I presumably wouldn't have to say a word. If he is omniscient and my maker, he knows me better than I know myself. He would know exactly why I behaved how I did, exactly why I cannot believe in him, and exactly how I would respond to any punishment he could give me. I would simply accept his judgement silently.
But what if his judgement leaves you at the hands of a not-so-omniscient creature that has been toasted for an oh-so very long time and is angry at the universe for his affliction.
What if this horny creature takes his anger out on you...
Would you truly be able to remain silent or would your screams echo the spirit world?...
Oh no, Little Misfit, I am indeed the Narcissist that I was made out to be... Muahahahahahaha I shall now leave you to a madder psychopath than even myself, and oh boy is your soul going to burn...
Yeah... You have no clue either, just like AveSatanas. If you're gonna have a subjective reason not to believe in something, but then reject any subjective reasons that God exists, obviously you are a hypocrite.
First and foremost, if you want to debate me lose the attitude. I'm here for civil debate not petty fights.
Second, I don't see how what you said has anything to do with this debate or my comment. Regardless I'll address it anyway. If I'm understanding you correctly you're saying if I believe something for subjective reasons then I must accept everything that has subjective reasons otherwise I'm a hypocrite. I find it hard to believe that you really think that. If I tell you I have subjective reasons for believing in the tooth fairy are you a hypocrite for rejecting those reasons? Of course not. Not all reasons are equal, regardless of whether or not they are subjective.
My beliefs are based on whatever has the most compelling and credible evidence, and so far I find that both the logical and physical evidence for the existence of a god is severely lacking. So, the default position is to not believe in a god until compelling logical arguments and/or evidence are presented.
"I just don't like it when people claim that God is cruel, when there's a reason behind all He does."
Then god needs to explain his reasons because "mysterious ways" is not an acceptable answer when it comes to the horrible things done by the god described in the Bible. I have yet to hear a good explanation for his actions. If you think you have some good ones here is my list of things actions I find inexcusable. Feel free to take a crack at it.
When reading the Old Testament it very clear to me that people are just using god as an excuse to get away with committing atrocities and controlling people. I don't believe for a second that a benevolent god would actually sanction things like slavery, sexism, genocide, child abuse, and all the other horrific things attributed to him in the Old Testament. I have no doubt that those things are purely the works of corrupt men.
Yeah... You have no clue either, just like AveSatanas.
Actually Lilmisfit is one of the most well educated people when it comes to the bible I have come across on here, he has debated Christians on their interpretation of the bible, and has been more substantiated. He used to be a Christian I think, and/or mormon.
If you're gonna have a subjective reason not to believe in something, but then reject any subjective reasons that God exists, obviously you are a hypocrite.
Well first of all, I don't know what the hell you mean by subjective in this instance... it seems like a rather strange term to use here. subjective means mind-dependent when determining the reality of things, beauty is subjective, because what is beautiful depends on how you feel about various things. What is good music is subjective, because what sounds good, depends on your conscious experience of it. His reasoning, isn't so much "subjective" as what exists or doesn't exist doesn't depend on our mind. If a god exists, then said god will exist regardless of whether or not we believe in it, as truth is not a democracy. So his reasoning isn't... "subjective". Reasoning is our abilities to reason, to create reasons for this and that, for believing this and that, for thinking this and that, for doing this and that. I suppose that may seem subjective, but the coherency, and logical justification for reasoning is very much objective. His reasoning is probably that he has no reason to believe in god. The fact of the matter is, reasoning isn't really all that subjective because reasoning can be more or less substantiated. Not only is the term "subjective" here being used in a misleading way, but your sentence here makes no sense, and can be used against you... If reasoning for belief in god is subjective, like what tastes good is subjective, then by that logic, he can TOTALLY reject "subjective reasons" for why god is believable, while accepting "subjective reasons" for why god isn't believable. Also I can use this incoherent, word play against you...
observe:
Client444, If you're gonna have a subjective reason to believe in something, but then reject any subjective reasons that God isn't believable, obviously you are a hypocrite.
