Secular Morality and Secular Rights

Can you be good without god?

Most religious people will agree that a secular or atheist person is capable of doing moral things. However, this is not because of atheism or secularism, it is because "we are all made in God's image." Therefore we all have a basically moral tendency. (How they square this idea with humans' supposedly sinful nature I am not sure.)

The more controversial question is if a secular system of objective morality is possible. The reality is that secular reason is not just capable of giving objective moral rules, it naturally leads to them.

Secular reason is a tool for uncovering the truth based on objective evidence, rational skepticism and testability. It assumes nothing exists outside of this world, because nothing outside of this world can be proven to exist.

This approach has led to countless insights and advances in knowledge. Secular reason and the scientific method have enabled us to discover the origins and nature of disease, to achieve ever-higher levels of technological progress, to determine the origins of human life and the origins of the earth, and to generally answer a multitude of questions that escaped human understanding for thousands of years.

Why should moral questions be immune to this process? Indeed, if anything, we would expect secular reason to deliver effective moral answers. Based only on experience, we would expect this. So that is the inductive argument.

But there is also a deductive argument. That is, an argument based on the nature of secular reason versus the nature of religion. Since moral questions are questions about this world, it makes sense that an explanatory system that deals with worldly questions generally would be able to answer moral questions, too.

Since secular reason concerns itself with objective facts and truths, by its nature it leads to an objective morality. Religion is ultimately incapable of delivering moral absolutes because it lacks an absolute standard of knowledge (a topic I will explore in another hub). But secular reason has such a standard: evidence. Whether that evidence is tangible or intangible, all moral claims can be tested against it.

The problem with Godly morality

The religious person will argue that without god, there is no underlying basis for morality. Anything necessarily goes. However, this idea is faulty for a simple reason: the is-ought problem, as elucidated by philosopher David Hume.

The is-ought problem says simply that you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is." Based on observation alone, it is not logically possible to come to the conclusion that someone should or should not do something. Even grammatically, we see that in a string of "is, is, is" at no point can the word "should" arise, on a purely deductive basis.

So although the religious couch much of their rhetoric in terms of a "higher power" or a "divine plan" it will never follow logically that anyone should follow that plan. Just because God exists, does not mean that we should follow him. Just because there are eternal consequences for not following him, still does not mean that we should. It may be highly advisable, but it will never follow from that on a purely logical or deductive basis.

The basis for morality in a secular world

So we see the religious really do not have the logical advantage that they think. Although there is no true logical basis for morality in a secular world, neither is there such a basis in a religious world.

An effective secular morality is based on humanity and what is good for human beings. So we can just assume as a matter of faith that we should do good things for human benefit. And then we can use secular reason to figure out what exactly is good or bad within that framework.

On the level of the is-ought problem, a god-based morality and a human-based morality are equal. Neither one is more logical. However, in other areas the human-based morality has a few crucial advantages.

Firstly, we know for a fact that human beings exist. We do not know if God exists. By deriving values from something known to exist, a human-based morality enjoys grounding in something that is unequivocally real, measurable and totally understandable. By contrast, God may or may not be real, is "measurable" only by some supposed holy texts and testimony (which is obviously extremely dubious) and inherently not understandable (how can a finite creature understand an infinite one?)

Secondly, we are humans. A human-based morality has its basis in the very being that is making the moral commands. While a god-based morality is grounded in the pleasure and benefit of something external to us, a human-based morality is grounded in us. There is a fundamental disconnect in any god-based moral system between the source of morality and the object of morality. There is no such disconnect in a human-based system--we have cut out the moral middleman.

This helps to explain why, in spite of all instincts to the contrary, a perfectly rational and sane person who subscribes to a god-based morality will be willing to kill a baby if that's what god wants. He is not working for the benefit of humanity, he is working for the benefit of his god.

Not only is a secular morality possible, but it is more dependable and stronger than any religious morality can ever be.

Whether there is or is not a god, god is not necessary for an objective morality. Nor is god necessary as a source for human rights.

Secular rights

But if there is no god, then where do our rights come from? This is a common refrain among religiously-motivated people in the context of democracy. Without god, the story goes, there is only the will to power and nobody has any inherent rights.

Based on the secular human-based morality described above, the basis for rights becomes clear: human beings themselves. Just as the religious person can assume on faith that "the creator gives us inalienable rights," the practitioner of secular morality can assume on faith that humans have inherent value.

In fact, that assumption does not need to be based on faith; there are many logical arguments supporting the proposition that humans have inherent value (that we are highly intelligent creatures, that we are the pinnacle of evolution, etc). But even without those arguments, still we can simply take it on faith as a first principle, and we are no less valuable than in a god-based world. We have just improved, enhanced and streamlined our moral thinking and therefore achieved a superior moral system.

More by this Author


Comments 86 comments

spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

You're asking the wrong question.

The question is Can you be BAD without God?

Joseph Stalin killed millions of people because of his Darwinian religion of evolution and used it to justify his mass slaughter. In total the humanist/communist worldview standing behind the blanket of “reason” and “logic” has killed a minimum of 168 MILLION PEOPLE. Women, children, sick, cripple, and anyone else who disagreed with the communist way. Is this Bad? Please be consistent if you say it is bad was is your basis for such an assertion. To say anything is bad is inconsistent with the humanist worldview. Whenever you assert something to be bad you leave humanism and jump to an objective moral standard ie God. I recommend some hubs that may help you understand why humanism is morally bankrupt.

Be Well

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/WhereGodle

by an ex hubber

http://hubpages.com/hub/Atheism-is-Intellectual-Su...


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

Well, lots to cover in that comment, Spiderpam.

Yes, you can be bad with or without god, so I am not sure why that is the more interesting question.

Stalin killed millions not because of Darwinism or evolution (if that were true, then evolution would have been outlawed as a violent movement long ago in most civilized societies). Evolution is a theory that explains human origins and the development of life on this planet. It does not, in and of itself, lead to good or bad actions.

Stalin killed because he was a psychopath. Period. It has nothing to do with the philosophy of communism, and it has nothing to with evolution, and it has nothing to do with atheism or humanism. It has everything to do with a psycho who saw himself as consolidating a "revolution."

Your conflation of communism/ atheism/ evolution/ humanism is so contrived it is laughable.

"Please be consistent if you say it is bad was is your basis for such an assertion. To say anything is bad is inconsistent with the humanist worldview."

I assume that should read "what is your basis..." In any case, you either did not read my article, or did not read it closely enough. I answered your question in the section titled "The basis for morality in a secular world."

"Whenever you assert something to be bad you leave humanism and jump to an objective moral standard ie God."

Again, you clearly did not read closely enough because I dealt precisely with this topic in the article. Objective morality naturally arises from a secular mindset because the secular mindset deals with objective truths based on evidence. Religion will never naturally lead to objective morality (although it may get lucky) because it is all based on subjective experience and "revelation."

My question to you is: how do you know God wants you to be good?


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

Thanks for replying.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay00zBbIvXY

An atheist only has three places in which to base their standards and none of them can account for logic and thought, or reason let us look at them:

Nature- nature is defined for humans by the fives senses: touch, smell, sight, hear, taste. Thinking is not a sense found is nature thus you can't use it for any basis for thought or logic.

Society- Basically majority rule, but to use this for thought, logic or common sense majority cannot account for this world today. . When ever it’s tried, you get mass chaos is the next step "you don’t agree with society, you die." We would be just robots the void of individual thought. And whose to say which society idea is right, There is no standard to base in a majority rule. Another point to bring it home is: Why does every sane person have a conscience, even when it is not dictated by society?

Individualism- The most impossible, One individualism can never be wrong thus they can never be right everything is subjective. Atheist hate this, because by there very definition the claim an absolute NO GOD which means nothing when coming from an atheist. In our world today, can an atheist explain how personality could have ever evolved from the impersonal, or how order could have ever resulted from chaos?

Morality- I can’t say atheist are immortal, but your worldview supplies no basis for morality. NONE

A true atheist can never say something is bad or wrong, to say so this implies they must know what is good or right. That’s where they use Christian values to define their beliefs in the lack of values and the bible or God. To put it simple bad can only exist when there is first good ie rust can exist on a car, moth ridden clothes need clothes. Evil can only exist where there is good, Christians can tell what is bad because we know what is good. Atheist don’t have they luxury because their words are always subjective and an absolute can never be reached.

"Stalin killed because he was a psychopath. Period. It has nothing to do with the philosophy of communism, and it has nothing to with evolution, and it has nothing to do with atheism or humanism. It has everything to do with a psycho who saw himself as consolidating a "revolution.""

You're being intentional deceitful here, to say a person philosophy/worldview on life doesn’t effect how they act is a complete falsehood, and I'm pretty sure you knew that. Darwin's “survival of the fittest” ideas powerfully shaped the belief systems of mass murderers like Hitler, Trotsky, and Stalin. Also, the leading proponents of many evil and harmful philosophies and practices have based their beliefs squarely on evolution.

www.creationtips.com/tyrants.html

www.fixedearth.com/hlsm.html

You didn’t view the links. You are stuck justifying your worldview(which is to be excepted) despite the FACTS it has lead to the death of millions.

As for my view on evolutionism

hubpages.com/hub/Do-Christians-have-a-problem-with-Science-NO

And to your question. He revealed it in His Word.

"I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD." Jeremiah 31

I know you can't undestand this, but I do.

Be Well.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

Yes I viewed the links. They are unimpressive. Spiderpam, you are talking to someone who has heard all of these arguments (and many more) before.

You claim I have not read the links (which I did), but you clearly have not even read my article that you are commenting on! I addressed many of the issues you raise in the article. You should respond to the points I make in the article.

Also, a clarification: I AM NOT AN ATHEIST. I am an agnostic. So get that straight. Nevertheless, it is clear that god is not necessary for morality.

"I can’t say atheist are immortal, but your worldview supplies no basis for morality. NONE"

WRONG! Bad grammar, too. I assume you meant "can't say atheists are immoral" not immortal. I don't think atheists live forever.

But anyway, one possible basis for morality, AS I SAID IN THE ARTICLE, is humanity itself. A human-based morality (1) requires just as much or as little faith as a God-based morality, (2) is nonetheless superior to a God-based morality because the source and object of morality is the same in a human-based morality, but they are different in a God-based morality. I explained it in the article. Read it.

"A true atheist can never say something is bad or wrong, to say so this implies they must know what is good or right."

You still are not hearing me. An atheist or secularist can definitely say something is bad--we just have a different standard than you do. For me, the standard is humans (what is good for humans, what is bad for humans, etc). For you, the standard is God. My morality is more coherent and superior (as I explained in the article).

"Darwin's “survival of the fittest” ideas powerfully shaped the belief systems of mass murderers like Hitler, Trotsky, and Stalin. Also, the leading proponents of many evil and harmful philosophies and practices have based their beliefs squarely on evolution."

Just because someone THINKS evolution justifies this or that, does not mean that it does. Think of it this way, since you are a Christian: just because someone thinks Christianity justifies killing, doesn't mean that it does, right?

Anyway, evolution is an established fact so you better get used to it. It is a neutral fact--it is not good or evil in and of itself.

Now here is a link for you to check out. No one can be inspired to kill for atheism anymore than one can be inspired to kill for theism.

http://atheism.about.com/od/isatheismdangerous/a/A...

"And to your question. He revealed it in His Word."

Ok, so I asked: "How do you know God wants you to be good?"

You say: "It says so in the Bible."

Why should you accept the Bible?


Izombiheartzoey profile image

Izombiheartzoey 6 years ago

1. Secularity is a religious creation. Religions, which were in control of the known world at the time, became massively subdivided when Martin Luther staked up his thesis. Which issued the breakdown of authority of the priest class. Now all are equally godly and have the same religious authority. This demanded a need for secular institutions to be created to govern the masses when the theocracy died.

2. Can you be bad with god? Yes (I.E Crusades, Inquisition, Slavery)

3. Can you be good or bad with or with out god? Yes.

4. Nature is defined by a lot of people in a lot of different ways. To sum it up as sense-perceptions is to miss the point entirely.

5. Your definition of society is actually a definition of democracy. Many different governmental systems have thrived and died. Just because one system ended does not mean it didn't function more or less effectively while it lasted.

6. You definition of individualism seems more accurately a definition of pluralism. How you define individualism and its results for an atheist are downright confusing. I'm not offended mostly because I don't understand how you could possibly draw that inference.

7. Rape is bad because it hurts people. I know it is bad because I can imagine my self in the victims shoes. I would feel objectified, wrought with pain. Things which make someone feel other then human are bad. (lowercase g and b)good and Bad are different then (uppercase) Good and Evil. The latter is talking in moral absolutes and of course an atheist wouldn't talk in moral absolute because absolutes are negated by the atheistic individuals negation of theism. Anyone can talk of good and bad, its basic measurements of meaning one attaches to a situation. Belief is necessary for moral absolutes because it invokes a metaphysical stake the atheist is not willing to take stake in.

8. Darwin did not coin the phrase "survival of the fittest" Herbert Spencer did, who was talking about social Darwinism not evolution.

9. What harmful philosophy was based squarely on evolution?

10. Name one religion which hasn't committed or made possible an atrocity?

11. When Hitler took power Germany was a majority Christian country, while Hitler was in power the majority was the same, after the same also.

12. Stalinism differs significantly from communism to lump the two in the same category shows how little you know of the two.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

Izombiheartzoey:

I agree with some of your points, including the difference between communism and Stalinism (I assume directed at Spiderpam)

However, you seem to give preference to moral relativism or at the very least do not buy into moral absolutes. You say:

"Rape is bad because it hurts people. I know it is bad because I can imagine my self in the victims shoes. I would feel objectified, wrought with pain. Things which make someone feel other then human are bad."

But without some absolute moral standard, how can you say that? Spiderpam would say that moral absolutes require God. But I submit that we can have moral absolutes in the absence of God. In any case, without such an objective moral standard, how can you make an objective moral claim such as "things which make someone feel other than human are bad"?

"... absolutes are negated by the atheistic individuals negation of theism."

This is not true. Absolute truth does not depend on theism. If it were, then you as an atheist cannot accept almost any conclusion from science or any other objectively-oriented discipline.

"Belief is necessary for moral absolutes because it invokes a metaphysical stake the atheist is not willing to take stake in."

Again, blind faith in a "creator" is not necessary for moral absolutes. And metaphysics is most certainly not incompatible with the denial of a god. Countless atheists have and continue to think about (and answer) metaphysical questions--they just do it within an atheistic/ materialistic framework.


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

@ secular- Okay well I can see how this will end. I’ve heard it all before too and so you’re a novice. I’m sorry my “bad” grammar derailed you from answering my counter-points. I've address you're point of human morality. You must have missed it.

"Just because someone THINKS evolution justifies this or that, does not mean that it does. Think of it this way, since you are a Christian: just because someone thinks Christianity justifies killing, doesn't mean that it does, right?"

Before you conclude that they were Christians ask yourself, what teaching of Jesus Christ were they following. The bible teaches "you’ll know them by their fruit" so if they were Christians you can tell by the "fruit" left behind. But when you read all of Darwin’s writings Stalin, Hitler and the others killed in accordance with Darwin‘s teachings.

"Evolution is an established fact so you better get used to it. It is a neutral fact--it is not good or evil in and of itself"

Does saying over and over somehow make it true, because I hear that line all the time. I don't share your faith in the evolutionism model, and I stated why in the hub you said you read.

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Do-Christi...

You say you're agnostic, but you send me a link to an atheist site?

"Why should you accept the Bible?"

I accept the bible because it's true. Through relentless scrutiny(you should give the evolutionism model such scrutiny) the bible has stood the test of time.

Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood since the earth was founded? He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..... --- Isaiah 40:21-22

How did Isaiah know in 700 B.C. the earth is round? The scientists of Isaiah's day thought the earth was flat. They didn't discover the earth is round until the early 1500s when Magellan sailed around the world. How did Isaiah know something over 2000 years ahead of science?

...he suspends the earth over nothing. --- Job 26:7

During the time of Job, it was believed a god named Atlas held the earth on his shoulders! Nobody believed the earth "hangeth upon NOTHING!" Job is the oldest book in the Bible, written over 3500 years ago! How did Job know something that was IMPOSSIBLE to know during his day?

the LORD God formed the man [7] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. --- Genesis 2:7

November 1982, Reader's Digest had an article titled How Life on Earth Began. It stated that according to scientists at NASA's Ames Research Center the ingredients needed to form a human being can be found IN CLAY. The article said, "The Biblical scenario for the creation of life turns out to be NOT FAR OFF THE MARK."(Reader's Digest, November, 1982 p.116) No, it's "not far off the mark" - it's right on it! Scientists have laughed at the possibility of Genesis having any scientific credibility whatsoever - and yet, the more we learn, the more we find it to be SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT!

the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas.

--- Psalms 8:8

After reading Psalm 8:8, Matthew Maury, a U.S. Naval officer, set out to locate these curious "paths in the seas." He discovered the oceans have paths which flow through them. He became known as the "pathfinder of the seas". How did David (the writer of Psalms) know, over 2,000 years ago, there were "paths in the seas"? David probably never even saw an ocean! HOW DID HE KNOW?

All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again. --- Ecclesiastes 1:7

How did the writer of Ecclesiastes know the water cycle of condensation and evaporation? The sun evaporates water from the ocean, water vapor rises and becomes clouds. This water in the clouds falls back to the earth as rain, collects in rivers, and makes its way back to the ocean. This wasn't known until Galileo in 1630! How did the writer of Ecclesiastes know this in 1000 B.C. 2500 YEARS AHEAD OF SCIENCE???

"And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in RUNNING WATER." --- Leviticus 15:13

God said to wash the infected flesh in RUNNING WATER. Science didn't discover that until two men named Pasteur and Koch in the late 1800s. Doctors were washing their hands in a bowl of water and spreading the germs like wild fire. It wasn't until the invention of the microscope and the science of bacteriology that doctors started washing under RUNNING WATER. Leviticus was written around 1490 B.C. SCIENCE WAS ABOUT 3000 YEARS BEHIND!

"Go to the ant. . . gathereth her food in the harvest." --- Proverbs 6:6-8

Life's Nature Library "The Insects" (p.163) commenting on Proverbs 6 reads, "One of the entomological puzzles of the last century concerned this observation by Solomon. There was no evidence that ants actually harvested grain. In 1871, however, a British naturalist showed that Solomon had been right after all. . ." How did Solomon know that in 1000 B.C.? How did Solomon CLEARLY, detail a scientific FACT, that was IMPOSSIBLE for him to know in 1000 B.C.?

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood." --- Leviticus 17:11

That's the most accurate, scientific statement ever written about the blood!

It is the blood that carries on all the life processes of the body. It is the blood that causes growth, builds new cells, grows bone and flesh, stores fat, makes hair and nails. It is the blood that feeds and supports all the organs of the body. If the blood supply be cut off from an arm, that arm will immediately begin to die and rot. It is the blood that repairs the body. It is the blood that clots wounds, that grows new flesh, new skin and even new nerves. It is the blood that fights disease. When they give you a vaccine against a disease, they give you a shot into your blood stream.

For thousands of years, doctors treated people by a practice called "bleeding." They thought illnesses could be cured by removing blood. In 1799, less than 200 years ago, George Washington was literally bled to death. They bled poor George four times, the last time they took over a quart of his blood! They didn't know, but they were literally draining away his life by removing his blood. It wasn't until the early 1900's that a man named Dr. Lister discovered that the blood provides the bodies immune system - THE LIFE OF THE FLESH IS IN THE BLOOD!

The Birmingham Post Herald, February 26, 1988, told the story of Mike Thomas. Mike was working at a construction site when he fell 70 feet. As he was falling, a cable wrapped around his arm and severed his hand a few inches above the wrist. A fellow worker carried his severed hand to the hospital. Because of serious internal injuries, doctors couldn't at that time reattach Thomas's hand. Instead, they attached his hand to blood vessels on his abdomen wall to "keep it alive". Two months later, the doctors removed it from his abdomen and reattached it to his arm. According to the report, UAB was the first in the nation to perform such a task! Exactly what the Bible said in 1490 B.C.! Keep feeding that hand blood, and it'll stay alive - the LIFE of the FLESH is in the BLOOD! Don't you find that odd? What Moses wrote in 1490 B.C., the brightest minds man can produce, are just now discovering! How can that Amazing Book, written thousands of years ago, by men with such limited knowledge, be so far ahead the best mankind can produce in 6,000 years? From an article by Henry Morris

Not the mention the fulfilled prophesies, and the biblical and extra biblical sources that attest to the historicity of Jesus Christ. And you my friend proof the bible is true, the bible speaks of people just like you. But hey none of this will change your worldview. I write not for you but for those who may come across this and think you’re right. You’re not. I apologize ahead of time for grammar and/or spelling errors. I’m human and humans make all kinds of errors.


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

@ Izombi

1. Is this addressed to me?

2. I’ll make the same point as I did with secular.

Before you conclude that they were Christians ask yourself, what teaching of Jesus Christ were they following. The bible teaches "you’ll know them by their fruit" so if they were Christians you can tell by the "fruit" left behind. But when you read all of Darwin’s writings Stalin, Hitler and the others killed in accordance with Darwin‘s teachings.

Slavery is an interesting subject. When the bible seeks of slavery you have to understand the historical and biblical context. Slaves back then were volunteers who worked to either pay off debt or for security/protection few were slaves for life, and those that were held work outside the home, Also back then if you hit your slave the slave was set free, they were treated as family in most cases.

