Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-12-2016, 03:29 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(18-12-2016 03:24 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  It is worthy to me.

People happen to have weird ideas of what is worthy so nothing new here.

(18-12-2016 03:24 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  I believe that what I have is important enough to state it and even wrestle with atheists about it no matter the "slings and arrows" that come my way.

Believer thinking that spreading myths he was indoctrinated to believe in is important? How surprising.

(18-12-2016 03:24 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  I am also a snarky SOB. That can make it fun.

Snarky? Boring maybe.

(18-12-2016 03:24 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  If I am right and you all end up in Hell I do not want it to be because I just ran off licking my wounds and didn't tell what I believe to be the truth.

Possibility of you being right is... let's call it small.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Szuchow's post
18-12-2016, 03:31 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(18-12-2016 03:16 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Let me pose a question here. I do not want to argue whether there was a world-wide flood or not. That is not my purpose.
Scientists in the field look at the evidence and say there was no flood.
Other scientists in the field look at the evidence and say there was a flood.
Show me one published academic geologist who is not also a creationist Christian or Muslim (creationism is also pushed by Muslims) who says that there was a global flood?

You may not be aware of the history, but when geology was established as a field of enquiry it was taken as a given that the Bible described true events. Evidence seemed to back it up. People found huge deposits of sediment everywhere. Clearly deposited by the global flood they thought. But over time the theories were refined and the *global* flood theory proved completely untenable.

You can read about it on wikipedia if it interests you. Nowadays as far as I am aware there are few if any geologists who would support a global flood hypothesis. Scientific consensus is definitely not with the flood crowd.

Quote:You say I have to give evidence. That won't matter because you will have evidence for the opposite view and yo will accept that instead. That is why I try to stick to just trying to tell the story the way the Bible states it and there is no evidence for that other than the Bible itself. Doesn't mean it is not true.
You are incorrect. If you for example could show that the flood actually happened, and could publish a paper showing your reasoning (you would need to cite primary evidence such as rock samples, probably cite other people's papers and explain why your hypothesis was better and so on), and your peers could evaluate your work and agree that it was kosher, then you could in fact prove scientifically that a global flood had taken place. And if you did that I would happily accept that.

That would definitely bolster your credibility. Unfortunately I cannot say what would convince me that your God exists, this is because the people who made him up cleverly made him invisible, among other perfect attributes, and cite as evidence things which could be taken as evidence for other things. But God knows, right? Wink So you could ask him what to say.

Anyway the great part of this is, that I think you have to consider the idea that there is no way that you actually know that your religion is true Smile Your conviction may be good enough for you, but how do you know you are not deluded?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
18-12-2016, 03:32 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(18-12-2016 03:29 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(18-12-2016 03:24 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  It is worthy to me.

Snarky? Just delusional.

Not delusional if I end up being right.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2016, 03:35 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(18-12-2016 03:31 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(18-12-2016 03:16 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Let me pose a question here. I do not want to argue whether there was a world-wide flood or not. That is not my purpose.
Scientists in the field look at the evidence and say there was no flood.
Other scientists in the field look at the evidence and say there was a flood.
Show me one published academic geologist who is not also a creationist Christian or Muslim (creationism is also pushed by Muslims) who says that there was a global flood?

Strawman argument
Quote:Anyway the great part of this is, that I think you have to consider the idea that there is no way that you actually know that your religion is true Smile Your conviction may be good enough for you, but how do you know you are not deluded?

How do you know I am?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2016, 03:35 PM (This post was last modified: 18-12-2016 03:38 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
You don't seem to understand the nature of truth. Or evidence. Or argumentation.

If you claim the sky is blue and I claim it is green, then you may provide evidence that it is blue. Blue is a specific range of frequencies which can be detected and demonstrated.

Simply putting forth "counter-experts" who constitute an insanely small minority willing to say the opposite of what the ENTIRE GEOLOGICAL COMMUNITY (except their tiny religious clique) states unequivocally is not really offering a counter-argument. Especially when the group providing the "evidence" for the "other side" (and I use both those terms loosely, to put it nicely) has openly stated that it is a fundamental principle of their organization to uphold the Bible at all costs, while the other group continually and competitively/contentiously tests their results.

I can demonstrate easily that your "experts", upon which you are willing to rely, are openly lying-- and I don't say that because I disagree with what they claim, but because their claims are easily shown even by amateurs to be false arguments, and yet they continue to make the same claim. An example of this is their claim about "polystrate trees" (properly called "upright fossils"), broken down effectively by Tony Reed:





Edit to Add: And don't even get me started on the Creationists' willingness to "quote-mine" real scientists to make them say things they did not really say. It's the lowest form of lying, as far as I am concerned, other than defrauding people for their life savings.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
18-12-2016, 03:37 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Is everyone that disagrees with you lying?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2016, 03:38 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(18-12-2016 03:32 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  
(18-12-2016 03:29 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  Snarky? Just delusional.

Not delusional if I end up being right.

Hate to break you but possibility of you being right is smaller than small.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2016, 03:38 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Are we supposed to count the number of scientists who believe a hypothesis and go with that?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2016, 03:38 PM (This post was last modified: 18-12-2016 03:44 PM by Bzltyr.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(18-12-2016 03:38 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(18-12-2016 03:32 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Not delusional if I end up being right.

Hate to break you but possibility of you being right is smaller than small.

I think it is extremely likely that I am right.

Now what?

Are you going to say, "You are wrong it is small."

I am at a disadvantage here because I somehow have to prove the supernatural exists. My being unable to prove it does not mean it does not exist. You can test the natural.
Being stuck in the natural is a limitation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2016, 03:41 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(18-12-2016 03:38 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  
(18-12-2016 03:38 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  Hate to break you but possibility of you being right is smaller than small.

I think it is extremely likely that I am right.

Why should I care about what you think? You're just another indoctrinated sheep thinking that The Truth is contained within ancient book of fables.

Edit: You said nothing that would convince me of existence of particular space wizard. You may think differently but thinking that does not make it such.

Quote:Now what?

Look above.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: