God's Ways Are Not Our Ways Vs. The Knowledge Of Good And Evil

[mymistake]

You can't.... That's what's so pathetic about your position

 

 

What the heck?  Do you even listen to yourself?  So if I could prove evil and prove good using facts then not believing in God would be a solid position but somehow God becomes the reasonable default because good and evil are subjective human constructs?

 

Listen to how bullshity that is.

[Guest end3]

 

You can't.... That's what's so pathetic about your position

 

 

What the heck?  Do you even listen to yourself?  So if I could prove evil and prove good using facts then not believing in God would be a solid position but somehow God becomes the reasonable default because good and evil are subjective human constructs?

 

Listen to how bullshity that is.

 

What's amazing is y'all are willing to have conversations about good and evil in light of things like Leviticus, yet when pressed hard, it's a human construct. Where's the line? Otherwise one incomplete answer is likely as good as another.

[mymistake]

 

 

You can't.... That's what's so pathetic about your position

 

 

What the heck?  Do you even listen to yourself?  So if I could prove evil and prove good using facts then not believing in God would be a solid position but somehow God becomes the reasonable default because good and evil are subjective human constructs?

 

Listen to how bullshity that is.

 

What's amazing is y'all are willing to have conversations about good and evil in light of things like Leviticus, yet when pressed hard, it's a human construct. Where's the line? Otherwise one incomplete answer is likely as good as another.

 

 

 

Nope.  We know it is a construct and subjective when we talk about good and evil among ourselves.  No pressing required.  Nothing amazing about that at all.  You are the one who believes in an absolute that you cannot explain and cannot account for.

 

Clearly there are some answers that are better than others.  And some answers fall apart as complete bullshit at the slightest examination.  So I will stick to the answers that withstand examination the best, thank you very much.  They are not the same at all.

 

You still have not addressed the issue of how there is no evidence for God but plenty of evidence that God is imaginary so really that makes your position the ridiculous one.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

You can't.... That's what's so pathetic about your position

 

 

What the heck?  Do you even listen to yourself?  So if I could prove evil and prove good using facts then not believing in God would be a solid position but somehow God becomes the reasonable default because good and evil are subjective human constructs?

 

Listen to how bullshity that is.

 

What's amazing is y'all are willing to have conversations about good and evil in light of things like Leviticus, yet when pressed hard, it's a human construct. Where's the line? Otherwise one incomplete answer is likely as good as another.

 

 

 

Nope.  We know it is a construct and subjective when we talk about good and evil among ourselves.  No pressing required.  Nothing amazing about that at all.  You are the one who believes in an absolute that you cannot explain and cannot account for.

 

Clearly there are some answers that are better than others.  And some answers fall apart as complete bullshit at the slightest examination.  So I will stick to the answers that withstand examination the best, thank you very much.  They are not the same at all.

 

You still have not addressed the issue of how there is no evidence for God but plenty of evidence that God is imaginary so really that makes your position the ridiculous one.

 

No, the "better than other" answers are subjectively "better"...nothing more. I'm sorry you don't understand the concept.

[bornagainathiest]

Ok End,

 

Here's the definitive, factual description of good and evil.  Don't blame me if your perception of it is untrustworthy.

.

.

.

[mymistake]

 

 

No, the "better than other" answers are subjectively "better"...nothing more. I'm sorry you don't understand the concept.

 

 

 

End, you are projecting.  I use words the way the language is commonly spoken by everybody.  You know, the definitions found in the dictionary.  You are the one who doesn't understand.

 

 

And when our Global Positioning System only works if we can measure time at the nanosecond and accurately understand how relativity warps time then science has an answer that is objectively better than "God moves in mysterious ways".  Science can know where you are on Earth down to the nearest 30 feet and God doesn't even answer the phone.

 

 

When science can make the maimed walk

 

 

and prayer cannot then science is objectively better than religion.

[Guest end3]

The problem MM is you are trying to predict based on the knowledge we do have to some infinite endpoint. You can do that, but it seems kind of fool-hearty.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

...

We were using different definitions.

...

 

Yes, you seem to use your own definitions for words, but you only let people know that after you get boxed or called out.

 

 

 

...

I'll schedule another therapist session.

...

 

Good idea.

 

From the Free Dictionary.com

 

mi·sog·y·nist

(mĭ-sŏj′ə-nĭst)

n.

One who hates or mistrusts women.

 

 

Your subjective perception of the Free Dictionary differs from my subjective perception of it, End.

 

My subjective perception is that you posted this...

 

re•frig•er•a•tor

 (rɪˈfrɪdʒ əˌreɪ tər) 

 

n.

1. a box, room, or cabinet in which food, drink, etc., are kept cool by means of ice or mechanical refrigeration.

