Should we work to get rid of Christianity?

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

Given that I don't believe in Satan, I could not possibly agree with this.
no.
I didn't expect you to believe in Satan. But I believe that he and the angels that made war with him in heaven against God and the other angels play a large role in the evil we see in our world.
 
Last edited:
If I told you I thought that your god was immoral to command Abaraham to sacrifice Isaac, I take it that you would consider me to be objectively incorrect - yes?
I believe you have a conscience. You may be thinking that human sacrifice is immoral based upon your conscience.
I would have to see your objection to child sacrifice as being immoral before I decide if it is objective.
There are other scenarios to choose from in the Bible beside this one to claim that God is immoral and thus cannot be the reason and the standard from which we know right from wrong. In this scenario God is testing Abraham and doesn't intend for him to sacrifice his son like others in the cultures around him do.
If so, could you demonstrate this via premises that we agree upon?
Did we agree upon premises?

I didn't want to get caught in a trick question from you so I googled subjective vs objective morality and found this video. I agree with the speaker and I think you would agree with the questioner. Am I correct?

 
I believe you have a conscience. You may be thinking that human sacrifice is immoral based upon your conscience.
I would agree.
But why would I think that the supposed author of my conscience is acting in an immoral way by commanding human sacrifice?
I would have to see your objection to child sacrifice as being immoral before I decide if it is objective.
My objection in the case of Abraham is not objective, and I never claimed that it was.
It is based on the fact that the harm caused by the command was not justified, in my opinion.
In this scenario God is testing Abraham and doesn't intend for him to sacrifice his son like others in the cultures around him do.
Commanding a man to kill his child is immoral whether or not the commander intends for the man to carry it out.
"Kill your son, Abraham..." does not become moral just because it concluded with "... PSYCH!"
Did we agree upon premises?
No - and that is the problem.
Objectivity does not require agreement on the premises; the premises would be true whether we agree or not, and the conclusion would follow inexorably. "Here is the definition of moral, and if you use another one, you're mistaken", in other words.
I didn't want to get caught in a trick question from you so I googled subjective vs objective morality and found this video. I agree with the speaker and I think you would agree with the questioner. Am I correct?
Actually, I agree with Turek - I think that all morality is opinion because there is no way to prove otherwise. A person's morality flows from their definition of right/wrong, but the key word is their definition; there is, as far as I can tell, no way to cut through and establish "the" definition of right/wrong.

When I say "X is wrong", that is a linguistic shortcut denoting "as I understand right/wrong, this is wrong". For me to change my position and accept the existence of objective morals, I would have to see proof that there is a correct understanding of right/wrong.
 
I would agree.
But why would I think that the supposed author of my conscience is acting in an immoral way by commanding human sacrifice?
Because mine and your conscience finds it morally objectionable to sacrifice humans. The only reason Abraham agreed to obey God is that he believed God would raise his son, Isaac, from the dead. Otherwise I don't think Abraham would have done it.

Heb 11:17-19 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and the one who had received the promises was offering up his only son; 18 it was he to whom it was said, “Through Isaac your descendants shall be named.” 19 He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type.
My objection in the case of Abraham is not objective, and I never claimed that it was.
Oh, I thought your objection would have to be subjective. I didn't understand why you would think that I thought it was objective when you said this 'If I told you I thought that your god was immoral to command Abaraham to sacrifice Isaac, I take it that you would consider me to be objectively incorrect - yes?" I must have understood you. {I'm on east coast time and it was early in the morning when we were posting last night.) Why did you think I would have considered your opposition to child sacrifice to be objectively incorrect?
It is based on the fact that the harm caused by the command was not justified, in my opinion.
Is there anything that would justify any type of human sacrifice unless the human actually agreed to it like Jesus did?
Commanding a man to kill his child is immoral whether or not the commander intends for the man to carry it out.
If there is no intention to carry it out why is it immoral? It was a test. There are some Christians who believe that God knows the future as a certainly and there are other Christians that believe that God knows the future as possibilities. I think God commanding Abraham to offer his son to God was a test and proves to me that God does not know the future exhaustively even to the minutia.
"Kill your son, Abraham..." does not become moral just because it concluded with "... PSYCH!"
It wasn't a practical joke! Abraham passed the test and was blessed by God. Genesis 22: 15-18
I think the reason God gave this test to Abraham was that he wanted to know if Abraham would obey him even in an extremely tough test. Abraham passed the test and God blessed him.

