Is it entirely unnecessary and insulting to inform people...

[William]

Is it entirely unnecessary and insulting to inform people...That they are evil in the sight of GOD and bound for hell?

As a human being, how is such theology acceptable and a good and reasonable thing to be stating or even implying of others, on a debate forum or even in day to day life?

Are people right to be able to take a stand against such theology and call it out for being dated, dark, based upon information from dark ages, based in ignorance and evil of intent?

What gives individuals the right to say such things about others?

Is it a form of abuse?

Should others have to take that kind of abuse about their persons without protesting it?

[ttruscott]

One could compile a list of heroic actions which could well show that the tendency of human expression is not as evil as one wants others to believe.

I suggested such people are called heroes, not that they were righteous...

The essence of the doctrine of our total depravity is not to be found in the fact that every action or choice is totally evil but rather by the doctrine that
1. every act or choice contains some part of selfishness or pride or some other taint of evil, ie, some evil people still do good things, and

2. the enslavement to evil so clouds the desires and mind of those addicted that they cannot break this addiction by themselves. Only GOD can do this for them so if they have rejected HIS merciful grace as a lie they are without any source of salvation and

3. if left untreated for the addiction to evil, the soul slowly turns from all good and towards evil so as to sooner or later they become totally evil such as we ascribe to Satan.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Defend the morality of human sacrifice.

Pointless. It is all subjective, right?

Where are you going with that?

Never mind.

And you somehow surprised by that? I'd like to think I am the resident moral subjectivist here.

Understood.

In short, you can't appeal to moral subjectivism if you are not a moral subjectivist.

I am a moral objectivist.

Well, at least you tried. What ever made you think that you could do that by pointing out that only one of the two options can be correct?

I don't remember what was said beforehand so I can't answer that.

Surely the criticism part is better suited for your consumption? I wasn't the one who brought up Specified complexity.

I meant this one..same article, though..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity

The least you can do is accept that it wasn't what was stated.

I acknowledged that it wasn't stated by saying "that was the implication that I got out of it".

I don't suppose I am asking too much for less banter and more substance from you?

Fair enough.

Well the king (God) isn't here to defend his position. What do you think you adding to the debate with this?

The point is simple; if God exists and is the moral standard for holiness/benevolence, then the opinion of an unholy, unbenevolent person is about as useless as a no-mouthed dog in a frisbee contest.

Sure, I live in a place where health inspection is a thing and the mere fact that a restaurant is licenced and certified is ample evidence that the food is safe, proportionate to the amount of faith I exercise.

Bro, restaurants are run by people..and people can be evil. So yeah, the food was safe until the evil cook put poison in it. Still faith.

My posts speaks for themselves, you add what you like, but as mentioned above, I prefer more substance than the banter I am seeing from you.

You get a nice balance of both.

[William]

[Replying to post 131 by ttruscott]

Would it disappoint one if it turned out that ones beliefs were not actually The Truth, or would one be willing to adapt to the new information with relative grace and ease?

[Bust Nak]

Pointless. It is all subjective, right?

Is it? You tell me.

I am a moral objectivist.

And yet there you are, appealing to moral subjectivism. Care to explain this inconsistency?

I don't remember what was said beforehand so I can't answer that.

You gave two scenario and pointed out that only one can be true, I am asking you how pointing out that only one can be true could demonstrate that your preferred scenario is true?

I meant this one..same article, though..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity

Well, Northern lights still seems to fit the bill, not repetitive like crystals, nor random like a bit of rock.

I acknowledged that it wasn't stated by saying "that was the implication that I got out of it".

Okay, I can accept that.

The point is simple; if God exists and is the moral standard for holiness/benevolence, then the opinion of an unholy, unbenevolent person is about as useless as a no-mouthed dog in a frisbee contest.

And yet there you were telling it's it's pointless because its all subjective.

Bro, restaurants are run by people..and people can be evil. So yeah, the food was safe until the evil cook put poison in it. Still faith.

Sure, faith, but proportionate to evidence I have and risk I am facing, still not seeing the double standard.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Is it? You tell me.

Wait a minute, you are the one who said that it is. Remember, you are a subjectivist, right?

And yet there you are, appealing to moral subjectivism. Care to explain this inconsistency?

It ain't inconsistent...since that isn't what I am appealing to.

You gave two scenario and pointed out that only one can be true, I am asking you how pointing out that only one can be true could demonstrate that your preferred scenario is true?

Oh, ok. Gotcha. Thanks. Because that isn't how observed nature works...and you know full well that it isn't.

You get Leonardo Da Vinci in a room and task him with painting the Mona Lisa...and you go to go place a large canvas on the ground outside of a paint factory, blow the paint factory up, and see wait for the paint to fall from the sky onto the canvas and see if the paint will fall in a pattern of which resembles the Mona Lisa painting.

And you have two choices, whichever method of "painting" prevails in the FIRST TRY, you will be given a trillion dollars, but you can only pick one.

Which one would you pick? You would pick Leonardo Da Vinci.

That is literally the same concept when considering supernatural theism, or scientific naturalism. And to make matters worse, scientific naturalism is even WORSE than the paint analogy...because with scientific naturalism, nature did more than just "paint" the woman, but rather it created an entire physical woman, with sentience and everything.

So if the paint example is absurd, scientific naturalism is even more absurd.

Your position is logically flawed, is what I am trying to say.

Well, Northern lights still seems to fit the bill, not repetitive like crystals, nor random like a bit of rock.

That ain't no specified complexity, tho.

And yet there you were telling it's it's pointless because its all subjective.

I was saying that that is what YOU were saying...according to you, it is subjective..so, why fuss about it?

