Underlying Philosophy

quote:

---

And when I say you can't use logic, what I mean is this: if you were to strictly follow your worldview, you would be unable to account for the laws of logic and would thus have no reason for relying on them.

---

You know that isn't true. I've already offered an account of the laws of logic that you haven't been able to shoot down.

quote:

---

I hold that when you use logic and reasoning, and follow particular morals, that you are borrowing from my worldview, which explains our ability to reason, and also why there is good and evil. I do not understand where good and evil could come from if there is no supernatural being.

---

And you're wrong there, too. And in fact there is no convincing explanation for "good and evil" that even requires a God. But there are certainly explanations of how we have morality that fit within a naturalistic paradigm.

Derived from observation.My point is this. Given the premises that all pigs have wings, and that all animals with wings can play the trombone, it would be logically correct to deduce that all pigs can play the trombone. But it would also be wrong. Logic supplies us with nothing useful unless we have correct premises to feed into it. And in order to get correct premises, we rely on observation. ... you are, as I have demonstrated, completely wrong. So perhaps you should stop saying things that you know to be false. And you are, of course, wrong. As I have pointed out to you about a zillion times, my "worldview" is based on the idea that we can find out about the world by looking at it --- to put it concisely, my worldview is to view the world. And one of the things which we find out about the world by looking at it is that logic correctly applied to correct premises leads to correct conclusions. And I hold that on those occasions when you use logic and reasoning, you are participating in my "worldview". You look to see whether a car is coming before you cross the road, don't you? Rather than, for example, just praying to God to keep you safe and then marching out there regardless of the evidence?When it comes to a really serious matter, a matter of your own life or death, you adopt an evidence-based approach just like me, don't you?Of your morality I know nothing, and if it comes to that, you know nothing of mine, since this is not a topic that we have discussed. Before you say that I have borrowed my morality from you, perhaps you should take the trouble to find out what it is.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Point out if I'm wrong, but it looked like you just said you are neutral, but then immediately following your statement of "I say it is [neutral]", you go on to say that real neutrality is impossible.And to respond to all of your bigfoot and Santa Claus metaphors (and to give them this label is too much, as they are all absolutely incomparable to God. Let's please not go about comparing figments of man's imagination to God), if you don't take bigfoot into account, you are indeed biased. As I have pointed out earlier, to not take a being into account is as far in the negative direction as one can go...how can you go further in the negative direction? If you were to take a being into account, this would be as far in the positive direction as is possible. Conversely, to not take a being into account is as far in the negative direction as is possibly attainable, for the simple reason that you can't go any farther in the negative direction. So to be neutral is to accept things that are well established? So am I neutral in assuming that I will always have a strong attraction to the ground (gravity)? The definition of neutral is: not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy. If I were to insist to you that I have no attraction to the earth, and you were to insist that I am attracted to the earth, you are, by definition, taking a side; the side that the force of gravity exists. So you are therefore, by definition, not neutral with regards to the gravity controversy.Curiously, this case involves two sides: one who believes in the existence of something (gravity, caused perhaps by a dynamo), and one who does not accept a belief in something (gravity). You do not accept the belief in a god, and you say this is neutral. And yet you would say that one who does not accept the belief in gravity is not neutral, for the simple reason that there is compelling evidence for the existence of gravity (or at least a cause of gravity...). So since when does the presence of evidence for or against a belief define whether one of a negative viewpoint with regards to that belief is neutral?So what is going on here is this: you insist that you are neutral in your beliefs, but anyone who follows your lead in being "neutral", and as a result rejects all beliefs (such as the belief in gravity), is not neutral in your view. So now you get to define who is and isn't neutral. If you interpret the evidence as supporting a particular position, then that position is the neutral one, but any other view is, as defined by you, not neutral. Sounds just a wee bit arbitrary. Please tell me how you could go further in the negative direction. [qs]it [s]hould all depend on evidence.[/qs]Please elaborate a little further on this view, i.e., is evidence your supreme authority with regards to all things? Just so you will be able to better understand everything else I'm saying about negative and positive views in this message, I'll clear this up. When I say negative view, I mean the belief that holds for the absence or non-existence of something, e.g., with regards to a worldwide flood, an evolutionist would be negative and a creationist would be positive, while with regards to a big bang, an evolutionist would be positive, and a creationist would be negative. Once again, the stoning is the punishment of the law, which I do not follow, simply because the Bible says that I am condemned by my conscience. But certainly I would not be a rebellious child, because obviously the Bible says that this is not a good thing. Once again, I am not attempting to undermine empirical evidence. My point is simple: what is it that has made you assert that evidence will yield correct things? How do know that we are really seeing what we are seeing etc.? How do you know anything? If I were an atheist, I honestly wouldn't know what to rely on, because I would have no source for ultimate truth. It may seem as though evidence yields correct things, but can you really know this? Why should we await evidence to see what we should do? This question is directed to you as an atheist. My answer should be obvious. So what is your answer? Do you have any really good reason for relying on evidence? Isn't it possible that it is a bunch of gobbledygook? To say that science is based on no fundamental assumptions is like saying that when one reads a book, they read it with no fundamental assumptions (they would assume, for instance, that the language within the book can convey a certain meaning to them, and that that meaning will also be conveyed to others who read the book, or they might assume that the book has words in it, rather than a bomb...). Science is based on some very fundamental (and obvious) assumptions. For example: laws that have been observed to be true will remain true, and will not change. When was the last time you saw a scientist say there might be a place where energy was actually converting itself into a more efficient form of energy? The second law of thermodynamics is a rather fundamental assumption, one that without which science would become virtually impossible.The definition of science is: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. This presumes that through observation and experimentation of the world around us, certain knowledge can be obtained, and that that knowledge gained will hold true for all others within the material world. There are many more fundamental assumptions in science.And just another problem here: according to the definition of science, science does not account for abstract entities (i.e., non-material entities), such as morals, laws of logic, etc. Just as science cannot explain morals, and doesn't (by definition) attempt to do the same, science can also not explain God, nor should it attempt to. The very definition of science says that the knowledge gained is of relation to the material world, not abstract entities such as morals and laws of logic.So here is an application: prove to me scientifically that I should not look up where you live and come and kill you. Until you can, there seems to be no good reason (that is, if we adhere to your worldview) for me to not do so. So what would your reply be if I asked "would it be okay for me to live 100%, completely for my pleasure?".If living for my pleasure somehow involves hurting society, then I would say this justifies hurting society (from your worldview that is).Once again, why should one not hurt society? Since when does it matter that you say people shouldn't be hurt? Why does it bother you for people to be hurt?...maybe there's a reason to all this.And to respond to a previous objection about an afterlife, my point is just that you worldview does not provide an afterlife. And besides, from your "scientific" viewpoint, wouldn't it be a supernatural occurrence for a person to exist somewhere other than this material world? This, of course, would require a supernatural being.One final question. Does your worldview specifically require that I, in my lifetime, do something to help society?

I think he's trying to paraphrase your argument there, not to state his own opinion.---You leave us with a bit of a puzzle. If I have understood you correctly, you claim that someone who says that there is no Santa Claus is biased. They're one of those people with a "biased presupposition" in favor of making their minds up based on the evidence.On the other hand, someone who has never even heard of Santa Claus and has no opinion on this subject whatsoever is also (according to you) biased.So, could you please explain to us what neutrality and objectivity on this subject would look like? What statement would someone need to make on the subject of the existence of Santa Claus which would not (according to you) be "biased"?Please do let us know.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Good grief.Objectivity does not require one to deny the facts, but rather that one's beliefs should be conditioned by the facts. I think I'm going to have to quote David Hume again: Has it occurred to you that your fantasies about what you would think if you were an atheist may be inaccurate? I am an atheist, and I have no difficulty at all with the questions which perplex and bewilder you, who are a theist. It all seems very straightforward to me, but apparently it baffles you completely. By refusing belief in some fact a priori, whatever the evidence. You know, like creationists do. And if you will ignore this "assumption" next time you cross the road, then I shall refrain from calling you a hypocrite.Also, you will die when the car hits you.You use my worldview every time it comes down to something important, like whether you live or die. You reject it only when you want to do something trivial and inconsequential such as spouting religious bullshit. But when your life is in your hands, you don't make a fool of yourself with some pathetic epistemological balderdash. Instead, you look to see if a car is coming before you cross the road.So long as you continue to do so, I can't take you seriously. And if you ever cease to do so, I won't have to take you seriously, because you will be unable to post here after people put you in a wooden box and bury you.

