New religion

[DeistPaladin]

Maybe I should further qualify what I meant ... That there seems to be a standard that distinguishes between right and wrong, and is not open to individual choice, is evident. As you mentioned, war crimes are not “right”, so is mutilating animals for personal pleasure or pedophilia. Thus a set of standards which is independent of individual choice/preference, would be an “objective standard”, as its origin is “outside the subject/individual making the judgement”

Yes. My points on empathy and the social contract provide an explanation for why such things are wrong. I am satisfied with that explanation.

By contrast, I would not be satisfied with your explanation "GodWillsIt". This simplistic, dare I say vapid, explanation offers no elucidation as to what morality is or why such examples you mention are inherently wrong. It's little more than a "cause I said so" that we were never really satisfied with as children.

I just can't repeat enough that the Christian's "moral argument for God", like similar apologetic arguments, is worrying about a problem that doesn't exist and then positing a flippant, vapid GodWillsIt, GodIsIt, GodDidIt, GodDoesIt, etc as the solution.

Your answer does not address the issue of the relevance of your value system as the criteria for right and wrong, whereas others may have a different set of values.

Actually, it does. The values of others is not relevant.

No reference to unborn children and the argument of protection of those unable to protect their own interests- which should be the “hallmark” of a better society. Now it is “No 1” that counts.

The 1st trimester fetus isn't a sentient, self-aware being, as it has no brain by which to experience reality. It's a collection of cells, nothing more.

You would have noticed what the process was...

Regardless of the process, the end result was to murder a troublesome child at the parent's behest. All that was required is the say-so of the father. There is no judicial process by which the child could appeal or plead innocence. The final punishment, death, is far beyond anything a civil or moral society would enact for the "crimes" of being a drunkard, etc. This treatment of children, while probably unfortunately common in ancient times, is shocking to our modern sensibilities and an example of how we are more moral now than in ancient times. It certainly is not indicative of a law laid down by a wise and benevolent god.

But back to the issue of abortion, my point was to offer this passage of scripture as one example of many that the Bible places ZERO value on the life of children, that they are the property of their fathers and can be murdered virtually at will by the father's say-so.

The argument of brain functioning is thus the criterion?

Yes. We have moral obligations to one another as self-aware being. We have no moral obligations to trees or rocks. These things are not self-aware.

Thus people with brain damage may be killed?

See what you can do to avoid the straw man argument in the future. I have not advocated such a position.

Awareness the only value to life?

Self-awareness, consciousness, sentience, yes. What other criteria is there?

Are you not just a collection of cells?

I sure don't think so. I think that I am a conscious being who is more than the sum of my parts. You believe in "souls" do you not? I'm not so sure about "souls" myself but would still use the term as a metaphor for the very real quality of self-awareness.

The (fetus) is not an “it”, it is a human being in the process of development.

Bold paraphrase above mine. I assume you refer not to a "child" but a 1st trimester fetus, yes? In any event, you deny such a thing is an "it" but then use the pronoun "it" to refer to it. Gotcha.

Aside bit of trivia, distinct gender doesn't form until later and all unborn are female at first.

Why are mothers going through such trauma when they abort?

They don't. There are a lot of lies told about abortion and this is one of them.

I do not know what the reasons (for outlawing the consumption of shell fish) were, but you will know that the distinction between “clean” and “unclean” animals existed before then (See the flood) and thus there would have been health reasons for the prohibition.

I have little doubt that there were reasons for the banning of certain food. If people got sick and died from eating them, people might have concluded that they died from divine punishment. Religion, like art and other forms of culture, develop out of a civilizations attempts to understand their world. None of this indicates authorship by a timeless universal god.

The passage, like many of the taboos of the OT, were intended for all time. That there is a "New Testament" at all indicates that the Biblical god does change over time, else nothing "New" would ever be needed.

Now if somebody offered you a gift that will change you whole future, are you going to describe to him what the conditions should be?

I haven't asked for conditions. I've simply concluded that the belief is absurd.

Jesus will give you a new life and remove your sins – without you deserving it. And you complain because you think “the price is unfair?”

There's a price for a "gift". Than it is not a gift. By definition. And again, I have not "complained" but simply regard the belief as absurd.

Jesus suffered that on your behalf so you can have eternal life.

Why would that be necessary? I can forgive without bleeding on a cross. Why is "God" not able to? What higher power compels Jesus to perform a ritual of blood sacrifice as the method of atonement? Does he make the rules or not?

harsh words with your wife forgiven

I've not had harsh words with my wife. We butt heads sometimes but never insult one another. Do you understand the distinction? If not, she and I both identified with John and Abigail Adams in the various biographies we've read.

If I ever did have harsh words for my wife, I would ask her to forgive me and I'm confident no bloodshed would be required. This is how secular morality works.

But don't worry, you cannot prove there is no God, so shall we say "truce"?

Again, the burden of proof lies with the one who believes something exists.

[Epimethean]

I love how the circular apologists somehow think that if they run around long enough in tighter and tighter circles, they can come out even with those they avoid in their lack of proving their case.

Truce. LOL!

[The Grand Nudger]

The argument was about one person accepting this and the other that which makes it subjective (“taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a subjective judgment").

"I don't like where this is headed, so I'm going to do the same as any other apologist and attempt to steer the conversation away from anything which might not be on my list of prepared points that I thought were unassailable"

No problem. You just have not provided a base against which to judge (other than own preference). If you do have such a basis, I would dearly like to hear what it is and why?

Actually I did, and again, it's called citizenship and law. Neither have anything to do with my own preference. I didn't write the laws, I don't establish peoples citizenship.

