Why the religious mindset can be so dangerous

[Neoliberal Fanfiction]

Well, the world is nuanced. Is killing always evil?

Of course not and we understand that intuitively. The bible explains this in detail but we also both understand intuitively that killing, in the case of self defense for instance, can sometimes be warranted. We don't need positive law to explain that to us.

What's more likely, in your opinion, that the natural laws of the universe were suspended for the Virgin Mary -- and a supernatural All-God impregnated her with his divine essence -- or that the Virgin Mary was not actually a virgin? Please answer this, then we can get onto the likelihood that evolution is 'very, very, very likely' guided by God.

Well, the Virgin Mary story is extremely important in Christian theology to understand the timeless and eternal nature of God. Just as God was incarnate in Mary as Jesus Christ, so was he incarnate from nothing before the universe existed as we know it. But that is Christian theology and I cannot prove its realness objectively just as you cannot prove that evolution is the result of randomness objectively.

What an utterly meaningless statement.

Just because you can't understand an argument doesn't mean that it's meaningless. Maybe I can make it more simple this time for you. If all of your sensory perceptions and ability to think and reason are the result of randomness, why would you assume any of it is true? How do you know your senses and reasoning faculties evolved to perceive an actual reality? You can't.

That's funny. Please post the actual mathematics and statistics supporting your argument.

You're just avoiding the argument. I have no idea what the chances are that matter would coalesce into a note that had your name written on it on some unknown planet. The point is the chances of that happening would be so incredibly small that it might as well be zero. Why would you assume then that the note was the result of some random geological event as opposed to intelligent design? Doesn't make sense intuitively.

Who determines who is relevant? You?

No, they don't. There are sects of Christianity who view the other side of Christianity as the literal Anti-Christ.

You'd get farther with me than you would with a Christian who viewed your brand of Christianity as pure evil. In a way, I'd be the objective third party.

This is literally just untrue. There is no significant denomination of Christianity which so virulently hates another prominent denomination of Christianity that they believe it is the work of the anti-Christ. It's totally pointless for me to defend Christian theology to an Atheist though, which is why I'm not getting into my specific theological beliefs and instead have mostly tried to stay on the topic of natural law, epistemology, and ontology. These are things I can actually argue with an Atheist on where we won't arrive at a total impasse.

The New Testament is demonstrably more liberal and progressive than the Old Testament. Why is that?

I've answered this 3 times in this thread alone. You can either go look for my answer, or google it.

Funny you should say that, since Jesus was a reforming of the prevailing order of his generation. You wouldn't have gotten along with Jesus had you been of the Old Order during his time.

Not really true. Many people, especially non-Christians, liken Jesus to a pot smoking hippy as opposed to a just, but loving individual. Forget the fact that the love God shows is far different in conception and meaning than the love a mortal man shows his wife. Jesus DESPISED sin. That would be a more accurate summation than he was a pot smoking hippy who encouraged pacifism and anarchy or something.

Heeeeeeeeeeere we go.

Please, continue. I want to know what other "sins" you'd abolish under your brand of government, if you had power.

Not an argument and avoiding the issue fallacy. I honestly don't expect very much from you at this point, so it's hardly surprising.

 

[Neoliberal Fanfiction]

Not through total randomness. Through genetic algorithm, which is the non-random selection of random mutation.

If you had trillions of notes with a random sequence of characters, and you had a mechanism that destroyed all the notes that were least similar to "Hello devildavid. Welcome to planet X. Have you brought recipes from earth?" and allowed the remaining notes to produce new notes with combinations of their component characters, with a small chance of randomly assigned characters, that system could easily produce such a note.

And if you could literally see this random character generator and non-random selection mechanism, and build a computer model of how it operates, and look at a history of past notes evolving from gibberish to gradually increasing similarity to the note in question, and you didn't see any signs of anyone else around who could have written that note, it is a pretty good bet that the note came from that random generator.

What is genetic algorithm built on? Did its laws appear spontaneously?

Even then, your reply totally misses the point of my post. It isn't whether or not a simple note (much more simple than the human eye, for instance) could theoretically be generated if we applied our modern understanding of computer science to the random formation of matter. The question is whether or not you'd assume that note was the result of total randomness or intelligent design. The reason answering this question is so important is because it puts the burden of proof on atheists. If all laws in the universe are the result of randomness at their foundation and therefore all life is... and so the chances of these things coming together to form you and I having a conscious conversation using our reasoning faculties would be infinitesimally small, why would we assume randomness before intelligent design? Intuitively it doesn't make sense.

