OT: What do you believe and why?

[BBS_Agonistes1]

I realize I’ve let the discussion fall a little flat by being on the defensive and not offering any offensive inquiry.

The huge gap I’m finding in this entire thread is that I’ve repeatedly presented the naturalists (atheists/agnostics) with ethical dilemmas regarding their subjective view of morality, and none has even really attempted an answer at all. This is the central problem of naturalism--its struggling inability to make even the simplest of ethical judgments--and none of you have yet addressed it, so let’s give it a go!

So, here’s the question. If you believe the morality is subjective, and socially constructed, then answer the following question.

Was American slavery—
A. Good
B. Bad
C. I don’t believe in good or evil. As such it is neutral.

My challenge is this: answer the question without evasion (i.e., merely deflecting the question back to me and demanding I answer it via my system of ethics. I’ll be happy to do that at some point, but I haven’t yet seen how any of you answer this question.)

I think it is very clear that we need to be able to affirm that slavery was bad. Yet, in its cultural context, it was judged “good”. If morality is culturally constructed, (as some here claim) then within its context, slavery was good. You are quite free to claim slavery was good. I think it was evil.

Or, do you see it as entirely neutral?

Whether or not we get every little detail of cosmology down is of little consequence to our everyday lives. Morality, however, is quite relevant!

 

[pharphis]

Well, maybe they are less messy, maybe they are more messy--that's up to debate. I don't at all agree with the idea of scientific progression as linear--that's pretty much been universally rejected ever since Kuhn's monumental work on the subject, which I've mentioned several times.

The use of the pejorative term "tricked", as though God had some imperative to create the world in a certain way seems silly to me. The thing that so many naturalists fail to recognize is that God as he is represented in scripture (and in almost any tradition) is entirely in control of the material world and its variables. This means that creation could take any form he would like, and could quite easily have the impression of age. Almost everything humans create bears the impression of age: all literature, film, art that operates in a fictional world. This isn't trickery, but rather a fundamental aspect of human creation. I don't see why God's creation has to be so different.

My main point is that the big points of contention with science are points that are clearly entering the realm of possibly metaphorical speech and lack of scientific consensus, respectively. As such, it doesn't really seem like a valid enough reason for rejecting scripture. Again, I'm not pretending to have backed you into a corner here--I know we'll have to agree to disagree.

I don't know what you're referring to. I guess you can quote yourself or something?
I don't think I suggested linear progress (though i'm not sure I know what you mean by that)

I can't think of another term than tricked in this context. If everything points to a conclusion that contradicts the biblical account and one has to appeal to "well god can do whatever so maybe he made it appear that way" than all I can think is tht said god tricked the human population since typically we're lead to believe by Christians that we have to 1) believe and 2) accept Jesus as our savior (and I'm sure the different sects have many very different little nuances). But the pint is that we're supposed to believe something and that if the world appears to be contradictory in some fundamental ways than it is misleading for a god to do so.

I know some might say "the devil did this or that" or "it's a test of faith" and those are all fine viewpoints, I guess, but they don't contradict the idea of being tricked imo.

Oh there are almost certainly some things we cannot or will not be able to answer through the scientific method. I'm fine with that. I only care about the things that are claimed to be true that 1) can be tested (global flood, evolution, etc.) and thus can fall into the realm of science or 2) I feel I have to reject (at least temporarily) anything that cannot be tested because it is then unsubstantiated.

I also don't think that contradicting a single point in the bible necessarily makes any other part of it wrong, but it should make one more skeptical of the validity of any other parts especially if they've accepted any parts are true without question in the past.

 

[BBS_Agonistes1]

I was referencing Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I'm pretty sure I'm mentioned him at least twice, maybe three times in the thread.

I think your post makes a lot of sense coming from your viewpoint, but again, it doesn’t really prove it for me. A number of Christians accept the old earth theory, Big Bang cosmology, while many legit scientists believe in God and creation. In fact, as I previously cited the peer-reviewed article that more than 84% of the Nobel prize winners in physics believe in the Judeo-Christian God. You seem to think this difference is ultimately some insurmountable difficulty between these two systems of thought, when in fact it isn’t. It’s ultimately a false dichotomy—I don’t think it’s unreasonable for God to require simultaneous acceptance of two systems that one might have a tad of difficulty reconciling since so many people who are more qualified than anyone in this thread do so quite easily.

But now I'm eager to hear the atheist/agnostics logical arguments regarding the morality of slavery! Come one, come all!

 

[pharphis]

I realize I’ve let the discussion fall a little flat by being on the defensive and not offering any offensive inquiry.

The huge gap I’m finding in this entire thread is that I’ve repeatedly presented the naturalists (atheists/agnostics) with ethical dilemmas regarding their subjective view of morality, and none has even really attempted an answer at all. This is the central problem of naturalism, and none of you have yet addressed it, so let’s give it a go!

So, here’s the question. If you believe the morality is subjective, and socially constructed, then nswer the following question.

Was American slavery—
A. Good
B. Bad
C. I don’t believe in good or evil. As such it is neutral.

My challenge is this: answer the question without evasion (i.e., merely deflecting the question back to me and demanding I answer it via my system of ethics. I’ll be happy to do that at some point, but I haven’t yet seen how any of you answer this question.)

I think it is very clear that we need to be able to affirm that slavery was bad. Yet, in its cultural context, it was judged “good”. If morality is culturally constructed, (as some here claim) then within its context, slavery was good. You are quite free to claim slavery was good. I think it was evil.

Or, do you see it as entirely neutral?

Whether or not we get every little detail of cosmology down is of little consequence to our everyday lives. Morality, however, is quite relevant!

I think I've tried to answer this already but I'll do so again super briefly:

American slavery was bad. At the time it was perceived as not as bad (or even good, depending on who you ask I guess) because our moral understanding was less developed. I have no problem with condemning any past example of slavery as immoral now that we've reached a point where we understand it as a violation of freedom for the slaves involved.
Our morals evolve with us over time as our technology and general education evolves over time. With language, better health, housing, and education, we can better focus our efforts on less hunt-and-find-shelter type activities. We've spent the time thinking and arguing over slavery and we've spent generations doing it. We're at the point that we believe it to be immoral.

I think this is subject to change with time as our species changes and our technology changes, though I do find it very unlikely that we'll ever believe slavery is moral again.

 

[BBS_Agonistes1]

I think I've tried to answer this already but I'll do so again super briefly:

American slavery was bad. At the time it was perceived as not as bad (or even good, depending on who you ask I guess) because our moral understanding was less developed. I have no problem with condemning any past example of slavery as immoral now that we've reached a point where we understand it as a violation of freedom for the slaves involved.
Our morals evolve with us over time as our technology and general education evolves over time. With language, better health, housing, and education, we can better focus our efforts on less hunt-and-find-shelter type activities. We've spent the time thinking and arguing over slavery and we've spent generations doing it. We're at the point that we believe it to be immoral.

I think this is subject to change with time as our species changes and our technology changes, though I do find it very unlikely that we'll ever believe slavery is moral again.

Before I respond, I'm not quite sure what you mean. Who do you mean by "we"? Just Americans? (I'm not sure where you are posting from.)

There are more slaves in the world today than there were in the 19th century, so it isn't at all true that slavery is regarded as immoral at this point in time.

 

[pharphis]

Before I respond, I'm not quite sure what you mean. Who do you mean by "we"? Just Americans? (I'm not sure where you are posting from.)

