For In The Name of God

originally posted by: wisvol
No. I claim no such link. Your question was would I kill if G. told me to, the answer is wtf dude G. doesn't tell me anything

Ah I see. Perhaps I misunderstood.

originally posted by: wisvol
No, evil is objective, and perception is subjective. People claim to have the science of good and evil, and most often in their heart of hearts when they're raping the gutted corpses of orphans for profit they know they're being evil even if they wouldn't admit to feeling that feeling

I'm not so sure this is accurate. We kill many things for many reasons, at what point do we collectively agree that killing is wrong or right, or when it becomes acceptable to do so and when it does not?

I would say that specific pressures from societal points of view really lead what is an evil action and what is not. In some cultures killing a cow is evil, in other cultures forced marriage is evil, in other cultures capital punishment is evil, in other cultures spousal abuse is a right.

originally posted by: wisvol
Therefore when stating what people who do think and believe, maybe leave room for doubt?

When have I stated what people think and believe? the OP was asking a question to help understand my ignorance, not to state what is right or wrong.

originally posted by: Willingly
I assume that's because you and Ghost play both ends of the spectrum...anti-theism/theism like true real buddys in crime

Why is it a crime to have a broad selection of opinions?

I believe everyone has a right to have a belief. But on the other hand I feel as though intentionally subjecting/indoctrinating easily influenced minds (such as tribal people or children) with claims of absolute truth is wrong.

It is of my personal belief that if a person wants to choose to follow a religion, then by all means do so. But, stating that it's the only way and everything else is a lie isn't a personal choice, it becomes brainwashing.

That would be both an opinion on the acceptance of religion and also the prevention of some religious practices. Is that a crime in your eyes?

When I read about these stories, I always wonder if they are simply using the excuse of religion to justify their behaviour, after the fact.

God does not 'literally talk' to anyone; all biblical accounts of God speaking directly to individuals have been through the medium of visions, dreams, and hallucinations. These would be viewed today as dissociative disorders, psychosis, schizophrenia, bipolar mania, and the like.

Those who really do believe they are doing God's work by imposing their own judgement on others in place of God, whether they feel they were told to or simply deduced it from scripture, may not be delusional or mentally unwell, but are still going completely against Christ's teachings. They are being hypocritical, contradictory, and anti-christian, in the name of God, ironically.

If God told me to kill someone, I would ask Him why. If he was unable to give me a sufficiently rational reason for the murder, I certainly would not do it. I might also ask how I can possibly know if it is infact God that is speaking to me, or if I am simply having a conversation with myself. I would ask why I would need to employ faith to "know" it was God who is speaking to me, when any reasonable deity should be able to rationally explain and present Himself without the use of mind-tricks and appeals to faith.

“Faith certainly tells us what the senses do not, but not the contrary of what they see; it is above, not against them.”
-Blaise Pascal

I would not follow the orders of an irrational, homicidal God, even if he appeared right in front of me and there was no doubt that He was indeed God. Him saying "I work in mysterious ways" simply does not cut it, for me. I worry and am fearful of those who blindly accept the things they think as originating from God, without question or due diligence. These people are a threat to all, including themselves.

a reply to: chr0naut

The nature of God, revealed in the Bible and especially through Jesus, is not one that would ask such abhorrent things.

The nature of the biblical god is most certainly to ask such abhorrent things. The OT is full of such. The NT however, toned it down a massive amount, but still had Peter pronouncing the deaths of two people, and pronouncing blindness on another. So certainly the god of the bible hasn't lost his taste for such things, they're just not near as prevalent in the NT, except for his enjoyment of putting those who were devoted to him through torture, suffering, and hell on earth.

a reply to: Willingly

You know....I understand....

You are stronger than me. I have had seen the other side on many occasions good and bad.... there is an afterlife and maybe you should consider researching the afterlife....it is real BUT that is not my main reason..... I really have a very personal relation with God (Father). I feel christ is with me but for some reason me and God (Father) are much more close than I am with Jesus...... so to those who believe in our Christ.....IF my feelings are much more stronger for God (Father) than I have for Jesus....... am I making a mistake?

what do you think?

originally posted by: spygeek
When I read about these stories, I always wonder if they are simply using the excuse of religion to justify their behaviour, after the fact.

