 |
|
|
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
|
| Part of 
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_F9nIps46w&w=640&h=360]
Next time you're out at WalMart, pick up a few more chords...
Are you trying to demonstrate your crap taste in music or are you just a big GOOP fan?
Should we allow people to mistreat animals this way?
I guess the snake answered that question.
Don't try what Coots did anywhere.
God bless his soul.
I guess he had nothing to live for.
It's a quicker out than most diseases and unlike most of us he was able to walk around right up until the last day of his life.
That doesn't make him any less stupid.
Vic, his crazy god delusion is part of the problem, as is yours.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
@vic..............I guess god is asking him "are you crazy?"
https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/17/was-snake-handlers-death-preventable/comment-page-2/#comment-2947356
https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/17/was-snake-handlers-death-preventable/comment-page-2/#comment-2947356
Sure it was preventable. Don't play with snakes! Superman Wouldn't play with a snake.
Death isn't preventable forever.
There is a disturbing wasteland of brains that blanket America. They are divided and sub-divided into many pieces, all slightly mismatched and each one slowly drowning.
It is in the context of this reality that atheists will blossom and take a firm hand over most enterprises that require reason and common sense.
There will always be delusional people, but they won’t overtly be making policy.
The final demise of religion will go by unnoticed.
Seeing that 78% of the U.S population consider themselves christian, and an additional 5% claim other religious affiliation, combined with the fact that < 2% of the population identify with atheism, you may not want to hold your breath.
your numbers are incorrect but hey, what do you need facts for, you have the bible.
Not my numbers. Statistics are from current Gallup poll and Pew research studies. But then again, you will believe what you want to believe.
Common sense will prevail. I am optimistic.
The death is sad...thing is I don't see the Bible COMMANDING us to handle snakes.....I truly believe these churches that do go overboard with the intent behind the passages....its referring to faith...we ALL will die....we must have faith that God will keep us till HIS time for us. Thus we shouldn't be doing things like this..no reason to handle snakes....
Besides..this isn't the ONLY way to show our faith..the BIble shows many ways to practice the faith....
And, the bible isn't the ONLY way to follow, if you choose to believe in God. Many humans have no access to the bible, God didn't pave the way for them to learn of it. It's not universal "truth", in fact it's not truth at all. It's one angle to a multi-faceted story.
This death is delightful. You can't make this stuff up.
No death is delightful, they are all horrible. That's the problem. Though his isn't the worst there has ever been.
And why do you say it is delightful?
This man wanted to die from a snake bite and he succeeded. I say good for him.
derado8, death in perfectly natural and normal. It is also how we can prove there are is no Christian god.
Kermit, there is no reason to have such crazy faith as you and the snake handler have. It should be a clue to you that your god is total fiction, that your "god", a purportedly omnipotent being, cannot get his message across consistently and clearly. Another clue is that your supposedly omnipotent being can't even get with the past decade and create his own web presence (no, religious shill sites don't count), or push some tweets out. Even the pope, that creepy hider of criminal priests, could do that much, as can most children.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
NOw youre being silly. YOU are blaming God now for YOUR problems..God does give good enough evidence..the problem is with skeptics who are arrogant.
What evidence is there for a supernatural cause to anything? We have pretty good explanations for most of the important stuff.
MR personally?I know God personally..I had personal relationship with God for over 25 years..I seen HIS work in my life and lives of others..NO..it isn't something IM saying cause I WANT it that way..it is cause it IS that way. and as I said..don't take my word for it..CHECK it out for yourself
kermit4jc:
There are good psychotherapists and drugs to cure you of that. you have had a lifelong relationship with an invisible friend? Most sane people would have you see a shrink about your invisible friend. Your personal delusions do nothing to prove the existence of any God.
I will pretty mucvh ignore your comments..youre such an arrogant idiot....I WORK in the psychological field and ONLY people who say such things like you are people who know nothing about psychology and psychotherapy....don't pretend to be something youre not..ok? stick to facts..
The vast majority of people who go into the field of psychology have issues.
That is what generally motivates them to choose such a moajor and go into such a career.
Kermit,
It may not COMMAND per se, but...
Mark 16:17-18
"And these signs shall follow them that believe; ...They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
I took out the parts about speaking in tongues since it's irrelevant to the discussion, but will plug it back in if you think it makes it "out of context".
The Bible says–right there. I know it's a forged part of Mark, but if you really believe, I mean REALLY believe in the Bible, it's all right there. True believers are supposed to be able handle serpents and drink poison, and heal the sick.
AS IF that was the only way to show the faith? There are MORE ways than that..and they are not SUPPOSSED to do it..but it its that they CAN do it. But again..this is not the only show of faith as we read thru the entire Bible..and we see especially like in Hebrews 11..I don't NEED to handle snakes to show my faith..I have oTHER ways of doing it
I would submit that their is not a single person on Earth who does everything the Bible tells them to do. Therefore it seems logical to throw out these texts. They are not governing human behavior.
I'd bet very few people would even notice if you did.
You noticed, and for that I am pleased.
I don't think human behavior can be governed. People try it all the time and it doesn't seem to work out very well.
Of course there " is not a single person on earth who does everything the bible tells them to do." That's pretty much the overriding theme of the biblical literature. Even the biblical characters who are considered to be giants of the faith were severely flawed and infected with this thing called sin. It's why the Apostle Paul states, " Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am foremost." If you think Christianity is about who has the best behavior, you've missed the gist.
Which makes my point. How stupid IS the bible?
In all honesty, It doesn't " make your point" it simply puts on display the fact that you " missed the point."
I don't disagree. I missed the bag rounding second.
Having grown up on a baseball field, I'll cut you some slack.
Atheists have the most screwed up "morality" or lack thereof I have ever seen. They believe NOTHING to be evil.... everything is relative to what society does and does not esteem... therefore they cannot say that r a p e is ALWAYS AN EVIL ACT... they cant say mol.estation is ALWAYS evil... just ask them... right here... watch... not a single atheist here will deny it.
Define evil.
See??? They dont even know the meaning of the word LMAO
wolfbitn, I am just one person, not a "they". Are you referring to the dictionary definition or a biblical definition?
I am referring to every atheist and the COMMON definition of EVIL. The way MOST people would define it...
Tell me something... Is R A PE ALWAYS a "bad" thing to do or is it ONLY "bad" for the culture that esteems it as a "bad" thing... or do you need a definition for "Bad" too?
Wolfie, we have learned when dealing with the likes of you, it is extremely important that words are clearly defined. Otherwise, when you are losing an argument, you are likely to redefine words to get out of a jam.
So, how do you define evil?
I define evil as an act or a thing that is bigger than a person or even a culture and exists on it's own... It does not NEED your approval. For instance if R A pe was only EVIL to the culture who esteemed it evil then it really didnt exist at all...
So I ask again... is R A P E ALWAYS and without fail, an evil act?
@wolfbitn
Yes. What is bad for the one may not be bad for the other, in fact it may be good. So what is your definition of "bad"?
so wow... you cant even say R A P E is not ALWAYS bad... might be GOOD? Wow! I am SO VERY thankful my parents raised me with a true sense of right and wrong. To imply it is sometimes GOOD??? Hell you didnt even imply it you SAID it.
The Atheist mindset is the most cold hearted dangerous mindest I have ever seen. It is more along the lines of a sociopath
@wolfbitn
I haven't even made an argument yet because you have not defined the terms "evil" and "bad".
You just said R A P E could be good for some... if you cannot say it is ALWAYS bad or evil, you are coming close to the definition of a sociopath. Or do you need the definition of R A P E too?
If we are talking about acts committed by one human on another, such as r.a.p.e. then yes there are some things such as r.a.p.e. and murder that I would say are always evil.
If you, wolfie, are going to get loopy on us, and define evil as an ent!ty or a force, then I would say there's no such thing.
I will now sit back and let wolfie tell me why I'm wrong.
So then let me make this clear Hotair... you are now disagreeing that Evil is a force of it's own, but you DO agree that R A P E is ALWAYS an evil act REGARDLESS of social belief?
I never mentioned rape. Very bad, rape.
Ok so you agree with me then that R A P E is ALWAYS bad?
Yes.
Then you believe in God... Morality according to atheists, cannot exist in and of itself without society determining what is "good and bad". If ANYTHING is ALWAYS good or bad regardless of anything else, we suddenly have a universal truth... chemical reactions do not create TRUTH or EVIL.. So if it is UNIVERSAL truth it is omnipresent...
Correct.
That should be to your shame I would think 🙂
In my best Texas accent, huh?
