Just Some Questions I Thought
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Well that is clearly false.
Why?
Because people don't agree on morality (on what is moral and what isn't). If it was objective and build in to everyone (as you suggested) that would not be the case.
Not true at all. A proposition is objective if its truth value is independent of the person uttering it. What you 'believe' to be moral or what the cannibals 'believe' is moral, does NOT reduce the truth of morality. That is like saying, because I said the apple is orange, means the color of fruit is subjective.
Remember you told us that this cannibal has this same objective morality built into her nature.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------/e
Anyway do you think what is moral, is a function of time?
@ HumbleThinker
Nyarlathotep
HumbleThinker: "Why?"
Because there is no such thing as objective morality. Please prove there is, for ALL morality is subjective.
rmfr
@ arakish
Your original question (which I was answering) used the term "objective morality". You didn't ask whether morality was objective or not. My answer still stands. Maybe it was just a poorly worded question...
@ HumbleThinker
Foremost, I still ain't seen your answer since I had to fly up to Yellowstone yesterday and spent the whole day in the field. By the I got back home, I ate a sandwich, laid down, and fell asleep watching TV. Will be getting to your answer later today and maybe post tomorrow. Sorry, for my tardiness...
I am guessing you are referring to this question: "If God is the epitome of objective morality, then why does it not follow its own morality codes?"?
If not, please correct me.
However, "Maybe it was just a poorly worded question..."
How can you comprehend that it is poorly worded? Please, this is not ad hominem (as another claimed once and cursed me), I am just asking. I am using the claim of the Religious Absolutists that your deity is "objectively moral" then asking why your deity does not follow its own "objective morality." Any "thing" that lays down laws and then does not obey its own laws is by definition a totalitarian tyrant and/or pure evil.
rmfr
Your answers are vague at best. There is No Way any logical person can make sense out of a bunch of supernatural horseshit. Ask yourself this one question: Would the evidence given for any of the Bible’s claims hold up in court? Mary getting pregnant without sex, Noah building an incest cruise ship. Jesus rising from the grave?
@HumbleThinker
I guess the question then shifts to why does this "god" not cure visible maladies but does cure invisible ones. I do hope you realize this looks bad for the "god" ideas, god gets all kinds of credit for "invisible" maladies, but soon as there is a visible one god does nothing, for 1000's of years. A 5 year old could try to make the same claim, but we would all just assume a 5 year old is just being a 5 year old.
He has? I have seen no evidence of these miraculous ways, but plenty of evidence that things like a global world wide flood has never occured. Why does god only give maybe 1 million people born and living in the right area ~2000 years ago a shot at seeing his work (or his son) but not any of us 7.5 billion people today?
Yes, if I knew there was an all knowing being. But I never heard of one, instead all we got is a heavily edited, translated and plagiarized "holy books" written, edited, and produced by man, limited by the technology available to them at the time. I seen absolutely nothing that would show the presence of an all knowing being. Leaving only with: an all knowing being purposely (for what ever reason) hides himself, except through human made books for history that cannot be verified.
Does that mean in heaven there is no males or females? Do we lose our sexual identity upon entering heaven? Why do so many religious folks put so much emphasis on the sexes?
Stepping aside the omniscient = no free will major, show stopping, logic flaw, what is the point? Why give people and his creation free will? What purpose does that serve to god? Entertainment? Or in short, why would god create humans, what is your god idea's goal with humans? To see which free will humans will play by his very vague shifting rules and keep him company in "gods" kingdom?
You believe in angels? How come? because some human or human created literature told you they exist? If humans are god's greatest creation that does not seem like a very powerful, intelligent or effective god, your god idea is supposedly all knowing, and he can not do better than humans? Cant even leave hints like basic hygiene to prevent untold billions of deaths and suffering? Why is it the more humans better themselves the further and further they get away from the god ideas?
How about a god that promises to save all of us, regardless of the vague rules that are spoken and printed by humans supposedly on "gods" behalf. That sounds better to me. Why does god even care who he saves and who he doesn't? I know lots of doctors that took the hippocratic oath that will attempt to aid humans regardless of what they have done. Why can't god hold himself to at least those standards, especially if he is all powerful, why can't he just solve the problem of any humans that create problems in his heaven with all his power and intellect?
Oh I can guess why, because god requires people to worship him and follow his rules, for some... unexplained reason other than "god is all knowing" and we should not question god's motives for we probably could not even understand them.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
I appreciate you taking the time to address these points. I do not have the time now to address your responses, but will try to do so in the future. I will say, though on my first read, what strikes me is our obvious difference in attitude. It is interesting that we view the same act as opposites. You, evil and me, good. Many of your statements seem to be made out a place of ignorance and intentional diversion. I don’t mean that as a personal offense, rather an observation.
Every time I see someone using the words "believe" and "evolution" (or variants thereof) in the same sentence, I'm filled with the urge to reach for the spiked baseball bat.
