers, stranded travellers (Ibnu Al-SabÄ«l),[18] travellers who are traveling with a worthy goal but cannot reach their destination without financial assistance[51][53]

Compare that with non-Muslims help to anyone such as in cases of natural disasters, earthquake, tsunami, floods, etc.

Also  verses from the Quran  (https://quran.com/search?q=take+christians+as+friends)

Dividing humanity between believers and unbelievers does not demonstrate a Golden Rule.
Not to mention how they treat women as possessions.
Islamic apologist pretend it doesn't exist.

https://youtu.be/BTxCTvOLST0

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 04, 2016, 09:29:19 PM
I'm honestly trying to understand how you think. Could you explain how you know that it is our genetic makeup that gives us our morals? If it is our genetic makeup that gives us morals then why is what's morally good for one person may not be for the next?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Alright, but the question, as you phrased it seemed to be ridiculous. Genes do not come from one element in particular.

I believe morals were essential for our survival. Murder would be wrong because it was advantageous to the human species. Pedophilia is considered morally wrong because of our fondness for children, humans were supposed to love and care for their children.

Why is it that some people have different morals? I'll point to a peer reviewed paper I read about people on SSRI medication (for depression and anxiety) have more utilitarian moral judgment. I'd suggest you read it http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025148.

I would imagine (I'm not a bona fide biologist though) that their exists, more or less, a morality gene. Perhaps some people have mutated genes. Like the possession of the 5-HTTLPR genotype can make people have more utilitarian judgements.

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 04, 2016, 08:02:27 PM

Morals don't exist? Why when we are toddlers and do something wrong we know it without being told its wrong?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Parents spank.  Toddlers are not a good example of maturity.

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 04, 2016, 09:29:19 PM
I'm honestly trying to understand how you think. Could you explain how you know that it is our genetic makeup that gives us our morals? If it is our genetic makeup that gives us morals then why is what's morally good for one person may not be for the next?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Faith in epiphenomenalism ... that atoms combining in one arrangement are meaningful, but other combinations are not.  Otherwise plastic wrap is alive (it is carbon based).  Also faith in natural law, a delusion of the 18th century.  Darwin and Marx pissed all over the Enlightenment, and not everyone has gotten the message yet.

Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on September 05, 2016, 08:59:27 AM
Alright, but the question, as you phrased it seemed to be ridiculous. Genes do not come from one element in particular.

I believe morals were essential for our survival. Murder would be wrong because it was advantageous to the human species. Pedophilia is considered morally wrong because of our fondness for children, humans were supposed to love and care for their children.

Why is it that some people have different morals? I'll point to a peer reviewed paper I read about people on SSRI medication (for depression and anxiety) have more utilitarian moral judgment. I'd suggest you read it http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025148.

I would imagine (I'm not a bona fide biologist though) that their exists, more or less, a morality gene. Perhaps some people have mutated genes. Like the possession of the 5-HTTLPR genotype can make people have more utilitarian judgements.

My Y chromo genotype is G, and my mito genotype is H ... so that means my group is more just than your group ... nyanya ...

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 04, 2016, 08:02:27 PM

Morals don't exist? Why when we are toddlers and do something wrong we know it without being told its wrong?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As I've explained, it's entirely biological. I suppose morals exist in that sense, but they are subjective.

Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on September 05, 2016, 10:16:31 AM
As I've explained, it's entirely biological. I suppose morals exist in that sense, but they are subjective.

Is psychology not part of biology??

Quote from: Baruch on September 05, 2016, 10:19:23 AM
Is psychology not part of biology??

Yes.

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 04, 2016, 09:29:19 PM
I'm honestly trying to understand how you think. Could you explain how you know that it is our genetic makeup that gives us our morals? If it is our genetic makeup that gives us morals then why is what's morally good for one person may not be for the next?

An emotional response does not always equal a moral one.

I see two different ways of defining morals:emotionally; and rationally. They seem to take turns preceding each other. That is, sometimes I feel something is wrong, before I reason why. Other times, I have to think it over first. But you have to understand that all of that "thinking it over," is a biological process as well.

Morality comes from other people. It comes from our parents and teachers, as well as our friends and enemies, and all our direct experience with the world. When we learn the golden rule, morality moves from strictly emotional to something rational.

I compare my morality, to the morality of others, and find more similarity than difference. Even in the various self-contradicting holy books I can find examples of the golden rule, along side the many overt deviations from that principle.

That's why codification of morality has to be free to grow, as our consciousness of others expands. Free from static dogma. When you proclaim that God wrote your holy book, you lock into whatever mistakes that are in it, and you can't adapt as you learn from experience.

Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on September 05, 2016, 08:59:27 AM
Alright, but the question, as you phrased it seemed to be ridiculous. Genes do not come from one element in particular.

I believe morals were essential for our survival. Murder would be wrong because it was advantageous to the human species. Pedophilia is considered morally wrong because of our fondness for children, humans were supposed to love and care for their children.