Hotair...bro, i say its to your shame that you believe in a morality larger than yourself and all of society... you believe in a UNIVERSAL truth... This is not something that is a chemical reaction. This is not something that blew out with the stars at the BB... This IS something bigger than society and therefore you really DO believe that evil is evil in and of itself
But your shame as an atheist, I find to be the key to move past atheism.
Ok I will explain... you are Atheist correct?
Yes.
Let the word games begin . . .
Hotair, I am going to submit then that in fact you are NOT an atheist. You are now professing a morality larger than yourself or even all of society.
An atheist is forced to believe that things are only "good or bad" or "Evil", when they are deemed so from a significant percentage of a society... OR from an individual choice or preference. You are now saying there is something BIGGER than yourself... BIGGER than society. you are now suggesting that evil is a force in and of itself, so now your statements are conflicting, because earlier you stated that you did not believe "Evil" to be "evil" in and of itself. If an act is ALWAYS EVIL without exception this makes it a UNIVERSAL truth... if universal truth exists, then atheism is incorrect.
That is what i mean by it is to your shame... I am GLAD for this because shaming atheism is to your benefit, and so is recognizing that there DOES exist universal truth, and a universal morality.
Sorry, you are wrong! I am most definitely an atheist. I do not believe there are any gods, not even just one. I don't rule out the possibility of there being what some would call gods being out there somewhere in the univers, but I put the probability of there being a god of The Babble, one that allegedly cares about humans, at virtually zero.
But do continue with your poor Amazing Kreskin act and tell me what I think and why.
You cant have it both ways... an atheist cannot believe in a morality larger than himself or society. To do this is to believe in a "god" because it is LARGER than society, and universally present... No you are no atheist...
You state you believe R A P E to be ALWAYS an evil act regardless of what society thinks... How can this be that TRUTH is universal? Where did TRUTH come from? What exploded to create TRUTH?
Total BS coming from wolfie here.
Just because someone says they think something is always bad does not at all mean that they hold the belief that the source of their opinion comes from any alleged objective truth. Quite a ridiculous assumption actually. And the worst trolling yet I've seen from wolfie.
How can there be a universal morality when we are stuck here on the earth?
So wolfie, do you believe your God exists outside of time in this universe or inside or both? Don't worry, we'll get to moral truths soon enough....
we can discuss that elsewhere... this regards universal morality and universal truth... which cannot exist in the atheist point of view. What kind of big bang can create a universal morality and universal truth in and of itself, whether we exist or not?
So what would you call it when you teach your children that most likely there are no gods and why, and then go on to teach them to do no evil?
myself and my children arent the subject of discussion. Atheist mindset and universal morality are.
So you claim that you are atheist and claim at the same time to believe in universal morality... this is a morality that would exist whether humans existed or not. I submit that a universal morality cannot exist without God.. By what process did this universal morality come to be?
"How can there be a universal morality when we are stuck here on the earth? "
Ugg. I'm starting to think wolfie is Salero and/or thefinisher1 and in any case a POE, otherwise why would someone be so ridiculous?
What in the world are you asking? And who said we'll always be stuck here?
So you don't see how your opinion of God's nature of existence has any bearing on universal morality? Interesting.
No Doris... I am waiting for you and hotair to tell me how a universal morality exists in and of itself... by what process did it arrive? WHY is R A P E ALWAYS bad or evil... if society deemed that it was a GOOD act... what force overrules society and deems it as evil even when WE do not?
I do not know precisely how universal morality came about. I've read enough to know it predates The Babble. It could be as simple as adopting behaviors that favor the advancement of groups over behaviors that harm others and collective advancement. In these times, it is maintained through the collective wisdom of citizens and our elected representatives. We haven't got everything right yet, but things are trending in the right direction, at least for most western democracies. The advancement of gay rights is happening before our very eyes, thanks largely to younger people who care more about each other than about some crappy piece of fiction featuring a dead Jewish zombie. No gods or religion are required for continued advancement.
Hotair iv tried to post this 4 times and it wont post so i am cutting it down into parts...
You and i agreed that certain acts are evil in and of themselves. This rules out collective consciousness. A culture could believe it to be perfectly the norm... it is still evil. Where does this come from is the question we really need to answer IF we really want to come to an honest answer. To do this you must test... to test scientifically you must be unbiased... to REALLY TEST this you have to be objective enough to consider the possibility enough to test it honestly... this means dropping an atheist bias and being middle of the road.
Now from a middle of the road position consider universal evil, universal morality, universal truth. These things exist whether consciousness recognized them or not. These things, being beyond chemical reaction, and consciousness are tangible and yet not a part of the physical universe that was formed so many ages ago.
part 2
ALSO i myself have fought against this church most likely more than anyone here, and for decades... i recognize its evils. I have written about our church leaders after investigating them in depth and it was very ugly... I do not condemn a person on earth... no ill wishes to anyone. I believe everyone should be treated fairly under the law. I hate the monetizing of faith. So just know... if you think iv been a pain here, you should see what church leaders you would KNOW say about me.
wolfie: "No Doris... I am waiting for you and hotair to tell me how a universal morality exists in and of itself... "
who said there is any universal morality? not me. that's for you to demonstrate if you can.
someone saying they consistently feel that rape is wrong does not necessarily have to say so from a belief in universal moral truths either.
wolfie: "by what process did it arrive?"
since i don't hold a belief in universal moral truths (I assume you mean this is synonymous with divine truths), then from my perspective, the question about how, when and time of arrival is kind of moot, don't you think?
"WHY is R A P E ALWAYS bad or evil... if society deemed that it was a GOOD act... what force overrules society and deems it as evil even when WE do not?"
why are you loading up such a ridiculous question? who deemed it to be good? people and societies come to collective opinions on many things. some groups of people come to collective opinions about what forces there are in the universe that may not be easily detectable. that doesn't mean such things necessarily exist. nevertheless they come to collective opinions about things that they think are in their best interest and the best interest of their fellow human, the people in their community, state, nation, etc. – that's human nature. the natural brain is powerful and humans have learned naturally in general that it is in one's best interest – for safety, efficiency, etc. to work toward consensus and harmony. and many groups overlap with other groups. of course it's also not 100% for various reasons. society has the ability to word toward the peaceful coexistence of its citizens without the need of light sabers and gremlins.
Doris
If a society... an entire culture, deemed that r a p e was the norm and therefore no big deal... would it still be an evil act... yes? no?
correction – last line: "work toward"
also the line that starts with "WHY is R A P E ALWAYS"
is where I am quoting wolfie again
I knew I would regret using your words without clear definitions. . .
What you call universal morality to me is merely the collective learning of society over a long period of time. No mysterious spiritual component, just behaviors that we've learned, often the hard way, that are in the best interest of society.
I do understand what you are saying, but you cant get around the fact that if it really is universally wrong bad or evil, then universal truth exists... ALL of these things really are tangible. We have to account for it as having a source separate of ourselves if it doesn't need us to exist.
I would like an explanation from CNN as to what is going on with the time sequence of these posts. I make two corrections to my posts, then sometime later, with no further reply buttons available, wolfie here is able to inject a comment in the midst of these replies (where no further replies can be made)???
Maybe wolfie has more capability as a user of this blog?
or i could just be that good 🙂
Apparently there are at least two user interfaces to WordPress blogs – a web interface and a WordPress app interface. The WordPress app interface seems to cause "out of order" posts.
wolfie: "If a society... an entire culture, deemed that r a p e was the norm and therefore no big deal... would it still be an evil act... yes? no?"
I'm not sure where you would find an entire society like that, but for the sake of argument, in and of itself – NO. I don't hold any belief that conceptual truths of any kind, moral, whatever – exist on their own. Rape is only an evil act to me because of my view, my perspective and the perspective, I believe, of all the people I know. It does involve my education and my upbringing and the relationships I've had with others – and that includes some religious folk. I see no evidence however for any divine, objective or "universal" truths. After all, what do we every learn or hear about that does not involve some degree of subjectivity or consensus?
So what if you became the last person on earth Doris, who believed it to be evil... Would it then cease to be an evil thing if it became acceptable, increased and women became property or pets? What if society became sociopathic because of the air and water... say an experiment gone away... a stephen king novel.. why is it now all of a sudden NOT evil? It ceased to be evil because you died?
thanks, hotair. I started noticing quite a few by wolfie here were out of order.
yeah sorry about that... weird stuff
correction: "what do we ever learn"
I don't think we have to account for anything. You obviously think different. Instead of this phony question and answer dialogue, why don't you just get to the point and tell us about whatever it is you want.
the point is you are left with something you cannot resolve if you were to really care to resolve it.
You believe in a truth and a morality apparently larger than society, and yet you have no way to explain how this can be. Is it a law of the universe? what?
