What is the meaning of your life?

[NewToLife]

I notice that you omitted my qualifiers. Certainly, religious believers attempt to provide evidence and reasoning for why they believe what they do, but usually the evidence is not sound and the reasoning is not valid. If you think you can use sound evidence and valid reasoning to demonstrate that your God exists then please do so. Did you use sound evidence and valid reasoning to convince yourself that your God exists? If so then just tell me what that sound evidence was and show me your valid reasoning. Or is it that you used unsound evidence and invalid reasoning to convince yourself that your God exists?

Of course I ignored your qualifiers, I would be unwise not to given that you believe yourself to be the ultimate arbiter of what does or does not meet your conditions. You might as well rephrase your qualifiers to read evidence and reasoning that you ( based on your personal desired outcomes) are willing to accept. The bar will afteral be systematically raised to exclude each and every point of evidence or reason presented. And just for anyone who doesnt already know you I'll note that I'm not speculating here because I've participated in a number of threads where you have done precisely that in response to any attempt to engage your requests.

We've covered the ground of you trying to make all this personal before so I'll simply note that I do not feel obliged to submit my judgements for your approval anymore now than I have in the past, I have zero faith in your ability to make my judgements for me. You for your part of course fail to meet your own standards when challenged to do so and are in fact unable to provide a verifiable evidential basis for your own belief that an evidential basis is in some way required for belief to be reasonable. I know because we have of course done that dance before also.

Finally I note that you do not deny that what you actually require is God in a jar ( an absurdity of a desire ). Given that this is the case but that you are careful to try and appear to be making a more reasonable request I would suggest people take a moment and reflect on whether they really want to spend time trying to debate you.

 

[aiki]

I know there are atheists who value human life. My point was that there is nothing in atheism itself that warrants them doing so.
​

The problem here, and this is the last time I’m going to bother saying this, is that atheism is not an ethical viewpoint, but you are trying to present it as such. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in Gods, nothing more and nothing less. You may as well start attacking a lack of belief in ghosts for not providing a reason to value human life. You are attacking a straw man. The reasons why people who lack a belief in gods value human life are many and varied and are independent of their lack of belief in gods in the same way they are independent of a lack of belief in ghosts.

As I indicated in my last post, I am aware that atheists do place some value on human life. I also understand that atheism, strictly speaking, offers nothing to anyone but the idea that God doesn't exist. It is dishonest, however, to suggest that the consequences, or philosophical ramifications, of an atheistic disposition are no greater than what one might experience if one denied the existence of ghosts. If you think the concept of God and ghosts are alike enough to warrant such a broad comparison, you are either terribly ignorant in regard to the two concepts, or are guilty of a poor attempt at sophistry.

I would, obviously, have a different basis for valuing human life; one that would be, as yours is, weaker and easily subjectified.

You didn’t answer my questions. Would you still value human life if it turned out that your God is imaginary? Do you actually need to believe in your God for you to place a value on human life? Even without a god belief, my value for human life is strong enough that I don’t feel the urge to murder, rape, steal or commit many other immoral or unethical acts. Would your value for human life be less than mine if you didn’t have your God belief?

Actually, I did answer your question. I guess you didn't like my phrasing... I won't repeat myself; just look above for my answer.

I should like to ask why you speak of "immorality" and "unethical acts"? What do you mean when you use these terms? Obviously, without a belief in a Moral Law Giver, you mean something rather different than what I mean when I use these terms. What determines for you what is unethical or immoral?

But the problem is you haven’t tested it, have you? No one has ever provided any sound, tested evidence that this promise is true. You just assume it without evidence. But you see I have found Him to be as good as His word in regard to many of His other promises, so I have strong confidence in this the greatest of His promises. I have a 30 year history of walking with God as evidence upon which to rest my faith in His promise of what comes after the death of my body.

So your answer would be ‘no’ then, wouldn’t it? You haven’t actually tested the promise of life after death, have you? And no one else has ever provided any sound, tested evidence that it is true, have they?

You are conflating evidence and proof, here. I don't have proof that God's promise of life after death is true; I would have to die to have that. I do have evidence, however, that His promise of life after death is true. This I have obtained from a relatively long history of experience of His kept promises to me.

Peace.

 

[3sigma]

You might as well rephrase your qualifiers to read evidence and reasoning that you ( based on your personal desired outcomes) are willing to accept. The bar will afteral be systematically raised to exclude each and every point of evidence or reason presented.

There is no need to rephrase my qualifiers. I provided links to the dictionary definitions and I’ve further explained what I mean by ‘sound’ and ‘valid’. I do not raise the bar on my requirements. I have always asked for evidence that is free from error, fallacy or misapprehension and reasoning that is well grounded, justifiable and logically correct. Your problem is that none of your so-called evidence or reasoning for your God’s existence meets those basic requirements. Do you think that I should accept evidence that is riddled with errors, fallacies and misapprehensions? Do you think I should accept reasoning that is ill grounded, unjustifiable and logically incorrect? Is that the sort of evidence and reasoning you used to come to the conclusion that your God exists? If not then please provide the sound evidence and valid reasoning you used to come to that conclusion.

I notice that you evaded all of those questions in my previous post. If you are unable or unwilling to answer my questions then your responses are not of much use to me in exploring Christianity and the way Christians think.

You for your part of course fail to meet your own standards when challenged to do so and are in fact unable to provide a verifiable evidential basis for your own belief that an evidential basis is in some way required for belief to be reasonable.

What a bizarre argument. Either you are arguing that my inability to provide evidence to support my argument is unreasonable or that it is reasonable to expect me to provide evidence to support my argument. Either way, you are affirming my argument that is reasonable to expect people to provide sound evidence to support their arguments. Or are you arguing that it is reasonable to believe something based on no verifiable evidence at all?

Given that this is the case but that you are careful to try and appear to be making a more reasonable request I would suggest people take a moment and reflect on whether they really want to spend time trying to debate you.

If you are unable or unwilling to provide any sound evidence or valid reasoning for your beliefs then you aren’t really engaging in the discussion. In which case, feel free not to participate.

 

[3sigma]

If you think the concept of God and ghosts are alike enough to warrant such a broad comparison, you are either terribly ignorant in regard to the two concepts, or are guilty of a poor attempt at sophistry.

If you think you can provide sound evidence to show that your God is any less imaginary than a ghost then please do so.

Actually, I did answer your question. I guess you didn't like my phrasing... I won't repeat myself; just look above for my answer.

The way I read your answer is that your value of human life would diminish if you didn’t have your God belief. In which case, please continue to believe your God exists.

I should like to ask why you speak of "immorality" and "unethical acts"? What do you mean when you use these terms? Obviously, without a belief in a Moral Law Giver, you mean something rather different than what I mean when I use these terms. What determines for you what is unethical or immoral?

I mean acts that the society in which I live deems to be immoral or unethical. The societies and cultures in which we live determine by consensus which acts are considered immoral and unethical. This is obvious from the fact that what is considered immoral and unethical is different in different societies and changes over time. For example, there were times in the past when human slavery was not considered immoral or unethical in some societies whereas today it is.

You are conflating evidence and proof, here. I don't have proof that God's promise of life after death is true; I would have to die to have that. I do have evidence, however, that His promise of life after death is true. This I have obtained from a relatively long history of experience of His kept promises to me.

Evidence is that which furnishes proof. In any case, please show me this sound evidence you have that there is life after death. Or is it that the evidence you have is unsound?

 

[NewToLife]

I notice that you evaded all of those questions in my previous post. If you are unable or unwilling to answer my questions then your responses are not of much use to me in exploring Christianity and the way Christians think.

We've crossed swords before and indeed your questions have been addressed before, as noted, if confronted with evidence you simply raise the bar to levels that no evidence could ever reasonably reach. In the case of the miraculous for instance you simply believe it impossible by definition and of course no evidence can ever prove the impossible. You should probably just come clean on this stuff though I note you arent actually denying that you really do want God in a jar. For the record I do not have Him in a jar for you to examine so naturally I cannot furnish the proof you think belief requires.

What a bizarre argument. Either you are arguing that my inability to provide evidence to support my argument is unreasonable or that it is reasonable to expect me to provide evidence to support my argument. Either way, you are affirming my argument that is reasonable to expect people to provide sound evidence to support their arguments. Or are you arguing that it is reasonable to believe something based on no verifiable evidence at all?

You think its bizarre to note that your demand is unreasonable by your own standards? I've simply noted that you are demanding from us what you do not demand of yourself. If your own position cannot meet your requirement and is in fact self-refuting then it seems odd that you would expect ours to meet this standard. I dont demand anything of you other than that you at least demonstrate your demands are reasonable to make given your own position, plainly from my standpoint a demand to see 'God in a jar' looks wholly unreasonable. I am however happy to recognise your right to believe in a way you yourself would judge irrational in another. Just dont expect me to accept the double standard in debate.

If you are unable or unwilling to provide any sound evidence or valid reasoning for your beliefs then you aren’t really engaging in the discussion. In which case, feel free not to participate.

