Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

[mtimber]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
Not exactly. I wish that you would not make me correct the word "absolute" in every other post. I haven't identified an absolute standard of morality in myself or the universe.
<quoted text>
That's not so much me bragging as rejecting your bible's moral positions. Most people I know have superior moral standards to those embodied by the words and deeds of the Christian god.
<quoted text>
I have no absolute standard.
My relative standard is what I presently judge to be the means for attaining my present desires, which are consistent with the standards of the culture at large. I don't want to do anything that they don't want me to do. There is no conflict.
What you might not know or believe is that you can bet your life that I will always do the right thing by you as I and many other people judge it, and that many other people are just like me.
That is, although many Christians seem to be unaware that it is the case, you actually can trust a community of educated and morally trained humanists to mostly do the right thing most of the time relative to any competing system such as Christian communities.
In fact, I'd say that a nation of humanists would have rejected Hitler and Bush both, something Christian nations didn't quite manage.
I don't expect you to accept that.

I applaud you for adopting the second great absolute moral standard that God decreed:

Love thy neighbour as thyself.

Now if you will just adopt the first, most of your irrationality, which results from you rejection of it, will disappear:

Love the Lord thy God will all thy heart, all thy mind, all thy strength and all they soul.

[Khatru]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you?
Wow, how did you come to that particular absolute statement of truth?

It's plainly obvious.

You've spent the past few days telling us how wonderful and absolute your god is and that whatever he says/does is to be obeyed without question.

[mtimber]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
I think that they're your arguments that you're attributing to me.
<quoted text>
The conflict between relative and absolute? I reconcile it by identifying that the absolute part is yours - part of your straw man - and showing that without it, there is no contradiction.
It was only an obvious (apparent) contradiction to you because you seem to be unable to conceive of ethics without absolutism.

You cannot conceive of that which does not exist.

Unless you want to come to the place where rape is permissible and so is every other crime known to man, if expediency demands it...

[Givemeliberty]

Atheism forum clear for all to see. All you are presenting is the tired old stale Eric Hovind arguments and what you stole from other how to debate an atheist sites. Sorry but it has been done dozens of times before. All you have presented is logical fallacies and ad hom attacks.

You also seem to think bashing science somehow proves a god? Wtf? Even if science was incorrect about everything which not even your lord Hovind would say, that still doesn't mean we would automatically jump to some supernatural cause being responsible.

Again you are worried some invisible sky wizard will doom you to hell yet you can't demonstrate that said sky wizard even exists!

Lmfao!

You want to debate religion and atheism fine. Start with why anyone should believe in your god.

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
I am sorry, I didn't see the "atheists club" sign.
Would you point that out to me?
I was under the misguided assumption that this was a discussion about atheism and religion.
But if this was just a thread for you all to back slap each other and tell each other what wonderful atheists you all are and how dumb everyone else is, I apologise for my intrusion.

[mtimber]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
What? If man was a threat to the universe, the universe would have the moral right to neutralize the threat. I doubt that destruction of man would necessary for gods.
And if a gods existed, morality by social convention might not be feasible. It would depend on the gods.
Why make this weird? We're just trying to make the best lives we can for as many of us as we can.

There you go, that is the issue in the Great Controversy.

Satan is a threat to the cohesion of the universe.

Humanity serves him.

God has to deal with that.

But first He gives man the opportunity to come over to Him.

Using your standard of morality, God is perfectly in His rights to judge mankind and issue punishment.

[Givemeliberty]

Jesus and Paul approved of slavery so that is your absolute standard of morality?

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
No...
Jesus pointed them out as the absolute standards of morality.
I am just sharing what the Son of God shared with humanity.

[jacktheladat1]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you have a rational response to make?

YOUR next will be your first.

[mtimber]

Givemeliberty wrote:

Are you still trying the Eric Hovind argument? Sad!
Here's a better one demonstrate that your god is something more than your imagination.
<quoted text>

Are you claiming that Eric Hovind wrote the Bible?

