Is morality objective or subjective?

[Gary Childress]

Well, he claims he's seen the truth of the Bible but can't seem to give any solid evidence other than, 'you'll find out' or 'we'll see',

You haven't read enough. I've suggested multiple resources to people, including David Berlinski's book just a page or two back, but also including a wide range of both popular and academic resources on apologetics. Go back in my messages, here and on other threads, and you'll see a whole lot.

But like I say, no evidence counts for the skeptics.

If I'm wrong about that, prove me wrong. Here's how you can do it. Tell me what test you would accept as falsification for your Atheism. And if it's a test that can be performed, I'll have a go at it for you.

But you never seem to be able to relate those things in your own words. You always point to other sources, and I've gone to some of those other sources like the videos you posted links to a while back and I'm at a loss as to how they demonstrate what you seem to think they do.

[Harbal]

Indeed. Like all those alleged "missing links," those sadly lost "progenitors" of ours.

Evidence with bits missing is still better than no evidence at all.

In the case of the "common ancestor" theory, you may as well talk about a whole "missing sequence." And interestingly, it's a sequence that people once tried to convince us had all its parts in place...until that story went to pieces on frauds and errors. And still, the theory persists.

Which shows us all that it's an ideology in search of evidence, not a scientific theory deduced from evidence.

I think that, because your world revolves on ideology, you can't envisage how it could be otherwise for anyone else. I might believe evolution theory is true, but my place in the world, or sense of identity, doesn't depend on it.

You can't put up a convincing defence of your beliefs, so you are avoiding having to answer for them by distracting everyone else into defending their own. You seem to know all the tricks, I'll give you that.

[Immanuel Can]

I've seen claims that Noah's Ark has been found.

Well, all sorts of people make all sorts of claims. Some are well-founded, and some not.

I remember when the monkey-to-man theory was taught in pubic schools as unquestionable fact. So I wouldn't worry to much about the idea that there are "claims." It depends on what the evidence for the claim is, of course.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, he claims he's seen the truth of the Bible but can't seem to give any solid evidence other than, 'you'll find out' or 'we'll see',

You haven't read enough. I've suggested multiple resources to people, including David Berlinski's book just a page or two back, but also including a wide range of both popular and academic resources on apologetics. Go back in my messages, here and on other threads, and you'll see a whole lot.

But like I say, no evidence counts for the skeptics.

If I'm wrong about that, prove me wrong. Here's how you can do it. Tell me what test you would accept as falsification for your Atheism. And if it's a test that can be performed, I'll have a go at it for you.

But you never seem to be able to relate those things in your own words. You always point to other sources, and I've gone to some of those other sources like the videos you posted links to a while back and I'm at a loss as to how they demonstrate what you seem to think they do.

There are two reasons for it, whenever I don't: one, the work's already been done by others, so I'd be wasting the energy; and two, the better documentation to deal with immediate questions is usually found in the same place. So it's both more forthcoming and less wasteful to point people to the deeper resources. Then, if they have specific questions, they can always ask. But if they're not even willing to look, well, that just tells me how important the question really was to them in the first place.

Did you have a test for the falsification of your Atheism? Or would you now recognize that you don't have one...meaning your Atheism has no means of being falsified, and is bound to continue indefinitely to seem true to you, regardless of the facts?

[Harbal]

I've seen claims that Noah's Ark has been found.

Well, all sorts of people make all sorts of claims. Some are well-founded, and some not.

I remember when the monkey-to-man theory was taught in pubic schools as unquestionable fact. So I wouldn't worry to much about the idea that there are "claims." It depends on what the evidence for the claim is, of course.

It does sound ridiculous when you put it like that, doesn't it? "Monkey to man".

Especially against the alternative of, man just materialised into existence after being thought about by an all powerful, all knowing, perfect being who is beyond human understanding. Who needs science when you've got all those bases covered?

[Immanuel Can]

I think that, because your world revolves on ideology, you can't envisage how it could be otherwise for anyone else.

