Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:Nope, a parent gives them the "rules and regulations" that he hopes they will follow and, as any parent knows, HOPES that they will NOT drive them away.
It is a precarious balance of course, the "just enough but not too much" or rules and regulations.
A parent accommodates his/her disciple to the child ( although the Hebrews were NOT children of course).
A parent knows which child needs a smack in the butt and know which child needs a time out and what works for one may not work for the other.
The Hebrews was a scarred and abused people, centuries of bondage and they had all the scars of an abused, including BEING the abusers.
You do NOT force things on someone that has been abused if you wan them to do what is best for them with the knowledge thatit i sbest for them.
You do your best to "wean" out the bad while instilling the good.

The problem with the God of the Bible is that he not only allowed his children (the Hebrews) to abuse others by denying them equal human rights, but he also mandated laws that were specifically biased in favor of the Hebrew male. It is one thing to teach people in a gentle manner if they have been abused, and quite another thing to accommodate them when they are practicing abusive and discriminatory behavior to others based solely on gender or race.

While God may have instilled many good behaviors in the Hebrews, he also allowed and mandated many abusive behaviors that violated the human rights of others.

Butterfly wrote:The problem with the God of the Bible is that he not only allowed his children (the Hebrews) to abuse others by denying them equal human rights, but he also mandated laws that were specifically biased in favor of the Hebrew male. It is one thing to teach people in a gentle manner if they have been abused, and quite another thing to accommodate them when they are practicing abusive and discriminatory behavior to others based solely on gender or race.

While God may have instilled many good behaviors in the Hebrews, he also allowed and mandated many abusive behaviors that violated the human rights of others.

Exactly by what standard are you judging God?

Butterfly wrote:....Sorry, that doesn't cut it! A good parent doesn't accommodate their children if they are practicing immoral behavior.

My 20 years experience in the field of Criminal Justice, plus all the current stats, say, you are wrong...

As CM working with treatment teams for SO, parents most certainly accommodated their children through acts of denial, blaming, etc...
-
-
-

Byblos wrote:

Butterfly wrote:The problem with the God of the Bible is that he not only allowed his children (the Hebrews) to abuse others by denying them equal human rights, but he also mandated laws that were specifically biased in favor of the Hebrew male. It is one thing to teach people in a gentle manner if they have been abused, and quite another thing to accommodate them when they are practicing abusive and discriminatory behavior to others based solely on gender or race.

While God may have instilled many good behaviors in the Hebrews, he also allowed and mandated many abusive behaviors that violated the human rights of others.

Exactly by what standard are you judging God?

Good question

When I was a Christian I would have told you that the standard by which I judged was imbued in me when I was created in the image and likeness of God, which always sorta bugged me...especially when it seemed my judgments on issues were higher and more moral than his. Now that I am no longer a Christian I know my moral intuitions come from my own self, which have been developed through my own reasoning and logic and the examples of other people.

The Golden Rule in all its variations is an excellent standard to live by. Treating others the way you wish to be treated, not doing unto others what you don't wish done to yourself, and loving others as yourself, are some of the many ways to apply a standard of equal human rights to all people. As I'm sure you are quite aware of, the biblegod does not live by his own moral standards...

Psalm 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

B. W. wrote:

Butterfly wrote:....Sorry, that doesn't cut it! A good parent doesn't accommodate their children if they are practicing immoral behavior.

My 20 years experience in the field of Criminal Justice, plus all the current stats, say, you are wrong...

As CM working with treatment teams for SO, parents most certainly accommodated their children through acts of denial, blaming, etc...
-
-
-

So, what exactly are you saying? That a good parent DOES accommodate their children when they are practicing immoral behavior? I know that parents accommodate their children all the time when they do bad things, but it doesn't mean it's right. That was my point.
-
-

Butterfly wrote:Good question

When I was a Christian I would have told you that the standard by which I judged was imbued in me when I was created in the image and likeness of God, which always sorta bugged me...especially when it seemed my judgments on issues were higher and more moral than his. Now that I am no longer a Christian I know my moral intuitions come from my own self, which have been developed through my own reasoning and logic and the examples of other people.