I was more like talking out loud what your position was on neutrality. I do not agree with it. And you know that god isn't a figment of man's imaginatoin because? I would say you aren't. And there lies the crux of the matter I guess. You use the words "biased" and "neutral" a bit differently then most people, it seems. Denying the existence of something when there is evidence for it, I would say. But without evidence for it, this would be a totally ridiculous thing to do. Like I said, I think you can. I would say so, yes. Whereas not accepting those things would be idiotic in the extreme. Yes. Until evidence arises that shows this to be otherwise. Again, you are apparently using the word "neutral" in a different way from most people. Also, why should neutrality matter so much. Either a claim is true, or it isn't. As long as there is no evidence for the claim being true, why should you accept it as true? If I told you you could cross a big and busy freeway without getting hit by a car, would you believe me? Sorry to ask this but what do you mean by "caused perhaps by a dynamo", this confuses me a bit.Anyway, on with the topic: Again this cause thing, what do you mean by this? But yes, basically, you're correct. Th "negative viewpoint" as you keep calling it, is always the neutral viewpoint. Once evidence comes into play it would be clear whether or not this viewpoint was the correct viewpoint, and a neutral person would then adjust his stance to what the evidence shows. I didn't say that. I said one should start with the neutral viewpoint, and when evidence comes into ply, one can adjust his stance on the matter according to the evidence. It's all fine one starts out not believing in gravity, but once one is shown it exists, not accepting that it exists is utterly idiotic. It's like me denying that people can't walk over water. Even when shown time and time again that people who step on water fall into it and subsequently get wet, and even after having done so myself a couple of times, I would still insist that people can walk on water. But I am not the one determining this. The evidence is. By not accepting something when there is compelling evidence for it. Yes. Though it might be a bit strong worded, without evidence I belief nothing. It has taken me some years to get to this position though. There were times why i actually believed stuff that didn't have any evidence for it. Like the ridiculous claims of the 9/11 "truthers", there was a time when I bought into that balony. Luckily, I grew a sense just in time, and now I don't. Actually... A person going with what the evidence shows would say the flood is bullshit, while those in denial of it would sya it happened. The same goes for the big bang. Accepting evolution has nothing to do with it. There are people who accept the big bang but don't accept evolution, you know. But ok, point taken. The law commands you to stone that (Jewish) person, yet you choose not to follow it. Yet in the previous post (Message 173) you said: So, should we or should we not follow the law? Or should we just follow it when we feel like it says the right thing? In which case, why bother with the law at all? So, if your parents told you to go out and rob a person, you would do this? Because not doing this would mean you are a "rebellious child". Experience tells em that evidence leads to the right conclusion. You use the same method every time you stand on a ledge. Do you jump down? Afterall we don't really know that gravity exists right? Sure you would, it's called evidence. When you show me it doesn't, then I will believe your claim. So, got any evidence that evidence isn't reliable? Oh wait, but then, what makes your evidence reliable? Everything I know about reality has shown me that evidence is the right way to go. Why should I not follow it then? Even you use it, every day, every time. And again, show me it is gobbledygook and I will be glad to change my position. Until then, I'll stick to what reality has shown me, thank you very much. That's not an assumption though, is it. The second law has been shown to be accurate. It isn't just assumed, it has been proven. Ok. Got anything to show this is not the case? You can walk on water? You are not subject to gravity? So? Should we therefore discard it? Or simply assume things because "science can't deal wit everything"? Again with this worldview. You seem to know more about it than me, who actually holds that worldview. It is not ok for you to come and kill me because this is bad for a stable society, which is the optimal way to make sure the species prospers. Look how far we have gotten as a species, just because we have a stable society. Scientific enough for you? The success of the species is benefited by a stable society, so we should aim to get that society as stable as possible. Happy now? It would be: "If that doesn't interfere with anyone else's life, go for it". How many times do I have to keep telling you this? My worldview doesn't justify hurting society. Will this finally get through to you? Because it is bad for society. Since it is bad for society. Becasue it is bad for society. Yes. It's bad for society! Got it? Yes, which makes this life all the more important. Yes. but you said it would take "a god". And still the question remains, how do you know? No, simply not hurting it is enough, there are other people to help it go forward if you are not so inclined.

sac51495 writes:

quote:

---

So here is an application: prove to me scientifically that I should not look up where you live and come and kill you. Until you can, there seems to be no good reason (that is, if we adhere to your worldview) for me to not do so.

