[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Well you can say it’s certain He doesn’t exist and that He was conceived by man but that doesn’t make it so.[/quote]
All right, on a scale from 1-10 how certain is it that Zeus exists?
Mars?
Juno?
Mitras?
Also, bonus Sapolski vids:
edit: ooops, youtube links show up as videos- tricked you mwuahahahaha…
[quote]orion wrote:
All right, on a scale from 1-10 how certain is it that Zeus exists?
Mars?
Juno?
Mitras?
[/quote]
Come back to me when you understand something about Judaism, Christianity and history. Context is important. You would need to understand the history of the peoples who established empires based around the city of Babylon(Sumerians, Accadians, Assyrians, Chaldeans etc); old kingdom, middle kingdom, new kingdom, later and Ptolemaic Egypt; the Medes and the Persians and the empire they established under Cyrus.
The Hittites; the Phoenecians and the Aramaeans. The Minoans and successive waves of Dorians, Ionians, Achaeans and Aetolians who came to be known as Greeks. The conquests of Alexander and the Hellenisation of the East. And most importantly the history of the Hebrews and their relationship to these peoples; the rise of Rome and the Jewish-Roman wars, Jesus, His message; the destruction of the second temple; the Apostle Paul; the early Church. Come back to me when you know what you’re talking about. Might want to read the bible too.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
All right, on a scale from 1-10 how certain is it that Zeus exists?
Mars?
Juno?
Mitras?
[/quote]
Come back to me when you understand something about Judaism, Christianity and history. Context is important. You would need to understand the history of the peoples who established empires based around the city of Babylon(Sumerians, Accadians, Assyrians, Chaldeans etc); old kingdom, middle kingdom, new kingdom, later and Ptolemaic Egypt; the Medes and the Persians and the empire they established under Cyrus.
The Hittites; the Phoenecians and the Aramaeans. The Minoans and successive waves of Dorians, Ionians, Achaeans and Aetolians who came to be known as Greeks. The conquests of Alexander and the Hellenisation of the East. And most importantly the history of the Hebrews and their relationship to these peoples; the rise of Rome and the Jewish-Roman wars, Jesus, His message; the destruction of the second temple; the Apostle Paul; the early Church. Come back to me when you know what you’re talking about. Might want to read the bible too.[/quote]
Nonsense.
None of this would tell me anything about whether Jehova is more or less true than all the other gods.
< standard SMBH disclaimer, you know the drill >
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Of course we need human law to adminster our societies.[/quote]
If God’s law exists, then it is by definition the best law to follow. The need for human law is a tacit admission that God’s law does not exist or is inscrutable.
It’s morally repugnant to nearly everyone alive now, including Jews and Christians; that’s why those laws are ignored and the sections they derive from overlooked.
[quote]
What does it matter what I think? Who are we to judge God?[/quote]
You’ve got to do better than that.
Let’s say someone told you that Israel should be destroyed, that 9/11 was a just act of martyrdom, that a global caliphate needs to be established by any means necessary and those who did not convert should be killed or enslaved, you’d tell him that was so backward and morally bankrupt as to be ridiculous, wouldn’t you? But what if he said in reply that such actions are commanded by God and who are you to judge God (Allah)? Would you say thanks for letting me know and join him in calling for Israel’s destruction?
Of course not, it’s completely transparent that saying “Who are you to judge X” is just a way to stop others from questioning that person’s actions and beliefs that cannot be justified. Such a ploy can and is used to prevent the criticism of any deity for any action, from prohibiting the consumption of alcohol to demanding human sacrifice.
If you’d like to offer a more robust challenge to my examples of commands I found morally repugnant in the bible, feel free to do so.
I’m not just saying it, there are very good reasons to doubt the existence of Yahweh. The text that is purported to be his wholly perfect word is contradictory, full of errors, and stuffed with the barbarism you’d expect from something composed by humans in the bronze age. There is no positive evidence for his existence or even evidence for a supernatural realm ie. prayer is ineffective, there is no magic, there are no ghosts, angels, demons etc. The logical arguments for his existence are applicable to many deities, most of which are mutually exclusive, and are not as compelling as the arguments for his nonexistence.
Upon an honest evaluation of the evidence, do you think that it’s more likely that the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator of the universe revealed itself to a small tribe of sheepherders in ancient Mesopatomia, authored or divinely inspired a set of books full of contradictions, errors and morally questionable laws, thousands of years later reincarnated itself in human form as Jesus Christ, born of a virgin who herself was immaculately conceived, to be crucified for our sins by the Romans and 3 days later resurrected and even later ascended to heaven upon which he divinely inspires even more books full of contradictions and errors, who’ll eventually return bring about Judgment day and have a final, climactic battle with evil and sin, bringing an end to physical existence, or he was conceived by humans just like all the rest?
How does one judge ANY god to be “morally?” repugnant if one doesn’t believe in good and evil?
You might be predisposed to some emotional, bio-chemical induced opinion, but you do have not a moral foundation to speak from.
I mean, often the atheists here support the murder of unborn human lives. In another thread, culling of the handicapped in the womb. What is this ‘moral’ base you speak from? Consensus? Much of that is still judeo-christian nurture stubbornly hanging on? Consensus…Consensus, where, when, and among who? Why bother dipping into morality to condemn religion and a god(s), when your morality is based on transient human opinion during a specific time, in a specific place? Had it been the consensus to continue the slave trade, it would never have had to be a moral evil? Had those abolitionist known as much, maybe they would never have bothered to appeal to their fellow citizens. Why bother if it could stay a moral good, so long as we aren’t stupid enough to decide it’s a moral evil?
