Should we work to get rid of Christianity?

[Eightcrackers]

Yes, their moral consciences.

Then you judge your god by your standards, and he is not your ultimate standard.
You (think you) choose him to be your standard because, by your standard, he is good.

No, but we can discover the objective good, and that is what Christians do when they discover God.

But you arrive at the conclusion that he is good by, in your words, evaluating your god by your moral conscience.
Where does that conscience come from? If the answer is "my god", then you are judging him by the standard he gave you. Which is to say, his own standard.

And judging a thing by its own standards is no judgement at all, is it...?

I can't prove it, but you can't prove you exist to others.

Tu quoque fallacy.

But There is historical evidence that they were revealed by Him in written form to the ancient hebrews.

"Historical evidence" = "a story in a book", in this case.

And there is sociological evidence that they are built into human consciences.

Is there sociological evidence that Yahweh was the one that "built" them there?
If so, what is it?

We can't build things into us since we can't create ourselves.

False dichotomy fallacy - I never said we put them there.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Most people want to live according to objective reality. It may be enough for you but not for most people. So people are going to live as if morality is just opinion and that is a slippery slope toward totalitarianism.

The kind of world people want to live in has absolutely no bearing on the world they actually live in.
I know people want morality to be objective... doesn't mean it is.

He has told us He is the good.

By what standard?
If somebody tells you that they are "the good", how do you determine whether or not they are correct?

So once we get to know Him that is confirmed by His deeds and deeds are not arbitrary.

OK - by standard do you judge his deeds to be good?
Yours? If so, you are judging him by your standards, and then judging yourself by him. Circular.

 

[Caroljeen]

Then you judge your god by your standards, and he is not your ultimate standard.
You (think you) choose him to be your standard because, by your standard, he is good.

But you arrive at the conclusion that he is good by, in your words, evaluating your god by your moral conscience.
Where does that conscience come from? If the answer is "my god", then you are judging him by the standard he gave you. Which is to say, his own standard.

And judging a thing by its own standards is no judgement at all, is it...?

Tu quoque fallacy.

"Historical evidence" = "a story in a book", in this case.

Is there sociological evidence that Yahweh was the one that "built" them there?
If so, what is it?

False dichotomy fallacy - I never said we put them there.

Without God as the ultimate or absolute standard then everything is relative to whatever anyone thinks is good. Who sets the standards in a society which believes in the survival of the fittest?
Our consciences prick us when we do wrong. We feel a sense of guilt. By this we seem to know right from wrong, inherently. This conscience comes to us from our Creator.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Without God as the ultimate or absolute standard then everything is relative to whatever anyone thinks is good.

If you think your god is the ultimate standard, you're in the same boat.
What's needed is a way to prove that he is - and take thought out of the equation - but nobody seems to be able to do this.

Who sets the standards in a society which believes in the survival of the fittest?

You assume that society believes this; the fact that we go out of our way to accomodate the ill and disabled belies it.

Our consciences prick us when we do wrong. We feel a sense of guilt. By this we seem to know right from wrong, inherently. This conscience comes to us from our Creator.

I agree with everything except the last two words - can you prove that my conscience came from your god?

 

[El Cid]

There are two main types of evolution, atheistic evolution and theistic evolution. I used atheistic evolution because it has the problem of a subjective morality, theistic evolution doesnt have that problem.

I really don't see what evolution has to do with morality.

Where do you believe our morality comes from?

El Cid said:
What facts do they ignore?

As an introduction...

• Evidence for evolution comes from many different areas of biology:
  • Anatomy. Species may share similar physical features because the feature was present in a common ancestor (homologous structures).
  • Molecular biology. DNA and the genetic code reflect the shared ancestry of life. DNA comparisons can show how related species are.

Both of those would be expected if there was a common designer as well.

• • Biogeography. The global distribution of organisms and the unique features of island species reflect evolution and geological change.

Island species change only reflects microevolution which most creationists accept.