Well dont let me put words in your mouth... you clarified you believed something was evil in and of itself, outside of any influence from culture or society.
You believe in a universal evil, truth and morality.
you reach for the thought that perhaps it is s cultural collective consciousness, but then you already said it is beyond that influence and already existed without it.
You really have no way to explain it without a "God"
"the point is you are left with something you cannot resolve if you were to really care to resolve it."
The point is you're repeating yourself and it's pure BS. You seem to be the one having trouble resolving something. I'm quite content with out all the mental gymnastics needed to justify the ethics of the Abrahamic God, being attributed varying amounts of involvement and power by his various believers.
"You believe in a truth and a morality apparently larger than society, and yet you have no way to explain how this can be. Is it a law of the universe? what?"
No. That's evidently what YOU believe. Not I.
"Well dont let me put words in your mouth..."
Yes, well, we see you didn't get very far with that....
"you clarified you believed something was evil in and of itself, outside of any influence from culture or society."
No, I didn't.
"You believe in a universal evil, truth and morality."
No, I do not.
"you reach for the thought that perhaps it is s cultural collective consciousness, but then you already said it is beyond that influence and already existed without it."
No, I didn't say that.
"You really have no way to explain it without a "God""
Lol. Well you may be having trouble explaining that to yourself, but I'm quite fine with my explanation, thank you very much.
uhh no Doris that was meant for hotair... HE is the one that believes those things
Well the thread speaks for itself. But no, as others pointed out you have a tendency to try to win a ridiculous point with odd words like universal. If you're arguing for objective, divine truth, then say so. Anyway, hotair clarified his view with:
"What you call universal morality to me is merely the collective learning of society over a long period of time. No mysterious spiritual component"
That is consistent with an atheistic view, so again you're trying to put words in people's mouths.
yes but what he said earlier wasnt... he stated specifically that he believed evil existed in and of itself without our influence.
Uh no. I only see hotair's clarification, and this:
hotair [ If we are talking about acts committed by one human on another, such as r.a.p.e. then yes there are some things such as r.a.p.e. and murder that I would say are always evil.
If you, wolfie, are going to get loopy on us, and define evil as an ent!ty or a force, then I would say there's no such thing. ]
that hardly sounds like an endorsement for the existence of evil in and of itself don't you think? And just to refresh, just because someone says something is always evil to them, that does not mean they attribute it to some "universal" force. It can be simply a perspective and and echo if you will against the society within which the person lives.
well then you didnt read it all because this WAS what he said... might want to read again because you are putting words in his mouth that were not there
if something is evil in and of itself with no help from "our collective consciousness" What overruled our consciousness to create a truth that is true universally? You cant explain it Doris... And yes. if he says he believes it, well then he did endorse it... keep it up and i will dig up his own words for you lol
an echo
wolfbitn
You wrong and it's easy to show why.
Rape is always bad. Not because of some outside existing absolute moral law but because it subverts the rights and freedoms of the victim. Opinion doesn't have a part in it. I can't even envision a situation where rape would be considered a good thing because someone is always victimized. In fact in our society we even go so far as to label some consensual sex acts as rape if the recipient is below a certain age because we deem them as not mature enough to make an informed decision.
Morality is conceptual just like numbers are conceptual. 1+1=2 is always true even though numbers don't actually exist. Actions are morally good or morally bad if the outcome is beneficial or harmful. Stabbing someone with a needle is bad. Doing it to administer medicine is good. Morality is that simple. Claiming that a moral authority or law exists outside of human consciousness means admitting that you're incapable or not intelligent enough to do the simple math of ethics.
you actually just said you can show why it is ALWAYS BAD... then exampled the opposite... clarify which you believe is true please steve.
wolfie: "if something is evil in and of itself with no help from "our collective consciousness" What overruled our consciousness to create a truth that is true universally? You cant explain it Doris... And yes. if he says he believes it, well then he did endorse it... keep it up and i will dig up his own words for you lol"
Since you haven't given any evidence of any kind of conceptual "truth" that exists in and of itself, there's no need to talk about any overruling, don't you think? And no, someone having an opinion that something is always bad does not mean they believe in conceptual truths existing in and of themselves either. lol.
So if r a p e is not universally evil, when is it NOT an evil act Doris?
Doris nailed it!
ok wait... you just said you thought it was ALWAYS in every instance without our influence evil... now you dont?
wolfie: "you actually just said you can show why it is ALWAYS BAD... then exampled the opposite... clarify which you believe is true please steve."
wolfie: "then exampled the opposite.."
lol – ok, please show how steve "exampled" the opposite.
steve doesn't need to clarify anything because I'll bet that steve doesn't buy into this idiotic notion that just because someone feels something is always bad, that means some divine truth exists on its own.
The question isnt does it "feel bad"... Is it always and without fail an evil act no matter what society may think?
wolfie: "So if r a p e is not universally evil, when is it NOT an evil act Doris?"
who's talking about harmful acts? you're hung up on divine truths existing on their own – I believe that was your topic, correct?
Im waiting for an answer... when is it NOT an evil act/?
"evidence of any kind of conceptual "truth" that exists in and of itself"
--------–
Something exists.
Something does not come from nothing.
Therefore, a necessary and eternal "Being" exists.
You cannot deny that you exist because you have to exist in order to deny your own existence (which is self-defeating), so the first premise above is true. No one believes you can get something from nothing (i.e., that ”nothing” produced the universe), neither is there any empirical evidence to suggest that anything can come from nothing at all, so the second premise is true. Therefore, the third premise must be true—an eternal Being responsible for everything must exist.
This is a position that no thinking person denies; some just claim that the universe itself is that eternal being. However, the problem with that stance is that all scientific evidence points to the fact that the universe had a beginning. And everything that has a beginning must have a cause; therefore, the universe had a cause and is not eternal.
Because the only two sources of eternality are an eternal universe (which is proven to be untrue) or an eternal Creator, the only logical conclusion is that God exists. Answering the question of God’s existence in the affirmative rules out atheism as a valid ideological system.
Exactly.
And holding to atheism and trying to practice some sort of cosmology simply is NOT objective. Therefore they are practicing carrying out personal agendas rather than presenting or practicing science.
Here's what I wrote before the word filter got in the way and I shortened my response to "Doris nailed it!". Well OK, i actually closed the original with Fuck Off! but decided to remove that.
I clarified what *I* meant by universal morality – nothing more than the collective wisdom of mankind. You are applying *your* attributes to what *you* think universal morality is – some spooky notion based on an alleged but unproven god.
As above, it is always a mistake to attempt to have a conversation with you because your game is to get someone to agree to an ill defined, perhaps innocuous, notion and then use that agreement later on as a wedge to contradict them, and advance your assertion (also always unproven) that whatever your point is can only be explained by the existence of some alleged but unproven god.
You apparently think you have a sophisticated debating method but it is actually quite juvenile and simplistic – play silly word games to advance your voodoo biases. A more honest debater would lay out their argument if detail, in full, formally defining each and every significant term. But you consistently run away from that. We are back to square zero, again. You are a phony and a coward.
LOL ok... then let this coward remind you that you atheists are the ones excusing yourselves from a moderated debate.
Now lets examine your thoughts...
Clarify for me now, is there EVER a time when r a p e is NOT wrong, even if you exclude collective consciousness as a factor? We already agreed it was ALWAYS wrong ASIDE from human consciousness... so which do you really believe, you're all over the map here in contradiction.
"Something exists.
Something does not come from nothing.
Therefore, a necessary and eternal "Being" exists.
This is simply NOT logic. Leaping to goddidit is illogical. There is as yet no indication of any such being. Where did this being of yours come from?
Ahh ok so when can something come from nothing?... nothing existing, nothing to react upon anything, tell me please or you are the one making illogical statements
and whats the difference between "God did it" and "the BB did it, when you have less evidence for BB than I do for God?
All you have proven here, wolfie, is that you can behave and reason like the hamster spinning in a wheel, reposting you same lame arguments over and over again that don't really support each other in my opinion. Who knows – you might just be an atheist poe.
But the answer to your question is quite simply, that is my opinion, rape is always a harmful thing. You know what else I think is always harmful? Putting ones hands into a raging fire for more than a few seconds. I'm guessing man learned pretty soon after discovery fire and how to reproduce it that putting ones hands into a raging fire had consequences. Do I hold a belief that there is some divine truth that exists on its own that putting one's hands into a raging fire is evil? No. I find that notion silly. Harmful effects, whether they come from someone else or from one's self are simply harmful. Societies over the ages have allowed people to think of these things collectively and sometimes even make collective judgment from time to time. I find it much more reasonable and see evidence that morality in humans is somewhat built in naturally – just as it is with some other social species (that for the most part, naturally we realize it's best for us individually to not harm another), but that it also evolves as our understanding of science, including medicine, for instance, evolves.