Now the slavery of the Americas was the exact opposite they were forced to come here, beaten and killed and bred like animals. All this can be directly correlated the evolutionary group think of the day. Blacks were considered sub-human or flat out animals(sound familiar). Do you know how slavery was abolished in Britain and beyond? By bible believing Christians. Thanks to real scientist they have concluded there is only one race the human race.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&actio...

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/racist.shtm...

3. Umm I never said you can’t act good, but it not logically consistent with a materialistic worldview. http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Todays-Top...

4,5.6 We disagree on this. I used an online dictionary.

7. Is this addressed to me if so.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Atheism-is-Intellectual-Su...

8. Ok read the full title of Darwin’s Origins book it’s technically the same thing.

9. Eugenics.

10. All man made religion lead to some form of atrocity. ALL. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay00zBbIvXY

11. Hitler was an a Catholic turned ardent evolutionist. Again I ask you if Hitler was a Christian what teaching of Jesus Christ was he following? None, but he was consistent with what he learn from Darwin’s doctrine.

12.The Definition of Stalinism is the "theory and practice of communism” by Joseph Stalin Are you trying to be funny?


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

Spiderpam:

I am happy to keep approving your comments, but please try to keep them a little shorter. Your last one was over 1400 words.

Now, back to the action:

"I’ve heard it all before too and so you’re a novice."

I'm a novice? Hardly, my friend. Nice try.

"I've address you're point of human morality."

Really? Where?

"Does saying [evolution] over and over somehow make it true"

No, the evidence makes it true. Look into it. Look into it from the science side, not from creationist websites.

All of the major criticisms of evolution made by creationists are either insignificant as far as the theory of evolution goes, or they are in fact baseless. For example, one criticism is that evolution has never been observed. In fact, evolution has been observed. So that criticism is just dishonest nonsense. Here is one example:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacter...

“Before you conclude that they were Christians ask yourself, what teaching of Jesus Christ were they following.”

You missed my point. I did not say “they” (whoever “they” are) are Christians or not. That’s totally irrelevant. I asked you: just because someone thinks Christianity justifies killing, doesn't mean that it does, right?

I assume you would say “no, just because someone thinks Christianity justifies killing does not mean that it actually does.” In the same way, just because somebody THINKS evolution, or germ theory, or the theory of relativity, or the law of gravity justifies murder, does not mean that it does. Maybe Hitler did think that the theory of evolution justified the murder of millions. So what? Just because Hitler thinks something, does that mean it is true?

“You say you're agnostic, but you send me a link to an atheist site?”

Haha, way to dodge the issue. You didn’t even address the point made in that article about theism and atheism.

Ok, let's review:

I asked: "How do you know God wants you to be good?"

You say: "It says so in the Bible."

I then ask: "Why should you accept the Bible?"

You respond: "The Bible has stood up to scrutiny." And you provide various examples of ideas in the Bible that later science confirmed.

There are a few BIG problems with your argument:

(1) Many other ancient texts like the Vedas or Greek mythology made similar predictions that were later confirmed by science. But you don't accept those as the word of God, do you?

(2) There are many predictions or ideas in the Bible that have been shown by science to be dead wrong.

For example, the Bible claims that the earth, sun, moon, and all the plants and animals on the earth were created in just 6 days! In reality, these things developed over many billions of years. Every single relevant scientific discipline has confirmed this--astronomy, geology, biology, genetics, etc.

The Bible also claims that the first woman was created from the rib of the first man. This is straightforwardly nonsense according to many scientific disciplines. If you accept only the Bible's claims that are confirmed by modern science, then you cannot accept many claims in the Bible.


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

I'll try to keep my comments shorter:

I'll called you a novice because I've heard nothing new.

“Really? Where?”

In the first post, in the links provided, if you disagree with what I presented that’s another thing, but don’t say I didn’t thoroughly address your points.

"No, the evidence makes it true. Look into it. Look into it from the science side, not from creationist websites."

Ahh The old “creationist can't be “real” scientists,” You do realize that the nearly every branch of science was discovered by a bible believing Christian, your argument there fails.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/can-c...

Provide proof that mutations can ADD useful genetic information to a DNA molecule.

I will not accept any speculative argument about the frequency of beneficial mutations, that requires too many assumptions and the probability of enough of these mutations happening to create a new body plan or internal organ is beyond impossible and would classify as a super miracle and I know you don’t believe in miracles.

Btw creationist do have many scientific journals, contrary to what the evo camp puts out.

http://creation.com/professional-peer-reviewed-sci...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj

Whether you believe it or not we have the same earth, the same fossils, and the same science when it comes to observational. But we have different worldviews that gage how we interpret those facts. For example we have found fossilized hammers and hats and a ham, which would suggest that fossils don't long to form. But evolutionists ignore these facts to save face. A more recent example is the discovery of dinosaurs soft tissue. I watched how and evolutionist woman on TV completely ignored the law of decay in order to stay consistent with her worldview despite facts to the contrary. To say that a scientists worldview doesn’t effect the way they interpret facts is a falsehood.

Again I addressed why I don’t have faith in evolutionism

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Do-Christi...

"Many other ancient texts like the Vedas or Greek mythology made similar predictions that were later confirmed by science. But you don't accept those as the word of God, do you?"

Please name ONE written before the bible, and has the same specific nature and detail as the bible. You can't.

“For example, the Bible claims that the earth, sun, moon, and all the plants and animals on the earth were created in just 6 days! In reality, these things developed over many billions of years. Every single relevant scientific discipline has confirmed this--astronomy, geology, biology, genetics, etc.

Really? Please refer to the hub link above. It’s a battle of worldview not facts.

“The Bible also claims that the first woman was created from the rib of the first man. This is straightforwardly nonsense according to many scientific disciplines. If you accept only the Bible's claims that are confirmed by modern science, then you cannot accept many claims in the Bible.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF7ODNmYF_g

As for woman being taken from the man. I do find it interesting that male is XY and female is XX.

The evolutionism model survives on ridicule, censorship, frauds and tax dollars, NOT facts.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

“I'll called you a novice because I've heard nothing new.”

Funny. I was about to say the same thing!

I doubt that you’ve heard nothing new. Many atheists and secularists are moral relativists, whereas I am arguing for moral absolutes in this article. And I haven’t heard certain key ideas I put forward here anywhere else.

“…don’t say I didn’t thoroughly address your points.”

Ok, let’s see. In the article I gave detailed inductive and deductive arguments why secular reason leads to objective morality, and why the is-ought problem means theistic morality is not superior to secular morality.

Your hubs in question are basically screeds against evolution and atheism and a defense of Christianity. Sorry, but I do not see how any of that addresses my argument. Unless you think that by just bashing atheism and insulting everything associated with it, you have preempted my argument altogether.

“… nearly every branch of science was discovered by a bible believing Christian, your argument there fails.”

Non-sequitur. Just because Christians created modern science does not mean that creationism is true.

“Provide proof that mutations can ADD useful genetic information to a DNA molecule.”

Ok, here you go:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infoth...

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

Look, the bottom line is that every time evidence has been produced refuting criticism, creationists have moved the goal post. Things like irreducible complexity, observation of evolution, the fossil record, intermediate organisms, etc--they have all been proven!

Science isn't perfect. But eventually you’ll realize evolution is real and the objections to it are NOT based on science.

I am well aware that creationists have journals. But I recommend that you look at sites supporting evolution, not just against it, just to get a different view of things if nothing else. I have looked at both sides of the argument, but you seem to only look at one. There are lots of FACTS supporting evolution, if you take a look.

“Please name ONE written before the bible, and has the same specific nature and detail as the bible. You can't.”

Be careful what you wish for, my friend: Both the Avesta and the Rig Veda were composed over 1000 years BC. That makes them—the ENTIRE works—as old or older than the oldest books of the Bible.

“Really? Please refer to the hub link above. It’s a battle of worldview not facts.”

I already read that link. There is absolutely nothing in that hub that deals with the age of the earth or the age of the sun or moon. The Bible claims they were created in less than 6 days. The facts say it took billions of years. End of story.

It violates countless physical and biological laws to say that a fully-grown human being can be generated from the rib of another. Like it or not, there are countless scientific falsehoods in the Bible. But you seem to only look at the cases where the Bible got lucky.

How about we get back to the topic of this hub?


Izombiheartzoey profile image

Izombiheartzoey 6 years ago

1. Some slaves were indentured servants, some slaves in america were also. Most slaved were captured during war, with in the convert or die method.

2. Eugenics serious? Darwin never made claim that evolution could be controlled.

3. Slavery in america started before Darwin wrote a book how could something which started before be based on a book written after it started? You might want to read about the abolition movement, both sides of the debate used Christian arguments to fight pro or con.

4. Manifest destiny.

5. Just because some one isn't a living embodiment of Christ does mean they are not a Christian.

6. I'm not a fan of moral absolutes. These things which are always measured in the same identical way from its inception all the way though the history of the thing being measured. Society and culture change too much for moral absolutes.

7. Science isn't absolute truth. They are theories to be tested, revised and tested again. I don't see how science could be called truth.


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

“I doubt that you’ve heard nothing new. Many atheists and secularists are moral relativists, whereas I am arguing for moral absolutes in this article. And I haven’t heard certain key ideas I put forward here anywhere else.”

You don’t seem to understand the history of having such ideas. All of the communist leaders were moral absolutist they claimed mankind was generally good and didn’t need a God to do so, but it has never worked because mankind is bent toward doing wrong a sin nature if you will. You seem to have the idea that you can do better than all of the mass murders before you. Don’t you think they thought the same as you. It’s called not learning from the past.

“ Just because Christians created modern science does not mean that creationism is true”

I know this, but you were trying to assert that Christians/creationist can’t be good scientist, we simply start out with a different worldview.

“Ok, here you go:”

Talk Origins is known for deception by omission here’s the whole story.

http://www.trueorigin.org/schneider.asp

Nylon? Just to let you know most evolutionists I’ve debated rarely use this as an example. I’ll show you why here. This genetic trait is a form of vital enzymes

exchange through plasmids which is a form of genetic recombination and adaptation. Which isn’t close to what is required for the evolutionism model.

http://creation.com/the-adaptation-of-bacteria-to-...

And before you try and get back up from that

http://creation.com/feedback-that-depends-on-what-...

“Things like irreducible complexity, observation of evolution, the fossil record, intermediate organisms, etc--they have all been proven!”

No it hasn’t, it’s been assumed and propagated as facts but not proven. If facts existed the evolutionist would remove the lies and known frauds out of the textbooks. The fossil record? Evolutionists stop using the fossil record too. Darwin’s Dilemma is a great documentary and show why evolutionist avoid using the fossil record( I have it and would be glad to send it to you, seriously.) Censorship is what keeps evolution going, not facts. Actually evolution has held science back for 150 years. When you can’t question or challenge a model knowledge ceases to grow.

“Science isn't perfect. But eventually you’ll realize evolution is real and the objections to it are NOT based on science.”

Define evolution first. My objections can only be scientifically based. I wasn’t always a Christian, like most renown creationist I was taught evolution(from what I now know were lies and frauds in my textbook) and I started to ask common sense questions like chicken or the egg, how/why would sex evolve, stuff like that and I then realized it took a lot of faith to believe in the evolutionism model, and most that do never really questioned it. “It is common for scientists who become evolutionary doubters (or creationists) to react like this author:

“I was an atheist, brainwashed by the establishment, into my 40s.....I was once debating “evolution” with a friend, and I was spouting all the platitudes I had been taught. He said, “Look, rather than debating me, why don’t you read a book, Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton”? I assumed that it would be some nonsensical religious hogwash, but I was in for a big surprise.

I devoured the book in a couple of days, and when I was finished I slapped myself on the forehead and thought, “I’ve been conned all my life!”

In fact, anyone who awakes from brainwashing, like those in Communist or Muslim countries, or even from heavy-handed Christian churches, reacts similarly. When you are taught what to think instead of how, and what you are being taught does not line up with your experience, your cognitive dissonance starts to wake you up.”

“I have looked at both sides of the argument, but you seem to only look at one. There are lots of FACTS supporting evolution, if you take a look”

HOW did you look at both sides? There are a lot of assumptions and half truths that are propagated as facts to the massed that claim support evolutionism. But if you look at the whole picture you’ll see that evolution is a joke.

“Both the Avesta and the Rig Veda were composed over 1000 years BC. That makes them—the ENTIRE works—as old or older than the oldest books of the Bible.”

Really let see some of their prophecies, and from what I read most of their writings became apart of the Islamic faith and the quran which plagiarized most of their writings from where? That’s right the first 5 books of the old testament. Nice try though.

“There is absolutely nothing in that hub that deals with the age of the earth or the age of the sun or moon. The Bible claims they were created in less than 6 days. The facts say it took billions of years. End of story.”

No not end of story, prove that the Earth is old. But before you get on Talk Origins.

Radioactive elements with short half-lives, like 14C, can only be used to determine young ages. Carbon 14 doesn't last long enough to measure old ages. More stable elements, like 206lead, which have very long half-lives, are used in age calculations that yield values in billions of years. They can't be used for short intervals because not enough of the element decays in a short time to be measured. This means that the range of possible outputs from the calculations will depend upon the half-life of the element you choose. Therefore, the choice of the dating method determines how old the rock will appear to be. This is not a valid approach for a scientist to take. It does not give an independent confirmation of the age of the rock. Selecting a dating method based on the presumed age of the rock merely puts a numerical value on a subjective prejudice. Radioactive methods cannot determine the age of rocks because there is a fundamental flaw in the method. Yes, we know how rapidly radioactive elements decay. Yes, we can measure the amount of the isotopes in the rock now. But without knowing how much of each isotope was there to begin with, it isn't possible to tell how long the decay has been going on because we don't know how much of the daughter product is the result of decay.

You have to understand it all about worldview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tctDVmaOHc

“Like it or not, there are countless scientific falsehoods in the Bible. But you seem to only look at the cases where the Bible got lucky”

To say the bible got “lucky” is very disingenuous. The evolutionism model runs on blind faith and dumb luck, and survives by ridicule, frauds, lies, censorship, and half truths.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZwH6eFo-k8


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

@ Izom-

I’ll answer the ones I think are addressed to me.

1. Some slaves were indentured servants, some slaves in America were also. Most slaved were captured during war, with in the convert or die method.

Where did get that from? Slavery in the Americas is rooted from evolutionary thinking

2. Eugenics serious? Darwin never made claim that evolution could be controlled.

the term eugenics was coined by Darwin’s own cousin, Francis Galton, who acknowledged his debt to Darwin's book for the idea.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0510eugen...

3. Slavery in America started before Darwin wrote a book how could something which started before be based on a book written after it started?

You do realize how evolutionary ideas has been around right?

“About 5,000 years ago the Sumarians originated many Pagan religions and beliefs. One of these beliefs or religions was the Myth of Evolution. According to the Sumarian Epic, life originated in water and then evolved to land creatures. This same concept was also accepted by Ancient Greek Philosophers called "Materialists". Thus Ancient Greece became the junction point of Materialist philosophy and the Myth of Evolution. The Pagan Romans later chose to embrace this same Myth in their dynasty. These 2 idol worshiping Pagan cultures heavily influenced the modern world in the 18th century. Some European intellectuals were influenced by ancient Greek sources who accordingly adopted Materialism with one common belief. They were completely against the very idea of a monotheistic religion. The book by Par M. Mirabaud named System de la Nature was considered the principal source of atheism. In this context, the French biologist Jean Baptiste Lemarck was the first person to give a detailed account to evolution. Lemarcks theory, which was later refuted, did maintain the idea that living creatures evolved from one another with slight variations until they created a new species.

It was Charles Darwin that later revealed Lemarcks views in his own theory back in 1859 in England through his book named Origin Of The Species.” Excerpt from the article The Myth of Evolution and the Conspiracy Behind It.

"You might want to read about the abolition movement, both sides of the debate used Christian arguments to fight pro or con." Yes, but the true Christian message won out, not the out of context version the pro-slavery folks tried to use.

5. Just because some one isn't a living embodiment of Christ does mean they are not a Christian.

What do think being a Christian is? It’s more than just lip service.


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

@ secular- correction "HOW did you look at both sides? There are a lot of assumptions and half truths that are propagated as facts to the masses via TV, cartoons, movies etc., that are claimed to support evolutionism. But if you look at the whole picture you’ll see that evolution is a joke."


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

Spiderpam:

You still aren't quite getting it. Whatever the communist view of human nature is or isn't, it is irrelevant to this discussion. I am not a communist. My point stands: many secularists and atheists today are moral relativists.

"... you were trying to assert that Christians/creationist can’t be good scientist"

Stop trying to read my mind, start trying to read my words. I never argued that Christians can't be good scientists. Never. And there are countless Christians who are not creationists.

You might be right about the nylon bacteria. I'm not a scientist. But the evolutionists make a compelling argument on that point. Maybe they're wrong, but that's ok. The important point is that the arguments against evolution do not remotely stack up to the evidence in favor of it.

What you and all creationists need to understand is this: no scientific theory is perfect. Creationists make a number of good and compelling arguments, which are certainly legitimate. But in the main their objections come from an inability to accept evolution overall, not a true scientific effort at uncovering the truth. And this, in turn, is because evolution clashes with their deeply-held religious beliefs.

I know this because similar, legitimate arguments could be made against a large number of scientific theories--germ theory, the theory of relativity, theories of genetics, radioactivity, electromagnetism, and more. They all have holes, and examples could be generated against all of them. But only one so directly clashes with the Biblical narrative--evolution. And almost all creationists are devout Christians. What a coincidence.

Your simplistic conflation of evolution with everything evil in the world (and paranoia about "brainwashing" and "lies" and rest of it) shows this is not an essentially scientific issue for you, or for creationists in general--it is about saving your religious beliefs.

Rigveda and Avesta: you asked for detailed religious texts older than the Bible. Well, you've got it. Now you are moving the goal post. What Muslims did with those texts centuries later is irrelevant. In fact, the Old Testament itself borrowed many ideas and metaphors from these earlier faiths.

"No not end of story, prove that the Earth is old."

I don't have to. It's already been proven. And confirmed by thousands of scientists over many decades, working on many different questions, in different fields, under different circumstances, using different tools and models. If that's not enough for you, then you are not interested in truth. You are interested in dogma. Nothing will ever convince you of anything.

I would be willing to continue the discussion about evolution and science generally ELSEWHERE, in another post or forum. This hub was not supposed to be about science. If you wish to continue discussing, then please try to stay on the topic of morality and rights, the topic of this hub.


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

“Your simplistic conflation of evolution with everything evil in the world (and paranoia about "brainwashing" and "lies" and rest of it) shows this is not an essentially scientific issue for you, or for creationists in general--it is about saving your religious beliefs….scientific theories--germ theory, the theory of relativity, theories of genetics, radioactivity, electromagnetism, and more. But only one so directly clashes with the Biblical narrative--evolution. And almost all creationists are devout Christians. What a coincidence”

The difference between those theories and the evolutionism model is none of those theories have ever went to the length of fraud so their theories would believed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1RUhkgqjug

Why? Because the evolutionism model is NOT science!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5PKukgkEbU

“Rigveda and Avesta: you asked for detailed religious texts older than the Bible. Well, you've got it. Now you are moving the goal post. What Muslims did with those texts centuries later is irrelevant. In fact, the Old Testament itself borrowed many ideas and metaphors from these earlier faiths.”

Nice try, but let’s look at the original convo

YOU- "Many other ancient texts like the Vedas or Greek mythology made similar predictions that were later confirmed by science. But you don't accept those as the word of God, do you?"

ME-“Please name ONE written before the bible, and has the same specific nature and detail as the bible. You can't. “ and I’m still waiting.

“I don't have to. It's already been proven. And confirmed by thousands of scientists over many decades, working on many different questions, in different fields, under different circumstances, using different tools and models. If that's not enough for you, then you are not interested in truth. You are interested in dogma. Nothing will ever convince you of anything”

Say “16 billions years ago“, aloud. When you say it don’t you think of long ago and far away? That’s usually the premise of a fairy tale and in the case of the evolutionism model for the age of the earth is no exception.

“Time is the god of evolutionists. The evolutionists' claim their time-god is very slow but infinitely powerful. The time-god is credited with the ability to accomplish anything and everything given enough time. It simply takes the time-god millions or billions of years to accomplish it. Scientifically impossible events are credited to the time-god. Evolutionists keep their time-god close at hand where they can watch their god's hands move around slowly, slowly, slowly trying to evolve new species but never succeeding.”

Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly. What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible. Don't believe that nonsense. Or least question it and look at flaws of dating methods. First you ask yourself how does the atmosphere affect the formation of Carbon 14?

Carbon decays so fast that it's not plausible that it would last 100,000 years let alone the millions evolutionist need to prove their model. That's why it can be used to date thing like the dead sea scrolls and other biblical archeological sight finds. Understand that when you using any dating method to date any older than 100,000 years a lot of assumptions must be in play from the evolutionists, and where do the assumptions come from? That’s right, Their worldview. No one was there in the beginning(except the Creator) so it’s all a guess at best. Only the creation account has a basis for our assumptions.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating...

http://creation.com/flaws-in-dating-the-earth-as-a...

“You still aren't quite getting it. Whatever the communist view of human nature is or isn't, it is irrelevant to this discussion. I am not a communist. My point stands: many secularists and atheists today are moral relativists.”

Oh I get it, but your arguments are not convincing me you want to claim moral absolutism, but in a most recent study was conducted by the University of Minnesota, which found that non-believers ranked lower than “Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in ’sharing their vision of American society.’ Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.” The results from two of the most important questions”

Atheist: 39.6%

Muslims: 26.3%

Homosexuals: 22.6%

Hispanics: 20%

Conservative Christians: 13.5%

Recent Immigrants: 12.5%

Jews: 7.6%

I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group….

