Former Fundamentalist 'Debunks' Bible

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
Empathy is understanding, most humans experience it, most atheist and religious people experience that feeling of understanding.

yes, but it does not automatically imply compassion or judging whether something is "wrong"

That’s simply not true, it’s a false assumption. You do not have to believe in religion to believe in right and wrong, you’re creating this argument through that false belief.

You need to deconstruct what you are saying- you can "BELIEVE" in right and wrong (as Christians BELIEVE in CHrist), but if you are a secularist with no spiritual/religous aspect, then there is no moral aspect to anything- how can there be, your talk of "empathy" is just a physical response to chemicals in your brain- collectively our intelligence may decide that it is not good for society to permit murder, but there is no relevance to the inherent "badness" of it

But you asked why people would believe in a certain standard of right and wrong.

No, Ive stated morals have no relevance to those avowed secularists- they must admit they either have to borrow it from religion/spiritualists or abandon it and enforce order with force

Now you’re assuming that all atheists are relentless Darwinist?
[edit on 18-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

replace "relentless Darwinist" with "relentless secularist" "relentless physical realm" only, you get my drift

I can only assume you are arguing for the sake of it now, as your statements contradict one another relentlessly.

Or perhaps you are enjoying playing devil's advocate too much, but either way, rapingbatsisalltherage and myself have explained, you haven't accepted, so the debate is over as far as I am concerned.

reply to post by blueorder

yes, but it does not automatically imply compassion or judging whether something is "wrong"

Never said it did. That's not my point, you seem to keep missing it. I'm not sure how to explain it any simpler. Perhaps you should google human understanding.

ith no spiritual/religous aspect, then there is no moral aspect to anything-

Again this is just an opinion. You seem to derive it from a handful of false assumptions about humanity.

No,

Okay... this was what you stated:

Why should they "believe" that

and I answered. They believe that killing another human being is wrong because they would not want to be killed themselves, because they have the ability to care for others, to experience empathy, again, pretty basic stuff.

or abandon it and enforce order with force

No, there are not only two options to choose from that you created based on your false assumptions, but I can see that informing you of this is not going to convince you.

replace "relentless Darwinist" with "relentless secularist" "relentless physical realm" only, you get my drift

So, you do believe they are all relentless to some extent? We all come to our own conclusions on matters, this is apparently yours, that doesn't make it a "fact".



[edit on 18-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

reply to post by The Last Man on Earth

Or perhaps you are enjoying playing devil's advocate too much, but either way, rapingbatsisalltherage and myself have explained, you haven't accepted, so the debate is over as far as I am concerned.

Yeah, I'm done too. Hey, at least we tried. Hopefully we'll come across this user again when they're in a more rationally objective mood.

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by The Last Man on Earth

 

Or perhaps you are enjoying playing devil's advocate too much, but either way, rapingbatsisalltherage and myself have explained, you haven't accepted, so the debate is over as far as I am concerned.

Yeah, I'm done too. Hey, at least we tried. Hopefully we'll come across this user again when they're in a more rationally objective mood.

Agreed. I have no idea how we could have made our position more clear. Strange, isn't it, that it is those who preach peace and love through God who are first to jump on the "if there's no God, I'm going to stove your head in with a brick" bandwagon...

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth


Agreed. I have no idea how we could have made our position more clear. Strange, isn't it, that it is those who preach peace and love through God who are first to jump on the "if there's no God, I'm going to stove your head in with a brick" bandwagon...

You have made nothing clear, and you have not addressed the issue I raised- and once again you show how you either fail to read what I have discussed or prefer to ignore it

I do not preach about God- I do not live a religious life


This is a discussion which you seem fit to just segment people into neat little groups and ignore points raised

That is your right- but never forget amigo, if it is all just chemical reactions in the brain, then for those that believ this, morals are just a societal construct to ensure order- you cannot explain that away and never will

[edit on 18-5-2009 by blueorder]

reply to post by blueorder


"That is your right- but never forget amigo, if it is all just chemical reactions in the brain, then morals are just a societal construct to ensure order- you cannot explain that away and never will"

"Morals are the things that allow us to live with ourselves. Ethics are the things that allow us to live with other people."

