I don't understand your dissension here. Are you saying that raping little girls, slavery, and antisemitism can at times have a positive moral value attached to these practices?
I am laughed at your breach of Godwin's Law and that is all.
Upvote
0
I don't understand your dissension here. Are you saying that raping little girls, slavery, and antisemitism can at times have a positive moral value attached to these practices?
We can certainly go into Old Testament issues in another thread. And I wasn't going to address whether there is a divine being just yet. My only assertion so far is that there are objective moral values and duties.I would have to put it back to you in reverse order:
Should it have ever been morally acceptable to kill people for working on the Sabbath, homosexuality, blasphemy, or kids who disobey their parents?
These were all considered morally acceptable to kill people for just a few thousand years ago.
I agree that morals change over time, but I don't think a divine being is necessary for any sort of moral foundation.
I don't understand your dissension here. Are you saying that raping little girls, slavery, and antisemitism can at times have a positive moral value attached to these practices?
There is literally no evidence for anything supernatural.
Anyone can setup $2mil prize for prove of no supernatural too.The James Randi Foundation has a $1mill prize for you, if you can prove otherwise.
That should make you an agnostic, not an atheist.It covers all aspects of my approach to life.
There is no evidence that god exists, therefore I assume that gods do not exist.
In that same way, I assume that Santa and the tooth fairy do not exist.
I could be wrong though: I have seen real presents that Santa is claimed to have delivered.
I think he does more to address his burden of proof than do any gods.
Burden of proof is with the claimant, my friend.
But no one can give evidence that there is nothing supernatural either.
Anyone can setup $2mil prize for prove of no supernatural too.
That should make you an agnostic, not an atheist.
A lot evidence that God exists. No one is able to create a computer that have human level intelligence, Chicken or egg come first?
Every year I saw many Santa so you might be right
Unless you are a agnostic, you are also a claimant
"Objective morals" don't make sense to me since morals change within any give culture dependent on the given time/place. Morals are subjective.We can certainly go into Old Testament issues in another thread. And I wasn't going to address whether there is a divine being just yet. My only assertion so far is that there are objective moral values and duties.
No, that is not correct. In this time and place, all of those things are morally reprehensible. In a different time and place, they were A-ok. I cannot project my modern morals onto those of the bronze-aged.But I noticed that you asked "Should it have ever been morally acceptable to kill people for working on the Sabbath, homosexuality, blasphemy, or kids who disobey their parents?" I take it then that you believe that this was wrong, no matter when or who might have believed it to be morally acceptable at one time, is that correct?
Fair enough, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the question of the thread, does it?
"Objective morals" don't make sense to me since morals change within any give culture dependent on the given time/place. Morals are subjective.
No, that is not correct. In this time and place, all of those things are morally reprehensible. In a different time and place, they were A-ok. I cannot project my modern morals onto those of the bronze-aged.
Already explained to you in a prior post, computers, which you claim did not understand...So why believe in the supernatural?
Indeed.
AFAIK they are not mutually exclusive.
That contradicts your first statement. God is supernatural (beyond natural) therefore there can be no evidence that gods exist.
Or do I have it wrong?
You are very welcomeI have previously said that I have not seen any evidence for the existence of gods.
If that makes me agnostic, so be it.
Thnaks for letting me know myself better.
The evidence are auxiliary. Computer vs humans (as in prior post), chicken/egg, shorten of Y chromosome... All make that there are something supernatural very likely. especially human intelligence. We can do what natural can't do in millions of years, but if we humans with intelligence can't design something that are comparable to us, natural certainly can't either.
Isn't that just another way of saying: I don't know.
How do you get from "I don't know" to "God did it"?
It is the very strong evidence. So scientists think there are black holes in the universe, they are not certain but they got some "side evidences" that they think can prove it. Does black holes exists? all they can say is "likely"
We can see massive gravitational pulls in the universe by observing flows in Redshift. That is evidence for black holes. I'm not sure you know what Black Holes are, but no matter your ignorance, they do exist... and there is a lot of evidence for them.
BTW - There is no "proof" in science. Science deals with facts and evidence. Proofs are for math.
We can see massive gravitational pulls in the universe by observing flows in Red Shift. That is evidence for black holes. I'm not sure you know what Black Holes are, but no matter your ignorance, they do exist... and there is a lot of evidence for them.
BTW - There is no "proof" in science. Science deals with facts and evidence. Proofs are for math.
It is the very strong evidence. So scientists think there are black holes in the universe, they are not certain but they got some "side evidences" that they think can prove it. Does black holes exists? all they can say is "likely"
There are a lot of evidences for them, but they are all theories, so even with strong evidences, you can only say that black holes very likely exists (note I didn't say they don't exist) due to observations and our current understanding of mass and gravity.
A claim that black holes do exist is just ... unscientific
Wonderfully said!
Yes, provide: one peer-reviewed article will suffice.
Thanks in advance.