Why is it that some people have different morals? I'll point to a peer reviewed paper I read about people on SSRI medication (for depression and anxiety) have more utilitarian moral judgment. I'd suggest you read it http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025148.

I would imagine (I'm not a bona fide biologist though) that their exists, more or less, a morality gene. Perhaps some people have mutated genes. Like the possession of the 5-HTTLPR genotype can make people have more utilitarian judgements.

You imagine we have a morality gene? I seriously doubt it. Because we would all have the same morals or we all are seriously mutated. It's not that we are mutated we are sinful and self seeking.  We measure our level of evilness against what is Good (God)


  Annnnnnnd attack me hahaha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Baruch on September 05, 2016, 09:50:08 AM
Faith in epiphenomenalism ... that atoms combining in one arrangement are meaningful, but other combinations are not.  Otherwise plastic wrap is alive (it is carbon based).  Also faith in natural law, a delusion of the 18th century.  Darwin and Marx pissed all over the Enlightenment, and not everyone has gotten the message yet.

Doesn't being a atheist require much more faith then anything else?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on September 05, 2016, 10:16:31 AM
As I've explained, it's entirely biological. I suppose morals exist in that sense, but they are subjective.

So Morals are based on feelings and not in facts or ones experiences?

If my morals say your morals are wrong, which one os us is right?

   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is disheartening that the US is allied with a government like Saudi Arabia.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on September 05, 2016, 12:53:32 PM
An emotional response does not always equal a moral one.

I see two different ways of defining morals:emotionally; and rationally. They seem to take turns preceding each other. That is, sometimes I feel something is wrong, before I reason why. Other times, I have to think it over first. But you have to understand that all of that "thinking it over," is a biological process as well.

Morality comes from other people. It comes from our parents and teachers, as well as our friends and enemies, and all our direct experience with the world. When we learn the golden rule, morality moves from strictly emotional to something rational.

I compare my morality, to the morality of others, and find more similarity than difference. Even in the various self-contradicting holy books I can find examples of the golden rule, along side the many overt deviations from that principle.

That's why codification of morality has to be free to grow, as our consciousness of others expands. Free from static dogma. When you proclaim that God wrote your holy book, you lock into whatever mistakes that are in it, and you can't adapt as you learn from experience.

  I agree that our Morals can be influenced by the people you come into contact with. This does not mean they are right though. There still had to be a source of what is morally good.

  Things like not murdering someone or stealing.


  You care to point out any contradictions in the bible?

"Thinking it over" is not biological. Where do our thoughts come from?  Where is our mind in our body?

I do not believe morality needs room to grow. It is a never changing standard. When we start changing what is morally acceptable we open the door to all kinds of things.

 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 05, 2016, 04:16:23 PM

You imagine we have a morality gene? I seriously doubt it. Because we would all have the same morals or we all are seriously mutated. It's not that we are mutated we are sinful and self seeking.  We measure our level of evilness against what is Good (God)


  Annnnnnnd attack me hahaha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If there is a morality gene, and some people lack it ... that would be bad.  Then we can screen for bad people and terminate pregnancies we don't like.  Like theists hoping there is a god gene, so that all the atheists can be aborted before they create any damage.

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 05, 2016, 04:35:37 PM

  I agree that our Morals can be influenced by the people you come into contact with. This does not mean they are right though. There still had to be a source of what is morally good.

  Things like not murdering someone or stealing.


  You care to point out any contradictions in the bible?

"Thinking it over" is not biological. Where do our thoughts come from?  Where is our mind in our body?

I do not believe morality needs room to grow. It is a never changing standard. When we start changing what is morally acceptable we open the door to all kinds of things.

 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Murder is perfectly moral.  If you have a time machine, you are Republican, and your target is baby Hitler ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on September 05, 2016, 04:46:13 PM
If there is a morality gene, and some people lack it ... that would be bad.  Then we can screen for bad people and terminate pregnancies we don't like.  Like theists hoping there is a god gene, so that all the atheists can be aborted before they create any damage.

No I would still be against abortion even if I knew you were going to be the outcome lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Baruch on September 05, 2016, 04:47:29 PM
Murder is perfectly moral.  If you have a time machine, you are Republican, and your target is baby Hitler ;-)

We don't have time machines. There is no such thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 05, 2016, 04:22:43 PM

So Morals are based on feelings and not in facts or ones experiences?

If my morals say your morals are wrong, which one os us is right?

   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

None of them are fucking right! Morals are right or wrong, they're SUBJECTIVE! They're a biological instinct, in our primitive era they kept us alive.

Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on September 05, 2016, 08:21:45 PM
None of them are fucking right! Morals are right or wrong, they're SUBJECTIVE! They're a biological instinct, in our primitive era they kept us alive.

What brought you to this conclusion? Your feelings? I would argue some people's ideas of morals kept some people dead not alive.

