Do atheists constantly change the goalposts?

2PhiloVoid said:

Oh, it can be subjective. But the question is: is evidence only recognized in relation to what one wants to find? I don't think it always is.

No, there was another argument in the video other than that one you've mentioned, and it's that one I was alluding to. But no matter, there's no need for you to further engage in something you're not interested in.


Cheers!

Click to expand...

2PhiloVoid said:

Yes, I very well understand that. But for the goalpost of this thread, we're all sort of wondering if the Christian [moral set] is worthy of our consideration where ethical deliberation and moral definitions are asserted.

Click to expand...

Hans Blaster said:

Pro tip: You can use a time index on a YT link to point the the part of the video you want to discuss or use so we don't give up after getting through the earlier dreck.

Click to expand...

dlamberth said:

When looking at any religious moral goalpost, I look at the actual acts of the believers of the particular religion under consideration. And when taking in a broad sweep of Christian history, I don't really see that religion as having a leg up over any other religion when it comes to things like morals and ethics. There is of course the teachings of Jesus who is a person I consider the Light of the Cosmos. But the religion that came afterwards it seems to me has fallen far short of his moral and ethical teachings and the examples He lived. It sometimes feels to me like the religion of Christianity is living in different room than the one Jesus sits in. I feel that the world would be a very different place if Christianity actually lived the example of Jesus.

One of my favorite medieval women Christian mystics is Marguerite Porete. She wrote something that changed my whole outlook on the Christian church and more importantly in how I experienced Jesus. What she wrote is that there are two churches. The first church she called the High Holy Church. That church, she wrote, "Preached Love". The other church she called the Little Holly Church. That church preaches "rules, laws and order". And thinking about Jesus and the Divine Infinite Compassion that is at the Heart of Christ (at least in how I experience Him) Marguerite Porete helped me see something really important that is missing in the religion that bears his name, namely that lost connection of Love for "all" aspects of Humanity. As a last and I think important related note: Marguerite Porete was burned at the stake by the Little Holy Church. The Church has a 2000 year history of acts of human upon human horror. Which I see, maybe not literally, but figuratively doing so even today.

I appreciate your defence of Christianity. I like to read your post and I learned a lot from you. Where I'm at is that when it comes to the Divine Infinate Compassion of Jesus, it seems really clear to me that the religion we call Christianity has clearly moved the goalpost away from the Heart of Christ to something else very different in nature. And therein lies the rub.

Click to expand...

2PhiloVoid said:

Yeah, I'm aware of that already, but thanks for the reminder. I didn't use that feature because I don't really like to press folks who tell me they have little interest. Not that I'm faulting you in that. It is what it is and I try to respect some boundaries.

Click to expand...

Hans Blaster said:

I will say that I do actually appreciate when arguments by video are made with the critical part of the video indicated, especially if it isn't at the beginning.

Click to expand...

2PhiloVoid said:

I think what you're missing here is that I'm implying that within human psychology, there are other aspects of human psychology that play into our thinking that we're making a bona-fide decision on our own. One of those aspects is individual mental competency; another aspect is mass influence and mass psychosis.

Click to expand...

2PhiloVoid said:

.... and then if we throw the additional theological possibility of demonic influence into the mix...

Click to expand...

2PhiloVoid said:

You'll take the road offered by Robert Sapolsky; I'll take the road [more or less] offered by Malcolm A. Jeeves.

Click to expand...

Bradskii said:

I have to word this correctly, bearing in mind my position on free will. When I say that we are responsible for our decisions (which is really the point I was making) then I mean that we have to be prepared to personally accept the consequences of our actions. Mental competency and mass influence don't excuse your actions but you can offer them up as mitigating circumstances. But only the once (keep doing something wrong when you know it's wrong and you'll suffer the consequences if caught).

Click to expand...

Bradskii said:

...then you'll know I'll throw it back out.

Click to expand...

Bradskii said:

I'm heading 'off grid' for 3 weeks later today and have been looking to download a few books for those internet free nights. So Jeeve's Neuroscience, Psychology, and Religion has just been added to my Kindle.

Click to expand...

the Vital One said:

It seems like whenever one tries to provide evidence of God, the Bible, ect. to an atheist they keep changing the goalposts.

One example is the simple fact of Jesus being a historical person.

You give them the Gospels as proof and that isn't good enough because it was written by Christians and therefore biased. You give them secular sources close to the time of Christ and those aren't good enough because they've been tainted by Christians. You give them other secular sources and they don't count because they came too late.

Atheists think they're governed by logic and science and have an incorruptible, rational view of everything. There's a least one fallacy they keep coming back to and it's changing the goalposts.

Click to expand...