• • Fossils. Fossils document the existence of now-extinct past species that are related to present-day species.

Systematic gaps occur in the fossil at genera which is what would be expected if genera is equivalent to the Biblical kind.

• • Direct observation. We can directly observe small-scale evolution in organisms with short lifecycles (e.g., pesticide-resistant insects).

Most creationists have no problem with microevolution.

El Cid said:
But the consequences are based on feelings as well. If a behavior brings about consequences that you dont like then it is bad, if they bring about consequences that you like then the behavior is good. But this can cause serious problems because many people have a tendency to ignore some serious consequences until it is too late if they are just based on feelings.

But I've already said I don't think morality is based on feelings.

How is being concerned about the fate of humans NOT based on feelings for humans?

El Cid said:
No, as a beings created in His image we have intrinsic objective worth.

You've just said this, without justifying it.

If the Christian God exists then this is true. And I can demonstrate that He probably does.

El Cid said:
How can murder be wrong in itself if we dont have intrinsic worth? It is just an opinion of certain humans.

You can't have intrinsic worth if the worth comes from outside of you.

If our value is built into us by our creator then it is intrinsic.

El Cid said:
Many times the reasons for the consensus have been wrong as well.

True, but that's still not evidence of the supernatural, which is what's missing.

See my posts about UFOs for evidence of the supernatural.

 

[Caroljeen]

If you think your god is the ultimate standard, you're in the same boat.
What's needed is a way to prove that he is - and take thought out of the equation - but nobody seems to be able to do this.

I would say that it is self-evident.

You assume that society believes this; the fact that we go out of our way to accomodate the ill and disabled belies it.

True, proves we have a conscience and want to do what is right.

I agree with everything except the last two words - can you prove that my conscience came from your god?

It came from whoever created us. I believe it is from my God. I can't give you the degree of proof that you want.

 

[Eightcrackers]

I would say that it is self-evident.

I would say that the opposite is self-evident...
So... ?‍

True, proves we have a conscience and want to do what is right.

We do what we think is right.

It came from whoever created us.

Assumes it was a "who".

 

[En Hakkore]

You never said anything about the creation of birds to me. But you are welcome to move the goalposts.

I assume you are referring to Genesis 2:19. The verb form used in 2:19 is the form used for a completed action. So it is correctly translated "had formed". So no contradiction there.

Similar to our discussions in the late summer, you're going in circles... my very first post to you in this thread after returning from sabbatical was here where I specifically challenged your claim about the Hebrew and invited you to resolve the contradiction involving the verse cited here. You provided the same claim offered in this post about the verbal form here and I rebutted it here and backed that up upon request with citations here. It is unclear whether your false claim that I attempted to move goalposts derives from deliberate obfuscation, the time delay in your responses, that you might be juggling too many conversations or something else... in any case, please stop wasting my time --- either move the conversation forward with pertinent engagement with the evidence I've already laid out or concede the argument.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Eightcrackers]

I would say that it is self-evident.

I'd like to ask why you think this is self-evident - why is it so obvious that your god is (or should be taken to be) "the" standard of morality?

 

[Caroljeen]

I would say that the opposite is self-evident...
So... ?‍

We do what we think is right.

Assumes it was a "who".

How do you think we came by a conscience? How do we know right from wrong? Our parents? our society? Evolution?

 

[Caroljeen]

I'd like to ask why you think this is self-evident - why is it so obvious that your god is (or should be taken to be) "the" standard of morality?

The standard has to come from someone that sets that as a standard. I think it is obvious that it must come from whoever created us as opposed to a natural development of evolution because nature has no standard of morality (right and wrong, good vs evil) if it happens by chance.
I didn't think it was obvious when I was an atheist. Back then I didn't think too deeply on such things. I was busy doing other stuff.

 

[Eightcrackers]

How do you think we came by a conscience?

I think it evolved - people without consciences are less likely to reproduce, and so sociopathy is selected against.

There is evidence of a conscience in some animals.

How do we know right from wrong? Our parents? our society? Evolution?