There are more slaves in the world today than there were in the 19th century, so it isn't at all true that slavery is regarded as immoral at this point in time.

I mean developed nations in general*

*but perhaps this is not true in some developed nations. I don't know.

edit: I'm Canadian

 

[BBS_Agonistes1]

Hmm. I can already hear the anthropologists raging at your ethnocentrism over the term "developed" and using it to make ethical judgments on what societies are further along than others.

For what it's worth, I entirely agree that we are more developed than some nations, and there might be some correlation with a rejection of slavery, but I don't think we can ultimately see a moral causality there. (For example, Nazi Germany was one of the most advanced nations in the world at the time of the Holocaust.)

That said, I don't see how social revolution can really be possible if people are taught that morality is determined by the majority attitude toward something. I think there are still bigger problems with this approach, but the first problem is that it only really works in retrospect. By what means do we understand that a certain act that is deemed moral right now should in the future be decried as immoral, and propel that development?
Is the minority always wrong in the present?
And, most importantly, will every ethical progression be deemed in the same way by someone from your viewpoint? For example, when we look to Darfur, would we say, "Well, before 2003, the Sudan was undeveloped, and genocide was not practiced, and was seen as immoral. But since then, there has been a distinct shift. Now genocide is appropriate."

I think you would respond that those actions are not what a "developed" nation would do, but I think that term is hugely problematic unless it is defined in some sort of concrete way. Does that make sense?

 

[twillight]

Reread my post twilight! You may need some background in philosophy to understand the argument.

ALL of the impressions are just that: impressions. The first one is also an assumption--this is common knowledge, and we've already covered it in the thread. I claimed that they were assumptions from the beginning: NONE of them can be taken as incontrovertible fact.

My explanation explains the three strongest impressions for my human experience satisfactorily. The naturalist account (which you implicitly affirm) entirely disregards 2 and 3, while still making the huge assumption of 1. So it is ultimately just as much an assumption, but doesn't satisfactorily account for the other fundamental aspects of human experience.

I've read it thrice, and I not just have "some background phylosophy", I'm a bloody expert you could say about religion, history of religion, the Bible, and apology.
You'd do better to re-read my post.

And right here you try to commit another logical fallacy.

Let me explain why I-1 is acceptable:
- we accept the Universe exists, else we have nothing to argue about
- we accept the Universe is observable (to a certain extent) by us, else we have nothing to argue about

And here starts your actual LOGICAL FALLACIES, which I thought we can leave out of the conversation for good will:
- science is NOT materialistic, and does NOT examines only "the material world". For example science examines thoughts and emotions, which although rooted in material stuff, but they themselves are NOT material.
Science by definition examines: observable, repeatable, testable phenomenas. And that's it. It is the process to make theories about the collected data which explain how the datas occure, and makes predictions about things we did not observe yet.
Anything else is not science.

For I-2 I did NOT reject it entirely, but PARTIALLY. I said you can make choices, and the process of doing so is indistinguishable from real free will from a point of view, while from another point of view because consequences exist free will is still under challenge. For example when one choice results in pleasure while the other in eternal torture - the free will doesn't exist.

For I-3 I can not see how it'd come to the first two at all. Entirely distinct statement, what is either way false. Because you simply assume - without any evidence - that we should or should not do things.

Also, please do NOT try to mark me. I am NOT naturalist. I am a scientific thinker. Datas lead to explanation, and the explanation with the least baseless assumptions will be accepted. Whatever that explanation will be. the god-hypothesis is so heavy with baseless assumptions it is very hard to not dismiss in the 21st century without even giving a thought.

--------------

both biblical and cosmological accounts seem to point toward something quite similar.

This is simply an utter lie.
The Earth is a gloe, not a circle. 15,000,000,000 years are in no measure even remotely similar to 5,000.

Here's your bloody research:
http://ifers.boards.net/thread/406/flat-earth-bible-verses

If you open a theology-book, or had listen in history class about people like Giorano Bruno, Galilleo Galillei, some jury-cases about witchcraft and blasphemy, OR OPEN THE DARN BIBLE, you'd not try a strawman at me.
Gen 1.6: "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."

--------------

My nick is "twillight", not "Twillight", thank you very much.

We've already agreed that science is based on assumptions, and that we have to make assumptions to arrive at truth.

And none debated it. But science said we make as little assumptions as possible. You added to the basic assumptions, what is UNACCEPTABLE.
THESE, and ONLY these assumptions can be made in science:
#1 the Universe exists
#2 we can model it
#3 those models which have predictive capabilities are more useful than the rest, and thus they we use.

Congrat on finishing a diplom which requires no knowledge on anything, but what you did is "argument from authority", which is not acceptable at any merrit. Albert Einstein said quantumphysics is not acceptable, or the the Hollow Earth hypthesis is ok, but today a child knows better.

My qualification is reading the entire Bible (actually five in paralel: KJV (with sidenotes from the Skeptics' Annotated Bible), Karoli (a non-english translation from the same age as the KJV), Basic English, the catholic version, and for occasional double-check the hebrew version) and making a blog on it (call it publication).
Also read and blogged the Quran, read theBhagavad Ghita (both by reciting and normal), and examined like three dozen of other religions (examples: voodoo, conspiracy.throies, ufo-sightings, RPG-religions, hinduism, buddhism (shamanistic and zen), taoism, communism, the zionist-movement, the 1850 atheist movement (aka. spreading of secularisation), young earth creationism (xian and muslim), cargo-cults and so on).

Telling you so you know I'm not just knowing the gnostic athiets, agnostic atheist, and xian views, but many other. You don't even know you shall not list agnostics along atheists and religions. Tells how much your degree worth, and this is not an insult, this is fact.

So, I have seen all the typical atheist prooftexts from scripture that cherrypick verses one by one and try to ask Christians to explain it.

This is called "baseless accusation, irrelevant to the topic", and thus not acceptable.

I don't really have any interest in redoing the work of Aquinas and others

This is called "name throwing". It is a form of argument from authority. A typical apologeticv technic, but again not acceptable on any merrit in a conversation.

You we should think logically. Why? Because you find it self evident.

And you "find self-evident" that the Earth is flat. While it isn't. Common sense is the least acceptable thing in science.
You should think logically, because it work.

You believe the natural world exists and functions according to universal principles.

No, I don't. I assume it does. Else we can't have a conversation, lacking topic.

Your limited naturalism has some huge problems in the moral realm!

This is simply "insulting the other party". You'd be disqualified in any real life discussion at this point.

---------------

Actually, Christianity doesn't necessarily affirm creation from nothing. There are three common doctrines: creatio ex nihilo, creatio ex materia, and creatio ex deo--so, some believe in creation from nothing, some from preexisting matter, others from God.

Come back when you decided. You have 1 text as source, can't be hard. BUT:
- if creation from materia, then why not say the Universe was that materia? what's the difference?
- if "creation from god", than what distincts God from the Universe itself? Especially that The Universe by definition is "everything that exists". Before you try the multiverse-hypothesis.
- if "creation from nothing", then why add God? Why wouldn't the Universe start from nothing? You added a baseless assumption for no benefit.

As all three of your theology got rejected right here, hat'll you do?

---------------

Atheists and agnostics often demand that Christians explain every problematic verse in the Bible, as though we have to prove it to be 100% true and sensible, and demand we reject it if we can't complete this feat.

