The New Jesus Timeline

[Ryantology]

The funny thing is, even if the content of his signature is precisely true, in no way does that demonstrate a flaw in the argument for evolution, it's similar to the argument that Yahweh is evil: it demonstrates why no sane person should want to worship him, but it is beside the point, because there is no Yahweh.

[Reforged]

Your foundation for all this is everything created itself. Rational? No. scientifically impossible.

Would you care to point out the post that said everything created itself as opposed to simply not claiming to know the origin of all life?
Could you also point out when your explanation "God did it" became scientifically possible in anyway, shape or form?
Thanks. :-)

---

Let this be a primer on biblical ideas regarding abortion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq3U09DeKpg

Well yes but... hm well maybe if... no... ok well... actually, you know what?
I admit it, I'd tap that.

[Simon Moon]

This is where the "IF" comes in concerning the rights of others. "IF" justifies your support of a woman killing her baby which is a part of her. Ok got it.

This is how you answered me concerning rights being imprtant.

Rights are the social recognition of your identity as a human being.
It is the sanction given as a result of acceptance of your capacity for autonomy and rationality.

Who are you trying to force to recognize others socially by rights?
Where do you get this?

Who is obligated to accept anyone's autonomy and rationality in a world that was formed by random mutations with no intelligence behind the forming of life?

Your foundation for all this is everything created itself. Rational? No. scientifically impossible.

About 65% of all fertilized eggs do not implant or are ejected after implantation. They are human beings..right?

Looks like 'God' is responsible for the vast majority of abortions. That baby murderer...

[Cyberman]

Also, evolution doesn't explain why we have autonomy. Being evolved from an accident would mean any actions such as murder, rape, pedophilia would just be the result of the same accident. The pedophile can then get away with "I was born like this" if you disagree then you deny what evolution caused him to do.

Yesterday, quite by accident, I found some cash while out in the street. Not a fortune, I couldn't retire on it. If I were to take that money, buy a boxcutter (what we call a Stanley knife) and then slice up an OAP for her pension money, who is responsible? The little old lady for being in the wrong place at the wrong time? The post office teller who paid her the money? The DWP officer (of which I used to be one) who handles her pension claim? The guy in the shop who sold me the knife? The person who lost the money in the first place for me to find? The people working in the Royal Mint who printed all that money? The designers who struck the printing plates from which the notes were minted? The guy who invented the fiscal system of trading cash for goods and services? Mr Ugg or whatever his name was who invented sharp implements at the dawn of man?

At some point you have to stop this childish game of according blame for your own actions on the bogeyman. My little niece Rosie turned nine a few days ago and she'd be embarrassed even to try the "Mr Nobody" argument you're spouting here.

(Incidentally, I didn't really find any money. Well, a penny, but I left it where it was.)

[genkaus]

This is where the "IF" comes in concerning the rights of others. "IF" justifies your support of a woman killing her baby which is a part of her. Ok got it.

What "if"?

This is how you answered me concerning rights being imprtant.

Rights are the social recognition of your identity as a human being.
It is the sanction given as a result of acceptance of your capacity for autonomy and rationality.

And since the fetus - or if your prefer the unborn baby - is not autonomous, has no capacity for rationality, we are not required to grant it the same recognition and therefore it has not rights.

Who are you trying to force to recognize others socially by rights?

The society. And no force is necessary. That recognition is usually the basis of the society.

Where do you get this?

Usually in the founding and governing principles of the society.

Who is obligated to accept anyone's autonomy and rationality in a world that was formed by random mutations with no intelligence behind the forming of life?

Anyone who wishes to assert his own.

Your foundation for all this is everything created itself. Rational? No. scientifically impossible.

No. As I explained earlier, my foundation for this is that human are autonomous and rational beings and granting them recognition as such (by giving them their rights) would be the rational thing to do.

---

Who is obligated to accept anyone's autonomy and rationality in a world that was formed by random mutations with no intelligence behind the forming of life?

Anyone who wishes to have their own autonomy and rationality recognized.....?

I'm sure Genk will have something more eloquent to say here...but I couldn't help but point out the obvious.

Nope. That's about it.

[DeistPaladin]

Let me see if I can do a quick summary of seven good reasons why secular morality is superior to theistic morality:

1. (Perhaps most important) Theistic morality confuses the issues of what morality is and what is moral.

By its nature, religion will be concerned with gaining more followers and gaining increased obedience with its established followers. This is why when you read through the Bible or Koran, often what is described as "evil" are such victimless crimes as idolatry, blasphemy and apostasy. Other moral issues and labeled "abominations" have to do with failure to adhere to rituals and traditions, like not working on the Sabbath or not eating certain kinds of food.