It's ironic you mention the genetic algorithm, actually. Darwin himself had trouble with this very question when faced with certain realities like the Cambrian explosion, for instance. Darwin expected that in the future as science became more advanced, there would be a definitive answer to this phenomenon yet it still puzzles scientists to this day. Sure. there are theories. But there are not any answers.

 

[Neoliberal Fanfiction]

This is a very strange statement and you need to expand. In whaT cases is it “natural and good” to have inequality for certain behaviors, and what specifically are this behaviors.

If there is no consequence to your discussion about higher quality, then why even bring it up in the first place. Was there actually a point involved?

Uhm. Because you asked, remember?

Do you not understand the point of the post you are replying to? There are consequences to whether or not we consider "equality" or "tolerance" as being inherent virtues. Please reread my post and maybe think a little hard or something, I don't know.

You start with an absolutely huge "IF" of a "God". No proof given, no evidence given. Then you simply DEFINE this "God" as the source of all morality. Again, no proof, not even any evidence. And on this flimsy platform you erect your conclusion of "objective morality" and then later on somehow use this flim-flam to supposedly show that there is also "natural law". Again, no actual evidence or proof, we're just supposed to take this all on your say-so, or on other very flimsy conditions. And then you claim that is based in philosophy, which is a trap door that allows you to quickly dismiss quite valid disagreements.
And you keep claiming that the respondents just aren't smart enough to understand all of this and that it is your deep understanding of philosophy that allows you to see it all so much better than everyone else. Well, here's the truth: It's not that difficult to understand. It's very simplistic, really. The problem is that it just doesn't hold the water of logic very well. Lots and lots of holes in the logic bucket.

It sounds like you just don't understand what the scope of the argument is. If God is real, morality is objective. That is a statement which is not aiming to prove the existence of God. It is a statement of fact. There are MANY arguments for the existence of God. Arguments from natural law, ontological arguments, epistemological arguments, etc. I've made the case for natural law in this thread, but you repeatedly either intentionally misunderstand the argument I'm putting forth OR you actually misunderstand what God is and what He represents. You'll say stuff like "Prove natural law exists! Prove God exists!" while I'm sitting here banging my head off the desk because you can't understand that an argument from the foundation of natural law necessarily prove God exists. I'm not saying you have to believe it, but that is the philosophical argument.

If you actually knew what I was talking about, you would try to dismantle the argument which says human beings have a natural inclination toward a set of moral principles. If you can disprove that by proving that humans are either naturally chaotic or those set of moral principles inherent to us come from something else, then you disprove the argument and I lose. So far it's just been you failing to even understand what I'm talking about and it's super frustrating replying and repeating myself every time; especially when I'm having basically the same argument with like 5 other people.

BTW, you are not alone in the claim that those who disagree with your particular theology/philosophy are not very bright. Practically every theist who has produced their own little theory of "God" and posted it here have done the same. It is a common theme among the believers here that no atheist could ever understand the deep meaning of their particular construct. Except that it's never true, and it's not true this time. It's just a shield that you believers put up when the going gets tough in terms of actually trying to logically explain your particular fable.

No, I think the problem is that atheists don't want to get into the realms of philosophy and reason because it doesn't suit them. They'd rather stay in the material realm and have a theist prove that God exists in a material sense. The problem is that theists don't even believe that God exists in the material sense, so you're asking someone to argue in something that they don't believe.

 

[Neoliberal Fanfiction]

So many many problems with this statement. First of all, I am going to talk about ethics rather than morality. The term morality is normally associated with a "God" as you do in this thread. When used in that manner, it has very little meaning to an atheist who doesn't buy into the concept of a god in the first place. The term I prefer to use is ethics, which are normally though of as a human-developed structure of right and wrong.

Is this you officially claiming you don't believe in morality on page 15 of this thread?

You misuse the meaning of random in the universe. In actuality, there is randomness and seeming chaos existing alongside order in the form of the "laws" of science that you refer to.. All of the elements of the universe were present at the big bang, along with the physics and chemistry of this particular universe, and then the biology that would come along later when life developed. Yes, it is true that there is lots we don't know about the mysteries of the universe, but that is why scientists continue to study it rather than just throwing up their hands and proclaiming "God did it" as you are doing.

