Where's God?

[Ed1wolf]

Ah, so you think it was a sin to say, "Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;” (Deuteronomy 13:6)

I do not see how you can say it is a sin to recommend another religion in one breath, and then declare that this religion was a leader in promoting free speech in your next breath.

I didn't say ancient Judaism was a leader in promoting free speech, I said nations influenced by the teachings of Christianity are.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I was not referring oto the character of the common people

Yes, you were. You said, "most atheists do not live consistent with their worldview especially in nations influenced by Chrstianity." That means, most atheists, not just the leaders of a country of some billion or so atheists. And you were right to do so. By your logic, an atheist should be an evil person. Obviously, they're not. Therefore, your logic is at fault.

I was referring to how the government is run based on atheistic philosophies.

Please explain to me what an atheistic philosophy is. I had always thought there was no such thing as an atheistic philosophy, since a-theism means nothing more than a person who is lacking a belief in a God or gods.
It might help if you tried thinking of "theistic philosophy." It doesn't really mean anything, does it? A theist could be a Satanist, a Christian of many different types, a believer in the Greek or Norse or Celtic gods - anything at all, really. If all we knew was that their philosophy was a theistic one, we would still know nothing about it apart from that it included a belief in a god or gods.

The US has never imprisoned or executed people for their political views. Harvested prisoners organs, forced people to abort their children, put people in concentration camps for their religious beliefs, and among many other things. All of these China does and are characteristics of a hell hole country. Sorry if it offends you.

I'm not offended in the slightest. But I hope I don't offend you if I remind you that the USA is guilty, throughout it's rather short history, of enslaving races, committing genocide against black people, institutionalising racism, warmongering, locking children in cages, and electing a liar of appalling moral character who has changed the USA into...well, a hell-hole.

No, not consistent with their basic nature but consistent with their worldview.

Duly noted and revised:
You're saying that atheists, when not influenced by the social benefits of a Christian culture, live consistently with their atheistic worldview and produce hellholes. Anyone who knows atheists knows this is simply nonsense.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I didn't say ancient Judaism was a leader in promoting free speech, I said nations influenced by the teachings of Christianity are.

Ah, yes, nations that were influenced by Christianity led the world in many ways. I agree.

But correlation does not equal causation.

I see that there were two causes for early European domination in arts and sciences. One, the luck of the draw put Europe in a lucky position where its agriculture went way ahead of any other area, giving many thinkers in Europe a lot of time to work on new ideas. (See Jared Diamond's book, Guns, Germs and Steel.) Second, Europeans were first with the printing press. That one invention did more to promote the wide dissemination and advancement of ideas then any other invention.

Both of those developments could have happened elsewhere. Then we would be talking about how the great advancements were done by nations influenced by Akamba, Bimoism or Luoism, perhaps.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I'm not sure why you keeping repeating this. The Declaration of Independence clearly comes down on our side, that we are entitled to choose the form of government that seems most likely to us to best effect our safety and happiness. For the record, I will post it again:

...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. [emphasis added]
​

You keep making the dubious claim that the first paragraph somehow overrules this. Let's look at it:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.​

And there you find the phrase "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and the word "station". All your argument is centered around the fact that these words exist there. You then go on to give possible definitions of these words that suit your cause, and declare victory. But you totally ignore what either of the first two paragraphs are saying in context.

The first paragraph has nothing to do with needing to obey commands of God. Rather, it says that the laws of nature entitle us to rule ourselves. It is like referring to the laws of motion or the laws of thermodynamics. Jefferson is simply saying the way things work is that people have the right to rule themselves.

But if you combine it with the statements about how the Creator has endowed us with our inalienable rights it strongly points to my interpretation that we can choose to change our government but only within the framework of the rights given to us by God thru the Laws of Nature and the [laws] of Natures God. In addition, the actions of the founders in the ensuing years after 1776 show that my interpretation is the correct one.

dm: But even if we accept your highly dubious argument that "laws of nature's God" means "commands of God" in this context, how would we know God's commands?

As a unitarian Jefferson the author was referring to Gods moral law contained in the Bible. The biblical God is the only God the founders respected. Especially His moral laws. While some as unitarians did not respect the supernatural aspects of the Bible they did respect the Ten Commandments and the moral teachings Christ.

dm: If you say that many of the founders thought God's commands were found in the Bible, so what? Nowhere do they say that all future generations must find God's commands the way we do. Nowhere do they say, that, whatever laws they make, every future generation is forced to make the same laws.

