Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

[mtimber]

Just Think wrote:

<quoted text>
I've made one irrefutable, on topic point many, many times - there is not now, nor has there ever been, any proof that any god has ever existed.

Would you define what you would deem acceptable proof?

[Hedonist]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
So if morality is relative and subjective, why is killing witches "wrong"?

It is most definitely relative and based on societal ethics. Even you don't consider everything in your holy scripture to be an acceptable example of modern morals. You pick and choose which "morals" to follow based on your modern interpretation.

So why don't you lose the "high horse" attitude and move on.

[Thinking]

As you brought up high ground first, why don't you define high ground and then perhaps we can discuss the other strata.

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
Can you define the low ground and give a rational explanation as to why it is low ground?

[Hedonist]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
So you CAN prove abiogenesis through empiricism?

Don't need to. I have confidence in science in exact proportion to the amount of available verifiable evidence. Although abiogenesis has more evidence than **poof**, there are still multiple hypotheses that are dealing with the details and will need further predictive testing before anything definitive can be considered.

[Thinking]

Define "witch".

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
Why is killing witches wrong?
As an atheist you have no reason to hold that moral view...

[Hedonist]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
Then they should be easy to deal with.

They are. But they are also old and have been dealt with far too many times.

[Hedonist]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
You did not answer the question.
Because you have no basis to account for right and wrong, for an atheist, it just IS...
So with that in mind, why do you even bother to have an opinion on this subject?

You have no basis to account for right and wrong either. The Bible is loaded with immoral laws and commandments. Why do you pick and choose cafeteria style which moral edicts you will follow?

Again, show me one (1) moral precept that you can prove originated from religion. Just one.

[mtimber]

Hedonist wrote:

<quoted text>
It is most definitely relative and based on societal ethics. Even you don't consider everything in your holy scripture to be an acceptable example of modern morals. You pick and choose which "morals" to follow based on your modern interpretation.
So why don't you lose the "high horse" attitude and move on.

So if you lived in a society that said killing witches was ok you would go along with that?

[mtimber]

Thinking wrote:

As you brought up high ground first, why don't you define high ground and then perhaps we can discuss the other strata.
<quoted text>

I have a basis for moral objectivity, because of my Christian worldview, how do you account for yours?

[mtimber]

Hedonist wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't need to. I have confidence in science in exact proportion to the amount of available verifiable evidence. Although abiogenesis has more evidence than **poof**, there are still multiple hypotheses that are dealing with the details and will need further predictive testing before anything definitive can be considered.

So you cannot prove abiogenesis empirically...

So you accept it by faith?

[mtimber]

Thinking wrote:

Define "witch".
<quoted text>

Do you really need that term defined?

[mtimber]

Hedonist wrote:

<quoted text>
They are. But they are also old and have been dealt with far too many times.

Then why haven't you dealt with them already?

[mtimber]

Hedonist wrote:

<quoted text>
You have no basis to account for right and wrong either. The Bible is loaded with immoral laws and commandments. Why do you pick and choose cafeteria style which moral edicts you will follow?
Again, show me one (1) moral precept that you can prove originated from religion. Just one.

I do have a trancendentant source for absolute morality, which you do not accept.

But as we both know that you cannot supply any basis for absolute morality, why are you concerned with the concepts of right and wrong?

[mtimber]

Hedonist wrote:

<quoted text>
You have no basis to account for right and wrong either. The Bible is loaded with immoral laws and commandments. Why do you pick and choose cafeteria style which moral edicts you will follow?
Again, show me one (1) moral precept that you can prove originated from religion. Just one.

And upon what basis do you define immorality.

You said earlier that morality is societal, upon that basis why would you condemn any moral position mentioned in the bible?

[Thinking]

I call Poe, cu*t, or both.

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
I have a basis for moral objectivity, because of my Christian worldview, how do you account for yours?

[Thinking]

Which?

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you really need that term defined?

[mtimber]

Thinking wrote:

Which?
<quoted text>

You need to go back and re-read the posts.

[mtimber]

Thinking wrote:

I call Poe, cu*t, or both.
<quoted text>

Do you have a rational response you would like to contribute?

[Just Think]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
So if you lived in a society that said killing witches was ok you would go along with that?

and another question....

[Just Think]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
I have a basis for moral objectivity, because of my Christian worldview, how do you account for yours?

and another question