That is where I draw my argument...

[It aint necessarily so]

mtimber wrote:

In the context of the times, slavery was a preferred solution to outright destruction.

Shame on you for being an apologist for your god's defective morality.

Plus, it's a false dichotomy. Was an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly loving god able to offer any other options, like freedom, milk and honey?

mtimber wrote:

But as an atheist, I am still not sure why you have an issue with a society having a moral standard.

I don't have an issue about a society having a moral standard. I expect societies to have value systems.

mtimber wrote:

According to your own worldview, they are consistently following the morality of their own society.
I am not sure why you have a problem with this?
Unless you are not actually being consistent with your own worldview?
What is wrong with this, from your own perspective?
Nothing.
Because you cannot condemn a society that practices a morality if you truly do believe society sets morality.
The only thing I can think, is that you do not actually really believe that societies set morality, but ascribe to an absolute standard.
But knowing where that will lead, you deny it with your arguments, but pronounce it with your judgments...
That is called hypocrisy.

Whatever.

I'm not clear what you're referring to any more, and you haven't stopped erecting straw men since you started.

Plus, I think I've said everything that I have to say twice. And I'm not expecting more from you than this kind of argumentation ad infinitum, so maybe we've exhausted this already.

Frankly, I couldn't even read this last part. You seem to be arguing with your straw man caricature of me and atheism.

[The_Box]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
The basis of your question, is that you seem to refute Gods right to judge His creation and all that is in it.
Do you live in a society, where there are consequences to your actions?
Do you accept that is a rational society?
If you do, then you have answered your question here.

You're being evasive.

My question was not related to judgment of creation. There is a clear contradiction between your 2nd principal and what we find in the Old Testament.

Why?

[The_Box]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
You cannot conceive of that which does not exist.

Of course you can. I can conceive of an absolute moral code that says that killing all children born on Mondays is good. Does that absolute moral exist?

I can conceive of a dragon living within my computer. Does that dragon exist?

[Givemeliberty]

Fck you retard you lie badly! Really badly! You are stealing his absolute argument word for word retard!

How about you prove your retarded god exists?

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you claiming that Eric Hovind wrote the Bible?
That is where I draw my argument...

[Givemeliberty]

Here you go retard! Why not just post this link and save yourself the time and humiliation?

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

Oops! Thought we hadn't seen this right?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah a!

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you claiming that Eric Hovind wrote the Bible?
That is where I draw my argument...

[Khatru]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
No...
Jesus pointed them out as the absolute standards of morality.
I am just sharing what the Son of God shared with humanity.

No.

You're cherry-picking what you think is relevant.

I guess you've heard of "The Golden Rule"?

It's all about ethical goodness on a reciprocal basis and you'll see it manifested in numerous religions in many different words. Jesus mentions it in the NT although he was far from being the first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule

I'm sure you'll agree that wishing no harm or suffering on others is understandably a good thing. Yet harm is exactly what your god wishes on people and he expects his followers to obey him and break the Golden Rule.

Surely the merit of any religion isn't what you believe in but more about what you do? In other words, it's all about how you treat your fellow human beings. Extending the same treatment to other people that you would expect them to extend to you is undoubtedly the pinnacle of human ethical behaviour.

Also, if God/Allah/Brahma/Shiva/etc, really do exist, yet they insist that we humans must break the Golden Rule to get to Heaven; then they aren't worth thinking about.

Let's look at the god of the Bible: His main condition for us to get our pass for Heaven is not about treating our fellow humans decently and respectfully. Oh no, the Golden Rule doesn't matter to God. All that matters to him is that we love Jesus more than anyone else and with every fibre of our being.

You may like the idea of spending eternity with such a vain, egotistical, self-centred deity but not me.

[Just Think]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
You have either not understood the argument, or are willfully ignorant of it.
Either way, your misrepresentation is to be rejected as such.

Nice dodge, bro.

[Just Think]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
So people do not communicate who they are and what they believe through language?
If that is true, isn't your current engagement with this forum a little futile?