Atheist: 47.6%

Muslim: 33.5%

African-American 27.2%

Asian-Americans: 18.5%

Hispanics: 18.5%

Jews: 11.8%

Conservative Christians: 6.9%

Whites: 2.3%

Indeed, many(if not most) atheists are no better than the rabid religious fanatics they so decry. They are just as fanatical and intolerant. Many employ an incredible amount of hard-hitting rhetoric about the necessity to rid society of the "disease called religion". And the nonbelievers(typically atheists) love to point how some atheistic country have been peaceful, but they leave out that before that country dropped God they were indeed founded on Christian principles and biblical doctrines and as soon as they left God the country soon collapsed usually a very bloody collapse, and is then reestablished by another religion.

http://www.asanet.org/press/20060503.cfm

Do you want to know why people distrust and even hate the nonbeliever(I don‘t hate you)? It’s not because of fear, or the PC notion of “tolerance” or that you guys aren’t presenting a good enough spin on your non-belief beliefs. It’s because everyone KNOWS there is God(even you), and they even know who that God is the God of the bible, God created us to worship Him freely of our own will, if you don’t find yourself worship God you’re worshipping something, and yes people try to a twist God to suit their lifestyle or they’ll worship another god(for reasons like upbringing, cult life, they’re in false religions claiming to be Christian, brainwashing, a hatred of the true God so they’ll go with anything else, etc.) It’s written on our hearts AND minds, and to hear that there are people(like you) who would deny such a basic, absolute truth breeds contempt and distrust and the history of past atheist leaders turned mass murders doesn’t help. And for you to claim you have some superior moral ground is frankly(not to be rude) a joke.

Yes sir I get it, but the real question is will you ever get it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1G4mAeAHpCQ

I think we’re done here, if you want to continue I’m game, but I think were both locked into our own worldview.

Be Well.


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

*Correction* God created us to worship Him freely of our own will, if you don’t find yourself worshipping the One True God, you’re worshipping something/someone else, and yes people try to a twist God to suit their lifestyle or they’ll worship another god for reasons like upbringing, cult life, they’re in false religions claiming to be Christian, brainwashing, a hatred of the true God so they’ll go with anything else(including atheism) The truth of God is written on our hearts AND minds.....


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

Spiderpam:

I will try to respond to a few relevant points, but your writing is getting very unstable. I know you are trying to be funny by sticking in a "correction" after each comment (which isn't even a full correction, and doesn't even come close to correcting all your grammatical errors, but whatever). I really don't care about your grammatical mistakes unless it prevents a solid understanding of what you are saying. Please stop acting so childishly. Keep that to your own hubs.

FAIR WARNING: any comment that is more than 1000 words (including quotes and links--all words) will be deleted. You should be able to say everything you need to say in under 1000 words EASILY. Even shorter and more to-the-point would be better. And I will delete irrelevant and useless "corrections." For reference, your previous comment was over 1100 words.

I am happy to give you a forum to speak your mind [hey! I thought evolutionists were against free speech?!], but I don't want this page to be monopolized by anyone.

========================

"The difference between those theories and the evolutionism model is none of those theories have ever went to the length of fraud so their theories would believed."

There goes that obsession with lies and fraud again. Lies and fraud have been conspicuous throughout the scientific world for centuries. But only one theory--evolution--has enjoyed special scrutiny from a cadre of devout Christians. I wonder why.

Avesta: Ok, thanks for reminding me. Here are some Zoroastrian prophecies, some are pretty accurate:

http://www.avesta.org/zcomet.html

Here's a connection between the Hindu scriptures and the Prophet Muhammad:

http://www.prophetmuhammadforall.org/webfiles/down...

You asked for one text. I have now given you two. I should also mention it's not very difficult to make a prophecy. Here I'll make one now: several thousand years from now, after a period of troubled weather, crop failures and famine, there will be a period of great political upheaval and a powerful empire will fall. See how easy it is? You just have to understand human nature and the fact that history repeats itself.

Anyway, if you're so big on "fulfilled" prophecies, why not worship Nostradamus?

"Say “16 billions years ago“, aloud. When you say it don’t you think of long ago and far away? That’s usually the premise of a fairy tale and in the case of the evolutionism model for the age of the earth is no exception."

Haha, who the hell thinks it's 16 billion years old? The age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years. And it has nothing to do with evolution! It's a completely separate issue. Why are you so obsessed with evolution?

I'd like to see you debate a panel of geologists and chemists on the topic of radioactive dating.

"And for you to claim you have some superior moral ground is frankly a joke."

You can call names all you like. But you still...STILL... have failed to mount a reasonable argument against my article on secular morality... STILL!!

You are just too hung up on science and evolution and other things that are totally irrelevant to the topic of this hub.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

Izombiheartzoey:

"I'm not a fan of moral absolutes... Society and culture change too much for moral absolutes."

The changes of human history do cause changes in moral values, but it does not follow that therefore moral absolutes do not exist. If one society believes that child molestation is bad, and the other believes it's ok, would you say that they are both equally legitimate?

"Science isn't absolute truth. They are theories to be tested, revised and tested again. I don't see how science could be called truth."

Neither do I. I never said that "science is absolute truth." I indicated that science pursues absolute truth. In other words, science assumes that absolute truth exists. If you believe there is no such thing as absolute truth, then you cannot accept almost any scientific finding, because the assumption of the scientific process is 180 degrees opposed to your assumption.

And you have not answered my question: without an objective moral standard, how can you make an objective moral claim such as "things which make someone feel other than human are bad"?


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 6 years ago from South Africa

What a fascinating Hub and interesting discussion it has precipitated! Spiderpam has one point in her favour - the discussion is about differing world views. The problem is that one world view is based on faith alone, the other on science and testable theories. No question about which world view I prefer!

I do have a bit of a problem with the idea of moral absolutes, which you wrote of in your comment to the zombie heart person. A moral absolute would have to apply in all situations. That way lies absolutism and exactly the kind of historical disasters of Hitler and Stalin. Not to mention the Divine Right of Kings, etc. An objective morality can and should have standards which are applied objectively (which I would take to mean fairly) taking into account the situation to which they are being applied.

An objective moral standard would be that stealing is wrong, as it infringes the rights of another person. If it becomes an absolute, then a starving person stealing to feed his or her children would be as "wrong" as a person stealing for self-enrichment. I know this argument opens a whole can of worms, but I don't think it is to far fetched.

Absolutism also creeps into science - if we make Darwin's view of evolution an absolute then we negate all the advances that have been made since his time. Evolutionary science has moved a long way since Darwin's time with especially the increased understanding of the role of DNA in evolution.

For me the whole point of science is that it is not about absolutes but about testable theories which, in the testing process, increase our knowledge and understanding.

This is not an argument for a total moral relativism, but for an understanding that morality also evolves - after all until the 19th Century slavery was accepted as morally defensible. Sexual morality is also evolving, as we can see in our own time.

Thanks for a stimulating Hub

Love and peace

Tony


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

Ahh now you’re getting angry. I'm not a typist, I prefer to write with pen and paper. The corrections were just that, corrections. You pointed out my grammatical errors(and I thank you) I said I'm not perfect and I make a lot of them so I just tried to correct what I could. And I apologize for spelling or grammatical errors, sincerely, Stop trying to read my mind and read my post.

“There goes that obsession with lies and fraud again. Lies and fraud have been conspicuous throughout the scientific world for centuries. But only one theory--evolution--has enjoyed special scrutiny from a cadre of devout Christians. I wonder why”

Why? Because evolutionism is an anti-bible/God philosophy disguised as science. You refused to question your faith in the evolutionism model. You seem to offended when I refer to the lies and frauds. That’s what they are how would you described them? While you’re thinking of a defense for those lies and frauds, think what ever happened to fool me once?

As for Avesta did you read those “prophecies” or were you hoping I wouldn’t. I asked for One text that had specific prophecies of the same nature of the bible. I‘m still waiting. Nostradamus? You do you know when he lived, right? His prophecies were more vague then the only you tried to present.

“Haha, who the he** thinks it's 16 billion years old? The age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years. And it has nothing to do with evolution! It's a completely separate issue. Why are you so obsessed with evolution”

No sir evolutionist say the big bang happened 16-20 billion years ago. The age is very important to the evolutionism model “Time is the god of evolutionists. The evolutionists' claim their time-god is very slow but infinitely powerful. The time-god is credited with the ability to accomplish anything and everything given enough time. It simply takes the time-god millions or billions of years to accomplish it. Scientifically impossible events are credited to the time-god. Evolutionists keep their time-god close at hand where they can watch their god's hands move around slowly, slowly, slowly trying to evolve new species but never succeeding.”

“I'd like to see you debate a panel of geologists and chemists on the topic of radioactive dating”

Actually I’m was a competitive debater and was pretty successful. Thank you.

Why can’t non-believers and evolutionists win a debate against Christians/Creationist.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Why-cant-they-win-a-debate

“You can call names all you like.”

I called you names? Where? I see you edited my “not to be rude” in order to make it seem that way.

Thank you for your time, but I can see you’re getting to that point all the nonbelievers get to when they’re losing. They get all high and mighty and throw out few insults. See I told you I knew how this would end.. Be Well.

@ Tonymac Actually both worldviews required faith and if you were as skeptic of evolutionism as you are of the bible ,you would see that the evolutionism model requires more faith.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

Spiderpam:

Nope, not angry. Nice try. But your writing has been all over the place. I'm just trying to keep some order here.

"Why? Because evolutionism is an anti-bible/God philosophy disguised as science."

:) MY CASE RESTS! The truth comes out! The underlying reason creationists argue against evolution is because it clashes with their religious beliefs. It is not a truly genuine attempt at scientific inquiry. There are certainly holes and shortcomings in the theory of evolution, but overall the theory is very strong, although you will never admit it. But creationism is not, at bottom, a scientifically-motivated enterprise.

Once again, you're trying to read my mind. I have already seen most of the arguments and pseudo-arguments you have put forward here previously, and I have looked at the evidence. The evidence is on the side of evolution. But you will never see that if you only look at anti-evolution sources and never at pro-evolution ones.

Avesta: yes, I read the page. Did you? The WHOLE thing? All "prophecies" are vague--that's why they can be said to be successful. A successful prophecy is almost by definition very vague so that future generations can see it as "successful."

Face it, my friend: the Bible isn't special. Yes, it has many unique features and qualities. It's written in a unique style versus, say, the Quran. But fundamentally it's just another ancient religious text written by primitive barbarians.

"No sir evolutionist say the big bang happened 16-20 billion years ago."

Evolutionists don't say anything about the Big Bang. Cosmologists and astronomers do. Get off of evolution. And how on earth does the Big Bang have anything to do with the biological/ genetic theory of evolution? Normally Christians like you embrace the Big Bang because on the surface it seems to support a creator. The "time-god" you talk of only indicates your lack of understanding of the theory of evolution, and stop copying the same block of text over and over lol! It's really unseemly. Fresh content is always better.

"Actually I’m was a competitive debater and was pretty successful. Thank you."

So was I. Good for you.

Why do evolutionists fail in debates so often? Well, they often win, but probably because those particular people aren't very good at debating.

But more importantly, isn't it interesting that whenever creationists and evolutionists meet in court, evolution always wins? When all the evidence comes out, and there is unlimited time to see all the details and nuances of each argument, evolution always wins.

Here's a great video from a few years ago that everybody should see about the court battles to that point, and what it means for evolution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Anyway, I see that you are simply incapable of mounting a serious challenge to my ideas on secular morality (BTW that means getting a little more detailed than ranting about "evil" communists). That's why you keep dodging the issue and going off on tangents about evolution, the Big Bang, the Talk Origins website, etc.

So I guess that means I win.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

Tonymac:

Good to see you.

"An objective moral standard would be that stealing is wrong, as it infringes the rights of another person. If it becomes an absolute, then a starving person stealing to feed his or her children would be as "wrong" as a person stealing for self-enrichment."

I think what you are really getting at is an overly simplistic morality, not an objective/ absolute morality. If you say "thou shalt not steal" obviously that is excessively simplistic and not workable, for the reason you indicated. But if you say "taking private property without consent for one's own personal greed is wrong on some level" that is much more nuanced and effective, but still objective and not subjective. It applies in all such scenarios, regardless of place or time.

"For me the whole point of science is that it is not about absolutes but about testable theories which, in the testing process, increase our knowledge and understanding."

As I said to zombie, science is very much about absolute/ objective truth. Just because it is hesitant to make a final conclusion about some question, and just because it proceeds in a cautious manner, does not change its ultimate goal. If science did not work with the assumption that an absolutely right answer to a question exists, then we could not say that "light moves at speed X" we could only say that "sometimes light moves at speed X, but maybe somewhere else it moves at speed Y--we may never know."

And yes, people's morals do evolve, but that does not mean that all those morals are equally legitimate. Today we believe that chattel slavery is wrong. I would submit that it was always wrong, objectively, since the beginning of time, but people were just too primitive/ ignorant to realize it. The same goes for women's rights, religious tolerance, etc.


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

“Face it, my friend: the Bible isn't special. Yes, it has many unique features and qualities. It's written in a unique style versus, say, the Quran. But fundamentally it's just another ancient religious text written by primitive barbarians”.

The bible wasn't written by "primitive barbarians", but kings, doctors and common Jews and Gentiles. Christianity grew even in the face of relentless persecution. The Romans tried to cover that FACT that Jesus rose from the dead. They tried to silence the 500+ witnesses of the resurrected Christ, but the people knew what saw and were willing to die(not kill) for that truth.

You really are not being truthful here. Prophecies of the bible were not vague, but were very specific, and to deny this fact is wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYdzUYyIKMM

http://www.bibleprobe.com/over-300-prophecies.pdf

“MY CASE RESTS! The truth comes out! The underlying reason creationists argue against evolution is because it clashes with their religious beliefs. It is not a truly genuine attempt at scientific inquiry. There are certainly holes and shortcomings in the theory of evolution, but overall the theory is very strong, although you will never admit it. But creationism is not, at bottom, a scientifically-motivated enterprise.”

Where did I deny my Christian worldview? You have a non-Christian worldview and so do many(if not all) of the evolutionary “scientist”. And if you think for one second that their worldview doesn’t gage how they’ll interpret facts you’re fooling yourself. I was taught evolutionism my entire school life, but once I started to question it and realized it’s not science at all, but a secular philosophy disguised as science. You keep saying “get off evolution,” but it’s your very belief in evolution that has lead you to your denial of the One True God. They are connected. You have to believe in the evolutionism model because you really have no other choice, as the non believer(unless you want to “phone home“), so you’ll ignore, deny, and even defend the many falsehoods(or holes as you call them) of evolutionism because it’s all you have. I could have chosen many other creation models(day-age, progressive, theistic evolutionism etc) but that’s not where the evidence leads.

You don’t understand the evolutionism model, if you did you would know that evolutionism cannot account for the immaterial. In a purely materialistic worldview you cannot account for the immaterial. Reason, logic thought, ideas these things transcend nature and are not of nature by their very definition. So the fact that can reason(although futile) is proof of a Creator. You have sit in God‘s lap in order to spit in His face. “A society which denies the reality of an external source of conscience often becomes a hell on earth(hence all my earlier references). Where does sacrificial love come into such a society? Or the benefit of humanity/society? Why be sacrificial in a society which teaches any lifestyle is acceptable? The God of Christianity extols self sacrifice. This seems to be the opposite of what evolution would produce. The Bible is full of examples of loving sacrifices but nowhere can the concept of survival of the fittest be seen as a characteristic of God. An evolving person without the immaterial conscience would be free to covet belongings, steal other possessions, and even kill another person without guilt. In other words an animal. A man with the immaterial conscience is hesitating and soul searching. Where is the individual having the conscience? The conscience serves as a detriment to survival, not a mechanism which increases an individual's ability to survive. Unless the universe has been created by God who has established inherent values of right and wrong, it would seem there is no survival value to the development of a conscience. Since the conscience did not(cause there is no objective proof), would not(because the directly conflicts with the evolutionism model) evolve, then it must have always existed. What could be the source of that which always existed and defines good from evil? The question itself defines the characteristic of God.” from an article from John Adams

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F8zEC4L2fs

Yes I read the article(and for the reasons listed earlier and above) and I‘m not convinced. Why? I read a presumptuous article from a non-believer who ridicules anyone who doesn’t agree with him, but one thing did stick out though;

“This helps to explain why, in spite of all instincts to the contrary, a perfectly rational and sane person who subscribes to a god-based morality will be willing to kill a baby if that's what god wants. He is not working for the benefit of humanity, he is working for the benefit of his god.”

This is a strawman and utterly false. You get upset when I lumped you with atheist(because of a shared unbelief in the biblical God), but here you try to lump Christians with the baby killing pagan religions of the old testament and the current state of some voodoo nations. If you can’t tell the difference between true Christianity and pagan baby killers you’ll have a hard time proving you have an intellectual let alone a moral high ground.

Ken Miller? I don’t think so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxRl-sPtWr4

A refutation is very easy to find

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1...

This will be my last post, I do wish you all the best though.

Be Well.

Word Count: 879


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

Spiderpam:

BTW, I've heard the so-called "evidence" for the resurrection ad nauseam. Unimpressive. Even when coming from a big intellect like Dr Craig.

"The bible wasn't written by "primitive barbarians", but kings, doctors and common Jews and Gentiles."

Yes, all of whom were primitive barbarians who gleefully tortured and killed people who didn't believe as they did; who bought and sold women as property; who condoned the rape of foreign women, etc, etc.

"You keep saying “get off evolution,” but it’s your very belief in evolution that has lead you to your denial of the One True God. They are connected."

No it's not; and no they are not. How can you seriously claim to know how I have come to believe anything? For your information, I was agnostic long before I even heard of evolution. This notion that "evolution leads to atheism" is simply simplistic creationist propaganda. Especially since atheists and agnostics were around centuries before evolution as a theory was. And what about the millions of theists and Christians who accept evolution?

Oh yes, on prophecies of the "Jewish messiah" isn't it interesting that Jews themselves don't think Jesus meets the criteria? Maybe it's not as rock solid as you think... as if ancient Jewish prophecies mean anything in the first place.

"You don’t understand the evolutionism model, if you did you would know that evolutionism cannot account for the immaterial. In a purely materialistic worldview you cannot account for the immaterial."

Whoa! Totally different topic, Spiderpam. Evolution has nothing to do with material vs immaterial. Evolution is a materialist theory answering a materialist question through materialist means. Pretty simple.

"Why be sacrificial in a society which teaches any lifestyle is acceptable?"

Well, I don't believe any lifestyle is acceptable, and if you're trying to say that evolution leads to moral relativism, I think that's a bit of a stretch (to put it mildly).

"The God of Christianity extols self sacrifice. This seems to be the opposite of what evolution would produce...The conscience serves as a detriment to survival, not a mechanism which increases an individual's ability to survive."

Yet again, you show your misunderstanding of evolution better than I could ever do. It is a myth that evolution comes down to a brutal struggle among individuals. Logic and anthropology and archaeology and others show that those communities where people helped each other and cooperated with each other had a better chance of survival than those communities where no one helped each other or cared about each other. Pretty simple. But again, that's the current model of evolution, which creationists don't seem to care much about. They're more interested in myths, obfuscation and inflammatory rhetoric about "evil godless scientists."

"Since the conscience did not(cause there is no objective proof), would not(because the directly conflicts with the evolutionism model) evolve, then it must have always existed."

Nope; it is entirely reasonable to expect a conscience to evolve precisely because it works with the evolution model, as I just said above.

"...you try to lump Christians with the baby killing pagan religions of the old testament and the current state of some voodoo nations."

Lol, "voodoo nations"? What are voodoo nations? Haiti? New Orleans? Anyway, you missed what I meant by that, unsurprisingly. It was a hypothetical. If anyone--a Christian, a Muslim, a polytheist, anybody who derives morality not from humanity, but from this thing outside of humanity--thinks that god wants the baby dead, they'll do it. Christian history has shown that when Christians thought God wanted them to kill, they killed (the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc). This is indisputable. And we know the reason why--because there is no fundamental standard of knowledge upon which to claim that God wants peace.

"If you can’t tell the difference between true Christianity and pagan baby killers you’ll have a hard time proving you have an intellectual let alone a moral high ground."

Well, I'm pretty sure I have proven that on this hub--on both counts. And yes, you STILL have not really taken on my main argument here.

Which, as I said, probably means that I win.

Ken Miller: Haha, that video is the best you got? Some deceptive quote mining interspersed with a smooth-talking preacher? Please.

"This will be my last post"

For some reason I doubt that... lol


nowisthetime34 profile image

nowisthetime34 6 years ago from USA

spiderpam and secularist-

Allow me to point out some errors.

1.First let say this was a really good read.

2. Secular I think you were trying to use spiders grammatical errors(and there were some) as a form of ridicule, but I have to say they did not distract me from understanding her points.

3. Spiderpam your post were too long.

4. Secular you stated that evolution is NOT about about survival. That is not true and in fact that is what natural selection teaches. Have you read Darwin's book? Evolutionary scientists have not changed this fact of the theory.

5. "Yes, all whom were primitive barbarians who gleefully tortured and killed people who did not believe as they did; who bought and sold women as property; who condoned the rape of foreign women, etc, etc"]

This is more true of atheist leaders of the past century, then any religion you can think of. If you read the bible in context, instead of quote mining the parts that appear to make your case it would show a bit more honesty on your part.

6.Of course Jews did not accept Jesus it was prophesied in the bible and Jesus would be rejected by His own people(i.e. The Jews).

