Religious Discussion Thread

[Hacky McAxe]

Not trying to be a smartarse but your responses are basically like if you spent days explaining the bible to me, then I said, "then why did Vishnu allow you to sin?"

 

[Hacky McAxe]

OK. This pointless roundabout debate aside, what's everyone's thoughts on this?

Personally I'm cheering. Excellent outcome.

Voluntary assisted dying legalised in NSW

Terminally ill people in NSW will be able to access voluntary assisted dying after a historic vote in parliament.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Northern Beaches dog]

Again with the ought/is fallacy. I keep telling you. That fallacy is only relative if you believe God exists. Evolution is the complete opposite.

With evolution it's fit. That's where "survival of the fittest" comes from. It's saying that the species that fits best in the environment will survive. It's nothing at all to do with is/Ought.

If less rape and murder leads to the survival of the species (which it does) then the species that survive are the ones that don't rape and murder.

Greg Koukl is a Christian apologist and he does what you're doing. He either ignores or fails to understand the statements of the other side, then makes definitive statements of fact using stuff that is the opposite of fact (has no evidence to support it). That's why he's constantly laughed at by academics.

That's the problem with Christian apologists. They derived from the belief that the sun revolves around the earth and 1,500 years later, they're still arguing that we should ignore facts and focus on biblical teachings.

Is Ought has NOTHING to do with God.

"The is-ought fallacy occurs when the assumption is made that because things are a certain way, they should be that way. It can also consist of the assumption that because something is not now occurring, this means it should not occur. In effect, this fallacy asserts that the status quo should be maintained simply for its own sake. It seeks to make a value of a fact or to derive a moral imperative from the description of a state of affairs."

Is Ought

www.txstate.edu

.

What does this definition have to do with God?

You are denying a fundamental problem from using evolution to get to morality.

 

[Northern Beaches dog]

The fact that you just used that as an example tells me that you have not read a single thing I posted.

I'm sorry but if you believe what you just posted then you can't even begin to understand morality.

Just answer it.

 

[Northern Beaches dog]

You are essentially saying evolution taught us that rape is wrong.
Evolution is a description. It is what is, not what it OUGHT to be.
If i rape or go against evolution, who have i wronged? The victim? Evolution? To say i wronged someone is to assume there is a right.
If there is a right and wrong way to go about things this assumes OM.
Many atheists speak on both sides of there mouth when discussing morality.

 

[Northern Beaches dog]

Summarised brilliantly here by Craig
"

Now, what if God does not exist? Is there a sound foundation, first of all, for objective moral values? Now here, Dr. Harris said, “You don’t need religion in order to have universal morality.” Again, that’s a confusion. Of course, you don’t! Remember, the Nazis, for example, could have won World War II and established a universal morality. The issue isn’t universality, the issue is objectivity. And I’m maintaining that in the absence of God, there isn’t any reason, any explanation, for the existence of objective moral values.

Now Dr. Harris says, “But we can imagine creatures being in the worst possible misery, and it’s obviously better for creatures to be flourishing—the well-being of conscious creatures is good.” Well, of course, it is. That’s not the question. We agree that, all things being equal, flourishing of conscious creatures is good. The question is rather, if atheism were true, what would make the flourishing of conscious creatures objectively good? Conscious creatures might like to flourish, but there’s no reason on atheism to think that it would really be objectively good.

Now here Dr. Harris, I think, is guilty of misusing, , terms like “good” and “bad”, “right” and “wrong”, in equivocal ways. He will often use them in non-moral senses. For example, he’ll say there are objectively good and bad moves in chess. [16] Now that’s clearly not a moral use of the terms “good” and “bad”. You just mean they’re not apt to win or produce a winning strategy. It’s not evil, what you’ve done. And similarly, in ordinary English, we use the words “good” and “bad” in a number of non-moral ways. For example, we say Notre Dame has a “good” team. Now we can hope it’s an ethical team, but that’s not what’s indicated by the win-loss record! That—that is a different meaning of “good”. Or we say, “That’s a good way to get yourself killed!” or “That’s a good game plan” or “The sunshine felt good” or “That’s a good route to East Lansing” or “There’s no good reason to do that” or “She’s in good health”. All of these are non-moral uses of the word “good”. And Dr. Harris’s contrast of the good life and the bad life is not an ethical contrast between a morally good life and an evil life. It’s a contrast between a pleasurable life and a miserable life. And there’s no reason to equate “pleasure/misery” with “good” and “evil”--especially on atheism! So there’s just no reason that’s been given, on atheism, for thinking the flourishing of conscious creatures is objectively good.