So once again, you would need to be able to provide objective evidence of any divine truth to convince me that such a thing exists on its own. To date, I have seen no such evidence.
Caught in a conundrum are ya...
If you admit your belief you appear sociopathic... if you deny it you cant be an atheist.
According to wolfie, atheists can never set their non-beliefs aside but believers can set aside their delusions at will, not that he actually does (set aside his delusions).
What IS true is that atheists do not practice objective science, and therefore they do not practice "science" because science IS objective and you have certainly not PROVEN there is no God, so the objective thing to so, since 97 percent of people believe there is a creator, is to be OPEN to the possibility objectively.
And around and around wolfie spins. . .
Wolfie is evidence that there may be multiple universes 'cause he certainly isn't fully in this one.
Wolfie, when can we expect to see your scholarly article, successfully concluding that "some god it," published in a reputable, peer-reviewed, scientific journal? And you do understand stuff published by The Discovery Inst!tute does not qualify as reputable, right? I'm sure the likes of Krauss and Hawking are quaking in anticipation of you overturning most of accepted science.
ANYTIME you think you can step up to the plate in a moderated debate
Spin, spin, spin – see wolfie spin!
You're trying to overturn many, if not all, of the world's leading scientists. You *might* have a chance at success but you'll never be successful by p!ssing around here or even one of your favored moderated debate sites. But you're too much of a coward to directly take on those you accuse of atheist bias and of being wrong.
ok i accept YOUR challenge... i accuse YOU of atheist bias and i will meet you to debate it in any moderated forum
Clenching an early win today, poster wolfbitn displays the proper technique for the Fundie Method of Inquiry & Verification. For those not familiar with the Fundie Method of Inquiry & Verification, please see the following graphic demonstration:
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YIj4rLYo0c&w=640&h=360]
says the bias dude that has no objective science to lean on whatsoever... Everything you do is biased from an atheist standpoint so you have no objectivity... no objectivity = no science... Yet you claim you practice science, so this makes you a fraud as well.
LOL – now the troll cycles back to asking for a moderated debate again. Trying to link posters here to a moderated debate at a Christian web site. LOL – comedy gold!
pick an agnostic site... i'll meet you anywhere in a moderated debate... now run along, all youll do now is spam some excuse as to why you cannot
"Everything you do is biased "
Says the guy trying desperately to fit our information on the history of the world into his bible, and had to re-invent a new version of the bible to do it, and then ignores HUGE amounts of information inorder to get it to fit.
He actually thinks that an asteroid strike from 65 million years ago had something to do with the bible. Life existed long before the stirke, it did not kill all life, and life continues on.
He has the nerve to say someone else is biased.
youre just jealous because its there right in front of you and you cant falsify it... the bible is verified by REAL science...
As for accusation lets let you hang yourself... Do you study cosmology with an open mind willing to accept the possibility of a God? Yes?
Here is a docmented sourse that says your translation has been tried before, and it is wrong.
http://www.sunnybrookepub.com/without_form_and_void.html
Have a nice day DEBATING THAT!
what... an opinion source and not a legitimate Hebrew lexicon?
well we went through that... you shouldnt pick an opinion page however if you want to legitimize what you are saying.
So, wolfie, I noticed you failed to answer a question I asked you a while back, not that not answering questions is unusual for you.
Do you agree it is possible that there are no gods at all? None, zero, nada, not a one?
If your math worked out I would consider that there is another explanation for the universe but your math doesnt work out does it... so yes Christians CAN be objective... a true atheist is certainly NOT objective.
No actually I objectively tested and God is certainly not falsified. Every test run thus far verifies Him. Happy to run you through actual honest objective testing any time.
"says the bias dude that has no objective science to lean on whatsoever"
Of course everyone works from a bias; has to trust was they see, smell, etc. are real and that their minds aren't playing tricks on them. And yes, even scientists understand this bias and must constantly take it into consideration. Believers can only use the same mental faculty and awareness as well. "
"no objectivity = no science... Yet you claim you practice science, so this makes you a fraud as well."
LMAO! (A certain someone doesn't really understand what science is. Oh who could it be? hmmmm.. LOL)
More comedy gold from wolfbitn.
It is impossible for Atheists to practice an unbiased cosmology... unless he is willing to shove his bias aside and include God in theory... so in effect he must at least become agnostic in his approach.
If you have to be told that science without objectivity is BAD SCIENCE, of if you have to be told that you cannot enter any bias into any theory and properly call it science, then you are simply ignorant of what science is...
This should help clear up that ignorance:
From Science Daily:
Confirmation bias
In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.
Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study.
Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.
As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence.
From the International council for science:
Advisory Note "Bias in science publishing"
The foundation for science is published evidence. While researchers, editors and peer reviewers must all exercise careful judgment in determining what is published, to maintain the integrity of the scientific literature, bias must conscientiously be avoided, or, at least, recognized and acknowledged. To that end, researchers have a responsibility to strive to be objective when they gather and interpret data, and submit papers to journals. Similarly, editors and publishers have responsibilities to avoid undue bias in selecting papers for publication, and reviewers must remain disinterested.
Advisory Note
File Download the Advisory Note
Inappropriate bias can enter the literature when factors other than quality and scientific con-tent influence a researcher’s selection of what to submit for publication, or a journal’s decision whether to publish a paper.
From nature dot com:
Beware the creeping cracks of bias
Evidence is mounting that research is riddled with systematic errors. Left unchecked, this could erode public trust, warns Daniel Sarewitz21.
Alarming cracks are starting to penetrate deep into the scientific edifice. They threaten the status of science and its value to society. And they cannot be blamed on the usual suspects — inadequate funding, misconduct, political interference, an illiterate public. Their cause is bias, and the threat they pose goes to the heart of research.
uhh no everyone does NOT work from a bias but certainly every atheist IS bias and this is NOT science... it is fraud.
If you dont even know the definition of science, you certainly arent qualified to profess to know anything scientifically.
All it takes to destroy the idea of universal morality is for two people to disagree on whether or not something is moral. I find Christianity to be immoral, you don't so now we can put the idea of universal morality to rest.
Ahh so then when is r a pe NOT immoral or evil? Tell us when it becomes an indifferent or even a 'good' act.
all you need do to test this is tell me when r a pe is NOT a universally evil act.... So do tell us and destroy me
"youre just jealous because its there right in front of you and you cant falsify it... the bible is verified by REAL science..."
LOL.
As for accusation lets let you hang yourself... Do you study cosmology with an open mind willing to accept the possibility of a God? Yes?
LMAO! (the use of "a" with the specific capitalized "God" which denotes the God of Abraham, right?)
Comedy gold!
I have certainly studied cosmology objectively... looking at the facts we DO know... AND the fact that you simply cannot explain the BB... no mathematician can justify it, no theorist. You have had chance after chance and hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars, super colliders as big as cities, and you still are left with the stupidity of "the laws just broke down"... I suggest tired theories and hypothesis are broken down and you should broaden your horizons with OBJECTIVITY.
Without OBJECTIVITY you cant even call what you practice a 'scientific cosmology'.
I tried to post this once, but I dont see it So –
@Wolfbitn
R a p e is always evil
Your god comanded his people to r a p e women.
Therefore, your god is evil.
well that is a blatant lie,....
And when do you believe R a p e is NOT evil? Ir is it universally evil? Is it ALWAYS true that r a pe is ALWAYS bad?
I've been following this since it started just waiting for wolfie to bury himself. I gave up arguing with him due to the fact that he doesn't care what anyone has to say, his intention is to twist words in a poor attempt to make us look bad, not realizing that all he does is make himself and his ilk look worse He doesn't care about definitions or how they pertain to anything...he has his own set and 99.9% of the time they do not meld with reality.
He is an arrogant coward. Not worthy of dealing with, not when all he is looking for is a fight....simply not worth the time.
However, I dare him to call in to the Atheist Experience and attempt to debate Matt.
You make yourselves look bad... i dont have to do a thing but point out your beliefs.
1) You do not believe r a pe is ALWAYS a bad thing
2) if you DO think it to be ALWAYS evil then you believe in a universal morality which is only best explained by the presence of a God.
3) So you would rather say r a pe is NOT always bad than admit the possibility of a God
4) you boast yourselves for being 'scientific' in your approaches, laughing at christians, and yet your practice is cultish as opposed to scientific, because science is OBJECTIVE, and cults are not.
And the one you call a coward has mopped the floor with everyone atheist here. I am the sole challenger of a moderated debate which NONE of you can step up to...