---

Game theory handily shows this. You don't do it to me because you don't want me to do it to you. You seem to have ignored the concept of reciprocity. If everybody behaves a bastard, then everybody loses. When people behave well toward each other, everybody wins. Thus, in order to maximize a positive outcome for all, it is best if we all work together and not do things nobody wants like get killed.Question: Have you heard of the Prisoner's Dilemma?What about the Tragedy of the Commons?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

I have noticed that you have a tendency to use the phrase "your worldview" when what you actually mean is "the imaginary worldview of the imaginary people who live in sac51495's head".This strikes me as being either delusional or dishonest.

quote:

---

I have noticed that you have a tendency to use the phrase "your worldview" when what you actually mean is "the imaginary worldview of the imaginary people who live in sac51495's head".

---

No, he means "Your worldview as decreed by the Supreme Authority, Greg Bahnsen". which in HIS worldview dictates that it must be true - and if you happen to disagree, then - again in his worldview - you must be mistaken.

Could you please provide us with that definition to which you are referring. Properly cited, of course, so that we can also go back to the source and see for ourselves what it says. Because you are presenting such a simplistic definition as to make it absurd.Yes, science can only work with what it can observe, but indirect observation also counts. We cannot directly observe blue fairies or pink unicorns, nor can we indirectly observe them since they have no effect on the physical universe. The same applies for all other matters supernatural, which is why God and the like are not subject to scientific explanations.However, we can observe moral behavior, we study it, and we can observe and study its influence on animal societies, including our own societies. Your bare assertion is groundless. What is it with this idiotic argument that you guys keep trotting out? I see it as a clear indication of how much you do not understand or appreciate morality and what small a role morality plays in conservative Christianity. Frankly, if you really and truly believe that argument, then you are a menace to society and out to create more menaces to society.Here's a real-world question for you: why are Christian groups so zealous about upholding the morals of society at large? After all, in their theology, it's all about them, about each individual. Their main concern is whether they personally go to Heaven and if you're saved, then you're supposed to behave yourself. Are you saved by moral conduct? No, that would be salvation by works, which most sects nix, though others OK because that's also in the Bible. So then moral conduct is not part of your salvation, just something that gets tagged on.But, you are only human and so you will inevidably stumble and do something bad. So then you simply ask God for forgiveness, which He always gives you as would any half-way decent invisible friend. So then now everything has been corrected, right? Wrong! Everything we do affects those around us. When you did something wrong, you adversely affected others. When God forgives you, does that make everything alright with those you had adversely affected? No, it does not, not in the least bit. The bad effects of your bad behavior continue on, totally regardless of whether you believe in any of the gods or not.But then it's all about you, isn't it? So you couldn't care less what your bad behavior does to others, because as long as your god keeps forgiving you then everything is alright.So then, why do Christian groups push so very hard to impose what they deem to be the correct morality upon the rest of society? Because they believe in God? No, because they live in the real world. They know that they and their children and all their kin and friends depend on society running smoothly, and morality is the oil that keeps society running smoothly.Yet again, it is our worldview of the real world that they live by, not your convoluted supernaturalistic worldview.Frankly, if you truly believe that if you didn't believe in God you would be a serial axe-murderer, then by all means do continue believing in your God. Only please don't listen to Him when He does command you to go out and kill, as He has commanded so many others.

First, you speak for yourself alone. Not everyone is stuck in a pre-moral state in Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development.From the source above:

quote:

---

STAGE 1: PUNISHMENT AND OBEDIENCE ORIENTATION

​

What could be called a "premoral" stage, what an agent will do is determined by calculating the immediate physical consequences that might ensue not the moral value of an action. By deferring to power, the agent's overarching goal is to avoid physical punishment. Thus, at stage one, obedience not moral sentiments or compunction characterizes decision making.

