Believers' Inferences About God's Beliefs Are Uniquely Egocentric

[Guest FaithDefender619]

FD, put in simple terms, this study is clear evidence that when a Christian thinks about what God wants, or what God's opinion about something is, they aren't really thinking about 'God's' wants or 'God's' opinions, but their own.

 

Therefore, people who say 'God hates Fags' are really saying 'I hate Fags'.

 

Or when someone says 'God told me' they are really saying 'I thought it up myself and am using God to justify my opinion or decision'.

 

Basically, this study shows that Christians really just use 'God' to justify their own views and opinions, without any influence of any actual God coming into the picture.

 

You might not agree with that, but that's what the evidence in this study shows.

 

Again, Evidence > Faith.

 

Personal beliefs do not change facts or alter reality. You can claim it's 'God' all you want, but the evidence shown here clearly indicates that it's not 'God' at all, but just you talking to yourself and using the concept of 'God' to justify the views and opinions you already have.

 

1. Did you conduct the research? No? Well then its not very clear seeing as how we don't have access to the raw data, nor do we know how they did the research in the first place. And the scientific community doesn't exactly have an unbiased view of Christians. And who exactly were they doing these experiments on? How do we know they even talked to real christians? It appears your own religious bias is being shown here friend.

 

2. No when I say God hates fags that comes right out of the bible. Lev 18:22, Romans 1:25-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9 etc etc. As far as God told me this or that, if it doesn't line up with what scripture says then that wasn't God. See we have an objective standard, the bible. Atheist can only think or feel what is right or wrong but can never say that something definately is wrong because they have no objective standard to judge by.

 

3. You are basing a lot of unknowns on a study full of unknowns. You have a lot of faith u should consider being a christian.

 

4. Again have you actually done this research for yourself or are you blindly trusting what they say is true. And don't hit me with that peer review line because peer review is still trusting the peer reviewers were unbiased and uninfluenced in their reviews.

 

5. What evidence?

[Ouroboros]

1. Who's law were people following before Godwin?

[Mriana]

Oh brother! Seems said research has touched a nerve. Apparently it is a case of, "If the show fits...". So many take offense when the shoe fits.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

I on the other hand say that God created the premise of right and wrong.

If God commanded you to murder a child, would you do it or would you disobey God?

 

I'm sure hitler would say something stupid like that seeing as how Germany was predominatly catholic and lutheran (which is nothing more than diet catholicism) but when we read the bible nothing that hitler did can be found in the teachings of Jesus.

Ever read the book of Revelation?

[ContraBardus]

 

1. Did you conduct the research? No? Well then its not very clear seeing as how we don't have access to the raw data, nor do we know how they did the research in the first place. And the scientific community doesn't exactly have an unbiased view of Christians. And who exactly were they doing these experiments on? How do we know they even talked to real christians? It appears your own religious bias is being shown here friend.

 

Define 'real Christians' for starters. Those who follow your particular faith? Any other denomination would beg to differ.

 

Speaking of which, where's the Raw data for your claims?

 

Were you there to witness Jesus resurrecting? Did you ever actually meet him? Have you ever seen him? What evidence do you have he even existed?

 

Do you have anything more than a hearsay account for your claims? [The answer is 'No' to all of the above BTW.]

 

There are pictures of an example of the data in the article. That's a lot more than you've got for your claims. All I'm getting from you is a patchy definition of what constitutes faith that you made up yourself and a distinct lack of any understanding of how the Scientific Method works.

 

Raw data is available at least, which is a lot more than you can claim for the bald assertions you're making here.

 

2. No when I say God hates fags that comes right out of the bible. Lev 18:22, Romans 1:25-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9 etc etc. As far as God told me this or that, if it doesn't line up with what scripture says then that wasn't God. See we have an objective standard, the bible. Atheist can only think or feel what is right or wrong but can never say that something definately is wrong because they have no objective standard to judge by.

 

The Bible does not say 'God hates Fags' anywhere. It doesn't even call it a sin, just an 'abomination'. Jesus certainly didn't say anything to that effect, in fact, many of his words contradict the very idea of hating anyone, gay or not.

 

He didn't hang around with the best of people. They 'didn't need him'.

 

Though, he did promote slavery, he certainly never said anything against abortion, which was going on at the time. He never said anything against rape or pedophilia either. In fact, none of those things are mentioned as wrong in the Bible. I suppose that makes them okay then?

