EVIDENCE

423 posts / 0 new
Last post
Jesus Follower's picture
At Algebe, suppose you are

At Algebe, suppose you are right in asserting that God is unjust.

Is there something objectively wrong with that or is it just your opinion?

Algebe's picture
@Jesus Follower: Is there

@Jesus Follower: Is there something objectively wrong with that or is it just your opinion?

I'm not the one asserting that god is the source of objective truth, justice, and morality. So it's my opinion, and one that I'm happy to defend. As a theist, you aren't allowed to have an opinion. You just have to believe. "My god, right or wrong."

I think god is as objectively false, unjust, and immoral as the tribal ancestor in whose image he was created by bronze age shamans.

Sheldon's picture
"At Algebe, suppose you are

"At Algebe, suppose you are right in asserting that God is unjust.

Is there something objectively wrong with that or is it just your opinion?"

Is being unjust a quality a quality you admire in sentient beings? Would you think it an admirable quality in a human? If you could choose whether most humans were either just or unjust, would you really need the banality of heaven or the barbaric stupidity of hell to be real in order to choose?

Jesus Follower's picture
@Sheldon: If you could choose

@Sheldon: If you could choose whether most humans were either just or unjust, would you really need the banality of heaven or the barbaric stupidity of hell to be real in order to choose?

I think justice is objectively good. Don't you?

Sheldon's picture
"@Sheldon: If you could

"@Sheldon: If you could choose whether most humans were either just or unjust, would you really need the banality of heaven or the barbaric stupidity of hell to be real in order to choose?

I think justice is objectively good. Don't you?"
---------------------------------------------------------

>>I think I asked a question, don't you?

-----------------------------------------
"
At Algebe, suppose you are right in asserting that God is unjust.

Is there something objectively wrong with that or is it just your opinion?"

>>That was what prompted my question

Sheldon's picture
Your claim for objective

Your claim for objective morality isn't objective evidence of a deity. You can't even evidence the claim properly. For instance:

"There is in the case of objective moral values......which the new testament was written state do not Kill or steal Etc. Etc."

So when the same bible says your deity committed murder and encouraged others to do so and steal was this objectively immoral? Like JoC you can't have it both ways. Special pleading alert...would be my "prophecy" here.
____________
"Sheldon And think I should kill you because of your beliefs, what then is there to stop me other then objective morality that claims I shouldn`"

Subjective human morality enforced by human laws. It seems to work very well. Secular democracies have some of the lowest violent crime rates on the planet. In stark contrast to the US.
--------------
"Since my opinion holds as much weight as yours we are left with a relativistic dilemma here. "

Good boy Billy, and we call these relative views and the dichotomies that produce them morality.
---------------
"And that`s where objective moral values enter here. It comes from God or call it a deity if you will"

Now can you demonstrate any objective evidence for this claim? All you've done so far is assert your desire for It to be true, because you mistakenly value bronze age religious diktat over human morality and the reason that underpins it.
------------------
"Objectivity makes it abundantly clear to refrain oneself from taking the law into ones hands."

As the bible claims your deity does relentlessly you mean? Even encouraging the Israelites to do the same. What's objectively moral about mass murder? Or genocide? Or ethnic cleansing? Or torturing a new born baby to death in an angry rage because your deity thought the best way to disapprove of King David's adultery was to tortue a baby to death over 7 days. Note in this biblical narrative the same deity seemed less concerned about David murdering his lover's husband than over him committing adultery. Is that objectively moral to you?
---------------
"
This is supported by the Penal code of law enforcement and the justice of the land."

Why does the US need this if 96% of its people are theists? You're contradicting your earlier claim that subjective human morals are worthless, and religious moral absolutes are ALL we need? US system of criminal law doesn't deal in absolutes either. It's legalised divorce, and is as we speak legalizing gay marriage. This is far superior to the myopic morality of the bronze age that claims unruly children should be taken to the edge of town and stoned to death. Is that objectively moral to you Billy?
---------------
"So it is relevant and applies not only to you and me but to everyone in the society."

Nope, I don't live in the US.

Now do you have any OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for a deity? As opposed to subjective arguments that are demonstrably contradicted by your own bible?

Diotrephes's picture
Sheldon,

Sheldon,

"Or torturing a new born baby to death in an angry rage because your deity thought the best way to disapprove of King David's adultery was to tortue a baby to death over 7 days. Note in this biblical narrative the same deity seemed less concerned about David murdering his lover's husband than over him committing adultery. Is that objectively moral to you?"