I can definitely see that being a possibility. However, I can also see some individuals truly believing what they preach.

And then you have other such possibilities, such as personality disorders like Schizophrenia, where hallucinations can be a very common occurrence, and the attachment to religion (among other things) is a highly likely outcome. These people most certainly believe what they follow and really have 'heard' or 'seen' things which may compel them to take such actions.

Once again, though, the likelihood of any of these three types of people making up much of the population within any religion is surely low

a reply to: Ghost147

I'm not so sure this is accurate. We kill many things for many reasons, at what point do we collectively agree that killing is wrong or right, or when it becomes acceptable to do so and when it does not?

The objectivity of good and evil is difficult to see, precisely because we do not collectively agree on what is right and wrong, and we don't need to agree collectively or even privately in order for good and evil to be in fact objective, subjective as their perceptions, interpretations, and jurisprudence may be.

Evidence of this includes emotions, which can be delegated to the unconscious. Ever see a veteran wake up in cold sweats?

When have I stated what people think and believe? the OP was asking a question to help understand my ignorance, not to state what is right or wrong.

So I bring up the incidences posted at the beginning of this OP. Cases in which God has told these individuals to commit certain actions and never prevented them from actually occurring.

This is not how knowledge works: if there isn't a God, he doesn't say anything ever. If there is a God, maybe he does speak sometimes, and that would not mean anyone who claims to hear him actually does, just slightly increases the probability.

In fact, people will say they were ordered to do things by God when they know they weren't, like George Bush II when he attacked a bunch of Israel's neighbours instead of defending NYC, I remember he said "God told me to". Then Dick Cheney shot some guy in the face and all that bunch got even richer through massive murder and theft.

This is how they convince people that there is no objective evil, it's all big bangs and monkeys till we get to half baked excuses for invading Iraq time. Then of course, God spoke to Bush, jooz did wtc so Israel can benefit from war in Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya/Syria.. Oh actually no, it's just invading sovereign nations again and somehow blaming it on God, and on Israel, who is actually in the middle of this war and therefore does not benefit from it because war is not something you want around your town ever.

"in the name of God" is words. Words can be lied. That does not prevent believers from making the world a better place in the name of God. People who believe and study the word of God refuse to kill, steal, fornicate or anything of that sort in the name of anything.

The fact that so many atheists talk about God in any sort of way is telling.
I think unicorns are a lie. Would I blame unicorns for anything or is that insane?

You believe everything is random? Cool, good luck, and thank you for respecting my freedom of religion.
You want to learn about how such a ridiculous mythology actually does make sense to me?
Great, I can tell you things that take years to figure out, for free, just don't assume I'm an idiot and we'll have a great conversation, maybe you'll convince me of your assumptions which I politely not refer to as mythology?

And yes, most definitely, asking whether believers would kill their neighbours because God, is assuming us to be the idiots we're said to be.

People killed their neighbours when Bush said so, who claims he heard God.
Is that God's fault of Bush's?
Had he never heard of God or the bible, would he say something like "google told me to?"
yes
yes

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Ghost147
The objectivity of good and evil is difficult to see, precisely because we do not collectively agree on what is right and wrong

Right, because it's subjective.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Ghost147
Evidence of this includes emotions, which can be delegated to the unconscious. Ever see a veteran wake up in cold sweats?

Sorry, but I don't see how post traumatic stress equals objective evils. Could you provide a different example? or perhaps an experiment?

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Ghost147
This is not how knowledge works: if there isn't a God, he doesn't say anything ever. If there is a God, maybe he does speak sometimes, and that would not mean anyone who claims to hear him actually does, just slightly increases the probability.

But we're aware of how fragile our nervous system and neurological system is, and how easily they can be influenced by outside factors. Not only that, but we can also induce a 'religious state' by activating specific parts of the brain. Knowing these factors the conclusion we would naturally make is that it is more likely that someone who experiences what could be described as a religious experience, really is experiencing a perfectly natural phenomena, not a supernatural one.