Where do those laws come from? Where does order come from? You need to explain both of these.

While the process of thought by homo sapiens does consist if "atoms bumping into one another", there's really much more to it than that. The human brain is capable of reason and rationality and thereby can indeed come up with ethical standards for living in society. While they may not be "objective", there are a few which do indeed show up in almost every civil society from the beginning of human time on earth, to includes strictures against murder, stealing, lying, and adultery. Most civilizations also have adopted a respect for elders in a family, the equivalent of "honor they father and mother". And all of this was done in these societies without the need for "divine guidance" and were extant prior to the so-called Ten Commandments.

Why do all civilizations adopt these moral laws? Why do humans universally understand these things to be moral goods? You have to explain this.

So morality is subjective and follow manmade laws. So what? The ethics developed through humanism work just fine in a civil society such as the United States, thank you.

FINALLY. You finally submit that your understanding of morality is subjective... I thought we'd never get there. Our modern understanding of morality, especially in the United States, borrows heavily from Christian theology and moral teachings, not humanism. I suspect that the more this foundation which was reinforced by hundreds of years of tradition erodes, you're going to see a society which is more and more immoral and degenerate. Of course, we could never objectively define moral decay in a society which is godless. People in the future might think that legalized pedophilia and after-birth abortion are just as morally permissible as anything you believe in and they would be right. Everything would be relative.

Let's see, you are against democracy so some form of tyranny would probably be more suitable. And you are against liberalism, so a right-wing emphasis should be agreeable to you. So what you are really looking for is a tyrannical right-wing government, which is sometimes called fascism Hail il Duce!

Yeah we should put you in jail for getting on my nerves with low IQ replies.

So what? It's the opinion of one man, with the normal sophistry instead of solid logic.

Not an argument and avoiding the issue fallacy.

 

[Neoliberal Fanfiction]

Or maybe modern non religious liberals know this to be true of many who profess a savior.

I actually agree with you.

Neoliberal fiscally conservative reaganites and bushites are only slightly less cringe than modern progressive liberals.

 

[Neoliberal Fanfiction]

"Rumors". yeah - these people were either confessed or there's photographic evidence. Let's not forget the biggest immoral pig of all: trump - a man who had unprotected sex with a porn star while his wife was at home nursing their newborn son.

You guys really know how to pick them <rolling eyes>.

Aw, what! What's happening on next weeks episode? Man, you're really up-to-date with the scene in contemporary politics. I take back what I said earlier. You're obviously a very informed citizen and I'm glad that we have you voting and making decisions for our future.

You're doing great watsup, but when confronted with religious extremism, expecting a religious fascist to admit the puritanical morals they've been fed since birth may need a modern review session will fall on deaf ears. They will always want to legislate morality while the people who make the laws as well as many of the pastors who preach them are themselves highly immoral and sometimes criminal people. Neoliberal is a religious fascist and a smart one which makes him extra dangerous. People like him will always demand you live by his rules - while at the same time people who preach these rules frequently end up in a motel room with a gay hooker snorting meth - like Ted Haggard, Jerry Fallwell, and Ralph Reed and perhaps someday even people posting like Neoliberal on this forum will have to face up to their denial of their helpless attraction to other dudes.

Also I wasn't born into a religious family. I was an atheist for a very long time.

 

[lurchadams]

Aw, what! What's happening on next weeks episode? Man, you're really up-to-date with the scene in contemporary politics. I take back what I said earlier. You're obviously a very informed citizen and I'm glad that we have you voting and making decisions for our future.


View attachment 67300585
Also I wasn't born into a religious family. I was an atheist for a very long time.

You know, I try. I hope your vote is overwhelmingly offset by Democrats! It should be - what - with our bussing in millions of illegals to vote with us and all

Have a nice day!

 

[RAMOSS]

Religion is not about manipulation. A religion that teaches do unto others as you would have done to unto you is hardly a threat.

However, a religion that says if you don't follow God the way they say you do will make you go to hell and burn in eternal agony is a threat.

 

[Valery]

Heeeeeeeeeeere we go.

I don't think anyone can come up with reasons why homosexuality would be good.

Explain the free pass for sex that Islam allows for bigamy.....

Polygamy.