 

I suppose you don't eat shellfish then? How about pork? Stoned any adultresses recently? Purified your illnesses with the blood of freshly slaughtered animals lately? Think shaving and having long hair should be punishable by death? Have a vegetable garden? Do you eat beef that hasn't been dried?

 

Why or why not? The Bible mentions all those things are bad a lot more than it says anything about being Gay being wrong.

 

I dunno, David seems pretty gay to me in the Bible. If that's not man love I don't know what is.

 

3. You are basing a lot of unknowns on a study full of unknowns. You have a lot of faith u should consider being a christian.

 

It's not faith when there's evidence. The only 'unknowns' here are the ones you've made up in your delusion to discredit anything that does not conform to or contradicts your beliefs.

 

And there is evidence BTW, yes I've seen it. There are links to the paper on the subject, examples of some of the raw data made public, and it was published in a Scientific Journal, which requires raw data and verification by independent sources.

 

Your insistence to try and discredit something you clearly don't understand is laughable. You literally have no idea what you're talking about, and can't be bothered with finding out.

 

The problem with that is that it's difficult to argue against a concept you don't understand. It's pretty much impossible for you to do without some knowledge of what it is, what it indicates, and how it works.

 

It's like trying to argue with a monkey about relativity. You wouldn't recognize a good point if you made one. You don't know enough about Science period, much less reading brain scans, to make a decent rebuttal to the issue, so instead you're just standing up straw men and making irrelevant comparisons and arguments to cover up your own ignorance in an attempt to sound more educated on the matter than you really are.

 

4. Again have you actually done this research for yourself or are you blindly trusting what they say is true. And don't hit me with that peer review line because peer review is still trusting the peer reviewers were unbiased and uninfluenced in their reviews.

 

Well, I have done research before. I know how the Scientific Method works, more than just a basic High School understanding of the subject. Which, you clearly lack even that much.

 

I am not 'blindly trusting' the data. I've read the paper, and looked at the released evidence. It's a lot more than you can say about your spiritual beliefs. There's no evidence for your claims, you've got no real backing to discredit any of the evidence, and you're just tossing out red herrings to try and distract us from the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. It's not working by the way. We noticed.

 

It's rather simplistic apologetic tactics you're employing here. Discredit, distract, change the subject. We've all seen it a hundred times before, and I'm afraid you're going to have to come to the table with more than that.

 

5. What evidence?

 

A white paper, peer review, several experiments with consistent results, an article in an accredited Scientific Journal, and several images of raw data examples. More than you've got for your 'magic sky man' argument.

 

You're shooting yourself in the foot with your unreasonable demands. You can't meet your own standards with the claims you're making.

 

The only thing you've got is second hand accounts that are a couple of hundred years too young to be anything but Hearsay [the Bible], and possibly a few known forgeries courtesy of Bishop Eusebius, a known and open promoter of lying and forgery to promote the faith who's policies are still embraced by the Church today, [i.E. Tacitus, Josephus, etc.], and possibly a few anecdotal stories from personal experience, or second hand stories of the experience of others, neither of which you can verify.

 

You're going on about how untrustworthy the evidence is, when all you've got is a single source of suspect origins to bolster your own arguments.

 

I'd call you the pot calling the kettle black, but that doesn't really apply, as this actually has evidence, even if just a little, and you've got none to speak of at all.

 

You're the pot calling the kettle black, if the pot was black iron, and the kettle was brand new silver stainless steel.

 

You've really got quite the nerve taking up the argument you're presenting on the subject considering the backing you can give your own claims, which is none.

 

Sorry, you've pretty much lost the debate already, and unless you've got one hell of a card up your sleeve, you're just going to look the fool continuing down this road.

[Astreja]

1. Who's law were people following before Godwin?

You're new to forum-style debate, aren't you, FD619?

 

Educate yourself: Godwin's Law

 

2. But for what reason? was it because they felt it was right or because God told them to?

False dichotomy. There is a third possibility: They thought it was "God's will" despite the utter lack of evidence for such a being. I doubt very much that your god told them anything.

 

You said the majority decides the rules. In essence might makes right. 99% of the people can vote to enslave the 1%

They could -- And occasionally, the majority does exactly that -- But this promotes an unstable society because the persecuted minority (usually substantially more than 1% of the population, by the way) will perennially be seeking to overthrow the ruling clique.