Not necessarily the exact same laws, but laws within the framework of the two sets of laws referenced in the DOI and the rights contained therein. They would have never dreamed that certain states would condone the killing of third trimester unborn babies. Those laws are obviously outside the framework established in DOI and the Constitution's Fifth Amendment. And should be ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Our nation was founded on the framework of Natural and Biblical law. Freedom to make other laws but restricted within the form of that framework. Freedom with form.

dm: If the founders had meant the second paragraph to say people needed government "as to God shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness," they could have said so. Instead they said people are entitled to seek government, "as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

See above.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: Humans have existed for about 2 million years and ever since then they have seen that persons produce the personal. No one has empirically observed persons coming into existence by impersonal processes or an impersonal origin.

dm: The "humans" that were alive 2 million years ago would not qualify as modern humans. They were more like apemen.

Actually there is evidence they were just as human as you are, study of ancient DNA has found evidence of interbreeding between homo sapiens and homo erectus. Fertile interbreeding is evidence that two organisms though physically very different may be the same species. This was shown recently when it was discovered that dogs and wolves are the same species after years of believing they were separate species.

dm: I agree that no one person saw all 4 million years of human evolution. That does not mean it did not happen.

No, but it is evidence against it. Combined with the fact that there are no undisputed transition forms.

Why are there still apes? .

dm: Why does the cause of human evolution need to be a person?

Because all the empirical evidence says that. Historical extrapolation is very risky and unreliable.

dm: Why can it not be a combination of natural forces that drives the process? I just so happen to have described that natural process in detail recently at

Because there is no empirical evidence that a combination of natural impersonal forces over a long period of time can do anything such thing. Irrespective of just so stories claiming to explain it. Deep historical extrapolations are notoriously inaccurate. Especially given that the fossil record provides no undisputed transition forms between apes and humans. Your little story about "some creatures started growing bigger brains and some creatures started doing something else and some creatures started ......" Is no evidence whatsoever. How could those creatures start doing those things on their own? That makes no sense. How do you start your brain growing? Buy a skull expander?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Your little story about "some creatures started growing bigger brains and some creatures started doing something else and some creatures started ......" Is no evidence whatsoever. How could those creatures start doing those things on their own? That makes no sense. How do you start your brain growing? Buy a skull expander?

I know, right? Silly totality of scientists from many disciplines, thinking they know about evolution just because of centuries of learning and mountains of converging evidence.
You ought to publish your thoughts. I'm sure you'd win a Nobel prize.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Your God stands back while children suffer sexual abuse. Why? You reply that sexual abuse is "the necessary outcome for some children in order to accomplish Gods purposes to bring about a greater good." [emphasis yours]

Again, why cannot an all powerful God figure out a way to accomplish his purposes without allowing these children to suffer horrible sexual abuse?

Are you saying that all children who suffer sexual abuse do it because God is working out a greater good, or just some of them? If your contrived "greater good" argument only applies to some of them, what about all the others that suffer?

Because evil can only be destroyed forever by a free will universe that operates primarily by natural law, God allows sexual abuse to occur to accomplish that and other greater goods. The primary being destroying evil forever. Contrary to popular belief God cannot do absolutely anything, for example He is bound by logic, He can only do what is logically possible. Actually you are right I meant to say it applies to all children that suffer sexual abuse and not just them, all evil.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Actually, the thing that you have described is exactly what circular logic means. What is goodness? The things that God tells us to do.

No, Goodness is Gods character not what He tells us to do. Though what He tells us to do does reflect His character.

ia: How does we know these are good? Because God told us to do them. "He gets His moral ideas from His own character" simply means that He gets His moral ideas from His moral ideas. Turtles all the way down is exactly what it is.

No, we also know they are good from our moral consciences, if it has not become too distorted we recognize it as good, especially those whose consciences are being restored after they are spiritually born again. But even unbelievers can recognize the good in many of His commands.

ia: And quite simply, this reduces the meaning of "good" to "what God says".

No, just as a mirror reflects your face, so what God says reflects His character but it is not goodness itself.

ia: Your attempt to resolve the Euthyphro Dilemma by declaring goodness to be the intrinsic nature of God's character is a familiar apologetic, but all it does is kick the can down the road, passing the problem on one level without actually addressing it. So, you say, God knows what is good because it is His character. Well, how do we or He know that His character is good?