That's an accusation that cuts both ways, of course. And in both cases, not possible to substantiate.

I might believe evolution theory is true, but my place in the world, or sense of identity, doesn't depend on it.

It actually should. Evolutionism tells you you're a cosmic accident, the late product of some monkey-like beast, not some special or enlightened creature that owes the world to be decent, or to care for folks, or not to destroy the environment, or practice justice, or not to steal, or not to tyrannize others, be not to be racist, etc. That has pretty profound consequences for your self-perception, IF you take it seriously.

But the truth is that most folks don't actually take Evolutionism very seriously. Instead, they accept it for the purpose of dismissing God, but don't want to think very hard about the consequences of the worldview they used to get the job done.

Nietzsche did. Others have: from the Randians, Social Darwinists, and Techgnostic utopians, to the Nazis, eugenicists and Planned Parenthood. But most don't, for whatever reasons.

Like a man who leaps off a cliff and expects to stop half way down, they don't bother to consider what the ultimate implications of the Materialistic-Naturalistic-Physicalist-Evolutionist types of worldview really are. So they believe like Atheists, and live like post-Judeo-Christian moralizers.

Unfortunately, that's not a durable position, of course. When one's worldview beliefs fail to reconcile with one's moral suppositions, what tends to happen is that those moral commitments start to become shaky. And that's exactly what we're seeing in our social decay today -- the decline of Judeo-Christian values, and the rise of radically destructive and nihilistic social impulses.

It reminds me of a "We Believe" poem penned some years ago by a journalist:

We believe in Marx, Freud, and Darwin.

We believe everything is OK as long as you don’t hurt anyone to the best of your definition of hurt, and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during, and
after marriage.

We believe in the therapy of sin.

We believe that adultery is fun.

We believe that sodomy’s OK.

We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything’s getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.

The evidence must be investigated. And you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there’s something in horoscopes
UFO’s and bent spoons.

Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,
Mohammed, and ourselves.

He was a good moral teacher though we think
His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same-
at least the one that we read was. They all believe in love and goodness. They only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

We believe that after death comes the Nothing.
Because when you ask the dead what happens
they say nothing. If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its compulsory heaven for all excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn.

We believe in Masters and Johnson.
What’s selected is average.
What’s average is normal.
What’s normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed. Americans should beat their guns into tractors. And the Russians would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good. It’s only his behavior that lets him down.

This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that
is right for him. Reality will adapt accordingly. The universe will readjust. History will alter.

We believe that there is no absolute truth excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.

We believe in the rejection of creeds and the flowering of individual thought. If chance be the Father of all flesh, disaster is his rainbow in the sky and when you hear

State of Emergency!

Sniper Kills Ten!

Troops on Rampage!

Whites go Looting!

Bomb Blasts School!

It is but the sound of man worshipping his maker.

That last line is the closer. We're worshipping chaos, because we imagine we came from chaos. And so we can no longer be surprised if our future will be chaos...that, and unparalleled tyranny, which is its natural counterpart. For people rubber-band from irrational libertinism to iever-increasing tyranny, as the oscillation between their dark impulses and their need for order swings.

As for defending my beliefs futher, I don't believe you're allowing me any means to do that. If you were, you'd tell me what you want me to do that would rationally disprove Atheism to you...what you'd accept, what you'd find rational, what you'd allow for a reasonable test. And I've asked, but gotten nothing.

This compels me to one of three conclusions: either you don't know what would disprove it, or don't have any such thing, or don't want it to be disproved under any conditions...and maybe all three. I don't know what else I can make of your refusal.

[Harbal]

I think that, because your world revolves on ideology, you can't envisage how it could be otherwise for anyone else.

That's an accusation that cuts both ways, of course. And in both cases, not possible to substantiate.

I was just thinking it; not trying to substantiate it.

I might believe evolution theory is true, but my place in the world, or sense of identity, doesn't depend on it.

It actually should.

Nevertheless, it doesn't.