 

There is also the problem of cognitive dissonance. Any human being who has experienced pain and who has developed empathy will sense something amiss with such a situation. There will be no peace in a slave-based society, simply because the suffering of the few is reflected in the minds of the many.

[Guest FaithDefender619]

 

 

I on the other hand say that God created the premise of right and wrong.

If God commanded you to murder a child, would you do it or would you disobey God?

 

I'm sure hitler would say something stupid like that seeing as how Germany was predominatly catholic and lutheran (which is nothing more than diet catholicism) but when we read the bible nothing that hitler did can be found in the teachings of Jesus.

Ever read the book of Revelation?

 

1. First I'd test the spirit that told me this wether it be of God or not. But if this was truly God saying yes kill this child yeah I'd do it.

 

2.Who is doing the killing in revelation? And Jesus praises the church of Philadelphia for keeping His word. What is Christ word? Read the gospels they say nothing about killing our enemies. We love our enemies and pray for them. When we are smote on the cheek we offer up the other. We even give to those that would spitefully use us. That's not what Hitler did and Hitler was deep deep into the occult. He had astrologers planning his military action, he was part of a very occult group called the Thule society, his historical foundation the Thule society was established to discover the mystic roots of the aryan race. The Aryan race as Hitler saw it was a product of Russian Mystic HP Blavatsky and her channeled works from an ascended master (demon) calling itself Djwal Khul. The entire Nazi party was overtly occultic and satanic. You can watch a movie called the occult roots of the 3rd Reich on youtube.

[Guest FaithDefender619]

1. Did you conduct the research? No? Well then its not very clear seeing as how we don't have access to the raw data, nor do we know how they did the research in the first place. And the scientific community doesn't exactly have an unbiased view of Christians. And who exactly were they doing these experiments on? How do we know they even talked to real christians? It appears your own religious bias is being shown here friend.

 

If it's a sound study, most, if not all, of the answers to your questions will be included or defined in the published piece. This can be accessed at most any University library. If presented with such a text, are you willing to consider it's evidence?

 

Phanta

 

1. Sound by whos definiton?

 

2. How do I know those answers are truthful?

 

3. Of course I'm willing.

[ContraBardus]

 

 

I on the other hand say that God created the premise of right and wrong.

If God commanded you to murder a child, would you do it or would you disobey God?

 

I'm sure hitler would say something stupid like that seeing as how Germany was predominatly catholic and lutheran (which is nothing more than diet catholicism) but when we read the bible nothing that hitler did can be found in the teachings of Jesus.

Ever read the book of Revelation?

 

1. First I'd test the spirit that told me this wether it be of God or not. But if this was truly God saying yes kill this child yeah I'd do it.

 

2.Who is doing the killing in revelation? And Jesus praises the church of Philadelphia for keeping His word. What is Christ word? Read the gospels they say nothing about killing our enemies. We love our enemies and pray for them. When we are smote on the cheek we offer up the other. We even give to those that would spitefully use us. That's not what Hitler did and Hitler was deep deep into the occult. He had astrologers planning his military action, he was part of a very occult group called the Thule society, his historical foundation the Thule society was established to discover the mystic roots of the aryan race. The Aryan race as Hitler saw it was a product of Russian Mystic HP Blavatsky and her channeled works from an ascended master (demon) calling itself Djwal Khul. The entire Nazi party was overtly occultic and satanic. You can watch a movie called the occult roots of the 3rd Reich on youtube.

 

You'll believe this based on a Youtube video, but not a valid Scientific study?

 

Hitler was a Christian, there is a lot of evidence pointing to that, everything from the symbols the Nazi's used, the motivation for the Final Solution, Hitler's own words in numerous speeches, his personal friendship and working relationship with Pope Pius XII, his attendance of Seminary School and his earlier Christian education. Nazi uniform belt buckles had 'God is With Us' inscribed on them. The Swastica is a Christian symbol used extensively during the Crusades. All Nazi soldiers were ordered by law to be baptized Christians. It was the state religion of Nazi Germany.

 

The Bible was used extensively to justify Nazi policies.Not only to exterminate Jews, but also other minority groups, such as Homosexuals, Poles, Gypsies, and various other groups. About half the people killed in the concentration camps were Jewish. They were the largest single group, but millions of others died with them.

 

His hatred of Jews stemmed from his Christian education and upbringing. There was a lot of bad blood between Christians and Jews in that part of the world at the time.