He doesnt need to know His character is good, because He is the good. It is just like a giraffe doesnt need to know it is a giraffe, it is just a giraffe by nature. We with our moral conscience can learn to recognize Him as the good.

ia: Do we measure it against some external scale, or is it simply good because God says it is? And supposing tomorrow, He declared child rape to be good? You and Doubting Merle seem to agree that it is a bad thing. But if God said it, on what basis could you possibly object? You have said yourself that there is no external standard. God could declare anything to be good, and you would agree. And if God's character were cruel and unjust, then cruelty and injustice would be good, by definition. You can say He'd never do that, but on what grounds? If He did do it, it would be good.

There is an "external scale", His unchanging moral character which objectively exists thereby providing us with an objective moral standard upon which all morality is based.

ia: So, when I ask you "how can you know what is good?" you answer "because God tells me." And how do you know that this is good? Because God said so.

You're very fond of telling us what is right or wrong, Ed. But what basis do you have for making any such declarations?

His objectively existing moral character, which atheists do not have. If God does not exist all morality is subjective. And just based on your personal preference.

 

[doubtingmerle]

But if you combine it with the statements about how the Creator has endowed us with our inalienable rights it strongly points to my interpretation that we can choose to change our government but only within the framework of the rights given to us by God thru the Laws of Nature and the [laws] of Natures God. In addition, the actions of the founders in the ensuing years after 1776 show that my interpretation is the correct one.



As a unitarian Jefferson the author was referring to Gods moral law contained in the Bible. The biblical God is the only God the founders respected. Especially His moral laws. While some as unitarians did not respect the supernatural aspects of the Bible they did respect the Ten Commandments and the moral teachings Christ.


Not necessarily the exact same laws, but laws within the framework of the two sets of laws referenced in the DOI and the rights contained therein. They would have never dreamed that certain states would condone the killing of third trimester unborn babies. Those laws are obviously outside the framework established in DOI and the Constitution's Fifth Amendment. And should be ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Our nation was founded on the framework of Natural and Biblical law. Freedom to make other laws but restricted within the form of that framework. Freedom with form.


See above.

Got it. You are just going to repeat this over and over until we get tired of arguing with you. Well, Ok then.

Any person who will take the time to read the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence will see that it does not say what you say it says. In fact, it says the opposite. The whole purpose of the first two paragraphs is that people have the right to choose whatever government they personally think will best effect their safety and happiness. It then goes on to detail where the framers did not think the current government was good for their safety and happiness, how attempts to remedy that did not work, and how the signers came to the conclusion that they would be best off by breaking the ties with England.

So the founding fathers are saying our laws can be based on what we think is best for our safety and happiness (the same view of moral law you vehemently reject).

Nowhere do they say that we need a country where people who claim to be speaking for God foist their views on everyone else.

Quote mining a phrase or two from the document over and over again does not change this.

But go ahead, dump another post on this, ignoring the DOI, and pretending it says what you want. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Actually there is evidence they were just as human as you are, study of ancient DNA has found evidence of interbreeding between homo sapiens and homo erectus. Fertile interbreeding is evidence that two organisms though physically very different may be the same species. This was shown recently when it was discovered that dogs and wolves are the same species after years of believing they were separate species.


No, but it is evidence against it. Combined with the fact that there are no undisputed transition forms.

Why are there still apes? .


Because all the empirical evidence says that. Historical extrapolation is very risky and unreliable.


Because there is no empirical evidence that a combination of natural impersonal forces over a long period of time can do anything such thing. Irrespective of just so stories claiming to explain it. Deep historical extrapolations are notoriously inaccurate. Especially given that the fossil record provides no undisputed transition forms between apes and humans. Your little story about "some creatures started growing bigger brains and some creatures started doing something else and some creatures started ......" Is no evidence whatsoever. How could those creatures start doing those things on their own? That makes no sense. How do you start your brain growing? Buy a skull expander?

Huh? The fossil record is full of transitional forms. See List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia .

Regarding the ape to human transition, there are clear transitionals like australopithecine and homo habilis.