Gen 22:12 “Do not reach out your hand against the boy, and do not do anything to him; for now I know that you fear [revere] God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
Gen 22:16-13 By Myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand, which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies. 18 And in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.
No - and that is the problem.
Objectivity does not require agreement on the premises; the premises would be true whether we agree or not, and the conclusion would follow inexorably. "Here is the definition of moral, and if you use another one, you're mistaken", in other words.
Okay, that's what the guy said in the video. He spoke of the social morality that changes with time and different societies. The objective as unchangeable which he based on God's moral character.
So doesn't that mean that using God's character as our moral standard (the God of the bible or any so-called god) fails if God commands a human sacrifice but our conscious tells us that human sacrifice is immoral? Some people, like Pixie, cannot believe in a God that they think is immoral.

Do you believe in moral absolutes as an agnostic/atheist?
Actually, I agree with Turek - I think that all morality is opinion because there is no way to prove otherwise. A person's morality flows from their definition of right/wrong, but the key word is their definition; there is, as far as I can tell, no way to cut through and establish "the" definition of right/wrong.
Then everything becomes relative to each different person's definition of right and wrong. You certainly don't believe in a conscience given to us by God. There is nothing solid to base any law upon. But this does agree with your agnostic/atheistic point of view.

Who is Turek? Frank Turek? I have a book I found buried in a tote called I don't have enough faith to be an atheist by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek.
When I say "X is wrong", that is a linguistic shortcut denoting "as I understand right/wrong, this is wrong". For me to change my position and accept the existence of objective morals, I would have to see proof that there is a correct understanding of right/wrong.
Thank you, now I understand what you mean by "objective morals". You would need to meet God before you can find that proof, imo.
 
Taking on any cultural sociological lifestyle does that. The secret is not Christianity. The secret is the structure and strength found in culture itself. Christianity is just an inherited artifact. Chinese find peace, relationship, law, and long life in belonging to their culture... the Buddhist culture.
Buddhism may be able to provide those things, though I noticed you didnt provide any evidence that it does. Buddhism fails to provide an objective source and rational foundation for them. The existence and nature of the Christian God DOES provide an objective and rational foundation for them.
 
No, if the universe is a created entity, the creator can make it pretty much however He wants.
I'm afraid He can't, he can't make a universe with square circles, or with ducks that are staplers, because they would either be ducks, or staplers, but not both at the same time.
El Cid said:
Just like a novelist can make his novel rational or irrational.
Bit of a false analogy. A novelist can make a novel with logical inconsistencies, but God can't make square circles or married bachelors.
That is what I am referring to. Theoretically He could have made a universe with logical inconsistencies.
El Cid said:
But because the actual Creator Himself is logical and in fact, Logic Himself, He would only create a logical universe.
What do you mean, God is logic? That makes no sense.
Logic is an intrinsic part of His nature.
El Cid said:
While He could not make a square circle, He theoretically could make duck into a stapler if He so chose.
Then you miss the point, God turning a duck into a stapler isn't logically inconsistent, but, before God makes the duck a stapler, what is it? Whilst a duck, is it a stapler?
See above.
 
Do you think then that the Right to Freedom of Religion is built into us by the creator? The creator whose first commandment is: "I am the Lord thy God Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Yes, God allows you to freely choose to believe in any religion you want, but if you choose to reject the Truth about Him, you will still have to face the consequences of that choice possibly in this life but definitely in the afterlife.
 
The universe contains purposes and is intelligible, therefore its cause is most likely an intelligent personal being
The universe also contains evil... should I infer that its creator must be evil?
Maybe but it contains personal beings as well and personal beings have free will and sometimes choose to do evil.
El Cid said:
since those two things are only produced by intelligent personal beings.
Once again, this reasoning applies within the universe.
Applying it to the universe is taking it beyond its known scope.
.
No, the laws of logic are metaphysical so they transcend physical entities like the universe.
 