This is "blaming the other while avoiding to answer". Not acceptable.
Make snese between the observable 15,000,000,000 years and the biblical 5,000 years for a start.

At the same time however, their own cosmological accounts are messy, change from decade to decade (Steady State to Big Bang), and they can't even agree on some of the most fundamental aspects of this account.

This is nothing else but a strawman. Science changes because of new datas. Religion never gains new datas. Christianity has 1 unchanging book, and that's it.

 

[BBS_Agonistes1]

Man, I don't even know where to start! Perhaps you should start by going back and learning the basics of these subjects you're trying to speak on.

Also, perhaps go back and edit your post as well? It's full of so many grammatical/spelling errors I can't make sense of many of your points.

For example:

Telling you so you know I'm not just knowing the gnostic athiets, agnostic atheist, and xian views, but many other. You don't even know you shall not list agnostics along atheists and religions. Tells how much your degree worth, and this is not an insult, this is fact.

What does this mean? I've already l

Again, I stated from the first that I wasn't arguing from authority, but merely letting you know that we'd already covered this, and I've already covered those examples many times in my life. We can play the verse-by-verse game (for example, your linking to some forum page where people read biblical poetic imagery with some sort of hyper-literalism) but only if you're ready to play the game where you answer all the problems of scientific explanations of cosmology and paleontology. There are MANY.

Again, I stated that I wasn't saying that you should believe me based on my qualifications, but I don't see how you don't respond with an argument from authority. You state that you've read the Bible several times (I've read it many, many times, in more translations than you list by far), and then give some random incomprehensible list of other reading accomplishments which somehow means that you are a "bloody expert" who gets to tell everyone else how to think in an uncivil clumsy manner!

You then accuse me of "name throwing" fallacy--but have you read Aquinas? I've read all the little types of pages you've posted of some atheist on geocities copy+pasting Bible verses out of context. Have you read real scholarly work, or have you just browsed internet forums? If someone has done the scholarly work of responding to the questions you've raised, then it's your duty to do that work of reading. I direct you to actual philosophers, scientists, etc. (read back in the thread for several scientists who believe in Creation.) You direct me to some old forum post on an atheism messageboard?

And none debated it. But science said we make as little assumptions as possible. You added to the basic assumptions, what is UNACCEPTABLE.
THESE, and ONLY these assumptions can be made in science:
#1 the Universe exists
#2 we can model it
#3 those models which have predictive capabilities are more useful than the rest, and thus they we use.

Why do you get to pick and choose what assumptions everyone else gets to make? Give logical support--don't just rage in all caps!

I'm not trying to be offensive, but what you've posted is clearly in the realm of sloppy forum raging, and not real debate.

I don't even think your atheist/agnostic buddies here would really agree with most of what you've posted.

 

[BBS_Agonistes1]

Just to sum up: I'm not really interested in continuing some raging debate over whether science and religion are compatible or not, because it's simply a false dichotomy. There are many scientists who are far more qualified than I am who are in fact Christians. In general, there is a huge overlap between the religious and scientists. I've already cited a study that showed more than 84% of Nobel Prize winners in physics were Judeo-Christian/Abrahamic theists of some sort (Jewish, Christian, and then with another, smaller percentage of Muslim), and most of those (60% ) were Christians, despite Christians being only ~30% of the worldwide population. I'll add to that a specific example: Nobel Prize winning chemist Richard Smalley (d. 2005) was a Christian who believed in old earth creationism. If these high level scientists don't see any conflict in these two systems of thought, and they are still able to accomplish amazing things in science, then why be so militant about atheism? I'm not making an argument from popularity--that because most award-winning physicists are Christians, that therefore Christianity is the truth. Rather, I'm merely observing that science and religion are practiced alongside one another all the time in the real world without conflicting. These scientists are still able to conduct their experiments and make discoveries, despite adhering to a system that you so vehemently demand all scientific thinkers reject.

Of course, there will always be a certain segment of intolerant, militant fundamentalist atheists who want to yell loudly that everyone must accept their viewpoint, despite the many serious thinkers, scientists, philosophers, etc., who disagree. Just as with intolerant, fundamentalist Christians like the Westboro Baptists, I don't think arguing with either group in some reductive shouting-match type way will really accomplish anything.

EDIT: A prominent agnostic/atheist (can't remember which) physicist Peter Higgs has recently spoken regarding the dangers of the whole Dawkins-esque militant atheist movement and described it as fundamentalist, comparing it to other fundamentalist groups, so I'm not just name-calling here. This is a real problem for the atheistic/agnostic community.

EDIT 2: Link to article: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/dec/26/peter-higgs-richard-dawkins-fundamentalism

 

[twillight]

Just to sum up: I'm not really interested in continuing some raging debate over whether science and religion are compatible or not, because it's simply a false dichotomy.

Then why you keep doing it?

Some basic education in another subject:
- atheist is someone who don't believe in any diety
- agnostic is who don't *know* about any diety

As the two (atheist / agnostic) has nothing to do with each other, they do not exclude each other.
Both theists and atheists can be gnostic or agnostic.
Most atheists are also agnostics, because their disbelief is caused by the lack of (scientific) knowledge of any diety (aka. no diety has ever been proven scientifically).
Gnostic atheists are also referred as "strong atheists", who think there are evidence about the lack of any diety and the case is closed. Their position is very close to a religious view as by science a negative can not be proven for sure without eliminating every possibility (what is practical impossibility for something as complex as the Universe), and therefor dismissed and are a small minority.

Tomorrow I'll make an extract from the whole thread here as you insist, but your false arguments, lies, strawmans and so on can not be tolerated longer. Neither can your lack of understanding, lack of skill of reading, or general lack of knowledge, misrepresentation of truth, namecallings, arguments from authority.
Prepare yourself, as I'll start reading and mercyssly posting ca. 10 hours from now (here is almost midnight).

 

[BBS_Agonistes1]

I know the definition of atheist and agnostic. Where did you get the idea that I didn't?

I'm not interested in arguing about a proven fact: that science and religion exists comfortably alongside each other quite easily in this world!

 

[BBS_Agonistes1]

Sorry: I just re-read your post.

Yes, obviously if you want to be obtuse and use the gnostic/agnostic distinction you're posing there, then yes, the terminology is different from what I, and everyone else in the thread have been using.

In this thread we have all consistently been using "agnostic" and "atheist" in the most commonly used way--the first definition you'd find listed in a dictionary. The other distinction is of course, fine as well, but the semantics are getting a bit ridiculous at this point.

If I must "prepare myself," you also must prepare yourself for the fact that I most likely won't have time to respond to another long, railing, ranting post filled with huge generalizations, typos, all caps, etc.--

Then why you keep doing it?

Well most likely, I won't, especially if you continue this form of argument. If you suddenly change your argumentation, and present a well-written, thoughtful post on the matter, I'll read it with interest, just as I have the many others in this thread. I find it doubtful, however, that you'll suddenly shift to a reasonable mode of discourse. So, if you just string together many unsubstantiated statements while never responding to any of my own observations regarding your failings in argumentation, then that won't warrant a response. So if that's all it will be--well, then I don't want you to spend too much time on it!

I'm participating in this thread because, for the most part, the participants have been logical and thoughtful. Because I am a career scholar, I have many arenas where I discuss such things, so if this degenerates into a typical internet flame fest, then you can count me out. There's plenty of that already on the internet.