 

[Dogna88]

Summarised brilliantly here by Craig
"

Now, what if God does not exist? Is there a sound foundation, first of all, for objective moral values? Now here, Dr. Harris said, “You don’t need religion in order to have universal morality.” Again, that’s a confusion. Of course, you don’t! Remember, the Nazis, for example, could have won World War II and established a universal morality. The issue isn’t universality, the issue is objectivity. And I’m maintaining that in the absence of God, there isn’t any reason, any explanation, for the existence of objective moral values.

Now Dr. Harris says, “But we can imagine creatures being in the worst possible misery, and it’s obviously better for creatures to be flourishing—the well-being of conscious creatures is good.” Well, of course, it is. That’s not the question. We agree that, all things being equal, flourishing of conscious creatures is good. The question is rather, if atheism were true, what would make the flourishing of conscious creatures objectively good? Conscious creatures might like to flourish, but there’s no reason on atheism to think that it would really be objectively good.

Now here Dr. Harris, I think, is guilty of misusing, , terms like “good” and “bad”, “right” and “wrong”, in equivocal ways. He will often use them in non-moral senses. For example, he’ll say there are objectively good and bad moves in chess. [16] Now that’s clearly not a moral use of the terms “good” and “bad”. You just mean they’re not apt to win or produce a winning strategy. It’s not evil, what you’ve done. And similarly, in ordinary English, we use the words “good” and “bad” in a number of non-moral ways. For example, we say Notre Dame has a “good” team. Now we can hope it’s an ethical team, but that’s not what’s indicated by the win-loss record! That—that is a different meaning of “good”. Or we say, “That’s a good way to get yourself killed!” or “That’s a good game plan” or “The sunshine felt good” or “That’s a good route to East Lansing” or “There’s no good reason to do that” or “She’s in good health”. All of these are non-moral uses of the word “good”. And Dr. Harris’s contrast of the good life and the bad life is not an ethical contrast between a morally good life and an evil life. It’s a contrast between a pleasurable life and a miserable life. And there’s no reason to equate “pleasure/misery” with “good” and “evil”--especially on atheism! So there’s just no reason that’s been given, on atheism, for thinking the flourishing of conscious creatures is objectively good.

You keep using Harris as the gold standard of atheistic morality. When the likes of Wooldword Dillahunty and Oconnor dont agree.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Is Ought has NOTHING to do with God.

"The is-ought fallacy occurs when the assumption is made that because things are a certain way, they should be that way. It can also consist of the assumption that because something is not now occurring, this means it should not occur. In effect, this fallacy asserts that the status quo should be maintained simply for its own sake. It seeks to make a value of a fact or to derive a moral imperative from the description of a state of affairs."

Is Ought

www.txstate.edu

.

What does this definition have to do with God?

You are denying a fundamental problem from using evolution to get to morality.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you are:

1) relating it to God by using it as a key argument for God

2) constantly bringing it up when I and others have not used that fallacy at all. At no point did I suggest that things "ought to be". Many times I stated the opposite but each time you kept going back to the is/Ought fallacy even though NO ONE IS FOLLOWING THIS FALLACY

Ought to be suggests divine intervention, and it's the complete counter of evolution. Evolution is not "ought to be"

Evolution is like if you have a kids block puzzle. There's a square hole. If it were, "ought to be", then evolution would result in life becoming square straight away. That's not how evolution works. Instead 100 trillion different shapes collide with the hole and eventually one fits. That doesn't mean it "ought to be", it just happened to fit.

And this stuff isn't guess work. This stuff has been proven.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Just answer it.