Morals and ethics are coping mechanisms. The "grease" of society, if you will. We learn them as we grow up. (Some of us, anyway.)

Originally posted by blueorder
You have made nothing clear, and you have not addressed the issue I raised- and once again you show how you either fail to read what I have discussed or prefer to ignore it

You have two people telling you the same thing - perhaps it is you who does not understand their position?

Originally posted by blueorderI do not preach about God- I do not live a religious life

No, but you clearly believe in "spirituality", et al.

Originally posted by blueorderThis is a discussion which you seem fit to just segment people into neat little groups and ignore points raised

That is your right- but never forget amigo, if it is all just chemical reactions in the brain, then for those that believ this, morals are just a societal construct to ensure order- you cannot explain that away and never will

[edit on 18-5-2009 by blueorder]

You mean that you cannot accept the explanation, and never will. I don't see how you think morals aren't an inevitability of social intelligent animals.

But no, you're right, God did it. Again.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
"Morals are the things that allow us to live with ourselves. Ethics are the things that allow us to live with other people."

Morals and ethics are coping mechanisms. The "grease" of society, if you will. We learn them as we grow up. (Some of us, anyway.)

Exactly, it is about helping us, as members of society, cope within society- just physical responses to the chemcials in our brain, as indeed, are all emotions for those avowied anti religious/spiritual folk

Originally posted by blueorderExactly, it is about helping us, as members of society, cope within society- just physical responses to the chemcials in our brain, as indeed, are all emotions for those avowied anti religious/spiritual folk

That's dumbing it down nicely. The fact that you have to respond properly to those responses seems to have been missed. You don't need religion to have a sound moral basis. I never have and I know I've led a moral life. And an ethical one. (If you think I'm wrong, feel free to prove it.)

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth
You have two people telling you the same thing - perhaps it is you who does not understand their position?

I understand those who, when confronted with this point, squirm about trying to justify it in their minds-

for example, you do not believe in afterlife/religion/spirituality? Yes?

You therefore think this physical existence is all their is?

If so, your emotions and "beliefs" are just physical responses to chemical reactions in your brain?


If the above is true, then morals have no other existence than the phycisal response to reactions in your brain and an adherence to societal stability.


What, about any of that is wrong- I am not even attacking those who believe in only the physical, just highlighting how that pans out

No, but you clearly believe in "spirituality", et al.

I am, at best, unsure, I do not preach God, but I am aware that it is from religious/spiritual belief that any logical application of "morals" towards murder, for example comes from- they do no come those who are just convinced of a purely physical existence

You mean that you cannot accept the explanation, and never will.

I don't accept it as logical, same way as some people view belief in religion as illocial

I don't see how you think morals aren't an inevitability of social intelligent animals.

The "inevitablity" was not the question asked- lots of things are inevitable with humans, compared to dogs- the point was that for those humans who are just 100% conviced of the physical world only, then "morals" are just the outpouring of chemical reactions in the brain, borrowed from religion or just used to preserve societal order (with increasing force)

But no, you're right, God did it. Again.

You seem to be imagining quotes I have made- where have I mentioned "god" doing it- really, please try and stay focussed

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
That's dumbing it down nicely.

I wouldn't have classed your comment as "dumb"

The fact that you have to respond properly to those responses seems to have been missed. You don't need religion to have a sound moral basis. I never have and I know I've led a moral life. And an ethical one. (If you think I'm wrong, feel free to prove it.)

If you could point me to the point where I suggest you have led a "bad" life, Id be delighted?

What I have said is that, if you believe in nothing but the physical then your assessment of murder, for example, is just the physical response to chemical reactions in the brain, nothing more nothing less and certainly nothing more meaningful- that applies to any ardent "physicalist" shall we say, whether they have lived a life of charitable endeavour or become a serial killer

reply to post by blueorder


"What I have said is that, if you believe in nothing but the physical then your assessment of murder, for example, is just the physical response to chemical reactions in the brain, nothing more nothing less and certainly nothing more meaningful- that applies to any ardent "physicalist" shall we say, whether they have lived a life of charitable endeavour or become a serial killer"

Exactly why I used the term "dumbing down", (over-simplification, if you will).

The physical responses are fed to the conscious mind and that mind makes the decisions. In most of us, anyway. The religious would have us think that the body and the mind only work together when the "spirit" is guided by some "higher principle". I simply pointed out that the "higher principle" doesn't need to be fear of punishment by some "god".

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Exactly why I used the term "dumbing down", (over-simplification, if you will).

when you "boil" down the position though, simplicity is there

The physical responses are fed to the conscious mind and that mind makes the decisions. In most of us, anyway. The religious would have us think that the body and the mind only work together when the "spirit" is guided by some "higher principle". I simply pointed out that the "higher principle" doesn't need to be fear of punishment by some "god".

However, in this instance, the "higher principle" as no higher meaning than a physical interpreation in the conscious mind of chemical reactions in the brain, that is my point. "Higher principle" in this case is not relevant, if you believe in the physical only- it is only the "principle" which either the individual feels works best for him/her or which he thinks best works for society- the actual "act" itself is neither right nor wrong at any deeper level

reply to post by blueorder


So the fallacy there would be believing that anybody with a mind believes in the physical only. The mind responds to the physical, but it's not necessarily the slave of the physical.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
So the fallacy there would be believing that anybody with a mind believes in the physical only.

I do not suggest such a thing- I am referring to people who firmly believe in the physical world only

The mind responds to the physical, but it's not necessarily the slave of the physical.

I agree

reply to post by Gawdzilla


If someone blindly believes someone without doing research they are being foolish. Look, I will give a couple of scripture which shows Jesus equals Himself with the Father. That Jesus is God.

[Isaiah 43] I, even I, am the LORD,
And besides Me there is no savior."

[John 14:6] I am the way the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except through Me."
===========

[Isaiah 44]“ Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel,
And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:

‘ I am the First and I am the Last;
Besides Me there is no God."

Compare to Revelation 22

[Revelation 22]
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”


These are just two instances where Jesus equals Himself to God. We also have where Jesus said that if they have seen Him, they have seen the Father. Jesus says that before Abraham was I AM. God identified Himself as I AM in the Old Testament.

The Lord appears in the O.T to Adam & Eve. To Abram, Isaac, Moses. Moses was physically placed into the cleft of a rock and Moses saw the back of the Lord as He passed by. Adam & Eve heard the Lord walking in the garden.

But we also know that no one has seen God at any time. So who can this be? In creation we see all 3 of the trinity at work in creation. God says "Let Us make man in our image, according to our likeness." The word for God there is Elohim. And Elohim is plural.


The evidence of a triune God is very clear and the only people to deny this after having done the research is beyond help because they do not want the truth. They rather have a lie that sits comfortably with their feelings.

reply to post by TruthSeeker8300


"The evidence of a triune God is very clear and the only people to deny this after having done the research is beyond help because they do not want the truth. They rather have a lie that sits comfortably with their feelings."

The "evidence" is from the Bible? Then it's no more evidence than somebody's unsupported alibi.

Why do people have such a hard time understanding the standards for "evidence"?

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by TruthSeeker8300

 

"The evidence of a triune God is very clear and the only people to deny this after having done the research is beyond help because they do not want the truth. They rather have a lie that sits comfortably with their feelings."

The "evidence" is from the Bible? Then it's no more evidence than somebody's unsupported alibi.

Why do people have such a hard time understanding the standards for "evidence"?

Because it unravels their whole world view.

The point is that the God of the Holy Bible is a trinue God. And the God of the Holy Bible declares Himself to be the only God. This guy is saying a triune God wasn't taught before Christianity and that's not true. And that is the subject. So stay on subject or be quiet.