Ed

No guys thought of it, it was just an unfortunate happening.

I have never denied that God IS ultimately responsible though only indirectly for evil. Allowing something bad to happen for a greater good, is totally unlike directly causing evil.

It is called science.

secular spoon

That seemed to be a bit of a wierd thing to be arguing about, but this damn treads gotten so long its hard to track arguments. So I traced that argrument thread back a bit and got this :

So while it looks like you're makin a valid claim that science proves that Hillary didnt talk to dead people. You've got a bit of a double standard:

-On the one hand you are SURE that science disproves hillary's claim to communication with some dead chick (One might say a personal relationship with a dead chick). Which is perfectly ok, I also think that it's impossible

-But you deny that your "Personal Relationship" with god can also be disproved with scientific evidence (or testing if you want).

Science tells you that dead people dont talk to poor old Hillary, but science also tells you that you can have a realtionship with a guy who was dead, a ghost and a creator (who are 1 person)?

Both are personal relationship with seemingly non-existant entities, both (or none) should be judged as impossible through science. lp's request for proof of "god demonstrating his powers" still stands.

-ss

ps, Did Hillary REALLY claim that she talked to ghosts? She was elected into something right? Seems.... crazy. :huh:

mongrel

I'm do not intend to get involved in this discussion, but I do want to make one passing observation- in the KJV Bible, Isaiah 45:7 states, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

This sounds to me like god claimed direct responsibility for evil.

Ed

But what if some other person's moral sense says it is not wrong? How is your moral sense superior to his? Both of your moral senses come from the same source, ie evolution, so none is any better than the other.


But what if they don't get caught and killed, then is it alright?

Jack the Bodiless

Evolution explains WHY my "moral sense" is better than that of the person you're considering: it aids my own survival and that of my children.
For such a genetic predisposition to be truly successful, millions of generations of rapists would have to avoid being caught all the time. The killing of a single rapist (if it happens before he successfully reproduces) will extinguish all his potential descendants, ending his line.

Of course, in YOUR system, child-rape is OK if the parent gets paid.

Ed

It means it is composed of moral principles, ie things that ought to be done. While evolution is not.

But the problem is WHAT society? Nazi society? Soviet society? American society? And what rational objective basis do you have for judging which society is better? Also what life did evolution shape us for?

No, most humans want to live accordiing to what they think is an objectively rational basis in reality irrespective of what society teaches. And only Christian theism provides that. As far as sociopaths, if it can be demontrated that there strong evidence for God then some of them may control their behavior in order not to go to hell.

You have yet to provide ANY oughts from evolution and social conditioning. Just because someone is conditioned to do something does not mean he OUGHT to do it.

Jack the Bodiless

ANY list of laws or moral principles is a list of "things that ought to be done" or "things that ought not to be done". You have still not provided any new reason to actually do, or not do, these things.
Note that Christianity doesn't say whether we should live in a democracy, a monarchy, a totalitarian theocracy, a communist state, or whatever. Apparently, the most "Biblically correct" society is a slave-owning totalitarian theocratic monarchy.

Evolution shaped us, as social animals, to live in ANY society in which there are rules of acceptable behavior which allow us to "get along" with our fellow humans.
Nonsense. Christian theism CLAIMS to provide that. So does virtually every OTHER religion.
We have already covered "fear of punishment", in case you'd forgotten.

The ADDITIONAL reason that Christianity provides is... ?
We OUGHT to act in a manner which ensures our own survival and the survival of the society in which we are a part: this involves not making enemies.

Ed

I beg to differ.

No, but the romans did not let women have the right to turn down marriage proposals only her father could do so, but the Christians did allow it. That is one thing among others.

I Timothy 2:12. They would be disobedient Christians.

It could have a negative effect on the family, but the rest of above is absurd.

lpetrich

We must give a lot of thanx to Ed for revealing the source of his belief that women are not allowed to teach men:

1 Timothy 2:12

NIV: I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

NASB: But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

1 Corinthians 14:34

NIV: As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.

NASB: The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.

Titus 2:4-5

NIV: Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

NASB: ... so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.

Me:

Does that mean that Deborah (Judges 4-5) had no legitimate authority?

Which shows that the Bible is something other than a super-feminist book.

Ed

Fraid not, read Ex. 32:26, where Moses asks the people to decide whose side they are on. If God did not allow free will he would not have had Moses ask this question. And Deut. 28 has a multitude of if then statements, such statements are meaningless if we do not have free will.