Alright. I'll answer that when you explain to me why 1+1 actually equals 3

 

[Hacky McAxe]

You are essentially saying evolution taught us that rape is wrong.
Evolution is a description. It is what is, not what it OUGHT to be.
If i rape or go against evolution, who have i wronged? The victim? Evolution? To say i wronged someone is to assume there is a right.
If there is a right and wrong way to go about things this assumes OM.
Many atheists speak on both sides of there mouth when discussing morality.

Still not sure why you can't understand this basic premise. Either you refuse to, or you actually can't understand basic morality without God.

In either case, this discussion has hit an impassible wall and all we'll do now is go around in circles.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Summarised brilliantly here by Craig
"

Now, what if God does not exist? Is there a sound foundation, first of all, for objective moral values? Now here, Dr. Harris said, “You don’t need religion in order to have universal morality.” Again, that’s a confusion. Of course, you don’t! Remember, the Nazis, for example, could have won World War II and established a universal morality. The issue isn’t universality, the issue is objectivity. And I’m maintaining that in the absence of God, there isn’t any reason, any explanation, for the existence of objective moral values.

Now Dr. Harris says, “But we can imagine creatures being in the worst possible misery, and it’s obviously better for creatures to be flourishing—the well-being of conscious creatures is good.” Well, of course, it is. That’s not the question. We agree that, all things being equal, flourishing of conscious creatures is good. The question is rather, if atheism were true, what would make the flourishing of conscious creatures objectively good? Conscious creatures might like to flourish, but there’s no reason on atheism to think that it would really be objectively good.

Now here Dr. Harris, I think, is guilty of misusing, , terms like “good” and “bad”, “right” and “wrong”, in equivocal ways. He will often use them in non-moral senses. For example, he’ll say there are objectively good and bad moves in chess. [16] Now that’s clearly not a moral use of the terms “good” and “bad”. You just mean they’re not apt to win or produce a winning strategy. It’s not evil, what you’ve done. And similarly, in ordinary English, we use the words “good” and “bad” in a number of non-moral ways. For example, we say Notre Dame has a “good” team. Now we can hope it’s an ethical team, but that’s not what’s indicated by the win-loss record! That—that is a different meaning of “good”. Or we say, “That’s a good way to get yourself killed!” or “That’s a good game plan” or “The sunshine felt good” or “That’s a good route to East Lansing” or “There’s no good reason to do that” or “She’s in good health”. All of these are non-moral uses of the word “good”. And Dr. Harris’s contrast of the good life and the bad life is not an ethical contrast between a morally good life and an evil life. It’s a contrast between a pleasurable life and a miserable life. And there’s no reason to equate “pleasure/misery” with “good” and “evil”--especially on atheism! So there’s just no reason that’s been given, on atheism, for thinking the flourishing of conscious creatures is objectively good.

And this is why Craig is considered to be a hack. He's not a philosopher. He's just a devout Christian who has an idea, and he believes everyone should believe his idea, and if anyone questions his idea then he ignores them.

Good Christian, terrible philosopher.

 

[Tuffers]

Tuffs? Can you help?

I’m still recovering from the last time I treated someone who associated with pack raping ducks … yikes. Imagine a bukkake of feathers.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I forgot to mention that William Lane Craig was asked about why God would allow this Coronavirus Pandemic and his response was basically that China accidentally released the virus which was obviously Satan's fault.

The guy is just generally a crap human being. If you worship his words then you need help.

 

[Dogna88]

I’m still recovering from the last time I treated someone who associated with pack raping ducks … yikes. Imagine a bukkake of feathers.

I need treatment. I keep associating Bill Gates as Lord Lizard leading the other Lizards to an anal rape orgy and getting erect over it.


Wait.... ignore that last part

 

[Doogie]

Alright. I'll answer that when you explain to me why 1+1 actually equals 3

Because your condom failed....

 

[Kelpie03]

And that's why I keep saying that this discussion is pointless. Because...

1) "there is rape in the animal kingdom all the time"

Yep, and we are animals. Which is why there's also rape in the human kingdom all the time. It's sad that it happens but procreation is a core driver of all animals, including humans. But we evolved intelligence and self-control. So we know it's wrong without some sky being telling us it's wrong

2) if you cannot understand why rape is wrong without God telling you it's wrong then... I don't mean any offence but maybe talk to a professional about that.