Bring your atheist "god" Matt... he sure wont do anything but hide in embarrassment in a moderated debate and i frankly dont believe he has the guts to debate anyone who thinks that the earth is older than 6000 years or any other ridiculous teaching you want to hang on ALL of us.
Wolfie,
Do you agree it is possible that there are no gods at all? None, zero, nada, not a one?
I dont see that possibility occuring because it is the ONLY theory for creation/consciousness/ and universal morality on the table.
To not accept the possibility that no gods exist, or a god other than his, or something that does not fit the definition of god shows bitn"s bias which is why he has lost any debate before he begins...that and the immature way he deals with people..
But thats not what i said at all is it. I tested that theory of whether or not there was a God and it was not falsified so it stands. Then it was further tested and validated...
But youll not do the same so you do not practice science, you practice and espouse fraud
"it is the ONLY theory for creation/consciousness/ and universal morality on the table."
Ignorance must truly be bliss! You're a dishonest coward.
ok then tell me when r a pe is NOT an evil act if there is no morality larger than a social structure
wolf, RAPE IS NEVER MORALLY ACCEPTABLE. Stop spinning peoples words. You're a coward and you're attempting to use something and as usual, twist it, that you believe will make us seem bad. Not one person here has agreed that there is anything beneficial about rape...it is strictly you who is making that assumption and you are dead wrong.
I would have to say that based on your belief system, you'd be the one agreeing that rape can be good...after all it is strewn throughout your hold book with numerous excuses as to how to handle it.
Secular morality is superior to your book regardless of how small mined you wish to be about it. We do not live by a book that tells us that rape is okay-that would be you; we do not live by a book that says oppression of women, children and LGBT is okay-that would be you. Your belief system is not very moral and it is a closed minded, ignorant person who fails to see that.
Once again, I don't think you give a rats ass about the opinion of anyone else..you're only looking for a battle and in turn are acting very infantile.
Ok TP now states
"wolf, R APE IS NEVER MORALLY ACCEPTABLE."
So then you believe this to be universally true and in every case. This then means it is evil even if EVERYONE accepted it as GOOD. This rules out a 'collective consciousness" as being the catalyst for determining what is universally true. And if universal truth exists, Atheists cannot be right... SO if you REALLY BELIEVE what you said, you dont qualify to call yourself atheist...
Oh wolfie; Atheist only defines my disbelief in a god(s)-nothing more; so YES I do qualify to call myself an Atheist-who the hell do you think you are to make such judgement on people? If we call ourselves Atheists, all you should get from that is that we do not believe in any god-nothing more! Not sure what dictionary you are using but it is wrong! Stop with the word twisting and putting Atheist in front of everything-it makes you look like an uneducated idiot. If it causes harm to another person, it is immoral (thus the reason RAPE will always be immoral). You're assuming there is some external force that dictates our moral code and that is simply wrong-there is no way to show an external force exists. What may seem right to me, may be wrong to you...everyone has an opinion and not everyone is right or wrong.
Once again you are only looking for a battle and you shouldn't be given a further voice here. I will once again suggest you call Matt Dillahunty at the Atheist Experience and attempt to debate someone with his intelligence.
We all need to stop feeding you-you get some cheap thrill off of this and if we stop feeding you, maybe you'll fade away like trolls usually do.
Thats a lot of words to say basically nothing.
"Yeah truth is universal as is morality, it is beyond man, but i don't want to see ANY evidence for God".
Like I said... completely nonobjective, therefore not scientific at all... atheistic propaganda.
Oh there you go again with your silly definitions...many children do that...are you even sure you're old to be using a computer?
there goes your double standard again. You have nothing at all to fall back on... your belief is a double standard and you cannot have it both ways... either universal truth exists or it doesn't... you recognize its existence and in the same breath say it doesn't exist... Atheists are entirely biased to the point of making themselves look ridiculous
No, I just don't find you honest and as a rule I don't associate with people like you. Twist this however you wish, you're not going to be correct. You don't a damn what anyone has to say, you only care about what you have to say and then you come across as a condescending prick when people don't fall for your crap.
You have no idea as to what I believe, so stop pretending.
I honestly don't care what you think you know, the fact is you're likely to be wrong. How many times do so many people have to almost say the exact same thing before you finally gain a clue? Wow...you're an ignorant ass!!
Once again, I dare you to call the Atheist Experience and speak to Matt Dillahunty. I'm guessing that you're too much of a coward to do it but hey, it would be interesting to watch you handed your ignorant ass.
ahh so the one who is not objective in his science, and practices bias propaganda instead, and who makes admissions that point to a God and then in the same breath deny his admissions, finds ME less than honest... NOW THAT is both ironic AND hilarious.
Tell your little god Matt I challenge him to a moderated debate. You wont want to televise this though because you guys will be exposed as frauds... just a fair and honest heads up 😉
Gee Woflie, for someone apparently so smart and knowledgeable you certainly are clueless. Matt Dillahunty is the host of the Atheist Experience based out of Austin, Texas. Matt was in seminary at one point, raised Southern Baptist. You'd stand little chance against him.
Oh delusional wolfie, you're truly a condescending ass...do make the call, it will be with absolute pleasure that we watch as your ass is handed to you and you're finally knocked off that holier than thou throne you have put yourself on.
The reality is, you're a poor representation for anything there could possibly be good in your religion. You don't care about another person's opinion...you always must be right and when shown to be wrong, you throw a hissy fit like a 5 year old child and start bullying. Grow up!
http://www.atheist-experience.com/
wolf: NEVER could rape be okay unless of course you read the bible which gives instructions on how to deal with the victim, in which case your holy books condones it. Stop the holier than thou crap...you look like a fool!
Ok so how is it that this is UNIVERSALLY TRUE that r ape is an evil act if collective consciousness is not the catalyst? You just admitted it cannot be responsible if it is UNIVERSALLY true despite what any society may say...
wolf: I never mentioned RAPE to begin with. I merely responded to a comment you made directed at me about it. RAPE regardless of how you spin it will NEVER be acceptable due to the simple fact that is causes harm but yet you yourself live by a book that supports it. You keep making assumptions. Did you fail to comprehend a single word Steve said or am I correct in stating that your only intention is start a battle and twist the words of people?
There is no such thing as a universal moral code. There are certain things that are guaranteed to cause harm and can never be considered moral and there are other things that can go go either way (note: Steve's example of getting poked with a needle).
You are the last person to speak of a moral code;You live by the bible-a book that teaches that RAPE is acceptable!
Stop twisting words...you're not winning and you only look like a troll!
The fact is that is incorrect. And you cannot lay this at God's door but man. And if it is ALWAYS wrong in and of itself, and you say it is, then you are STILL left with universal truth and universal morality and this is BIGGER than mankind.
Wolfie, I'll take that as a "no" but spare you the haranguing you hand out when others answer in the fashion you just did.
Or you can walk through the actual testing with me, and see that what i said is true... id be happy to take you through the testing procedures and they are ENTIRELY scientific and unbiased... objective
I don't know how anyone can argue for universal morality when it is pretty clear that not everyone throughout all of history has had the the same morals, which would have to be the case for morality to be universal. So in my opinion it only takes two people to disagree to put an end to the idea that morals are universal.
so when is r a pe NOT an evil act then according to your theory? Or is it ALWAYS evil and therefore a universal law or universal truth?
I personally find r.ape to always be wrong, but that doesn't mean that there isn't some other person out there who would think it is o.k. The simple fact that people get r.aped on a daily basis all over the world ought to be enough to convince you that some people don't find r.ape to always be wrong.
Then WHEN is it NOT wrong? Be specific please.
wolfbitn said
"Clarify for me now, is there EVER a time when r a p e is NOT wrong, even if you exclude collective consciousness as a factor? We already agreed it was ALWAYS wrong ASIDE from human consciousness(No we did not)... so which do you really believe, you're all over the map here in contradiction."
I don't believe you actually want a clarification. But here it is anyway. The ACT of rape is immoral. Always and for reasons I've already given. Someone is victimized without consent. Plus I already stipulated that some consensual acts are also considered rape which isn't a contradiction but a broadening of the term to include acts that are not on the surface actually rape. But this is the kicker and one that you will lose your marbles trying to reconcile. Talking ABOUT rape(which we're doing here), thinking about rape or even fantasizing about rape is NOT immoral. It takes an intentional act or intentional non-action that harms someone other than yourself to draw a moral conclusion. There is no such thing as THOUGHT crime. The wrongness of rape isn't floating out there waiting to be discovered but rather it becomes apparent as a natural consequence of the act itself. Without an injured party no moral judgment can be made. Only religiots are concerned with somebody listening to their thoughts.
Morality is the application of situational ethics and in every instance the situation of the ACT of rape injures someone.