Read the 10 commandments if you don't have time to read the whole Bible. You'll notice that the first four, the one's that Yahweh thought of first and foremost, have to do with religious adherence and not real moral issues. A few deal with how we treat others (don't murder, don't steal, etc) but the majority prohibit victimless crimes. This muddying of the waters is not helpful to our understand of what is moral or what morality is.

By contrast, secular morality focuses on the issue with laser-like precision. Morality is a function of how we treat our fellow sentient beings.

2. Theistic morality provides an "easy out"

When you do wrong in theism, you pray to a god to forgive you or perhaps perform some useless rituals of penance that do nothing to clean up the mess.

When you do wrong as a secularist, you apologize to those you've wronged and seek to make direct amends.

Jesus sacrificing himself on a cross and other blood sacrifice rituals do nothing to clean up any messes.

Newt Gingrich is a great example of how twisted this system of morality and atonement is. He says he doesn't have to answer for his adultery despite being a professed "family values" politician. Jesus forgave him and that's that. Has he apologized to any of his ex-wives?

3. "GodWillsIt" is not an answer

Just as "GodDidIt" doesn't satisfy our curiosity about science, "GodWillsIt" does nothing to help us understand morality. This is an appeal to authority, little better than "Cause I said so".

Compare this with secular morality where things labeled "wrong" or "evil" are activities that involve a victim. Morality can be explained in terms of such useful tools as "the social contract" or in term of our sense of empathy and community. Saying, for example, that slavery is wrong because it violates the rights of others and we would not wish to be treated this way is far more elucidating than "cause big daddy in sky says so".

4. Euthephro's Dilemma

Does GodWillIt because its good or is it good because GodWillsIt?

If GodWills what is good, than goodness exists outside of and independent to God. That which is evil would thus remain so without God.

If things are good in accordance with what GodWills, than this is little more than a might-makes-right system of justice. The rules are just as arbitrary as with any human imposed system. Therefore, GodWillsit wouldn't solve the problems Elunico frets over.

Apologists, typical of their style when in a conundrum, try to make it "both and yet neither". They babble about goodness being ingrained in the very nature of their god. Beyond the fact that this is a bare assertion, it's also viciously circular. "We know that God is good because God is good and so we know that God only wills what is good because God is good."

5. Read the damn Bible already!

Yahweh can't seem to answer no-brainer moral issues that humans have long since solved. Issues like rape, slavery and genocide are ones that Yahweh can't seem to provide a correct answer to.

6. Christianity is a dangerous belief system

Any religion that proposes a good god vs. evil devil system is going to demonize any who are not part of the religion. By process of elimination, any who do not serve the defined good god must be in league with or at least duped by the devil. If you believe your enemy is in league with the devil, you are capable of doing anything to him.

Worse, any religion that proposes a faith-based scheme of salvation is going to push atrocity. After all, if killing a few heathens saves thousands of souls for all eternity, isn't that a good thing. The stakes are as high as they can be if there's a real danger of your children going to Hell for all time. No wonder Christianity has such a violent history.

7. Look at the results

Secular societies do not explode into a fireball of mayhem and murder when they lose their religion. Quite to the contrary, social studies have shown that crime rates fall along with teen pregnancy and other social indicators show that secular societies are happier and better adjusted.

Neither do individuals lose their morality when they lose their religion. I can tell you this from all the ex-Christians I've known.

OK, did I miss anything?

[Cyberman]

DP, with your permission I'd like to share your excellent post on my Facebook wall. I don't have millions of friends and followers but I feel it deserves a somewhat broader audience; plus there are one or two churchy types, including my old schoolfriend-turned-Lichfield Cathedral spindoctor, who really ought to have something more solid to chew on than just their usual pie in the sky. Of course, I'll await your reply before doing anything.

[DeistPaladin]

DP, with your permission I'd like to share your excellent post on my Facebook wall. I don't have millions of friends and followers but I feel it deserves a somewhat broader audience; plus there are one or two churchy types, including my old schoolfriend-turned-Lichfield Cathedral spindoctor, who really ought to have something more solid to chew on than just their usual pie in the sky. Of course, I'll await your reply before doing anything.

Absolutely. Spread the Word! (...so to speak)

---

(just to add, you may want to edit the part where I mention "what Eluncio frets over" only because they may not know who he is. You may edit his moniker with [this Christian apologist] or whatever suits you.)

[Cyberman]

Done and done!

[Minimalist]

Very well said, D-P, but of course it will be lost on the morons who insist their "god" is real.