And no, I was not simply writing a story. All the steps are documented with fossil finds. For instance we can see from the skulls of the earliest apes to come out of the forest and walk upright that they had advanced the use of their cognitive portion of the brain, while sacrificing some of the portions of the brain associated with the senses.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, Goodness is Gods character not what He tells us to do. Though what He tells us to do does reflect His character.


No, we also know they are good from our moral consciences, if it has not become too distorted we recognize it as good, especially those whose consciences are being restored after they are spiritually born again. But even unbelievers can recognize the good in many of His commands.


No, just as a mirror reflects your face, so what God says reflects His character but it is not goodness itself.


He doesnt need to know His character is good, because He is the good. It is just like a giraffe doesnt need to know it is a giraffe, it is just a giraffe by nature. We with our moral conscience can learn to recognize Him as the good.


There is an "external scale", His unchanging moral character which objectively exists thereby providing us with an objective moral standard upon which all morality is based.


His objectively existing moral character, which atheists do not have. If God does not exist all morality is subjective. And just based on your personal preference.

Define what you mean when you use the word, "good".

 

[Ed1wolf]

Most of the evidence points to the universe having a beginning, ie the BB theory, which means it is an effect. Therefore it needs a cause. Since the universe contains personal beings and purposes, we know that only persons can produce the personal. Therefore, the cause must be a person. in addition, according to the law of logic the cause must be "outside" or transcendent to the effect, just like the Christian God.

cw: I agree that the universe must have had a beginning and there must be a cause. But you must give evidence to justify your claim that only persons can be the cause. Something that cannot demonstrated to exist cannot the the cause for something.

Do you believe persons exist? Throughout all of human existence it has been empirically observed that only persons can produce the personal. Personal beings exist in this universe, therefore their cause is most likely a person. In addition, purposes exist in this universe, such as eyes for seeing and ears for hearing. We know from observation and experience that purposes for things are only created by personal beings, so therefore their existence also is evidence for the cause of the universe being personal.

Ed: That is because most atheists do not live consistent with their worldview especially in nations influenced by Chrstianity. But leaders of some nations have, like the Soviet Union and some nonChristian nations have like Communist China. But that is why they are hell holes.

cw: Atheism is not a worldview anymore than lack of belief in Big Foot is a worldview. Communism is a political worldview. These hell holes as you say are not that because they are atheistic, it is because of their ideology. Tell me how a lack of belief in a deity leads to suffering.

Technically it is not a worldview, but generally atheism is associated with the worldview of Naturalism and therefore does not have an objective basis for morality and therefore leads to a slippery slope toward relativistic morality which leads to moral anarchy and eventually social chaos which results in a tyrannical government in order to control the moral anarchy and social chaos. Thereby producing a hell hold nation or society.

ed: I doubt you have an objectively rational justification. What is your rational justification?
You said:

Many people think that because it is ultimately meaningless then why care about others, why not just have as much pleasure as you can until you die? Since it is meaningless you have no rational basis for condemning or trying to change someone that thinks like that.

cw: I can justify it with well being. Most people if you ask them will say unnecessary suffering is bad and should be limited in some way for example. If my moral goal is to maximize well being for all then suffering for no reason is going to be bad. I can justify telling people that they should care about others out of empathy and compassion because you would want them to treat you that way. It benefits us and society when we treat others this way.

Yes but all of that is just based on an irrational sentimentality for humans, there is no objective reason to treat humans any differently than any other animal. What is the objective reason to benefit society? Also, your definition of benefiting society is purely subjective, Hitler believed he was benefitting his society by what he did. Do you have an objective basis for condemning Hitlers definition of benefitting society?

cw: That God is immoral.
I know this because I read the bible. If the God as described in the bible exists I believe he is immoral. For starters:
1. Owning others as property is always immoral.
2. Beating slaves is always immoral.
3. Killing almost everyone on the planet with a flood is immoral.
4. Substitution atonement is an immoral concept.
5. Killing people for homosexual behavior is always immoral.
6. Killing someone because they believe in a different god is immoral.
7. On and on...