 

A word of advice, Youtube is not a very good place to learn about history.

 

Again, how can you seriously denounce a valid study citing examples like this to promote your own views. It's completely untrue, and total fiction.

 

Hitler's obsession with Archeology was almost entirely focused on Christian artifacts. He had no 'satanic' ties whatsoever, there is no evidence to support any such claim. Just wild speculation and misinformation from Christians trying to distance themselves from him and his party.

 

Not that denouncing the policies of the Nazi's is a bad thing, but you might as well deny that the Conquistadors and Inquisition were committed by Christians too, it's the same thing.

 

I suggest reading some actual History instead of pulling up suspect videos on the internet. You'll find that none of those claims are in any way supported.

 

Hitler was a bad person, but he was a bad Christian person.

 

Regardless of how 'good' a Christian he was, there is no indication he did not actually believe he was following God's will.

 

Even if Hitler himself was not a 'true' Christian. The vast majority of Germany was. It was a Christian Nation and the Nazi party was given the full support of the Church in Europe.

 

You don't have to like it, but that doesn't make it not true either.

[ContraBardus]

 

1. Sound by whos definiton?

 

Sounds like a precursor to a cop out. Leaving yourself an out door. Sound is sound, there aren't multiple definitions of the term as it's used here. It's a valid study, it went through all the proper channels, and was published on it's own merits, based entirely on the evidence presented.

 

It would be unsound and dishonest to simply dismiss it because it does not conform to what you already believed to be true.

 

Science is not about trying to prove a particular viewpoint right or wrong. If that's what you're doing, you're not doing proper research.

 

It's simply reaching the explanation most supported by the evidence collected.

 

What qualifies you to define what is or is not sound? As it's used here, it's not a relative term. Something is either sound, or it isn't, there is no subjective usage here. It's not relative to a personal opinion. Either it's a valid study, or it isn't. The personal opinion on the matter of any individual is irrelevant. If it's not valid, it can and will be shown that it isn't.

 

The Scientist and reviewers of the study were all trained to do exactly that. They are independent entities because it keeps the integrity of the study, and makes manipulation of evidence to promote a particular viewpoint extremely difficult.

 

That's exactly why Intelligent Design has never been able to get past it. It relies on the manipulation and selective editing of information to promote a particular viewpoint. It can't get by peer review because it's not intellectually honest, and blatantly and obviously manipulates data to fit it's agenda rather than doing proper research.

 

 

2. How do I know those answers are truthful?

 

 

How do you know any answers are truthful? You certainly seemed to swallow that bit about Hitler with no trouble.

 

How do you know the Gospels are truthful? How do you know your pastor/priest/reverend is being honest? Even if they are, how do you know they are right? A person doesn't have to lie to be wrong. How do you know your God exists? How do you know Jesus was a real person?

 

There's no actual evidence that supports any of those things. It's just an assumption that you were trained to believe. What evidence have you really seen that any of it is true?

 

You seem more than willing to question the findings of a Scientific team, but unwilling to ask such questions about your own beliefs. That's a bit of a double standard. I doubt you did much research into 'Hitler's Occult Practices' beyond watching a Youtube video and maybe a couple of those low grade overly sensationalized, anti-educational History Channel programs.

 

YOutube, Discovery, and the History channel are entertainment entities. They have no ties with any scientific facilities, and are not Scientific Journals. There is no review or fact checking in any of their programing.

 

It's mildly educational fluff, mixed with a lot of total fabrication and overly sensationalized findings that treat conjecture and speculation as 'amazing discoveries'.

 

Television is not the place to learn History or Science from. It's a poor excuse for a teacher. It has some mild value, but it's also not to be trusted without verifying it's claims through real Scientific and Historical sources such as Universities and other reputable Scientific/Historical organizations.

[qec]

1. First I'd test the spirit that told me this wether it be of God or not. But if this was truly God saying yes kill this child yeah I'd do it.

 

2.Who is doing the killing in revelation? And Jesus praises the church of Philadelphia for keeping His word. What is Christ word? Read the gospels they say nothing about killing our enemies. We love our enemies and pray for them. When we are smote on the cheek we offer up the other. We even give to those that would spitefully use us. That's not what Hitler did and Hitler was deep deep into the occult. He had astrologers planning his military action, he was part of a very occult group called the Thule society, his historical foundation the Thule society was established to discover the mystic roots of the aryan race. The Aryan race as Hitler saw it was a product of Russian Mystic HP Blavatsky and her channeled works from an ascended master (demon) calling itself Djwal Khul. The entire Nazi party was overtly occultic and satanic. You can watch a movie called the occult roots of the 3rd Reich on youtube.

