If everything has a purpose then evil doesn't exist

[h4ym4n]

Here's an idea - try taking scientific knowledge at face value, and see where that takes your philosophy.  Assuming that an ancient writing is literally and factually correct, and bending your world-view to it, is unlikely to lead to truth.

will do... doing... doing... done.. All scientific knowledge taken at face value, Now what?

Wonder how many scientific life lengthening prescription drugs your taking when a church healing is probably within a mile of your location.

[R-Farmer]

You're plain and simply wrong here.  You either believe that all x is y, or you believe that at least one x is z.  I suppose you could believe both, in the sense that people often do hold two mutually exclusive beliefs at the same time?  The third option being that you hold explicitly irrational beliefs, not that a tautology is a false dichotomy.

Again if X is a variable (the value of x changes) then X does not have to be Y or Z. Your equation sets the value of X as constant. My argument demonstrates that X is not a constant as the value of "x' changes over time. Before you can represent X as a constant you must first demonstrate the value of 'X' does not change. once you do that you can then conclude X=Y or X=Z. Because right now X may = Y, or X may=Z but if society changes then the value of x will also change.

If god's might...or anyones might...really... is the good or bad making property, then morality is both subjective and arbitrary.  Not relative.

How so?

You know...this one comes up every time I have this discussion.  

probably because it is the Achilles heel of your idea of morality.

Sure, identical propositions have identical implications.  If it's bad to do x - it's bad to do x in 1492 or 1992. If it's not bad to do x in 1992 then it wasn't bad to do x in 1492. 

What about slavery, or killing the unborn? one evil is valid in one time and the other is valid in another time. It is bad to own slaves in 1992 not not bad in 1492. It is bad to kill babies in 1492, it is not bad to kill babies in 1992. At least by the relative societal standard. 

As a point of interest, you can't rationally justify murder with an objective moral system. 

Sure you can. in this society is it called justifiable homicide. all you need to justify murder is a reason like self defense, state mandated execution, abortion, assisted suicide, (Canadian health care offers it.) etc..

Mostly, because murder refers to a specific type of killing that is explicitly unjustifiable.  That people have nevertheless come up with absurd rationalizations for the slaughter of children is very clear in the abrahamic tradition and cultures that sprang from it, I agree.  

What about abortion? is it not the taking of an innocent human life? even if you do not consider it murder in the first 2 trimesters what of last term or partial birth abortion where a fully developed baby is destroyed while partially out of the womb??

What of post birth abortion that was purposed:
This article is about the neologism used in a paper. For euthanasia of newborns, see child euthanasia. For pregnancy abortion, see abortion.
"After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?" is a controversial[1] article published by Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini in Journal of Medical Ethics in 2013 (available online from 2012) arguing to call child euthanasia "after-birth abortion" and highlighting similarities between abortion and euthanasia.[2] The article attracted media attention[3][4] and several scholarly critiques.[5][6][7][8][9] According to Michael Tooley, "Very few philosophical publications, however, have evoked either more widespread attention, or emotionally more heated reactions, than this article has."[10][11]

The argument of the article is as follows:

Abortion is justified because of the moral status of foetuses (their shared status of 'potential persons' is not morally relevant)
Abortion is justified when the foetus has severe abnormalities or would be an intolerable burden to its mother/family (at least when adoption is not a viable option due to not being in the best interests of actual persons)
Newborns have the same moral status as foetuses (there are no morally relevant differences between them), if they suffer unbearably
Newborns may be born with severe abnormalities (that cannot always be diagnosed before birth) and can be an intolerable burden on their mother/family (including when circumstances change after birth)
Therefore, "after-birth abortion" (euthanasia of newborns) can be justified in some circumstances
-from wiki

I'm truly glad we can agree on at least one basic fact.  Moral conclusions have changed over time.  

that is the foundation of what I have to say. I was under the impression that your position was that object morality does not change, and my position was ALL forms of morality do in fact change.

Sure, I think it's possible that some moral conclusions change over time because they proceed from relativist foundations in a changing society.  Gods many changes of heart from old magic book to new are representative of that.  I also think it's possible that some moral conclusions change over time because people are making new mistakes.  From an objectivists point of view, the only way to rectify that situation would be to correct those mistakes.  In all three cases, moral conclusions would change over time - but they each represent distinct metaethical claims.  This is why moral conclusions changing doesn't demonstrate that the moral conclusions are relative.  

then define your use of the word relative. because to me changes to the moral code based on an evolving society, does in fact demonstrate the newly adopted moral conclusions are in fact relative. Relative being defined as: : a thing having a relation to or connection with or necessary dependence on another thing.
Changes in morality are based on changes in society. IE the changes to object morality are defined by the moral conclusions of society.