The Golden Rule in all its variations is an excellent standard to live by. Treating others the way you wish to be treated, not doing unto others what you don't wish done to yourself, and loving others as yourself, are some of the many ways to apply a standard of equal human rights to all people. As I'm sure you are quite aware of, the biblegod does not live by his own moral standards...

Psalm 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Psalms 137 in its entirety:

Psalms 137:1 By the rivers of Babylon, There we sat down, yea, we wept When we remembered Zion.
Psa 137:2 We hung our harps Upon the willows in the midst of it.
Psa 137:3 For there those who carried us away captive asked of us a song, And those who plundered us requested mirth, Saying, "Sing us one of the songs of Zion!"
Psa 137:4 How shall we sing the LORD's song In a foreign land?
Psa 137:5 If I forget you, O Jerusalem, Let my right hand forget its skill!
Psa 137:6 If I do not remember you, Let my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth— If I do not exalt Jerusalem Above my chief joy.
Psa 137:7 Remember, O LORD, against the sons of Edom The day of Jerusalem, Who said, "Raze it, raze it, To its very foundation!"
Psa 137:8 O daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed, Happy the one who repays you as you have served us!
Psa 137:9 Happy the one who takes and dashes Your little ones against the rock!

Note Verse 8 and who wrote this - it was not God was it?

I find it odd you said this:

"The Golden Rule in all its variations is an excellent standard to live by. Treating others the way you wish to be treated, not doing unto others what you don't wish done to yourself, and loving others as yourself, are some of the many ways to apply a standard of equal human rights to all people."

Then go on attack mode with no respect toward us at all which disproves your morality as superior and destroys any legitimacy of your argument. I doubt you were ever really a Christian at all but suffered some sort of trauma by abandonment, rejection, fear, etc that tricked your perception of reality.

Hebrews 4:12 NKJV tells how God's word's works - it cuts deep and exposes what is in the heart in order to deal with what is in the human heart. You misinterpret this process as you read the bible failing to note that Romans 7:5-25 teaches this same truth.
-
-
-

Butterfly wrote:

B. W. wrote:

Butterfly wrote:....Sorry, that doesn't cut it! A good parent doesn't accommodate their children if they are practicing immoral behavior.

My 20 years experience in the field of Criminal Justice, plus all the current stats, say, you are wrong...

As CM working with treatment teams for SO, parents most certainly accommodated their children through acts of denial, blaming, etc...
-
-
-

So, what exactly are you saying? That a good parent DOES accommodate their children when they are practicing immoral behavior? I know that parents accommodate their children all the time when they do bad things, but it doesn't mean it's right. That was my point.

Yes they do - by denial, blaming, by employing the 'Not my Kid' syndrome, and sometimes even a good parent accommodates by working too much and thus abandoning their kids with too much accommodation.

There are no perfect parents, or perfect families are they so who's fault is that?

Are you perfect with your kids and family?

People do have a sin nature and by such nature subjective morality provides excuses for error...

If you have a toddler - did you teach that child to lie, or push a sibling down hard upon the ground?

Why do you try to push us to the ground?
-
-
-

Butterfly wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Butterfly wrote:The problem with the God of the Bible is that he not only allowed his children (the Hebrews) to abuse others by denying them equal human rights, but he also mandated laws that were specifically biased in favor of the Hebrew male. It is one thing to teach people in a gentle manner if they have been abused, and quite another thing to accommodate them when they are practicing abusive and discriminatory behavior to others based solely on gender or race.

While God may have instilled many good behaviors in the Hebrews, he also allowed and mandated many abusive behaviors that violated the human rights of others.

Exactly by what standard are you judging God?

Good question

When I was a Christian I would have told you that the standard by which I judged was imbued in me when I was created in the image and likeness of God, which always sorta bugged me...especially when it seemed my judgments on issues were higher and more moral than his. Now that I am no longer a Christian I know my moral intuitions come from my own self, which have been developed through my own reasoning and logic and the examples of other people.