---

Perhaps you can answer this for me. I notice that when some self-proclaimed Christians are intellectually challenged, as you have been in this forum, they immediately resort to metaphors of violence. Why are they so defiant of the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament, haven't they read it? The Gideons give it away for free, just ask.Also, proof is not a scientific concept, it is a concept of math and law. If you want to discuss science as if you actually knew something about the subject, either use the accurate term evidence or display your ignorance for all to see.Edited by anglagard, : Added quote as fundamentalists are notorious for not clicking on hypertext.Edited by anglagard, : Last two sentences of first paragraph added for emphasisEdited by anglagard, : use term 'scientific concept' instead of 'science' for accuracy

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This has nothing to do with what I said. The point I was trying to make is this: if there were a Santa Claus, and if there were a god, the god must have created Santa Claus, so the two are incomparable. Unfortunately, the amount of evidence for a given side of an argument has no bearing whatsoever on whether that position is positive, negative, or neutral. Examine one of the uses of the word neutral; in war. In war, you have two sides: a positive side (this side would be in favor of, say, protecting the Jews), and a negative side (this side would seek to kill the Jews). You can also be neutral. So suppose the negative side is the Germans/Italians, and the positive side is the Americans/English/Russians etc. If the Allies are right, does this make them neutral? You would probably agree that the Nazis were wrong, and the Allies were right.Let's take it a little further. In this situation, it is indeed possible to be neutral, but note what neutrality is in this situation: being completely uninvolved in either side. However, when one interprets the universe around him, he will either take a god into account, or he won't. He can't choose a position of being uninvolved in either side of the argument, because if he is to interpret the universe, he must interpret it in one way or the other. Taking it further, you could argue that neutrality is possible. Neutrality you could say would be this; refraining from interpreting the universe around you (which itself would be impossible, so this still leaves us with the impossibility of neutrality). This is exactly what the neutral entity would have done in a war; they would have completely refrained from taking sides.Also, if this entity decides that the Allies are right, and then takes sides with them, are they still neutral? According to your logic of "evidence determining neutrality", they would indeed still be neutral. But it is rather obvious that they would have then engaged in the positive side of the argument, and are no longer neutral.Conclusion: most people would say that taking a side - despite the evidence for or the lack thereof - is not neutrality. So because it was so obvious that the Nazis were wrong, the Allies were neutral...right? This was just to prevent the objection you may have had that there is no force of gravity. There isn't really a force of gravity so much as there is a cause for our attraction to the earth, the cause being a dynamo (which would be the liquid at the core of the earth swirling around, causing an electrical current). So were you at some point neutral on the subject of morals? Was there ever a point in time where you didn't think murder was right or wrong? You've probably always thought that murder is wrong.Now we get into your "it's bad for society" bit. How did you come to the conclusion that something that is "bad for society", is the thing that should be fought against? Why does it bother you if something is bad for society? Is it because "it's bad for society"?...Furthermore, who says you have the correct view of what is good and what is bad for society. And what determines what is good and bad for society? You would say that is bad for society to kill millions of people, right? Well Adolf Hitler thought he was doing society justice by killing millions of Jews. He thought that they were a lower order of humans, so, from a Darwinian standpoint, they should be eradicated from the earth, so that natural selection can take its course. His logic seems perfectly consistent. Why have you decided that killing millions of people is bad for society? Is it because it makes people sad? This raises the question, why does it bother you for people to be sad? Why is it bad for society for people to be sad? Perhaps pain and suffering is the best thing for society.We can decide from this that in your worldview, we cannot know what is good and bad for society. You may say that it has been proven that pain and suffering is really bad for society. This would be an utter falsehood. Prove to me that it hurt society for Hitler to kill millions of Jews. The only sign that it was bad for society was this; it caused people to endure pain and suffering. But once again, why is pain and suffering a "bad" thing? And where in the world did the concepts of good and bad things come from anyways? Did they evolve in the same way that animals did, or are they human constructs? So does this mean that all people will draw the same conclusions from the same evidence? I agree that the evidence is the same for theists and atheists alike, but their interpretations will differ drastically.For instance, if you find a fossil buried in rock layers you think "wow, this is a million-year-old artifact" while I would think "here's an animal that was probably buried by the Flood". Or if you look at the complexity of the human eye, maybe