Further there was never a time where for example slavery was moral. It may have been accepted by society but it was still morally wrong. Just ask a slave(the injured party). Likewise you could have an entire society that thought BBQing babies was a great idea and they would all be wrong too. Just put yourself in the baby's place. Opinion doesn't determine what morality is. Morality is a harm/benefit analysis of an action. That's it...nothing more. Evil(another stupid religious term) doesn't exist...at least not as an external something to be discovered. Evil(for lack of a better term) exists solely as the acted upon intentions of bad people.
Granted that thought crime is ridiculous. I do though think youll be hard pressed to find a way to show that it can ever NOT be an evil act. If you cannot demonstrate that it is somehow NOT always an evil act, then we are dealing with a thus far universal morality. To falsify evil as existing jn and of itself, we must find a case where r a pe for instance is NOT an evil act.
tested that theory of whether or not there was a God and it was not falsified so it stands
Then let us see your data so that we may reproduce your result. If the results are not able to be reprodcuced by anyone anywhere in the world then you have to declare the Theory invalid.
happy to... with already verified results. That makes it easy. We do need to do this in another venue however to keep things clear and uncluttered with spammish type stuff... a clean lab environment so to speak.
More comedy GOLD!
wolfbitn: "And the one you call a coward has mopped the floor with everyone atheist here. "
LOLOLOLOLOL!!! 😀
wolfbitn:
wolfbitn: well that is a blatant lie,"
LOLOLOL!! 😀
wolfbitn: "I dont see that possibility occuring because it is the ONLY theory for creation/consciousness/ and universal morality on the table."
(Translation: If I don't like ideas others have about life's mysteries, I'll just make something up that solves all of them at once. And if that doesn't work, I'll refer back to someone before me who was better at making something up that solved all of them at once.)
LOLOLOLOL!! 😀
wolfbitn: "I tested that theory of whether or not there was a God and it was not falsified so it stands. Then it was further tested and validated... "
LOLOLOLOL!! 😀
(Nothing like the seal of approval from someone who has to say "a God" when considering other deities. LOL.)
And then back to trying to prove the existence of objective truth concepts. OOPPS! Maybe wolfbitn is right! There goes an objective truth concept running down the street! LOLOLOL!! 😀
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the Award Notification Dept awarded wolfbitn with a second award within this one thread. It would be a first but well deserved! LOLOL 😀
and i wouldnt be surprised if you tripped over the pebble of your apparent iq.
You sure would never stand in a moderated debate and we both know this, so spam away and make excuses i dont care a bit 🙂
tested that theory of whether or not there was a teapot orbiting Saturn and it was not falsified so it stands.
See the problem with that statement? joey is correct but the issue isn't whether or not is was falsified but if it even can be. The teapot at least can(at great expense) actually BE falsified. How exactly would you go about trying to falsify the existence of God? Can't be done so the theory fails.
I went on to say EVERY test run thus far only verifies God, which is certainly more than the atheist has with string and bang.
Not bad wolfie, at least 4 blatant lies in one post. If there is a god (as alleged but not proven), he's warming up a spot for you. . .
ok point them out please and defend your comment 🙂
Your arugment relies on all 7 Billion people on the face of Earth having the exact same view of morality, which obviously isn't the case, and therefore there is no universal morality. If you want to prove to me that morals are universal you will have to show that there is not a single person in the entire world who thinks that it is o.k. to r.ape someone for some reason or another. I personally don't think it is o.k. to ever r.ape someone, but I am not naive enough to believe that there isn't someone in the world who has decided it is perfectly o.k.
Not at all... my point is that it is an evil act in and of itself without any help from our collective consciousness. Now if you think it is at some point a GOOD act, youre closer to a sociopath than anything objective.
by the way... you make my point in the last half of what you said... there are people who obviously deem it as ok... what makes you right by saying it doesnt? What percentage has to believe it evil for it to be classified as an evil act?
In my view this is a ridiculous assumption that some particular percentage of belief suddenly makes it good or evil.
It is either always evil or it is sometimes not... If you cannot ever describe where the act is NOT an evil act, you are left (assuming objectivity) with the still verified and not falsified thought that it is then a universal truth/moral... at least that's where it stands until you can falsify the idea.
Wolfie, it would help to establish some credibility for yourself if you would merely publish your god existence test methods and results for all to see. Otherwise, you are merely the boy called wolfie – a fraud, a phony, a coward, a delusional believer.
well a good bit of it has been put here, nothing near complete at all, but everything thus far has been verified and not falsified.
And this is not the place to 'publish' a theory that would take up several pages just in the presentation, and a LOT more pages just for the objective testing.
So... im happy to do this, but in the right 'laboratory' setting so the actual testing can be presented in an orderly way... even moderated debate would allow for this... not that im pushing you for one here, im not... but it is true. You wouldnt expect Alan Guth to present eternal inflation here in any coherent way with the testing and etc. Objectivity would grant the same advantage given to other subjects of serious study and testing.
I don't want your results, I just want the steps you took, if I can't recreate the results the the theory is invalid. If I can look at the results and declare that it was Zeus instead of the Christian god then the theory is invalid.
the steps lead to the result...
And i am happy to take you through it any time in a forum that would allow such 'clean lab procedure' to take place, and a moderated debate forum allows just that.
"Not at all... my point is that it is an evil act in and of itself without any help from our collective consciousness. Now if you think it is at some point a GOOD act, youre closer to a sociopath than anything objective."
LOL. such attempts to remain stupid...
wolfbitn – prove that anything is GOOD or EVIL without any consciousness – collective or otherwise that uses subjectivity to be aware of said thing – act or otherwise. Good luck. LOLOLOL 😀
I already did... R ape is ALWAYS an evil act... do you disagree?
Just as a side note:
There are large parts of Africa where R A P E is not considered evil. It has only been made illegal in the last few years through pressure from international groups.
Does this make it NOT evil, or is it evil despite what they believe? Are you implying that if we all believed it NOT to be evil it would cease to be evil? Or is it still evil in your opinion?
Wolfie, wolfie, wolfie – just how stupid do you think people here are? If people here can't use Dropbox or equivalent technology, at the risk of seeming arrogant, I'm confident I can teach them, and you, how to use it. So, quit p!ssing around – upload your master theory somewhere and let us know where.
we really should go through this... i think youd be completely surprised as to how much evidence is available for testing... Even Genesis 1:1 is testable in the very same way string theory was testable.
Anyone else think wolfie is trying to blow "cold fusion smoke" up our azzes? What does a "clean lab" for investigating the existence of any god look like? What sort of tests would you perform? Want to bet he comes back with something like "god will not tested!"?
Only an unscientific bias would try to slant test results by not granting one theory the same fairness in testing as another 'pet' theory.
"I do though think youll be hard pressed to find a way to show that it can ever NOT be an evil act. If you cannot demonstrate that it is somehow NOT always an evil act, then we are dealing with a thus far universal morality."
It's like talking to a wall. I demonstrated how it doesn't require a " universal morality" (whatever the hell that's supposed to be) to show it will always be an immoral act. Someone gets hurt. Period. How many times do you need to repeat the experiment before you accept the conclusion? Moral judgments are situational. Each and every time we are faced with a moral question and every time we arrive at a conclusion is unique to that experience. But similar situations will always come to similar conclusions. Put your hand on a hot stove and you'll experience pain. How many times do you need to repeat this before you conclude you will never do it without feeling pain? Does this mean that an objective pain exists outside a person feeling it? No. Morality is like that...always a subjective experience unique to each situation but we live in a reality that always presents the same objective results.
How can something be ALWAYS evil and not universally evil? If it is ALWAYS evil it is an absolute truth, which you claim does not exist?
wolfbitn: "Not at all... my point is that it is an evil act in and of itself without any help from our collective consciousness. Now if you think it is at some point a GOOD act, youre closer to a sociopath than anything objective."
Creationists: "wolfbitn – prove that anything is GOOD or EVIL without any consciousness – collective or otherwise that uses subjectivity to be aware of said thing – act or otherwise. Good luck. LOLOLOL 😀 "
wolfbitn: "I already did... R ape is ALWAYS an evil act... do you disagree?"
No, you didn't prove anything. And proving objectivity should not really be contingent on what I think, should it? And what you keep missing is that in claiming an objective truth and your attempts to provide support for it, you are appealing to the subjective opinions of those you are questioning.
Also, the funny thing is that even if you could prove that everyone alive today thinks that rape is a bad thing for everyone involved, you still would have not proved that the concept is a truth that exists on its own (as in divine, objective, free from subjectivity, and I should say past, present and future, unless you believe that your God is constrained by time).