Sure, faith, but proportionate to evidence I have and risk I am facing, still not seeing the double standard.

Well, the risk is; if the food is poisoned, you are doomed. Pretty big risk.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 131 by ttruscott]

Would it disappoint one if it turned out that ones beliefs were not actually The Truth, or would one be willing to adapt to the new information with relative grace and ease?

One would hope so - since some of us have already done that going from a secular conviction to a religious conviction albeit maybe not so gracefully, sigh.

[William]

[Replying to post 136 by ttruscott]

Would it disappoint one if it turned out that ones beliefs were not actually The Truth, or would one be willing to adapt to the new information with relative grace and ease?

One would hope so - since some of us have already done that going from a secular conviction to a religious conviction albeit maybe not so gracefully, sigh.

So what in that would make one think hopefully that one would so easily drop something one has pinned ones hopes upon and focused ones life energy into informing others of, only to be shown that one had got it wrong?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 135 by For_The_Kingdom]

And you have two choices, whichever method of "painting" prevails in the FIRST TRY, you will be given a trillion dollars, but you can only pick one.

Which one would you pick? You would pick Leonardo Da Vinci.

Neither. Leonardo da Vinci painting the Mona Lisa is a natural event. A magical being poofing us into existence is not.

When you don't know how life began on the earth, producing a ridiculous analogy is nothing more than building a straw man to knock down. It only serves to highlight the deficiencies in the case against purely natural processes involved in the formation of everything in this universe. Over the centuries the scientific method has uncovered the mysteries of the world we live in. Magic, aka God, has never been one of the answers found.

[Bust Nak]

Wait a minute, you are the one who said that it is. Remember, you are a subjectivist, right?

I say a lot of things, I also said God does not exist, you gonna to go along with what I say?

It ain't inconsistent...since that isn't what I am appealing to.

The record shows otherwise, and I quote "It ain't much of a challenge if the entire challenge is based on a whole lot of subjectivity" and "Pointless. It is all subjective, right?"

Oh, ok. Gotcha. Thanks. Because that isn't how observed nature works...and you know full well that it isn't.

You get Leonardo Da Vinci in a room and task him with painting the Mona Lisa...and you go to go place a large canvas on the ground outside of a paint factory, blow the paint factory up, and see wait for the paint to fall from the sky onto the canvas and see if the paint will fall in a pattern of which resembles the Mona Lisa painting.

And you have two choices, whichever method of "painting" prevails in the FIRST TRY, you will be given a trillion dollars, but you can only pick one.

Which one would you pick? You would pick Leonardo Da Vinci.

Correct, I pick the first one.

That is literally the same concept when considering supernatural theism, or scientific naturalism.

Incorrect. Your analogy fails because natural is not like a Mona Lisa but an exploded factory. I would pick the latter method of generating a better exploded factory than Da Vinci.

That ain't no specified complexity, tho.

Why would you say that when it is both specific and complex?

I was saying that that is what YOU were saying...according to you, it is subjective..so, why fuss about it?

Because it demonstrate a flaw of specific forms of theism. Again, you don't get to appeal to subjectivism when you are an objectivist, pointing out what is and isn't the case... according to me doesn't help you met the challenge one bit.

Well, the risk is; if the food is poisoned, you are doomed. Pretty big risk.

Yes, so what? Again I point out I am taking the appropriate amount of "faith" given the risk and evidence available. Where is the double standard?

[For_The_Kingdom]

I say a lot of things, I also said God does not exist, you gonna to go along with what I say?

No; more like disagreeing with you on the subject and moving along.

It ain't inconsistent...since that isn't what I am appealing to.

The record shows otherwise, and I quote "It ain't much of a challenge if the entire challenge is based on a whole lot of subjectivity" and "Pointless. It is all subjective, right?"

I don't recall what was being discussed here.

Correct, I pick the first one.

Then you pick theism/intelligent design!!!

Incorrect. Your analogy fails because natural is not like a Mona Lisa but an exploded factory. I would pick the latter method of generating a better exploded factory than Da Vinci.

Assuming Mona Lisa was an actual human being, then Mona Lisa came from what was an initial "explosion" at the beginning of time.

No way around it, chaos/disorder created organized structure (specified complexity), which is an oxymoron and defies observation, experiment, and prediction (science).

Why would you say that when it is both specific and complex?

Yeah, but "it is impossible for specified complexity to exist in patterns displayed by configurations formed by unguided processes."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity


And what is aurora borealis? A natural unguided process..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora

Because it demonstrate a flaw of specific forms of theism. Again, you don't get to appeal to subjectivism when you are an objectivist, pointing out what is and isn't the case... according to me doesn't help you met the challenge one bit.

Like I said earlier, I merely disagreed with you and kept it moving. If you think things like rape, and murder are subjectively wrong, then I don't know what to tell you.

After all, it is a naturalistic view and you are true to your view.

However, if you believe that morality is in fact objective (like myself), and things like rape and murder is wrong, then you can't logically hold this belief without an objective lawgiver..which is my point.

You don't see it that way, so we just disagree.

Yes, so what? Again I point out I am taking the appropriate amount of "faith" given the risk and evidence available. Where is the double standard?

What is appropriate is subjective. The double standard is simple; you said above that "there is no God". Do you have evidence against God (Christian God)? No. Are you convinced by the presented evidence for God? No. So, you conclude that there is no God.

Now, when you go to a restaurant..do you have evidence against the cook poisoning your food? No. Do you have any evidence either way? No. Yet, your food could be poisoned..yet, you still eat the food.

Yet, you have more to lose if you reject the Christian God than if you reject the idea that your food is poisoned..despite that, you still choose the latter.

It is the double standard. The same rule of thumb applied differently in similar scenarios.