Is there anything that would justify any type of human sacrifice unless the human actually agreed to it like Jesus did?
That would be self-sacrifice, ans I don't think anything done purely to the self can be immoral, by definition.
If there is no intention to carry it out why is it immoral? It was a test.
If I command my son to kill his beloved cat as a test of his obedience, knowing that I will intercede before he can follow through, is that moral of me? My son doesn't know it's a test - think of the pain and anguish he will experience before I step in and put a stop to it.
So doesn't that mean that using God's character as our moral standard (the God of the bible or any so-called god) fails if God commands a human sacrifice but our conscious tells us that human sacrifice is immoral?
It means that you are not using his character as the standard in the first place. If you were, nothing he said, did or commanded could possibly be considered immoral by you, by definition.

Once you choose your "master" tape measure in your workshop, that tape measure can never be wrong... if it is, what are you comparing it to?
Do you believe in moral absolutes as an agnostic/atheist?
To me, morals are only as absolute as the rules.

Is it wrong to move a rook diagonally? I think almost everybody that understands the question would say "yes"... but who said we were playing chess? Once we agree that we're playing chess, functionally-objective rules apply.

Same with morals, IMO - once we agree on what we mean, morals are functionally objective.
But only once we agree.
Then everything becomes relative to each different person's definition of right and wrong. You certainly don't believe in a conscience given to us by God.
Both correct.
There is nothing solid to base any law upon.
Consensus isn't sufficiently solid?
 
Maybe but it contains personal beings as well and personal beings have free will and sometimes choose to do evil.
You miss the point - you argued

"universe contains things with Properties A, B, C..., therefore, the Creator must have properties A, B, C..."

Thus, if the universe contains things with the property <evil>, your proffered Creator must be evil, yes?
No, the laws of logic are metaphysical so they transcend physical entities like the universe.
Evidence, please?
 
Yes, God allows you to freely choose to believe in any religion you want, but if you choose to reject the Truth about Him, you will still have to face the consequences of that choice possibly in this life but definitely in the afterlife.
And that makes sense to you?

That is like saying the legal system allows everyone to commit murder, but if you choose to do so, you will go to prison.

Seriously, I have to ask, do you understand what the word "commandment" means?
 
That is what I am referring to. Theoretically He could have made a universe with logical inconsistencies.
You haven't explained how this is possible, so far you've just asserted it. For example, you will have to show how a married bachelor is possible.
Logic is an intrinsic part of His nature.
What does this even mean? You could say that logic is part of everyone and everything's nature, in that everyone and everything conform to logical principles. That you can't have a married bachelor has only to do with the definitions of the words married and bachelor, God isn't involved at all.
 
By failing to show that the Christian god exists.
Only by your impossible standards. You can believe what you want and cannot prove your postulates and your beliefs come with a host of negatives for society. Is incongruent with American foundational beliefs. Rights from God and not men. You are in the wrong place. But won't leave. Do not have to courage of your Godless convictions.
Do you have any support at all that worshipping God provides:
- greater and deeper joy
- more law abiding
- improved marriage
- improved sex life
- longer life

I know you say "studies have shown..." What studies? Where? When? Link?
You must believe your rights come from men.
 
Last edited:
I view this focus as a later supplement from the hand of a different author and that it does contradict the earlier text at points...
You can believe what you want and it is not original. It is not proof of anything. Fact being your postulates do not get past the evidential level of speculation if it is two writers for Gen 1&2. Not one shred of supporting evidence and you can show us where future writers treated the accounts as two different authors.
 
Last edited:
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.
Right so when Fauci funds research (our tax dollars) in which skin from dead fetuses stitched onto rats there is not one thing objectively wrong with any of it and you believe society no moral obligation to the unborn or children Fauci research used as lab rats. Your right to life is contingent on the rule of men and not God. That means men can remove your right to life anytime or for any reason and take it all including anything you own. Assuming you own anything and not just another renter. Matter of fact you must believe you have no objective moral obligation to children. Fauci can inject them with experimental drugs which kills them using public tax money and not one thing is objectively wrong with any of it. Disgusting and backward.

 
Last edited:
Back
Top