So youre saying that if society doesnt recognize that r ape is evil, it is in fact not an evil act at all in and of itself? Is the opposite true then that if society deems it a GOOD thing that it is actually GOOD?
Wolfie would like us to believe he is an intellectual, a brilliant man seeing truths rarely seen by others. In fact he is a simpleton. He has a very binary view of the world. His entire world view can be summarized as: If it is not obvious to the casual observer what the cause of something is, the cause is his (alleged but not proven) god.
Well say what you want, its only atheists squirming in this thread and unable to make up their minds...
"uhh yes r ape is evil... uhhh but no it isnt"
Will one of you make up your mind please lol... you cannot have it both ways
"uhh yes r ape is evil... uhhh but no it isnt.....Will one of you make up your mind please lol... you cannot have it both ways"
Proving objectivity should not really be contingent on what someone thinks, should it? And what you keep missing is that in claiming an objective truth and your attempts to provide support for it, you are appealing to the subjective opinions of those you are questioning.
Also, the funny thing is that even if you could prove that everyone alive today thinks that rape is a bad thing for everyone involved, you still would have not proved that the concept is a truth that exists on its own (as in divine, objective, free from subjectivity, and I should say past, present and future, unless you believe that your God is constrained by time).
Dance some more wolfbitn. Nothing funnier than a dancing wolf. :D:D:D
LOL well if i was the one dancing that would hold water... i dont have to because my words are clear... you guys keep going back and forth... not wanting to look sociopathic, some of you say yes it is universally true that r ape is an evil act. Then when faced with the implications you say "uhhh no its not"
So if someone would make up their minds we would be moving right along... which is it definitively?
Ra pe is ALWAYS evil or it is not... if it is then it is larger than a culture or a society... if it is you are faced with universal truth and therefore a power "Godlike" that you cannot explain away... so which is it
wolfbitn must be in the "clean lab" now having already gone through decontamination to remove atheist dust, etc.
Too bad you'll never be able to truly study cosmology. Yopur so called science is so faulted with bias, and anyone thinking they can walk in, and scientifically test ANYTHING with bias, they are fools to believe they actually practiced any sort of legitimate science.
wolfbitn: "So if someone would make up their minds we would be moving right along... which is it definitively?....Ra pe is ALWAYS evil or it is not... if it is then it is larger than a culture or a society..."
It doesn't matter which opinion someone holds regarding the "always" question. (And of course your following statement is silly because it is contingent on what you're trying to prove (look back up at the hamster wheel, maybe something will click).
Proving objectivity should not really be contingent on what someone thinks, should it? And what you keep missing is that in claiming an objective truth and your attempts to provide support for it, you are appealing to the subjective opinions of those you are questioning.
Also, the funny thing is that even if you could prove that everyone alive today thinks that rape is a bad thing for everyone involved, you still would have not proved that the concept is a truth that exists on its own (as in divine, objective, free from subjectivity, and I should say past, present and future, unless you believe that your God is constrained by time).
Dance some more wolfbitn. Nothing funnier than a dancing wolf. :D:D:D
So..
you're the one dancing... and talking so much yet able to say nothing lol.
Unless you can point out one instance ...JUST ONE where it is NOT an evil act , then you are stuck with universal truth and universal morality and God.
by the way... you just verified that my opening post is true for YOU.. 🙂
"Atheists have the most screwed up "morality" or lack thereof I have ever seen. They believe NOTHING to be evil.... everything is relative to what society does and does not esteem... therefore they cannot say that r a p e is ALWAYS AN EVIL ACT... they cant say mol.estation is ALWAYS evil... just ask them... right here... watch... not a single atheist here will deny it."
Poor wolfie can't understand that the only thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief in a supernatural buddy, and that no atheist speaks for others. Again, he lives in a black and white, all or nothing, world. Shades of gray just make wolfie spin faster.
This is not the only thing you have in common... you also have in common that your cosmology does not qualify as science in the popularly held definition of science... which is that it MUST be objective and not biased.
So feel free to claim science then deny it it's proper methods. You are anything BUT credible 🙂
Yup, a lot of cold fusion smoke getting blown around in here. . .
too bad you guys are regulated now to trolling and spamming again instead of an honest discourse ... it must be terrible to live in such dishonesty and not be able to say what you really think to such simple subjects and questions
Is rap e-evil? Always in every case despite the consciousness of man? You already stated yes... then you say no when you see it points to God... so no your cosmology will never be science as long as you keep this bias and dont give something an honest test.
Rape is always evil.
Molestation is always evil.
Murder is always evil.
Child brainwashing is always evil.
Evil is not a force or entity.
Wolfie is wrong about atheism and atheists.
Hotair we are now back on track in an honest discussion... thank you
Lets keep it this way and address each other as intelligent men.
I want to address the first 3 lines of your last post.
I believe you believe this, so i dont challenge your sincerity. I DO want to talk about logical conclusions.
1) If what you believe is true, and i DO agree with you it is true, Then this is true not just in every instance, but also in any place this may occur. This then we can legitimately call a universal truth.
2) If it is ALWAYS true without exception then it is ALSO Absolutely true. Now we have ABSOLUTE truth that is universal.
3) these are morals... so what we have FURTHER is universal ABSOLUTE morality
Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please explain the discrepancy so I can understand.
You are quite the liar, wolfbitn. People have answered you silly question forthright.
Your problem comes when you try to leap from an obvious answer regarding what most people agree for a moral question to "God said it".
Proving an alleged objective "truth" should not really be contingent on what a particular person thinks, right? What you keep missing is that in claiming an objective truth and your attempts to provide support for it, is that you are appealing to the subjective opinions of those you are questioning.
Even if you could prove that everyone alive today thinks that rape is a bad thing for everyone involved, you still would have not proved that the concept is a truth that exists on its own (as in divine, objective, free from subjectivity and time constraints).
(To others – sorry if I am repeating myself, but faced with such willful ignorance, I kind of take a hypocratic oath and provide repeated advice/clarification free of charge to the hard-of-learning. 😀 )
I'm not interested in, nor am I going to play, your silly word games. I stand by all 5 statements. If you are going to drag some god into this, you best present your best case for said god, or fuck off. That being said, I promise not to distract you with additional responses until you signal that your presentation is complete.
Anytime anywhere... but you are here now talking about this. And left with the conundrum of universal morality and truth that you say you believe in... and i do believe you believe this as it is simply common sense.
There you go, you yourself prove there is a God.
Another way to look at wolfie's little game here, especially with respect to his itemized notions, is that the most he can get as an answer from someone is a subjective opinion. How can wolfie ever use that as a tool to prove a divine truth? I contend he cannot. Now if he can somehow either demonstrate a divine connection without resorting to subjectivity/consensus or, well have his God come to our homes and talk to us in person on this subject, well that's a horse of a different color. I'd welcome that because I need someone to take the garbage out tonight – it's a bit nippy out there. 😀
Because you wither believe in a universal morality and therefore universal truth, or you believe R ape is not always an evil act. Like it or not you yourself now either prove God or you prove yourself to be somewhat of a sociopath
Spelling counts. Correction: Hippocratic Oath
Another Wolfieism: If wolfie makes a claim it is to be treated as fact regardless of how many times he's corrected or his inability to defend his assertion. His repeated assertions that his god exists or that "universal morality" requires a god are just two examples of Wolfieisms.
Only if I present evidence that YOU cannot falsify.
Well I am good friends with some great atheists and their morals exceed my own. I fall short of Gods absolute morality on a regular basis and they just happen to demonstrate love and kindness because of their basic character. As a matter of fact they exceed those of Noah with the exception of a love for God.
Perhaps your geology however is rock solid so I was wondering how say Homo ergaster fossils fit into your concept of a regenerated earth (which I believe a strong possibility). We have fairly tight hominid fossil record that goes back well before Homo egaster 1.2 million years. Do you suggest there was a complete repopulation of species based on kinds less than a few million years ago?
Fred I do believe this is a DISTINCT possibility and I personally believe it is a PROBability... sometime we should email and i would be happy to go further into this. eric.jewell@presidiumlearning.net
Evil? In most cases "evil" as you would describe it is seen as ignorance, hatred or psychological problems when seen by an atheist when referring to the actions of human beings. You may choose the word evil, that's your bag.
So do you think R ape to be an absolutely evil act in and of itself or does it require we give approval for it to be classified as evil?
Realize that reality is in a language you are not even evolved enough to comprehend; you are ruled over by the god(s) you invent.
I say this in all seriousness. I am glad this man died. He has finally sent the right message.
A tad harsh, just my opinion of course.
It was his choice. Now he is dead having done something positive.
Furthermore I believe my position is moral.