If these people all experienced the same god or religious information of a single religion, despite geographical location, background, and so forth, then I would say that that is indeed potential evidence to suggest that god is real. However, the experiences always occur within their own religion or one that is prevalent within their life at the moment. Which is only evidence to support the 'natural occurrence' observation.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Ghost147
In fact, people will say they were ordered to do things by God when they know they weren't, like George Bush II when he attacked a bunch of Israel's neighbours instead of defending NYC, I remember he said "God told me to". Then Dick Cheney shot some guy in the face and all that bunch got even richer through massive murder and theft.

Like I said before, I doubt every single case when someone claims to be 'told by god' is actually true. It is quite evident that many people use religion as a means to doing actions in the name of it, despite having a totally separate agenda.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Ghost147
This is how they convince people that there is no objective evil, it's all big bangs and monkeys till we get to half baked excuses for invading Iraq time.

What?

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Ghost147
"in the name of God" is words. Words can be lied. That does not prevent believers from making the world a better place in the name of God. People who believe and study the word of God refuse to kill, steal, fornicate or anything of that sort in the name of anything.

I've never suggested that people whom believe in god cannot make the world a better place. I am simply referring to a specific action, within a rare and minor population of people, and I am only curious as to how large this concept extends here on ATS.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Ghost147
The fact that so many atheists talk about God in any sort of way is telling.

Telling of what?

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Ghost147
I think unicorns are a lie. Would I blame unicorns for anything or is that insane?

Are you insinuating that I'm blaming god because I really believe and I'm just hiding under my atheism to escape judgement? (sorry if that sounds like a stretch, but atheists are often accused of this)

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Ghost147
You believe everything is random?

When did I say that?

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Ghost147
You want to learn about how such a ridiculous mythology actually does make sense to me?

I wouldn't necessarily call it ridiculous, but yes, I am still very curious as to why people in general believe. I know many Atheists here have came from religious backgrounds and been religious themselves, I however have not. I have always been an Atheist, so the topic is very fascinating to me.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Ghost147
Great, I can tell you things that take years to figure out, for free, just don't assume I'm an idiot and we'll have a great conversation, maybe you'll convince me of your assumptions which I politely not refer to as mythology?

I'm not quite sure why you assume I assume you're an idiot. Also, you were the one who brought up the term "mythology".

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Ghost147
And yes, most definitely, asking whether believers would kill their neighbours because God, is assuming us to be the idiots we're said to be.

Once again, I don't think people are idiots just because some select few have claimed to have heard the voice of god. You seem to accuse me accessively about making assumptions, yet that's all you seem to be doing about my stance and opinion on things.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Ghost147
People killed their neighbours when Bush said so, who claims he heard God.
Is that God's fault of Bush's?

The question is "if god told you" not "if bush told you because he said god told him"

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Ghost147
Had he never heard of God or the bible, would he say something like "google told me to?"
yes
yes

I don't understand the point you're trying to make with this last sentence.

a reply to: Ghost147

Sorry, but I don't see how post traumatic stress equals objective evils. Could you provide a different example? or perhaps an experiment?

Gladly.

A different example is a child who steals and had never stolen before. He or she will experience regret even if not caught, and tell a trusted adult about it.

A simple, free of charge and enlightening experiment is exploration of one's own deepest feelings and their source, as have all spiritual authors recommended in some form. Nosce te ipsum. I can only encourage this.

As for good and evil being objective, which is the first point of our disagreement in your last post, I am sure some will point pros and cons, my understanding stems from instinct really, and is strengthened and nourished by the comparison of my expectations of others' behaviour, justifications thereof, and the personal information available to me about these others specifically.
You may be better off thinking good and evil are subjective, and if so I congratulate you on making a subjectively accurate decision. A question I'd like to ask now is: *what if* everyone on island A thought good and evil are subjective, and everyone on island B thought good and evil are objective? Which of these worlds would you choose?
Then of course it's a lot clearer whether it's all random or not, and whether hearing voices justify murder, & c. once you see good and evil as being objective, and in anticipation: seeing good and evil as objective does not mean belief that one's judgement is flawless.

a reply to: Prezbo369

??? when did i ever say that??? you seem to be very good at talking for me

like i said sensationalist, and now liar.

maybe you should run for potus

a reply to: DOCHOLIDAZE1

maybe you should run for potus

That kid should be appointed potus

If God is good and a loving God, he would only ask humans to do good things. Therefore anyone believing in such a god would know a voice in their head asking them to do something evil such as rape or kill, such a voice is not from their God but an evil source or their own malfunctioning brain.