2. the part of a distilling apparatus that cools the volatile material, causing it to condense; condenser.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Would imagine it comes from how I was raised...my parents vs. Christianity. We rarely went to church. My parents were perfect '50s type people....you know June and Ward Cleaver. Please don't try to pin my thoughts on strictly Christianity. Thank you.

 

 

How do you know how often you went to church with your parents, End?

 

Your perception of your time with them is subjective and therefore untrustworthy.

 

Just sayin...

[mymistake]

Furthermore if God really was an absolute authority for an absolute morality then the Bronze Age scriptures wouldn't have rules that seem barbaric by today's standards.

 

God should have known back then that one person owning another as property is always wrong, never acceptable.  God should have told people to never do it.  And back then people had to do what God told them to do (or else death) so they would have obeyed if God outlawed slavery.  God outlawed owning Jewish slaves and everybody was cool with obeying God about that.  An absolutely moral God would have taken the next step and outlaw all slavery.

 

In the same line of reasoning an absolute moral God would have outlawed rape and spousal rape.  Hell a moral God would have made that one of the Ten Commandments.  Don't have sex with anybody who doesn't want it.  This isn't so hard to figure out.  But in the relative morality of the Bible the Hebrews were killing their own daughters for choosing to have sex with somebody other than whom the father sold his daughter to as property.  Absolute morality fail.

 

 

 

The problem MM is you are trying to predict based on the knowledge we do have to some infinite endpoint. You can do that, but it seems kind of fool-hearty. 

 

What in the world are you even talking about?  Predict based on knowledge we do have to some infinite endpoint.  Does that even mean anything?  How could I be trying to do nonsense?

[bornagainathiest]

The problem MM is you are trying to predict based on the knowledge we do have to some infinite endpoint. You can do that, but it seems kind of fool-hearty.

 

Since you don't trust your own perceptions End, you can't really know what MM is trying to do.

 

So why don't you just go with faith and simply believe that he's doing what you believe he's doing?

[florduh]

It has been claimed that humans, by necessity, get their sense of morality from God, their creator. If that's the case, why do humans find it abhorrent when God orders genocide, commits genocide Himself and condemns the vast majority of his human creation to eternal damnation? It would seem that whatever God does should be fine with those who have gotten their morality from Him.

 

Just pondering.

[bornagainathiest]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

 

When End3's position (everything is subjective) is applied across the board, the result is nonsense...as I've demonstrated in my last messages.

However, End doesn't live like this - because doing so is impossible.  Instead he applies his 'everything is subjective' standard selectively and only when pressed.  Otherwise he's perfectly happy to live the same way that everyone else does, treating some things as subjective and other things as objective.  He reads, understands and pays heed to the 'Don't Walk!' signs in just the same way we do.  He's just as objective in his daily life as anyone else.  But, he'll never admit to that!

 

'Everything is subjective' is End's get-out-of-jail-free card that he plays only when it matters - whenever his cherished beliefs are challenged or threatened.

But if he were to abide by the same rules of language, logic and evidence that we're happy to abide by in this forum, he'd soon be in big trouble.  By always falling back on that standard he can avoid being held to account for what he believes. Whatever standard or measure we say is binding on him (as well as us) he can just deny, dismiss or dodge...because EVERYTHING is subjective.

 

It's the perfect face-saving, belief-saving, thread-winning weapon!

.

.

.

But would you really believe him if he were to claim that, 'Yes' he actually lives 24/7 as if EVERYTHING is subjective?

[sdelsolray]

 

 

...

We were using different definitions.

...

 

Yes, you seem to use your own definitions for words, but you only let people know that after you get boxed or called out.

 

 

 

...

I'll schedule another therapist session.

...

 

Good idea.

 

From the Free Dictionary.com

 

mi·sog·y·nist

(mĭ-sŏj′ə-nĭst)

n.

One who hates or mistrusts women.

 

 

 

You're the one who stated you were using a different definition for the word "misogynist".  Regardless, given your earlier posts in this thread, as well as many other posts you have made on this forum, you are certainly a misogynist, based on the definition you provided immediately above.  But folks around here already knew that.  Your chosen sky fairies are also misogynists.  You should take some comfort in being consistent with the views of your imaginary friends.

[mymistake]

The problem MM is you are trying to predict based on the knowledge we do have to some infinite endpoint. You can do that, but it seems kind of fool-hearty.

 

 

Yo End, where did you go?  Were you going to explain this, as in translate it into English, or is it simply crap you made up?  If it is complete crap then I could understand why you wouldn't even pretend you can explain it.

