The problem of Objective Morality. and why even biblical speaking it is subjective

[quatona]

Since I was referring to European schools, no I have not set foot in them but I know what they teach from my own research and others. As far as me personally, my whole American academic experience from first grade to graduate school was in public schools and they did the same thing only with more subtlety, no school I went to acknowledged God or even the possibility of creation thereby making God irrelevant and we students knew it. And they also taught naturalistic evolution as a fact.

They talk about Gods in religion and philosophy classes - exactly where the topic belongs.

 

[Strathos]

They talk about Gods in religion and philosophy classes - exactly where the topic belongs.

When I went to school, they talked about religion in history and social studies. Being a Christian, I already knew everything they wrote about Christianity. They addressed it and other religions like Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. from a neutral standpoint ('X is a religion that believes Y, it was founded by Z in the year XXXX,' etc.)

 

[Ed1wolf]

That assertion is predicated on information only one of us has access to - me. I know my own thoughts. You do not know my thoughts.

Therefor, I am in a position to know, with 100% certainty, that your assertion is false.

And if you are deriving that assertion from the Bible, which I suspect you are (Romans 1), then I am in a position to know that the Bible is false. Or at the very least, your interpretation of it is.

You should consider the implications of things before you say them.

As a fellow human I know human nature and it is human nature to hate the Christian God and reject Him. Either consciously or subconsciously.

 

[quatona]

When I went to school, they talked about religion in history and social studies. Being a Christian, I already knew everything they wrote about Christianity. They addressed it and other religions like Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. from a neutral standpoint ('X is a religion that believes Y, it was founded by Z in the year XXXX,' etc.)

Today here in Germany the religion classes still have a Christian bias, and they teach not only about the history, but also about the doctrines. They even have dedicated Protestant and dedicated Catholic classes (that you can choose - well, that the parents can choose, depending on their affiliation). Plus comparative religion classes. Not that I have a problem with that; but Ed´s claim that religion in general and Christian beliefs in particular have no space in Western European schools is just inaccurate. But, of course, religious beliefs aren´t taught in science classes where they don´t belong.
For completions sake: With there being an increasing amount of immigrants, they also begin to have dedicated Islam classes.

 

[quatona]

As a fellow human I know human nature and it is human nature to hate the Christian God and reject Him. Either consciously or subconsciously.

Speak for yourself.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

As a fellow human I know human nature and it is human nature to hate the Christian God and reject Him. Either consciously or subconsciously.

Nope. You don't get to move the goalposts. The assertion was not that it's 'human nature' to hate Yahweh. That would only indicate a tendency for hating Yahweh, if true.

The assertion was that I know Yahweh exists. That is a statement of certainty, not just tendency.

And again, that is predicated on information that only one of us has access to. I know my own thoughts. You do not know my own thoughts.

Therefor, I am in a position to know, with 100% certainty, that the assertion is false. So is any other atheist. We can all prove it to ourselves using the same intrapersonal means.

So the best case scenario for you is that your interpretation of Romans 1 is wrong. The worst case scenario is that your interpretation is correct, and the Bible itself is wrong.

It is extremely unwise to predicate an assertion on information you have no access to. I don't recommend you keep it up.

 

[Strathos]

Nope. You don't get to move the goalposts. The assertion was not that it's 'human nature' to hate Yahweh. That would only indicate a tendency for hating Yahweh, if true.

The assertion was that I know Yahweh exists. That is a statement of certainty, not just tendency.

And again, that is predicated on information that only one of us has access to. I know my own thoughts. You do not know my own thoughts.

Therefor, I am in a position to know, with 100% certainty, that the assertion is false. So is any other atheist. We can all prove it to ourselves using the same intrapersonal means.

So the best case scenario for you is that your interpretation of Romans 1 is wrong. The worst case scenario is that your interpretation is correct, and the Bible itself is wrong.

It is extremely unwise to predicate an assertion on information you have no access to. I don't recommend you keep it up.

You missed two other possible scenarios:

1. You're lying about your own thoughts
2. You have cognitive dissonance

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

You missed two other possible scenarios:

1. You're lying about your own thoughts
2. You have cognitive dissonance

1 isn't a different scenario. 'Lying about your own thoughts' is exactly what's implied by the assertion that professed atheists all secretly believe Yahweh exists.

Cognitive dissonance would be a different scenario, but it does nothing to help the assertion. There is still only one person with access to the truth value of any scenario predicated on my thoughts. Every other atheist on Earth could be lying and secretly believe Yahweh exists, or be experiencing cognitive dissonance, but all I need to disprove the assertion, as stated, is to be aware of at least one atheist for whom the assertion does not apply. It happens that I am aware of one - me.

That's the slippery thing about predicating an assertion on someone else's thought content. I can't prove to you the content of my own thoughts, but I can prove it to myself. So can any atheist, or any non-Christian theist for that matter. We all have access to our own thoughts, and can prove it intrapersonally.

 

[Strathos]

1 isn't a different scenario. 'Lying about your own thoughts' is exactly what's implied by the assertion that professed atheists all secretly believe Yahweh exists.

Cognitive dissonance would be a different scenario, but it does nothing to help the assertion. There is still only one person with access to the truth value of any scenario predicated on my thoughts. Every other atheist on Earth could be lying and secretly believe Yahweh exists, or be experiencing cognitive dissonance, but all I need to disprove the assertion, as stated, is to be aware of at least one atheist for whom the assertion does not apply. It happens that I am aware of one - me.

That's the slippery thing about predicating an assertion on someone else's thought content. I can't prove to you the content of my own thoughts, but I can prove it to myself. So can any atheist, or any non-Christian theist for that matter. We all have access to our own thoughts, and can prove it intrapersonally.

Not necessarily. The human mind isn't so straightforward. It's quite possible to hold contradictory beliefs, to hold a belief and yet be in denial of it, to have false memories or to not remember things you experienced, etc. For example, there are many cases of LGBT people who legitimately and sincerely believed that they were straight, but were later forced to confront the reality of their orientation.

 

[quatona]

Not necessarily. The human mind isn't so straightforward. It's quite possible to hold contradictory beliefs, to hold a belief and yet be in denial of it, to have false memories or to not remember things you experienced, etc. For example, there are many cases of LGBT people who legitimately and sincerely believed that they were straight, but were later forced to confront the reality of their orientation.

I know that you don´t believe what you say there.

 

[Strathos]

I know that you don´t believe what you say there.

I may or may not believe what I say

 

[Tinker Grey]

From Abraham Lincoln: Abraham Lincoln's Statement on Religious Views in 1846

If Mr. Woodward has given such assurance of my character as your correspondent asserts, I can still suppose him to be a worthy man; he may have believed what he said; but there is, even in that charitable view of his case, one lesson in morals which he might, not without profit, learn of even me -- and that is, never to add the weight of his character to a charge against his fellow man, without knowing it to be true. I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him.

{Emphasis added}

One who claims to know that I know that Yahweh exists is a liar.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Not necessarily.

Yes, necessarily. I am necessarily the only person with access to my own thoughts.

The human mind isn't so straightforward.

Oh, I see. I guess that means it's only straightforward when it happens to suit a particular apologetic. In that case, it's easy to glean information not only about another person's mind, but the actual content of it. But then, when it comes to refutations of that apologetic, it magically becomes nebulous.

How convenient.

It's quite possible to hold contradictory beliefs, to hold a belief and yet be in denial of it,

That's just a rewording of the initial assertion. The belief in question is the existence of Yahweh, and the denial is my outward expression of atheism. I am still the only person with access to that, and it's still false.

to have false memories or to not remember things you experienced, etc.

That's irrelevant. We're not talking about memories. We're talking about a constant, conscious apprehension of something - the existence of Yahweh.

Which I do not possess. You can speculate all you want as to whether I am lying or deluding myself, but only one of us is in any position to know whether that is actually the case.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

From Abraham Lincoln: Abraham Lincoln's Statement on Religious Views in 1846

{Emphasis added}

One who claims to know that I know that Yahweh exists is a liar.

Thanks, Abe. That's an important point.

Even if you make a naked assertion that turns out to be correct, you still can't claim you knew it to be the case when you made the assertion in the first place. You didn't. You just lucked into the correct answer by accident.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, almost everyone agrees on the above.

ken: Popularity is NOT an indicator of truth.

I am not saying that, but that fact indicates it is probably part of human nature. If most humans behave a certain way then it is strong evidence that it is human nature to behave that way. This is done in behavioral science all the time when studying animals.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, they do reject the Christian God.
Because deep down they know He exists and try to repress that knowledge by trying to find evidence against His existence which causes them to repress and reject that knowledge even more.

ken: You do not know what goes on in somebody else's head

True, but as a fellow human and a close observer of humans I have learned from myself and my fellow humans how we think and I understand many things about human nature and it is human nature not to want to believe in a God like the Christian God and so reject Him.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Technically being righteous is not the same as being sinless. But you are right that God was not punishing him, He was testing him.

ken: If your God were all knowing, he would not need to test. Perhaps you shouldn’t claim him as Omniscient.

He was not testing him to find out how he would react, but rather to produce spiritual growth. Spiritual growth does not come from living a problem free life.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
He didn't kill them immediately. But they had to die eventually spiritually and physically due to the universal law of justice. All sinners must die eventually even God cannot stop that except for providing a substitute which is what Jesus is, it is similar to the laws of logic. Even God is bound by some laws like the laws of logic and the law of justice.

ken: If your God is incapable of forgiveness under such conditions, you shouldn’t call him Omni-benevolent.