How do you know objectively that all these things are immoral? Aren't your views just the product of the chemicals in your brain shaped by evolution? Exactly like Hitlers morality? His was produced by the same processes as your morality. How can yours or his be any more superior than the other especially since humans are no more special or valuable than a cockroach according to evolution. Both of your views are just based on your personal preferences and subjective feelings regarding the value of homo sapiens. Again you have no real objective basis for saying that all these things are immoral.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Do you believe persons exist? Throughout all of human existence it has been empirically observed that only persons can produce the personal. Personal beings exist in this universe, therefore their cause is most likely a person. In addition, purposes exist in this universe, such as eyes for seeing and ears for hearing. We know from observation and experience that purposes for things are only created by personal beings, so therefore their existence also is evidence for the cause of the universe being personal.


Technically it is not a worldview, but generally atheism is associated with the worldview of Naturalism and therefore does not have an objective basis for morality and therefore leads to a slippery slope toward relativistic morality which leads to moral anarchy and eventually social chaos which results in a tyrannical government in order to control the moral anarchy and social chaos. Thereby producing a hell hold nation or society.



Yes but all of that is just based on an irrational sentimentality for humans, there is no objective reason to treat humans any differently than any other animal. What is the objective reason to benefit society? Also, your definition of benefiting society is purely subjective, Hitler believed he was benefitting his society by what he did. Do you have an objective basis for condemning Hitlers definition of benefitting society?



How do you know objectively that all these things are immoral? Aren't your views just the product of the chemicals in your brain shaped by evolution? Exactly like Hitlers morality? His was produced by the same processes as your morality. How can yours or his be any more superior than the other especially since humans are no more special or valuable than a cockroach according to evolution. Both of your views are just based on your personal preferences and subjective feelings regarding the value of homo sapiens. Again you have no real objective basis for saying that all these things are immoral.

What is you objective basis for calling things moral? Whatever God wants that is what is moral? What if God wanted the holocaust? Would that then be moral?

 

[doubtingmerle]

generally atheism is associated with the worldview of Naturalism and therefore does not have an objective basis for morality and therefore leads to a slippery slope toward relativistic morality which leads to moral anarchy and eventually social chaos which results in a tyrannical government in order to control the moral anarchy and social chaos. Thereby producing a hell hold nation or society.

[sarcasm]
I have wumphala, you don't. Because I have wumphala, any nation that follows my ideas will be prosperous and filled will content, happy people. Yeah for me! [pounding my chest] Go wumphala!

You don't have wumphala. So sad, too bad. Any nation that does not have wumphala will go down a slippery slope to moral anarchy and eventually social chaos which results in a tyrannical government in order to control the moral anarchy and social chaos. Thereby producing a hell hole nation or society. Hitler! Death panels! Riots in the streets! Oh, so sad, too bad you don't have wumphala.

What is wumphala? I haven't got the slightest idea. All I know is, I got it, you don't, yeah for me! [pounding my chest].

[/sarcasm]

I see the same thing in your writings, except you use the term "absolute morality" instead of wumphala. What is "absolute morality"? Is it a good thing to follow this "absolute morality"? You might as well be telling me to follow wumphala. If you can't define it, what good is it?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I see the same thing in your writings, except you use the term "absolute morality" instead of wumphala. What is "absolute morality"? Is it a good thing to follow this "absolute morality"? You might as well be telling me to follow wumphala. If you can't define it, what good is it?

Well, exactly. Ed1wolf keeps asking how we can know what is moral and what is not. But when he is asked that question, his answer is pure circular logic.

No, Goodness is Gods character not what He tells us to do. Though what He tells us to do does reflect His character.

You have said that goodness is God's character. Therefore, whatever God does is good.
So, if we accept your logic, exactly what is to stop God from stealing, lying, cheating or telling others to do that?
You can say "God would never do such a thing because it would not be good," but how can you tell? On what basis do you say that? You have already said that whatever God does is good. Therefore, if God did steal, cheat or lie, those would be good actions.
You can say - as indeed you did - that God would never do such things because they would contradict His character. But why would God never contradict His own character? Because it would be a bad thing to do? But if God did contradict His own character, then it would not - by your own definition - be a bad thing to do.

No, we also know they are good from our moral consciences, if it has not become too distorted we recognize it as good

And how do you know that your "moral conscience is correct? So far, all you've done is try to define it into existence, saying that your moral conscience knows what is right because it is the thing that recognises rightness.

There is an "external scale", His unchanging moral character which objectively exists thereby providing us with an objective moral standard upon which all morality is based.