Evolution isn't a matter of "belief", it's a matter of observed fact, accompanied by supertanker loads of empirical evidence.. In the folder on my hard drive devoted to scientific papers in the field of evolutionary biology, I now have a grand total of 3,832 scientific papers, all of them containing hard evidence for evolution. That's just a tiny fraction of the available literature, which now runs to somewhere around 1½ MILLION papers published in the field over the past 150 years. So can we, once and for all, drop the "belief" canard and put it in the bin where it belongs? Preferably with the freshly cremated remains of lying douche schooners such as Kent Hovind and Ken Ham?
Okay, grammar nazi, I understand from the mounting scientific literature that evolution is a strong explanation of nature itself.
HumbleThinker: "Okay, grammar nazi…"
He ain't the only Grammar Nazi. You will never see me say, "I believe the Theory of Evolution." I shall always say, "The Theory of Evolution is fact." Or, "I know the Theory of Evolution is fact."
I don't have to believe it. I KNOW it.
rmfr
Calilasseia: "I now have a grand total of 3,832 scientific papers, all of them containing hard evidence for evolution."
Damn, yungun. You sound like me.
NOTE: Not implying you are a yungun. It is just a "saying" where I come from when people get to my age.
I have whole DVDs with copies of science journal papers (PDFs). Lost count a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. Just wished I had labeled those DVDs better than (example): BkupData200309231338.
rmfr
Ooh, snark. Where have I seen this before?
I don’t know. Please, tell us. I’m sure it will be good. Filled with long lost vocabulary fueled by a proclivity towards truth.
Ooo. Someone does not like a rich vocabulary.
rmfr
Why is it that if a woman gives birth to a boy, she will be unclean for seven days but if she has a girl, she is tainted for fourteen days? (Leviticus 12:1-5). Are women polluted by childbirth and girl babies are filthier than boys?
@900ft Re: "Why is it that if a woman gives birth to a boy, she will be unclean for seven days but if she has a girl, she is tainted for fourteen days?"
Gee, that's odd... *quizzical look on face*... One would think it would be the exact opposite. Everybody knows that, in general, women are much neater and tidier than men.... *chuckle*...
Hey there, 900ft. Welcome to the AR. As you may have noticed already, there is much to see and do here. And with a name like yours, I imagine you are not afraid of the deep end of the pool. lol So jump on in and start making waves. Good to have you with us.
@tin man
I actually smiled at your response, both clever and witty. Thanks.
@900ft
It’s not. Christians don’t believe this. Maybe Jews, but then again, they got a lot wrong. ; )
"What is God’s gender? If it has a gender, why? If it has no gender, why?"
I'm convinced that if there was a god of Abraham, that god would have to be male. Only a man could oppress women as well as the god of Abraham has : )
@Skeptical Kevin Re: "I'm convinced that if there was a god of Abraham, that god would have to be male. Only a man could oppress women as well as the god of Abraham has : )"
Bah-ZING!.... Pop!... Bang!... BOOOOOOOOM!.... And that one, ladies and gentlemen, is out of the park!... *shielding eyes with hand while watching ball go over the center field stadium wall into the south parking lot*...
Greetings to you, Mr. Skeptical! You keep hitting like that and we may have to put you on the roster as a pinch hitter. Great having you with us. Come on in and make yourself at home.
You have to wonder if theists are irony impaired sometimes. I mean patriarchal societies in which women were little more than chattel to male relatives and then a husband, producing a deity that was at best chauvinistic and at worst downright misogynistic.
@Tin Man, thank you! Only signed up here about a hour ago, so I'm still very new. Thank you for the kind welcome!
@Kevin
I noticed in your profile you are in the fabulous Bible Belt. Ain't it wonderful? I'm a good ol' Southern boy myself. Alabama, to be exact... *chuckle*... Believe it or not, I actually know a couple of atheists around my area. And each of them had a part in helping me get to where I am now in my journey of shedding religion. Granted, though, atheists are definitely few and far between in these parts. Still, it's my life-long home. Oddly enough, despite being almost constantly surrounded by God/Jesus out in public, I actually enjoy it more now since I finally escaped the clutches of my religious indoctrination. Go figure... *shrugging shoulders*.... *grin*...
@ Kevin
Hi Kevin and Welcome. Seems like you will fit right in.
Don't laugh at Tin Man's "jokes" you will only encourage him.
I like the one about an omniscient deity that is a monoglot. It alwaysamazes me that adherents to religions don't see the "coincidence" in their deity's diktat so closely reflecting the culture from which it was derived, especially the language. How blinded by bias would a theist have to be to think s deity favours their language over all other human languages, and not see the irony?
The idea an omniscient deity can ONLY communicate effectively through one human language, that just happens to be the original language of the human creators of that religion just shouldn't need to be pointed out.
Anymore than it's miracles only ever occurring when it's adherents are around, then drying up when objective observers abound or try to test for them.
Or the simple unassailable fact that no claim for a miracle or supernatural event has ever stood up to critical scrutiny by being objectively validated. Coupled of course with organised religions committing known frauds for such miracles throughout their history.
One of the embarrassing (for supernaturalists, if they did but realise it) observations I've made is this.