Difference Between Polygamy and Bigamy | Difference Between

Difference Between Polygamy and Bigamy Polygamy vs Bigamy One might find it easy to define the terms “polygamy” and “bigamy” by plainly looking at their prefixes. It is because if you literally translate “gamy” which means “marriage” and the prefix “poly” to mean “many” and “bi” as “two,” then...

www.differencebetween.net

Free pass for sex? Most men in the "liberal" world do not consider marriage to be a "free pass for sex", rather, to them, marriage is the opposite of that.

 

[Valery]

However, a religion that says if you don't follow God the way they say you do will make you go to hell and burn in eternal agony is a threat.

It's a warning.

If I warned you that there's something wrong with your stove and if you turn it on, the whole house will explode — would you call it a threat or a warning? If there was truth behind it, you would call it a warning. We usually find out if we have received a warning or a threat only later when the consequences have become apparent.

 

[Valery]

Languages came from mankind.

You mean men created languages? There's no evidence for that nor is it realistic.

Prove that it corrupts. What do you mean by 'corrupt'? What is disgusting about consenting adults having sex? You have some odd opinions.

I have already explained some of the consequent corruption.

It is disgusting to "borrow" your wife to another man — and there is the adultery and the act of "borrowing" another man's wife.

Most people find this out by asking themselves: would I "borrow" my wife for another man to have sex with her?

 

[NWO_Spook]

You mean men created languages? There's no evidence for that nor is it realistic.

Why isn't it realistic? The study of linguistics recognises the evidence for the evolution of written language from ochre paintings to pictograms and ultimately on to the written word. Similarly, this also applies to spoken languages: from our earliest grunts and gestures right through to the specialised vocabularies developed for the various sciences. Why do you find it so incredible or unrealistic?

 

[ataraxia]

This says nothing about the laws which allow lightning to strike or cancer to metastasize. These are the things I'm talking about. At the foundation of all things, there is total chaos without intelligent design.

But here's the point: even assuming there is intelligent design in the design of the universe, how does that help us decide how to organize our desk at work, how distant a cousin we can marry without it being considered incest, or whether it is indecent for women not to cover their face AND boobs, or just their boobs- and it's OK if they don't cover their face? It seems the answers to those questions are something WE come up with. We use our ingenuity and creativity to address those issues. There is nothing inherent in the design of the universe, at least it seems to me, that helps us decide those things. It seems those who think there IS something you can conclude about one of those things just from looking at the orbits of the planets or the fine structure of DNA are just trying to impose THEIR latest personal opinions and cultural biases on how do those things on everyone else. This is not relativism. Of course there are better and worse ways of doing things. If you have a messy and poorly organized desk at work you will experience the consequences. But it's something YOU do, something you use your creativity to do- it's not something inherent in the universe that tells you how to do it, or keep you from being open to new ideas or some new gadget (like something that organizes or your papers or pens better) as something unnatural.

For example, does it make sense to say something like: "The planets orbit the sun in very regular orbits following Newton's Laws. So there must be some lawgiver that created the universe that way, and that's why the law of the land should be that all women should cover their face with a hijab"?

 

[ataraxia]

God gave us different languages. People have no reason to corrupt them though — it's different with the law.

The English language is constantly evolving (or, as you might say, getting corrupted). The Dictionary is constantly getting updated in new editions every few years, with hundreds of words being removed because they have become obsolete, and hundreds of new ones being added. Same with its laws of grammar.

Shakespeare is hard enough to understand for our modern ears (16th century)- and yet it's still considered "Modern English". The Middle English language used by Chaucer in his Canterburty Tales (14th century) is almost unrecognizable to us today - not THAT long ago:

​

��������

WHAN that Aprille with his shoures soote 1
The droghte 2 of Marche hath perced to the roote,
And bathed every veyne in swich 3 licour,
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Whan Zephirus eek with his swete breeth	5​
Inspired hath in every holt 4 and heeth
The tendre croppes, 5 and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halfe cours y-ronne, 6
And smale fowles maken melodye,
That slepen al the night with open ye,

This is not to mention the Old English of a work like Beowulf (6th century):

Hwæt. We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum,
monegum mægþum, meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas. Syððan ærest wearð
feasceaft funden, he þæs frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum, weorðmyndum þah,
oðþæt him æghwylc þara ymbsittendra
ofer hronrade hyran scolde,
gomban gyldan. þæt wæs god cyning.

So which of these is the original, pure version of English God gave us? And have we modern English speakers corrupted that original English by messing with its vocabulary and grammar so much? And who came up with these new vocabulary words and grammar laws?