We've already demonstrated that your definition of absolute morality has no foundation at all, since God could do absolutely anything and you would still label it good. Or, if you would not - if you would say, "No, God wouldn't do that because it's evil," then you are claiming to be able to judge God, which means you yourself claim to possess a standard by which to judge God, and absolute morality does not come from God after all.

Do you believe persons exist? Throughout all of human existence it has been empirically observed that only persons can produce the personal.

It's certainly correct to say that persons produce the personal, but that's not what we're talking about, is it? Have you ever seen a person create a person? I haven't.
Certainly I was produced by my parents, but all that means is that they instigated and participated in a series of biological chain reactions that led to me being born. They didn't create me, any more than a person pressing the button on a TV creates the film they watch.
So if you are saying that we have seen personal beings create other personal beings - that is, design the process by which they come into existence and use it to make them come into existence - I have to say that you are incorrect. The fact of the matter is that every single person in existence was created by the impersonal forces of human biology, themselves produced by the impersonal forces of evolution.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Do you believe persons exist? Throughout all of human existence it has been empirically observed that only persons can produce the personal.

It has also been shown with almost 100% certainty that evolution created persons and the personal.

Personal beings exist in this universe, therefore their cause is most likely a person. In addition, purposes exist in this universe, such as eyes for seeing and ears for hearing. We know from observation and experience that purposes for things are only created by personal beings, so therefore their existence also is evidence for the cause of the universe being personal.

No again. The most likely cause is what can be best demonstrated to be true. Evolution fits that bill. God which cannot be shown to exist cannot be a cause of anything until God has been shown to exist.

Technically it is not a worldview, but generally atheism is associated with the worldview of Naturalism...

Naturalism has no real value as a term, philosophers do not agree on what naturalism means. Do you mean methodological Naturalism or Ontological Naturalism or something else.

...and therefore does not have an objective basis for morality and therefore leads to a slippery slope toward relativistic morality which leads to moral anarchy and eventually social chaos which results in a tyrannical government in order to control the moral anarchy and social chaos. Thereby producing a hell hold nation or society.

I have explained this to you before a couple of times. You have just ignored my explanations so far. My morality is based around the goal of well being or maximizing well being for all. If that is the goal then I can objectively compare any action against that goal to see if it is moral. Your morality is whatever God says right? This is why you defend owning people as property and mass murder of entire populations etc. Tell me why the basis of your morality is better than my basis.

Yes but all of that is just based on an irrational sentimentality for humans, there is no objective reason to treat humans any differently than any other animal.

Have you even thought or read about these issues? Of course there are many reasons can you think of any?

What is the objective reason to benefit society? Also, your definition of benefiting society is purely subjective, Hitler believed he was benefitting his society by what he did. Do you have an objective basis for condemning Hitlers definition of benefitting society?

My morality is not based around what benefits society but to maximize well being for all. This shows you have not bothered to understand my morality. I can object to Hitler's morality because murdering 6+ million Jews does not maximize well being for all. This is the same reason I object to Gods killing of millions in the bible. I agree that my goal of morality is subjective but I can't find anyone that can object to my basis excerpt on the grounds that it is subjective. Most people believe that maximizing peoples well being is a good thing.

How do you know objectively that all these things are immoral?

I have explained my morality above. Will you comment or address that?

Aren't your views just the product of the chemicals in your brain shaped by evolution? Exactly like Hitlers morality?

Please. Weak arguments need to play the Hitler card. I have explained why my morality is better than Hitlers, will you comment on that?

His was produced by the same processes as your morality.

Nope. His processes did not use maximal well being for all as a goal.

How can yours or his be any more superior than the other especially since humans are no more special or valuable than a cockroach according to evolution.

Yes they do according to people, even atheists. Have you ever read about humanism? I suggest you do, it explains most of these questions you have.

Both of your views are just based on your personal preferences and subjective feelings regarding the value of homo sapiens. Again you have no real objective basis for saying that all these things are immoral.

I agree that the ultimate goal is subjective but actions are not as I have explained above. You have no basis for your morality because you cannot demonstrate the God that you base it on.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Do you believe persons exist? Throughout all of human existence it has been empirically observed that only persons can produce the personal.