Partly all three.

 

[Eightcrackers]

The standard has to come from someone that sets that as a standard.

If they set it, it's what they think the standard should be. That's no more objective than us deciding what we decide the standard should be.
I use what I think; you use what somebody else thinks. "Thinks" still applies to both.

I think it is obvious that it must come from whoever created us as opposed to a natural development of evolution because nature has no standard of morality (right and wrong, good vs evil) if it happens by chance.

But it doesn't happen by chance.

This is a common misapprehension about evolution - the mutations are chance, but their persistence (or not) is not chance.
This is why the more serious the congenital disease, the less common it is - the more serious the disease, the less chance the afflicted person has of surviving long enough to reproduce.

Similarly, the less moral a person is, the more likely their behaviour is to interfere with their chances of reproducing and perpetuating those tendencies.

 

[Caroljeen]

I think it evolved - people without consciences are less likely to reproduce, and so sociopathy is selected against.

There is evidence of a conscience in some animals.

Partly all three.

We think very differently.

 

[Eightcrackers]

We think very differently.

Indeed.

Just curious - do you think that everybody has a conscience? Or do you accept the existence of true, absolute sociopathy?

 

[Caroljeen]

If they set it, it's what they think the standard should be. That's no more objective than us deciding what we decide the standard should be.
I use what I think; you use what somebody else thinks. "Thinks" still applies to both.

But it doesn't happen by chance.

This is a common misapprehension about evolution - the mutations are chance, but their persistence (or not) is not chance.
This is why the more serious the congenital disease, the less common it is - the more serious the disease, the less chance the afflicted person has of surviving long enough to reproduce.

Similarly, the less moral a person is, the more likely their behaviour is to interfere with their chances of reproducing and perpetuating those tendencies.

I don't think the tendency for immorality is inherited so that eventually all the bad genes will be weeded out and humans will reach a state of perfection.

 

[Eightcrackers]

I don't think the tendency for immorality is inherited so that eventually all the bad genes will be weeded out and humans will reach a state of perfection.

Unless it can also be the result of random mutations.
In which case, there is no getting rid of it.

 

[Caroljeen]

Indeed.

Just curious - do you think that everybody has a conscience? Or do you accept the existence of true, absolute sociopathy?

Yes, everyone has a conscience but when it is ignored long enough, it becomes dull or seared.

Wouldn't that be Satan and his cohorts reeking their nasty influence on the human race?

 

[Eightcrackers]

Yes, everyone has a conscience but when it is ignored long enough, it becomes dull or seared.

Do you accept the existence of people that have never had a conscience?

Wouldn't that be Satan and his cohorts reeking their nasty influence on the human race?

Given that I don't believe in Satan, I could not possibly agree with this.

 

[Whatsisface]

Where do you believe our morality comes from?

Our minds, in that they are capable of abstract thought where morality, right and wrong, fairness etc, are abstract concepts. At a simple level, it's easy for us to understand when we've been treated unfairly which equates to being wronged.

Both of those would be expected if there was a common designer as well.

Maybe, but they point to evolution whether there's a designer or not.

Island species change only reflects microevolution which most creationists accept.

Big change only happens over large periods of time, there are other ways to "see" this besides direct observation.

Systematic gaps occur in the fossil at genera which is what would be expected if genera is equivalent to the Biblical kind.

It's also consistent with the fact that it's rare for bones to become fossilised.

How is being concerned about the fate of humans NOT based on feelings for humans?

Well, yes feelings are involved but being aware of the abstract concepts of right and wrong are more the basis for morality.

If the Christian God exists then this is true. And I can demonstrate that He probably does.

You've done it again, you've just said it without justification.

If our value is built into us by our creator then it is intrinsic.

That's not the definition of intrinsic. If something is built in it's not intrinsic. Intrinsic is when something is naturally there in the first place.

See my posts about UFOs for evidence of the supernatural.

Why are things that are unidentified evidence of the supernatural, or anything for that matter?