I've engaged with you before. When provided with answers you have never engaged or recognised them as such, preferring to simply repeat the questions over and over regardless of replies. As you note there is little point in being here if you arent willing to engage which of course begs the question 'why is 3Sigma here?' By the way I'm flattered you would like me to leave, I must be doing something right.

 

[3sigma]

We've crossed swords before and indeed your questions have been addressed before, as noted, if confronted with evidence you simply raise the bar to levels that no evidence could ever reasonably reach.

All I ask for is evidence that doesn’t contain errors, fallacies or misapprehensions. Is that too much to ask? If you think you have such evidence then by all means please confront me with it. However, I wouldn’t class your continued evasion of my questions as addressing them.

You should probably just come clean though I note you arent actually dishonest enough to deny that you really do want God in a jar.

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about this “God in a jar”, but that seems a vague and ambiguous term. All I’m after is evidence that your God exists that doesn’t contain errors, fallacies or misapprehensions. If you can provide such evidence then please do.

You think its bizarre to note that your demand is unreasonable by your own standards?

So you think it is unreasonable for me to ask for verifiable evidence to support a belief? Is that what you mean by this line of argument?

As you note there is little point in being here if you arent willing to engage which of course begs the question 'why is 3sigma really here?' I daresay most posters canfigure an answer out for themselves. By the way I'm flattered you would like me to leave, I must be doing something right.

I answered this very question from LogosRhema above. I’m not asking you to leave or wishing you to leave, but as I said before, if you are unable or unwilling to answer my questions then you are not really participating in the conversation. However, if you decide not to leave this conversation then please have the courtesy to at least attempt to answer my questions rather than continually evading them.

 

[NewToLife]

So you think it is unreasonable for me to ask for verifiable evidence to support a belief? Is that what you mean by this line of argument?

Given that you lack verifiable evidence of the beliefs you hold yourself I think your behaviour can certainly be seen as unreasonable, not to mention foolish, afterall your insinuations that we're are all irrational lack any bite at all given that your own beliefs that form the basis of your demand do not pass the same test for rationality. Effectively you are a self confessed irrational ranting that others are irrational simply on the basis that they cannot match a standard that itself is wholly irrational. It would be funny if it were not so pitiful.

You still havent learned that you are wielding a double edged sword with your line and as usual the most lethal blow you deal is to your own position. What kind of a man holds an internally inconsistent and self refuting position afterall? Certainly no self respecting man of reason would do such a thing and it would be foolish of any other person to allow their own reason to be judged by what is a self refuting and therefore wholly irrational standard.

 

[NewToLife]

I mean acts that the society in which I live deems to be immoral or unethical. The societies and cultures in which we live determine by consensus which acts are considered immoral and unethical. This is obvious from the fact that what is considered immoral and unethical is different in different societies and changes over time.

Then I guess you would agree that for instance the ethnic cleansing that went on in say Rwanda was in fact moral on the basis that it was the majority Hutu who determined by consensus which acts were considered immoral and unethical? The rape, the murder, the torture, all of it endorsed as moral as far as you are concerned? That really should give you pause and prompt a reevaluation. Certainly I cant see that your position will appeal to any sane person who gives it any thought.

For example, there were times in the past when human slavery was not considered immoral or unethical in some societies whereas today it is.

And there we have it, effective confirmation of the above, anything is permissable just so long as the larger group approves. I'd suggest taking a look at Philip Zimbardo's work on group dynamics based on his research at Stanford, the Lucifer effect is an easy read and amply illustrates just why thinking the way you do is in fact deeply dangerous.

As it stands your advocation of such a line is a pretty clear demonstration of just how morally corrosive atheism can in fact be.

 

[3sigma]

Given that you lack verifiable evidence of the beliefs you hold yourself I think your behaviour can certainly be seen as unreasonable, not to mention foolish.
…
It would be funny if it were not so pitiful.

Yes, thank you for your courtesy and respect, but let’s cut to the chase, shall we? I think it is unreasonable to believe something that is unsupported by any sound evidence and you appear to disagree with that opinion. But then you claim that I am being unreasonable if I can’t provide any evidence to support my opinion. So which is it? Do you agree that it is unreasonable to believe something without any sound evidence supporting it or not? You can’t have it both ways.

Then I guess you would agree that for instance the ethnic cleansing that went on in say Rwanda was in fact moral on the basis that it was the majority Hutu who determined by consensus which acts were considered immoral and unethical?

Then your guess is wrong. The society in which I live condemns genocide. However, you also could say that the majority of Rwandans are Christian. Do you think they could have played any part in the Rwandan Genocide?

As it stands your advocation of such a line is a pretty clear demonstration of just how morally corrosive atheism can in fact be.