[Gary Childress]

You haven't read enough. I've suggested multiple resources to people, including David Berlinski's book just a page or two back, but also including a wide range of both popular and academic resources on apologetics. Go back in my messages, here and on other threads, and you'll see a whole lot.

But like I say, no evidence counts for the skeptics.

If I'm wrong about that, prove me wrong. Here's how you can do it. Tell me what test you would accept as falsification for your Atheism. And if it's a test that can be performed, I'll have a go at it for you.

But you never seem to be able to relate those things in your own words. You always point to other sources, and I've gone to some of those other sources like the videos you posted links to a while back and I'm at a loss as to how they demonstrate what you seem to think they do.

There are two reasons for it, whenever I don't: one, the work's already been done by others, so I'd be wasting the energy; and two, the better documentation to deal with immediate questions is usually found in the same place. So it's both more forthcoming and less wasteful to point people to the deeper resources. Then, if they have specific questions, they can always ask. But if they're not even willing to look, well, that just tells me how important the question really was to them in the first place.

Did you have a test for the falsification of your Atheism? Or would you now recognize that you don't have one...meaning your Atheism has no means of being falsified, and is bound to continue indefinitely to seem true to you, regardless of the facts?

I'm not an "atheist". I am agnostic, however, if skepticism toward the Bible counts as "atheism" then I suppose I have nothing to support it. I mean, theoetically we could be living in a world with a God who condemns people for not worshiping him and punishes the disobedient with floods and plagues.

[Dubious]

It reminds me of a "We Believe" poem penned some years ago by a journalist:

We believe in Marx, Freud, and Darwin.

We believe everything is OK as long as you don’t hurt anyone to the best of your definition of hurt, and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during, and
after marriage.

We believe in the therapy of sin.

We believe that adultery is fun.

We believe that sodomy’s OK.

We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything’s getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.

The evidence must be investigated. And you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there’s something in horoscopes
UFO’s and bent spoons.

Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,
Mohammed, and ourselves.

He was a good moral teacher though we think
His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same-
at least the one that we read was. They all believe in love and goodness. They only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

We believe that after death comes the Nothing.
Because when you ask the dead what happens
they say nothing. If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its compulsory heaven for all excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn.

We believe in Masters and Johnson.
What’s selected is average.
What’s average is normal.
What’s normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed. Americans should beat their guns into tractors. And the Russians would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good. It’s only his behavior that lets him down.

This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that
is right for him. Reality will adapt accordingly. The universe will readjust. History will alter.

We believe that there is no absolute truth excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.

We believe in the rejection of creeds and the flowering of individual thought. If chance be the Father of all flesh, disaster is his rainbow in the sky and when you hear

State of Emergency!

Sniper Kills Ten!

Troops on Rampage!

Whites go Looting!

Bomb Blasts School!

It is but the sound of man worshipping his maker.

Seriously! You consider this shit poetry? Without mentioning what it says, agreeable or not, this is nothing but conventional prose with the lines cut to make it appear as if it were poetry. Whoever the "journalist" was who wrote this piece of crap, he proved himself to be a thorough talentless dumbfuck!

[Alexis Jacobi]

So, those who see nature as it really is see realistically and maturely when compared to any romantic or mythological view.

Gus, just because you are nasty, brutish and short, it doesn't mean all of nature is similarly hobbled.

Nature is not hobbled, it simply is. The perspective I offered seems to me realistic. Do you see things differently? How?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Tell me what test you would accept as falsification for your Atheism. And if it's a test that can be performed, I'll have a go at it for you.

May I take a turn?

Jesus, manifest yourself in front of me right now and let’s talk.

[Immanuel Can]

Did you have a test for the falsification of your Atheism? Or would you now recognize that you don't have one...meaning your Atheism has no means of being falsified, and is bound to continue indefinitely to seem true to you, regardless of the facts?

I'm not an "atheist". I am agnostic, however, if skepticism toward the Bible counts as "atheism" then I suppose I have nothing to support it. I mean, theoetically we could be living in a world with a God who condemns people for not worshiping him and punishes the disobedient with floods and plagues.