Your argument to substantiate your claim that God does not exist? I believe the Bible to be the Word of God and thus I accept what He says as truth. You accept other matters as truth, such as there is no God

I accept the conclusions that verifiable evidence leads us to. Your favorite myth has been annihilated by this evidence in every conceivable way. It is not history, and the events attributed to god did not occur. Fairy tales. End of. You disagree? Evidence? Your god, your cross to bear. Stop trying to lay your burden on others and do your own work.

So good is good because you say so? Evil is evil because you say so? That is the standard? I am sure that you will find many people disagreeing with you on what is good and what is evil. It is generally accepted that Hitler was not what we will call “good”, with war crimes that cry out. Yet there were (and maybe still is) people that regard him as a hero (Palestinian Radio as an example). Thus you see the problem with subjectivity?
Yes, you are right, we often make mistakes and we all accept that “to err is human”. No doubt about that.

No, good is good because we say so, which is exactly how it was decided by the authors of your myth as well. But hell, maybe you're the guy who can provide demonstrable evidence for objective morality. Maybe you'll finally answer that "what is good" question for the entirety of humanity. Based upon the level of discourse thusfar I doubt it.

It will be great if you could highlight some of the “garbage” so we may critically examine it. Of course the cross sounds stupid to others. It was never claimed to be a real attraction to the world.
1Co 1:18 For the Word of the cross is foolishness to those being lost, but to us being saved, it is the power of God.
1Co 1:22 And since Jews ask for a sign, and Greeks seek wisdom,
1Co 1:23 we, on the other hand, preach Christ crucified (truly an offense to Jews, and foolishness to Greeks),

Sure, open your bible, start with the first word. Now, read it to the last word, and close your bible. Everything you've just read is garbage. Cover to cover. Don't toss a 5 gallon jug of alphabet soup at me and then demand that I point out just which "t" isn't crossed. If you think you can salvage any part of the narrative be my guest and we'll start there. If the only way you can do this is by ignoring large tracts of the narrative then don't waste my time. I'll tell you now exactly how it will end. You're a cherry picker.

At the risk of proving your point of sounding “sanctimonious”, I do not for one small moment wish to send you to hell. That is the honest to goodness truth. I am no “goody-goody” person with a continuous smile of pure bliss on his face but a person that gets angry at guys obstructing the traffic at intersections (may favorite gripe) and can sulk for days (ask my wife). But I would rather wish that God will look upon you with grace and mercy and make him known to you through the work of the Holy Spirit.
Whether you accept Jesus’ sacrifice is up you.

I understand that you would rather wish, that's why christianity appeals to you in the first place. Perhaps god has looked upon me in mercy, and that's why he created me to be an atheist? Never forget that any god (if he did exist) might just be completely embarrassed by your beliefs. You're right, the last bit is up to me, and I've decided. I've decided not to accept this offering even if it were true because it's sick, and I don't want to be a part of it. I would not wish to be in the presence of a deity who would do this, and I certainly would not want to spend an eternity surrounded by people who felt that it was okay to do so. Maybe that's the test eh? Perhaps those who wont be complacent in scapegoating are the kind of people that god wishes to surround himself with. My imaginary god is bigger and less vile than your own, not exactly a good sign for your concept of what an omni-(insert everything here) god would be or might desire.

If you're looking for a truce with atheism then I have some conditions, should be easy to meet. If you keep your mouth shut I'll keep my mouth shut.

[Carnavon]

Hi Guys. Sorry I am really tied up to get everything done before I go on holiday on Monday - for the next 3 weeks. I will not have time to respond to your questions but I am sure we will find time early next year to continue with the conversation.

I would like to wish you all a merry Christmas and a beautiful 2012. I would like to share this song with you at this time and trust you will accept it in the spirit of goodwill in which it is shared.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zh-yR0pb...e=youtu.be

[Epimethean]

Much like a frightened fish, Carn has taken the proverbial dump and quit the scene.

[Carnavon]

Much like a frightened fish, Carn has taken the proverbial dump and quit the scene.

Not quite. Trust you will all have a wonderful 2012 and looking forward to sharing some ideas from time to time, as things are a bit hectic at present.

[Epimethean]

Cheers, Carn.

[Carnavon]

Cheers, Carn.

Cheers Epimethean

[DeistPaladin]

Cheers, Carn.

Out of curiosity, what does your name mean, Epi?

[xxxtobymac]

ok, it seems like anyone can create a religion nowdays, so i think i'm going to start my own and call myself god and have people kill each other proving that i am the true god without any proof. and i'm going to have adult shove this knowlege down their throats during theere developmental age. so they can believe without ever thinking for themselves...

And what are you going to use to decide as what is right and wrong. Your own judgement? OK then, tell us what it will be and why? Again I see a lot of stereotypes without any proper argument. Forgive me , but I thought that atheists were supposed to base their arguments on reason, and not cliches? I have been proven wrong on this assumption umpteenth times.

how do i decide what is right and wrong, well hell I'm sure not going to use the christianity version of it because damn. that shit's fucked up. any idea that supports slavery, killing your kid, incest, unequal rights, and against abortion and gay rights, then i say fuck no, but how about this you can do whatever the hell you wanna do as long as your not an ass to someone else. hmmm, sounds alot easier than having to be a judgmental ass, who tries to strike fear into someone by saying you are going to an imaginary hell. I have no problem with the knowing that after i die everything just ends. There is a great book called "Good without God" but since your god says you shouldn't question him. maybe you shouldn't read it.