you would think "wow, look what evolution came up with" and I would think "wow, look what God made". I look at rock layers and think they were laid down by the flood, while you look at rock layers and think that they are accumulations of dust particles from millions of years ago. But we are both looking at the same rock layer. Same evidence, different conclusions. Why? Because we have different starting points. If I see a rock layer, I try to fit it in my framework of the Bible, and you would try to fit into your framework of "no god".And not even all atheists agree on everything they believe about the world. Even two "like-minded" atheists can draw different conclusions from the same evidence.All this to say that your conclusions are not inevitably the right conclusions. You interpret the evidence one way, and you then say that these conclusions must be the correct ones, because you started from a "neutral" standpoint. Once again, just a wee bit arbitrary. I said, we should want to follow the commandments of the Law, but we do not follow the punishments. For example, I would say it is a bad thing to be a rebellious child, although I wouldn't stone my child. Why? I have said over and over again; we aren't under the Law in that we are not governed by it in the way that the Jews were. But if I had been a Jew before the time of Christ, I would have stoned a rebellious child. When Christ came, he fulfilled the law, and also sacrificed himself that our sins might be forgiven. So now we are no longer punished for sins in the same way Jews were. Ultimately, if you want to understand it, just read the Bible. There's a whole lot to know about the subject, and I can't fit it all into this message. But I can guarantee you that it makes sense. What are you trying to get at? Are you saying its not bad for children to be rebellious? But this causes pain and suffering for their parents, and you said that things like this are bad for society, and should not be done.And to answer your question, to rob someone would be to disobey the Law itself. Also, note that the 5th commandment says "Honor your father and mother". There's a lot more to honoring your parents than just obeying what they tell you do. Is this always the case?Also, your statement presumes that it is possible for evidence to lead to the right conclusions. How do you know that your conclusions are correct? What evidence do you have that your conclusions are right? Further, how do you know that there are right and wrong conclusions? How did you come to the "correct" conclusion that there are right and wrong conclusions? But wait, how can you come to a correct conclusion proving that there are correct conclusions? This is impossible. Consider the following dialogue. Note that Bob is attempting to start from a neutral standpoint, and then make his conclusionsJill: I have decided that there is right and wrong.Bob: I can't decide whether there is right or wrong. Right now I'm weighing the evidence for each side.Jill: Do you hold the belief that there is right and wrong?Bob: No, not yet at least.Jill: Is it possible that you would come to the conclusion that right and wrong exist?Bob: Yes.Jill: But if you start from the "neutral" standpoint that right and wrong do not exist, you could never come to this conclusion, because if there is no right and wrong, then there is no sense in trying to make a correct conclusion.Bob: I guess your right... So Hitler killing millions of Jews under the pretense that they were hurting his society is justified? I dealed with this earlier in my message, but basically, it boils down to this: so what if it's bad for society? Where do you come off judging people who do bad things to society if you have no reason for bad things needing to be judged? You will reply again "IT"S JUST BAD FOR SOCIETY!!!". So is this a justification for punishing murderers? What if a murderers society is himself, and imprisoning him hurts his society? Supernatural occurrences require a supernatural entity. Can it be much simpler? Or would you hold that an afterlife is scientifically explainable?

quote:

---

dealed with this earlier in my message, but basically, it boils down to this: so what if it's bad for society? Where do you come off judging people who do bad things to society if you have no reason for bad things needing to be judged? You will reply again "IT"S JUST BAD FOR SOCIETY!!!". So is this a justification for punishing murderers? What if a murderers society is himself, and imprisoning him hurts his society?

---

Sac,you have this completely backwards.What you believe comes from God comes from human beings. The source of religious moral teachings is ultimately humanity's own moral sense, projected onto deities. You have no more justification for your morals than atheists do, you merely think that you do.Bear in mind also that many modern people find the morality of the old testament repugnant - I certainly do. The rule about killing one's bad and disobedient children for example. And God himself kills wantonly, punishes the innocent and so forth. There is no justification to say that the old testament God is a moral being and that the many of the rules he gave the Israelites have any moral worth. Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.

Ah, but you forgot about the Egyptian god Amun, who trumps your Christian God and was the hidden power that caused all the other creator gods to form.In all seriousness, how can you not see that to an outside observer all gods, fairies and what-not are indistinguisable in terms of figments-of-somebody's-imagination-ness? How do you distinguish them yourself? Haven't you heard of Godwin's Law? "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

John 11:35.