Nice dodge, bro.

Point to the chapter and verse of the bible that predicts "exactly" the behavior of the specific poster to whom you were speaking.

We'll wait.

[It aint necessarily so]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
So lets recap.
1. Science speaks.
2. A rock and its buddies created life probably.
3. A singularity, which cannot be accounted for, but probably came from a multiverse which has never been observed, is responsible, probably.
4. Rationality and logic have no rational explanation in your universe and cannot be accounted for.
And you think to condemn a worldview that answers all of these question succinct and completely?
You have faith, that you are right about stuff you are not even sure about, and yet you think to condemn christianity as irrational?
Come on.
You are reduced to absurdity, because you have to deny the First Cause that is logically obviously required...

We've been down this road already.

I reject your worldview because it is absurd. Your bible is self-refuting, meaning that it is inauthentic - not the word of a deity - and that therefore the god described in it is mythological, the religion based on it is false including its moral code, and the church that deploys it to its own benefit is fraudulent.

And you continually mischaracterize my worldview. It's not interesting for me. I really only am willing to explain myself to you and not much more. I think that I have done that.

mtimber wrote:

I could not invent a more ludicrous and illogical worldview...

I'm sure that's true, or I'd have seen it.

[Just Think]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
You are asking the wrong question.
You are really asking this:
Do you accept my extreme interpretation of the Bible, unaided by the Holy Spirit, and prejudiced by my extreme antagonism towards God?
I think you know what my answer to that will be...

Yes, the same answer you always give...a dodge.

[Just Think]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
No my destination is to reveal the only worldview to you that is actually logically sound and accountable.
But the problem you have, is that you live in a house that is full of idols that you like.
And the house I live in is bereft of your idols.
So you look at my house and you turn from it in disdain.
To which I point you to your foundations and show you they are built on shifting sand.
And then I show that mine are built on the Rock.
But the problem is, you are not really interested in looking at your foundations, but rather defending them.
But as much as you defend them, they are shifting sand, and they will change and adapt to whatever your will dictates.
Unless you are willing to accept that your will is not the absolute standard of truth and reality, then you will always be busy building sand castles, which are easy to kick over.

Your house is bringing down the value of the rest of the neighborhood...

[polymath257]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
You do not understand the principle of presuppositions and that all worldviews have them.
An absolute truth is self attesting.
By the fact that all of knowledge, both phsyical and transcendentant will attest to it, if it is in fact absolutely true...
If you do not subscribe to that, then knowledge is impossible and you cannot know anything.

There is no such self-attesting fact. But I disagree that this means that knowledge is then impossible. Yes,*certainty* is impossible, but *knowledge* is possible through testing. We cannot have absolute certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow or that things will fall due to gravity, but with enough testing, we can have a high degree of confidence. From a strict solipsistic viewpoint, we cannot even know that *we* are the ones thinking our thoughts. But it is a reasonable assumption for further work.

So, if we do a test 1000 times (assuming our memory is reliable-a definite assumption) and the result comes up the same way each time, is it *reasonable* to guess it will come up the same way next time? The answer is *yes*, even though it is not certain.

What we *can* do is show some general principles are *false*. All we need is one counter-example to show a general principle is false. So, we do testing and eliminate all the principles that fail some test, keeping those (provisionally) that have passed every test so far. We also attempt to design tests that will show the principles we have so far are wrong. That way, if they still pass the tests, we have even more confidence in them.

Guess what? By making guesses, subjecting them to tests, keeping only those that pass, and attempting to find tests where the principles fail, you are doing science.

This also suggests that any general principle about the real world that cannot be tested, or that doesn't have a test that could, theoretically, show it wrong is not a principle worth worrying about. If NOTHING can show the principle wrong, even in theory, that principle carries no information and can be dispensed with.

So, by this method, we go from a lack of knowledge to provisional knowledge backed up by observation and testing. We also eliminate all the worthless stuff that leads to much discussion but no conclusions.