Morals are objective how people choose to view morals is subjective.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 05, 2016, 04:17:43 PM


Doesn't being a atheist require much more faith then anything else?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually, being atheist requires no faith.  Or belief.  There is no god; and there is not a shred of evidence that there is.  I don't have 'faith' in that statement; I have reasons to think that it is true.  I think --actually, know--that it is true.  One must have faith and belief for your god to exist; it is a fiction, pure and simple. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 05, 2016, 11:56:04 PM
Actually, being atheist requires no faith.  Or belief.  There is no god; and there is not a shred of evidence that there is.  I don't have 'faith' in that statement; I have reasons to think that it is true.  I think --actually, know--that it is true.  One must have faith and belief for your god to exist; it is a fiction, pure and simple.

Creation is evidence. For one to say there is no God they would have to have tremendous faith. Because there is no proof God doesn't exist. So you either have faith or you know everything. Which is it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 06, 2016, 06:23:50 AM

Creation is evidence. For one to say there is no God they would have to have tremendous faith. Because there is no proof God doesn't exist. So you either have faith or you know everything. Which is it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Creation is evidence of one thing--material stuff is in the universe.  It gives zero evidence of any god(s).  Science gives us a method to make statements (hypothesis) and then test them.  The results of those tests tell us if there is evidence to accept that statement as true or false.  And anybody can do the testing and can test as often as they like.  So far, there is no evidence for god.  God remains a fiction.  Therefore, I don't need any faith (the belief in something unseen or untrue); in fact I reject your faith as willful blindness--nothing more.  A 'man of faith' is simply one who chooses to remain blind and stupid. 

Proof that god does not exist--the absence of any evidence--zero evidence--is proof there is no god.  I don't have to prove the nonexistence of god, or Bugs Bunny, or Pecos Bill, or The Invisible Pink Unicorn, or fairies, or ogres, or trolls, or The Tooth Fairy, or any other fictional character.  They are clearly fictional characters.  If one believed they were real it would be their burden to prove their existence.  So, if you believe in god, what is your proof???? 

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 06, 2016, 09:15:41 AM
Creation is evidence of one thing--material stuff is in the universe.  It gives zero evidence of any god(s).  Science gives us a method to make statements (hypothesis) and then test them.  The results of those tests tell us if there is evidence to accept that statement as true or false.  And anybody can do the testing and can test as often as they like.  So far, there is no evidence for god.  God remains a fiction.  Therefore, I don't need any faith (the belief in something unseen or untrue); in fact I reject your faith as willful blindness--nothing more.  A 'man of faith' is simply one who chooses to remain blind and stupid. 

Proof that god does not exist--the absence of any evidence--zero evidence--is proof there is no god.  I don't have to prove the nonexistence of god, or Bugs Bunny, or Pecos Bill, or The Invisible Pink Unicorn, or fairies, or ogres, or trolls, or The Tooth Fairy, or any other fictional character.  They are clearly fictional characters.  If one believed they were real it would be their burden to prove their existence.  So, if you believe in god, what is your proof????

Proof?

  Creation is proof. How can something (the universe and everything in it) come from nothing. The complexity of all this points to a creator. Not just a matter of chance that every thing comes together perfectly. All of this had to come from something it did not just appear here.

Laws of nature that never change- must of been a designer of that. It's not by chance.

Objective morals

What kind of evidence would you expect to see from a timeless space less omnipresent, omnipotence, and omniscience God?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Who created the creator?

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 05, 2016, 09:25:29 PM

What brought you to this conclusion? Your feelings? I would argue some people's ideas of morals kept some people dead not alive.

Morals are objective how people choose to view morals is subjective.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No, logic did. Yes, some people lack certain morals. Morals are not objective, if so, where do they come from? They're not logical, they only have a basis in biology.

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 06, 2016, 01:25:19 PM

Proof?

  Creation is proof. How can something (the universe and everything in it) come from nothing. The complexity of all this points to a creator. Not just a matter of chance that every thing comes together perfectly. All of this had to come from something it did not just appear here.

Laws of nature that never change- must of been a designer of that. It's not by chance.

Objective morals

What kind of evidence would you expect to see from a timeless space less omnipresent, omnipotence, and omniscience God?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Proof.  Yes, that thing that deals with evidence; not a theist's friend.  Why do you say the universe came from nothing?  How do you know that? 

The complexity is proof of a creator?  Only in your mind.  Why does god have to be complex?  Why not just be simple?

The universe comes together perfectly?  What is you definition of perfect? 

All of the universe had to come from somewhere--couldn't just appear here.  Why not?  And if the universe had to have come from somewhere, why does that somewhere have to be god?

I think you like to believe in god because it is simpler and easier for you to grasp this universe and all that is in it.  And then you can also add a 'why' to the universe.  Much, much less thinking to do then.

As a sort of proof against god, let me offer you nature.  Look closely at it.  Yes, it is beautiful.  And yes, it also savage, cruel and without feelings.  All lifeforms need energy to survive.  Animals all have to kill to get that energy.  Even the cow that eats grass, has to kill that grass to live.  Meat-eaters must kill other animals to live.  Have you ever watched predator and prey?  Not a pleasant sight.  All life is based upon killing to live.  Plants don't have to kill to live--they only need the sun and minerals.  (Of course, there is another system that developed in the lightless bottoms of the seas--just heat and minerals are needed for life.)  I, as a mere human, can figure out a better system than that.  Simply make all life sustain that life from solar energy.  Period--easy--and much more moral. 