Now, I understand what you are saying here. However, I want to clear a few things up. I know Lilmisfit is well-educated. I just don't like it when people claim that God is cruel, when there's a reason behind all He does. Also, for a second, I forgot we weren't arguing about whether or not God exists. Sorry about that.
Now, about my use of the term subjective. I just see people always count off subjective evidence in God v. No-God debates, asking for objective evidence. I always accept subjective evidence, but I take it subjectively, while pairing it with what I know and what God shows me.
Thank you, zephyr20x6, for your input! It was insightful.
I just don't like it when people claim that God is cruel, when there's a reason behind all He does.
Well then give him those reasons, debate about it.
Now, about my use of the term subjective. I just see people always count off subjective evidence in God v. No-God debates, asking for objective evidence. I always accept subjective evidence, but I take it subjectively, while pairing it with what I know and what God shows me.
How do you differentiate subjective evidence from objective evidence? This is what REALLY confuses me...
Thank you, zephyr20x6, for your input! It was insightful.
Your welcome, thanks for clarifying yourself. Sorry if I came off a little, tense.
Provided it is THE Yaweh of Christianity this being would have flooded the world, caused sin, demanded sacrifice, condoned rape, condoned slavery, condoned witch hunting, created an unjust system of petty crime for infinite punishment, did nothing during the holocaust, 911, ect in the name of so called free will, and created a universe that appears in every way shape and form to be the product of natural processes when investigated down to the deepest level while also providing zero evidence for his existence yet demanding our unwavering devotion to him. In otherwords: an asshole.
Matthew 13: 24-30 gives a pretty good description of what's going on in most of this. Besides, there's no evidence of Him directly saying "Yeah, you can go rape people; you know, burn some witches too. Oh, and while you're at it, why don't you enslave some people?"
Besides, there's no evidence of Him directly saying "Yeah, you can go rape people; you know, burn some witches too. Oh, and while you're at it, why don't you enslave some people?"
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) god's punishment for rape is to have the victim marry the attacker and a petty fine. Awesome. Also there are many passages where god tells the Israelites to take the young women of other nations as their own. Also it's not in the 10 commandments despite it being nearly as heinous as murder.
(Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT) god literally explains who you can enslave. Later on Jesus tells slaves to obey their masters and god lays out the appropriate way to beat your slave to avoid punishment. Slavery is clearly condoned.
Exodus 22:18 thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live/witch to live. Pretty obvious...
For a long time I would point to those parts in the Bible and say, "how can you worship that God?". I still do in regards to the people who actually believe God said that, but I would argue that the beliefs of the authors differed, and a lot of that sort of stuff was used as a tool for control. Jesus actually mentions the corruption and false teachings by the Jewish religious leaders of the time.
Matthew 23:13-14 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation."
It's a pretty long passage, so if you're interested in reading the rest, just look up Matthew 23.
But anyways, I think Jesus probably taught a much different message than how it is interpreted today. A lot of what he taught were parables and metaphors, and he even said that many will not understand them. That seems to be the case today.
There are Christian gospels that were not included in the Bible, and they are amongst the oldest ever discovered. They predate much of New Testament. The message in those gospels not only contradict most modern Christian teachings, but most of them have a more loving and accepting message. I think politics corrupted a spiritual message that taught love and unity, and made it into something that brought people in with love and then kept them in with fear.
Well duh I know in reality the bible is a collection of different people's opinions. But provided god is real and actually said all these things then he is an asshole
Ohhh wow. Yeah you definetly don't understand much do you? I'll go through this with you.
1) Flooded the world
Yes, he did. According to science we are nothing in significance really. Just a lucky creation of a lucky accumulation of rocks and elements that so happened to create life so I mean a flood probably wouldn't change the course of history for the universe anyways. I mean you can't be destroyed, but changed into a new form. So why would it matter? Let's say that this action of God is completely immoral and let's agree that he purposefully wanted us to disobey him so that we may be in sin. Alright, so why flood the entire world?