No, He obviously is capable, that is what the substitutionary atonement of Christ is for.

ken: If your God is not Omniscient, nor is he Omni-benevolent, why call him God?
[/QUOTE]
No, He is both of those things as long as your definition of benevolence includes being just and meting out justice.

 

[Ken-1122]

I am not saying that, but that fact indicates it is probably part of human nature. If most humans behave a certain way then it is strong evidence that it is human nature to behave that way. This is done in behavioral science all the time when studying animals.

But these behaviors change over time. Human behavior 1000 years ago is much different than it is today, and human behavior today is far different than it will be 1000 years from now. Why do you think that is?

True, but as a fellow human and a close observer of humans I have learned from myself and my fellow humans how we think and I understand many things about human nature and it is human nature not to want to believe in a God like the Christian God and so reject Him.

There are countless versions of the Christian God that people worship. Not every Christian version of God is the same as yours. Some versions are attractive to people, some are not. If a person didn’t want to reject God, all they have to do is find a version of God that fits their lifestyle and beliefs!

He was not testing him to find out how he would react, but rather to produce spiritual growth. Spiritual growth does not come from living a problem free life.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say God was testing Job for spiritual growth. This was a wager between God and Satan.

No, He obviously is capable, that is what the substitutionary atonement of Christ is for.

He don’t need all of that to forgive, all he's gotta do is not hold a grudge.

No, He is both of those things as long as your definition of benevolence includes being just and meting out justice.

What he did was unjust IMO

 

[Strathos]

Yes, necessarily. I am necessarily the only person with access to my own thoughts.



Oh, I see. I guess that means it's only straightforward when it happens to suit a particular apologetic. In that case, it's easy to glean information not only about another person's mind, but the actual content of it. But then, when it comes to refutations of that apologetic, it magically becomes nebulous.

How convenient.



That's just a rewording of the initial assertion. The belief in question is the existence of Yahweh, and the denial is my outward expression of atheism. I am still the only person with access to that, and it's still false.



That's irrelevant. We're not talking about memories. We're talking about a constant, conscious apprehension of something - the existence of Yahweh.

Which I do not possess. You can speculate all you want as to whether I am lying or deluding myself, but only one of us is in any position to know whether that is actually the case.

I'm not saying that I know for a fact what is in your head. But you don't necessarily know either. Mental compartmentalization, multiple personalities, and self denial are all well-attested psychological phenomena.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No adaptations can be far more permanent than that and can be passed on to next generations. Check out "Darwin's" Finches. Their beaks enlarged when a drought came and all the evolutionists said evolution had occurred, but then 10 years later their beaks went back to their original size and they all stayed the same species. This is adaptation, not evolution. Adaptation can make significant changes but it has never produced a new organism or genus.

ken: Again; when there is a change in the gene pool, by definition it is evolution. If you disagree; you are wrong because you don’t make up the rules when it comes to deciding when evolution takes place vs when it is simply adaption. The examples I provided, there was a change in the gene pool

Difference Between Adaptation and Evolution | Difference Between | Adaptation vs Evolution

No, evolution requires major changes in morphology. A change in the gene pool does not do that. Unless you can provide an example of an actual body structure change. None of your examples have that. Try again.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
That may be your opinion but as I proved with my article from Natural History magazine, most cosmologists believe that it was the beginning of everything.

ken: Is there an established scientific theory supporting this belief? I ask because I know your reputation of claiming to have provide proof when you have not, when responding to me and other people.

Yes, it is the Big Bang Theory. That is one of the conclusions of the theory.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
There is already a great deal of evidence and information that can dispel evolution, some of it has even been discovered by evolutionists themselves, but your scenario has not happened. Why do you think that is?
ken: I believe dishonest people who have no problem with lying have convinced you that their lies are the truth.

Huh? As a biologist I do much of my own research of scientific reports, as well as reading the research of others.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, he does make money from his talks and books. His claim that evolution has disproven God is widely used by atheists throughout the world to combat theists, so that is why I brought it up.

ken: Why do you assume his words mean anything to me?

Well he is just probably the most well known atheist scientist.

 

[quatona]

I'm not saying that I know for a fact what is in your head. But you don't necessarily know either. Mental compartmentalization, multiple personalities, and self denial are all well-attested psychological phenomena.

Maybe we do discussions and thought exchanges all wrong, then - instead of telling each other what we think we should tell each other what they think.

 

[Strathos]

Maybe we do discussions and thought exchanges all wrong, then - instead of telling each other what we think we should tell each other what they think.

I just said that I don't claim to know what you think.