 

[Kuroikaze]

1. Moral laws are products of natural laws? Where in nature do you see killing being wrong? Where in nature do you see canibalism is wrong?

 

Are you kidding me? You do not see ANY naturalistic/evolutionary justification for not killing and eating your own species?

 

I am not quite sure I am prepared to respond to this level of delusion.

[Jedah]

Oh look another "I believe in an imaginary friend who grants me my morals therefore you can't have morals without an imaginary friend like mine."

 

This is why we have copy paste

 

 

==========================================================

 

Here is an interesting thing to ponder when questioning whether or not religious people who believe in an absolute being that dictates right from wrong have a better grasp on ethics then those who do not believe...

 

The entire premise that to be ethical requires an absolute being rests on the idea that the answer to the euthyphro dilemma is that it is "right because God says so". This makes God an objective being- meaning that all he says is 100% truth and reality. If God were to say leprechauns exist, they would. In comparison, we are subjective beings. Reality is not bended to our will. If we believe that we see a leprechaun during an acid trip, it does not mean that leprechauns exist. It just means they exist in our mind. Our thoughts and opinions on reality are subjective and thus open to question.

 

To put it in simpler terms, think of God ( Objective ) as a game programmer and us ( Subjective ) as characters in his game ( Reality ). The programmer dictates reality and we have no choice but to go with it.

 

The thing about being a subjective being is that pretty much everything we experience or think is subjective. For all we know, everything we hear, breath, touch, and know is an illusion via a system similar to "the matrix". We can "know" things for 99.9999 % but we can never reach 100%. Every piece of knowledge we come across must first be comprehended by our subjective minds. Which explains why we humans have different opinions on what things mean - different ideals mean different things to two different subjective minds that have experienced reality through other perspectives. Ironically, this is why we even have different religions in the first place.

 

Now lets take it up a notch and look at the relationship between a subjective being and an objective being. If one of us was to talk to God and God was to tell us the meaning of life, would he then have objective knowledge regarding life's purpose ? Actually, he wouldn't. In order to understand the objective knowledge that is being transferred, the subjective being in question would go through a number of subjective walls.

 

First: acknowledge that they are talking to an objective being ( God ) - Subjective. How does the person know they are talking to God and not their own hallucination ? Even if He really was talking to God, it doesn't change the fact that his understanding of the situation is still subjective.

 

Second: Acknowledge and comprehend the wisdom that has been given to you by the objective being. Wake up ! You just got told the meaning of life. So now what do you do ? Simple, the first thing the subjective being would do is attempt to figure out what he has been told actually means to him. whether this is done subconsciously or consciously doesn't matter, if the subjective being has any hope of remembering what he has been told, he goes through this step.

 

This creates a problem: No matter what, a subjective being cannot gain access to objective wisdom even if it is told directly to you by the almighty one himself, because Just by comprehending what it is you have been told through a subjective mind, the objective wisdom you have gained becomes subjective to your own understanding and thus becomes subjective in the process. Its the same as pouring water into orange juice, no matter how much water is poured in their will still be some orange juice inside. its that barrier between 99.999999999999999% and 100% that we as subjective beings, by definition cannot ever cross.

 

 

In other words, even if an absolute objective being exists that dictates the reality behind ethics...as far as we are concerned and as far as we can comprehend, it doesn't matter. As subjective being's we will always find ourselves turning to our own reason at one time or another, because that's what we ultimately understand. Even if God were to give us Objective knowledge of morality we would still only be able to comprehend that objective knowledge through a subjective mind. Our ethical standards would still be subjective.

 

If God was to tell us that murder is in fact, morally good, how many of us would honestly just flat out stop thinking about what we feel is right or wrong and go kill everyone we know and love ? Except for the few extremely brainwashed individuals, most of us would try to protect our families from the inevitable onslaught to come. Personally, I would give God the finger. But that's just me.

 

In conclusion: absolute "Universal Laws" dictating what is right and wrong are as far as we're concerned, nonexistent.

 

 

 

 

 

==========================================================

[Guest FaithDefender619]

1. Moral laws are products of natural laws? Where in nature do you see killing being wrong? Where in nature do you see canibalism is wrong?