[sdelsolray]

It has been claimed that humans, by necessity, get their sense of morality from God, their creator. If that's the case, why do humans find it abhorrent when God orders genocide, commits genocide Himself and condemns the vast majority of his human creation to eternal damnation? It would seem that whatever God does should be fine with those who have gotten their morality from Him.

 

Just pondering.

A likely answer:  These gods are simple projections of the humans who invent them.  Likewise these humans' project their own morals and ethics upon these gods.  These humans pretend these gods are real.  Finally, these humans blindly assert the morals and ethics come from these gods and are absolute.  Easy peasy.

[bornagainathiest]

 

The problem MM is you are trying to predict based on the knowledge we do have to some infinite endpoint. You can do that, but it seems kind of fool-hearty.

 

 

Yo End, where did you go?  Were you going to explain this, as in translate it into English, or is it simply crap you made up?  If it is complete crap then I could understand why you wouldn't even pretend you can explain it.

 

 

Where'd he go, MM?

 

To do a victory dance in the end zone, most likely.

 

We can't satisfy his requirements - so that somehow equates to victory in his mind.  Never mind that the burden of proof is on him, not us.  That's what happens when you believe that everything is subjective.  You don't care about any other requirements than your own.  You don't care abiding by any other rules than your own.  You don't feel the need to live for anyone else but yourself.  

 

And it shows in the grace you fail to extend in your relationships with others.

[StillLooking]

 

The problem MM is you are trying to predict based on the knowledge we do have to some infinite endpoint. You can do that, but it seems kind of fool-hearty.

 

 

Yo End, where did you go?  Were you going to explain this, as in translate it into English, or is it simply crap you made up?  If it is complete crap then I could understand why you wouldn't even pretend you can explain it.

 

 

I am glad that it is not only me who sometimes doesn't understand end3's post but apparently MM also has similar issue.

[duderonomy]

 

 

The problem MM is you are trying to predict based on the knowledge we do have to some infinite endpoint. You can do that, but it seems kind of fool-hearty.

 

 

Yo End, where did you go?  Were you going to explain this, as in translate it into English, or is it simply crap you made up?  If it is complete crap then I could understand why you wouldn't even pretend you can explain it.

 

 

I am glad that it is not only me who sometimes doesn't understand end3's post but apparently MM also has similar issue.

 

 

I'm convinced by my faith that End3 doesn't understand his own posts.  I don't either at times, so that makes at least four of us.

 

He's real good though, at going off topic and getting others to follow him down endless rabbit trails.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

The problem MM is you are trying to predict based on the knowledge we do have to some infinite endpoint. You can do that, but it seems kind of fool-hearty.

 

 

Yo End, where did you go?  Were you going to explain this, as in translate it into English, or is it simply crap you made up?  If it is complete crap then I could understand why you wouldn't even pretend you can explain it.

 

 

I am glad that it is not only me who sometimes doesn't understand end3's post but apparently MM also has similar issue.

 

 

I'm convinced by my faith that End3 doesn't understand his own posts.  I don't either at times, so that makes at least four of us.

 

He's real good though, at going off topic and getting others to follow him down endless rabbit trails.

 

Was just trying to convey that our ability to predict is limited.....and wonderfully so when prediction approaches infinity....i.e God. We fool ourselves that we know something at the moment.....like this conversation about good and evil. Hell, we can't even define good and evil except for "they are human constructs"....real, but not really. But ultimately, they are real because they are real, instantaneous physical, and invoke physical change.

 

We appear at some verge of qualification, but are simultaneously a long way from understanding.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

The problem MM is you are trying to predict based on the knowledge we do have to some infinite endpoint. You can do that, but it seems kind of fool-hearty.

 

 

Yo End, where did you go?  Were you going to explain this, as in translate it into English, or is it simply crap you made up?  If it is complete crap then I could understand why you wouldn't even pretend you can explain it.

 

 

I am glad that it is not only me who sometimes doesn't understand end3's post but apparently MM also has similar issue.

 

 

I'm convinced by my faith that End3 doesn't understand his own posts.  I don't either at times, so that makes at least four of us.

 

He's real good though, at going off topic and getting others to follow him down endless rabbit trails.

 

Was just trying to convey that our ability to predict is limited.....and wonderfully so when prediction approaches infinity....i.e God.

 

No branch of science and no scientist will ever try to predict God.  That's not within science's remit.  So quite what you mean by this, I don't know.

 

We fool ourselves that we know something at the moment.....like this conversation about good and evil. 

 

Care to justify this assertion, End?

The burden of proof falls on you to do so.  None of us are required to do anything.  It's your assertion.  Over to you.

 

Hell, we can't even define good and evil except for "they are human constructs"....real, but not really.

 

Justification for this assertion?

It's not up to us to define good and evil to prove you wrong on this.  It's up to you to justify your assertion that we can't do it.  Over to you.