I do recall your asking me what my diploma got me, and one of the results is that I've just been hired as an Assistant Professor, and our summer term is starting up here. So this week is starting to be crunch time. Thus, there will be a bit less time for internet bickering, fun as it may be!

EDIT: I'm sorry if you feel I've insulted you or something like that. You seem angry, and I have to be on guard sometimes because I forget people can get emotional about these debates. Usually, most people who like to debate this sort of thing are a bit like me: unemotional, and able to debate without getting too caught up in it emotionally. But I know not everyone is like that, some get really upset, and I really don't want to offend anyone. So, don't lose any sleep over this! It's just a thread, and I have kind feelings toward everyone on the SPF. I'm certainly not trying to stir up trouble, though I may inadvertently do so when stating my beliefs.

 

[pharphis]

I'll just say for now that I've been using atheist and agnostic as I defined them in the OP (iirc) though I'm familiar with the common usage of the two words and understand what people usually mean when they use them. (like when you said Higgs was a agnostic/atheist but couldn't remember which). I don't like the common usage because it is misleading. The term atheist has been poisoned over time and so people who are agnostic atheist under my definition usually call themselves agnostic while calling atheists arrogant, for example. (ND Tyson is guilty of this and he should know better given the crowd he has been around in the past).

I figure this is similar to how the word feminism has been poisoned over time by what I like to call "modern feminists" - the group that makes a big fuss over video games having violence towards women (as if they don't to men) or that wearing a shirt with sexy women on it is sexist or other similar stuff I consider absurd. I believe this is the minority and a very recent development within feminism but it's the kind of stuff we all hear about regularly because they're vocal and are at the heart of such bizarre controversies (like the Duke Lacrosse thing...). Don't want to talk about feminism here but I can kind of see the parallel and hope it demonstrates how I feel about it

 

[pharphis]

Hmm. I can already hear the anthropologists raging at your ethnocentrism over the term "developed" and using it to make ethical judgments on what societies are further along than others.

For what it's worth, I entirely agree that we are more developed than some nations, and there might be some correlation with a rejection of slavery, but I don't think we can ultimately see a moral causality there. (For example, Nazi Germany was one of the most advanced nations in the world at the time of the Holocaust.)

That said, I don't see how social revolution can really be possible if people are taught that morality is determined by the majority attitude toward something. I think there are still bigger problems with this approach, but the first problem is that it only really works in retrospect. By what means do we understand that a certain act that is deemed moral right now should in the future be decried as immoral, and propel that development?
Is the minority always wrong in the present?
And, most importantly, will every ethical progression be deemed in the same way by someone from your viewpoint? For example, when we look to Darfur, would we say, "Well, before 2003, the Sudan was undeveloped, and genocide was not practiced, and was seen as immoral. But since then, there has been a distinct shift. Now genocide is appropriate."

I think you would respond that those actions are not what a "developed" nation would do, but I think that term is hugely problematic unless it is defined in some sort of concrete way. Does that make sense?

Sorry, it's about the broadest kind of way I could express what I mean. I am trying to refer to countries that have moved closely towards equality with regard to most aspects in life like health, education, happiness and freedom. The countries that have maximized these qualities I think are likely to have the most advanced thinkers and the most open discussion for criticizing and amending ideas, such as slavery.

I don't think we do know what is deemed moral in the future. I leave this subject to change as we think and talk about it generation by generation. I think slavery is morally wrong but I'm all for people having the discussion so we can re-evaluate our ideas on occasion. Some controversial areas that probably fit into this pretty well would be things like euthanasia, abortion limitations (exactly WHEN do we draw the line and for what reasons? I have no idea but I expect the answer to change especially with our technology).

I wouldn't define the minority as wrong with respect to morality. I guess you could say they're wrong by the current standard but that's kind of a self-serving definition. Even if they're wrong I don't think that should discourage discussion.

As imperialistic (?) as it sounds I think we have some responsibility to prevent atrocities worldwide. The people of Darfur might think their actions are morally fine but I still think that the most forward-thinking people are (likely) going to be in places of power, wealth, happiness and health and can and should consider challenging or preventing such atrocities like genocide. I don't know if that really answers your question, though.

 

[Noodle]

Um, I saw Thor in that documentary on the Avengers, so anyone pretending gods aren't real is looking pretty foolish about now.

 

[twillight]

SUMMERY OF PAGE 1-2 OF THE THREAD

This thread is for those who are willing to explain what religious and/or supernatural beliefs they hold and why.

Start with answering this question: none. Because of the lack of evidence, or evidence on the contrary. No Santa Claus, no Easter Bunny, and flying only by airplanes so to say.

The more I learn about holy books like the Quran and the Bible, the more I realize that nobody actually reads them

True. Not even priests. I asked personally priests, and they said they never read their holy book in their entirety (xians and judaists).

And for the record, I do read the Bible every day. And I've read through it in its entirety at least 3 times.

I have to confess I very much disbelieve these claims, given how much time reading the Bible takes for three reasons:
- its sheer length. In normal typography it takes 2-4 thousand pages (even in bible print it is more than 1,000 pages)
- the language. The KJV was translated ca. 500 years ago. Words and expressions, grammar did not get updated. This makes reading and understanding very difficult.
- the historical context. Meaning of words gets lost, use of phrases changes, expressions change meaning compared to the unupdated printed text.
- lastly most people who CLAIM to read the Bible/other holy books read them by various segments, leaving out key parts. They also never compare to actual scientific history, physics, cosmology, biology, psychology etc.
Reading eg. The Bible requires to be read from cover to cover from left to right, reading every word (even the genealogies), and in case of other works (eg. Baghavad Ghita) by the correct method of reading (it is not an accident when the reading happens by reciting and not by regular reading).

Reading the bible took me ca. a year.

I'm simply not interested in believing because I don't really see real personal profit from it.

I don't see any profit at all in modern days.

I actually just finished my Ph.D. in Literary and Cultural Studies at a secular university

This is a) argument from authority b) misleading the audience.
Seven pages later this person still beats the dead horse of "I have a phd" - which is no argument at all -, and turns out the "secular" institute actually teached him/her theology, aka. priesthood:

I just finished a Ph.D. in Literature and Culture, and my dissertation was specifically on theology in literature.

------------

It's funny you posted this, because I am actually researching the problem of evil at the moment.

May I suggest you read Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth too? Or Darwin's Origin of Species.

I just finished reading through all the classic works on the subject from Epicurus and Lactantius, then to Augustine and Irenaeus to Leibniz and Hume, and then to Mackie and Plantinga and Hick!

This is namethrowing. Has no actual validity until the argument is settled. This person had no argument until now.

I'm curious as to what you are referencing here. If you mean statements about the sun and moon, or things of that sort, I don't think that really contradicts cosmology, as we still use these sort of terms in everyday conversation all the time.

This is a strawman. The reason why in casual conversation we refer the Sun orbiting the Earth by expressions and phrases, because ancient people believed so, and their ideology got preserved to an extent.
But as the Bible clearly states that the Universe is 5,000 years old, and the Earth was the very first stellar object, the Earth is flat, the sky is a solid dome, and dragons exist - it clearly contradicts science.

Similarly, for creation, it doesn't really reject the concept of evolution at all. For one, some read this figuratively (a story explaining the creation of the universe would need to be metaphorical or figurative on some level,

This is bull***. The Bible clearly tells when it is not talking literally. And even if it wouldn't, how do you decide what is "figurative speech" and what is not? What'd be your criteria? Anything proven wrong automatically turns "it was figurative all along"?