 

[Neoliberal Fanfiction]

But here's the point: even assuming there is intelligent design in the design of the universe, how does that help us decide how to organize our desk at work, how distant a cousin we can marry without it being considered incest, or whether it is indecent for women not to cover their face AND boobs, or just their boobs and it's OK if they don't cover their face. It seems the answers to those questions are something WE come up with

It's simple. If we are the product of intelligent design, then we have a nature.

There is nothing inherent in the design of the universe, at least it seems to me, that helps us decide those things. It seems those who think there IS something you can conclude about one of those things just from looking at the orbits of the planets or the fine structure of DNA are just trying to impose THEIR latest personal opinions and cultural biases on how do those things on everyone else. This is not relativism. Of course if you have a messy and poorly organized desk at work you will experience the consequences. But it's something YOU do- it's not something inherent in the universe that tells you how to do it, or keep you from being open to some new gadget (like something that organizes or your papers or pens better) as something unnatural.

I'm not saying there's any way to specifically express culture. For instance, is it more traditional to dress in a toga like the romans or in a greatcoat like Napoleon? I don't think you could objectively argue for either in that case. There may be arguments, if morality is objective and a creator exists, for how humbly we dress and what parts of our body we naturally feel we should cover, but that's not culture.

All I'm saying is simply that human beings have an intuitive nature of right and wrong. Almost all societies have universally organized around this intuitive nature which is why you see, almost universally, laws against sexual immorality, an intuitive understanding of the feminine and masculine, laws against stealing/murder/etc. Dismantling or supplanting these universals and calling them arbitrary, in my opinion, is a recipe for disaster... especially if you can't even articulate an argument for why that would be a good thing.

For example, does it make sense to say something like: "The planets orbit the sun in very regular orbits following Newton's Laws. So there must be some lawgiver that created the universe that way, and that's why the law of the land should be that all women should cover their face with a hijab"?

I think that just has nothing to do with my argument, but I do think what you're saying actually helps to prove my argument even further.

We understand Newton's laws of motion to exist. We understand that these laws can be demonstrated a number of ways both here on Earth and in the cosmos. If you were to invest money into an experiment which studied the motion of some object (or something, doesn't really matter), it would be stupid to just arbitrarily ignore Newton's laws. You would waste a lot of money and for what "good" reason would you choose to willingly ignore something that we know works unless you had unequivocal proof otherwise?

Similarly, I would say that all human civilizations have a set of positive laws which are seemingly universal in accordance with our own intuitively understood nature (or natural law). For what reason would we ignore these laws if we know they work and are in our nature? It would be folly to just arbitrarily ignore them unless you had some overwhelming proof that an alternative would be superior.

 

[Dans La Lune]

"no u"

Do you consider yourself among the upper crust of intellect that you can dismiss the intellect of others? Or, more likely, are you not half as smart as you think you are?

I'm not talking about the scientific method. Does the bible say not to dress an open festering wound and instead trust in prayer? Or does it say dress the wound, but also put your faith in God to help you during your struggle?

You asked if the Bible is anti-science. Science is based on the Scientific Method. Asking you to reason outside of the Scientific Method for understanding nature phenomena is anti-science.

Well faith, by definition, means to put your trust or confidence in something. Do you not trust or feel confident in modern science?

I don't need to trust modern science, as I've explained. The work is shown, even if it is not always correct.

It isn't "my" brand of morality. It is a standard of objective morality intuitive to all human beings that was written on our hearts by a divine creator.

It's YOUR brand of morality based on YOUR divine creator. I don't base my morality on YOUR choices.

Natural law doesn't even assume that the God is a Christian God.

Which force determines Natural Law?

I don't even know what the bolded question is trying to ask.

I thought it was obvious. What if morality is determined by the Old Testament, and not the New Testament?

Basically all modern mass and industrial murder has been secular. Even if it were true that Stalin or Mao were "devout" Christians - it wouldn't mean that the church endorsed their crimes. Dumb take.

The church did support Hitler, and played a significant role in the Rwandan genocide.