If someone does evil in the name of God it doesn't mean God tells people to do evil but that people often mistake and evil voice for God's and therefore do not truly know their god. Or who they worship.

There are many records of humans doing evil things in the name of their God, but if those actions do not match the character of their God than isn't it evident they worship another god?

If someone beheads another in the name of their God, they are mistaken on the name. The the one they do this act for is a God that endorses such behavior, by studying the behaviors one can cross reference this to find the true name of the God they worship.

Ego is the God of this epoch. a god feeding off the narcissism that is rampant in western society. Eastern cultures have other gods.

The God Jesus represented did not want humans to hurt or kill or take advantage of one another, so as a man lived a life they could observe and live by the example. They key is to observe the character by how Jesus interacted with people. And how he told them to treat each other.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Ghost147
A different example is a child who steals and had never stolen before. He or she will experience regret even if not caught, and tell a trusted adult about it.

So stealing is inherently evil, no matter the circumstance?

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Ghost147
As for good and evil being objective, which is the first point of our disagreement in your last post, I am sure some will point pros and cons, my understanding stems from instinct really

That would be subjectivity then.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Ghost147
You may be better off thinking good and evil are subjective, and if so I congratulate you on making a subjectively accurate decision.

But all the evidence we have shows it's subjective.

The definition of subjective is:

1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual:
a subjective evaluation.
3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
4. Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.
6. pertaining to the subject or substance in which attributes inhere; essential.

You're speaking of morality when referring to stealing, but morality itself is subjective because it's not a stand-alone concept. Some people are born with a reduction in specific neurological chemicals -such as dopamine and serotonin- that inhibit them from feeling empathy, therefore their respective views on morality and what is or isn't evil are completely different from those people without those neurological conditions.

On the subject of stealing, I see nothing morally wrong with stealing for the sake of starvation, for example (so long as it doesn't make someone else starve). The story of Robin Hood elaborates on this concept, were stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is praised.

If you can claim evil is a stand-alone phenomenon, then you must have more evidence than simply "I go on instinct".

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Ghost147
A question I'd like to ask now is: *what if* everyone on island A thought good and evil are subjective, and everyone on island B thought good and evil are objective? Which of these worlds would you choose?

The answer to this question is: It doesn't make a difference.

The belief that the concept of good and evil are subjective or objective doesn't make any difference on how people act.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Ghost147
Then of course it's a lot clearer whether it's all random or not, and whether hearing voices justify murder, & c. once you see good and evil as being objective, and in anticipation: seeing good and evil as objective does not mean belief that one's judgement is flawless.

I'm not quite sure how this applies to the OP at all

originally posted by: sociolpath
The God Jesus represented did not want humans to hurt or kill or take advantage of one another, so as a man lived a life they could observe and live by the example. They key is to observe the character by how Jesus interacted with people. And how he told them to treat each other.

“Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you.” (Genesis 22:1-18)

I realize the ending result was to test Abraham, but god did indeed ask him to do this. This is the God that Jesus Represented.

So if god asks that, could that not mean that he could contact others to do the same? Perhaps the individual is told by God that the child is evil or will grow up to be evil. Would that be impossible?

There are other scenarios too, where god does directly state to kill a person (among other things)

the LORD said to Moses, “Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished. Anyone who blasphemes the LORD’s name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD’s name will surely die." (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)

a reply to: Ghost147

So stealing is inherently evil, no matter the circumstance?