David got in trouble because he violated the First Commandment from Exodus 34:12-16 when he took Bathsheba, who was married to a Hittite, as a wife. That was considered "adultery". Consequently his son by her was killed as punishment but he still kept her as a wife and had four others her, including Solomon.
http://www.blackhistoryinthebible.com/the-hamites/bathsheba-kings-solomo...

The priests probably killed the baby.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Diotrephes

@ Diotrephes

Read the verse; the baby was tortured and killed because of David's blasphemy. Instead of punishing David god took his vile temper out on a newborn.

I know you have a weird take on most things Diotrephes but FFS learn to read.

Diotrephes's picture
Old man shouts ...,

Old man shouts ...,

David and Bathsheba's first son was killed because David married a foreign woman and made her queen. That was a violation of the First Commandment. So the priests led by Nathan killed the baby. 2 Samuel 12 = https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2samuel12&version=KJV;TLB;N...

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Diotrephes

@ Diotrephes
The verse mentions no priests or servants until the end when they ask David why he isn't fasting . Nowhere does it say they killed the baby. It was entirely the 'lord's' doing. The blasphemy was caused by David marrying Uriah the Hitittes widow in secret viz;

"7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’

11 “This is what the Lord says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’”

13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord."

Please supply the verse where it clearly states that the priests, not god, killed the baby. The reference you supplied nowhere suggests it was priests, all the versions say it was god.
viz:

13 So David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.”

And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. 14 However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also who is born to you shall surely die.” 15 Then Nathan departed to his house.

And the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife bore to David, and it became ill. 16 David therefore pleaded with God for the child, and David fasted and went in and lay all night on the ground. 17 So the elders of his house arose and went to him, to raise him up from the ground. But he would not, nor did he eat food with them. 18 Then on the seventh day it came to pass that the child died. And the servants of David were afraid to tell him that the child was dead. For they said, “Indeed, while the child was alive, we spoke to him, and he would not heed our voice. How can we tell him that the child is dead?

Point out to me "and the priests killed the baby" it just is not in the passage in any translation.

Sheldon's picture
I don't care what excuses the

I don't care what excuses the faithful can muster to excuse the murder of newborn baby, only to highlight the hypocrisy of doing it whilst simultaneously claiming atheism can have no morality because it is subjective.

The text says quite specifically that god struck the baby, and that it suffered for 7 days then died. So I have zero interest in wild speculation about priests. The text also specifically says that King David murdered her husband in order to indulge his affair, so again the hypocrisy is palpable.

Jesus Follower's picture
@Algebe: I'm not the one

@Algebe: I'm not the one asserting that god is the source of objective truth, justice, and morality.

Is there objective morality? If so, what is the source?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ JF

@ JF

This debate has raged sporadically on these boards for months and probably years. The consensus of the thinking person here (excluding theists) is that morality, such as it is, is entirely subjective.

Arguments from Muslims, other Theists, Deists and members of assorted christian sects have been ably and comprehensively demolished.

If you honestly think you can bring a new and convincing dialectic to this debate about morality then fire way. Stand by to be educated by better minds than mine.

( edited for spelling and capitalisation)

Jesus Follower's picture
Point taken. I'm a newbie

Point taken. I'm a newbie here. But does a subjective morality really sit well with you?

Sometimes school shootings are morally good?

Tin-Man's picture
@JF Re: "Sometimes school

@JF Re: "Sometimes school shootings are morally good?"

You are a special kind of special, aren't you?

Diotrephes's picture
Jesus Follower,

Jesus Follower,

In the case of the Florida school shooting the powers that be say that they are going to demolish the school building and replace it with a new one. There are countless decrepit schools around the country. I wonder if school shootings occurred in them would the powers that be finally demolish them and replace them with modern facilities? If so would the shootings be considered to have been morally good?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
No, Never. That is my

@ JF
"Sometimes school shootings are morally good?"

No, Never. That is my subjective opinion.

Idiot.

(Edited for clarity)

Jesus Follower's picture
@old man: "No, Never. That is

@old man: "No, Never. That is my subjective opinion."

Sounds like a square circle. Subjective opinions are based on the subject...you. How can it never be good if it is just based on your opinion?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@JF

@JF

As I have said, in your arrogance, and in my subjective opinion, you haven't been arsed to read any of the posts and topics on this very subject that are extant on these forums.

Just press your left mouse over the "See All" button and....

LO! All the topics shall be revealed unto you! And your eyes will be sore amazed! And the scales of programming will fall from your reason! Your faith will be sorely tested by the words of the sensible and intelligent, but ye, the righteous shall triumph by not reading a fucking word."