Look at human childbirth.  Children are born every second with a huge assortment of defects.  That is your idea of perfection?  If this is a system created by your god, then I would spit in his face and brand him the horrid monster that he is.  I reject it. 

As I see it, the universe just is.  Yes, it came from something, but what exactly and how exactly, we don't fully understand yet.  (Oh, the hatred of the theist for the phrase--I don't know...........) That does not mean god did it.  And you may ask--as I have many, many times--if god did not do it, then how did it happen.  I don't know.  But thinking of answers always brings me to this basic question--if god is the creator, then what created him; and what created him; and what created him............and on forever.  Or what created the universe; and the on before that; and the one before that................and on forever.  Don't know and will never know. 

Morals.  Yes, totally subjective.  They are group created; culture created.  And they change.  They are rules devised by said culture to ensure the survival of that group.  The rules keep us from hurting each other; and as a social animal, those rules allow society to run much more smoothly and allow that group to gather more power. 

I also suggest that the bible is amoral at best and mostly simply immoral.  You suggest the bible gives us objective morals.  What are they? Where can they be found?

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 05, 2016, 06:21:35 PM

No I would still be against abortion even if I knew you were going to be the outcome lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is an ideology.  A position held in spite of contrary evidence ... though the situation where abortion is OK might be a small number of abortions.  See, if one figures one is a holy warrior for truth, justice and the American way, you can found your own ISIS to help Superman kill Batman.

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 05, 2016, 06:22:53 PM

We don't have time machines. There is no such thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is a joke, particularly on JEB Bush.  We have time machines, they are called bodies, but they only have Forward, there is nor Reverse.

If you knew in advance, and it is 1930, would you assassinate Hitler?  No time machine required, just an imagination.  Some people here think Trump is Hitler, others think Hillary is Hitler.  What if one of them is, because you know in advance (aka you are G-d) ... do you kill?

Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on September 05, 2016, 08:21:45 PM
None of them are fucking right! Morals are right or wrong, they're SUBJECTIVE! They're a biological instinct, in our primitive era they kept us alive.

We are still in the Stone Age ... just ask anyone from Colorado ;-)

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 05, 2016, 09:25:29 PM

What brought you to this conclusion? Your feelings? I would argue some people's ideas of morals kept some people dead not alive.

Morals are objective how people choose to view morals is subjective.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I wish you were right.  But G-d says you are wrong.  G-d creates life, and kills everything that lives.

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 06, 2016, 06:23:50 AM

Creation is evidence. For one to say there is no God they would have to have tremendous faith. Because there is no proof God doesn't exist. So you either have faith or you know everything. Which is it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your grasp of logic needs polishing.  Natural language is a poor medium.  I say there is a G-d, and I am faithless.  Faith means trust, and G-d is not trustworthy in any fashion.  Read the last chapter of the Book of Job please.  For most here, experience is an argument against G-d ... for me the exact opposite.  I don't have to get into the technicalities of Creation, my own right hand is sufficient.  But that doesn't mean G-d is good ... just that G-d is handy ;-)

Quote from: pr126 on September 06, 2016, 02:14:22 PM
Who created the creator?

What came before the Big Bang?  Same problem, but personal vs impersonal.  Modern people believe that life comes from non-life ... ancients believed the opposite.

Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on September 06, 2016, 04:40:47 PM
No, logic did. Yes, some people lack certain morals. Morals are not objective, if so, where do they come from? They're not logical, they only have a basis in biology.

If morals are not objective why do we all no certain things are bad starting at a very young age.

Murder is bad

Lying is bad

Stealing is bad

Cheating on your wife is bad

That is a fact (objective)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 06, 2016, 05:06:15 PM
Proof.  Yes, that thing that deals with evidence; not a theist's friend.  Why do you say the universe came from nothing?  How do you know that? 


I never said the universe came from nothing I said it cant come from nothing. There for there must be a creator



The complexity is proof of a creator?  Only in your mind.  Why does god have to be complex?  Why not just be simple? 

How can a simple being be the creator of all we know. How can a simple being be all knowing, all powerful, and everywhere all at once?



The universe comes together perfectly?  What is you definition of perfect? 

The fact the sun rises everyday. Gravity continues to exist? We have air to breath? The circle of life.



All of the universe had to come from somewhere--couldn't just appear here.  Why not?  And if the universe had to have come from somewhere, why does that somewhere have to be god?

How else can some thing be created from nothing?



I think you like to believe in god because it is simpler and easier for you to grasp this universe and all that is in it.  And then you can also add a 'why' to the universe.  Much, much less thinking to do then.

  Actually it's easier to believe what ever you want to believe and do what ever you want to do and be held accountable by no one.