 

Are you kidding me? You do not see ANY naturalistic/evolutionary justification for not killing and eating your own species?

 

I am not quite sure I am prepared to respond to this level of delusion.

 

You just said that we can observe nature and natural laws and get our morality. Lets observe hamsters and crocs, they at times eat their own young. I guess thats cool right? I mean a major talking point that atheist/homosexuals use to justify homosexuality is that its observable in nature but never are they willing to take the next logical step in saying well cannibalism, murder, fighting etc are cool as well because we observe those things in nature. You'd first have to convince me with observable evidence that evolution acutally happened before I start seeing "naturalistic and evolutionary" justifications for anything. as far as I'm concerned evolution belongs in the same basket as the easter bunny.

[Guest FaithDefender619]

Oh look another "I believe in an imaginary friend who grants me my morals therefore you can't have morals without an imaginary friend like mine."

 

This is why we have copy paste

 

 

==========================================================

 

Here is an interesting thing to ponder when questioning whether or not religious people who believe in an absolute being that dictates right from wrong have a better grasp on ethics then those who do not believe...

 

The entire premise that to be ethical requires an absolute being rests on the idea that the answer to the euthyphro dilemma is that it is "right because God says so". This makes God an objective being- meaning that all he says is 100% truth and reality. If God were to say leprechauns exist, they would. In comparison, we are subjective beings. Reality is not bended to our will. If we believe that we see a leprechaun during an acid trip, it does not mean that leprechauns exist. It just means they exist in our mind. Our thoughts and opinions on reality are subjective and thus open to question.

 

To put it in simpler terms, think of God ( Objective ) as a game programmer and us ( Subjective ) as characters in his game ( Reality ). The programmer dictates reality and we have no choice but to go with it.

 

The thing about being a subjective being is that pretty much everything we experience or think is subjective. For all we know, everything we hear, breath, touch, and know is an illusion via a system similar to "the matrix". We can "know" things for 99.9999 % but we can never reach 100%. Every piece of knowledge we come across must first be comprehended by our subjective minds. Which explains why we humans have different opinions on what things mean - different ideals mean different things to two different subjective minds that have experienced reality through other perspectives. Ironically, this is why we even have different religions in the first place.

 

Now lets take it up a notch and look at the relationship between a subjective being and an objective being. If one of us was to talk to God and God was to tell us the meaning of life, would he then have objective knowledge regarding life's purpose ? Actually, he wouldn't. In order to understand the objective knowledge that is being transferred, the subjective being in question would go through a number of subjective walls.

 

First: acknowledge that they are talking to an objective being ( God ) - Subjective. How does the person know they are talking to God and not their own hallucination ? Even if He really was talking to God, it doesn't change the fact that his understanding of the situation is still subjective.

 

Second: Acknowledge and comprehend the wisdom that has been given to you by the objective being. Wake up ! You just got told the meaning of life. So now what do you do ? Simple, the first thing the subjective being would do is attempt to figure out what he has been told actually means to him. whether this is done subconsciously or consciously doesn't matter, if the subjective being has any hope of remembering what he has been told, he goes through this step.

 

This creates a problem: No matter what, a subjective being cannot gain access to objective wisdom even if it is told directly to you by the almighty one himself, because Just by comprehending what it is you have been told through a subjective mind, the objective wisdom you have gained becomes subjective to your own understanding and thus becomes subjective in the process. Its the same as pouring water into orange juice, no matter how much water is poured in their will still be some orange juice inside. its that barrier between 99.999999999999999% and 100% that we as subjective beings, by definition cannot ever cross.

 

 

In other words, even if an absolute objective being exists that dictates the reality behind ethics...as far as we are concerned and as far as we can comprehend, it doesn't matter. As subjective being's we will always find ourselves turning to our own reason at one time or another, because that's what we ultimately understand. Even if God were to give us Objective knowledge of morality we would still only be able to comprehend that objective knowledge through a subjective mind. Our ethical standards would still be subjective.

 

If God was to tell us that murder is in fact, morally good, how many of us would honestly just flat out stop thinking about what we feel is right or wrong and go kill everyone we know and love ? Except for the few extremely brainwashed individuals, most of us would try to protect our families from the inevitable onslaught to come. Personally, I would give God the finger. But that's just me.

 

In conclusion: absolute "Universal Laws" dictating what is right and wrong are as far as we're concerned, nonexistent.