Please just read the exact same arguments that you are trying to make articulated by other drive by and one or two much more intelligent "hang around" christians...read the responses and unless you have something new, STFU.

Tin-Man's picture
@Old Man. Re: "....read the

@Old Man. Re: "....read the responses and unless you have something new, STFU."

Not fair! Give a little warning already! Almost shot water out my nose. LOL

CyberLN's picture
I actually don’t mind repeats

I actually don’t mind repeats of the same subject. Frequently a new tack will be used which then elicites new responses. Sometimes it will lead me to new and different thoughts, and sometimes I get to learn new debate techniques from it.

Additionally, there are always new members, both overt and covert, who have not been exposed to, what seem to you, as old arguments. Maybe instead of telling someone to stfu, it would be beneficial to those who are new to these subjects for you and anyone else weary of the subject, to just pass on by it.

Sheldon's picture
"Point taken. I'm a newbie

"Point taken. I'm a newbie here. But does a subjective morality really sit well with you?"

What does that have to do with the validity of the claim? Wishful thinking isn't a cogent argument.

Sheldon's picture
JF "Point taken. I'm a newbie

JF "Point taken. I'm a newbie here. But does a subjective morality really sit well with you?

Sometimes school shootings are morally good?"
-----------------------------------------

As opposed to wiping out whole towns and cities in the bible?

Algebe's picture
@Jesus Follower: Is there

@Jesus Follower: Is there objective morality?

Nope.

Jesus Follower's picture
Then sometimes its ok to

Then sometimes its ok to torture babies for the fun of it?

Algebe's picture
@Jesus Follower: Then

@Jesus Follower: Then sometimes its ok to torture babies for the fun of it?

Society, the law, and my own conscience tell me no. So I'm trying to give up torturing babies.

What does your god tell you? That it's ok? I'm guessing yes. After all, god drowned every baby in the world, and he must have burned a lot of babies when he nuked Sodom and Gomorrah. The Bible is a manual for child abusers really, isn't it.

Tin-Man's picture
@JF Re: "Then sometimes its

@JF Re: "Then sometimes its ok to torture babies for the fun of it?"

Fascinating you should say that, because according to your God's "objective morality", it is perfectly okay to do just that very thing. Along with slavery, rape, genocide, and bashing babies against rocks, OH! And how could I have possibly forgotten Human Sacrifice? (Silly me. The ol' brain-bucket ain't what It use to be.) Now, unless my reading comprehension skills have taken some type of extremely wild Bat-turn somewhere along the way, all of those wonderful family-fun activities (along with countless other similar joyful pastimes) were conducted and condoned under your God's idea of "objective morals." Whereas I, on the other hand, with my heathenistic devil-worshipping blinded and corrupt subjective morals would look upon those things with disgust and ridicule. Moreover, in no way would I attempt to defend or justify that type of behavior coming from ANYBODY, much less from a being who is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, and "perfectly loving and benevolent". But - hey - whatever floats your ark.

Jesus Follower's picture
@Tin-man: "according to your

@Tin-man: "according to your God's 'objective morality', it is perfectly okay to do just that very thing".

Chapter and verse, my friend. Chapter and verse? And be sure that it includes the part about "for the fun of it."

@Tin-man and AG: Killing and torturing are quite different and "for the fun of it" is a serious kicker. You're dodging the question, but your answers betray you anyway. Aren't you arguing as though it is objectively wrong?

You can't have it both ways. Either everything is ok under some circumstances, or at least one thing is wrong all the time. Am I missing an excluded middle here?

Algebe's picture
@JF: Aren't you arguing as

@JF: Aren't you arguing as though it is objectively wrong?

Where did I say that? Chapter and verse please.

By "objective" I assume you mean something external, such as god. On that basis, there's no such thing as objective morality. If there was objective morality that prohibited the torturing of babies, Christian Germans and Brits wouldn't have bombed civilians in each other's countries. Christian Americans wouldn't have firebombed Tokyo.

Like everyone, I have subjective morality, which is the product of my conscience, refined by my experiences in my family and society. Society evolves. Morality evolves. I like to think that we're getting better.

Killing and torturing are quite different
Killing by drowning, disease, stabbing, burning is hardly humane, is it? Those are some of the methods used by god according to your book.

Jesus Follower's picture
@Algebe: I like to think that

@Algebe: I like to think that we're getting better.

How can there be a better with no objective standard of right? That's like saying we're getting closer. Closer to what?

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.