When the only people around to "witness" such events, were pre-scientific nomads who couldn't count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses, Magic Man allegedly unleashed all manner of fabulous pyrotechnics for them to watch. Wind forward to the 21st century, and what do we see? The planet is literally bristling with sensors of all sorts, ranging from the several billion smartphone cameras now deployed by humans all over the planet, through to space based telescopes, neutrino and gravitational wave detectors, not to mention particle accelerators the size of a small country, satellites in low Earth orbit surveying the landscape right across the electromagnetic spectrum, and enough civilian and military radars covering the planet to home in on anything unusual. Yet none of those fabulous pyrotechnics have put in an appearance, in a manner detectable by any of this vast array of sensors. Apparently, Magic Man is now reduced to various pathetic acts of food vandalism.
This is even before we factor in to the equation, that the universe itself is constructed on a scale at least nine orders of magnitude greater than the authors of mythology though it was. Planet Earth alone possesses three entire continental land masses that the authors of Abrahamic mythologies knew nothing about, and this should be a serious source of embarrassment to any adherents of those mythologies residing on those land masses. The authors of these mythologies knew nothing about vast swathes of the biosphere - fully forty entire phyla of living organisms were unknown to them. They knew nothing about bacteria, the vast swathes of protists, and as for some of the more exotic astronomical phenomena that have been brought into view via our telescopes, they couldn't even fantasise about these entities, let alone provide us with a scientifically consistent and coherent account thereof.
The same authors of these mythologies, also peddled a frankly ludicrous tale, that the entire planet was purportedly covered in 9,000 metres of water over and above that present today, just because Magic Man had a psychotic hissy fit. Worse still, certain adherents of these mythologies not only treat this nonsensical drivel about a "global flood" as fact, but rejoice in the gigantic act of biocide that it would have constituted, had it been anything other than the product of the rectal passage of one or more superstition-addled specimens immortalising their psychosis on papyrus. The frankly inhuman glee with which creationists masturbate over the sick "global flood" fantasy, would be treated as signs of a clinically significant mental disease, if it were directed toward anything other than the requisite mythology. Yet because this mythology is treated as if it were the product of a fantastic magic entity, instead of a collection of bad fairy tales by people who thought talking snakes were real, and whose approach to disease was pathetically ludicrous even by the standards of the era, let alone in the light of 21st century medicine, this florid psychosis is treated not as a cause for grave concern in some quarters, but as something to be celebrated.
Oh, and as for that ludicrous approach to disease, just head over to Leviticus 13, and see something that looks like an out-take from The Life of Brian taken to Spinal Tap 11. Which would be hilarious in the extreme, were it not for the existence of palsied dickwads who treat this shite as fact, and while doing so, end up killing their own fucking children, because they prefer to masturbate over mediaeval superstition than to call an actual qualified doctor. Worse still, some of these dickwads live in a country that has been thus far, the only country to send human beings to the Moon and bring them back alive. The decline thereof is pitiful to observe in this respect, and not merely because it has temporarily chosen to place a self-propelled Cheeto in the White House.
Meanwhile, with respect to purported "miracles", my favourite piece of apologetic excrement (for comedy purposes only, I hasten to add), is that Fatima nonsense about the Sun purportedly zipping about the sky, for all the world like an astronomical version of a kitten doing a catnip spazzdance. This was supposed to have been observed in Portugal in 1917, when a large crowd of superstition addled people gathered on a hillside in anticipation of a supposed "miracle", and the local refractive conditions in the atmosphere happened coincidentally to produce sundogs. Whereupon the inevitable frenzy was unleashed. Except that, oops, if the Sun had really moved about the sky in this manner, it would have been travelling at speeds massively in excess of the speed of light, and a certain Mr. A. Einstein would have much to say on this if he were alive today. If, on the other hand, the Sun remained in its usual position, and the Earth moved in this manner to produce the same effect, the accelerative forces would have squashed those on the forward side of the planet to pancake shaped mush, and left those on the rearward side of the planet suddenly finding themselves floating in deep space. Then, of course, we can factor in here that none of the world's astronomers noticed anything unusual happening to the Sun that day, or for that matter any of the billion or so other humans in other locations on the planet on the day in question. While we're at it, motions of this sort, if they had actually happened, would have left profound observational consequences for the orbital mechanics of every body in the Solar System, consequences that would remain detectable to the present, yet, lo and behold, no such observational consequences have been found.
On the other hand, anyone familiar with light refraction is well placed to work out what actually happened on the day. Unless of course, a particularly unusual Alcubierre warp bubble was formed on the day in question, though even that scenario is replete with issues, such as the fact that light distortion arising therefrom would be globally visible, and not restricted to one small corner of Portugal filled with Jeebus-heads. Astronomers in particular would sit up and take notice very quickly if such visual phenomena materialised in our neighbourhood, and the discourse on this would not only be filling the academic literature for decades, but be headline news around the world.
Apparently, it's not just iron chariots that Magic Man is scared of, he's also scared of cameras, telescopes and radar.
Pages