 

 

 

 

 

==========================================================

 

Well of course in the silly epistemology of evolution you cannot know anything or say anything is wrong or right. Atleast you are a consistent atheist, but then you turn around and say evolution is fact but according to your own logic you cannot know that the evidence you would present for it is true because you cannot trust your five senses or as the article says "you could be interacting with the matrix". Right. So in the end you are either one of two things. 1 a hypocrite who knows there is objectivity but aren't willing to admit it or 2. a hypocrite who isn't willing to see the fallacy in your own logic. If you cannot know anything HOW CAN YOU CLAIM TO KNOW ANYTHING. But you like I know that you can, that there are laws to nature and that there is an order to this whole system and if u really believe that I or u couldn't know anything because we cannot know if what we are seeing or doing is being interpreted correctly by our 5 sense you wouldn't have even bothered copying and pasting this article.

[Guest FaithDefender619]

1. Sound by whos definiton?

 

2. How do I know those answers are truthful?

 

3. Of course I'm willing.

 

Meaning usually there's enough data available in the published piece that you would be able to judge the method and data as sound or not. I would be able to judge.

 

Phanta

 

how do you know the article is presenting all the evidence and doing so in an honest manner?

[Mriana]

 

 

I on the other hand say that God created the premise of right and wrong.

If God commanded you to murder a child, would you do it or would you disobey God?

 

I'm sure hitler would say something stupid like that seeing as how Germany was predominatly catholic and lutheran (which is nothing more than diet catholicism) but when we read the bible nothing that hitler did can be found in the teachings of Jesus.

Ever read the book of Revelation?

 

1. First I'd test the spirit that told me this wether it be of God or not. But if this was truly God saying yes kill this child yeah I'd do it.

 

That is SICK! You would actually kill a child if God told you to do it? What sort of sick deity do you worship? Glad I'm not Child Protective Services or I'd take you child just to protect him from such sickness.

[Ouroboros]

1. First I'd test the spirit that told me this wether it be of God or not. But if this was truly God saying yes kill this child yeah I'd do it.

DAMN! I didn't see this until now. You're a sick bastard FD. Sick, dangerous, and morally corrupt. You talk about absolute morals, but you're full of evil.

 

I wonder how many people you managed to convert to Christianity over the years. I hope none. If you have, then you're part of the problem of creating a social tumor. So far, you have succeeded in scaring me away from your religion. You just nudged me one more step away. So perhaps I should tell you to keep it up since it only promotes the atheist agenda and anti-Christian sentiment?

[Guest Marty]

1. Who's law were people following before Godwin?

 

 

You are something else man! You should google things you are not familiar with before you try to refute it...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwin%27s_law

[Shyone]

Oh look another "I believe in an imaginary friend who grants me my morals therefore you can't have morals without an imaginary friend like mine."

 

This is why we have copy paste

 

==========================================================

That was brilliant.

 

That means that FD won't understand it. Nope, not even close.

[Guest FaithDefender619]

 

 

I on the other hand say that God created the premise of right and wrong.

If God commanded you to murder a child, would you do it or would you disobey God?

 

I'm sure hitler would say something stupid like that seeing as how Germany was predominatly catholic and lutheran (which is nothing more than diet catholicism) but when we read the bible nothing that hitler did can be found in the teachings of Jesus.

Ever read the book of Revelation?

 

1. First I'd test the spirit that told me this wether it be of God or not. But if this was truly God saying yes kill this child yeah I'd do it.

 

That is SICK! You would actually kill a child if God told you to do it? What sort of sick deity do you worship? Glad I'm not Child Protective Services or I'd take you child just to protect him from such sickness.

 

So if God audibly told you to do something and you knew 100% that it was God you wouldn't do it if you didn't like it?

 

And we are basing this scenario on an ASSUMPTION that God would ask me to do something like this.

 

Which he wouldn't because the commandments of Jesus forbid killing and spilling the blood of babies is an especially horredous act in the eyes of God

[Guest FaithDefender619]

1. Who's law were people following before Godwin?

 

 

You are something else man! You should google things you are not familiar with before you try to refute it...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwin%27s_law

 

I think you and other may have missed the sarcasm.

[Ouroboros]

So if God audibly told you to do something and you knew 100% that it was God you wouldn't do it if you didn't like it?

I would not.

 

Because I consider killing a child to be wrong, regardless if God commands me or not. If morality is absolute, then it is absolutely absolute, and God can't override it. Unless you want to start that morality is relative to God's commands, and subjective to the person's interpretations, which leads to a relativistic/subjective morality and not an absolute.

 

It's either or. You can't have it both ways.

 

And we are basing this scenario on an ASSUMPTION that God would ask me to do something like this.

And since moral is absolute, God can't command it. It would be beyond the absolute morality. Hence, the Bible is lying about God commanding murders in the Bible. All those stories are lies.

 

Which he wouldn't because the commandments of Jesus forbid killing and spilling the blood of babies is an especially horredous act in the eyes of God

Exactly. He wouldn't, and therefore we know that the Flood is a false story, and so is any other story in the Old Testament where God commanded killing (or even fornication).

[Guest FaithDefender619]

1. First I'd test the spirit that told me this wether it be of God or not. But if this was truly God saying yes kill this child yeah I'd do it.

DAMN! I didn't see this until now. You're a sick bastard FD. Sick, dangerous, and morally corrupt. You talk about absolute morals, but you're full of evil.

 

I wonder how many people you managed to convert to Christianity over the years. I hope none. If you have, then you're part of the problem of creating a social tumor. So far, you have succeeded in scaring me away from your religion. You just nudged me one more step away. So perhaps I should tell you to keep it up since it only promotes the atheist agenda and anti-Christian sentiment?

 

1. Actually if God told me to do something and I didn't do it, it would be morally corrupt if I didn't. We don't follow YOUR standard of morals we follow what God says. Would God tell me to kill a baby most likely not. Killing babies is something God really hates. But if He did tell me to do it, I would.

 

2. I've nuged you away based on a hypothetical situation in which God orders me to do something? Thats pretty silly. God hasn't told me to do anything of the such and the scripture says nothing like that which is why I said I would test the spirit to even see if it was (of) God or not. And if it was and God said go and kill such and such then yeah I would do it. That doesn't make God a God of death to babies because in a fictitious scenario God asked me to do it. That simply means that as a christian my #1 duty is to obey God. If people on here wish to use this scenario to promote their own anti-christian leanings that fine but taking into account that many people on here have a pre-existing bias against christianity and people have shown their unabashed loyality to that position even when its permises are provably false (ie Zietgiest) then I really question if they are even logically rationally thinking about this or just basing their opinion on emotional appeals such as this.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

1. First I'd test the spirit that told me this wether it be of God or not. But if this was truly God saying yes kill this child yeah I'd do it.

You excuse atheists who are just minding their own business and wanting to live their lives in peace of having no moral values because they don't believe in your god but you would commit the murder of a child if you're convinced enough that your god approves of? This is all the proof we need that you don't really care about morality. You just care about using religion to justify your behaviors.

 

2.Who is doing the killing in revelation? And Jesus praises the church of Philadelphia for keeping His word. What is Christ word? Read the gospels they say nothing about killing our enemies. We love our enemies and pray for them. When we are smote on the cheek we offer up the other. We even give to those that would spitefully use us. That's not what Hitler did and Hitler was deep deep into the occult. He had astrologers planning his military action, he was part of a very occult group called the Thule society, his historical foundation the Thule society was established to discover the mystic roots of the aryan race. The Aryan race as Hitler saw it was a product of Russian Mystic HP Blavatsky and her channeled works from an ascended master (demon) calling itself Djwal Khul. The entire Nazi party was overtly occultic and satanic. You can watch a movie called the occult roots of the 3rd Reich on youtube.

If you read Revelation, God is doing the killing and torturing non-Christians before he throws them with scorpions and magical falling stars. Even Martin Luther and John Calvin rejected Revelation because Luther couldn't find Christ in it and Calvin thought it was barbaric even for him. Hitler and other antisemetics of the time based their antisemitism on bible passes like Matthew 27:25

Then the people as a whole answered, ‘His blood be on us and on our children!’

and on Romans 13::1-2

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 2Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement

Better than your youtube videos are actual quotes from Hitler himself

“National Socialism is not a cult-movement-- a movement for worship; it is exclusively a ‘volkic’ political doctrine based upon racial principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship... We will not allow mystically- minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else-- in any case something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our programme there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will-- not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord… Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men.” -Adolf Hitler, in Nuremberg on 6 Sept.1938.

 

“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933

 

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

 

Need any more?