Johnny Skeptic

Message to sschlicter: Please reply to my posts #976 and #979.

sschlichter

What is 'it'? In America, it is legal to kill babies that are inconvenient. Is this moral? what is the difference between this and the example i gave besides one is legal and the other is not.

I don't have any evidence that it does exists.

sschlichter

I posted a response to 979 and I responded to 976 in its inital form of 958. I am not responding to the remix.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to sschlicter: You said that you would be willing to discuss faith and reason? Did you mean that would only be willing to post a few paragraphs?

Johnny Skeptic

Since you would be willing to continue discussing this issue in this thread, you should not mind continuing to discuss it in a new thread that I will start at the General Religious Discussions Forum, which is a more appropriate place than this forum. After I start the new thread, it will quickly become apparent to most people that your arguments are not valid. One reason that I want to start a new thread at the General Religious Discussions Forum is because some of the skeptics there are quite good at debating abortion.

Edit: Ok, I just started a new thread at http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....77#post5747977 at the General Religious Discussions Forum. The title is "A fundie compares abortion with killing homeless people."

Johnny Skeptic

I agree, but that does not say why you believe that the God of the Bible exists.

Since everyone already knows that people accept Christianity because of knowledge, belief, and committment, you have merely stated the obvious, and evasively I might add. What we need are specifics regarding why you believe that the God of the Bible exists. I have given many specifics in many threads at various forums why I do not believe that the God of the Bible exists. Surely you must have some specifics, perhaps a miracle healing, Biblical archeology, spiritual experiences, the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, Bible prophecy, or something else. The more specific that a person becomes regarding his worldview, the easier it is to find flaws in it. The more confident that a person is of his worldview, the more willing he is to be specific regarding his worldview.

Sheshbazzar

"Dismissing all imaginary "gods", I put my trust in truth, in the eternity of time, and of space, and in the progress of natural processes, to bring an end to all of this."

This ought to have given you a clue that you are barking up the wrong tree in continuing with attempts to split out the -possibility- phrase "There well may be.." from the context of the entire paragraph which it prefixed, and further, forcing it in a manner that is contrary to the clear evidence of all of my preceding posts.


Obviously you still lack understanding; There is NO "God" Biblical or otherwise, NO God, or gods exist, being only the figments of men's imaginations they are nothing more than that hot air that comes out of men's mouths.
There is NO god to be "compatible with"-- anything.
And the reasons DO "eliminate the God of the Bible" along with any and ALL other gods.
So your thoughts about what -you think- that I might think, are wrong.

The only good, or evil, or morality, that exist, only exists in the thoughts and in the intents of men, and men alone are responsible for their own thoughts and actions, not some invisible sky-daddy.
When you think something, or when you do something, you are acting on your own accord, an imaginary "Gawd" does not make any of your decisions or choices for you, neither does a "devil", unless you insanely persuade yourself that you are the living personification of your own god, or that you are the personification of the devil.
If you really are hearing voices talking in your head, It is an indication that your sanity has taken a hike, and that you need some serious psychiatric care quickly because you might be a danger to yourself, and to society.

The universe and eternity is utterly indifferent to the existence of death and suffering. Have you ever watched a fire burn? How much thought did you expend upon the extinguishment of each individual spark that glowed for a moment or two in the wind, and then disappeared forever?
Millions of living leaves die, and fall in my yard every year, they soon crumble and return to the elements from which they were formed, to make way for the next generation. All living things die and return to the earth, the grass, the tree, the beast, the man. There is no difference at all, from the dust they came, and into the dust they return, and none ever lives beyond or returns back again.
And this is natural, and in nature is neither of good nor evil, but only the turning of the universe.
If you will to do good, then do your good NOW, while in this life, because you will not do anything better afterwards when you are nothing but dust.....but then again, some men certainly will prove to be of more value as fertiliser, than what value they have been in the life that they were given.

Johnny Skeptic

Whether or not the Bible existed, in my opinion, the two most logical possibilities are naturalism and Deism.

sschlichter

I am still discussing slavery. Be patient

In order to assert that slavery is immoral, you have to have some basis for making that judgement. If you are a naturalist, then how could you say slavery is wrong. On what basis? On the basis that it is impractical. that is arbitrary and subjective. Slavery could be very practical. On what basis do you claim that slavery in the Bible is immoral?

One poster claimed the law of the land was the basis for morality, and then one post later said abortion was immoral even though it is legal.

You have suggested that practicality is a basis for morality. I tell you that it is practical for me and best for the advancement of my offspring to lie on my taxes, steal from my neighbors, and hire illegal immigrants but only pay them 1/20 of what I should.

You have no basis for telling me I am wrong and, as a naturalist you cannot judge the God of the Bible. If you do not beleive in God, then morality is subjective and you have no rule to apply against the God of the Bible and are not capable of judging.

Sheshbazaar, after accidentally appealing to a higher authority that is just and eternal, used that imaginary authority to judge the God of the bible. Then he whisked his imaginary God away and now is trying to judge the God of the Bible on the basis of eternity and truth. Without God, it is true that man can do what he pleases to other men. With a God less eternity, what is the moral difference if a man suffers at the hand of another for 50 years and then dies or lives in retirement after a happy life. As he said If this is true then how are you able to judge the actions of anything, much less the actions of a God. The only way to judge the slavery laws as immoral is to appeal to God for authority on morality. to do so, you need to either appeal to the God of the Bible who will tell you that he is moral, or appeal to another authority, or resign yourself to the fact that there is no moral law whihc will make you incapable of judging the morality of the bible.

Basically, you have no business, on the basis of naturalism judging the morality of the Mosaic law.

sschlichter

good, that will highlight your inability to understand context.