   I used to be agnostic and believe me life was much simpler then. I did not care how we got here or why or about where I was going when I died.

As a sort of proof against god, let me offer you nature.  Look closely at it.  Yes, it is beautiful.  And yes, it also savage, cruel and without feelings.  All lifeforms need energy to survive.  Animals all have to kill to get that energy.  Even the cow that eats grass, has to kill that grass to live.  Meat-eaters must kill other animals to live.  Have you ever watched predator and prey?  Not a pleasant sight.  All life is based upon killing to live.  Plants don't have to kill to live--they only need the sun and minerals.  (Of course, there is another system that developed in the lightless bottoms of the seas--just heat and minerals are needed for life.)  I, as a mere human, can figure out a better system than that.  Simply make all life sustain that life from solar energy.  Period--easy--and much more

Why is killing to eat a bad thing. It is perfect in my opinion. The circle of life.

Look at human childbirth.  Children are born every second with a huge assortment of defects.  That is your idea of perfection?  If this is a system created by your god, then I would spit in his face and brand him the horrid monster that he is.  I reject

Why do you assume defects and disease come from God?

As I see it, the universe just is.  Yes, it came from something, but what exactly and how exactly, we don't fully understand yet.  (Oh, the hatred of the theist for the phrase--I don't know...........) That does not mean god did it.  And you may ask--as I have many, many times--if god did not do it, then how did it happen.  I don't know.  But thinking of answers always brings me to this basic question--if god is the creator, then what created him; and what created him; and what created him............and on forever.  Or what created the universe; and the on before that; and the one before that................and on forever.  Don't know and will never know.

Why do you assume God had a creator? He is infinite? No beginning no end?   



I also suggest that the bible is amoral at best and mostly simply immoral.  You suggest the bible gives us objective morals.  What are they? Where can they be found?

    The creator gives us morals.

But my favorite from the bible that will cover everything

  "Love your neighbor as you love yourself"

Imagine a world where everyone carried this out perfectly?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Baruch on September 06, 2016, 06:28:40 PM
It is a joke, particularly on JEB Bush.  We have time machines, they are called bodies, but they only have Forward, there is nor Reverse.

If you knew in advance, and it is 1930, would you assassinate Hitler?  No time machine required, just an imagination.  Some people here think Trump is Hitler, others think Hillary is Hitler.  What if one of them is, because you know in advance (aka you are G-d) ... do you kill?

No I would not kill hitler. But if t was World War Two and he was in my sights I would shoot him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Baruch on September 06, 2016, 06:34:46 PM
Your grasp of logic needs polishing.  Natural language is a poor medium.  I say there is a G-d, and I am faithless.  Faith means trust, and G-d is not trustworthy in any fashion.  Read the last chapter of the Book of Job please.  For most here, experience is an argument against G-d ... for me the exact opposite.  I don't have to get into the technicalities of Creation, my own right hand is sufficient.  But that doesn't mean G-d is good ... just that G-d is handy ;-)

For me to address any of this please tell me what G-d is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Baruch on September 06, 2016, 06:36:05 PM
What came before the Big Bang?  Same problem, but personal vs impersonal.  Modern people believe that life comes from non-life ... ancients believed the opposite.

Not quite the same problem. God is infinite he has no beginning or end.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 06, 2016, 07:00:57 PM
If morals are not objective why do we all no certain things are bad starting at a very young age.

Murder is bad

Lying is bad

Stealing is bad

Cheating on your wife is bad

That is a fact (objective)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, these are not objective facts. Where do you get these from?

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 06, 2016, 07:00:57 PM
If morals are not objective why do we all no certain things are bad starting at a very young age.

Murder is bad

Lying is bad

Stealing is bad

Cheating on your wife is bad

That is a fact (objective)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah, I see. You get these morals from the illogical waste of trees known as, the Bible. Grow up, the Bible is a load of horseshit. There is no god, you don't get to go to heaven. The earth isn't flat (as implied in the Bible), man evolved from lower life forms and were not created, accept it and move on. Why don't you maintain an open mind and think to yourself "is this really logical?". you don't have to tell me because there is nothing a human hates more than being proven wrong. Accept the facts and move on, a good atheist/evolutionist primer is the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 06, 2016, 07:24:17 PM

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 06, 2016, 05:06:15 PM


You--I never said the universe came from nothing I said it cant come from nothing. There for there must be a creator

Me--Where did you get the notion that the universe came from nothing?

You--How can a simple being be the creator of all we know. How can a simple being be all knowing, all powerful, and everywhere all at once?
Me--This is your fiction--you tell me.


You--The fact the sun rises everyday. Gravity continues to exist? We have air to breath? The circle of life.
Me--this is your perfection???  You do know why the sun rises everyday?  Right???  You do know how gravity works?  Right?  And you do know where 'air' comes from?  Right??  The circle of life--are you quoting a Disney movie????