Tuffs? Can you help?

Haven't spent much time, on this thread was getting to complicated, I find your comment about procreation been the core driver all animals and humans. Since you are hell bent in purshing your athiests agenda, have a hard look at some hard core truths
Procreation is still the core driver of all animals, but if you think that it is still the core driver of humans you're the one that should see a professional, and a very good one at that.
Since Christianity has virtually zero influence in shaping laws these days,sex today is not often done for procration purposes it is almost always done for gratifaction.
(1) You might consider the fact, that it might be what has turned our society into sodom. with marriages been undermine marriage, on and off affairs, gave gay marriages the same value as hetro marriages,not to mention the few kids been born not knowing who their parents are, I could go on and on
(2) You might also consider the fact that since Christianity has been undermined, white colour crime and corruption has become rampant, if you don't want to believe me, I can show you the proof in person.
To think that some of you athiests go balistic when anyone tries to promote Christian values.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Haven't spent much time, on this thread was getting to complicated, I find your comment about procreation been the core driver all animals and humans. Since you are hell bent in purshing your athiests agenda, have a hard look at some hard core truths
Procreation is still the core driver of all animals, but if you think that it is still the core driver of humans you're the one that should see a professional, and a very good one at that.
Since Christianity has virtually zero influence in shaping laws these days,sex today is not often done for procration purposes it is almost always done for gratifaction.
(1) You might consider the fact, that it might be what has turned our society into sodom. with marriages been undermine marriage, on and off affairs, gave gay marriages the same value as hetro marriages,not to mention the few kids been born not knowing who their parents are, I could go on and on
(2) You might also consider the fact that since Christianity has been undermined, white colour crime and corruption has become rampant, if you don't want to believe me, I can show you the proof in person.
To think that some of you athiests go balistic when anyone tries to promote Christian values.

You actually cover the issue we’re discussing well in one point there. I was talking about how the key driver for animals and early humans was procreation. But as you pointed out, we as humans have evolved beyond procreation as our main driver.

This shows that much of morality is driven by society and not God.

 

[Dogna88]

Haven't spent much time, on this thread was getting to complicated, I find your comment about procreation been the core driver all animals and humans. Since you are hell bent in purshing your athiests agenda, have a hard look at some hard core truths
Procreation is still the core driver of all animals, but if you think that it is still the core driver of humans you're the one that should see a professional, and a very good one at that.
Since Christianity has virtually zero influence in shaping laws these days,sex today is not often done for procration purposes it is almost always done for gratifaction.
(1) You might consider the fact, that it might be what has turned our society into sodom. with marriages been undermine marriage, on and off affairs, gave gay marriages the same value as hetro marriages,not to mention the few kids been born not knowing who their parents are, I could go on and on
(2) You might also consider the fact that since Christianity has been undermined, white colour crime and corruption has become rampant, if you don't want to believe me, I can show you the proof in person.
To think that some of you athiests go balistic when anyone tries to promote Christian values.

You should be a criminologists!

Christian values decline = white color crime and corruption has become rampant.

You know studies have shown. That an increase in icecream sales = an increase in property crime

 

[Hacky McAxe]

You should be a criminologists!

Christian values decline = white color crime and corruption has become rampant.

You know studies have shown. That an increase in icecream sales = an increase in property crime

My favourite correlation was when we had the same sex marriage plebiscite and they put up the map of the districts that voted "no"

There was a direct correlation between districts with the No vote and districts with Red Rooster takeaway stores.

 

[Kelpie03]

You actually cover the issue we’re discussing well in one point there. I was talking about how the key driver for animals and early humans was procreation. But as you pointed out, we as humans have evolved beyond procreation as our main driver.

This shows that much of morality is driven by society and not God.

So you're saying that morality is driven by society, but who in society is driving morality, certainly not the masses because by far the great majority are just 2 legged sheep, who follow those pushing their sales agenda, ie greed is good and sex sells.
They use our nactural instinct ie. a desire for a love relationship and sex, and use it to promote power lust and greed to the extreme in the masses.