Are you denying that at one point in the not too distant past, the United States, whose population was and is predominantly Christian, condoned human slavery?

By the way, I notice that you are still evading most of my questions. Would you please have the courtesy to respond to them.

 

[NewToLife]

Yes, thank you for your courtesy and respect, but let’s cut to the chase, shall we? I think it is unreasonable to believe something that is unsupported by any sound evidence and you appear to disagree with that opinion.

So why does your own belief lack the kind of sound evidence ( ie proof ) you demand? You want to cut to the chase and there it is? Your position is a plain fraud.

But then you claim that I am being unreasonable if I can’t provide any evidence to support my opinion.

Actually i claim you are unreasonable because you hold a self refuting position and seek to operate a double standard where you would like to hold others to a standard you yourself fail to live up to. Please have the courtesy to stop attempting to misrepresent my position.

So which is it? Do you agree that it is unreasonable to believe something without any sound evidence supporting it or not?

Ignoring the usual conflation of proof and evidence that you are peddling here , it is you who actually claims to believe this though amusingly you dont have anything that would qualify as sound evidence by your own standard to back this position up.

You can’t have it both ways.

It's quite plain that it isnt me who wants it both ways here, I am not the one who is pushing this line for others whilst trying to claim an exemption for myself . I am merely holding you to your own standard. I'm sure you will agree that intellectual honesty demands no less of you given your claims in this thread.

Then your guess is wrong. The society in which I live condemns genocide.

It does, yet if it didnt you would deem it moral which makes the current situation a little moot wouldnt you say? You would afterall quite happily deem rape or murder moral if the society did likewise. Indeed if you are pro-choice it looks a lot to me as though you already think murder ( genocide even ) is moral.

However, you also could say that the majority of Rwandans are Christian. Do you think they could have played any part in the Rwandan Genocide?

Equally I could note that the Soviets and Maoists were atheist, why dont you ask me if I believe their atheism motivated their vastly larger genocidal activities?

Are you denying that at one point in the not too distant past, the United States, whose population was and is predominantly Christian, condoned human slavery?

Not at all though you are clearly denying that their actions were immoral . For my part I am happy to denounce slavery as immoral and I note that even at the time it was Christain activists who led the effort to make people at that time realise the immorality.

By the way, I notice that you are still evading most of my questions. Would you please have the courtesy to respond to them.

Will you demonstrate your requests to be reasonable? I see no reason to bow to unreasonable requests, nor do I see any reason not to alert others to the unreasonable nature of those requests. If you ask an innocent man when he stopped beating his wife he would be foolish to give you a direct answer instead of objecting to the premise that he ever did beat his wife. The same applies here in that your questions include the premise that proof is required for belief to be rational, a premise that fails it's own test and as such cannot be reasonable itself.

 

[ephraimanesti]

Why do you keep saying this when it is obvious that people will believe all sorts of unsupported nonsense and have done for millennia?

MY BROTHER--Are you not ignoring the fact that the worst example of "unsupported nonsense" is the belief that "There is no God?" In my personal experience as a one-time agnostic--i never could go all the way and completely deny reality--i can testify to the fact that it take a great deal more faith to disbelieve than to Believe the Truth about God's reality and Love for His Creation.

As Paul puts it, "For that which can be known about God is evident to all and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them. For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification], because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves].(Romans 1:19-22 Amplified Bible)

If you seek proof of the last statement give The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins a whirl. Talk about "unsupported nonsense! 2 + 2 does indeed equal 5 in some minds. "Denial" is, after all, not a river in Africa.

A BROTHER/FRIEND/BOND-SLAVE OF CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[aiki]

If you think the concept of God and ghosts are alike enough to warrant such a broad comparison, you are either terribly ignorant in regard to the two concepts, or are guilty of a poor attempt at sophistry.
​

If you think you can provide sound evidence to show that your God is any less imaginary than a ghost then please do so.

Ah, well, as NewToLife has noted, when the parameters of what constitutes "sound evidence" is left solely up to you, you are able to restrict them or expand them as it suits you. I'm not foolish enough to attempt to answer your challenge under such circumstances.

Actually, I did answer your question. I guess you didn't like my phrasing... I won't repeat myself; just look above for my answer.
The way I read your answer is that your value of human life would diminish if you didn’t have your God belief. In which case, please continue to believe your God exists.

Yes, it would diminish to a level that is more on par with your own, which is, in part, why I most certainly will continue to value human life for the reasons that I do.