You--  Actually it's easier to believe what ever you want to believe and do what ever you want to do and be held accountable by no one.
Me--It is easier to believe in anything I want?  Well, no not really.  I like to use reason to figure things out.  BTW, I don't think as I do because of belief and faith.  I need facts and reasons to think a certain way.  I can't just create things to believe in.  Accountable to no one?  First, I don't need a monster god who threatens me with hell to act humanly towards people and animals.  I do so because it is the right thing to do.  And I have reasons for that thought.   

You--  I used to be agnostic and believe me life was much simpler then. I did not care how we got here or why or about where I was going when I died.
Me--I used to be agnostic, as well.  I am now a full blown atheist.  I know where I'm going when I die.  I will become dust and then separate atoms.   


You--Why is killing to eat a bad thing. It is perfect in my opinion. The circle of life.
Me--Killing is bad in that it is simply not necessary for life to be.  I'm not surprised you don't have a problem with it--being as you are so moral, and all. 
     The circle of life--what is that to you?


You--Why do you assume defects and disease come from God?
Me--Where else would they come from?  Is there another creator in your universe??????


You--Why do you assume God had a creator? He is infinite? No beginning no end?
Me--Why not assume the universe always was and will be?????? 





  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on September 06, 2016, 09:49:48 PM
No, these are not objective facts. Where do you get these from?

Would you say that every human being with no mental disabilities knows cold blooded murder is wrong in their heart?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on September 06, 2016, 09:54:16 PM
Ah, I see. You get these morals from the illogical waste of trees known as, the Bible. Grow up, the Bible is a load of horseshit. There is no god, you don't get to go to heaven. The earth isn't flat (as implied in the Bible), man evolved from lower life forms and were not created, accept it and move on. Why don't you maintain an open mind and think to yourself "is this really logical?". you don't have to tell me because there is nothing a human hates more than being proven wrong. Accept the facts and move on, a good atheist/evolutionist primer is the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

Where in the bible does it say the earth is flat?

What makes you believe we evolved?

How do you know there is no God or Heaven?

I have no problem being proved wrong if it's the truth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 06, 2016, 10:05:41 PM

It's late so I'll answer your last question.

I do not think the earth or universe is infinite because there are signs that we are depleting our resources. If it was infinite we would have a infinite amount of resources.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 06, 2016, 10:56:22 PM

It's late so I'll answer your last question.

I do not think the earth or universe is infinite because there are signs that we are depleting our resources. If it was infinite we would have a infinite amount of resources.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The resources are not ceasing to exist, they just are changing forms.

For all practical purposes, the universe is infinite due to just how much of it there is.

Quote from: Shiranu on September 06, 2016, 11:42:56 PM
The resources are not ceasing to exist, they just are changing forms.

For all practical purposes, the universe is infinite due to just how much of it there is.

Explain on both points please?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 06, 2016, 10:56:22 PM

It's late so I'll answer your last question.

I do not think the earth or universe is infinite because there are signs that we are depleting our resources. If it was infinite we would have a infinite amount of resources.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It would be nice if you would simply answer them later or on another day, then, instead of skipping them.  I realize they are uncomfortable for you.

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 07, 2016, 08:38:03 AM
It would be nice if you would simply answer them later or on another day, then, instead of skipping them.  I realize they are uncomfortable for you.

Not uncomfortable at all. Some were humorous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 06, 2016, 10:42:13 PMWould you say that every human being with no mental disabilities knows cold blooded murder is wrong in their heart?

(http://s1.firstpost.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Japan_HostageISIS_AP.jpg)

No.

Me- I never said the universe came from nothing I said it cant come from nothing. There for there must be a creator

You- Where did you get the notion that the universe came from nothing?

Me- Retread my statement

Me--- How can a simple being be the creator of all we know. How can a simple being be all knowing, all powerful, and everywhere all at once?

You--This is your fiction--you tell me.

I asked you a question I was not making a statement


Me- The fact the sun rises everyday. Gravity continues to exist? We have air to breath? The circle of life.

You- this is your perfection???  You do know why the sun rises everyday?  Right???  You do know how gravity works?  Right?  And you do know where 'air' comes from?  Right??  The circle of life--are you quoting a Disney movie????

Me-- yes to all you questions above. Who doesn't like the Lion King?

Me--Actually it's easier to believe what ever you want to believe and do what ever you want to do and be held accountable by no one.

You--It is easier to believe in anything I want?  Well, no not really.  I like to use reason to figure things out.  BTW, I don't think as I do because of belief and faith.  I need facts and reasons to think a certain way.  I can't just create things to believe in.  Accountable to no one?  First, I don't need a monster god who threatens me with hell to act humanly towards people and animals.  I do so because it is the right thing to do.  And I have reasons for that thought.   

Me- If you used reason you would at best be a Christina and at worst be a agnostic. It is completely unreasonable to make a statement saying there is no God. How could you possible know that?

Me- I used to be agnostic and believe me life was much simpler then. I did not care how we got here or why or about where I was going when I died.

You--I used to be agnostic, as well.  I am now a full blown atheist.  I know where I'm going when I die.  I will become dust and then separate atoms.   