What separate man's morality from God's righteousness is that when man uses his morality to judge God's laws 'immoral' It shows a relativistic change in the society based morality and proves god's standard has not changed with it. as God morality was the foundation or starting point of the evolution of man's morality.

More fundamentally, relativist moral systems cannot include objective moral values - because relativism explicitly excludes objectivist propositions as valid moral propositions.  In an objectivist system the question is whether or not x possesses the good or bad making properties.  In relativism, what your society says is the good or bad making property.  As an objectivist, I have no problem whatsoever pointing out the ways in which my very christian society has been morally incorrect.

Philosophically I agree. However practically speaking can you name just ONE Objectively moral principle that has never changed? If you can't then does that not demonstrate my point? that all forms of morality are relative.

You caught me.  I'm basically the worst.  Shame on me for believing that there are moral facts!  Moahitlerkim McRomanslaver.

So... with this statement you are saying you are comfortable being in the middle of whatever society deems 'moral' so long as everyone else is doing it? even if subsequent generations or people outside of this society deem what you find moral, evil?

If this is your position then that's fine.. But why then cast judgement (in the way of several posts) puts you in a position that judge god and his followers for essentially for doing the same thing in their time/out of this soceity?

[R-Farmer]

Have you consulted a naval architect on the construction of livestock barges?

As soon as I find one certified in building ships made from wormwood, I will ask that question. As the properties and load bearing factors of wormwood are evidently different than any other wood available in that region at that time. Which is maybe why God told Noah to build it out of wormwood.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

They's some stupid shit being posted here lately.

[arewethereyet]

They's some stupid shit being posted here lately.

We have AIG guy here so not much better can be expected.  

It's not even Lent or Advent but the Christians are coming, the Christians are coming.  

[Silver]

They're coming, alright, all over their bibles.

[R-Farmer]

will do... doing... doing... done.. All scientific knowledge taken at face value, Now what?

Wonder how many scientific life lengthening prescription drugs your taking when a church healing is probably within a mile of your location.

You do understand the purpose of miracles and healing right?

The primary purpose of healing was to establish that the one doing the healing had the endorsement of God, So that when He delivered God's message to the leadership or people they knew He spoke with the direct authority of God, and could amend change or redirect the law or the people themselves. (present them with God's will)

Biblically speaking Miracles were never once used as a form of physical maintenance on the body, or meant as a prescribed way to reliably "fix" broken people. So then why would you expect us to use a one off ability, to maintain a healthy life? 

As, Once the Church was established there was no need for the miracles to continue. as god's work and final plan was complete.

And the answer was 4 1 allergy, 1 blood pressure, was taking one for cholesterol and one for heart rate but the new Dr took me off of those two. after I quit drinking all coffee tea and sodas. (only drink water now.)

[Angrboda]

Apparently, Jesus' bodily resurrection wasn't a miracle. TIL.

[Ahriman]

Coffee is shit but soda is pretty nice. Can't just drink water all the time, that's too boring.

[Mister Agenda]

Sounds like you're a JW. Is that correct?

I'm a non denominational believer going to a baptist church.

I believe King's Cross Station in London is real, I don't think that gets me halfway to believing in the Wizarding World of Harry Potter.

I'm not convinced that Jesus was an authority on hell.

Do you believe the author of Harry Potter JK Rowling is an expert on Her books? If she says some previously unknown realm existed in her world would she not be uniquely qualified to amend HP canon? Jesus being the author of CHRISTianity is also in a similar position. He is the authority of this religion for no other reason that this religion is based on His teachings. 

You do not have to believe in Christ, to acknowledge his authority in Christian canon. Meaning even if you don't think he was real, The theology surrounding The teachings of this figure real or not are the basis for in universe christian canon. Making all who believe or even want to discuss christian canon beholden to the teachings ascribed to him real or not.

All you're saying is Jesus knows there's a hell in the religion he invented, like Rowling knows Hogwarts exists in the world she invented. I don't disagree.

I'm not even convinced he was a real person, though I lean about 51% in that direction. You have to believe the Bible is true before any of the stories can be convincing; and I have found the Bible to be very unconvincing in the first place. I reject the idea that I should accept some promise without evidence just because it was made before fact checking was a thing.