It always amuses me how folks, with no faith in what can’t be measured, will authoritatively condemn ANY religion as ‘morally repugnant.’ You would think a more agnostic approach to what is “morally repugnant” would be the order of the day for a people who, ultimately, have no faith in the reality of evil or real good.
Yes, yes, I know. “No Sloth, I am agnostic/atheistic. I don’t have knowledge of/believe in the reality of good or evil. I…” Stop. If you have no faith in the realness of the good or evil within your moral system I sure as heck won’t. If you’ve already written off your own moral system as some share in a consensus, subject to a particular place, culture, and time…Well, I won’t give it any more weight than that, when I see the use of “morally repugnant.”
Homosexuality was morally repugnant in this nation. In the West, for that matter. Do you concede to the authority of those that lived/live in that consensus? Was it morally repugnant then, in your opinion (it was the consensus)? Was it morally repugnant to be an atheist? Do you bow to their judgment, them living in that time and place, while you didn’t? If consensus swings back, do you delete your moral system and download the new? Would you become morally disgusted with yourself?
[quote]anonfactor wrote:
If God’s law exists, then it is by definition the best law to follow. The need for human law is a tacit admission that God’s law does not exist or is inscrutable.
[/quote]
I don’t agree with that premise. There is the old covenant that God made with Abraham, the Law that God gave to Moses and the new covenant with God mediated by Jesus. Men still need to organise and govern themselves in this world.
You need to examine the context.
The scriptures are pretty clear regarding recognising false prophets.
Matthew 7:15-20
A purely subjective account that could be based on your own prejudices and lack of understanding.
[quote]anonfactor wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Of course we need human law to adminster our societies.[/quote]
If God’s law exists, then it is by definition the best law to follow.
[/quote]
No.
We are the captains of our ship and so on…
Including what gods we adopt.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
How does one judge ANY god to be “morally?” repugnant if one doesn’t believe in good and evil?
You might be predisposed to some emotional, bio-chemical induced opinion, but you do have not a moral foundation to speak from.[/quote]
You might be induced by the very same things to believe in a god.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I mean, often the atheists here support the murder of unborn human lives.
[/quote]
I mean, the Christians here support the murder of born human lives.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
How does one judge ANY god to be “morally?” repugnant if one doesn’t believe in good and evil?
You might be predisposed to some emotional, bio-chemical induced opinion, but you do have not a moral foundation to speak from.[/quote]
You might be induced by the very same things to believe in a god.[/quote]
Then you’re a Christian-phobe, as I’m predisposed.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I mean, often the atheists here support the murder of unborn human lives.
[/quote]
I mean, the Christians here support the murder of born human lives. [/quote]
I’ve never seen a ‘Christian’ here support the deliberate targeting of innocent human lives.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I mean, often the atheists here support the murder of unborn human lives.
[/quote]
I mean, the Christians here support the murder of born human lives. [/quote]
I’ve never seen a ‘Christian’ here support the deliberate targeting of innocent human lives. [/quote]
Alright, if I had some goal that required putting something in a cities water supply which would just happen to induce a few thousand abortions, could I do it?
Because, I would totally feel that “it was worth it”.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
All right, on a scale from 1-10 how certain is it that Zeus exists?
Mars?
Juno?
Mitras?
[/quote]
Come back to me when you understand something about Judaism, Christianity and history. Context is important. You would need to understand the history of the peoples who established empires based around the city of Babylon(Sumerians, Accadians, Assyrians, Chaldeans etc); old kingdom, middle kingdom, new kingdom, later and Ptolemaic Egypt; the Medes and the Persians and the empire they established under Cyrus.
The Hittites; the Phoenecians and the Aramaeans. The Minoans and successive waves of Dorians, Ionians, Achaeans and Aetolians who came to be known as Greeks. The conquests of Alexander and the Hellenisation of the East. And most importantly the history of the Hebrews and their relationship to these peoples; the rise of Rome and the Jewish-Roman wars, Jesus, His message; the destruction of the second temple; the Apostle Paul; the early Church. Come back to me when you know what you’re talking about. Might want to read the bible too.[/quote]
KABOOM! Nice work!
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I mean, often the atheists here support the murder of unborn human lives.
[/quote]
I mean, the Christians here support the murder of born human lives. [/quote]
Oh? Please do indulge me. Where pray tell?
You must be desperate if your bringing up a point that truly doesn’t exist.
[quote]anonfactor wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]anonfactor wrote:
What social issues?[/quote]
Abortion and ‘gay marriage’ come immediately to mind.[/quote]
What about the teaching of evolution in schools? The war on drugs? Affirmative action? Privacy rights? Every other social issue? Should they concede to the right (or social conservatives more specifically) on all of them?
I really don’t see why they should; social conservatives are losing on almost every social issue and it looks like this trend will continue. Simply put, social conservatives are dying at a much faster rate than they can be replaced. It’s likely the last vestiges of social conservatism will die along with the Baby Boomer generation. They’re in no position to demand concessions.
Maybe you think that social conservatives are right on those issues? If that’s true, then it shouldn’t be too hard convince others of the merits of their position.
[/quote]
There is a small contingent who ever supported all or some of the issues you think they stand for. They were never a majority. This so called ‘Religious right’ is and always was a handful of politically active protestant people from a limited breadth of protestant denominations.
Don’t mistake religious people, or conservatives for this group. It’s a stereotype your are perpetuating.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I mean, often the atheists here support the murder of unborn human lives.
[/quote]
I mean, the Christians here support the murder of born human lives. [/quote]
I’ve never seen a ‘Christian’ here support the deliberate targeting of innocent human lives. [/quote]
Alright, if I had some goal that required putting something in a cities water supply which would just happen to induce a few thousand abortions, could I do it?
Because, I would totally feel that “it was worth it”. [/quote]
You got your hands on some bad weed. What the fuck are you on about?