I should like to ask why you speak of "immorality" and "unethical acts"? What do you mean when you use these terms? Obviously, without a belief in a Moral Law Giver, you mean something rather different than what I mean when I use these terms. What determines for you what is unethical or immoral?
​

I mean acts that the society in which I live deems to be immoral or unethical. The societies and cultures in which we live determine by consensus which acts are considered immoral and unethical. This is obvious from the fact that what is considered immoral and unethical is different in different societies and changes over time. For example, there were times in the past when human slavery was not considered immoral or unethical in some societies whereas today it is.

There are so many obvious problems with the above statement I hardly know where to begin. First off, though, just as an aside, I should note that North American cultures don't actually determine by consensus of the population what acts are immoral or unethical. Presently, an elite few in the judiciary do this for us. In any case, what you are agreeing to essentially is the moral acceptability of such things as cannibalism, pedophilia, child sacrifice, and slavery provided that the general consensus within a population is that it is okay. The problem here is that all of the things that I've just listed have, in various cultures at various times, been the "norm." So, in effect, you are agreeing, at least in theory, that all of these things are alright and would be something in which you would potentially participate were you a member of society in which these things were popular. This puts a very dark shadow on your claim to value human life. It seems that, if the culture you lived in promoted it, you'd eat your neighbor rather than love him.

You are conflating evidence and proof, here. I don't have proof that God's promise of life after death is true; I would have to die to have that. I do have evidence, however, that His promise of life after death is true. This I have obtained from a relatively long history of experience of His kept promises to me.
Evidence is that which furnishes proof. In any case, please show me this sound evidence you have that there is life after death. Or is it that the evidence you have is unsound?

Are you actually considering what I'm writing? Twice already I have answered your request for proof of life after death by saying - pay attention now - that I would have to die to have absolute proof of God's promise of it. I have gone on to say, now for the third time, that it is on the basis of my personal experience of God's kept promises to me that I am confident that He will fulfill His future promise to me of eternity with Him. Are you asking me to recount that experience to you?

Peace.

 

[3sigma]

It does, yet if it didnt you would deem it moral which makes the current situation a little moot wouldnt you say? You would afterall quite happily deem rape or murder moral if the society did likewise. Indeed if you are pro-choice it looks a lot to me as though you already think murder ( genocide even ) is moral.

If you or I had been born and raised in a different society then we would take on the moral values of that society.

Equally I could note that the Soviets and Maoists were atheist, why dont you ask me if I believe their atheism motivated their vastly larger genocidal activities?

Oh, I’m guessing you do believe that atheism motivated their activities, but like your God belief, believing it doesn’t make it true.

Not at all though you are clearly denying that their actions were immoral . For my part I am happy to denounce slavery as immoral and I note that even at the time it was Christain activists who led the effort to make people at that time realise the immorality.

Their actions were not considered immoral in Southern society at the time, but they are now and they were by Northern society, which rather proves my point that what a society considers immoral changes over time and is different between different societies. Yes, in general. Christians in the North were against slavery, but Christians in the South wanted to maintain it, which was arguably the main cause of the Civil War.

So why does your own belief lack the kind of sound evidence ( ie proof ) you demand? You want to cut to the chase and there it is? Your position is a plain fraud.
…
Actually i claim you are unreasonable because you hold a self refuting position and seek to operate a double standard where you would like to hold others to a standard you yourself fail to live up to. Please have the courtesy to stop attempting to misrepresent my position.
…
Ignoring the usual conflation of proof and evidence that you are peddling here , it is you who actually claims to believe this though amusingly you dont have anything that would qualify as sound evidence by your own standard to back this position up.
…
It's quite plain that it isnt me who wants it both ways here, I am not the one who is pushing this line for others whilst trying to claim an exemption for myself . I am merely holding you to your own standard. I'm sure you will agree that intellectual honesty demands no less of you given your claims in this thread.
…
Will you demonstrate your requests to be reasonable? I see no reason to bow to unreasonable requests, nor do I see any reason not to alert others to the unreasonable nature of those requests. If you ask an innocent man when he stopped beating his wife he would be foolish to give you a direct answer instead of objecting to the premise that he ever did beat his wife. The same applies here in that your questions include the premise that proof is required for belief to be rational, a premise that fails it's own test and as such cannot be reasonable itself.

Good grief. You know, I would have thought it was obvious that to come to a reasonable conclusion that something exists, you need to base that conclusion on sound evidence and valid reasoning. How else could one reliably distinguish reality from make-believe? Consequently, I would like to see some sound evidence and valid reasoning supporting your claim that your God exists before I conclude that is true. I only ask for evidence that doesn’t contain errors, fallacies or misapprehensions and reasoning that is well grounded, justifiable and logically correct. I would ask for the same sort of evidence and reasoning before I concluded that anything else exists. It isn’t an unusual or unreasonable request.