I have read the Bible through many, many times, but that doesn't mean I have it memorized, so you may be able to supply some typical inerrancy-challenging verses I'm not aware of.

This is pretending to be ignorant on the subject, and asking for too much.
To do an equally dishonest act, here is an entire sidenoted-by-skeptics bible.

So many preach love and compassion out one side of their mouth and hatred out of the other.

This is because in the judeo-christian terms "love" means a very different thing than in the common language. By bible-term it means "blind obedience to your superior, to God".

True, and not true. From what I remember, we all come from Abraham, but Muslims and Jews are split on which son their lineage progresses.

This is outrageous history-denial. Everyone can by sheer choice enter or leave islam and judaism. there is no blood-relation between the members. And Abraham is a fictional figure to start with, not historical.

What is real? What is truth? Where do morals come from? Why do we have a conscience? I think it is fine to pull out in front of this car

1) "real" is what can be confirmed to be real. While it is possible everything we think we sense as real is just someone's dream, that is not a useful hypothesis, so "real" is if someone else can confirm if the circumstances are re-created to repeat the phenomena reliably (100% is not expected due to margin of error and unexpected events interfering).
2) "truth" can generally be told to be things describing what's real.
3) Morals come from mutual agreement and the general agreement the survival in long term in masses are preferable (this seems to be an attribute of biological creatures).
4) Conscience is the product of an active brain with high complexity. More on the subject in biology.

We have 'laws' that we expect others to follow and to treat ourselves: being truthful to us, courteous, letting us in in traffic, scooting over so we can sit down on the bus

Except when we don't, and commit armed robbery. Conveniently forgot that?
There are no "god's laws inscribed in our heart", just instincts and balance between profit and punishment.

The faith it takes to believe that the Earth (not even thinking about the Universe) came to existence from a singularity is mindboggling

Yes, it is. But just because you can't understand the argument doesn't disqualifies the argument.

All of that just happened from pure chance and evolution and survival of the fittest. That takes a great deal of faith.

No, it doesn't. The mountains of evidence deleted the requirement of faith.

Having said that, I think that there are great attributes of religion, primarily the aid and social work that they do

Let me call in attention all the secular aid and social work, which is much more efficient, because they only do the aid and work, while the religions waste time, energy and resources on unnecessary, unrelated things.

For me personally, false hope does me no good, but I understand that others do not see it as false hope.

False hope offers no good to anyone. Real hope does. That's why we need to better education all the time: to substitute false hope with real one.

There's actually not a ton in the Bible about Heaven/Hell

Well, there is plenty about Heaven, but nothing about Hell. "Hell" in the translations of the Bible is a generic term to the original "Seol" (greek-like afterlife where everyone ends up), the Darkness/Abyss outside creation, and Gehenna (the trash-burning site at ancient Jerusalem).

Everyone will see God and know the truth after death, there will be no denial anymore.

This is not just a false argument, it is actually a threat of violence, and thus illegal action.
But just for the sake of analysis: the sentence suggest not knowing = denial. This is just plain stupid. It suggest people actually "know" that this or that religion is true. They are not. There is no evidence for any. There are plenty of discrediting evidence on religions, especially for xianity, starting with the Mount Carmel Challenge (where priests pray for godly fire consuming a sacrifice, and whoever fails declares their god false, the priesthood gets executed, and the followers converted to the winner's world view. This of course means all christians, judaists and muslims should already be atheists).

I accept the Bible mostly literally, but it cannot be taken completely literally

Noone said you should, especially not the Bible itself. It contains poetic verses (psalms, Song of Solomon), dreams (Jacob's dreams, the Pharao's dreams), visions (John's Revelations, Ezekiel's visions), and prophecies (they are NOT divinations, but political speeches filled with religious pictures), parables (Jesus does it many times). They are each and every time clearly signed in the Bible to avoid confusion.

I know there are a couple things that could likely be translation errors

Argument from ignorance.
Actually the KJV is pretty reliable. There are no more than 2-3 instances where it deviates from the original meaning, the most famous being where it speaks about Emanuel in the Old Covenant, and a psalm where mauling by beasts translated in the xian versions to nailed to the cross. Both instances are willful distortion (= forgery) to create the illusion Jesus being predicted in the Old Covenant.

That is confusing I guess. He created light on day 1, but the sun on day 4. Even without the sun, plants aren't going to die in a day.

Misleading the audience by pointing out a less inconvenient part. the primal problem is, how can be light without source of light? Even more: how can be light without distinction from darkness?
Answer is: there can not. Darkness is the lack of light. There is either light OR darkness at a point. If you mash them together without and distinction, only one state will exist.

Both of our beliefs are theories at this point, neither have been proven or disproven by science.

This is "reinventing the term" (a version of strawman). Not acceptable. "Theory" in science is explanation of mountains of data - something which ends up stronger than datas. Scientific Theory is although challangeable and modifiable, but is actually on the level of FACTS, and does not equal with simply "I have an idea".
Gravity is not "just a theory".

Just to clarify some starting places: what I’m hearing many espouse in this thread is essentially philosophical naturalism, the belief that the material world is the only world

This is false accusation. Noone said that here. It was merely the result/direction of the conversation.

As for attitudes toward God, atheism or a fairly negative agnosticism

After being told RIGHT IN THE FIRST POST that you can not list atheism and agnosticism this way, this person does it (and does it later again and again). I call this trolling.

third dog in this fight: the tradition of continental philosophy

The problem with phylosophy, and the reason it is not acceptable as alternative, only as supplementary tool for science is, that any argument of phylosophy creates its own axioms, and thus can support anything the speaker wishes, as phylopophy does not root in reality.

I’ve yet to meet a convincing argument against scriptural accounts. Most of these are based on a willful misreading of scripture

Explain me dragons. Explain me "firmament". Explain me 5,000 years old Universe. Explain me Exodus.

The Christian will respond that of course they were monstrosities, they actually violate Christian morality, and he does not condone them. Then the Christian will add

This is misrepresentation of the arguments going. At point xians start claiming xian atrocities are comited by "not true xians", the next thing is, they get bible-verses in their face about their god ordering mercilessly killing people for being gay, not worshiping their god, the infamous story of Amalek, eating shellfish and lobster, forcing ****-victims to marry their rapist.

secular movements and leaders have also committed great atrocities, probably beginning the list at Stalin

Strawman, and blaming the other party.
Stalin for example was dedicated to the communist ideology to the level of religion.
What's next, claiming Hitler was an atheist? (Adolf was a lifelong xian)

They will say an atheist serial killer’s lack of belief in unicorns doesn’t cause him to murder anymore than his lack of belief in God does.

My comment here is: there can be atheist serial killers acting for the same reason as religious serial killers. The problem is, you'll get additional religious murderers because of their religion.

they’ll suddenly drift into the language of continental philosophers, hazy, relativistic ethics that really have nothing to do with the natural world whatsoever and don’t subject themselves to any sort of academic rigor.

Another strawman. Relativistic moral is flexible and "hazy" because it is relativistic. It is also a new invention, but some clear basics seem to arise, like "would you kill one to help the survival of thousands, or kill thousands to help one survive?", while this simple example turns out pretty complex when it comes to who is that one, who are the thousand, are there any others, and resource limitation.

Also don't forget that the whole above babbling iss just there to divert the attention form the original question:

When I press most atheist/agnostic naturalists about their own personal ethics, they generally respond by saying that we shouldn’t need a God to tell us how to be kind.

The question was, wether religious persons base their moral on authority of God, or equally to atheists on their own judgement of good?
A question decides this matter: Would a religious person kill the first person (s)he comes across if God'd order it without explanation, or with clear statement it is just to complete the order?
If the answer is "yes", the person is a psycho, who has no moral. If the answer is no, than they too don't give a darn to their diety, thus the conversation ends.

Even naturalists, atheists, etc., almost always affirm some form of ethics.

Misrepresentation of the case, reinventing arguments... In place of naturalist/atheist the phrase "those with relativistic moral" should be used. And no, good and evil as absolute standard are NOT recognised by them BECAUSE THEY ARE RELATIVISTS. Good and bad (not evil!) for a relativist relies on the circumstances and the point of view.

The nearly universal recognition of good and evil suggests to me that there is real significance beyond the material world.

And it does not for me, thus your argument is invalid.

Wiles came to the theorem, and for some reason, believed it to be true and provable, despite the fact that many other mathematicians had tried and failed.

The distinction between you and Wiles is, that Wiles made a repeatable success, while you don't.
And again namethrowing, and argument from authority. You should quit using these.

the New Testament

Not "testament". Covenant.

Jesus’ atonement, that Christ’s death on the cross will end and retrospectively ameliorate all human suffering, which has been the result of evil.

This is not an argument. This is a statement without any explanation or validation.

I ultimately reject an atheist/agnostic naturalism as described above because it is not intellectually rigorous or consistent in regard to ethics.

So you prefer to advocate slavery and killing "witches", because you were not explained with sufficient clarity how relativistic ethic works. I petty you.

And I don’t think arguments re: science, evolution, etc. really have a place in the atheist/agnostic/religious debate. They are more a tangent, but they don't get at the actual issues at hand.

Again that false atheist/agnostic/religious listing. Stop doing it. Read the first post.
And as you promote xianity, would you please remove all section of the Bible which touches science, evolution etc.?
Until that, you have no point.

I affirm the natural sciences. I don’t see any contradiction between a belief in God and a belief in science, and neither have many, many scientists.

Stop arguing from authority!
Also, if you don't see a conflict between 15,000,000,000 ears and 5,000 I call you nutthead.

I don't think that Christian morality is ultimately relativistic because different Christians interpret scripture differently. ... but I believe there is an external unchanging truth beyond that

WHY do you believe that? Why believe there is a truth "ut there" if you know nothing about that truth, not even can prove that it exists?
We got what you believe, tell us WHY.

If you are interested in science and the problem of human subjectivity, two classics that come to mind are Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions(1962) and Woolgar and Latour’s Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (1978).

You should at times read stuff from this century/decade.

Give the gospels a read through sometime if you get time. Many people are struck by the authenticity of Christ's morality even when they have a marked aversion to Christianity as a whole.

Ye. Struck by advocating slavery and self-mutilation.
There are some stuff advanced in that age (mainly the prozelitism for anyone), but that's it. Jesus by his speeches was by modern standard ignorant, cruel, violent, barbaric, end-of-the-world preaching cult-leader. Fortunately he is a fictional figure.

How do you know how old the sun is? The Earth? How do you know there was no global flood?

Radioctive dating (NOT, not just carbon dating), tectonic movements, redshift, spectral analysis, observable terrain-formation.
Look these terms up.

big one is why aren't there evolutionary fossils?

there is no such term. Please explain.

That leaves the question why a lot of neardeath experiences are the same

Better question: why not all are the same?
Anyway, the answer is: the same/similar biochemical reaction happens in the body. It is like taking drugs.
The other questions after that are without any real need to answer, but heck with it:
- dreaming is not fully explained yet, but likely result of side-effect of processing data.
- some (many at the moment) believe in dieties for cultural reasons. Reason of inventing dieties and religion are for example holding community together (tribe culture), explaining undecipherable phenomenas in demand of explanation and antropomorhic thinking.
- sex "feels good" (not for everyone actually) to encourage procriation. Biological beings tend to reproduce you know. And there always need an immediate reward (at the moment).
- "we" evolve "intelectually" (~brain capacity) JUST BECAUSE. Bacterias and insects don't at the moment on this planet (no information on other locations). Call it accident. It stuck around for the moment being beneficial for survival.

 

[twillight]

SUMMERY OF PAGE 3-4 OF THE THREAD

Then you say that there is no such thing as good and evil, but that religion is OK "if it helps you and you're not hurting anyone." Well, if there is no such thing as good and evil, how about if religion is hurting others?

Strawman. The original poster clearly expressed personal opinion by telling when (s)he tolerates religion.

I suppose the problem for me is that it has always been self evident that some actions are good and some are evil.

And that is OUR problem. What looks self-evident might not be that evident when examined.

I don't know anyone who would disagree with me and say it would be fine to leave work now and go stab my child to death.

Well, in the hypothetical situation when all of the Universe clinge on the act doing so, you are morally obliged doing it.

So, in the realm of the natural sciences, we can disagree on a lot of things, but we do believe external truth actually exists.

False.
Eg. killing your own son would be morally good if you'd be sure without doubt he'd be the next Adolf Hitler.
You'd also be morally good if you'd let him live, resulting mass genocide, as he's your son.
And in both cases at the same time you'd be morally bad.
And you'd be neutral, because there is no external moral, just an empty, indifferent universe out there.
That's relativistic moral in yo face.

"I'm open for reading and getting to know about different religions" ... Well, if they are all just stories in the end, then why read them?

This is when it turns out you are not participating in conversation. You predetermined your decision before you opened the book, what invalidates anything you say from being a conversation.

Generally, people with your viewpoint can't answer a direct question. Let me see if you can.
Question: Is it evil for me to go home and stab my four year old son to death?
No qualifiers. Just yes or no.

This is limiting the answers to support the questioner's view. Unacceptable. The answer is yes AND no AND neither. As explained above.

Yes, we can find people who are so primitive that they do not recognize these. But, this all points to the fact that there is ultimately absolute moral truth.

Plain insulting the other party. You just called everyone with a relativistic moral (which includes the majority of experts on the topic) "primitives".

there are plenty of gray areas in science. We can debate about euthanasia; scientists can debate about the Higgs particle.

Strawman. Euthanasia is NOT a scientific question, but a phylosophycal. Science is a supportive tool only for the question.
On the other hand the "Higgs particle" (as an example ) is NOT matter of opinion, and NOT a "grey area". It is a hypothesis derived from existing knowledge, and will be accepted as fact when proven, or dismissed as false hypothesis when disproven.

My claim is that if we can make an absolute moral claim about a specific circumstance, then ipso facto that is an absolute claim, and it follows that there is such a thing as absolute moral truth.

You misunderstand the dilemma.
We can determine, or should I say describe the basics of our (modern, relativistic) moral/ethics, but that doesn't mean there is a source which is independent from the inventors (humans) of these basics.
Your argument is pretty much Platon's Ideals phylosophy (the shadows on the walls of the cave), and that is pure nonsense. Not useful. Not testable. Not verifiable. Just brainfart.
There are some axioms humans and life in general acts, as described above:

As I said, I believe our morals come from our culture, and is this directly related to evolutionary gain as we became a social species. ... For example: Life is generally preferable to non-life. Suffering is generally unwanted. General happiness and freedom is preferable to the lack of those. Obviously, there are restrictions on things like freedom when it conflicts with one of our other principles.

Well,, that's a different problem. I am not voicing a hypothetical problem, but a real one:
I am sitting in my office chair. I can go home and stab my son to death. Is this evil or good?

First: you reject modelling, what is a dishonest act. In general we can settle at this point you are a dishonest person.
Second: no matter how many times you repeat the question, the answer will be the same: both and neither at the same time.
Neither, because the Universe won't give a darn. Bad, because as stated above, life is generally preferred over non-life. And good for a variety of reason (prevernting overpopulation, giving work to the morgue, or just filling this test amongst others).

It still remains that if I am on earth, the penny will fall.

Are you sure? What if I catch it? What if I have a magnet? What if I blast it with a plasma-cannon?

So why should we assume there IS no absolute truth

Why should we assume there is? Especially why assume the answer is xianity where a cosmic judaist zombie created a dust-man and a rib-woman putting a curse on their entire race for eating a magical fruit...

The nicest thing in science to be able to say "I don't know".

I suppose I more mean that at the end of the day, don't you seek some sort of truth and wisdom and meaning from these texts? Or is it just 100% entertainment?

What about Lord of the Rings? Or any fairy-tale? Why handle the Bible any other way than those?

of course all truth is subjective--scientific and moral

Actually, scientific truths are as objective as anything can be. Noone invented a better method until now.

I think one thing that separates us from animals is the issue of morality.

Show me how humans are not belong to the animal kingdom then. :yawn:

The alternative would be a bit ridiculous: we could not pursue science until we could logically prove all of the basic assumptions regarding universal laws in physics

To be clear of your lies: science does NOT assume the laws of physics are universal per se. Every time they just try out the existing theories in case it gets falsified.
Science is based upon falsification of existing theories you know.

QUOTE="BBS_Agonistes, post: 8706607, member: 411973"]It seems like science is important, so we proceed on an assumption that we can’t 100% prove because we believe that it is ultimately a true assumption whether or not we can prove it or not.[/QUOTE]
Again false (what a "surprise"). Science does NOT assume "ultimate truths" at all, and does so because a reason we can easily illustrate:
- there is a bag with blue and red balls. Either coloured balls can be in the sack from 0 to a higher number.
- the only method to know what balls are in the sack is pulling each of them out.
- when you have (near) infinite number of balls, near infinite number of sacks, but very limited time to give a conclusion, you'll end up with reasonable assumptions (key factor being "reasonable").

there is no universal agreement on science, but that doesn't mean that there aren't universal laws of science!

Reinventing language again -a dishonest act.
"universal" laws of science are not actually universal, and they have nothing to do with "universal agreement" of science.
Science is based on disagreement and not knowing stuff. Science is not religion. Religion is what states universal universal laws exist, and there should be a uniformity agreement, or else.

Almost all human reason proceeds from the assumption that there is a continuity to reality--constants exist. Science and logic are both based on that assumption.

There are 3 universally accepted axioms (= basics accepted without proof) in science. These are:
- the Universe exists
- we can learn about it
- models with predicting capabilities are more useful than others.
This fact does not equal with your claim that absolute good and evil exists. Yu misrepresent the argument (again).
The axioms are made to be able to do meaningful discussions. Your axioms are made to make you the absolute authority and enslave others (you also accept the first two axioms listed).

There are a wide range of beliefs, opinions, approaches. That is certainly socially constructed. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t an absolute, external truth to be reached in regards to morality.

Neither does there is.
If a claim is made without evidence, the claim can be dismissed without evidence.

is not a logical reason for disputing the existence of absolute morality

In science EVERYTHING is under question.

"Well, there isn't any morality at the end of it all," is great in theory, and it’s fun in philosophical conversations. But in the real world, society has to at least agree in some way.

That's why we make up axioms. And try to adjust the axioms to fit to what we observe in/as reality. that's why as society we (as race) abandon(ed) religion and transformed society secular.

For me, this isn’t a practical way to approach morality in any real situation. The idea of, "Well morality was socially constructed" works well in hypothetical situations, fancy dilemmas, classic ethical quandaries, because you can say, “Well, there isn’t any absolute morality; problem solved.”

Again the "I don't get it, therefor it isn't true" statement. Very obnoxious.

Science actually digs why cultures developed cultural phenomenas, including ethics, and thus helps constructing better societies. And nowhere arise any absolutism.

I've taught for the last five years at a secular university...

...to be a priest.

when I've taught classes on normative ethics, we'll generally begin by my asking students if there is right and wrong. One student will inevitably say, "No, it's just personal opinion." I'll give a deadpan response of, "Then you get an F"

You clearly have no idea, or intentionally misrepresent the method of education.

"So you believe we should be bound by societal norms and systems? What if we don't like them?"

Then you go and change them.
If done by reason and planning, the change will be beneficial, like equal rights to women, or secularism.
If done for wrong reason, you might as well die out (like the natives on Easter Island). Start to permit killing for fun, and guaranteed you'll die out.
Would dwarf-planet Xena care if your community dies out? Hardly. Would the members of your community care? Likely.

For me, I do see this evidenced in the material world quite vividly, every day, for all of my life

And you waste time reciting this over and over. But WHY you do so? "Gut feeling" should never be satisfying answer.

If it is just the norms of the time that make it right or wrong, then what may we say regarding the enslavement of African Americans in America's past?

Misrepresenting the case, and begging for sympathy.
Better question: what the native americans thought about human sacrifise?
Was Jefte moral for sacrifising his daughter to God in the Book of Judges?

when confronted with horrors like slavery, we should be able to have a reaction that goes beyond my reaction to bright red carpet or mint-flavored icecream

Coming this from a christian is laughing matter. Both the Old and New Covenant enforces slavery.
On the other hand while in modern times slavery is usually despised, it shall be noted it is a very efficient system. You want something done fast and cheap - you use slaves.
Same thing about the Third Reich: was is a despicable order? It was. Was it hughly efficient? It was.

 

[twillight]

I don't agree that carbon dating is reliable.

It is, if you do it as you're supposed to.

What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.

As carbon-dating only used like 20,000 years into the past and no further, it tells nothing about the age of the Earth what is billions of years as we know it.
By the way dating methods used to confirm each other, so there is no real problem with carbon dating or any other as far as it can be proven today.

Linking religious sites will end you no good. Unless of course you believe "science is a conspiracy", ROFL

And I beg you, don't try "global flood", "superspeed evolution", or "koalas traveled on volcano eruption to Australia". It is obscenity.

And yes, as others quoted from the link you get your infos:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

----------------------

Yes, I meant transitional fossils.

The term is no longer used. It was a misconception. To understand how fossils and speciation works check Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth, page 210-215 (chapter: Missing persons? They have been found).
Basically: YOU are a "transitional fossil" too.

The Bible has proven to be a credible source of information by other historical documents

No, it wasn't. The age of the Universe (or even Earth) is billions, not 5,000 years. There was no Egyptian Captivity or Exodus. Israel and Judea was never one country. the city of Ai was in ruin when the judaic tribes arrived. The judaic tribes conquered by slow expansion and not war. There was no "angel massacred the assirian army under one night", but a hugh battle which got depicted on a fresko which you can examine in the Brittish Museum (made by the assirs). There was no holocaust of the babylonians by Queen Eshter. The Sun never "stopped on its course". No zombie-infestation in the ancient Jerusalem. No undying jew living today still.

If you couldn't pay your debts or similar situations you could be subject to slavery. This was only for a specific time frame

You should read it again. You can take war-captives as slaves, sell your daughter to slavery for fun and profit, and have slave in general with no limitations.
Yes, there was a "free the slaves IF IT IS JEW" event per a couple of years, but that was with the criteria he must be willing to be freed. this was usually prevented by holding his family captive.

(Murder: wikipedia) I can't think of anything that God commanded that doesn't fit into this definition. Do you think that the death penalty is murder? war?

I assume you wanted to say "that does fit".
You should open your bible. God starts wars without provocation a multitude of times. Kills the egyptian firstborns despite the pharao willing to let the tribes away. There are the blasphemy-laws, which should not be considered a just cause. Or the whole Book of Judges.
Death penalty is not a penalty but revenge, but either way not a just consequence for - I dunno - being gay.

Creationism generally starts out as an exercise in apologetics, but I'm afraid for some it actually creates a barrier for believing in God, as they feel that they must either choose to agree with scientific consensus or choose God, which is obviously a false dichotomy.

No, it is not. At least until you delete the referred passages from your scripture.

I don't really expect a YT video or someone's post on a website (on evolution or creation) to really explain the complexities of the issue properly.

They don't even have to. But even a 5 min vdu can call out the difference between 15,000,000,000 years and 5,000.

it's clear that a day in the creation story doesn't refer to a day as in the earth rotating one revolution, since the earth wasn't created yet.

No, it is NOT clear. Actually by textural criticism, and history of christianity (eg. reading theological works) it is clearly proven that in Gen 1 they talk about literal days as we understand it, aka. the periods the Earth orbits the Sun (and not the other way around as the Bible claims). and even if you'd argue it's backward naming, and "day" simply means 24 hours period, you'll still sit in a not at all "minor question" of the difference between 5,000 and 15,000,000,000 years.

Unless I'm a total theistic pluralist, which I'm not, my belief that one religion is true means that I believe other religions are just socially constructed. And, there are many elements of Christianity that are not scriptural, and have been socially constructed, so even from my viewpoint of affirming absolute truth, and affirming basic Christianity, I still agree that much of religion is socially constructed.

Then start answering the questions about endorsing slavery, ****, pedphilia, blasphemy-laws, sacrificial laws, and the biblical claim of the age of the universe being 5,000 and not 15,000,000,000.

Here's a compelling argument as to why the earth is 6000ish years old. This is really only useful for creationists

Religious websites are NOT compelling sources. And no source is compelling which demands before reading to agree with it.

As it is said:

It doesn't just sound closed-minded, it is closed-minded by definition.

--------------

7 days is a translation error, where "days" was more being in terms of 7 "big amount of time"

Did so. When both judaists and atheists, AND xian creationists agree does days are ment to be days (24 hours period at very least), the debate is settled.

I don't let scientific consensus dictate the way I
just google it and see

A key issue with science is, that it is neither a democracy, or a religion. You are not allowed to disagree without reasonable doubt (at least not openly, unless you want to be laughing matter), neither can you go and establish your own science.
Science is the culmination of the gathered knowledge, settled and consented. This is because science works. Religion doesn't so noone gives a damn.

In any case, scientific consensus has become more biblical over the past century.

And this is the point we can jusifiedly call you insane. You could win a prize with this on the annual lying-contest.

That's why the laws made in the Old Testament for governing a nation cannot be regarded as enharmonic with the moral teaching of the New Testament.

Covenant. Not testament. Noone testified with it.
Anyway, as the laws clearly given "for ever", and Jesus said "not a dot can be moved from The [Old Covenant] Law", and the fact itself that the orders are given by the same character, AND that you keep printing out the 3-4 times length Old Covenant part, shows that the OC laws are still binding, thank you very much.

If you then turn to the ethical system prescribed by the Bible, and then attempt to judge God by some other set of standards,

I don't see the problem of applying the generally accepted modern moral standard to any past things to judge wether today the referred moral is acceptable or not.
For the sake of argument though, here is an "applying his own rules on him" case:
- God, a male entity, took his ways (= had sex) with a bethroted maiden. In a city. And Mary did not shout. According to his own given laws, he and Mary shall be stoned to death for adultery.

On murder: I think we're going to disagree on what is "justified". You probably think that god has ultimate authority on who deserves to die, when, and how, so any commandments from god are justified.
Have you changed your position from earlier in this thread? You originally stated morality is ultimately subjective, and that there isn't any absolute right or wrong

Strawman. Relativistic moral doesn't mean I'll go on a killing spree on the streets at any moment, and you know it.

I don't think you are being any less close minded. You are starting with the belief that there is no God and allowing science to "prove" that for you.

Well, he doesn't do that, that's how he's open-minded.
The default position in the scientific thinking is, that nothing exists until it is proven to exist.

The point about the irony is that you can't prove I don't know what's in it, just like you can't prove God didn't make the universe.

So what?
The default position is "we don't know".
We accept (because we observe) that the Universe exists. Without proof we can't claim there was any time it did not exist, neither that there wasn't a time when it didn't exist.
A rational person don't believe in a diety, because there is no reason to believe in one. It is useless, redundant, a hindering obstacle. There is no need for it to explain anything as far as we know.

The truth is that God exists and he made the universe, that is what science can prove

False.

Also even hypothesis is not exactly good word we seek for, at least not in scientific sense since hypothesis is something that should be possible to be tested and verified

Hypothesis can be anything which seemingly explains datas. When it turns out it is not testable, we dismiss the hypothesis w/o further need of investigation.

---------------

The rest I have already reacted to. (next post would be #112)

 

[twillight]

EDIT: I'm sorry if you feel I've insulted you or something like that. You seem angry, and I have to be on guard sometimes because I forget people can get emotional about these debates. Usually, most people who like to debate this sort of thing are a bit like me: unemotional, and able to debate without getting too caught up in it emotionally. But I know not everyone is like that, some get really upset, and I really don't want to offend anyone. So, don't lose any sleep over this! It's just a thread, and I have kind feelings toward everyone on the SPF. I'm certainly not trying to stir up trouble, though I may inadvertently do so when stating my beliefs.

I feel insulted for the following reasons:
- you lie
- you argue from authority
- you do a lot of strawman
- you tend to misrepresent arguments
- you tend to misquote
- you don't answer questions
- you never explain your position
- you do a lot of namethrowing
- it took a while until it could be figured out you use the Jefferson Bible

Still, I'm not "angry". I just hardly tolerate inapporopriate behaviour, AND like to call out all you got by semi-insulting tone (call it bad habit).

By the way you are NOT unemotional. You like to mock others, despise them, looking them down. You are pretty arrogant what isn't helped by you being ignorant.
For example you complain about the definition of agnostic/atheist.
I dunno what dictionary you use, but a-gnosis and a-theist origin of the words are pretty self-explanatory, as well any atheist source on the subject.
At the same time you fail to tell what definitions you used, while the first post gave definitions for the thread in case of doubt. You also lied about pothers using your imaginary definitions of the words:

I'll start by explaining that I am an agnostic atheist. Yes, this sounds like a contradiction in terms to most because most people don't understand what they mean. At it's simplest, it means that I do not believe and I do not know whether a god exists. I think it's important to use both simultaneously to avoid confusion.