Me- again you do not know this. You can not say there is not a after life. You would have to be all knowing


Me-Why is killing to eat a bad thing. It is perfect in my opinion. The circle of life.

You--Killing is bad in that it is simply not necessary for life to be.  I'm not surprised you don't have a problem with it--being as you are so moral, and all. 
     The circle of life--what is that to you?

Me--- are you a vegetarian or vegan or whatever else doesn't eat animals?


Me- Why do you assume defects and disease come from God?

You-Where else would they come from?  Is there another creator in your universe??????

Me- they would come from ourselves. We certainly have screwed with nature here.


Me---Why do you assume God had a creator? He is infinite? No beginning no end?

You--Why not assume the universe always was and will be?????? 

Me-  I will not assume the universe is infinite when we are depleting our resources if it was infinite we would have it unless amount of resources.  Plus the resources we have had a beginning therefore they're not infinite.

Quote from: Hydra009 on September 07, 2016, 12:29:41 PM
(http://s1.firstpost.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Japan_HostageISIS_AP.jpg)

No.

What does this prove? Would you say somebody who follows the ideology of Isis is totally mentally sane?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 07, 2016, 12:41:22 PMWhat does this prove?

It proves your assertion of universal morality incorrect.

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 06, 2016, 10:51:15 PM

Where in the bible does it say the earth is flat?

What makes you believe we evolved?

How do you know there is no God or Heaven?

I have no problem being proved wrong if it's the truth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm

Evidence for Evolution:

-Fossil records show a smooth transition between one life form and another.
-Genetic commonalities provide plenty of evidence to suggest that evolution is true. We share 90% of genes with chimpanzees.
-Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. MRSA is a great example of how Staph. Aureus evolved to be resisint to methicillin.
-Species in the same class have similar characteristics. All insects have 6 legs for instance, that suggests all insects came from a common ancestor.

Obviously I'm not a biologist, some don't take my word for it. Read a book on evolution with an open mind.

How do I know there is no god?:

I don't know for sure, there is no good evidence for the existence of god though.

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 06, 2016, 07:39:28 PM

For me to address any of this please tell me what G-d is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are the one making the claim.

But to tell you my own experience, would require as many years as I have lived, and I would get it all wrong, because memory is unreliable.  My experience is my evidence.  But I do have a handle on the present.  I have a right hand, it is helping my left hand to type this.  Atoms can't do that ... atoms are imaginary ... but useful anyway.  Just like Moby Dick.  But Moby Dick is useful for something different than the idea of atoms.  We have the idea of atoms, and modern man thinks this is obvious, just like earlier we thought that the Earth being flat was obvious.  The problem isn't with the facts, the problem is with people asserting things that they in fact don't know themselves ... they rely on experts ... priests or scientists.  I need neither, as far as my own hands go.  Every being is a demi-god ... and each demi-god is a reflection/image of G-d.  That is a metaphor, pointing to what can't be described.

Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on September 07, 2016, 06:04:57 PM
http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm

Evidence for Evolution:

-Fossil records show a smooth transition between one life form and another.
-Genetic commonalities provide plenty of evidence to suggest that evolution is true. We share 90% of genes with chimpanzees.
-Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. MRSA is a great example of how Staph. Aureus evolved to be resisint to methicillin.
-Species in the same class have similar characteristics. All insects have 6 legs for instance, that suggests all insects came from a common ancestor.

Obviously I'm not a biologist, some don't take my word for it. Read a book on evolution with an open mind.

How do I know there is no god?:

I don't know for sure, there is no good evidence for the existence of god though.

Thank you for your answers.

The link you posted is a Muslim site and every argument made on it has a counter argument. I do not have time to go through all of them. But no where in the bible or on that link does it say the earth is flat.

Revelation 7:1 mentions the four corners of the earth. But it does not say the world is flat.  It could be referring to North south east and west.

   Why is it perfectly ok to sing a song about the ends of the earth without being accused of thinking the world is flat.

  Or when when say the sun rises and sets we know it doesn't do that.

   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Baruch on September 07, 2016, 06:28:46 PM
You are the one making the claim.

But to tell you my own experience, would require as many years as I have lived, and I would get it all wrong, because memory is unreliable.  My experience is my evidence.  But I do have a handle on the present.  I have a right hand, it is helping my left hand to type this.  Atoms can't do that ... atoms are imaginary ... but useful anyway.  Just like Moby Dick.  But Moby Dick is useful for something different than the idea of atoms.  We have the idea of atoms, and modern man thinks this is obvious, just like earlier we thought that the Earth being flat was obvious.  The problem isn't with the facts, the problem is with people asserting things that they in fact don't know themselves ... they rely on experts ... priests or scientists.  I need neither, as far as my own hands go.  Every being is a demi-god ... and each demi-god is a reflection/image of G-d.  That is a metaphor, pointing to what can't be described.

My experience tells me there is a God. So if both our experiences come to opposite conclusions one of us has to be wrong. Experience does not always dictate truth.