 

But ultimately, they are real because they are real, instantaneous physical, and invoke physical change.

 

Worked examples to justify this assertion please.

Once again, the burden falls on you to produce these examples for our inspection.  It doesn't fall to us to prove your assertion wrong because your assertion is unsupported by evidence.  Over to you.

 

We appear at some verge of qualification, but are simultaneously a long way from understanding.

 

Explain please.

 

 

End,

 

There are rules of language, logic and evidence that apply to you just as much as they apply to everyone else.  Just as in a court of law, nobody is exempt from them.

The burden of proof is one of them.  If you want to churn out endless unsupported assertions and claims, you'll persuade none of us.  But if you do want to persuade us, then abide by these rules and do what's required of you.  

 

Furthermore, if you tried to play your 'everything is subjective' card when you're on the witness stand (to avoid having to justify what you claim to be true) then you'd probably be held in contempt for flouting the governing rules and procedures of that court.

 

Play by the rules.

[midniterider]

Christian says humans dont/cant really know anything.

Christian claims Christianity is a good deal. LoL.

 

I wonder how he knows this.

[Guest end3]

Christian says humans dont/cant really know anything.

Christian claims Christianity is a good deal. LoL.

 

I wonder how he knows this.

Not what I said. I am saying that asserting atheism is like making a prediction about the future. Our knowledge allows us to predict some but not very far in front of us. It's not scientific.

[mymistake]

Was just trying to convey that our ability to predict is limited.....and wonderfully so when prediction approaches infinity....i.e God. We fool ourselves that we know something at the moment.....like this conversation about good and evil. Hell, we can't even define good and evil except for "they are human constructs"....real, but not really. But ultimately, they are real because they are real, instantaneous physical, and invoke physical change.

We appear at some verge of qualification, but are simultaneously a long way from understanding.

 

 

Where did I make a prediction about infinity?  You made a specific claim about me.  That you were talking about my action was the clearest part about that cryptic statement you made.

 

On the other hand you are the one who claims you know the infinite creator of the universe so stop and ask yourself who is really making a prediction about infinity.

 

"The problem MM is you are trying to predict based on the knowledge we do have to some infinite endpoint. You can do that, but it seems kind of fool-hearty."

 

So this is a load of crap, isn't it?

 

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

 

The problem MM is you are trying to predict based on the knowledge we do have to some infinite endpoint. You can do that, but it seems kind of fool-hearty.

 

 

Yo End, where did you go?  Were you going to explain this, as in translate it into English, or is it simply crap you made up?  If it is complete crap then I could understand why you wouldn't even pretend you can explain it.

 

 

I am glad that it is not only me who sometimes doesn't understand end3's post but apparently MM also has similar issue.

 

 

I'm convinced by my faith that End3 doesn't understand his own posts.  I don't either at times, so that makes at least four of us.

 

He's real good though, at going off topic and getting others to follow him down endless rabbit trails.

 

Was just trying to convey that our ability to predict is limited.....and wonderfully so when prediction approaches infinity....i.e God.

 

No branch of science and no scientist will ever try to predict God.  That's not within science's remit.  So quite what you mean by this, I don't know.

 

We fool ourselves that we know something at the moment.....like this conversation about good and evil. 

 

Care to justify this assertion, End?

The burden of proof falls on you to do so.  None of us are required to do anything.  It's your assertion.  Over to you.

 

Hell, we can't even define good and evil except for "they are human constructs"....real, but not really.

 

Justification for this assertion?

It's not up to us to define good and evil to prove you wrong on this.  It's up to you to justify your assertion that we can't do it.  Over to you.

 

But ultimately, they are real because they are real, instantaneous physical, and invoke physical change.

 

Worked examples to justify this assertion please.

Once again, the burden falls on you to produce these examples for our inspection.  It doesn't fall to us to prove your assertion wrong because your assertion is unsupported by evidence.  Over to you.

 

We appear at some verge of qualification, but are simultaneously a long way from understanding.

 

Explain please.

 

 

End,

 

There are rules of language, logic and evidence that apply to you just as much as they apply to everyone else.  Just as in a court of law, nobody is exempt from them.

The burden of proof is one of them.  If you want to churn out endless unsupported assertions and claims, you'll persuade none of us.  But if you do want to persuade us, then abide by these rules and do what's required of you.  

 

Furthermore, if you tried to play your 'everything is subjective' card when you're on the witness stand (to avoid having to justify what you claim to be true) then you'd probably be held in contempt for flouting the governing rules and procedures of that court.

 

Play by the rules.

 

There are many examples, I'm sure, about reductionism, epigenetics, etc., that we have attempted to discuss before. You always default to the what you just wrote. It's a copout.