Actually, it is really not persons that create persons. Rather, it is fertilized eggs that do it. And a fertilized egg can take nutrients from the mother and form a new person, provided it has the right DNA. So the question becomes, where does human DNA come from? For each of us, it comes from our parents, usually with a number of variations. So my DNA is a variation of variations of DNA going many generations back. The evidence indicates that if you go back far enough, that DNA did not go back to a human being, but to something we would consider as an ape man. And if we kept going back, we would see it comes from something like an ape that came from something like an early mammal, etc.

 

[Ed1wolf]

The unity of divinity is much greater than the unity of humanity. I am not saying the analogy is perfect.

 

[Ed1wolf]

He certainly did. My wife and I may be one person in humanity, but we are certainly two individual people.

Divinity is much more unified than humanity. I am not saying the analogy is perfect. Just that it demonstrates that there is nothing contradictory about the Trinity.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: Of course not, those would all violate the Constitution.

ia: Yes. They would. And so would Christianity doing such things. Indeed, it does, as has been shown a number of times. While some violations in the early days of the USA (such as those you pointed out) may have been overlooked, the US constitution is quite clear that is the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion (as was explicitly stated in the Treaty of Tripoli).

Those things also violate the teachings of Christianity because the Constitution is based on many Christian principles as I demonstrated earlier. The Treaty of Tripoli was an appeasement measure to stop the Muslims from attacking our ships. Politicians stretched the truth even back then in order prevent international interference and military attack. IOW they lied.

ia: You say that the USA is not a secular nation. But you're wrong. Do a search for "is the USA a secular nation" and you'll find the answer quickly enough, from sound and impartial sources:
What is a Secular State?
Read it, and you'll see that the USA is not even one of those countries which claim to be secular but are in fact partly religious (like the UK, or Armenia). The USA is a wholly secular state that includes a high proportion of religious citizens. It's as simple as that.

No secular state would claim that our rights come from the Creator and based on the laws of Natures God.
↑

ed: Not allowing women to vote, racism, and gay marriage are all actually violations of the DOIs principles even at the time, some of the founders racism just blinded them to it. The DOIs principles are founded on universal eternal principles that have never changed.

ia: Can I point out, the Declaration of Independence us not the law of the United States. All it is is an announcement that the colonies of America have the right to be independent of Britain. The law of the United States is based on the Constitution. and that law is quite clear that women should be allowed to vote, that racism is wrong, and that gay people have the constitutional right to marry.

No I demonstrated earlier that it listed as part of the legal code of America and has been referenced and utilized in many legal decisions made by SCOTUS. Nowhere in the Constitution does it even deal with marriage. The founders believed marriage was a state issue. In addition, even heterosexuals dont have a RIGHT to marriage as I demonstrated earlier.
↑

ed: How do you know it is good that they have? You have no objective standard for what is good.

ia: No, it looks like it's you who has no objective standard for good. Because your idea of what good is is based on a logical fallacy: "Good is what God says. Whatever he says is good, is." Therefore, if God were to say that evil is good, it would be. Therefore, good has no meaning.

No, good is not what God says, the good is what God is. Good is the nature of God.
↑

ed: I notice you didn't answer my question of where that right comes from, that is evidence that you did make it up.

ia: Not at all. All people have the right to act as they see fit, unless there is good reason to prohibit that act in the overriding interests of society.

How do you that?

ia: If gay people wish to marry, then you need to show that there is an urgent need to override their rights. So far, you have failed to do so.
You say we've never done it before. Well, so what?
You say gay sex is harmful. Well, so what?

The state has a right to protect the health of the people of the society.

ia: You say gay people can't have children. Well, so what?

Dealt with earlier.

ia: You say gay people cannot become some mystical single unit of reproductive something-or-other. Well, first, you just made that up.

I did not make it up, it is a biological fact, look it up.

ia: Second, so what? As with all the rest of your arguments, why should they mean anything.
You say your arguments are based on biology. It's true, they are. It's not the biology I take issue with , it's the assertion that because two gay people can't unite sexually to produce a child, therefore they should not be allowed to marry.

Because it cannot unite persons, it is a depersonalizing behavior.
↑

ed: It does harm people as I demonstrated earlier with scientific studies. It primarily hurts the ones engaged in the behavior.

ia: No, I'm afraid you haven't demonstrated that. All you've done is shown that there is a correlation between homosexual behaviour and mental helath issues, not a causation. It seems much more likely that the tendency of homosexuals to suffer from mental illnesses is due to the bigotry they experience from society.

No, other oppressed peoples have not had these issues.
↑