Well some speculate that the flood may have been regionl instead of global. So until that is confimed we have no idea who exactly was targeted. No the bible says everybody was wicked. People contest by saying so he would have killed innocent children and babies. How do we know that any babies or children existed at that time? Well we just assume that their was. Let's even say that nearly everybody was an innocent infant or pregnant women. Have you ever purchased a phone or computer and had to wipe them clean? First let us take the view point of the files on this computer. You created them. They do as you wish or they can choose not to and don't follow your commands. So now we have some obedient files and some disobedient files. Let's say all your files began to cease operation. Leaving your computer in a state of havoc. From the view point of a file this is your fault for making them that way and killing them is absolutely malevolent. Now from the computer owner's view point you have a problem. These files have been given the option to either function or not function. Those that don't function properly shall be tossed into the recycling bin for choosing the path of disobedience and not working as we wanted them to. So we toss them. No harm done. We will re download some new programs and hope that they work. So it what way did the owner of the computer do any wrong if his programs aren't working the way he wanted them to? The answer? These programs don't have a say. They are the downloaded objects. They were downloaded in hopes of working to the owners content. If they don't they get destroyed. That's what happened. To us though it remains a vile act of destruction. And I perfectly agree.
2) Caused sin
Yep. It was necessary, well not really. The disobedience of Eve and Adam didn't have to happen, but it kind of did. If they didn't eat the fruit then Gid may have given them the knowledge of good and evil to expand their understanding. Why? Well imagine a world were we had no basis of good or evil. What would murder be? Good or bad? Can't say. We don't have a basis for it. How would you make decisions in life? Don't we always weigh our option on good and bad consequences? How would we do it if we didn't know good or evil?
3) Demand Sacrifice
Actually on this one from a human view point I would say this is weird. Totes weird, but from a Godly view point how would this look? I have no idea. I don't possess that knowledge, but it's something to think about.
4) Condone Rape
It doesn't condone it. It was used back them though, but it doesn't condone it. We know it's a sin, but I have to agree it's odd that it was used. The purpose what to prevent the women from committing any further sinful acts, we know that raping a women would result in death by stoning. So anybody that did participate in rape was to be stoned to death. Sex outside of marriage is also a sin. So that holds consequences too. Why did God make that call? I don't have that knowledge at the time, but I just want you to know it doesn't condone rape at all.
5) Again, comparing slavery from America's history and in biblical context is extremely inaccurate. In biblical times it was common place for the misfortune to sell themselves into slavery in order to make ends meet. The bible make laws for it. However forceful slavery such as the slavery enforced by Pharoah was looked down upon by God and so he pushed Pharoah into an extreme state of dismay. Them when Pharoah made the decision to go after the freed people God harded his heart and made him stick to his decision so he may be glorified through them. This was mainly for the Isrealites since they lacked faith at the time.
6) The bible has said nothing about "Witch Hunting" but nice try. America justified their witch hunting brigade through the bible but failed to adhere to it completely. For one the bible says don't murder, and not to judge. Any judging is to be done by God. So killing a witch, mage, wizard, or sorcerer, is a sin. So witch hunting is a sin. Why try to twist that into biblical support? Argumentation reasons perhaps? In the end the bible doesn't support witch hunting.
7) Created an unjust system
Unjust in accordance to whom? You? Why? You live for what maybe 90 years and make the decision to disobey God's words and advice on how to obtain eternal peace. Is it unfair to those who have won it? They would say no. If you lose you lose due to your own actions. Finite crimes? Are they really finite? In a Gidly view point you have done something that he shall know of and shall be recorded for ever. Also what if the Catholic idea of purgatory exists? Is that also an unjust system? If you choose eternal punishment and later choose you don't in the afterlife what can you do then? Nothing. So why not choose to live a life that will earn you eternal peace?