In other news...people who killed in the name of their belief are getting off almost scot free-The Schiables will serve a maximum of 7 years. This is where belief and taking that book literally can lead.
"“My religious beliefs are that you should pray, and not have to use medicine. But because it is against the law, then whatever sentence you give me, I will accept,” Catherine Schaible, 44, told the judge. She added that her beliefs have since changed."
http://wivb.com/2014/02/19/pa-couple-sent-to-prison-for-2nd-prayer-death/
The Bible actually nowhere tells you to NOT use medicine. Luke after all was a physician.
work on your sentence structure theo ...
It's the end of the day... My caffeine is beginning to wear off...
pray.
the: Certain verses can be taken out of context to make them seem that way. It all depends on your interpretation. I get that these people do not represent all but it is them justifying their crime via the belief that makes it one more point against.
"First Century Gospel Church in Northeast Philadelphia. The church teaches sickness is a sign of lacking in spiritual conviction. "
(http://www.examiner.com/article/faith-healer-parents-jailed-for-murder)
It's extremism.
I ran into people like that before. (no damage was done in the collision) And they told my wife that it was because of her lack of faith that she was going through certain health problems... (heart defect)
But Job tells us in Job 42:1-6 that our trials bring about our greater good so that we might see God better, and by seeing Him better, we see ourselves better…
"Then Job answered the LORD and said, "I know that You can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted. 'Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?' "Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know." 'Hear, now, and I will speak; I will ask You, and You instruct me.' "I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; but now my eye sees You; therefore I retract, and I repent in dust and ashes."
don't blame the devil or free will. If god is in control, then he does all the bad things that happen in the world the same as he does the good things. If he doesn't do the bad things then he is not really in control.
...but if as you claim there is no God, you are left with only yourself to blame for the world's woes... the only thing necessary for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing.
I think that's probably his point. We all should do good for others the only thing is it's no fun and there isn't an end to it. You can donate food what happens people eat it, they need more. The fix for all suffering and I hate to say it, is if we all die out naturally, not forced of course but the only people who do not suffer are the ones who never existed
If I was powerful enough to have created the universe, I wouldn't allow hunger. That’s the difference between me and your God.
If God didn't exist, and there was no standard of morality, then your complaints against Him would be based on just your opinion of what "right" and "wrong" are. Therefore what is wrong in your eyes, might be celebrated by your neighbor, and you're BOTH right, even if they are diametrically opposed.
all the christian morality outlined in your bronze age book is copied from earlier civilizations with their own gods. your god is unoriginal. your god is a plagiarizer. stop claiming morality has anything to do with your god. he is far more immoral than any of dozens of other gods out there.
youhave NO proof to back up the claim..sure..you can cite such things as Horus..but if you actually did careful study of Horus..there are more dissimilarities than there are similarities..further..many of the similarities between Horus and Jesus came AFTER Jesus,,not before..if you look at the evolution of the religion pertaining to Horus.
kermit: you're not exactly overflowing with proof of your claims, either
With GOD existing..I don't have to be....cause GOD wil be the one who ultimately proves Himself....I don't need to do that
kermit: you are delusional
YOU are the delusional one to think you know anything about psychology
Ancient Rome and Greece, the two cradles of Western Civilization, prior to the advent Jebus, did not worship Yahweh. Strange then that the vast majority of the concepts behind our laws, government, philosophy and morality are passed down from those societies if indeed, there is no standard of morality without the presence of god. Unless of course by god, you mean Quirinus, Jupiter Optimus Maximus, Hercules Invictus & Venus Victrix.
So how is it that people who know nothing about christianity have basicly the same morals as christians?
morality is cultural. if you don't agree, too bad
diametrically opposed, thephileo? like free will and predestination? don't give me that concurrence vs contradiction bafflegab. that is just diverting the logical conclusion that you seem to cowardly to face.
"diametrically opposed, thephileo? like free will and predestination? don't give me that concurrence vs contradiction bafflegab. that is just diverting the logical conclusion that you seem to cowardly to face."
-------
You know, your att.itude is not exactly a shining example of morality. You need to reign in your ad hominem so as to not tarnish the reputation of all of those atheists who claim that they can be moral without God – I have yet to see that morality.
Free will vs predestination is only an issue if you think that man actually has a free will... He doesn't.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that men have a free will. What we have is agency. We are creatures with a will of our own. We make things happen. Yet the causal power that we exert is only secondary. God’s sovereign providence stands over and above our actions. He works out His will through the actions of human wills, without violating the freedom of those human wills.
Just because you cannot grasp a subject doesn't mean that the subject is wrong. I don't grasp electrical engineering, but that doesn't mean that the field is bunk.
You know, your att.itude is not exactly a shining example of humility. You need to reign in your pompousness so as to not tarnish the reputation of all of those who claim that they are humble – I have yet to see that humility"morality.
"Free will vs predestination is only an issue if you think that man actually has a free will... He doesn't. "
They why do we have christians on here blathering about free will all the time? Do you know better than them, Saint Larry?
And, if we lack free will, what is the basis of punishing us? Is punishing people who lack free will just? Or, is your god just a vindictve, petty pr1ck?
"Nowhere in the Bible does it say that men have a free will. What we have is agency."
Blah, blah, blah, bafflegab.
"He works out His will through the actions of human wills"
Therefore he IS an evil pr1ck?
"Just because you cannot grasp a subject doesn't mean that the subject is wrong. I don't grasp electrical engineering, but that doesn't mean that the field is bunk."
Just because you spent your life studying fictional tales does not make them any less fictional. Shakespeare scholars, those who feel they are fluent in Klingon, etc
If I was powerful enough to have created the universe, I wouldn't allow sickness. That’s the difference between me and your God.
Your planet would be standing room only.
If I was powerful enough to have created the universe, I wouldn't allow wars. That’s the difference between me and your God.
Yes, I think we've read these posts before. doG would do away with free will. All hail doG's robot world.
workingcopy,
Free will ala your Bible "God" character does not exist either. If he "knew you before you were born" and every thought and action you would do, you *cannot* change it.
That's why in the NT tale, for example, Peter could not help but deny "Jesus" thrice. If he had stopped at two denials, say, "Jesus" would have been proven wrong.
That's not good argument..you leave out consideration that God is outside of time and space...just cause God knows what choices yo umake..doesn't mean free will does not exist...you still MAKE those choices. It isn't about you not changing them..youhave a free will t omake the decisions
that is exactly what it means, kermit.
well se...all you are talking about is power..nothing aboul alowing man choice.....evil is because of man.not God..God IS in control..but that doesn't mean he is a puppet master..he allows things to happen..both good and evil..cause He does not forgo mans will to choose...that's the di9gnity of humans..to be allowed to CHOOSE..and unfortunately...man chooses evil..cause he is selfish, arrogant
like the men who purport to speak for god, kermy?
Of course..I said it before..ALL men are evil..God doesnot pick "perfect men" cause there are none..he does NOT pick based on that shallow thought anyways..He picks cause of their gifts...they will do what he asks of them..to preach..etc..to think God wuill pick someone cause they are "better" than another personis a very arrogant thought...and puts the focus on the person..and not GOD
If I could stop a child from starving, I would. That’s the difference between me and your God.
Yes..YOU look at the here and now which is TEMPORARY..while God looks at the FUTURE..eternity..where there will be no starving person....that child is starving cause of mans choices (not the child-but humanity who is selfish t oact upon it and feed the child..or causing situations to where the child starves-ie wars etc)
kermit.. your god could have easily one assumes, as all of gods powers are, make a human or any creature not require food. or water, or to get disease. Why would he not do that? As we evolved these are natural requirements and consequences.
HOWEVER...MY God has a certain PURPOSE in all of it.which HE is ALSO OMNISCIENT.....which means He knows all things and how it will work out to the end..YOU don't...thus YOUR statement is with ignorance....and short siighted
If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That’s the difference between me and your God.
I am perceiving this moment, right now in MY mind, and that is all I can verify. The contention that everything else in my imagination actually exists is absurd.
Why did god have to kill this poor man?
What evidence you have that says god did it? OK, what evidence do you have for any god? :^)
isn't god omnipotent?
Yes, according to The Babble, not me.
we ALL die sir..everyone one of us..this pastor would never have lived forever anyways...God has time for EACH one of us..the pastors time came
Does god use deathwatch beetles for that then?
As sad as any death is, let it be a lesson that it's possible to be dead wrong in your hermeneutics.
Agreed. Certainty can be a killer.
you could too. oh, sorry, you don't interpret, you just read and you are so discerning you get it right when others get it wrong. isn't that right?
Oh goodness. For a minute I thought it was Terry O'Quinn that passed away.
You mean this wicked sinner?
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWvIgmGQhNs&w=640&h=360]