The Golden Rule in all its variations is an excellent standard to live by. Treating others the way you wish to be treated, not doing unto others what you don't wish done to yourself, and loving others as yourself, are some of the many ways to apply a standard of equal human rights to all people. As I'm sure you are quite aware of, the biblegod does not live by his own moral standards...

Psalm 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Ah the golden rule, of course, I should have known. It seems to be the crying mantra of everyone who opposes the idea of God. The problem with it of course is that it doesn't explain objective, universal morality.

But first I would caution you as to your tone. I understand you may have deep disagreements with Christianity and perhaps the biblical God in general but that is no excuse to resort to childish, insulting language.

Second, you seem to have devoted a lot of time to attacking the Judeo-Christian God so out of curiosity are you now an atheist or is your objection only to the biblical God?

Butterfly wrote:

jlay wrote:

Sorry, that doesn't cut it! A good parent doesn't accommodate their children if they are practicing immoral behavior.

Good? According to?
Immoral? According to?
Quit smuggling in OM.

Maybe I need to rephrase my example for you and be more specific. If my toddler hits other children, do I accommodate him and allow him to do it because he doesn't know any better, or do I teach him that it is wrong?

Better? By what measure?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Proinsias wrote:

jlay wrote:But better of course implies OM

We've been through this many times over the years but I still don't get it.

One more time:

If I think chocolate is better than vanilla then no objective standard is implied

If I think buying is better than stealing then an objective standard is implied

Yes?

The idea of "better" implies objectivity, no?
I mean, better than what? compared to what? based on the notion there is such a things as "better" because such a notion does exist?

I don't think it does imply objectivity, I'm not suggesting an objective being agrees with me, I'm just stating my opinion. It's preference. Compared to each other, we compare chocolate to vanilla or stealing to buying and decide which one we prefer.

RickD wrote: The way you worded it, no.

Here:
If I think chocolate is better than vanilla then no objective standard is implied

If I think buying is better than stealing, because stealing is inherently wrong, then an objective standard is implied

Well, yeah. If you start using the word inherent you imply objectivity. If I say chocolate is inherently better than vanilla I imply an objective standard, if I say buying is better than stealing I don't. I'm not claiming stealing is inherently wrong or buying is inherently right.

Invoking the GR doesn't answer the question. We all agree, but that doesn't explain why the GR is BETTER or RIGHT or GOOD. Every time an atheist says, "shouldn't," "better," etc. they are smuggling in OM. When they propose the GR, they are doing the same. They are claiming OM while denying its source. Otherwise, claiming the GR is subjective and of no more value than claiming 'kill or be killed.'
This reality seems to evade Butterfly for some reason. If the GR is RIGHT, then what is its source of rightness?

If a parent SHOULD do something, then there is some existant standard that parenting is measured by. So, account for the standard. Otherwise, who gives a rip. Why should we care what you think anyone SHOULD do?

jlay wrote:Invoking the GR doesn't answer the question. We all agree, but that doesn't explain why the GR is BETTER or RIGHT or GOOD. Every time an atheist says, "shouldn't," "better," etc. they are smuggling in OM. When they propose the GR, they are doing the same. They are claiming OM while denying its source. Otherwise, claiming the GR is subjective and of no more value than claiming 'kill or be killed.'
This reality seems to evade Butterfly for some reason. If the GR is RIGHT, then what is its source of rightness?

If a parent SHOULD do something, then there is some existant standard that parenting is measured by. So, account for the standard. Otherwise, who gives a rip. Why should we care what you think anyone SHOULD do?

Well my friend, if you don't have the moral intuition to know what is RIGHT, or GOOD there really isn't anything I can do or say to help you. I guess I'm lucky, because I don't have to posit OM that comes from a god to be able to know how to treat other people...it just comes naturally.

Come on Butter, you can do BETTER than that.

The argument here isn't whether one has to be religious to be moral. You don't. There are plenty of atheist and non-religious people who promote morality. You won't here that argument from me, so please drop the strawman. You don't have to be a theist to promote moralality, but it is hypocritical to keep lauding morality and yet refuse to stand on your own ground. You've yet to account for morality. The fact that you are using it isn't a problem for my position. For you, it's like flying a kite and denying the wind.

You obviously believe there is a RIGHT way to act. And then you even speak of moral intuition and imply that not having it would be BAD. The problem is that all these things speak to.......Objective morality. And of course we all know that OM is a big blinking arrow pointing towards God. So, you keep smuggling in OM, which in turn is smuggling in God. That my friend is speaking out of both sides of your mouth. The only bigger offense is continuing to commit the same error over and over again, all the while patting yourself on the back.

You seem to think you are qualified to judge the Bible and God himself, yet you can't account for morality. So I say, "So what?" Why should we subsrcibe to your morality. Who are you to 'force' your morals on us and tell us what to view as right and wrong. "Intuition?" I suppose when a lion rips the flesh from pray it is acting on intuition. So, perhaps what you ought to do is be consistent in your skepticism. You claim to have "studied" the bible and concluded it to be immoral. Maybe you ought to look as deeply at yourself, because everything you are currently advocating is inconsistent, contradictory, hypocritical, and requires you to stand on the worldview you are attempting to disprove. I can make these conclusions because I know that morality and logic have an objective source outside of man. That it isn't simply a pissing match and my opinion versus yours.

Butterfly wrote:

jlay wrote:Invoking the GR doesn't answer the question. We all agree, but that doesn't explain why the GR is BETTER or RIGHT or GOOD. Every time an atheist says, "shouldn't," "better," etc. they are smuggling in OM. When they propose the GR, they are doing the same. They are claiming OM while denying its source. Otherwise, claiming the GR is subjective and of no more value than claiming 'kill or be killed.'
This reality seems to evade Butterfly for some reason. If the GR is RIGHT, then what is its source of rightness?

If a parent SHOULD do something, then there is some existant standard that parenting is measured by. So, account for the standard. Otherwise, who gives a rip. Why should we care what you think anyone SHOULD do?

Well my friend, if you don't have the moral intuition to know what is RIGHT, or GOOD there really isn't anything I can do or say to help you. I guess I'm lucky, because I don't have to posit OM that comes from a god to be able to know how to treat other people...it just comes naturally.

And what comes naturally to me is to burn down orphanages and watch the flames consume all the unwanted filth in it. GR means absolutely nothing to me. I welcome the challenge for anyone to do to me what I do to them, if they can, that is. My version of GR is survival of the fittest, to the fullest extent of the meaning. Like J said, kill or be killed. Who are you or anyone else to tell me otherwise?

Byblos wrote:

Butterfly wrote:

jlay wrote:Invoking the GR doesn't answer the question. We all agree, but that doesn't explain why the GR is BETTER or RIGHT or GOOD. Every time an atheist says, "shouldn't," "better," etc. they are smuggling in OM. When they propose the GR, they are doing the same. They are claiming OM while denying its source. Otherwise, claiming the GR is subjective and of no more value than claiming 'kill or be killed.'
This reality seems to evade Butterfly for some reason. If the GR is RIGHT, then what is its source of rightness?

If a parent SHOULD do something, then there is some existant standard that parenting is measured by. So, account for the standard. Otherwise, who gives a rip. Why should we care what you think anyone SHOULD do?

Well my friend, if you don't have the moral intuition to know what is RIGHT, or GOOD there really isn't anything I can do or say to help you. I guess I'm lucky, because I don't have to posit OM that comes from a god to be able to know how to treat other people...it just comes naturally.

And what comes naturally to me is to burn down orphanages and watch the flames consume all the unwanted filth in it. GR means absolutely nothing to me. I welcome the challenge for anyone to do to me what I do to them, if they can, that is. My version of GR is survival of the fittest, to the fullest extent of the meaning. Like J said, kill or be killed. Who are you or anyone else to tell me otherwise?

Sad to say my friend, you would be categorized as a person who is not rational.