That last part lost me. Are you saying you are a Demi-God?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

QuoteI agree that our Morals can be influenced by the people you come into contact with. This does not mean they are right though. There still had to be a source of what is morally good.  Things like not murdering someone or stealing. 

Morals are not “Right” or “Wrong” in some absolute sense. They are subjective to the human experience. The only source is human. The only beneficiaries are human. It's all just human.

QuoteYou care to point out any contradictions in the bible? 

Here's one: How did Judas die, and what did he do with the 50 shekels of silver?
Did he buy a field, and fall headlong in it, and burst open? Or did he throw the silver into the temple and go and hang himself?

Quote"Thinking it over" is not biological. Where do our thoughts come from?  Where is our mind in our body? 

“Thinking it over,” is most certainly a biological process. Although in your particular case, I don't think a lobotomy would make much difference, most people use their brain to think. And the brain is biological.

QuoteI do not believe morality needs room to grow. It is a never changing standard. When we start changing what is morally acceptable we open the door to all kinds of things.

Like freed slaves, and women's rights, and gay rights, and all those modern sensibilities that are going to destroy our culture?

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 07, 2016, 07:08:54 PM

Thank you for your answers.

The link you posted is a Muslim site and every argument made on it has a counter argument. I do not have time to go through all of them. But no where in the bible or on that link does it say the earth is flat.

Revelation 7:1 mentions the four corners of the earth. But it does not say the world is flat.  It could be referring to North south east and west.

   Why is it perfectly ok to sing a song about the ends of the earth without being accused of thinking the world is flat.

  Or when when say the sun rises and sets we know it doesn't do that.

   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think so. I think the Bible implies the earth is flat because the scribes that wrote the bible thought so. There are plenty of scientific mistakes and improbabilities. the Bible states that the earth is more or less 6,000 years old.

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 07, 2016, 07:13:30 PM

My experience tells me there is a God. So if both our experiences come to opposite conclusions one of us has to be wrong. Experience does not always dictate truth.

That last part lost me. Are you saying you are a Demi-God?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wrong again.  There is not a single truth ... that is a metaphysical prejudice.  And yes, everyone, including myself, is a demi-god.  That is why I labor here chopping heads off the Hydra.

Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on September 08, 2016, 05:13:03 PM
I don't think so. I think the Bible implies the earth is flat because the scribes that wrote the bible thought so. There are plenty of scientific mistakes and improbabilities. the Bible states that the earth is more or less 6,000 years old.

Can you prove the age of the earth? Where does the bible say how old the earth is?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Baruch on September 08, 2016, 07:11:12 PM
Wrong again.  There is not a single truth ... that is a metaphysical prejudice.  And yes, everyone, including myself, is a demi-god.  That is why I labor here chopping heads off the Hydra.

Would you mind explaining how there is no single truth?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 08, 2016, 08:00:37 PM

Can you prove the age of the earth? Where does the bible say how old the earth is?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Irrelevant.  Anything more than three months ago is irrelevant to an American ;-)

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 08, 2016, 08:06:29 PM
Would you mind explaining how there is no single truth?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If I am partially right and partially wrong ... and you are, but in a different fashion ... then are we both right and both wrong?  Being right or wrong is a condition of a demonstrable situation, not a predicate of a statement.  Logicians get this wrong all the time.  Reality is contingent ... there is no clear right or wrong ... statement wise.  Logic that is about something other than reality (aka tautology or contradiction) is a waste of time.

Example ... say I have lost one of the fingers on my right hand.  Then there is the reality that I do or do not have all my fingers on my right hand.  But rhetoricians don't worry about demonstration, they are all about bullshit legal argument ... they worry if the statement "Baruch has all his fingers on his right hand" has a truth value of T or F.  That isn't the same.  You can eat a hard boiled egg, but you can't eat a statement about a hard boiled egg ... no matter what its truth value.  Words are mostly used to obscure reality, not reveal it.

Quote from: Kaleb5000 on September 08, 2016, 08:00:37 PM

Can you prove the age of the earth? Where does the bible say how old the earth is?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

More or less, yes. It has been calculated with mathematics and science, something you probably have no knowledge of. The Bible doesn't explicitly state that the earth is 6000 years old, that wouldn't make sense. http://creation.com/6000-years, https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/how-old-is-the-earth/.

Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on September 09, 2016, 08:07:21 PM
More or less, yes. It has been calculated with mathematics and science, something you probably have no knowledge of. The Bible doesn't explicitly state that the earth is 6000 years old, that wouldn't make sense. http://creation.com/6000-years, https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/how-old-is-the-earth/.

I rely on my Bishop Ussher app to do all my calculating ;-)

Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on September 09, 2016, 08:07:21 PM
More or less, yes. It has been calculated with mathematics and science, something you probably have no knowledge of. The Bible doesn't explicitly state that the earth is 6000 years old, that wouldn't make sense. http://creation.com/6000-years, https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/how-old-is-the-earth/.

Yes, they couldn't count to 6,000 back then...  But that doesn't explain modern-day nuts.