You entered this thread and made absolutely no attempt to answer my original question; you evade almost all my questions; and you claim that my request for sound evidence and valid reasoning is unreasonable. I really don’t think you have anything of value to offer me here.

 

[3sigma]

Are you not ignoring the fact that the worst example of "unsupported nonsense" is the belief that "There is no God?"

However, that isn’t my belief. I just lack the belief that it exists. Given the lack of sound evidence and valid reasoning supporting the notion that it exists, I think the likelihood of it existing is so vanishingly small as to be negligible.

If you seek proof of the last statement give The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins a whirl.

I have read The God Delusion. In fact, it is within arm’s reach on my bookshelf as I write this. I think it describes your belief quite well.

 

[3sigma]

Ah, well, as NewToLife has noted, when the parameters of what constitutes "sound evidence" is left solely up to you, you are able to restrict them or expand them as it suits you. I'm not foolish enough to attempt to answer your challenge under such circumstances.

If you trust what NewTolLife writes then it is small wonder you would reach erroneous conclusions. It is not solely up to me to judge whether your evidence is sound or your reasoning is valid. You would be judged by all readers here on the soundness of your evidence and the validity of your reasoning (if you ever provided any, of course, which seems unlikely). However, I’m not surprised that you wouldn’t attempt to produce evidence that your God exists that doesn’t contain errors fallacies or misapprehensions or give me reasoning that is well grounded, justifiable and logically correct. Some readers will judge your failure to attempt to answer as being due to your inability to do so.

Yes, it would diminish to a level that is more on par with your own, which is, in part, why I most certainly will continue to value human life for the reasons that I do.

Of course, ephraimanesti has [post=49651206]said[/post] in this thread that Christians are not superior to atheists in anything so I take it you don’t subscribe to his view of Christianity. Or is it that you aren’t a True Christian?

First off, though, just as an aside, I should note that North American cultures don't actually determine by consensus of the population what acts are immoral or unethical. Presently, an elite few in the judiciary do this for us.

Really? So you just blindly and unquestioningly do what the judiciary prescribes, is that it? You don’t form your own opinion about what is moral and immoral? And your neighbour doesn’t form his or her own opinion of what is moral and immoral? And the average of all those opinions across the country is not what your society considers moral and immoral?

In any case, what you are agreeing to essentially is the moral acceptability of such things as cannibalism, pedophilia, child sacrifice, and slavery provided that the general consensus within a population is that it is okay.

No, I am not agreeing that those things are morally acceptable because they are not my personal view nor the view of the society in which I live.

The problem here is that all of the things that I've just listed have, in various cultures at various times, been the "norm."

Yes, some societies and cultures have, at various times, considered those things to be the norm, which again proves my point that what is considered moral and immoral by societies differs between societies and changes over time.

So, in effect, you are agreeing, at least in theory, that all of these things are alright and would be something in which you would potentially participate were you a member of society in which these things were popular. This puts a very dark shadow on your claim to value human life. It seems that, if the culture you lived in promoted it, you'd eat your neighbor rather than love him.

Because I don’t live in those societies, I don’t agree that those things are moral. However, if I had been born and raised in one of those societies then I probably would hold the same views as the rest of the society, but you need to remember that the same applies to you or anyone else. Those other societies are made up of people just like you and me except that they have been raised to think differently. If you had been born and raised in the Eastern Highlands of New Guinea 100 years ago then you probably would have thought that cannibalism was okay because you wouldn’t have known any better. And if you had been born and raised a Southern Baptist 200 years ago then you probably would have thought that slavery was okay and you probably would have used the Bible to justify your belief.

I have gone on to say, now for the third time, that it is on the basis of my personal experience of God's kept promises to me that I am confident that He will fulfill His future promise to me of eternity with Him. Are you asking me to recount that experience to you?

What you are giving me is the reason why you, personally, have convinced yourself that there is life after death, but that doesn’t mean it is true. People can probably give you all sorts of reasons why they believe in astrology, but they don’t constitute sound evidence and it doesn’t mean astrology is true. Please give me evidence that doesn’t contain errors, fallacies or misapprehensions and reasons that are well grounded, justifiable and logically correct that some part of a person’s consciousness survives death and cremation.