8) Did nothing during the holocaust or 911
Why should he if you won't help feed the starving children in Africa and Asia or follow his own word? Why should he help you when you have disobeyed him for so long? You give him the cold shoulder and say that he doesn't exist and then beg for his help and say "Where was your god?".Where do you think he was? With the ones who hate him, ignore him, speak against him, etc, or would he be comforting those who stayed faithful to him under a government that abandoned his word? Sure these events are bad, but humans choose to cause them. How would you know what not to do if you have never experienced that event of basis?
9) Really? How do we know that this isn't God's way of running the universe and we are studying his methods of operation? You don't know. Nobody does. We just assume that if we can explain it then we can claim it. That's fine by me, but we will never truly know the ways of God. We are used to this realm so we say it's nothing of significance. I'd say it's us getting used to it's divinity amd we expect too much of a deity. Maybe all this is amazing amd complex, but we had already gotten used to it. We may never know.
Atheists won't be saying anything .. God is not on trial .. they are . . .
Having something to say to the Christian god is not the same as putting the god on trial. Why wouldn't god allow the person to ask "which god are you?", what would the god have against a question like that?
at this point, their decision has been made ... and now so will Gods
further more let's say it is the literal, old testament, interpretation of the biblical god. Whom flooded the world, inflicts infinite pain for infinite time as a repercussion for finite wrongs, whom could prevent evil but chose not to. I'd have a lot of questions for this god, and yes, it would be alluding to the immorality of god's actions, however if such a god is truly just, then said god should be able to justify himself easily to me. To explain to me why there is evil in the world.
I am ok either way because god loves everybody. I don't see him sending people to hell just because they had good reason's to not believe in him. I mean did you know what happened to the Jews after going though hell at Germany most of the Jews did't believe in god after that.
I'm gonna step into the den of the troll here. You've no idea what you're talking about. Obviously, God has a physical brain(in the form of Jesus). However, God's other two components(The Father and The Holy Spirt) are beyond my comprehension and I am unable to say what they look like. However, I do know that God does love every single one of us.
It's funny, because honestly, it is not like religion (or christianity) has ever done much good for humanity, regardless of whether or not a god exists, and yet we have so many issues from religion's existence.
Christian do big time projects. Ever heard of Operation Blessing? Or CBN? They do tons of nice things for other people. They do much good for humanity. What about Christian Charities?
I acknowledge that there are those that do good in the name of religion, but those also do bad in the name of religion. The thing is, nobody ever tries to justify themselves by rationalizing what they do as evil, but everyone at one point will justify themselves by rationalizing what they do is good. Nobody is ever evil for the sake of being evil, it is simply out of not caring to do good in the first place, or indifference, but people will do good, for the sake of it being good, for good's own sake. Nobody ever does something, BECAUSE they think it is the wrong thing to do. Nobody ever goes "I am going to do X, because X is wrong, and I want do wrong stuff!" The thing with religion, is a morality that is derived from religion is based upon what their god approves of and disapproves of, which is not a healthy means of morality for humanity. What is healthier or better for humanity morally, is what we use our reasoning to determine to be fair, good, beneficial, etc for humanity. By adding in the moral concern of "what god approves of and disapproves of, you are simply distorting morality not for the better but for the worse. You can still use reasoning to determine what would truly be better for humanity, and then say god approves of it, but in that case, the religion is not helping you out morally, you are just accommodating it to what works morally in society. There are also those whom, only, and ONLY go off of what they think god approves of and disapproves of and puts that above any other cognitive reasons as to why what they consider right and wrong, is right and wrong. For example, a theist is taught that god disapproves of homosexuality, so they oppose it, taking away the happiness of another person, because what they believe. I understand that there are people who try to do good in religion's name but the fact of the matter is, I don't see how religion improves morality, or I suppose I should say, leads morality where I think it should be. Nobody can verify what this god approves of or disapproves of, so religions effect on morality is a free for all, it can be used to argue for any moral stance, because nobody knows what god's moral disposition is. "what god approves of and disapproves of" allows an equal grounds for any moral stance, but more secular ways of being moral like "what maximizes human pleasure and well being, and what minimizes human pain, and suffering" has a narrower view of morality, and it accomplishes an actual goal, I can get on board with, that I consider more important. With religion, we have had the crusades, we have homophobia, we had racism, it is being used to mislead people from using protection in other countries and contributing to the spreading of STDs there, we have those trying to get our education system waste it's time with a passive aggressive means of indoctorinating people, and turning people away from science, terrorism is being justified in the name of religion, we have wars in the name of religion. bad and good has been done in the name of religion, but all good done in the name of religion is more justified by its secular reasoning then religious reasoning, and the bad is only justified by religious reasoning, if we took away religion, I honestly think we would have less problems. I don't think anyone who is religious is bad, there are a lot of good religious people, but religion does corrupt some, and those who aren't would still be equally good without religion.