Whether the Bible is true or not for the purpose of discerning whether or not something is apart of Christian canon or not is irrelevant. Because before you can test the validity of the claims concerning the bible, you must approach it canonically. (by the established rules and stories) If you just randomly decide to just pick a 2000 to 6000 year old story and try and make it conform to modern scrutiny then you are intentionally poisoning the well. 

If you think that not taking a story that's thousands of years old at face value as true, you don't understand the concept of 'poisoning the well'. If you think that I'm arguing that the story that's thousands of years old isn't true because it's thousands of years old, you're misunderstanding me entirely.

I believe that if I asked and prayed hard enough for a vision of a Buddhist hell, I might get a vision of it.

This is a perfect example of my above point. In that, what in Buddhist canon would lead you to believe that your thought/prayer experiment would work? is there any prescribed mechanism in buddhist cannon that would lend itself to support your earnest efforts? If not then why would you think this is a valid test? Which again is why I'm suggesting to approach a given religion canonically if you are going to seriously study it.

I didn't derive that from Buddhist canon, I derived it from human nature. We can believe anything if we try hard enough.

If I went on a vision quest, I might have a vision of a talking animal. Visions seem to be very culture specific for some reason. It's almost like they come from inside the petitioner's own brain and are shaped by what they already believe.

are you dismissing vision quests outright?

I'm not dismissing their potential psychological value, but there's no convincing evidence that the visions originate from anywhere but inside our own brains.

Here's what I believe: a person's belief in something should be proportional to the evidence for it.

There were lots of things written before scientific standards of evidence  were formulated, and that's a terrible reason to believe them.

and it is worse reason to dismiss something just because it was written before what we deem to be modern science. why? because science is not absolute. it's just out best understanding so far.

Again, I never said that a story being old is sufficient cause to dismiss it.

Hearsay is terrible evidence.

I never suggested hearsay. I suggested that you go straight to the source.

The source is hearsay: information received from other people (the authors of the Bible) that one cannot adequately substantiate.

Visions are terrible evidence (problem of contradictory revelations).

why would you assume all dreams and visions produce contradictory revelation? Would you considered a vision that provided a revelation completely unknown to you but completely supported by a much older source? like for instance you never read or studied the Bible, but you have a dream/vision of a principle or in this case the place of hell, that is biblically accurate, verses dogmatically accurate. (What the church supports of Hell is not the same as what the Bible says of it. So lets say you get the Bible's version without having ever read or heard it.) would this be a valid vision or is it dismissed in your mind because of the format the information was conveyed? 

Why would you assume I assumed that? I never claimed that every single vision contradicts every single other vision, that would be improbable in itself. The other source would have to be inaccessible to the person having the vision for me to even start thinking it was significant. As an American, even if I never read or studied the Bible, I'd have absorbed most of the highlights from my culture. I would think YOU would find it more significant how many people's visions of hell match the most common conceptions of hell rather than the version you've derived from scripture through careful reading.

It's okay that you don't have good arguments for your religious beliefs, no one else does either.

lol.. I have what is called a theologicaly sound argument. as this is a theology based question/subject. Why would you expect me to produce a scientifically sound argument on a non scientific subject?

If you're not claiming the things you say you believe are actually true but only 'theologically true', why should I be interested? I'm not a theologist, and although I've read the Bible cover-to-cover 2.8 times, I'm no biblical scholar. You're describing something of only academic interest, and like most people, I'm not an academic. And someone who radically disagrees with you can have a 'theologically sound' argument.

Do you not understand that scientific methodologies do not have the tools or processes needed to study or discuss non scientific subjects? Do you try and apply science to all the other subject matters? do you look for scientific proof of Historical subjects? Do you try and disprove the validity of case law that does not lend itself to the scientific method? Then why would you demand a theological subject be held to a scientific standard, if you recognize that other fields of study have their own rules and expectations?

Apparently you think history is not a science, and that case law does not rely on verifiable evidence; that's not very impressive. If your theology is not actually true (does not conform to reality as best as we can determine it), I'm not actually interested.

I don't blame you for believing what you were raised to believe that's also what the people you love believe.

Actually I was not raise Christian. my father was a humanist/spiritualist He got that from his girlfriend, and applied it to us. Up until the last year of his life. then my mother got him to switch back to Christianity. He was a christian as a boy.

That's interesting. I think I meet (online or in real life) more Christians who say they weren't raised Christian than atheists who do.

That's very human. But I'll be very surprised if you have anything persuasive to anyone who doesn't already accept your premises.

Not if they demand scientific evidence for theological matters.. I would not suspect so.