No. My point is that when a specific act is evil, the committing party feels it, although denial, booze and meth do a good job of veiling those subtle feelings, which later somatise as nightmare, illness, being evil, all sorts of #.

my understanding stems from instinct really That would be subjectivity then.

Yes, my understanding is subjective. See, you can do this!

but morality itself is subjective

And so is morality.

If you can claim evil is a stand-alone phenomenon, then you must have more evidence than simply "I go on instinc

I claim evil and good are objective, not stand-alone. I mustn't have more, yet I do, shared some and here's more:

A commonly accepted example of objectivity is the mass of objects more stable through spacetime than people, so let's think-experiment this:

Enters a brick weighing one kilogram. Its weight is objectively one kilogram, as measured by Pr. Smith who is the Dean of Oxford's Brickology Institute.

Now enter the seventeen most drunk dockers found in Portland this morning. They have no experience of brickology, carry no scales and for the sake or argument, don't know what a kilogram represents.

Their opinions as to what the brick's weight is vary from "rosebud" to "get outta here", both subjective understandings.

When all OBI staff keeps silent, the two subjective understandings of the brick's weight are discussed along the lines of:

"It's Rosebud! I know because I used to be quarterback"
and
"get outta here! I'm right because I'm loud"

Both positions gathering strong support. A third party claiming the brick weighs a duck is silenced by peer pressure. Aided by a grant from Obamacare, the group reaches the conclusion that the weight of the brick is subjective, and is either rosebud or get outta here depending on the weather.

In actuality, the weight of the brick still has objective value, and you know it, but they don't.
The Dean's official report on the brick's weight doesn't even enter the dockers' debate for lack of time.

Same could be said of good and evil, except when you're all alone on the mountaintop you can't not know what your heart tells you, even if you're serotonin negative.

Which of these worlds would you choose? The answer to this question is: It doesn't make a difference. The belief that the concept of good and evil are subjective or objective doesn't make any difference on how people act.

To me it makes all the difference, suit your self.
People's actions are heavily influenced by what they believe, and denying this is a logical flaw.

Then of course it's a lot clearer whether it's all random or not, and whether hearing voices justify murder, & c.

I'm not quite sure how this applies to the OP at all

I'm going to assume you're honest about this, and hence won't respond to you again. Good luck

Just to be part of this stupid game I am inclined to start thread about Lenin, stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and all the atrocities, MASS SLAUGHTERS they carried out in the name of atheism and that particular faith.

I wont

I think somebody is trying to blame religion instead of placing the blame on people and their choices.

Though those afore mentioned names carried out these horrendous actions believing that no gods existed, that they had no moral guideline, that atheism taught humanity were animals
I would be beyond stupid to blame atheism, I would be beyond stupid to claim a link, beyond stupid to set about a troll thread insinuating all atheists were the same

But hey, I know others...

a reply to: Ghost147

I believe he would never ask me to do anything that goes against his preserved word. If it is against his word I would say no to it and I would know it is not God.

Thou shalt not kill is one.
There is to be no laying with you daughter or son is another.
No where does God's word say they cannot use medicines. Paul had a Physician so that implies medical treatment of the day. I use prayer and medicines.

My son has a gene defect he is disabled intellectually. But in many ways very smart and show a Photographic memory. While he is slow in answering questions or understanding commands in English he can answer them quickly in English that which is spoken in his mothers language. We learned this last week via experience that he has Nocturnal Epilepsy and has to take medications now for it. We had no idea but it seems he has had seizures during the night when he slept I even found him like what we saw this last week but I thought it was just the way he slept.

Would I say no medicines and trust God to heal him. NO! I give him the medications knowing if he has a seizure that last more than 30 minutes he could become brain dead. I give him the medication and ask God to heal him at the same time. But the type of genetic defect causes seizures. We were lucky to discover it now.

As noted above I test what I am being asked in my mind/heart or audibly to the preserved word of God, the Holy Bible, word and if it does not match it is not God speaking to me.

Now if he told me in my heart or audibly place a tract on a car or in a place I will without question because that is a form of witnessing. I have had him tell me something about someone approaching me who would walk by if I did not say something. I have obeyed what he told me and had literally shocked people. I told a pregnant woman not to give up the baby she was carrying (she was not showing) as we stood in the elevator and she broke down crying and asked to talk to me more. We talked for hours she was scared her Dad would not accept her coming home pregnant and single. I told her to pray and go home, I also prayed for her. Her dad never got angry at her and he loves the child.

So it depends on What is being said to do and like I said if it is against God's word then no one should do it.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: sociolpath
The God Jesus represented did not want humans to hurt or kill or take advantage of one another, so as a man lived a life they could observe and live by the example. They key is to observe the character by how Jesus interacted with people. And how he told them to treat each other.

“Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you.” (Genesis 22:1-18)

I realize the ending result was to test Abraham, but god did indeed ask him to do this. This is the God that Jesus Represented.

So if god asks that, could that not mean that he could contact others to do the same? Perhaps the individual is told by God that the child is evil or will grow up to be evil. Would that be impossible?

There are other scenarios too, where god does directly state to kill a person (among other things)

the LORD said to Moses, “Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished. Anyone who blasphemes the LORD’s name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD’s name will surely die." (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)

The hypocrisy is amazing

You judge in a rather condemning way and then complain about Gods judgement on people.

Do you actually engage your mind before engaging your keyboard

So tell me Ghost, what should be done to these people who deny medicine, education, what ever else they did wrong in YOUR opinion (God complex?), what should be done to them? Locked up, stoned, neutered, what punishment do you see as befitting?


Your religion deems humanity to be nothing more than animals, whats to stop you from the exact same thing that you accuse the religious of doing...nothing at all, not even your morality, a morality you choose at your on desire.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Ghost147
No. My point is that when a specific act is evil, the committing party feels it, although denial, booze and meth do a good job of veiling those subtle feelings, which later somatise as nightmare, illness, being evil, all sorts of #.

I think you're confusing Morality it Evil.

And again, that feeling of guilt and empathy can't occur in some people. Not only that, but even in people who don't have a personality disorder justify their actions, like steeling, for any given amount of reasons, they certainly don't dwell on it minutes, days, or weeks later with recurring nightmares on how they took a chocolate bar when they were a kid.

Guild, empathy and morality in general works with a spectrum. It's not the same for everyone and in some people it never existed in the first place. That's why It's subjective.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Ghost147
Yes, my understanding is subjective. See, you can do this!

Firstly, don't patronize me. If you want to have a civil discussion, then at least give me some respect as I have done for you. So far you've accused me excessively of believing your an idiot, putting down your beliefs, considering them myth, so on and so forth when I have not once stated anything of the sort.

If you can't act civil, why are you here?

As for your remark: If your understanding of it is subjective, then how can the concept possibly be objective?

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Ghost147
And so is morality.

Morality is also objective now?

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Ghost147
I claim evil and good are objective, not stand-alone.

Objective:
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

If the concept of good and evil are objective, then they must therefore be finite and universal. If Evil and Good are subjective, then they are influenced by the mind of the individual.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Ghost147
Same could be said of good and evil, except when you're all alone on the mountaintop you can't not know what your heart tells you, even if you're serotonin negative.

Your example is quite inaccurate.

The Dean used objective means to measure the brick, everyone else just guessed. That doesn't make the brick objective or subjective, it makes their methodology objective or subjective.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Ghost147
To me it makes all the difference, suit your self.
People's actions are heavily influenced by what they believe, and denying this is a logical flaw.

Except the concept of evil and good being Subjective or objective has nothing to do with actually claiming what is evil and good, only that the declaration on what is evil and good either stems from within each individual's mind, or it exists outside of the influence of each individual's mind. That's why it makes no difference.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Ghost147
I'm going to assume you're honest about this, and hence won't respond to you again. Good luck

Wtf?

a reply to: Ghost147

There are some factors that you may have over looked

There was no law forbidding murder as the Law will be given to Israel later.

Abraham needed some testing on if he would trust God in all things. We see when Isaac asks where is the sacrifice he tells him God would supply one. This indicates his faith that God would either not takes his son and supply a ram which he did or he believed God would raise him from the dead like god did the children of Job.