I mostly agree, but I believe that this requires evil to be objective and in a modernist's point of view morality is subjective. What is evil to you may not be evil to others. For example I believe that the income tax is "evil" because it's involuntary and is equatable with robbery and deprivation. However other will disagree and say it helps society sustain order and pay for things we may not be willing to contribute to that are necessary for our protection.
Then by that you would have to prove that evil actually exists (along with good as well) because I often argue that both have no true place in existence.
I mostly agree, but I believe that this requires evil to be objective and in a modernist's point of view morality is subjective.
Not necessarily, it can be argued between two people if these said two people have common moral ground, which people are generally hardwired to. If I argue against a sociopath with no compassion, empathy, or care about sentient life, then I can't convince them that murder is wrong UNLESS I use the argument that if they allow their social environment to be ok with murder then they are heightening their own chance of murder, UNLESS the psychopath just doesn't care. If we have a psychopath, that doesn't care if it lives in a dangerous social environment, and doesn't care about the well being of others, then he/she would logically have no reason to care about the murder of another human being. The question isn't: "is it right or wrong objectively?" the question is: "Do you WANT that attitude to be socially accepted?" If you answer no, then you will agree that people shouldn't murder other people even though it is not truth apt, if you answer yes, then you won't care if people will murder other people. So while I do believe evil and good are subjective, non-cognitive things, that doesn't mean they don't matter... that depends on YOU. I am a moral expressivist, meaning when I claim something is moral or immoral I am simply venting my feelings, approval, or disapproval about something.
For example I believe that the income tax is "evil" because it's involuntary and is equatable with robbery and deprivation. However other will disagree and say it helps society sustain order and pay for things we may not be willing to contribute to that are necessary for our protection.
However, you are still willing to change your mind, if someone is willing to give you a good reason right? A reason that logically accomplishes the moral goal, and the moral goal being something you can agree on.
Then by that you would have to prove that evil actually exists (along with good as well) because I often argue that both have no true place in existence.
Not necessarily, all you would have to do is agree on whether or not, the pleasure and well being of humanity is more important than organized religion, if you disagree, then our moral frameworks are competing to shape the world, if you agree, then we are on the same side. Do you want a world where humanity's well being is better preserved, or where organized religion still exists, or at least not so prelavent? Now I am not saying I am for illegalizing religion, I hold the view religion is harmful to society, but ultimately freedom is important to me too, and if organized religion went away, personally I would only want to see that happen by humanities own choice, not by force. Or you could argue that religion doesn't deter morality aligned with "maximizing human pleasure and well being, and minimizing human suffering and illness"
Not necessarily, it can be argued between two people if these said two people have common moral ground, which people are generally hardwired to. If I argue against a sociopath with no compassion, empathy, or care about sentient life, then I can't convince them that murder is wrong UNLESS I use the argument that if they allow their social environment to be ok with murder then they are heightening their own chance of murder, UNLESS the psychopath just doesn't care. If we have a psychopath, that doesn't care if it lives in a dangerous social environment, and doesn't care about the well being of others, then he/she would logically have no reason to care about the murder of another human being. The question isn't: "is it right or wrong objectively?" the question is: "Do you WANT that attitude to be socially accepted?" If you answer no, then you will agree that people shouldn't murder other people even though it is not truth apt, if you answer yes, then you won't care if people will murder other people. So while I do believe evil and good are subjective, non-cognitive things, that doesn't mean they don't matter... that depends on YOU. I am a moral expressivist, meaning when I claim something is moral or immoral I am simply venting my feelings, approval, or disapproval about something.
I see, but even deeming someone as a "sociopath" is subjective and relative to one's self. I can agree that we are hardwired to some ideals, but cognitive thought is what matters here. Any actions has no quantifiable measurement of good or evil. Society just calls it the way the see it.
However, you are still willing to change your mind, if someone is willing to give you a good reason right? A reason that logically accomplishes the moral goal, and the moral goal being something you can agree on.
Sure, but since my type of morality exists and is different from the person trying to convince me that means morality is subjective. I don't see why we call this a "moral goal". Something I agree to may not necessarily reflect my morality. In this instance sure, but this isn't the consistent case.
Not necessarily, all you would have to do is agree on whether or not, the pleasure and well being of humanity is more important than organized religion, if you disagree, then our moral frameworks are competing to shape the world, if you agree, then we are on the same side
This doesn't prove that good and evil truly exists. Mere agreement upon terms doesn't turn a concept into truth in nature. Also without religion evil and good have no true ground. For example does 0 or infinity exist? Of course as a concept, but they are not quantifiable as any positive integer. -1 also doesn't exist, except for mathematical constructs. If humans disappear "good" and "evil" disappear. They have no true place, but numbers will (which is why I call numbers transcendent). There existence is in concept and in the construct of this realm. Good and evil are not. Right and wrong are not. Justice and injustice are not.
My question to you is, which is more important?
Somehow I really love debating and talking with you. This is great.
Let me answer that question. I'm a Libertarian so that begs for me to be for "freedom". I value freedom highly and if religion is prevalent among the populace then I will have no problem with it's existence unless the doctrine of the religion states that it can aggress against another person, which violates the non-aggression axiom I hold so dearly to, so in that instance I would rather have people choose to have a religion then have them expelled and illegalized. After all it's not the religion, but the person that acts out the religion.
I see, but even deeming someone as a "sociopath" is subjective and relative to one's self. I can agree that we are hardwired to some ideals, but cognitive thought is what matters here. Any actions has no quantifiable measurement of good or evil. Society just calls it the way the see it.
While I agree, their isn't an objective measure of right and wrong, their is a subjective measure of it, and you possess one most likely. So you call things "bad" or "good" right? If someone came up and smacked you, you'd feel that was a "bad" thing for them to do, and if you were explaining to that friend, they wouldn't stop you and say "wait a second Versace, how can you say that is bad? you only FEEL that is bad, that doesn't make it objectively bad" you'd think "wtf?!?" right? Like I said the question isn't "is it right or wrong objectively?" the question is, "do YOU find that right or wrong? What do YOU feel about that? You would agree that you don't think murdering people is the right thing to do right? Or you FEEL that isn't the right thing to do, that it isn't a GOOD thing to do, or that, it isn't what someone SHOULD do.
Sure, but since my type of morality exists and is different from the person trying to convince me that means morality is subjective. I don't see why we call this a "moral goal". Something I agree to may not necessarily reflect my morality. In this instance sure, but this isn't the consistent case.
When I say moral goal, I mean, the basis your morality is on, what your morality, generally speaking, wants to accomplish, or wants to have accomplished. all encompassing moral goals for one person, can't be established without a little bit malleableness to it, however a general one can still exist. Mine would be, "maximizing pleasure, well-being, freedom equally and minimizing suffering, illness, unnecessary restrictions". The moral goal is non-cognitive, but HOW I accomplish that moral goal is cognitive. As a libertarian, your well politics differentiates a bit from morality, but is intertwined. If I asked you why you are a libertarian, and you explained to me why you are a libertarian, then I could argue that these so-and-so political beliefs work out better for what you want, and if you found my argument convincing, then you may change your mind and say "it's right" but what you want politically is technically non-cognitive at its core like morality.
This doesn't prove that good and evil truly exists.
You mean objectively? I wasn't arguing that it did.
Mere agreement upon terms doesn't turn a concept into truth in nature.
Nor was I saying that either, it's just you respond to my argument that "well it doesn't matter because right and wrong doesn't objectively exist" but... to me that is simply a means of sidestepping the argument. If we are having an argument about what is right or wrong, good and bad, what we should or shouldn't do even subjectively, we most likely have some common ground and thus you can explain to me, why you aren't convinced or why you don't feel that way, and eventually to it's core, we could end up at a place where I can't change your mind nor can you, mine. Here is the point I am trying to get at. With the psychopath thing, if the person cares about the well being of others, then said person will agree that we shouldn't go around killing other people, regardless of whether or not that is objectively true, we are arguing opinions. Or if the person was a psychopath, but wanted to higher their chances of survival, if I say, "if more people feel as though they shouldn't kill each other, then less people will kill each other" and convince the psychopath that he shouldn't kill other people. What you think is moral or immoral is simply what you think we should be, and shouldn't be doing, it is subjective, but that doesn't mean we can't argue it, we can't argue it, if we have no common ground. I am not arguing that morality objectively exists, just that we can still argue it.
Also without religion evil and good have no true ground.
Yes we do, evil and good have as much good and evil ground either way, religion doesn't make morality objective, you have to prove objective morality.
For example does 0 or infinity exist? Of course as a concept, but they are not quantifiable as any positive integer. -1 also doesn't exist, except for mathematical constructs. If humans disappear "good" and "evil" disappear. They have no true place, but numbers will (which is why I call numbers transcendent). There existence is in concept and in the construct of this realm. Good and evil are not. Right and wrong are not. Justice and injustice are not.
I agree, but this doesn't mean we can't call things moral or immoral, we just can't say morality itself is truth apt (btw I love the argument you just made here, I'm going to have to use it myself if that is cool with you). I'm not trying to prove morality is objective or cognitive, I am trying to prove that morality even as a subjective or non-cognitive thing, can still be argued, as long as the debaters, have enough common ground on right and wrong to debate it. If I say X is wrong for reason 1, and if reason 1 would equally apply to Y, then it would be inconsistent of my feelings and attitude to not feel the same way towards Y. If you think punching someone is wrong because it is harmful, but were doing something to someone that is harmful, but you didn't think it really was. If I convinced you it was harming someone, I would change your mind that something is wrong, even though right and wrong are subjective.
Somehow I really love debating and talking with you. This is great
Indeed, you give me a lot to expand upon, and make me out a lot of thought into my views on things, you are a challenging debater I must say.
Let me answer that question. I'm a Libertarian so that begs for me to be for "freedom". I value freedom highly and if religion is prevalent among the populace then I will have no problem with it's existence unless the doctrine of the religion states that it can aggress against another person, which violates the non-aggression axiom I hold so dearly to, so in that instance I would rather have people choose to have a religion then have them expelled and illegalized. After all it's not the religion, but the person that acts out the religion.
I would completely agree with you, but let me ask you this, referencing to my first response back to you. Do you think religion is harmful to society?
If he wants everyone to be saved, why create sin in the first place? If being gay is bad, why would he create gay people at all if he wanted no one to be bad?
If he wants everyone to be saved, why create sin in the first place? If being gay is bad, why would he create gay people at all if he wanted no one to be bad?