It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The rejection of miracle claims in history is a philosophical bias.
you'll notice you reject miracle claims in history based on your world view(no god exist).
In the same way God is an agent to the universe. We can see the mechanisms he's created, but why would you expect the creation to have a physical piece of evidence of the creator.
If humans have no value, do you have a problem with someone who thinks its fun to gas jews? If so, why?
So from that perspective if someones purpose in life is to be a thief and date-rapist BRAVO or if someones purpose in life is to be like Mother Teresa BRAVO.
And if she gave you food would you chemically analyze it? What about the last time you picked up fast food did you chemically analyze it? Actually have you ever chemically analyze your fast food, or any food given to you for that matter?
I didn't ask if you had a faith that love never failed, but rather that love exist at all.
Ok but there are only two options. Either from intelligence or Cosmic Accident.
By uniform nature of the universe I mean things like the gravitational constant, electric constant, Planck constant. If the world is a random accident what sustains the uniformity we find all the way back to the first Planck time?
I was indeed using the ethical definition of intrinsic value.
Do People have an inborn degree of importance?
Now according to this world view you would have to view Martin luther king, Gandhi, Harriet Tubman and anyone else who went against the cultural norm as moral monsters. Do you see understand why I say that?
My moral experience personally contradicts that. People have moral experiences just like we have physical experiences. When I jump off a building and break my leg I have physical experience. When someone steals my wallet likewise I have a moral experience. At no point time would someone stealing my wallet produce a moral experience in which I felt that stealing was only subjectively wrong .
You have to understand my point of view though. I cant take the bible seriously when the bible is almost the same as the Greek Mythology full of "miracles", superpowers, etc.
I reject them because they dont fit with my reality. I also want to make this clear, I never said "no god exists". It would be illogical for me to say that.
I understand your view, which i think is similar to Issac Newton's. The universe is big machine. I accept that, i dont believe it but i understand this view. I also wouldnt expect a "creator" to show himself, thats why i always say that i dont know if a "creator" exists.
Yes, because they have feelings just like any human. My philosophy on life is basically to "Live your life like you want to live it without hurting anyone physically or mentally." Killing jews or anyone is wrong to me because this could be the only life we have and we shouldnt take it away from anyone.
The thief and rapist will go to jail if he gets caught. But criminals mostly didnt make it their life purpose to become a criminal, they live in the moment with no thoughts on the consequences or their future. Some of us makes our life purpose to help people as much as we can. Others make it their life purpose to become rich, buy a mansion, vacations, etc. Others make it their life purpose to have a family, kids, and see them grow and become successful. Others made their life purpose to follow the Koran/Bible so they can reach salvation and go to heaven after death (according to their beliefs).
but if humans don't have value why should that matter? You say hurting humans feelings is something you have a problem with, but if you truly believe humans don't have value you why is hurting a human's feelings something a person should attempt to avoid?
I agree, and if someone decides their purpose is to wipe the world clean of those who are not of the superior Aryan race? Would you say there purpose in life is just a valid life style as say one of love and compassion?
"Anthropic principle" That is a philosophical consideration = not evidence for god.
Science and religion generally pursue knowledge of the universe using different methodologies. Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness. Despite these differences, most scientific and technical innovations prior to the Scientific revolution were achieved by societies organized by religious traditions. Much of the scientific method was pioneered first by ancient civilizations such as the Greeks, Egyptians, and Sumerians. Later during the middle ages the Catholic church was responsible for saving much of the scientific knowledge from these civilizations, thus allowing the scientific method to develop in Europe during and after the Renaissance and through the enlightenment period.
Sorry but you struck out again there is nothing there about a sky god.
"The rational human mind" what about it can you be more vague?
"DNA" again can you be more vague? So far not so good for evidence of a god.
"The historical resurrection of Christ" Ah the story that must be true because the book it is in says it is true.
Seems to me moral absolutes would be evidence a biblically defined creator doesn't exist.
"Life doesn't come from Nonlife in my observational experience" So your saying that because you have never observed abiogenesis or such is evidence for god....hmmmm Remember this?
So by using your measure the fact that I have never seen or witnessed a god in my obsevable experience must be adequite evidence one does not exist. Check mate.
Funny that you ask. Yes I do distrust my perception on a daily basis you see I am blind in one eye so when I drive or even go to pick something up I can't trust what I perceive because I lack depth perception.
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
If there is no God please explain to me how you can have an objective moral standard?
What is an "objective moral standard"? Can you give me an example of "objective morality", because I don't believe such a thing exists.
Evil is evil, pure & simple. It is unnatural.
Selflessness & devalue of materialism are examples of objective morality to me.
Can you tell me how "evil" is natural? Why *really* is there evil?
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Eunuchorn
Can you define "objective morality?
To me it means that there is a universal morality that applies to everything, an empirical "good and evil". I don't see any evidence for such "objective moral standard" being in place.
You're telling me you don't understand the basic difference between right & wrong? That's not being a sociopath, thats being a fluoridated ignorant moron, which we all know you are not.
Just because Objective Morality is very rarely practiced/observed doesn't mean it isn't there
The biggest example, to me, of Objective Morality, is the fact that Evil is so very prevalent in our world.
You are talking about a matter of your faith in a claim that is not falsifiable and you are accusing me of speculation and no facts? I can't prove your "god" doesn't exist because one cannot prove non existence.
That is simply nonsense and doesn't actuallymean anything. You might at well say, "I believe that colorless green ideas sleep furiously." It doesn't mean anything real, and adds nothing to the discussion.
And just because you assert that it is a philosophical concept, doesn't mean make it so. Much like your concept of god, this is merely your idea, not weighted or meaningful within the context of the discussion.
Why do you believe Jesus was "God" Because it says so in the Bible? Why does the bible matter? Because it was the word of God? That's circular.
You are saying God is God because he is God. The Master of the simulation is the master because he created the Simulation of which he is the Master.
Right and wrong are subjective. What is right for me isn't necessarily right for others.