Well, an "agnostic" then.

And I buy that. You spend too much time cursing God to be somebody who actually doesn't even believe He exists. Why would you rail against an entity that you thought was totally fictional anyway?

But an "agnostic" isn't a great position to hold, for two reasons: one, that, if honest, it basically amounts to just a confession of personal ignorance, and does not pretend to any more than that; and two, that if the means to know exists, and one is just refusing to know, then it amounts to willful ignorance...not a great position, intellectually speaking.

But let's accept that. Then what would it take to move you from agnosticism to belief?

[Immanuel Can]

Tell me what test you would accept as falsification for your Atheism. And if it's a test that can be performed, I'll have a go at it for you.

May I take a turn?

Jesus, manifest yourself in front of me right now and let’s talk.

Do you consider that a reasonable test? Has Jesus Christ promised you to manifest upon request, especially for the satisfaction of a skeptic?

[Immanuel Can]

It reminds me of a "We Believe" poem penned some years ago by a journalist:

We believe in Marx, Freud, and Darwin.

We believe everything is OK as long as you don’t hurt anyone to the best of your definition of hurt, and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during, and
after marriage.

We believe in the therapy of sin.

We believe that adultery is fun.

We believe that sodomy’s OK.

We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything’s getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.

The evidence must be investigated. And you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there’s something in horoscopes
UFO’s and bent spoons.

Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,
Mohammed, and ourselves.

He was a good moral teacher though we think
His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same-
at least the one that we read was. They all believe in love and goodness. They only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

We believe that after death comes the Nothing.
Because when you ask the dead what happens
they say nothing. If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its compulsory heaven for all excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn.

We believe in Masters and Johnson.
What’s selected is average.
What’s average is normal.
What’s normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed. Americans should beat their guns into tractors. And the Russians would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good. It’s only his behavior that lets him down.

This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that
is right for him. Reality will adapt accordingly. The universe will readjust. History will alter.

We believe that there is no absolute truth excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.

We believe in the rejection of creeds and the flowering of individual thought. If chance be the Father of all flesh, disaster is his rainbow in the sky and when you hear

State of Emergency!

Sniper Kills Ten!

Troops on Rampage!

Whites go Looting!

Bomb Blasts School!

It is but the sound of man worshipping his maker.

Seriously! You consider this shit poetry?

Not really.

But I do consider it a rather scathing and accurate indictment of the regnant prejudices of our age...which is what I cited it for.

[Gary Childress]

Did you have a test for the falsification of your Atheism? Or would you now recognize that you don't have one...meaning your Atheism has no means of being falsified, and is bound to continue indefinitely to seem true to you, regardless of the facts?

I'm not an "atheist". I am agnostic, however, if skepticism toward the Bible counts as "atheism" then I suppose I have nothing to support it. I mean, theoetically we could be living in a world with a God who condemns people for not worshiping him and punishes the disobedient with floods and plagues.

Well, an "agnostic" then.

And I buy that. You spend too much time cursing God to be somebody who actually doesn't even believe He exists. Why would you rail against an entity that you thought was totally fictional anyway?

But an "agnostic" isn't a great position to hold, for two reasons: one, that, if honest, it basically amounts to just a confession of personal ignorance, and does not pretend to any more than that; and two, that if the means to know exists, and one is just refusing to know, then it amounts to willful ignorance...not a great position, intellectually speaking.

But let's accept that. Then what would it take to move you from agnosticism to belief?

I can't think of anything off the top of my head that would move me from agnosticism to affirmative belief in a sentient creator of everything. It's a black box as far as I'm aware. I wasn't around when the universe was created (as far as I'm aware), so if any burning bushes materialized in front of me and said, "I'm the creator of the universe" then I still might be skeptical. Although, if that being started throwing lightning bolts at me in retaliation for questioning its assertion or asking for proof, I'd probably tell it whatever it wanted to hear.