 

[aiki]

Ah, well, as NewToLife has noted, when the parameters of what constitutes "sound evidence" is left solely up to you, you are able to restrict them or expand them as it suits you. I'm not foolish enough to attempt to answer your challenge under such circumstances.
​

If you trust what NewTolLife writes then it is small wonder you would reach erroneous conclusions. It is not solely up to me to judge whether your evidence is sound or your reasoning is valid. You would be judged by all readers here on the soundness of your evidence and the validity of your reasoning (if you ever provided any, of course, which seems unlikely). However, I’m not surprised that you wouldn’t attempt to produce evidence that your God exists that doesn’t contain errors fallacies or misapprehensions or give me reasoning that is well grounded, justifiable and logically correct. Some readers will judge your failure to attempt to answer as being due to your inability to do so.

If I trust what NewToLife has written about you, it is because I recognize what he has described of your conduct in what has transpired between you and me.

If you want evidence for the Christian faith simply peruse the following sites:

RZIM.org
answersingenesis.org
tektonics.org
CARM.org

Yes, it would diminish to a level that is more on par with your own, which is, in part, why I most certainly will continue to value human life for the reasons that I do.
​

Of course, ephraimanesti has said in this thread that Christians are not superior to atheists in anything so I take it you don’t subscribe to his view of Christianity. Or is it that you aren’t a True Christian?

I think as created beings we are all equal. No one is created superior to another. I don't believe, however, that all views human beings hold are equal; I am not a postmodernist. In respect to my worldview I most certainly do think that Christianity is superior to atheism. This doesn't make me more or less of a Christian than ephraimanesti, just different in understanding.

First off, though, just as an aside, I should note that North American cultures don't actually determine by consensus of the population what acts are immoral or unethical. Presently, an elite few in the judiciary do this for us.
​

Really? So you just blindly and unquestioningly do what the judiciary prescribes, is that it? You don’t form your own opinion about what is moral and immoral? And your neighbour doesn’t form his or her own opinion of what is moral and immoral? And the average of all those opinions across the country is not what your society considers moral and immoral?

No, I don't blindly and unquestioningly follow the dictates of the Supreme Court. I despise Roe v. Wade, for example, and would see it discarded if I could. Nonetheless, the murder of the unborn has been legal in Canada and the United States for some time and I can do nothing to prevent it. There are many people who feel as I do but their thinking on this matter is completely unrepresented by abortion law. As I said, this was meant as an aside, so I'll say nothing more about it.

In any case, what you are agreeing to essentially is the moral acceptability of such things as cannibalism, pedophilia, child sacrifice, and slavery provided that the general consensus within a population is that it is okay.
​

No, I am not agreeing that those things are morally acceptable because they are not my personal view nor the view of the society in which I live.

Then you are inconsistent in your worldview. You cannot on one hand declare, "What is moral and ethical is defined by the social majority" and then disagree with the morality and ethics which a social majority defines.

So, in effect, you are agreeing, at least in theory, that all of these things are alright and would be something in which you would potentially participate were you a member of society in which these things were popular. This puts a very dark shadow on your claim to value human life. It seems that, if the culture you lived in promoted it, you'd eat your neighbor rather than love him.
​

Because I don’t live in those societies, I don’t agree that those things are moral. However, if I had been born and raised in one of those societies then I probably would hold the same views as the rest of the society, but you need to remember that the same applies to you or anyone else. Those other societies are made up of people just like you and me except that they have been raised to think differently. If you had been born and raised in the Eastern Highlands of New Guinea 100 years ago then you probably would have thought that cannibalism was okay because you wouldn’t have known any better. And if you had been born and raised a Southern Baptist 200 years ago then you probably would have thought that slavery was okay and you probably would have used the Bible to justify your belief.

No matter where or in what time, you can be certain that those who were cannibalized did not think it was "okay" - even if they themselves cannibalized others. This is part of the tremendous problem with the idea that the social majority establishes morality. Even cannibals in a cannibalistic society at some point recognize that cannibalism is wrong - usually just before they are killed and readied for the pot. The rest of the time, they justify the eating of their fellow human beings with your philosophy: "Everybody's doing it."

And if I had been a Southern Baptist 200 years ago I may have thought slavery was okay - but that would not have made it so. I might even have attempted to use the Bible to justify slavery, but I would do so only by ignoring clear Scriptural teaching against it and twisting the import and intent of various verses. Here, though, is where you and I differ: I can look back on slavery and condemn it and remain consistent with my worldview, you cannot.

I have gone on to say, now for the third time, that it is on the basis of my personal experience of God's kept promises to me that I am confident that He will fulfill His future promise to me of eternity with Him. Are you asking me to recount that experience to you?
​

What you are giving me is the reason why you, personally, have convinced yourself that there is life after death, but that doesn’t mean it is true.

Nor does it mean it isn't true.

People can probably give you all sorts of reasons why they believe in astrology, but they don’t constitute sound evidence and it doesn’t mean astrology is true. Please give me evidence that doesn’t contain errors, fallacies or misapprehensions and reasons that are well grounded, justifiable and logically correct that some part of a person’s consciousness survives death and cremation.