"Eventually, the conflict between conformist and democratizing voices within the Churches became increasingly politicized. The conservative establishment (a large majority within the clerical ranks), responded by supporting violence, repression, and eventually genocide vis-à-vis an imminent process of reform and democratization inside and outside the religious structures (Ibid). In this context, a vast majority of the clergy sustained from affiliating with the regime as a means to preserve privileges enjoyed throughout past decades (Henning, 2001). A deep crisis occurred within the power structures of the Church. This resulted from conflict within the dynamics of individual churches. It was also a result of a vital interest the Church had in preserving the status quo in order to maintain privilege and socio-political prestige. These conditions are necessary to comprehend the nature and the depth of the Church’s involvement in the Rwandan Genocide."

 

[Dans La Lune]

Well, the Virgin Mary story is extremely important in Christian theology to understand the timeless and eternal nature of God.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Just as God was incarnate in Mary as Jesus Christ, so was he incarnate from nothing before the universe existed as we know it. But that is Christian theology and I cannot prove its realness objectively just as you cannot prove that evolution is the result of randomness objectively.

I asked if it was likely that Mary was a virgin or more likely that she was not?

[quoteJust because you can't understand an argument doesn't mean that it's meaningless. Maybe I can make it more simple this time for you. If all of your sensory perceptions and ability to think and reason are the result of randomness, why would you assume any of it is true? How do you know your senses and reasoning faculties evolved to perceive an actual reality? You can't.[/quote]

And?

You're just avoiding the argument. I have no idea what the chances are that matter would coalesce into a note that had your name written on it on some unknown planet. The point is the chances of that happening would be so incredibly small that it might as well be zero. Why would you assume then that the note was the result of some random geological event as opposed to intelligent design? Doesn't make sense intuitively.

So you're saying humans and life in general don't actually have free will? If you don't understand why I'm asking this, then perhaps you're not as smart as you think you are.

This is literally just untrue. There is no significant denomination of Christianity which so virulently hates another prominent denomination of Christianity that they believe it is the work of the anti-Christ. It's totally pointless for me to defend Christian theology to an Atheist though, which is why I'm not getting into my specific theological beliefs and instead have mostly tried to stay on the topic of natural law, epistemology, and ontology. These are things I can actually argue with an Atheist on where we won't arrive at a total impasse.

Seventh Day Adventism exceeds the collective number of practicing Jews in the world.

Seventh-day Adventism

Most people know little about the Seventh-day Adventists beyond that they worship on Saturdays, not Sundays. But there’s more to this unique sect.

www.catholic.com

"Seventh-day Adventists agree with many Catholic doctrines, including the Trinity, Christ’s divinity, the virgin birth, the atonement, a physical resurrection of the dead, and Christ’s Second Coming. They use a valid form of baptism. They believe in original sin and reject the Evangelical teaching that one can never lose one’s salvation no matter what one does (i.e., they correctly reject “once saved, always saved”).

"Unfortunately, they also hold many false and strange doctrines. Among these are the following: (a) the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon; (b) the pope is the Antichrist; (c) in the last days, Sunday worship will be “the mark of the beast”; (d) there is a future millennium in which the devil will roam the earth while Christians are with Christ in heaven; (e) the soul sleeps between death and resurrection; and (f) on the last day, after a limited period of punishment in hell, the wicked will be annihilated and cease to exist rather than be eternally damned."

I await your acknowledgement.

Not really true.

That Jesus reformed the laws of the Old Testament is 100% true.

 

[ataraxia]

It's simple. If we are the product of intelligent design, then we have a nature.

Yeah maybe. But we currently still have have very little idea what that nature really is. As you probably know, there is a lot of work being done on figuring out that nature- by psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, neuroscientists, historians, etc, etc... I once heard an anthropologist at a lecture once say something like (and I paraphrase): we still still know very little about human nature. As soon as we think we know something, we find things that surprise us and make us question it. The most certain thing we have learned about it is that whatever it is, it is incredibly malleable and can manifest itself in very different ways depending on cultural context. So the next time you hear anyone wanting to tell you what human nature really is, head for the nearest exit, because all they are getting ready to do is unload their latest opinions on you.

So we really don't really know what human nature really is and trying to figure it out. And yet we still come up with norms of socially acceptable behaviors in our societies, moral norms, and laws (all societies have them, even street gangs). How do we do this? By contingent, pragmatic considerations. There is absolutely nothing in the orbits of the planets or structure of DNA to help us decide how distant a cousin we can marry before it's not considered incest or what body parts we should cover to not be considered indecent. I would think that those living in Scandinavia might have a different answer than Pacific Islanders. But they came to those conclusions not based on the orbits of the planets, but because of very pragmatic considerations, as well as cultural and historical contingencies.

 

[Valery]

For example, does it make sense to say something like: "The planets orbit the sun in very regular orbits following Newton's Laws. So there must be some lawgiver that created the universe that way, and that's why the law of the land should be that all women should cover their face with a hijab"?

Newton's law is irrelevant here. The creation was made by Allah. What men choose to call certain parts of it is not important except insofar that we're able to communicate. The Quran described this orbiting 1400 years ago.

What women usually use to cover their face is a veil. They cover their head with a hijab. Alternatively, you can call the entire dress hijab.

The reason for wearing hijab is that it has been commanded by God through His Messengers.

 

[Neoliberal Fanfiction]

Do you consider yourself among the upper crust of intellect that you can dismiss the intellect of others? Or, more likely, are you not half as smart as you think you are?

I'm just going to speak frankly if I'm dealing with someone who hasn't even cared to read half of the thread and begins with some snarky low-info take like "Religion is designed to make you gullible. Sorry, there's no other way to say it." which immediately exposes your bias and lack of depth of thinking when it comes to religion.

You asked if the Bible is anti-science. Science is based on the Scientific Method. Asking you to reason outside of the Scientific Method for understanding nature phenomena is anti-science.

We've went from "faith is the antithesis of science" to this. Talk about switching the goalposts. Anyway, the Bible doesn't tell you how to reason and it doesn't assign a moral condition to any line of reasoning. It isn't explicitly anti-science or anti-reason in any way, shape, or form. Ironically, you must have "faith" to believe in any science that does not fall under the category of observable science. In other words, believing that humans arrived to our current state through random evolution cannot be observed and so it falls under the category of "historical science" which necessarily requires some level of faith to believe in.

Ultimately, this entire argument your pushing is just a false dichotomy.

I don't need to trust modern science, as I've explained. The work is shown, even if it is not always correct.

You can observe the work of observable science. You must have faith to acknowledge historical science. See my reply above.

It's YOUR brand of morality based on YOUR divine creator. I don't base my morality on YOUR choices.

Well, no. If there is a creator and we are the result of intelligent design, there would be an objective structure to our morality. That means it wouldn't be my morality or your morality... because that would be subjective. It would be the morality of the creator which is objective. I reason that objective morality is true through our intuitive understanding of morality via natural law.

Which force determines Natural Law?

Intelligent design.

I thought it was obvious. What if morality is determined by the Old Testament, and not the New Testament?

I've answered this question numerous times in this thread and the answer is extremely easy to find on google. The acts committed in the old testament were measured and specific for their time and this is explained by God. There's extensive theology behind all of this which I can explain if you REALLY want to hear it but I don't think you'd really care or it would change your mind if I did.

The church did support Hitler, and played a significant role in the Rwandan genocide.

The church did not support Hitler. In fact, they explicitly condemned the racial idolatry and mysticism of national socialism. Pope Pius didn't denounce some of the traditional social practices of Hitler's Germany which were perfectly moral and in line with Christian belief. The racial stuff, however, was very heavily criticized and claiming otherwise is ahistorical.

Aside from the fact that Rwanda has been heavily condemned and addressed by the church, it was never something which the church has an institution encouraged or actively sponsored. I'm not super familiar with the event in honesty, but it seems to me that the churches involvement was very dubious and limited to a few people in a few locations in Africa.

Regardless, I've never maintained that the church and its servicemen/women were totally spotless and clean of sin. That is clearly not true... nor is it a view that any Christian would maintain is true.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Well, you kind of mentioned Mary, so I thought it would be important to clarify the theological context. Nevermind, lol.

I asked if it was likely that Mary was a virgin or more likely that she was not?

I believe she was, yes.

Again, I already said at the beginning of this argument that I could not objectively prove to you that Christianity is objectively the proper theological interpretation/explanation for God. I think the bulk of its philosophy and historical context is the most convincing personally... but that's just me.

 

[Neoliberal Fanfiction]

And?

You're the one who called it a meaningless statement. I explain it's meaning to you and you reply "And?". Lol.

So you're saying humans and life in general don't actually have free will? If you don't understand why I'm asking this, then perhaps you're not as smart as you think you are.

How does this imply human beings wouldn't have free will? What?

The statistical rarity of that being the case would be self-evident to a small child.

Seventh Day Adventism exceeds the collective number of practicing Jews in the world.

I'll concede that I had no idea Adventism had increased in popularity so much in the past few decades. Admittedly, this might be because the denomination is only super popular in parts of Africa and South America. I still wouldn't call it prominent among the denominations of Christianity though.

Nonetheless, the goal of my argument isn't to convince you of Christianity being true in any case, which is why I've made zero arguments to attempt to persuade you on the trueness of Christianity specifically. That conversation would look entirely different.

That Jesus reformed the laws of the Old Testament is 100% true.

There's nuance. I explain this in an above post.

 

[Daisy]

It's a warning.

If I warned you that there's something wrong with your stove and if you turn it on, the whole house will explode — would you call it a threat or a warning? If there was truth behind it, you would call it a warning. We usually find out if we have received a warning or a threat only later when the consequences have become apparent.

The problem with that analogy is that Adam and Eve were never warned about a burning hell...God only warned them if they disobeyed, they would die...why?

 

[Neoliberal Fanfiction]

Yeah maybe. But we currently still have have very little idea what that nature really is. As you probably know, there is a lot of work being done on figuring out that nature- by psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, neuroscientists, historians, etc, etc... I once heard an anthropologist at a lecture once say something like (and I paraphrase): we still still know very little about human nature. As soon as we think we know something, we find things that surprise us and make us question it. The most certain thing we have learned about it is that whatever it is, it is incredibly malleable and can manifest itself in very different ways depending on cultural context. So the next time you hear anyone wanting to tell you what human nature really is, head for the nearest exit, because all they are getting ready to do is unload their latest opinions on you.

I can understand this position. I'd add though that I'm not trying to explain every nuance or condition of human nature. I'm just talking about the structure and building blocks which are pretty self-evident and intuitive to any person who isn't being dishonest for the sake of winning an argument. Psychology, sociology, and anthropology are all separate from a basic understanding of morality. In fact, a basic understanding of morality is actually necessary in order to have any coherent understanding of any of those.

So we really don't really know what human nature really is and trying to figure it out. And yet we still come up with norms of socially acceptable behaviors in our societies, moral norms, and laws (all societies have them, even street gangs). How do we do this? By contingent, pragmatic considerations. There is absolutely nothing in the orbits of the planets or structure of DNA to help us decide how distant a cousin we can marry before it's not considered incest or what body parts we should cover to not be considered indecent. I would think that those living in Scandinavia might have a different answer than Pacific Islanders. But they came to those conclusions not based on the orbits of the planets, but because of very pragmatic considerations, as well as cultural and historical contingencies.

I think the vast majority of civilizations have had an understanding of indecency, but I see what you mean. I do think though that you can have an objective moral framework and still maintain cultural nuance and differences. If you think I'm arguing for a hegemonic Christian super-culture, that isn't the case. In fact, such a thing would be pretty anti-Christian. Christianity doesn't advocate for a globalized understanding of a unified culture... nuance is allowed. It simply provides a framework which is based on our intuitive understanding of morality granted by a creator. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[zyzygy]

[QUOTE="Valery, post: 1072840824, member: 36587" You mean men created languages? There's no evidence for that nor is it realistic.

I have already explained some of the consequent corruption.

It is disgusting to "borrow" your wife to another man — and there is the adultery and the act of "borrowing" another man's wife.

Most people find this out by asking themselves: would I "borrow" my wife for another man to have sex with her?
[/QUOTE]


Now you are being silly. There is no evidence for a god creating languages.

 

[ataraxia]

Newton's law is irrelevant here. The creation was made by Allah. What men choose to call certain parts of it is not important except insofar that we're able to communicate. The Quran described this orbiting 1400 years ago.
View attachment 67300608
What women usually use to cover their face is a veil. They cover their head with a hijab. Alternatively, you can call the entire dress hijab.

The reason for wearing hijab is that it has been commanded by God through His Messengers.

So there are no practical reasons, such as to preserve modesty?

So if God commands you to never scratch your right nostril, you would be as unpuzzled as the command for women to wear a veil? Is this like a game of "Simon says", except it's "Messenger says"?

And so if God doesn't command something, we humans have no way of thinking through and deciding things on our own? How do we decide whether the speed limit on a certain stretch of road should be 35 mph or 45 mph? Why can't we use the same process of reasoning for deciding other social policies?