7.The big bang may be part of the materialistic series but it's not apart of the evolution model, really, but it is referenced by the evolutionist.

8. The Crusades and the inquisitions were Catholic wars, not Christian, theologians would agree on that much.

9. I do not think either of you really read the others links. If you did there would have been a lot less repetition.

10. God doesn't want earthly man-made peace. He will established that when He returns and until then He gives Christians eternal peace.

11. "Today we believe that chattel slavery is wrong. I would submit that it was always wrong, objectively, since the beginning of time, but people were just too primitive/ ignorant to realize it."

Mmm do you have a job? Then you are a slave(in a sense) and biblical slavery is more like that then the racist slavery of not too long ago. I think they were the primitive ones.

12. You both did a too many generalizations of each other which would explain why there was such hostility.

13. From just reading through and viewing all the links and sources I would say spiderpam won. Not just because we share a similar worldview, but she was able to cast doubt on most of secular's arguments, She was more logically consistent. It seems that secular reached his agnostic state by emotion and pride, not logic.

And finally to secular

Have you ever lied?

Have you ever stolen, anything?

Have you ever lusted?

If you are honest you would say, yes. And you might be thinking "Hey everyone does it." And that would be a fair and true statement. My question is why would we expect any objective morality from a such society? To do so is hypocrisy. That is why there must be and an eternal moral law giver, that standards never change and right and wrong are strictly defined. With and evolving morality you lose self control More like the patients running the asylum. You cannot deny that when a nation or a people are founded on Christian(not religious) principles they are proven to be the better society. The same cannot be said for the latter.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

nowisthetime:

Thanks for visiting.

2. There were a few times when I really didn't get what she was saying. In any case, since we are communicating through the written word, it makes sense to have some grammatical consistency. I'm not asking for perfection.

4. Where did I say that evolution is not about survival?

5. I do not quote mine the Bible. A CONTEXTUAL reading of the Old Testament shows the rape of foreign women in war is not just condoned, but encouraged many times by God. As well as the other travesties.

6. I see. So either way, you're covered. How convenient. And again, you assume that ancient Hebrew prophecies mean anything in the first place.

7. The Big Bang is a theory in cosmology and astronomy. Evolution is a theory in biology and genetics. They are as much related as the theory of relativity is to the theory of infectious disease. In the broadest sense of scientific/ materialistic theories, yes, they are all related. But no more.

8. Catholics are Christians.

9. I read most of her links. She just kept repeating things because that's how she argues, it seems.

10. Well, that's your belief. Not sure how it's relevant.

11. I've heard this argument many times. My boss doesn't have the legal authority to beat me up, or to kill me in certain situations. Yes, there are differences between the slavery of the Old Testament and that of the 19th century. But they are more similar than different. That's why slavers in the later period used the Old and New Testaments to justify themselves.

12. I don't think there was hostility. I think there was just passion from 2 people who disagree on everything.

13. Your association of "emotion and pride" with agnosticism is common for the traditional Christian narrative. That narrative says only a foolish, ignorant, prideful person would be so bold as to question the existence of God. In reality, there are many intelligent, earnest and curious people who just seek the truth, and are skeptical of claims about which there is plenty to be skeptical. You also fail to mention that I definitively defeated several of her major points/ arguments, as indicated by the fact that she did not continue those threads.

"My question is why would we expect any objective morality from a such society?"

From a society of liars and cheats? No, I would not expect a reasonable morality from that. Which is precisely why I am not arguing for that.

This seems to be a common misconception among theistic moralists: that either we have an absolute, god-given morality, or we have a majority-rules system. What about logic and reason? That is what I am arguing for here. An objective morality based on logic and reason. It is anything but a popular vote.

"You cannot deny that when a nation or a people are founded on Christian(not religious) principles they are proven to be the better society."

Oh, yes I can. Look at the Christian-based societies of the late Middle Ages and early modern period (1400s to 1800s). They oppressed women, engaged in bitter, bloody religious wars and religious oppression, enslaved hundreds of thousands, and committed genocide.

By contrast, look at the more secular societies of, say, the modern Nordic countries: very low crime rates, internal social stability, religious freedom, equal rights for men and women, etc.


nowisthetime34 profile image

nowisthetime34 6 years ago from USA

I'm really not looking for a debate here. It will get us nowhere. You're probably much smarter than me, so I'll just do a quick rebuttal, and then we can agree to disagree.

2. Fair enough, but it came off rude and unnecessary

4. This is what Darwin wrote about and what evolution scientist write about in their journals, brute struggle for survival.

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/courses/evolutio...

5. I think it was stated above, but I'll reiterate. You have to understand the biblical, historical and cultural context.

It is also important to understand that God has never condoned any type of sexual activity outside a lawful marriage. The only way that an Israelite would be morally justified in having sexual intercourse with a female captive was if he made her his wife, granting to her the rights and privileges due to a wife. For the skeptic to imply that God condoned rape, using Numbers 31, without mentioning Moses' instructions in Deuteronomy 21, is unconscionable. It is simply another instance of dishonest propaganda designed to discredit God and the Bible.

6. We'll never agree on this so let's move on.

8. No, they are not.

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Roman-Cath...

http://www.born-again-christian.info/catholics.htm

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/cath.htm

9 Most is NOT all and that was my point. She repeated what was in the links you skipped.

11. If a biblical slave owner beat his slave the slave was set free, this is true and has historically attested to by historians and theologians. Slavery of the 19th century treated blacks like animals, and most thought blanks were animals(that's ignorant). Beginning in the second century, many masters, upon converting to Christ, began to release their slaves. Slavery was abolished in Great Britain after people began being converted to Christ under the preaching of John Wesley and George Whitefield.

13. I really don't like generalizations. I've read through some of your hubs, they ooze with contempt for a God (in your opinion) that may or may not exist. You conflate all religions together, but you specifically attack Christianity as do most skeptics. You call believers in God (in different words) weak, narrow-minded, not bright, and immoral among other things. Sorry, those words come off as very arrogant, to the lay person or a Christian and it doesn't help your cause.

13 cont. "What about logic and reason?" Whose logic and reason? There are billions of people with very different logic and reasoning. Essentially, you're claiming a relative absolute, That is self defeating claim, which is in no way logical. "Do what is right in your own eyes", a society with that "logic" can't last long.

13 cont. Again you are speaking of The Romans Catholic Church. I know it's easier for you to ignore the Protestant break from the Catholic Church, but in many cases it's important and stifles most of your points.

Let's take a little perspective here "the history of human warfare goes back to the beginning of recorded history (and, no doubt, well before that). A recent comprehensive compilation of the history of human warfare, Encyclopedia of Wars by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod documents 1763 wars, of which 123 have been classified to involve a religious conflict. So, what skeptics have considered "most" really amounts to less than 7% of all wars. It is interesting to note that 66 of these wars (more than 50%) involved Islam, which did not even exist as a religion for the first 3,000 years of recorded human warfare."

Why do you intentionally leave out secular atrocities? If you examine the atrocities perpetrated by people within the last century, you find a huge number of murders. Adolph Hitler killed 6 million Jews prior to and during the second World War. Joseph Stalin killed 20 million Soviet citizens between 1929 and 1939 because they were not politically correct. Mao Tse-tung killed 34 to 62 million Chinese during the Chinese civil war of the 1930s and 1940s. Pol Pot the leader of the Marxist regime in Cambodia, Kampuchea, in the 1970s killed over 1.7 million of his own people. These do not include all the people killed in "legitimate" wars. Many would object to this analysis since they could claim that these atrocities were perpetrated by only a few individuals. However, these individuals could not have done anything if they were not backed by others, who agreed with their "values." The vast majority of Germans willingly followed Adolph Hitler and gave their consent to his policy to get rid of the "Jewish problem."

To ignore this just to make your ideas seem better is dishonest.

What is the primary religion in the Nordic countries? Protestant Christians 83.93% You probably should have looked that up, beforehand.

You can have the last word.

Laters!

Source: Batson, C.D., E. R. Thompson, G. Seuferling, et al. 1999. Moral hypocrisy: Appearing moral to oneself without being so. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77: 525-537.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

4. Very interesting. But again, I never said evolution was not about survival.

5. Understand the context--couldn't agree more. And the context was one of savages warring, plundering, raping, torturing, etc. Given that *context*, we can understand that the Old Testament books were written as tribal religious documents. The rape issue goes beyond Numbers 31. These are all from New King James Version:

Numbers 33, Deuteronomy 2, 3, 7 and Joshua 6, 8 and others describe circumstances of war where rape was all but guaranteed. The key point is that God wanted all this chaos to happen.

In Exodus 22, Numbers 31, Deuteronomy 22 and Judges 21 we also have circumstances where rape is very possible if not highly likely, but the aggressor is protected/ encouraged.

If you want to talk about “context” then be consistent: if the context is a gang of guys lying in wait to kidnap some pretty girls, I think we can read between the lines.

Deuteronomy 21--yes, it forbids rape... sort of. But really, the Hebrew guy gets the next best thing.

And this is just rape. Not to mention theft, the killing of children, the buying and selling of "virgins," the general second class status of women, and so on.

“It is simply another instance of dishonest propaganda designed to discredit God and the Bible.”

The Bible discredits itself. We just have to get our citations right. And just because there is a God, it does not follow it is the Biblical God.

6. Guess that means I win!

8. I’ve heard these kinds of arguments before. It’s just theological infighting. Catholics are Christians. They’re just different from you.

9. Did you see how many links she put up there? Sorry, but I can’t waste the rest of my life reading nonsense about why Darwin is the spawn of Satan (I’m exaggerating). I got her argument. That’s all I need to know. And 90% of her arguments I had heard before anyway!

11. Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Depends which part of the Bible you read. Check this out (NKJV):

"Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves." (Leviticus 25: 45-46)

13. “Ooze with contempt”? No more than an average educated Christian, my friend. You clearly have not heard much Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. Next to them, I’m a softy.

I always try to be humane. That’s why many religious people follow me here on Hub Pages and on my blog. They know I shoot straight, and that I’m not interested in personal attacks.

I’m tough, yes, because I seek the truth. Rest assured your religion isn’t unique. True skeptics are tough with everybody, religious or secular. If you’re honest, you will see that in my responses to the secular moral relativists above.

“Whose logic and reason?”

Logic and reason don’t belong to anyone. No one is perfectly logical (obviously), but that is what we strive for in science. It’s been going pretty damn well for over 500 years. I think it might help in morality, too. Again, like what science strives for, it’s objective, not majority rules.

“Again you are speaking of The Romans Catholic Church.”

No, I’m not. I referenced the religious wars of that period—which by definition includes wars between Protestants and Catholics. Look at Northern Ireland recently: Catholics AND Protestants. The Protestant US and England enslaved thousands and committed genocide. And everybody’s favorite: the Salem Witch Trials. Also the KKK. The Protestants don’t get a free pass.

Religious Wars: That analysis you cite definitely sounds interesting, I haven’t gotten around to it yet. But remember that in the ancient period, basically every war was a religious war for the people in question. Today, we divide politics and religion, but back then they were one and the same.

Hitler et al: Hitler is questionable whether he was religious or not. But who’s ignoring it? Pretty early on in the discussion with Spiderpam, I talked about that. They killed all those people not BECAUSE of atheism, just as one cannot kill BECAUSE of theism. Atheism or Theism are just singular ideas, unto themselves. They are barely beliefs. One kills for some other reason--a fanatical version of religion or ideology. And, proportionally, historically, religion has shown a superior ability to generate fanaticism, and still does.

“What is the primary religion in the Nordic countries? Protestant Christians 83.93% You probably should have looked that up, beforehand.”

Ha! Nice try. Maybe YOU should do some homework. They are all technically “Protestant” because of the close relationship between church and state, historically and currently. Most Nordics don’t believe there is a god:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe

Anyway, it’s a pretty well-known fact that, aside from Japan, they are the most secular societies on earth. Religion is not important for the vast majority of people there.

See ya.


nowisthetime34 profile image

nowisthetime34 6 years ago from USA

Okay, one more round.

4. You did try to stray from it though.

5 and 11.

Let me guess evil bible.com. If you’re going here, there is no way you’re searching for truth.

Do not get sidetracked with the other issues involved; where was the rape? You are urged to believe that "Obviously these women were repeatedly raped" but did you discern even one single rape?

“Let us consider that the text said nothing of rape. Yet, you were urged to believe that not only where they raped, but that it was obvious and repeatedly. This actually brings us to the most troubling aspect of this issue; it is not that the Bible commanded, allowed for, or excused rape. It is that in claiming that it was obvious and repetitive rape that we get a very, very, very troubling window into the troubled mind who reads the texts and inserts into it their own fantasies of obvious and repetitive rape. We should not insert the concept of rape into the text just because it suits you.”

Back in the days of Leviticus slavery was sanctioned due to economic reasons. Back then, there were no such thing as bankruptcy laws so people would sell themselves into slavery to rectify debts. A craftsman could use his skills to literally "pay off" a debt. Or a convicted thief could make restitution by serving as a slave. (Exodus 22:3)

The Bible recognizes the reality of slavery, but it never promotes the practice of slavery. It was the biblical principles that ultimately led to the overthrow of slavery, both in ancient Israel and in the United States. One has to only go far as to think why the Jews left Egypt in the first place to see God's view of slavery. It took some years in America to wake up to the realization of biblical truth that all people are created by God with innate equality. (Genesis 1:27, Acts 17:26-28, Galatians 3:28). Not to mention a lot of the slaves were POWs.

As for killing children? The Bible clearly says that a pagan people scarified children to the sun god. They killed hundreds maybe thousands of babies (call it pro-choice) and children, so God wiped out the entire people. You intentional quote out of context to invoke an emotional response.

6. Okay, this is a theology issue, you're no theologian. As an anti theist you couldn't win this point because Jesus did exist, he walked the earth and fulfilled over 300 prophecies and there are biblical and extra biblical sources that align with His life and affirm fulfilled prophecies and miracles,.

8. Again, you're out of you league here. Catholics are not Christian. They preach a different gospel and follow a different god. I know you can't/won't accept this because it debunks a lot of your assertions, but it's the truth. When one understands the true gospel you can easily point out the impostors. That's mostly why I write about, so people can know that there is a big difference. In actuality, Catholicism has more in common with Islam then biblical Christianity.

13. You seek YOUR truth, which must be and anti-theistic truth, so you are not looking for truth at all.

Let's see, you attack Jesus, Christianity as a specific faith and lumped with all religions, the Bible, The Resurrection, you briefly touched on Islam, (you weren't nearly as critical). You’ve not challenged Buddhism, Hinduism, paganism New Age, or any other of the many religions, so yeah Christianity does get special attention from anti-theist. Maybe because it is the only real threat to the way you want to live your life. You are skeptical when is comes the Jesus, forgiveness and the gospel, but when Bible speaks of slavery, "rape" or killing. You must be as the worst possible conclusion. That's not logical.

13 cont. Be a little even handed here, the same can/has been said about atheist and anti theist regimes so what's your point. Salem Witch Trails total killed 18 (18 too many) a little more perspective please. The KKK? spiderpam said it best. "what teaching of Jesus Christ were they following. The Bible teaches "you will know them by their fruit" so if they were Christians you can tell by the "fruit" left behind."

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atrocitie...

Scientism is a religion too, and science cannot account for everything, nor should it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco

I still do not see how dishonesty and half truths help your cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_countries

Again, spiderpam already pointed this out

“Some atheistic country have been peaceful, but they leave out that before that country dropped God they were indeed founded on Christian principles and biblical doctrines and as soon as they left God the country soon collapsed, and is then reestablished by another religion.”

In the case of the Europe and Nordic Countries both had a strong Christian foundation then The Roman Catholic church came into play. Corruption ensued (which lead to the US law- no government run religions). Which lead to the pope denouncing the bible as true, instead the catholic church is the only truth. They also proclaimed the pope(not Jesus) can forgive sins.(not Christian) Which lead to a more secular state, but from we hear and read in the European headlines the “secular” state is now being run over by islamic muslims who want to implicate sharia law. History repeats itself.

I‘m starting to see why she left..

Hmm maybe you should move to Europe.

There are teleological arguments, cosmological arguments, moral arguments, ontological arguments, arguments from experience, archaeological arguments, arguments against other world religions, arguments for the resurrection of Jesus, etc. I don’t have hours and hours of time to unpack these, but plenty of great people have done so.

Adding all of these together, I am convinced that the Christian God exists. Therefore, I actually have a reason to spend time debating and discussing, but only with people who is willing to listening and have an open mind

Source: tinyurl.com/cny8q4

You just want to argue, I don’t. No doubt who(in your mind) won. ;)

Laters.


Izombiheartzoey profile image

Izombiheartzoey 6 years ago

How exactly are catholics not Christians? Aren't Christians anyone who believes in Christ? Catholics believe in Christ, seems like it would make them Christians.


nowisthetime34 profile image

nowisthetime34 6 years ago from USA

@ zoey and others who may have the same question.

No, that's an all too common generalization. Roman Catholics were known for adopting many old pagans rituals (cannibalism, mary worship, the "infallible" pope, the church is true the Bible is false, evolution, priest celibacy, etc). All which are unbiblical, heretical and blasphemous, and is one of the reasons that the protestant church formed. I'm not saying that individual Catholics can't be Christian, but the Roman Catholic system is work of the anti Christ (in my opinion). Many Roman Catholics believe things about Jesus, but do not believe in Him alone for salvation. Rather, they trust in the unbiblical Roman Catholic church. They also trust in their "good" works, water baptism, taking the Lord's Supper and "Mass"-instead of believing in Jesus alone as Jesus and the Bible tell them to do. Roman Catholicism is a false anti-Christian religion that teaches that man is saved by his own "good works." Salvation is the possession of those who have believed in Jesus alone for salvation. This is not just a difference of biblical hermeneutics, it's foundational truth of the true Christian faith. There are sheeps and goats, Jesus will claim His sheep and throw the goats aside.

Being a Christian is more than believing in Jesus and very few skeptics know the difference and that leads to confusion and contempt. When in doubt check their fruit! If you have more questions check out the link, I hope it helps.

Laters.

http://www.born-again-christian.info/catholics.htm


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

nowisthetime:

4. I already asked you where I said evolution has nothing to do with survival. I didn't, and I didn't "stray," and I think you know that.

5 and 11. Sigh. No, not Evilbible (rolls eyes). This is from my own study of the Old Testament. Why can't you folks just focus on my words and stop trying to read into things?

"...did you discern even one single rape?"

Yes, from the context of ancient savages kidnapping pretty foreign women. And other scenarios. Remember the *context*, my friend. ;)

I am not projecting anything onto the text; a contextual reading of the text, and an understanding of the sexist and backward cultures of the ancient world makes clear the kind of society and values they had. Maybe it is the apologists who should stop projecting their modern values of human rights and equal rights onto the Bible.

"The Bible recognizes the reality of slavery, but it never promotes the practice of slavery."

Both the Old and New Testament recognize it and promote it in various ways. God in the Old T, for example, sets down laws regulating slavery. If that doesn't qualify as "promoting" it, I don't know what does.

"Back in the days of Leviticus slavery was sanctioned due to economic reasons."

Funny--the same could be said of slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries! Different circumstances, different details, same basic process.

Jews and Egypt: Come on! The Hebrew God of the Old Testament was a tribal god. He hates the enslavement of Jews not because it is slavery, but because they are Jews, and the Jews are "chosen people." In many places in the Old T God condones and promotes the enslavement--sometimes brutal--of non-Jews.

Killing children: "You intentional quote out of context to invoke an emotional response."

No, again, the context is very clear. Multiple times in Joshua, for example, the Jews report they "utterly destroyed" men, women and children of various societies. I don't see what's so complicated about that. They were savages, just like all ancient people.

Oh, and the Old T makes it clear that God hates sacrificing children not so much because they are killing kids, but because they are "playing the harlot" with another god. Killing kids might be bad, but it's the worship of other gods that is the real crime.

6. I am not an anti-theist. I know Jesus existed. I know the story. Don't you find it the least bit *convenient* that Jews saw a Jew fulfill Jewish prophecies? Now, if Chinese had seen an Arab fulfill Viking prophecies, that would be another story. The term "self-fulfilling prophecy" comes to mind. And all of his "miracles" including the resurrection can be explained rationally (I think you saw my hub on that topic). It's unimpressive.

8. Well, I know you are incapable of grasping this because of your beliefs, but the only reason you seek to deconstruct Catholicism, ultimately is because of that age-old schism between the 2 sects. Protestants have been saying for centuries that Catholics aren't "really" Christian, and vice versa, and both sides always will say that.

13. Prove that god exists. Until you can do that, I am legitimate in questioning the "truth" of God.

Yes, Christianity is, at bottom, a religion just like any other. A Christian is incapable of realizing this, because they can't step outside of their own viewpoint. Just as a Muslim thinks everybody has a religion but him, a Hindu thinks everybody has a religion but him, etc. Nothing special there.

I have focused on Christianity for a few reasons: (1) it's the largest and most important religion by far, (2) it's the largest and most important religion in the US, where I live, by far, (3) I know more about it than most other religions, (4) here on the internet and Hub Pages Christianity is much more represented than any other faith, particularly in the English language, allowing for more frequent and interesting discussions. But yes, I could definitely pay more attention to others.

"You are skeptical when is comes the Jesus, forgiveness and the gospel, but when Bible speaks of slavery, "rape" or killing. You must be as the worst possible conclusion. That's not logical."

No, see here again you are projecting others' ideas onto me. THAT'S not logical, buddy. And it's not intellectually honest. I never said the Bible does not speak of forgiveness and peace. My point is that there are very violent and very peaceful passages in all holy texts, Bible included. Therefore it is a confused wash, therefore it is folly to run one's morality based on it.

Salem Witch trials, etc: You claimed that only Catholics were violent. The point is that both Catholics and Protestants have a history of violence and oppression. What teaching of Jesus were the KKK following? Well, he has some violence-related quotes, and also endorses the Old Testament at times. And anyway, if the violent stuff of the Old T is so "unrelated" to the Gospel, then why is it in the Christian Bible at all?

Science can't answer everything. Nothing can. The difference between science and religion: science admits that fact, religion does not.

Was that supposed to negate the Nordic point? Because it doesn't. Even most devout religious people will agree that they are secular societies. I'm honestly quite surprised you would challenge that.

Europe and Nordics: Ummm... what? I think you're a bit confused here. You are aware that the Nordics have been Protestant for centuries, right? (And today they are secular.)

"I‘m starting to see why she left.."

Yes, because she couldn't win the arguments. Looks like you're following in her footsteps.

"You just want to argue, I don’t."

And yet you keep coming back to argue with me. Funny that.

If you say something suspect, you will be challenged. Many religious folks aren't used to that. And that is precisely the point.


nowisthetime34 profile image

nowisthetime34 6 years ago from USA

Ummmmm no, while your comical "i too smart, you too dumb" gambit is enticing, I'll pass.

Take care man and keep up that religious fervor of yours. ;)


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

Well, I always find it funny when people claim I'm calling them dumb when it is they who have cast aspersions on me. As always, the unbiased reader will judge.

Oh, I will continue my religious fervor as long as you continue to enjoy the fruits of secular science in our modern secular civilization ;)

Take care


AKA Winston 6 years ago

@secularist10,

(Many atheists and secularists are moral relativists, whereas I am arguing for moral absolutes in this article. And I haven’t heard certain key ideas I put forward here anywhere else)

Although I applaud your attempt, I find you are missing the point somewhere along the way. You defined secular morality above as: "An effective secular morality is based on humanity and what is good for human beings...."

This already means that "what is good for human beings" is subjective, i.e., it requires an opinion of an observer. That pretty much nixes your whole idea of absolute morality.

FACT is, morality is nothing but concept, an idea formed in the brains of humans. Prior to humans, there was no morality. When you try to argue theist concepts (like the vague morality) by another method, you are effectively playing into the hands of the theist, because the theist will never give concrete definitions of his terms. All the theist will ever do is quote authority, either the Bible or some priest or some word of god.

Let me ask you to point out where this object named morality lives in the universe. What are its dimensions, its height, width, length? Can you show me a picture of this thing called morals? No??? Then it is only concept. All ideas are subjective - so how can a subjective idea called morality at the same time be objectively absolute?

That is the reason atheists will not talk about morality as anything other than subjective - which is often confused with the innacurate term "relative". Morality is not contingent on its relationship with another object. Morality is voted on in opinion polls and on T.V. shows like American Morals.

You also make some claims about science that are not accurate. Darwin's theory is not "true" nor has it been "proven". Truth and proof are in the realm of systems of logic, constructs of men, and are thus subjective.

Darwin proposed an explanation for the origin of species based on tiny incremental changes and vast stretches of time. As no one will live the billions of years needed to monitor results, we can only assume (subjectively decide) the truth of this theory; however, the theory can be falsified by simply finding a single example of a huge leap of change that occurred solely as a random act. In other words, if we found only dinosaur remains and modern bird remains with no intermediaries we would have to conclude that a great leap of nature occurred. That would falsify the ideas of natural selection.

The fact that a falsification has not occurred does not mean Darwinian evolution is true - it only means it hasn't been shown to be false.


AKA Winston 6 years ago

@ secularist10,

(So we see the religious really do not have the logical advantage that they think. Although there is no true logical basis for morality in a secular world, neither is there such a basis in a religious world.)

What you say is totally accurate, however it seems you have a blind spot about your own belief system. You are really proposing a Humanistic Religion where the subjective concept of "what is good for humans" replaces the admonission "because God says so."

In your religion of Humanistic Objective Absolute Morality, the baby ordered by God to be killed has a mutated form of the Ebola virus that cannot be cured and if left in the host child will kill 10 million humans worldwide, but the child herself is only a carrier and is not harmed by the virus (as in Typhoid Mary case).

Who gets to decide the Objective Morality of the decision to kill or not kill this child?


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

AKA Winston, thanks for visiting.

Just to be clear, that was not intended to be a definition of secular morality, only an example of an attractive one.

"This already means that 'what is good for human beings' is subjective, i.e., it requires an opinion of an observer. That pretty much nixes your whole idea of absolute morality."

Ok, you are assuming that all morality only comes down to opinion. So therefore, if someone (religious or secular) is making a moral recommendation, they are giving their opinion. I see this as a non-sequitur. Instead, one can offer a moral recommendation based on reason and evidence--that is the approach I favor.

As I said, while it is true that the original first cause of morality or initial moral rule must be adopted on faith, once it has been established, subsequent rules and ideas can be derived through reason.

For example, the fundamental moral rule is "to do that which is good for humans" (just an example). This must be taken on faith, according to the is-ought problem. But suddenly, we have a standard that is objective in nature, against which ethical claims or hypotheses can be tested.

For example: Should I kill someone? No, because it harms humans (according to evidence X,Y and Z). Note that this is no longer an opinion ("I should not kill because I personally don't like killing"), but rather a "fact" given the original moral rule. It is a fact in the context of that rule. It is therefore dependent not on any individual person's or culture's opinion (which would be subjective), but rather on reason, evidence or logic (which makes it objective).

"When you try to argue theist concepts... by another method, you are effectively playing into the hands of the theist"

I recognize the risk, but I think I'm safe, for the reasoning I gave.

"[morality] is only concept. All ideas are subjective - so how can a subjective idea called morality at the same time be objectively absolute?"

Not quite. Take the law of gravity: it is an intangible "concept," and yet it does not vary according to culture or personal taste. Thus, this idea, this "law," is objective. That is what I am getting at with an objective moral idea.

"You also make some claims about science that are not accurate. Darwin's theory is not "true" nor has it been "proven". Truth and proof are in the realm of systems of logic, constructs of men, and are thus subjective."

If you are referring to absolute, 100% truth you are of course correct. We cannot definitively "prove" anything. We cannot *prove* that reality exists, etc. But since such a mentality renders everything we say and do pointless and meaningless, I fail to find it very useful or interesting. A little blind faith in the existence of reality is not just warranted, it is necessary for us to do, say, or believe anything. And I don't think the fact that I have blind faith in the existence of reality puts me on par with the Bible-thumper.

"You are really proposing a Humanistic Religion where the subjective concept of "what is good for humans" replaces the admonission "because God says so.""

I could have made it clearer in the article that it was humanist in nature, yes. I'm not saying my ideas are 100% brand spanking new, but a key component is dependence on reason/ rationality to answer these questions, whereas religion depends on revelation, dreams, fantasy, visions, etc for its moral answers.

So although it ultimately rests on blind faith, I don't think that makes it on par with religion. If it did, then all human thought must be classified as "religion" and then the definition of religion becomes so broad as to be meaningless.

"Who gets to decide the Objective Morality of the decision to kill or not kill this child?"

This is a great question, and well illustrated. The answer is simple: reason.

One could just as easily ask "who gets to decide what the dimensions of the earth are?" Without some objective methodology that is not tied to individual taste, our only options are religions and ideologies. Maybe this Muslim says the earth is a flat disc, while that Christian says it is a square block, while that Hindu claims it's a cylinder.

But something that transcends them all--objective science and reason--provides a solid, objective answer. This answer, in turn, is based (ultimately) on the blind faith that reality exists, that our senses are reliable, etc. But that's what has given us immense knowledge and progress.


AKA Winston 6 years ago

@secularist10,

It is obvious from your writing and thinking about this subject that you have a sharp mind; however, one of the two of us seems to be unclear about the difference between objective and subjective.

You wrote, (For example, the fundamental moral rule is "to do that which is good for humans" (just an example). This must be taken on faith, according to the is-ought problem. But suddenly, we have a standard that is objective in nature, against which ethical claims or hypotheses can be tested.)

What you have done is create an axiom for a system of logic to govern morality. Your axiom is: Do that which is good for humans. It is only when you first make a DECISION on the axiom that you can then make reasoned arguments based on that foundation. The initial decision is subjective, though. Who decides on "what is good for humans"? Hitler thought eliminating non-arians was "good for humans". Were Hitler's actions moral? After all, he was following the axiom as he understood it, to "Do what is good for humans".

The creation of a founding axiom does not turn subjective into objective. The Law of Excluded Middle, an axiom of classical logic, states that something either is or is not. When I base an argument on that axiom, All dragons fly, Puff is a dragon, Therefore, Puff flies, I have stated a logical truth but I have not turned dragons into real, concrete, objective flying creatures that have mass and occupy a location in the universe.

Morality is no different than dragons. Unless Morality has mass and a location in the universe it is nothing but thought, idea, concept. All these are subjective, i.e., they require a biological brain to identify them and define their parameters. We may mistakenly think that there is an absolute morality where everyone will agree, but as I showed with the Ebola girl, even the most base concept of killing is open to judgment. If it is open to judgment, it is not objective.

My only concern with your reasoning is that you adopt the theist convention that morality is somehow a reality, an object, a thing. Morality is no such thing. Morality is only a human concept. That is why there can be no absolute morality - morality will always be subject to the opinion of an observer.

I have no qualms at all with your idea that humanistic values can produce as viable a system of morality as one based on theistic views, in fact, because of its flexibility it will most likely produce a more productive system.

But I think your argument would be better served abandoning the theist concept of absolute morality - because morality is conceptual only, and as such can only be subjective.


AKA Winston 6 years ago

@secularist10,

(Take the law of gravity: it is an intangible "concept," and yet it does not vary according to culture or personal taste. Thus, this idea, this "law," is objective. That is what I am getting at with an objective moral idea.)

You make the oft-made mistake of confusing scientific jargon with common language understanding.

Gravity is not a law, concept, or an object - it is a theory. In science, theories attempt to explain observed natural phenomena. We observe the effects of gravity on objects. No one dreamed up the concept that when an apple falls from a tree in hits the ground with a thud. The theory of gravity rationally explains what causes that natural phenomenon. It does not prove. It creates no truth. It only explains. The fact that the apple falls and hits the ground is objective data, empirical evidence of a natural phenomenon, meaning it occurs whether or not our vote on it says that it won't occur.

This is the theist error, as well, conflating scientific terms with common language understandings to make unfounded, irrational claims. You seem too intelligent and openminded to continue to repeat that error.

Again, I urge you not to try to battle the theist on or with their terms - they will not offer a concrete definition so there is no point to a debate. Better to show the irrationality of their positions and describe a rational or logical alternative.


AKA Winston 6 years ago

@secularist10,

I forgot to mention that your original idea of a moral axiom is a good one - I do not quibble with your stated "what is good for humans" as a totally adequate foundational axiom.

I only would like to see you frame your argument properly, as opinion backed by a logical conclusion. I could then agree with your argument and your conclusion because I would be making a subjective judgment about your subjective idea. And that is how it is supposed to work.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

AKA: I think the main problem here is the words "objective" and "subjective," because they have multiple definitions.

I am working with this definition of objective, more or less: "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion."

[although I think an "objective opinion" is somewhat a contradiction in terms]

Whereas I think you are working with this one: "of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality."

(From Dictionary.com)

That's why you said: "All [ideas, etc] are subjective, i.e., they require a biological brain to identify them and define their parameters."

Let me make clear that I am not pretending that there is a thing called "morality" floating out in the universe, like the sun or a planet, and all we have to do is figure it out (indeed what many religious people believe).

When I use the term "objective morality" it is not 100% independent of the human mind, but rather it is independent of *a* human's mind. An objective morality in this sense does not depend on anyone's opinion or prejudice, but rather depends on reason and logic.

"The initial decision is subjective, though. Who decides on "what is good for humans"? Hitler thought eliminating non-arians was "good for humans". Were Hitler's actions moral? After all, he was following the axiom as he understood it"

Yes, what you are referring to is simply clarifying the definition of the word "good." So I would clarify it by saying "to do that which contributes to or enhances humans or the human condition--i.e. makes humans healthier, wiser, happier, stronger, etc." Whereas of course Hitler's definition of "good" would be different. One could also clarify what the definition of "human" is, because clearly Hitler's definition and Gandhi's definition are different. But this is simply a matter of better defining the axiom.

"morality is conceptual only, and as such can only be subjective."

According to the second definition above, yes, but according to the first definition, no, because conceptual things are not necessarily subjective according to the first definition.

BTW, the "law of gravity" is indeed a law, not a theory, because in science a law is a description of an observed phenomenon (like gravity), whereas a theory is an explanation of why or how it happens.

So the law of gravity is indeed an objective thing, by the first definition above--it does not depend on personal or cultural opinion, but rather depends on evidence, observation and logic. These things indeed only exist if humans exist, so they depend on the existence of humans on some basic level, but they are nevertheless far more reliable and conducive to certainty than the myths someone wrote in a book 2000 years ago. So that is the kind of certainty we can have with morality, which religion cannot give us.


AKA Winston 6 years ago

secularist10,

I give you credit for willingness to define your terms - so important to any discussion and something most seem unwilling to do.

Maybe the basic difference is that I do not look to authority (the dictionary) for definitions but create definitions that are plain, concise, and consistent.

You say morality is not an object, yet you treat it as such by saying it is objective. To me that is unnecessary and confusing. It is more consistent to define as a priori, those things of thought and concepts, and a posteriori, those things of experience and observation.

A priori, then, can only be subjective (defined as relying on an observer and a decision) while a posteriori concerns only objective date, i.e., empirical data.

Whether we think it so or not, the moon orbits the earth and did so before man walked on the earth with his ideas, whereas any concept of morality had to wait until mankind developed sufficient mental powers to imagine such an idea, and thus the concept of morality is in its infancy, dreamt up by man no more than 25,000 years ago. When mankind dies out, the idea of morality will die with him - but the moon will continue to orbit the earth no matter what.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago

morality = truth = proof = laws = evidence = OPINION

If it is not a fact of nature, then it is an opinion. All else is subjective.

Atheists have been arguing with theists over such nonsense for over 2000 years. And they will continue to argue until humans become extinct.

Why?

Because atheists have fallen into the trap of reifying religious concepts into objects. The atheist will foolishly attempt to convince the theist that love & morals do not come from God, but rather from the "goodness" of the human condition. The "human condition" has now become another object, which the theist will call "spirit". Now the atheist will argue with the theist for another 2000 years, for the reasons why 'the' "human condition" is not a spirit given by God. And the cycle continues. Now the stupid atheists believe, just like the theists, that the Universe is an object that is "created". I call both of these groups: IDIOTS!!

If you closely analyze the arguments between these two groups, you will notice that it is the atheists who have been supporting the theist's arguments by falling into their traps. And they are totally oblivious to it.

Good examples of this can be seen by the foolish arguments presented by the hosts of the Atheist Experience show. They demand 'evidence' for God and nonsense like that. God, the universe, and other religious nonsense has NOTHING to do with evidence, or anything dependent on the limited human sensory system. It has to do with unambiguous definitions and rational explanations.

I don't let either of these groups get away with such nonsense in my hubs.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

AKA Winston:

"Maybe the basic difference is that I do not look to authority (the dictionary) for definitions but create definitions that are plain, concise, and consistent."

Well, unfortunately for you and everyone else who speaks our language, we are all constantly "appealing to authority" as you put it whenever we say anything--that authority being the English language as it has developed over hundreds of years, and the meaning it has come to attach to the words we use.

I used the dictionary definitions to clarify what I mean. If it's in the dictionary, chances are that word can be used and is used in that way. Not saying it's the only meaning, but that's the meaning I was employing, which I think is quite reasonable.

"You say morality is not an object, yet you treat it as such by saying it is objective."

You are simply still working with the other definition of the word "objective." I have already explained what sense I used, and why it works. The rest of your comment seems to ignore this.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

Fatfist:

"morality = truth = proof = laws = evidence = OPINION"

So, if all evidence is opinion, I guess you trust physical science just as much as you trust the cult of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon?

No one believes that full, total, 100% certainty is attainable about anything--we either have blind faith somewhere at the beginning, or we have an infinite regress, neither of which is particularly attractive.

But would you therefore say that 90% of the stuff of which human civilization is made is just smoke and mirrors?

Surely there is no such thing as "absolute certainty" but are there not degrees of certainty, making some things more certain than others? If not, then how is the claim that "I ate an ice cream cone" any more believable or reasonable than the claim "I inhaled an ice cream cone through my ear"?

You throw around the word "nonsense," and yet it would seem that "nonsense," being nothing more than a concept, is totally meaningless and useless to your way of thinking.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago

secularist,

(If it's in the dictionary, chances are that word can be used and is used in that way.)

I have heard this excuse used so many times by both atheists & theists in order to justify their arguments against each other. And as I explained earlier, this is why they will forever be arguing with each other without any resolution.

When we talk about scientific issues, there better not be any room left for “chance”. You see, the dictionary is NOT a source for definitions for Mother Nature’s realm. Beyond essay writing and ordinary speech, use of the dictionary is the biggest source of confusion for people.

The English language was “hacked” together about 1200 years ago by a bunch of drunk and ignorant religious morons who didn’t have the skills to develop a unique system of language. This is why they used Greek, Latin and other languages to hack it together. Not only that, but one of the primary functions of English, was to be used as a “tool” for religion at the time......specifically, for describing “our” Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!

And English is excellent at doing that because almost every single word has the capability to be used as a noun. Don’t believe me.....take a look at the words: love, morals, universe, force, time, energy, mass, field, space. They are all irrationally used as nouns. NONE of them are physical objects.

Science will have none of that nonsense. The only nouns in Mother Nature’s workshop are objects which not only have “shape”, but also “location”. Everything else is a human-made concept as far as nature is concerned!

So if love, morals, universe, force, time, energy, mass, field, space, etc. are deemed as nouns,.....then both atheists & theists will be using these concepts as “reified spirits” in their arguments with each other. With none of them having the slightest clue of what they are talking about because they got their info from their Bibles and Dictionaries!

(that authority being the English language as it has developed over hundreds of years, and the meaning it has come to attach to the words we use.)

English is a tool of communication, not an authority. The ambiguity of “interpretation” and “usage” of this tool is what injects authority. Anything having to do with authority, necessarily requires a human mediator. Example: Many people use a flat-head screwdriver for setting screws AND as a “scraper”. This is irrational - it has no purpose as a scraper because it can get damaged and can’t be used for screws. Every tool has its specific and consistent purpose, but both atheists and theists are known to prefer the ambiguous route.....ie. God is both a man with a penis and a non-physical, incorporeal, non-dimensional spirit.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago

secularist,

(I guess you trust physical science just as much as you trust the cult of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon?)

Rational people have neither trust, belief, nor faith in science. Science only has one purpose: to explain in a rational manner. People who make such irrational claims that “science has evidence”, have no clue of the scientific method. The sole purpose of evidence is to twist the arm of a juror.

(we either have blind faith somewhere at the beginning)

In the beginning, we form a Hypothesis, the most important component in science. This is where we spend 90% of our time.

A Hypothesis is comprised of 5 ingredients:

1) unambiguous definitions (we throw the dictionary & bible in the garbage)

2) objects

3) the statement of the facts

4) illustrations

5) a description of the initial scenes of what is about to be explained

The Hypothesis specifies one or more physical objects. Then the Theory illustrates how these objects interact and the actions (VERBS) they perform. Then we rationally explain how these interactions produce phenomena in nature. If the hypothesized objects are incapable of rationally explaining the Theory, then a NEW hypothesis is required.

Big Bang, Relativity, Quantum, and String Theory, all have an invalid Hypotheses and irrational Theories.

(or we have an infinite regress)

The word “infinite” is an adjective in physics. It can only be used to describe objects. There are no infinite objects in nature. The word “infinite” has no place in science. The word “regress” is a VERB. You cannot use an adjective to describe a verb because it has no meaning. It is gibberish!

And this “infinite regress” nonsense is a very HOT argument for theists nowadays because they successfully use it to STUMP the asses of atheists. William Lane Craig and Matt Slick are known to use this argument successfully. In fact, not a single atheist has been able refute this argument. But their jaw drops to the floor when they see me refute it in under a second.

You see, this is the reason why I’ve said that ALL dictionaries belong in the garbage if we are going to talk about science and issues of ontology. We can only use our brains to formulate unambiguous and consistent definitions, along with rational explanations. We leave the dictionaries and authorities to where they belong, in religion.

(there is no such thing as "absolute certainty")

There are no absolutes – period!

(are there not degrees of certainty, making some things more certain than others?)

The word “certainty” is a synonym for “absolute”. Degrees of either make no sense. Because humans have an EXTREMELY limited sensory system, the best we can do is form rational explanations.

(how is the claim that "I ate an ice cream cone" any more believable or reasonable than the claim "I inhaled an ice cream cone through my ear"?)

Hypothesis: The ice cream cone is composed of the following physical objects.........blah blah

Theory: I can now rationally explain that I have inhaled the “ice cream cone” through my ear as follows........blah blah.......specifically, through my ear drum as follows......blah blah......specifically through my inner ear as follows......blah blah........and it found its way in my digestive system as follows.......blah blah.

Well.......can you do it? Can you fill in those blanks?

People have PROVEN CLAIMS and TRUTH coming out of their asses, but when you ask for a simple explanation, they all run and hide. Just look at my hubs on the Big Bang. Not a single moron can provide an explanation – it don’t matter what authoritative titles they hold!

I ask the same from those who claim that “space” can be bent. I have even offered CASH to them. None of the morons of Relativity can give an explanation. But they will boast they have proof coming out of their asses. When you ask them to see this proof, they delete your comments and ban you!!

(You throw around the word "nonsense," and yet it would seem that "nonsense," being nothing more than a concept, is totally meaningless and useless to your way of thinking.)

“Nonsense” is a concept of language that resolves to a verb, an activity we do. All words are concepts, but NOT all words have a resolution to either an object or an activity. It has nothing to do with my, yours, or anybody’s way of thinking. We all perform the activity “thinking” differently, possibly taking different paths to a conclusion.

But if this conclusion or claim cannot be explained.....

- in a rational manner

- in a way that another human being can understand what you are saying

- in a way which doesn’t use ambiguous terms, ordinary speech, metaphors, poetry, etc. in order to get away with murder

- in a way which doesn’t involve surrealistic and supernatural mediators

......then any human with at least 1 brain cell will call such a claim: NONSENSE!


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

Fatfist:

If English is so stupid, why are you using it?

When you come up with a more logical language, let me know. I speak 2 languages, and have studied 2 more. So far, none of them seem remotely close to perfect. So it looks like either we use what languages we have, or we don't write or discuss at all.

"Rational people have neither trust, belief, nor faith in science."

Alright, let me rephrase: do you trust the scientific method more than the Moonie method?

"In the beginning, we form a Hypothesis, the most important component in science."

Yes, and what is the hypothesis based on? Sense experience? Observation? And what are those based on? ... Ultimately, blind faith. So in other words, exactly what I said.

"There are no infinite objects in nature. The word “infinite” has no place in science. The word “regress” is a VERB."

These are simply word games. You say that "regress" is a verb, and yet in order to make that claim, you have to use the English language, and therefore you defer to a language that uses "regress" as both a noun AND a verb, depending. ... And so on with almost every other word you are using.

I could do the same pointless linguistic hair-splitting: you said "the word infinite has no place in science," but "place" is a VERB, therefore it makes no sense to say that anything has a "place" or "no place." Oh wait, the very language I am using uses "place" as both a noun and a verb, depending. Darn.

"You cannot use an adjective to describe a verb because it has no meaning. It is gibberish!"

I agree with that, but how do you know it is gibberish? In order to call something gibberish, you have to have confidence in how the language works. But you already indicated you have no such confidence in the English language, rendering your statements contradictory.

"Because humans have an EXTREMELY limited sensory system, the best we can do is form rational explanations."

So you agree that some explanations are better than others. In other words, you *trust* some explanations more than others.

Re: ice cream. Interesting, so it looks like you do indeed accept physical evidence, sense experience and empirical observation in order to determine the veracity of a claim.

"“Nonsense” is a concept of language that resolves to a verb, an activity we do."

Yet again, you contradict yourself. You said initially that there are facts of nature, and there is everything else. Everything else is subjective. Therefore, concepts such as "nonsense" are right on par with concepts such as "God" and "heaven." Now you indicate that concepts such as "nonsense" or "theory" or "knowledge" in fact are meaningful, and that some concepts are more useful than others.


AKA Winston 6 years ago

@secularist10,

I believe you are overlooking a critical component of the argument - the words we use and the definitions of those words are OUR CHOICE. We are not REQUIRED to use Webster's Dictionary for our debate - we can form our own rules and adopt more precise definitions. We can C-H-O-O-S-E to utilize definitions for the purpose of discsussion that eliminate as much as possible the inconsistencies in our understanding of words.

In fact, if we really are interested in purposeful debate, rational thinking, and determining fact regardless of personal beliefs, then it is our duty to unambiguously define the words that are key to our discussion.

How can anyone have an intelligent discussion on the ecological importance of saving Eagles if one side considers all birds to be Eagles and the other side sticks to a more critical definition?

We won't have to debate whether or not Truth is subjective or objective - those two terms will be defined and then all we have to do is logically show that Truth is one or the other, but not both at the same time.

If you still want to debate definitions instead of adopting precise and useful definitions, it can only be that your reasoning depends on being as vague and inconsistent as the understanding of the common usage words themselves, and you really are not interested in concise and meaningful discussion - you are interested really in selling your particular brand of Snake Oil.

(No one believes that full, total, 100% certainty is attainable about anything--)

I assure you that I have 100% certainty that if I place my flat bare hand on top of a red-hot skillet I will not like the result. My certainty is derived from experienced knowledge, a posteriori, and not from a reasoned necessity, a priori.

My reasoning tells me that high heat causes burns to bare human skin. The red-hot metal contains high heat. Therefore, the metal will cause a burn to the bare skin of my human hand.

That seems like the same thing as a posteriori, but it is not.

The reasoning is valid and true regardless of any protection I place on my hand. According to the logic, the heat will burn my bare skin even if my hand is inside an oven mit. It is also valid and true regardless of the length of time my bare skin is in contact with the metal.

However, both of those conditions (protection and length of contact time) are testable under a posteriori, and we can them determine further that some types of protection keep my hand safe, and I also find out it takes more than a fraction of a second of exposure to the heat to cause lasting harm to bare skin.

Still, I am 100% certain I will burn my hand because I am not wearing a mit and I don't move that fast.

Meanwhile, back at the Objective-as-Subjective Cattle Ranch, Pedro is branding another steer with the Morality Brand and wondering - because Morality is not defined - how anyone will know if the beef critter he just scarred is really his?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago

Secularist,

(If English is so stupid, why are you using it?)

Now where did I say that? Can you quote me verbatim please?

(When you come up with a more logical language, let me know.)

Obviously you are confusing language with systems of logic. They have nothing to do with each other. A logical system, is first founded upon a language, like English for example, then on its assumed axioms. Without first having a language, how can you communicate and express logic?

I suggest you re-read what I posted, and if something is irrational, let me know. Otherwise all you are doing is going off in completely different directions,..... for some reason.....to stab straw puppets perhaps.

(do you trust the scientific method more than the Moonie method?)

You don’t understand the difference between “faith”, and an “explanation” (Hypothesis + Theory). Neither do theists. Continue arguing with them till eternity......birds of a feather argue forever!

(Yes, and what is the hypothesis based on?)

Go and re-read points 1 to 5 in the previous post. They went 30 miles over your head. Not to worry......they go over the heads of all members of the neo-religion, you call “atheism”. Even idiots like Richard Dawkins don’t understand the scientific method, just like traditional theists, like Christians.

(Sense experience? Observation? And what are those based on? ... Ultimately, blind faith. So in other words, exactly what I said.)

Show me where there is provision for “senses” and “blind faith” in a Hypothesis or in a Theory. Please don’t elude or dance around this question.......just explain your case.

Such nonsense is only possible in religion. And according to you, that’s what you seem to view the scientific method as. That’s ok, theists do the same.......birds of a feather......

(These are simply word games.)

Oh REALLY?? So you think that the word “infinity” is BOTH an “adjective” AND an “adverb” for the purposes of physics? Or do you perhaps “think” that it circumscribes “nouns” and “verbs” as well?

Ok, here’s your chance to shine and DESTROY my argument......Please tell us what an “infinite object” is. Please define it and describe it?

Can an infinite object exist in nature? Yes or No?

The crowd is dying to see your response to THIS question! And I can’t wait myself.....

(You say that "regress" is a verb, and yet in order to make that claim, you have to use the English language)

What language would you want me to use? Klingon? Pick one.

Do you understand the difference between “ordinary speech” and “scientific language”?

We only use SCIENTIFC LANGUAGE in a HYPOTHESIS and in a THEORY?

Do you use “ordinary speech” in your in your religion.......is God BOTH a “man” AND a “spirit”?

Is “regress” both a VERB and an OBJECT in physics? Yes or No? Don’t elude this question that makes or breaks your argument of ignorance!

Do you understand WHY “articles” of language and grammar MUST be NOUNS? (Hint: it has something to do with the syntactical aspects of language).

Do you understand WHY the nouns of physics MUST be objects having the intrinsic property of shape, and the extrinsic property of location? (Hint: it has something to do with existence).

Can you please draw a picture of the object which YOUR religion calls: REGRESS.

If you can package REGRESS in a package and FedEx to me, I will PayPall you $10,000. If you can’t, then none of what you PREACH here has any merit, and you don’t have to send me any money.

We got a deal? Yes or No?

Your poetry has nothing to do with physics, which is restricted to unambiguous definitions that can be used consistently in a scientific presentation. To show us that what I said before didn’t go 30 miles over your head.....please define the words “infinite” and “regress” in a manner that can be used consistently, ie. scientifically. Then tell us whether they are verbs, nouns, adjectives or adverbs for the purposes of physics.

Be my guest.....Let’s see if you really know your stuff, or if you are no different than a typical theist. If you can at least provide a rational response to this question, then I will PayPal you $100. I don’t want any money from you. We have a deal?

(you said "the word infinite has no place in science," but "place" is a VERB, therefore it makes no sense to say that anything has a "place" or "no place.")

Ahhhhhh.......a typical theist. No wonder they argue over nonsense for eternity... LOL!!

You don’t know the difference between “ordinary speech” and “scientific language”. Can the word “infinite” be used in ANY scientific context? Yes or No?

Can you answer the question that destroys your religion: Explain how the word “infinite” can be used in science, especially in physics.

Don’t elude these questions. Please stay on topic. We are awaiting your reply. We are eager to see where you are going with your ridiculous approach to this argument. You have nowhere to go but answer these questions that make or break your argument!

(but how do you know it is gibberish?)

What “meaning” can an adjective describing a verb have?

Is running infinite? Does running have shape? Is running a physical object? Can you “SEE” running?

Wanna take a guess at these questions?

The audience has noticed that you DON’T like answering ANY questions! Typical THEIST.

(In order to call something gibberish, you have to have confidence in how the language works.)

It is irrational to have confidence in how a “language works”, like you have confidence in how your car works. Only objects perform actions, like “work”.

Language doesn’t work. Language is not an object. It is a concept that is based on syntactic and contextual axioms. The ultimate purpose of language, is to be used for our communication. And humans can only communicate IFF they understand and comprehend.

Please explain to us exactly HOW you understand a scientific dissertation that is comprised of ambiguous terms, where “regress” is BOTH a VERB and a NOUN. I am dying to hear this one!

Does REGRESS exist? Yes or No?

In physics, REGRESS cannot be both a VERB and a NOUN, like it is in Christianity, and in your religion. If you disagree, please explain yourself. This is what I’ve been asking all along, for explanations, but you provide none! How come?

So I ask you again..... What “meaning” can an adjective describing a verb, have? Explain please.

Additionally, to use a language scientifically (unambiguously), you MUST define the terms that make or break your argument. So I ask you again..... Explain how the word “infinite” can be used in science, especially in physics. Is there such “thing” as an infinite object? Can an infinite object exist?

(In other words, you *trust* some explanations more than others.)

Oh brother......we are dealing with a typical theist!

In science, we neither trust, believe, have faith in, nor prove explanations. Explanations are either rational or irrational.......do you understand how to differentiate between the two? Hint: I gave you the answer in my previous response.

(so it looks like you do indeed accept physical evidence, sense experience and empirical observation in order to determine the veracity of a claim.)

Theists love strawmans. Please quote me verbatim where I said that.

You didn’t fill in the ....blah blahs.....in your ice cream theory. Do you understand the difference between evidence, observations, ..........and science (Hypothesis + Theory)?

Instead of using the scientific method to rationally explain your Ice Cream Theory, you religiously rely on the observational claims and evidence provided by your “team of idiots” you send out to gather DATA for you. Just like Christians do with their “team of Disciples”.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago

secularist

cont.....

(Yet again, you contradict yourself.)

How so? Explain with the luxury of detail.

(You said initially that there are facts of nature, and there is everything else.)

Yes, isn’t there some physical mechanism which is responsible for attracting objects together? Don’t we give it a name, like “gravity”? Is that phenomena a fact or an opinion? Do we need to “sense” this phenomena of nature in order for it to be a fact?

Do we need to “see” the Sun in order for it to exist?

Is “gravity” an OBJECT or a CONCEPT?

Is “universe” an OBJECT or a CONCEPT?

Is the “sun” an OBJECT or a CONCEPT?

Do you know any of these answers? Wanna take a guess?

(Everything else is subjective.)

If it is not a fact of nature, then it is just your opinion.

Is “time” a physical substance?

Is “space” a physical substance?

Can you “bend” time and space?

Does “love” exist?

Do “morals” exist?

Yes or No? Are you giving me the FACTS or your OPINION here?

How do we differentiate between the two? Do you know? Wanna take a guess?

So how about it......can you answer ANY of the questions posed to you, or are you just another “theist”?

These are the questions that make or break your argument. How come you don’t want to answer any?

(Therefore, concepts such as "nonsense" are right on par with concepts such as "God" and "heaven.")

LOL! Nice category error!

God and Heaven are part of the Christian Hypothesis. Maybe you should talk to your Pastor about it one of these days,......rather than just going to church to “show off” your new clothes and to “chat” with the idiots who are warming up the seats next to you.

The word “nonsense” is NOT a Hypothesis.

Please tell me you understand that much.....have you taken an introductory course in science?

The word “nonsense” is a word in a language, specifically, a conceptual term of the English language. It has a common ordinary meaning, and NOT a scientific meaning.

How about this one...... Is God an object or a concept? Is Heaven an object or a concept?

Why don’t you take a guess so we can see how much you understand of what you memorized by rote while warming up the seats of your monastery.

(Now you indicate that concepts such as "nonsense" or "theory" or "knowledge" in fact are meaningful, and that some concepts are more useful than others.)

Ahhhhh......keep those straman’s coming.......they are a PERFECT indicator that your religion has no foundation to stand on. You are stabbing at straw puppets at every turn!

Please quote me where I said that. Love to see it!

Are you perhaps extrapolating something I said earlier, so you can make some lame theistic argument that could salvage what is left of your religion?

Do you even understand WHAT a scientific Theory is? What does “Theory” mean in the context of scientific language? Did your Pastor tell you that it means SPECULATION, BELIEF, TRUST, FAITH?

Wow, your post is yet another confirmation, that the words: atheist, secularist, free-thinker, and bright.....are all synonyms for the word THEIST. This is why Christians have a field day with people like you. And this is why you cannot crush any of their arguments. No wonder William Lane Craig rips all your arguments to shreds.

Thanks for the comedy!


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

AKA Winston:

"I believe you are overlooking a critical component of the argument - the words we use and the definitions of those words are OUR CHOICE."

Yes, and MY CHOICE is to use the word "objective" in the way I indicated. That is how I have written the article, and that is how I have framed the discussion. What is so complicated about that?

"We are not REQUIRED to use Webster's Dictionary for our debate - we can form our own rules and adopt more precise definitions."

Yes, I agree. I have formed my own rules and adopted a very precise definition, as I already said. The dictionary is simply a reflection of the language we are both using.

"We won't have to debate whether or not Truth is subjective or objective - those two terms will be defined and then all we have to do is logically show that Truth is one or the other, but not both at the same time."

Yup, and I defined them. So... why are you still arguing about this?

"I assure you that I have 100% certainty that if I place my flat bare hand on top of a red-hot skillet I will not like the result. My certainty is derived from experienced knowledge, a posteriori, and not from a reasoned necessity, a priori."

You cannot have true 100% certainty of this outcome because of something called the problem of induction.

For all intents and purposes, I have 100% certainty in that outcome within a framework where blind faith (unfortunately) has to play a role, because there is no other option. But if one TRULY does not have ANY blind faith whatsoever (i.e. faith in induction, past experience, one's own senses, etc) then they cannot have TRUE 100% certainty in anything. That's just the way it goes.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

Fatfist:

On English: "Now where did I say that? Can you quote me verbatim please?"

Nope, not verbatim. But you did say:

"The English language was “hacked” together about 1200 years ago by a bunch of drunk and ignorant religious morons who didn’t have the skills to develop a unique system of language... Not only that, but one of the primary functions of English, was to be used as a “tool” for religion at the time......specifically, for describing “our” Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!"

Sounds like a pretty stupid, useless or hopeless language to me. Why would anyone want to use something created by drunk and ignorant religious morons?

"Show me where there is provision for “senses” and “blind faith” in a Hypothesis or in a Theory."

Ok. You said a hypothesis requires:

1) unambiguous definitions

2) objects

3) the statement of the facts

4) illustrations

5) a description of the initial scenes of what is about to be explained

Now tell me, how can someone blind, deaf, with no sense of smell, touch or taste detect objects (#2), make a statement of the facts (because they can't detect the facts) (#3), produce an illustration (#4) or a description of scenes (#5)?

They can't. Each of these activities require sense experience. And why should someone rely on their senses? In other words, what is the basis for having confidence in one's senses? There is none, because all explanations justifying sense experience rely, in turn, on sense experience. Hence blind faith is required, whether you like it or not (I don't like it--but I have to accept it.)

"Is “regress” both a VERB and an OBJECT in physics?"

What the heck to does physics have to do with anything?

BTW, the idea of an "infinite regress" is more in the domain of logic and philosophy. But science is governed and undergirded by much of the same rules of logic. Science mostly deals with physical things, yes, but it only makes sense of them through intangible means. An explanation, a hypothesis, etc are all intangible things--they are not objects, as you would say.

Re: the word "place": "Ahhhhhh.......a typical theist. No wonder they argue over nonsense for eternity... LOL!!"

Clearly you didn't read closely enough, or didn't get the joke, or probably both.

"The audience has noticed that you DON’T like answering ANY questions! Typical THEIST."

Deceptively slicing and dicing my words is not a legitimate form of argument.

"It is irrational to have confidence in how a “language works”, like you have confidence in how your car works. Only objects perform actions, like “work”."

Again, semantics and word games. I used to make these kinds of arguments... when I was a kid.

"So I ask you again..... What “meaning” can an adjective describing a verb, have? Explain please."

I already said I agree that an adjective cannot describe a verb. You say you want me to answer your questions, yet you seem to barely read my responses.

"Instead of using the scientific method to rationally explain your Ice Cream Theory, you religiously rely on the observational claims and evidence provided by your “team of idiots” you send out to gather DATA for you. Just like Christians do with their “team of Disciples”."

Uhh.. what? Team of idiots? Maybe you're in the wrong hub, lol. Anyway, news flash: Science deals with observational claims and evidence.

You seem to have reached a Spiderpam-level of argumentative hyperventilation. You're just missing 100,000 links to semi-relevant websites. What's so amusing is that you constantly trash theists and religious people, and yet you argue not unlike a fundamentalist religionist. Funny. (Oh wait, is "funny" an object or a concept? This is a tough one! I NEED HELP!! Better call my nonexistent pastor, lol)

I could go on (and on and on), but it looks like your method of argument is composed mostly of tangents, changing of the subject, semantics and ad hominems, all underlying emotion and outrage. It's tough to follow the "logic" of any of that.

BTW, FAIR WARNING: Any more comments over 1000 words will be deleted, no questions asked. Your first one just above was over 1200 words.

Unfortunately I had to invoke this rule with Spiderpam earlier, who was similarly off the rails.


AKA Winston 6 years ago

@secularist10,

I don't see any definitions of objective or subjective. I see this assertion: (Since secular reason concerns itself with objective facts and truths, by its nature it leads to an objective morality.)

Here are my definitions:

Subjective: relating to or determined by the mind as the subject of experience.

Objective: existing independent of mind.

You keep using common language terms to make unfounded points. Define fact and truth. I do. Facts are determined a posteriori, by experience. Truth is a logical necessity proven by a system of logic. That is, it is not true that the moon orbits the earth - it is fact. However, the O.J. Simpson jurors were convinced of the logic of "It the gloves don't fit, you must acquit", so it is true that O.J. was not-guilty of murder, although his blood on the victims is a fact.

A fact(objective) mixed with a truth(subjective) does not result in an objective anything other than a verdict - a decision - a judgment.

Thanks for the discussion. I'm closing out this effort as you seem to conflate actual with conceptual - which is exactly what theists do.

Ciao.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

AKA Winston:

"I don't see any definitions of objective or subjective."

Well, I guess you need to read more carefully.

Counting from this comment, I identified 2 definitions of the word "objective" 14 comments ago. One of those definitions you started out using (as you just confirmed) and the other one I made it clear (and have continued to make it clear) was the one that I was using in this discussion and article. Both uses of the word are legitimate for their own purposes.

The value of using "objective" as relating to an idea independent of individual prejudice/ assumption/ bias is that it enables us to separate a rational or scientific approach from a religious, ideological or emotional approach.

Most science is subjective according to your use of the terms, but it is objective according to my use. Pretty simple. Both uses are "common language" in some way.

I have no quibble with your definitions of fact and truth. But I'm not sure what it really has to do with the main topic here.

"I'm closing out this effort as you seem to conflate actual with conceptual - which is exactly what theists do."

Yes, but theists do many things. Theists believe the sky is blue. So do I. Does that make me on par with the theist?

No, theism offers proof for god that relies on faulty logic or personal experience (that is, subjective experience--subjective according to my use of the term). Theism therefore considers personal/ subjective experience to be a legitimately binding source of knowledge.

By contrast, I am calling for sound logic and impersonal justification for claims--in other words, justification not tied to personal, temporary or cultural experience. This kind of thing is often referred to as "objective," according to my use of the term.

It was an interesting discussion, but would have been more productive if you could have just stuck with the definition I offered, instead of essentially talking past me.

Take care.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago

secularist,

(Why would anyone want to use something created by drunk and ignorant religious morons?)

When you live in an English-speaking country, you have to. There is no other option but to communicate using the “official” language, no matter what ambiguities is has. But if you are going present a scientific presentation, with your Theory on how Morals and Love exist, you had better use consistent terms. Otherwise you have nothing but a religious presentation.

(Now tell me, how can someone blind, deaf, with no sense of smell, touch or taste detect objects (#2)

You totally missed the mark on the Hypothesis. You are out on left field.

In science, we DON’T “detect” objects. We DEFINE them. Subjective evidence and data collecting have nothing to do with science. In science we only explain using the scientific method (Hypo + Theory). Do you know what an OBJECT is? Physics is the study of objects that exist. Without objects you can’t even begin to do physics. You had better be able to define what an object is, BEFORE you send your crew of idiots out in the field to “detect” them. But when you come to the conference, you had better leave you detected data in the hallway and just give the crowd a rational explanation of YOUR Theory.

So tell us, secularist, WHAT is an object? You had better know what this elusive word means, BEFORE you go out in your spare time trying to “detect” them.

Let me give an example: Relativity claims that time and space are PHYSICAL OBJECTS. Did they detect them? Can YOU detect them?

Answer: NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They formed their Hypothesis as follows: Assume time and space are physical objects.

Theory: Now we can stretch them and bend them as follows.......blah blah.

Got it?

(Now tell me, how can someone blind, deaf, with no sense of smell, make a statement of the facts (because they can't detect the facts) (#3)

Do you need to “detect” the Sun to know it’s there? What about for this BLIND person of yours? Doesn’t the Sun exist if he doesn’t “see” it.

You see, secularist.....just like a theist, you have it all backwards. The Sun’s existence (FACT) does NOT depend on the senses of a human. It’s the other way around.....ALL life on this planet depends on the Sun. No Sun, no life! You don’t need any of the 5 senses to figure this out. You just need a brain, and one that can think! The brain is only tool we use in the scientific method......not the feelings, emotions, love, morals, sight, taste, etc. of your disciples.

All FACTS were the case BEFORE God created Adam & Eve. Theists can never figure that one out.

(Now tell me, how can someone blind, deaf, with no sense of smell, touch or taste produce an illustration (#4)

He can even be crippled. He gets other people to do it for him.......you know......like Hawking does, who is a Young Universe Creationist.

But what does this have to do with injecting subjectivity/opinion into a Hypothesis? Do you even understand what you are asking here???

You have to illustrate and describe the initial scenes of YOUR theory.

This is YOUR presentation (Theory on Morals), secularist? Why are you asking me how to illustrate it and describe the initial scene for you when Adam & Eve were around? Are Adam & Eve & Morals OBJECTS? How do you DETECT them?

Wow man! Where are you even going with such questions?

(Hence blind faith is required, whether you like it or not)

Whaaaaaaaaat?

SECOND TIME I AM ASKING YOU: Where is there provision for blind faith in a Hypothesis & Theory? I have already debunked the nonsense you posted above!

(but I have to accept it)

Nice Religion you got there!!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago

(What the heck to does physics have to do with anything?)

Physics is the study of existence......you know......REALITY!!

In particular, physics is the study of objects that exist. Does anything else exist in your Religion, secularist? You’d better come clean right now......do SPIRITS, ANGELS, GODS, DEVILS, and GHOSTS exist in your religion?

How do you plan on giving a rational explanation of whether MORALS exist or not if you are not talking about reality? Are you giving make-believe presentations? Is that what this hub is about?

(the idea of an "infinite regress" is more in the domain of logic and philosophy)

Oh I see......so they belong in another club, huh?

Is this what your Pastor has been telling you all along?

Oh c’mon man......wake the hell up! I’m trying to help you here.

Whether it is infinite regress, morals, love, passion, sex, God, Jesus, etc........if it has anything to do with REALITY, then is absolutely has to do with PHYSICS. You can dress it up in whatever Religion or fancy names you want. But when you come to the conference for your presentation, you’d better be prepared to answer the tough questions: HOW DO MORALS EXIST?

(Deceptively slicing and dicing my words is not a legitimate form of argument.)

There is no deception involved. Quote me where I deceived anyone. I posed all those questions to you, so that you can hopefully seek out the answers and understand the primary issue behind your argument. But I get the feeling you don’t care to understand. Oh well.

(Science deals with observational claims and evidence.)

Really? What religion are you from? Are you from those Religions who DON’T ACCEPT the observational claims and evidence given by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Cause these 3 institutions have MORE observational claims & evidence than all of Relativity, Quantum, and String Theory COMBINED!!!!!!

You didn’t understand the scientific method. You tried, but couldn’t explain what observational claims and evidence have to do with the Hypothesis AND Theory stages. You need to take an introductory course in science.....ASAP.

(You seem to have reached a Spiderpam-level of argumentative hyperventilation.)

Is THIS your argument? Is that the holy grail of sentences that will save you?

Go back are re-read what I said to you. You are not only unable to refute anything, but you have no rational explanations for what you preach.

And btw......spiderpam is a theist, just like you!

(tangents, changing of the subject, semantics and ad hominems, all underlying emotion and outrage)

You can’t refute the arguments that destroy your religion, huh?

BTW....I tried to keep to your limits. The only time people delete my comments is when they want to get rid of the evidence. I hope you don't stoop to that level.

But if you don't want to have any discussion with me.....I understand.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

Fatfist:

"The only time people delete my comments is when they want to get rid of the evidence. I hope you don't stoop to that level."

Ha! Don't worry about that--no coherent arguments coming from you as far as I can see. Oh wait... I thought evidence doesn't exist? Well, whatever.

"When you live in an English-speaking country, you have to. There is no other option but to communicate using the “official” language, no matter what ambiguities is has."

If you live in a free country, you can do whatever you want. Have the courage of your convictions, man!

BTW, morality exists in the minds of humans--I made that pretty clear earlier.

"In science, we DON’T “detect” objects."

Oh, don't you? THEN HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY ARE THERE?!!

Ha ha, end of discussion.

But wait, there's more:

"Do you need to “detect” the Sun to know it’s there? What about for this BLIND person of yours? Doesn’t the Sun exist if he doesn’t “see” it."

Exactly! A blind person cannot see anything! By jove I think he's got it! How can he know the sun is there if he can't see it or feel it?

Of course you and I know the sun exists whether a third blind party can see it or not--we've seen it.

If we had no senses, we wouldn't know it's there!

(BTW, Hawking can indeed see--that's his main way of interacting with the world)

So let me get this straight: Newton, Feynman, Hawking, Einstein, Dawkins, Planck, Sagan and thousands more---THEY don't understand science, but YOU in your infinite wisdom do? Sure, Fatfist... I believe you... sure...

You clearly need to learn about what science is and how it is practiced.

So I guess in your world, evidence, opinion, politics, Christianity, Satanism, the automotive industry, the nation of Belarus, Paris Hilton, the internet--it's all religion! Or something?

Sorry, but I think I'll throw in with Einstein, Hawking and others before someone who doesn't understand what science is, what religion is, what theism is, what atheism is, or what secularism is.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago

secularist,

(as far as I can see)

Is that what you do in your Religion? You observe?

That’s why you don’t even know that Hypotheses are “assumptions”.....you must have a brain before you can “conceive” them. Then you use them to “explain” in your Theory. You don’t send a crew of idiots to look for “hypotheses”. What grade are you in?

(If you live in a free country, you can do whatever you want.)

Oh, and what country do YOU live in where you can do WHATEVER you want?

Is that what your Morals hub is about......doing WHATEVER you want?

Take an intro course in Political Science. Then come here and tell us exactly HOW you get away with murder. Just because you haven’t been caught yet, doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want.

(morality exists)

What do YOU mean by the word ‘exists’? Do concepts ‘exist’ in your religion? Morality exists like God exists? Unless you unambiguously define the word ‘exist’, you are demonstrating that you are nothing but a theist.

(in the minds of humans)

Mind is a concept. The brain is an object. Did you know that? Stick around, you have a lot to learn!

Explain how a concept (morality) EXISTS inside another concept (mind). This will be good......

(Oh, don't you? THEN HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY ARE THERE?!!)

Are you for real? Do you even understand the Hypothesis stage of the scientific method? This is where the word OBJECT is defined. This is where the word EXIST is defined. And this is where objects are hypothesized or assumed so they can be used in the Theory.

Let me give you an example for the third time, cause this has gone 30 miles over your head:

Morality Hypothesis: Assume Morality is an object that exists. I define exists as follows.....blah blah.

Morality Theory: With this object I call Morality, I can now explain the following.....blah blah

Go ahead, secularist, this is YOUR theory.....fill in the blanks. Explain to us how, according to YOU, Morality exists.

(How can he know the sun is there if he can't see it or feel it?)

So according to YOU, the Sun does not exist when you are singing inside your church at night?

When was the last time you “felt” the Sun? What did it “feel” like? And you lived to tell about it? You must be one of Jesus’ Disciples!

(Of course......I know the sun exists)

Oh please tell us, secularist......how do you “know” the Sun exists? What do you mean by “exist”?

This is the word that makes or breaks your argument. Let’s see how much you really know. This will be good!

(If we had no senses, we wouldn't know it's there!)

Is that what your Pastor forced you to memorize by rote?

So in YOUR religion, the Sun did not exist before your God made Adam and Eve. Nice!!

(Newton, Feynman, Hawking, Einstein, Dawkins, Planck, Sagan)

Theists always invoke the authority of their Pastors when they have no arguments. Do you even know that “authority” is a logical fallacy? This is YOUR presentation, secularist. Please define this formidable word “exist”. Then we’ll all know whether this thing you call Morality, exists or not. Ok?

(I believe)

All theists do, so you’re not alone on this one.

(You clearly need to learn about what science is and how it is practiced)

Oh, why don’t you tell us then. What is science and how is it practiced? Go ahead.....we’re waiting.

BTW....Why don’t you answer any of the questions posed to you? Do you even know the difference between an object and a concept? You are reifying concepts and performing many miracles in your religion.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

Fatfist:

"Oh, and what country do YOU live in where you can do WHATEVER you want?"

I should have known you would take that line literally. What grade are you in, again? Because the last time I thought blind literalism was a legitimate form of answering a question, I was in middle school. Unsurprisingly, you did not actually answer the spirit of the question. (Oh no! Spirit! Another concept/ religion/ opinion!)

"Take an intro course in Political Science."

Oh, another religion in your world? Keep praying to your poli sci god.

"Unless you unambiguously define the word ‘exist’, you are demonstrating that you are nothing but a theist."

Yet another bizarre non-sequitur. Exist means to be real, to be a part of reality. Are you real? I have my doubts... Suddenly you are obsessed with the idea of existence? This is ultimately a philosophical question--but I thought philosophy is just another religion! Or something??

"That’s why you don’t even know that Hypotheses are “assumptions”.....you must have a brain before you can “conceive” them."

Haha! So in other words, a "hypothesis" is just a fancy word for blind faith! The contradictory hits just keep on coming. So it looks you're a theist by your own definition after all! OR SOMETHING???

"Mind is a concept. The brain is an object. Did you know that?"

Yes. If it exists in the brain or mind... by definition it is an intangible thing. Congratulations on figuring that one out.

"Do you even understand the Hypothesis stage of the scientific method? This is where the word OBJECT is defined. This is where the word EXIST is defined. And this is where objects are hypothesized or assumed so they can be used in the Theory."

Oh, I understand what a hypothesis is, but I don't think you do. Yet again, your capacity for self-contradiction amazes. "Assume" is just another word for "blind faith." I would have thought a scholar of the English language would get that?

"Morality Hypothesis: Assume Morality is an object that exists. I define exists as follows.....blah blah."

So first blind assumption is not legitimate, now it is. Hmmm... contradiction?

"So according to YOU, the Sun does not exist when you are singing inside your church at night?"

Yet another non-sequitur. Did I say "One senses the sun therefore it exists"? No, I said--to paraphrase--"One senses the sun therefore ONE IS AWARE that it exists." How can one make a theory about the sun if one does not even know it exists? Keep blindly assuming the existence of reality and pretending you're not really blindly assuming anything.

"This is the word that makes or breaks your argument. Let’s see how much you really know."

I'm losing track of all the "one" things that make or break my arguments--which aren't really arguments, only religion! Or something??

"Theists always invoke the authority of their Pastors when they have no arguments."

I knew you would say that. It's you against the world, Fatfist. You've got your work cut out for you.

"BTW....Why don’t you answer any of the questions posed to you?"

I have answered many of your questions, but you are simply a dishonest and self-contradictory charlatan who does not realize the depth of his self-contradiction, nor does he understand what science, religion, theism, atheism or assumption are, and who readily employs ad hominems to boot.

Why should I waste my time answering every nonsensical question such a person comes up with, when he will simply come up with 100 more?

Everything you don't like or don't understand is a "religion." Actually, I like that approach--it makes you very predictable.

BTW, FULL DISCLOSURE: I hate to do this, but I am very close to just deleting you. You've made your points, and are no longer contributing to the discussion. Your next comment better be good. Oh wait! "Good"... is that a religion/ concept/ opinion too? I must be a theist...haha

I think the unbiased reader will understand my predicament. (Damn! Predicament--another concept!)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago

Secularist,

(Exist means to be real)

LOL.....real is a synonym for ‘exist’.

I ask you again: what do you mean when YOU say ‘exist’?

You consistently elude the definition that makes or breaks your argument.

You made the following claims earlier:

1. (morality exists)

2. (Of course you and I know the sun exists whether a third blind party can see it or not--we've seen it. If we had no senses, we wouldn't know it's there!)

So which of the human senses do you use to “sense” your morality, to “confirm” that Morality exists? Sight?

Why don’t you tell everyone so that we can all confirm that “Morality exists”, as per your claim.

Don’t elude the question again......stay on topic!

(So in other words, a "hypothesis" is just a fancy word for blind faith!)

LOL! A scientist you do not make! You haven’t the slightest clue of the scientific method.

(If it exists in the brain or mind)

I asked you earlier, what exists in the mind (which is a concept)? You eluded the question.

(it is an intangible thing)

‘thing’ is object. Is “mind” an object? Please illustrate a picture of this THING you call “mind”.

Are you gonna bail out on this one too?

("Assume" is just another word for "blind faith.")

What a theist you are...

Blind faith is the OPINION that a proposition is true.

P1: “Morality exists”

You, secularist, have BLIND FAITH that proposition P1 is true.

Hypothesis: Assume there is an object that we shall name, “Morality”

The H has set up an initial scene to determine whether the Theory can explain.

But you did not fill in the blanks about your Morality Theory, to explain, as I asked you earlier. You have blind faith. That makes YOU a theist!

A scientific Hypothesis is an “assumption” for the purposes of explaining a Theory. It supposes a specific a set of conditions and objects, that “describe” a ‘consummated event’. The theory is a rational explanation of the consummated event, stemming from the Hypothesis.

A Hypothesis is not a proposition. Do you know the difference? A Hypothesis has nothing to do with opinion or truth. Truth and proof have nothing to do with science. Sign up for an intro science course, it will do you a lot of good.

Like I said.....stick around, you have a LOT to learn!

(Did I say "One senses the sun therefore it exists"?)

Oh, so now the word “exist”, does NOT depend on the 5 senses, right?

Great! Now that we’ve gotten that nonsense out of the way, please tell us what it means to ‘exist’.

Exist: This word means ___________________________

Fill in the blanks, then we’ll REALLY understand how the Sun exists, AND how Morality exists.

Let’s go, I asked you many times, but you chicken out so you can protect your religion. You are a theist. You want Morality to be BOTH an “object” and “concept” so you can get away with murder during your dissertation!

But that won’t happen......please define exist above!

(a dishonest and self-contradictory charlatan who does not realize the depth of his self-contradiction, nor does he understand what science, religion, theism, atheism or assumption are, and who readily employs ad hominems to boot.)

Oh ok. Nice tactic! You can resort to this nonsense in order to protect your faith. All theists do the same when cornered. I apologize for hurting your feelings. But I thought you were gonna explain to us HOW Morality exists.

(Why should I waste my time answering every nonsensical question)

I forgive you for not answering the other ones cause you know NOT what you preach.

But I will NOT let this one go:

Exist: This word means ___________________________

Fill in the blanks, show you can demonstrate how the Sun exists, AND how Morality exists.

This is the key word you hide behind. I’ve destroyed your whole argument. The only way to save yourself now is to define ‘exist’.

How about if I offer you some cash? Name your price and in exchange I want a definition for ‘exist’ that unambiguously demonstrates what it means for the Sun and Morality to exist.

Deal??


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago

(I am very close to just deleting you)

You can resort to censorship just like theists do.

Or you can define exist as I asked you above, and I'll PayPal you some cash.

Name your price.

Have a great day!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago

Sorry, I forgot to mention, secularist.

Please feel free to drop by any of my hubs and post whatever you like, no matter how long it is.

I also encourage you to refute any of my hubs. I would consider that a good learning experience for myself.

I NEVER censor anyone in my hubs. Drop by anytime.

Thanks for the discussion


AKA Winston 6 years ago

secularist10,

You made a civil reply and civility goes a long way with me so I feel I owe you the courtesy of a reply.

When I said you did not define your words, I meant in the article - not in the subsequent comments.

(No, theism offers proof for god that relies on faulty logic or personal experience (that is, subjective experience--subjective according to my use of the term). Theism therefore considers personal/ subjective experience to be a legitimately binding source of knowledge.

By contrast, I am calling for sound logic and impersonal justification for claims--in other words, justification not tied to personal, temporary or cultural experience. This kind of thing is often referred to as "objective," according to my use of the term.)

If you don't understand that both these methods are the same then I see your confusion. Logic was created by humans. It is a method to show precision in thinking. All systems of logic are built on axiomatic foundations.

The theist axiom is that God established absolute morality by laws of God.

The Secularist10 axiom is that God-Man establishes absolute morality by laws of logic.

You are both saying the same thing only arguing about the details.

It is the same problem Fatfist has been hammering you with. If you do not understand that the Sun exists and has existed regardless of man's recognition of that fact then you must define reality as occuring only in the mind.

If that is what you believe, then you should make an argument that reality is only in the mind before making that assertion and building a case for mental morality.

Otherwise, you are not arguing logically but only preaching to like-minded followers who believe reality requires an observer.


AKA Winston 6 years ago

One other comment. If you sincerely attempt to define your terms unambiguously - subjective equates to thoughts, feelings, opinions, etc., while objective deals only with measurable facts, then you will (I think) find that your argument is not nearly so lucid as you think.

It is the ambiguity of the terms that makes your argument appear valid. But if you use unambiguous meanings, you understand that the axiom God made morals and the axiom Man Makes Morals are both subjective, and therefore interchangeable. If you argue one is superior you are only announcing an opinion - which again is subjective.

So now you have to go back to the edit key and start your entire thesis with "It is my belief that man can establish by logic a system of morality as sound as - if not superior to - any established by rules of a religion."

Frankly, at that point you have my attention as I know I am dealing with an honest man who is going to show me through a reasoned argument what convinced him to believe.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Regarding Fatfist, the unbiased reader will agree that I have given a definition of the word "exist," and his most recent quotation of me on that point is deceptive and incomplete. In the spirit of as much discussion/ expression as possible, I won't delete his comments, but I'm done wasting time engaging him.

My threat to delete was not out of a desire for censorship, but rather out of a desire to reimpose order in this hub. The unbiased reader must agree that, although he seems to be a smart guy, that does not excuse his chaotic pseudo-argumentation and dishonesty.

I have so far never deleted a comment on Hub Pages, and I would like to keep that record.

Now, then. AKA Winston:

Welcome back! Long time, no see, lol.

"When I said you did not define your words, I meant in the article - not in the subsequent comments."

Understood. I like to use the comments section for further exploration of the article and debate, since I can't spell out every minute detail conceivable in the body of the articles.

"If you don't understand that both these methods are the same then I see your confusion. Logic was created by humans. It is a method to show precision in thinking. All systems of logic are built on axiomatic foundations."

Firstly, this is true, all systems of logic are built on axiomatic foundations. In other words, blind faith. I don't think I ever denied that or indicated otherwise. However, by Occam's Razor and the mentality it points to, less blind faith is preferable to more. In other words, other things equal, one should blindly assume as little as possible when constructing a worldview or epistemology.

In a secular or materialist world, we have blind faith--in the existence of reality, or in the reliability of sense-experience, etc. This blind faith underlies everything. However, we only need to blindly assume a few things. Every subsequent claim must be proven or justified.

By contrast, in a theistic world, there is still blind faith--but there is a staggeringly greater degree of it. Assume reality was created, assume the creator still exists, assume the creator is a conscious/ sentient being, assume he is a benevolent being, assume he has a plan, etc, etc. The huge amount of blind faith is not needed.

What further renders religion unique is that after making this initial set of blind assumptions, it layers new sets of assumptions on top of each other--that Jesus was born to a virgin, that Muhammad was spoken to by an angel, etc. 95% or 99% of this blind faith is totally unnecessary to understanding.

"The theist axiom is that God established absolute morality by laws of God. The Secularist10 axiom is that God-Man establishes absolute morality by laws of logic. You are both saying the same thing only arguing about the details."

If I believe, on blind faith that reality is eternal, and the theist believes, on blind faith, that reality was created--are these not 2 completely different claims? Yes, we are both using blind faith, which renders them equal in the face of logic. But certainly the claims are not "the same thing."

Again, the key difference with my kind of mindset is that I seek as few blind faith assumptions as possible. Blind faith is necessary for everyone. You do it, I do it, Fatfist does it, everybody does it, like it or not. The question is, how much blind faith is needed. I submit only a little bit. The theist submits, a lot. I see that as a key epistemological difference, with big implications.

I said earlier, that if you want to reduce "theism" and "religion" to simply "the presence of blind faith," then you have defined the former 2 terms so broadly as to render them meaningless. Because suddenly, every single person is a theist or religionist. And if everybody is, then nobody is, and the terms are meaningless. If that's what you want to do, then fine, it's entirely consistent and coherent. But I don't see it as very useful, because it's abundantly clear that we all require and use blind faith--that's not at all what makes worldviews or philosophies different from each other.

You did not identify my axiom quite precisely, but that's not important.

"It is the same problem Fatfist has been hammering you with. If you do not understand that the Sun exists and has existed regardless of man's recognition of that fact then you must define reality as occuring only in the mind."

Ok, let me reiterate yet again: (1) the sun exists regardless of people's awareness, it is an independent fact (objective, by your earlier use of the term)(2) humans come along, and they are only AWARE of the sun insofar as they sense it. The awareness on the part of humans is IRRELEVANT as to the actual existence of the sun. Period. I've indicated this several times.

What I am interested in is not the fact that reality exists outside the human mind (I take that as a given), but rather what humans do with their minds. One of the things they do with their minds is create moral systems--which are simply intangible constructions and beliefs of the mind. Morality does not exist if humans don't exist.

Ok, and what is the best way to create a moral system? I submit it is an approach that (1) identifies a "should" proposition out of the blue--same as the religious; so far, 0-0, we're equal, (2) grounds this "should" in the being proposing it, so the commander and the victim are one and the same--suddenly this is superior to the religious morality because of (a) Occam's Razor again (cutting out the moral middle man as I indicated in the article), and (b) it forces the commander to be subject to his own commands, which ensures a built-in consistency and internal coherence in the moral system, which is not inherently guaranteed by a God-based morality; now we're not equal, score 1-0, (3) uses logic and reason to answer the question of whether a given action complies with the initial "should," which makes it yet more reliable and consistent, whereas the God-based approach does not use logic or reason, but rather myth, opinion, bias, etc. Now it's 2-0. I could probably go on with more advantages, but these are enough for now.

Now, I suppose you would object by saying there is no "best way" to create a moral system because morality is ultimately whatever one wants it to be. No morality is inherently superior to any other.

I consider this faulty because of the following: (1) morality does not exist if humans do not exist, (2) "best" or "better" or "superior" are all subjective (according to your earlier use) human ideas, (3) therefore, by definition, when we start talking about "best" we are talking in reference to the human mind itself in the first place, NOT in reference to the larger "objective" (your use) reality.

Objective (your use) reality does not care one way or another about our morality. But here's the thing--objective reality cannot care! "To care" is by definition a human phenomenon. So therefore, insofar as humans care, they care about "best." It's us. We can do whatever we want. The universe is irrelevant. So, therefore, according to our own minds, we use things that arise from our minds--logic, morals, best, care, etc--to orient ourselves in a certain way. We feel a need or desire to do this (for whatever reason), so we might as well do it the right way--and by definition "right way" means something only insofar as humans exist. So if we exist, we are seeking the right way, the best way, etc. According to our own creations and our own inherent nature--logic and reason and coherence, etc--we therefore create the moral system that best suits us, in the subjective sense (your use), but still objective (my use).

CONCLUSION

"So now you have to go back to the edit key and start your entire thesis with "It is my belief that man can establish by logic a system of morality as sound as - if not superior to - any established by rules of a religion.""

I hope now you can see that this is precisely what I have been saying all along. Our initial misunderstanding was really over a few key definitions. Now that the definitions are clear, my intention should be clear.

My morality proposal here is entirely within the world of


AKA Winston 6 years ago

(One of the things they do with their minds is create moral systems--which are simply intangible constructions and beliefs of the mind. Morality does not exist if humans don't exist.)

Exactly so.

(Ok, and what is the best way to create a moral system? I submit)

Perfect! That is all you ever had to say. You lay the foundation - what is the best way to create a moral system. And then you propose (I submit). This proposal to me is critical as the implication is that it is opinion, which I deem a priori, or of the mind, and thus subjectively derived.

That is why I objected to the word absolute when it modifies anything that is a priori, for as you have stated (and I agree) morality requires biological brains and thus cannot be absolute. Absolute must include all possibilities, and it is certainly impossible that something could have been moral before man and his mind existed - so if no morals, no absolute moral, either. Concepts, thoughts, ideas, etc., cannot be absolute. And because they are a priori, by my preferred definition of objective, there can be no absolute objective morality - that to me is kind of like the Holy Trinity of Oxymorons.

However, as soon as you say it is my view (opinion) that a secular system of logic is a superior system and then lay out your reasoned argument you have convinced me - not that I needed any convincing of the argument, only the nature of the way you framed it.

That is why I warned against using theist ambiguity when discussing objectivity. In my mind it is simple that the word objective resolves to expressions concerning objects - things that have mass and location. Subjective resolves to opinion, ideas, thoughts, concepts.

I am aware that philosphy has debated the meanings of these words for years - but as philosophy was hijacked by theists not long after Aristotle it is no surprise that meanings have been muddled and confused.

I like to see a clearer picture - an honest picture. There is noting wrong with starting out, I believe I can prove that....it simply means you can make a sound logical argument that resolves the dichotomy of true/false to your proposition. But when you confuse schools, mixing scientific terms with philosophical in order to give an illusion of correctness, you actually reduce your argument to a state of meaningless gibberish.

When you make a claim that morality (idea) exists (has mass and volume) and can be objective (measurable) - well, that pretty much makes no sense.

However, stay in the proper school - I can prove (opinion/idea/a priori) secular morality (opinion/idea/a priori) is superior (opinion/idea/a priori) to thestic morality (opinion/idea/a priori) by logical reasoning (a priori form of argument) - well, at this point I know I am in the hands of a reasonable and intelligent human being and I look forward to the argument.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

Well, I'm glad that's settled.

I don't know why that last paragraph got cut off there in my previous comment. It was supposed to be something like: My morality proposal here is entirely within the world of humans, based on humans, derived from humans, etc, therefore the larger reality is not relevant, by definition.

Clearly, if I propose that one morality is more logical to another morality, I am matching like with like--human creation with human creation.

I probably would not have clarified this whole concept without your prodding and input, so I thank you for that. I don't think the essence of my idea has changed, but the framing and elucidation have improved.

You know, I write my articles for a general educated audience. It is my understanding that for the most part when people talk about "objective" and "subjective" they are talking about them in those ways I indicated, at least here in the US. A la "objective journalism versus opinion/ commentary." So that is the colloquial convention I use.

Also, "absolute vs relative" in the sphere of moral philosophy today typically refers to moral rules that apply absolutely (i.e. killing is always wrong, no matter what) versus those that apply depending on personal preference or cultural convention (i.e. killing is wrong in our culture, but in another culture, it might be acceptable, and both systems are equally legitimate).

So my thinking is somewhere between the secular moral relativist and the religious moral absolutist, on those terms. A secular absolute morality in this sense is quite possible--secularism does not have to lead to moral relativism, or moral confusion as so many religious claim.

I don't believe there is a "moral order" inherent in the universe as the religious person believes, but neither do I accept the idea that morality is legitimately conceived of as a free-for-all.


AKA Winston 6 years ago

secularist10,

(You know, I write my articles for a general educated audience. It is my understanding that for the most part when people talk about "objective" and "subjective" they are talking about them in those ways I indicated, at least here in the US.)

I do not dispute common language understandings - that is what makes them common and useless for expressing precise ideas.

You are too intelligent to be captivated by the fool's gold of common usage - hard, concrete, precise terms crystallize the debate, not only for others but in your own mind as well.

But arguing with ambiguous terms can only end in ambiguity.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

"I do not dispute common language understandings - that is what makes them common and useless for expressing precise ideas."

Useless? Well, maybe certain ideas. But I think common language (as that used by the educated general audience) is perfectly sufficient for most expression.

I have not seen a significant difference between my language used in the article (prior to this discussion, when I was working the "general audience") and that used by you for most of this discussion. The basic grammar and linguistic style have been equivalent, aside from a few details.

Technically, many terms that I used in the original article could be seen as "ambiguous," if you think about it: "secular," "morality," "human," or the big kahuna: "God." You chose to focus on the word "objective," which is not unjustified, but you could just as easily have picked many words.

Basically, for the most part, the best we can do is just use the language the way it is used. Unless there is a compelling reason not to.


AKA Winston 6 years ago

(But I think common language (as that used by the educated general audience) is perfectly sufficient for most expression.)

You should try a test: poll about 100 people on their definition of truth, moral, and love.

Ordinary language is great if you are trying to convince the audience on Jerry Springer - but it has no place in real debate or in the expression of exact ideas.

(Technically, many terms that I used in the original article could be seen as "ambiguous," if you think about it: "secular," "morality," "human," or the big kahuna: "God.")

Now you are getting the drift. If you want to express a idea, you want to eliminate as much ambiguity as you can.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

Ok, then do me a favor. Since you just used ordinary language, please define each of the following words:

"Ordinary," "language," "is," "great," "if," "you," "trying," "to convince," "audience," "Jerry Springer," "has," "place," "real," "debate," "in," "expression," "exact," "ideas."

See the problem?

To take your idea to its logical extent, no one would ever have a substantive discussion about anything. We would just spend the rest of our lives defining things, and then debating over the definitions, ad infinitum.

I'm not arguing that identifying precise definitions is a waste of time--I completely agree that for certain key concepts, it's very fruitful, if not absolutely necessary.

But to say that ordinary language is garbage for substantive discussion, well, one can't really say that, can one? Because in order to *say* that, in order to make that substantive claim, one must use ordinary language.

By all means, let's clear up real ambiguities where necessary. At some point, we just have to assume we are speaking the same language. It's not perfect, but that's just the way it goes.


AKA Winston 6 years ago

(To take your idea to its logical extent, no one would ever have a substantive discussion about anything. We would just spend the rest of our lives defining things, and then debating over the definitions, ad infinitum)

Your appeal fails. I wrote this: "If you want to express an idea, you want to eliminate as much ambiguity as you can."

Invariably, the one who causes an argument over definitions is the one arguing for the least consistent and precise meaning. If the goal of two people is to have a consistent definition, then it is not hard to come to agreement. To get an idea about consistency, you may want to see my hub, God's Truth Revealed. There I discuss just this concept of truth.

You can write this idea in common language: 1) God is Truth. But what does that mean? Do we need to define the word God or the word is? I don't think so. Common language seems to be reasonably consistent as to those words.

But what about truth? How consistent is the meaning of truth? We cannot rely on common language there because the definition is inconsistent. To have consistency in an argument, everyone involved has to understand in the same way the meanings of the words used. For example, how can God be truth if the stated definition for truth is: the conclusion of a sound argument?

It is the nebulous appeal to general knowledge (common language understanding) that is the fallacy of all theism and pseudo-philosophy preached by modern scholars. To a large degree it is inconsistent definitions that lead to the circularity of the arguments. It is hard to be circular about truth if its definition is "a conclusion to a sound argument".

All I am encouraging is the use of critical thinking, finding answers for oneself instead of relying on what others (authorities) state. Reliance on authority is the hallmark of religion - and religion does not have to have a common language god to be a religion. Philosphy can be a religion if we accept certain teachings as "asbsolute".


AKA Winston 6 years ago

To get back to the orininal point, I have to post a rather long excerpt from the article:

(The reality is that secular reason is not just capable of giving objective moral rules, it naturally leads to them.

Secular reason is a tool for uncovering the truth (based on objective evidence, rational skepticism and testability.)

It assumes nothing exists outside of this world, because nothing outside of this world can be proven to exist.)

Your logic fails here in that you posit that nothing exists nor can be proven to exist outside this world, yet secular reasoning can uncover objective moral rules, which would have to exist in this world. If they are "found or uncovered", they would have to previously exist. If they are uncovered, "creating" by secular reasoning is ruled out.

(This approach has led to countless insights and advances in knowledge. Secular reason and the scientific method have enabled us to discover the origins and nature of disease, to achieve ever-higher levels of technological progress, to determine the origins of human life and the origins of the earth, and to generally answer a multitude of questions that escaped human understanding for thousands of years.

Why should moral questions be immune to this process?)

I applaud you for correct word usage (by avoiding the terms proof and truth in objective discoveries), but your conclusion is a non sequitor. You try to equate that which is fact(objective) bacteria and viruses, technology, and evolutionary evidence of fossil and DNA with that which requires opinion (subjective), i.e., morals, and then make the non-logical claim that because we can explain objective data we somehow are magically predisposed to have the ability to creat a new object (morals) simply by the power of our reasoning.

You make a common error - but one I am sure is taught in schools that simply parrot textbooks and do not teach people to think for themselves: (Secular reason is a tool for uncovering the truth). At this point you are dead-on right...but you ruin it with this continuation: (based on objective evidence, rational skepticism and testability.)

No. Truth is not based on objective evidence, skepticim, or testability. Those are facts - objective. Billy weighs 127 pounds. We put him on the scales and it is apparent that the scale registers 127 pounds. It is an objective fact. Truth is more elusive. Truth can only be discovered by axiom, by creating a logic system and then resolving the dichotomy of a proposition. All truth is opinion: truth is subjective.

Here is the objective evidence: at the L.A. crime scene, there were gallons of O.J. Simpson's blood. Here is the subjective truth: He was not guilty of murder.

The problem? You used the common language word "truth" without a precise definition of it. You said: (Secular reason is a tool for uncovering the truth), yet you leave the definition of the word truth to be decided by the opinion of the reader.

You may as well have said, "Secular reason is a tool for uncovering God" as to the theist reader who believes that God is truth that is the meaning of your message.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

"You can write this idea in common language: 1) God is Truth... Do we need to define the word God or the word is? I don't think so. Common language seems to be reasonably consistent as to those words."

That's your mistake here. Firstly, "God" is defined in *common* language as an all-powerful being that created the universe, etc. But since you don't trust common language when it comes to big, important ideas, it seems that whatever the common language definition of it is, is irrelevant, by your argument.

Not-so-commonly, "God" is defined as as an impersonal life force, or even as the self. The Hindu, Christian, Muslim and traditional African conceptions of "God" vary significantly. Muslims believe it is contrary to God's nature to have a son, whereas Christians believe Jesus Christ is indeed God's only son. The theistic and deistic conceptions of "God" are very different, and so on.

Secondly, you said "common language seems to be reasonably consistent as to those words," but common language is also reasonably consistent as to the word "objective," to which you earlier agreed. It just so happens that you *prefer* to use a different sense of the word "objective." But that does not mean the common usage is imprecise, just that it is different.

You said: "If you want to express an idea, you want to eliminate as much ambiguity as you can."

In order to eliminate as much ambiguity as you can, you would have to precisely define every single word being used, which would result in an unending definitional journey--so my earlier statement is indeed fair.

"All I am encouraging is the use of critical thinking, finding answers for oneself instead of relying on what others (authorities) state."

I completely agree with that effort.

"Your logic fails here in that you posit that nothing exists nor can be proven to exist outside this world, yet secular reasoning can uncover objective moral rules, which would have to exist in this world. If they are "found or uncovered", they would have to previously exist."

Two points. First, yes, since moral rules exist within the human mind or minds, by definition, they exist within this world. Second, on "uncovering," the point is that there are moral rules, just as there are logical truths. At first, we don't know what those logical truths are, but they clearly have always existed as long as humans have existed--we just did not know them, and therefore we had to discover them within our mind-realm. The same with morals. They previously existed, but humans did not consciously realize it until they discovered it.

"You try to equate that which is fact(objective)..."

Your explanation here is imprecise, but you do bring up an interesting point: just because a given methodology has enabled us to discover external-mind (tangible) things does not mean it enables us to discover internal-mind (intangible) things.

The key point here is that both the tangible and the intangible (in the case of something like morality) are independent of individual people/ minds. Insofar as morality is a system or intellectual construct, it does not depend on the existence of an individual mind, even though it depends on the existence of human minds in general. By contrast, a given opinion about fashion or art DOES depend on an individual mind--the mind of the person holding that opinion. So I am concerned with things that exist independently of an individual mind.

"No. Truth is not based on objective evidence, skepticim, or testability. Those are facts - objective."

I thought we had settled this, but unfortunately you are again ignoring my use of the term "objective."

"You may as well have said, "Secular reason is a tool for uncovering God" as to the theist reader who believes that God is truth that is the meaning of your message."

No, because the common use of the word "truth" is NOT equivalent to saying that "God is truth." To say "God is truth" is an uncommon use of the word truth. Some people certainly say that, but it is not common in the language, and it is typically more metaphorical or poetic in any case.

So, if anything, this supports my side because I am arguing for common definitions (as with "objective"), whereas you are critical of common definitions.


AKA Winston 6 years ago

You mistate my argument. Thanks for the exchange but I do not wish to provide any more straw for you to weave into an imaginary argument.

I bid you an unambiguous adieu.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

Ok, Winston, take care, but I really hope you read this anyway: you are of course aware that "adieu" means goodbye in French, but are you aware that it is a contraction of two words, "à Dieu," which literally means "to God"? Hmmm... maybe not so unambiguous after all!

In any case, you leave without giving me or the unbiased reader an idea of where or when I constructed an "imaginary argument."

Oh well. C'est la vie.


brotheryochanan profile image

brotheryochanan 6 years ago from BC, canada

I wanna play!! :) Evolution??? Sun - uninhabitable, Mercury - uninhabitable, Venus - uninhabitable, Mars - uninhabitable, Jupiter - uninhabitable, Saturn - uninhabitable, Neptune - uninhabitable, Pluto - uninhabitable, Canis Majoris - uninhabitable, Stars and the vacuum of space - uninhabitable. So far humankind, even with the hubble telescope has not found one other planet able to sustain human life.

Earth - habitable! Why? Created!!

This is logic to the MAX and in your face. lol.

Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth". 1492 was when columbus discovered the earth to be round. In your face number 2. Look at the palm lol.

If you want details about a young earth instead of the big bang, go here

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/does-...

In your face number 3! and that's all anybody should need. I know i was annoying, but, hehe, I had fun.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

Brotheryochanan:

What does any of this have to do with secular morality or secular rights?

Anyway, let me see: The earth is habitable because it was created. Huh. I never thought of it like that. I guess I wasn't aware that the fact that something is created means it's habitable. Therefore everything that is created is habitable. Logic to the max?

The article you linked to says, among other things, this:

"The Bible, though, never changes because it never needs to. God got it right the first time! The Bible is the infallible Word of God. So when it touches on a particular topic, it’s right. When the Bible talks about geology, it’s correct. When Scripture addresses biology or anthropology, it’s also right."

Do you agree with this statement? Because if this is true, I guess when the Bible calls for stoning people for sexual indiscretions, it must be right! If you do agree, then you're in good company:

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/07/06/iran...

"that's all anybody should need"

I guess so! haha


brotheryochanan profile image

brotheryochanan 6 years ago from BC, canada

So you are saying that the unwanted babies and ooopsy pregnancies and then diseases like hiv, etc, abortions these are all okay? because people should get their whatsits wet? Do you have any idea how much money governments put out supporting single moms?

Truly there is an argument for everything, but, To see truth one needs to stop looking for the argument and accept the end result of truth, which is in this case: If a law were passed that people who had sexual discretions were stoned, how can we pity those who get stoned? Divorces are the casualties that cause the victimization of children. Another of gods preventative rules: no divorce.

Earlier the point was that earth was created to be inhabited because all planet and stars etc are all created. 8 planets and the whole host of space are UNinhabitable and 1 planet, earth is habitable. That is not evolution or all the planets would be UNinhabitable. That was my point.

The link to the page was something i thought you might like to look at not bring up stoning people who had sexual indiscretions... i don't know why u did that... therefore did i say stop looking for the argument all the time.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City Author

"The link to the page was something i thought you might like to look at not bring up stoning people who had sexual indiscretions... i don't know why u did that... therefore did i say stop looking for the argument all the time."

The only reason I brought that up is to take the logic of the article to its natural extent: if every time the Bible touches a subject, it is correct, then it follows that when the Bible touches the subject of private life and punishment, it is right. Well, when the Bible touches that subject, it allows for stoning.

My main point was to delegitimize the article. If one can see the ludicrous outcomes that following a hard Biblical standard leads to, then one can see that the basic thrust of the article--deriving scientific insights from the Bible--is itself highly questionable, at best.

I am a bit surprised at your attitude toward stoning. Most people, including most Christians today, would take a much less accepting position, to say the least. Nevertheless, I will certainly give you points for consistency.

Regarding earth and the uninhabitable: since the preconditions for life are so rarely seen in the universe, it makes sense that very few--indeed, almost no--places would give rise to life. I fail to understand how this undermines the theory of evolution. If anything, it is totally irrelevant, as it deals with the much less understood process of how life was CREATED, not how life DEVELOPED once it was created, which is what evolution deals with.


Baileybear 5 years ago

Gosh, lots of attacking comments from the religionists! They seem to have it in their heads that secular = evil & atheist = evil. They cannot comprehend that a person can have good ethics/values without belief in an invisible supernatural being


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 5 years ago from New York City Author

This hub has certainly generated a lot of debate--from religionists as well as from the cult of so-called "logic." But it has stood the test of time.

I am arguing in the article for an objective/ absolute morality, as well as for a secular morality--which clearly puts me in the sights of many people, with many agendas, from hardcore religionists who think denying the existence of God is the most evil thing conceivable, to secular moral relativists, to anybody who bristles at the appearance of moral certainty about anything.


Baileybear 5 years ago

Yes, that seems to be the reaction of the hard-core religionists - which is one of the reasons I wrote my hub about Darwin - highlighting some of these attitudes

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working