*sigh* You seem quite unable to get your head around what I'm saying about this business of life after death. Perhaps the websites I suggested above will help. In any case, I have pretty much exhausted my interest in this thread. Maybe we'll talk some more on another one.

Peace.

 

[ephraimanesti]

I think as created beings we are all equal. No one is created superior to another. I don't believe, however, that all views human beings hold are equal; I am not a postmodernist. In respect to my worldview I most certainly do think that Christianity is superior to atheism. This doesn't make me more or less of a Christian than ephraimanesti, just different in understanding.

MY BROTHER--i would wholeheartedly agree with the above. My understanding of the word "superior" has to do with innate "superiority"--one human being over another--which is how the original "question" was framed.

Christianity is indeed as far superior to atheism as creation is superior to destruction and Love superior to hatred--not because Christians are superior innately in some way to atheists, but because they have the God of all creation dwelling within their hearts and guiding their lives.

A BROTHER/FRIEND/BOND-SLAVE OF CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[3sigma]

If you want evidence for the Christian faith simply peruse the following sites:

I was familiar with the last three, but I hadn’t seen the first one before. I’ve now explored it and found it to be similar to the others. None offers sound evidence and valid reasoning to show that any god exists. All the arguments for the existence of your God that I’ve seen at those sites are based on unsupported assertions and unjustified assumptions. If you can point me to an argument for the existence of your God on one of those sites that doesn’t contain errors, fallacies or misapprehensions and does use reasoning that is well grounded, justifiable and logically correct then I would be very interested to see it. Please do so if you can. Otherwise, it appears that your belief that your God exists is not based on sound evidence or valid reasoning.

Then you are inconsistent in your worldview. You cannot on one hand declare, "What is moral and ethical is defined by the social majority" and then disagree with the morality and ethics which a social majority defines.

Of course I can disagree with another society’s view about what is moral and ethical. They consider their view to be moral and ethical for them, but it isn’t my view or my society’s view. It is also consistent with my argument that different societies form different views about what is moral and ethical. In fact, it further confirms my argument.

And if I had been a Southern Baptist 200 years ago I may have thought slavery was okay - but that would not have made it so. I might even have attempted to use the Bible to justify slavery, but I would do so only by ignoring clear Scriptural teaching against it and twisting the import and intent of various verses. Here, though, is where you and I differ: I can look back on slavery and condemn it and remain consistent with my worldview, you cannot.

On the contrary, I can condemn slavery and remain consistent with my view of morality and my argument that a society’s view of morality changes over time. However, your view appears to be that there is an external arbiter of morality that imposes a universal moral code that doesn’t change. How then do you explain the fact that Christians 200 years ago condoned slavery and used the Bible to justify it? So at one time, Christians condone slavery and at another time, they oppose it. How is that consistent? Could you also please point out the clear scriptural teaching that you claim condemns slavery?

Nor does it mean it isn't true.

The problem is that without any sound evidence or valid reasoning, there is no way to determine whether it is true or not. Your belief that it is true is not based on sound evidence or valid reasoning.

 

[3sigma]

I think as created beings we are all equal. No one is created superior to another.

i would wholeheartedly agree with the above. My understanding of the word "superior" has to do with innate "superiority"--one human being over another--which is how the original "question" was framed.

This is what I find fascinating about Christian thinking. How can you both think this when it is plainly contradicted by reality? Some people are innately superior to others in human qualities such as strength, intelligence, visual ability, aural ability, susceptibility to disease and longevity.

Christianity is indeed as far superior to atheism as creation is superior to destruction and Love superior to hatred--not because Christians are superior innately in some way to atheists, but because they have the God of all creation dwelling within their hearts and guiding their lives.

In what way is Christianity creation and love? In what way is atheism destruction and hatred?

 

[ephraimanesti]

This is what I find fascinating about Christian thinking. How can you both think this when it is plainly contradicted by reality? Some people are innately superior to others in human qualities such as strength, intelligence, visual ability, aural ability, susceptibility to disease and longevity.

All of God's gifts are of equal value, and all those who have received them are equal in His eyes and in His Love.

In what way is Christianity creation and love? In what way is atheism destruction and hatred?

For example, compare the Judeo/Christian principles upon which the United States was founded with those upon which the atheist states of China and Russia were built. Neither side, of course, has lived up to their founding principles, but note the diametrically different outcomes.

Perhaps you owe God a huge "Thank You" for the blessings of the location of your birth!

A BROTHER/FRIEND/BOND-SLAVE OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim