Theories of origins without God that people come up with are laughably dumb.

Theories of origins without God that people come up with are laughably dumb. | SO YOU BELIEVE THE UNIVERSE STARTED AS A SINGULARITY AND THEN EXPANDED TO BECOME EVERYTHING IN THE COSMOS WE KNOW OF, WITHOUT ANY OUTSIDE AG | image tagged in memes,third world skeptical kid,science,philosophy,big bang theory,late night memes | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Third World Skeptical Kid memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
Creepy Condescending Wonka Meme | NEXT YOU'RE GOING TO TELL ME THAT THE SUN AND MOON ARE DIFFERENT SIZES | image tagged in memes,creepy condescending wonka | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Clearly the sun and moon are the same size, because to me, standing on Earth, they appear to be the same size. Also, Earth must be flat because it appears flat to me.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
It was fine to beleive until proof was given otherwise. Now, we know otherwise because of satellites and curvature tests.
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
Exactly. And we know otherwise concerning the origin of the universe, that it wasn't magically spoken into existence by an ancient Middle Eastern tribal deity named Yahweh.

And we know there never was a flood that covered the entire globe, and nobody built a huge boat and gathered animals from all over the planet to survive this flood, and then repopulated the entire world with only eight people. We know this, because of more than two hundred years of scientific discoveries and research.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
And what exactly did this research find?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Research has found that the Earth is billions, not thousands of years old

Research has found that a global flood is not supported by any evidence

Research has found that all animals, humans included, are all descended from a common ancestor

Research has found that the Eartg is neither flat nor the center of the universe

Research has found that had the story of Noah's flood happened, it would have resulted in a global population bottleneck that would have been totally catastrophic

Research has found that not even Noah and his family would have survived during the flood as described in the Bible, because floodwaters which lifted them higher than the tallest mountain would have them at such a high altitude, they could barely breathe. They would have literally been higher up than the peak of Mt Everest.

Research has found that there's no possible way animals from Australia, North and South America, Tasmania, Antarctica, etc could have travelled to the Middle East to board the ark

Research has found that despite what many creationists believe, humans and dinosaurs have never coexisted, ever (not counting modern birds, which are in the same clade as all other dinosaurs)

Research has found that genetics, not striped sticks, determine the coat patterns of livestock (sorry, Jacob)
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
1: there's evidence for both sides

2: what evidence would you collect to support having a flood?

3: do we know what that common ancestor was to the slightest degree?

4: that's fine; I believe in that too

5: God could've increased the population.

6: exaggeration exists

7: Pangaea

8: they didn't have to. Dinos could've existed outside of the fairly small area humans populated at the time of the flood.

9: never heard of that before interesting tidbit.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
1: there's evidence for both sides

All the evidence available points to an Earth that is much, much older than 6,000-10,000 years. Even remains of human settlements go back further than that.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

2: what evidence would you collect to support having a flood?

A global flood should show consistent layers of sediment worldwide, for starters. We don't see that.

3: do we know what that common ancestor was to the slightest degree?

No, but again, that's what the evidence points to. There are mountains of evidence that support common ancestry.

5: God could've increased the population.

That's an ad hoc argument. If the science and evidence don't support something, people will often play the miracle card and say that God "just did it supernaturally." Also, why would god wipe out almost every living thing on the planet, just to instantly bring everything back? What would be the point of the flood in the first place?

6: exaggeration exists

Yes it does. But there are many people who don't think it's exaggeration. They believe it all literally happened exactly as the Bible says.

7: Pangaea

The plate tectonic data we have suggests that Pangaea broke apart roughly 250 million years ago, long before any humans existed. Also, we can accurately calculate the rate of continental plate movement. It's roughly 2 cm per year, about the same as your fingernails growing. If you extrapolate that backwards over 6,000-10,000 years, there still would not have been any supercontinent. 2 cm per year for 10,000 years is 20,000 cm, or 1/5 of a kilometer. You can barely even see that distance on a map, let alone a globe.

8: they didn't have to. Dinos could've existed outside of the fairly small area humans populated at the time of the flood.

But no evidence shows that to be the case. It doesn't matter what could have been. What matters is what the evidence shows.
reply
2 ups
Pangaea began to break apart about 175 million years ago, not 250. But that's still well beyond the biblical timeline.
reply
0 ups
1: the Bible is not a timeline from the beginning of the universe to the end of it. There are many gaps in the timeline, leaving me to believe that it is completely possible for theism and an earth older than 6,000 to exist.

2: based on my "could be millions of years" theory, the sediment could be deep underground.

3: I've never actually asked what evidence there was of common ancestry. All I can think of is similar ways that animals function.

5: to wipe sin off the earth. Animals did not have sin, and Noah was the best God had.

6: I don't think it's literal.

7: would human remains last long enough to be able to date back 250 million years?
reply
7 ups, 2 replies
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
Except that scientific theories actually have evidence to back them up
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
What proof? It's called a "theory" for a reason. We don't even know if black holes exist! It's just a "theory."
reply
7 ups, 2 replies
Yes, it's called a theory for a reason. A theory in science is something which helps us to explain and understand a set of observed phenomena. It is testable and can be used to predict future discoveries. In science, the word theory does not mean a guess or conjecture.

Once something in science becomes a theory, it would take a lot to overturn it. The theory of relativity, the theory of plate tectonics, atomic theory, germ theory of disease, cell theory, the theory of heliocentrism and the theory of evolution are all very well-supported by the evidence.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Please show me where the 'big bang theory' has been tested scientifically, reproduced under controlled conditions, etc. What you have here, is a hypothesis that happens to fit the tiny fraction of evidence available. In other words, an educated guess based on next to no information.

There's a lot of confirmation bias in your "evidence", particularly where evolution is concerned.

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

Think for yourself. Don't be sheep.
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
To call the Big Bang theory "an educated guess based on next to no information" is totally false. That's like saying pilots go up in airplanes and just push random buttons on the control panel, hoping not to crash before reaching their destination.

The Big Bang theory has been scientifically tested under controlled conditions in places like particle accelerators and the Large Hadron Collider, where particles are smashed together and the results analyzed to get a better understanding of the first moments after the Big Bang happened.

Confirmation bias exists everywhere. Fortunately, the scientific method and peer review process go a long way to weed that out.

I can assure you I do think for myself. I don't let any text, sacred or otherwise, do my thinking for me.

My money is on the decades of research performed and studied by astronomers and physicists over unfounded religious assertions and ancient mythology any day of the week.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
"...like saying pilots go up in airplanes..."

No, it isn't anything remotely like saying that.

"...scientifically tested under controlled conditions..." "...results analyzed to get a better understanding of the first moments after the Big Bang..."

Do you even hear yourself? "Let's do an experiment to help us understand the relationship between particle physics and our unfounded assumptions."

"...scientific method and peer review process go a long way to weed..."

Not when your 'peers' all have the same bias. If the scientific method was used, the so-called 'theory' of Evolution would have been tossed out long ago. But no, they keep making up imaginary phenomena to keep the thing alive, and dreaming up fanciful ways to make all the empirical contradictions not be contradictory. God forbid you might have to consider the remote possibility that an intelligence might be responsible (pun intended).

"...I do think for myself. I don't let any text, sacred or otherwise..."

Well, I'm very glad to hear you say that. Because all you've done so far, is regurgitate the same scientific sacred cows that every other evangelical atheist does.

"...money is on the..." "...any day of the week..."

So you're saying that 0.001% proof is better than 0.000% proof? Okay, I can accept that. I on the other hand, require somewhat more than 0.001% before I accept anything as axiomatic.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
In your earlier comment you said "Please show me where the 'big bang theory' has been tested scientifically, reproduced under controlled conditions, etc."

Can you do that for intelligent design?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
No, but I don't have to.

Because I'm not the one suggesting ID is hard science, implied fact, or by some misapplication of the Holmesian fallacy, the only valid answer.
reply
1 up
But to show that it is in any way scientifically valid, you should be able to test for it, study it and draw predictions from it.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I'd like to point out the equal production of matter and antimatter in those particle collision tests. According to the big bang hypothesis, the universe should be equal parts matter and antimatter, but it clearly is not.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
How do you know is it not? Antimatter may very well be what is causing to universe to continue to expand.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
When antimatter contacts matter, both become energy. If there are equal parts of matter and antimatter, the universe should be all energy.
Furthermore, the scientific community believe in "dark matter," a theoretical substance that they 1. haven't proven to exist, 2. have never detected, and 3. theorize to be necessary for this galaxy (and possibly the universe) to exist.
Hmmm, Something not yet proven to exist, undetectable through physical means, and holding everything together. Where have I heard such a theory before?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
If antimatter or dark matter are theoretical and unproven, then clearly the subject warrants more study and investigation. Scientists are always coming up hypotheses and testing them to see how accurate they are. That's how science works.
0 ups
Scientists claim dark matter must exist because its existence is necessary for the galaxy to hold together. In other words, it needs to exist because it needs to exist. That's why I say dark matter is bogus, scientifically speaking.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
My point is we make a lot of stuff up about the universe that we can't prove is real. We can't prove if there's more galaxies besides our own. Our proximity to Andromeda tells us that there's more solar systems, but perhaps the universe is just that. We know that atoms exist because very high powered microscopes can see them, but a lot of the times, our theories are just that: theories. We don't know if they're real or not because our only proof is it works in an equation we can't prove. Somebody once tried to use an equation to determine the amount of planets in our galaxy that are in the "goldilocks zone." He found out that there were only 2 or 3 from the equation. However, how did he prove the equation? Most of science is a "probably" or "maybe" with very small amounts of "definitely." If you ask me, that's just as batshit crazy as beleiving in a magic sky fairy who we also can usually not prove.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
So scientific evidence and research, accompanied with a healthy dose of skepticism, is just as crazy as believing in ancient stories and fables which have absolutely no basis in reality?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Evidence? Research? What did I just get done saying? We can't prove shit. Neither side can. All that we have is a couple books, some equations, equipment that we think should work, and a bunch of experiences and experiments on good old Terra firma. We have no way to take a picture of the black hole in the center of the universe. Just as there's no way to take a picture of God. I don't care what you believe, just don't try to think that your beleif is more rational than other beleifs and I'll do the same.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Proving something 100% is different from being able to show that the bulk of evidence supports it. Read KenJ's comment on this same meme. He said it very well.

Except that not all beliefs are equally valid. A belief supported by evidence is more rational than a belief not supported by any evidence, or a belief that is opposed by the evidence.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
You're right. It's more rational to beleive in something that has a bit of evidence than none at all. However, let me ask you this: when you die, are you ever punished for beleiving? No! If there's no afterlife or your beleif is wrong, you're treated the same as everybody else. However, if your beleif happens to be right, you'll be rewarded. It may be a fairly small chance, but it's a chance. However, atheism completely gives up the chance of an eternal reward. Either you're right and there is no afterlife, in which case you're treated the same as everybody else, or you're wrong and you go to some kind of hell. Either way, the afterlife is 100% shit for an atheist, while a theist has a bit of hope. Again, beleive what you want to beleive, but I find it more logical to beleive in a God.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I don't know if Pascal's Wager could (or should) be considered rational in this context. I think Occam's Razor applies better.

To O_M I would say this; The Big Bang 'theory' is about as good an explanation of how the universe began as any other. But frankly, so is Intelligent Design. Any "facts" or "evidence" that support the former, do so only because they have been interpreted that way, because there is a demonstrable, fundamental terror among the scientific community over any interpretation that might lead anyone to consider a creator intelligence as a real possibility. Acknowledging the possibility that your naturalist theory might be wrong does NOT follow that 'God' is your only alternative. There is simply not enough information available.

The difference between those two top contending origin theories (there *are* others) is this; No one who believes in a creator intelligence should suggest that such belief is 'science' or 'fact' or even supported by physical or empirical evidence (it does have the advantage of not being *contradicted* by the evidence, but that isn't the same thing). Anyone who does so, is no more "rational" that someone calling the Big Bang or Evolution a "fact" supported by "science". This is where we have a contention.

I'm not saying it's more or less rational to believe in a scientifically unsupported creator intelligence versus drinking whatever is in that Dixie Cup that guy in the lab coat handed you. But you are. We may yet find empirical evidence out there in the cosmos that confirms either one, and put this debate to rest once and for all. Until we do, your beliefs are not 'more rational' than mine.
1 up
Exactly
reply
3 ups
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Theories of origins with God are just as uninformed, right? We're all in the dark for now. ) :
reply
1 up
First off, a timeless being has no origin.
Second off, we believe His motivations are revealed through human conscience (despite it being marred by sin), through the Bible (despite it being often misinterpreted), and ultimately through the life of Jesus of Nazareth (Who was God Himself, and thus fully revealed the personality and desires of God).
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
5 ups
reply
4 ups
Personally, I think that science is only the start of wisdom and understanding but not the end all be all. There is still plenty of mystery and weirdness in this universe that cannot understand, and I'm fine with that, the world needs a little mystery to keep things interesting.. Sometimes the riddle is more interesting than the answer.
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
The closest theories speculate that the singularity was a collapsed universe from previously. But it's a theory; not a belief authoritatively handed down from others. Science is not a committed belief that people have faith in, it's speculated possibilities that aren't proven, but are showing the best in humanity's quest to understand surroundings. The point is not absolute knowledge, it's the search. Some people prefer to have absolutes, it makes them comfortable; others prefer to try and comprehend inevitable change. Things ARE relative, regardless of what one's beliefs, or values say.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
:D
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
I have to be relatively smart when I think 'I better go see what the hell Octavia has gotten into now...' XD
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
You worded it so well, I actually saved a screenshot of it :)
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Well, thanks. :) Every-once-in-a-while by brain engages sufficiently enough that what's in my head gets down on paper, so to speak. Also what happened in my reply to James3v6. Batting 2-for-2 so far this week. :D
reply
2 ups
:D
reply
1 up, 1 reply
If morality is "relative" than this fine. The naturalistic materialistic worldview(s) have no way to account for "universal" or "species wide" morality.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
It's not an issue of morality being relative, it's an issue of morality being subjective. With Jesus' teachings, Christianity went from an Old Testament judgmental God who favored his chosen people and their collective moral standing to a New Testament loving God where what was important was each individual's relationship to the creator. Most conservative Christians fall under the category of Old Testament theology; morals are absolute and all must abide for the greater good. Most fail to follow the teachings of Christ, finding in their neighbors entities to try and control instead of fellow beings who are to be cherished as individuals. There is no universal morality, there is only the relationship between a person and their deity. That, and the relatively of the scientific method (not 'materialistic' but empirical), which exists in reality regardless of one's faith, put the lie to the conservative worldview, which is not Christian. Or at least not the Christianity Jesus taught. More people are hurt by conservative values than by any objective relativity.
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
Don't forget that the same people who say that morality is absolute and unchanging don't follow the rules laid down in the Old Testament by their very same God. I often hear Christians say "those laws were meant for ancient Israel only." Wait a minute. If morality is absolute and unchanging, how can there be one set of rules and morals for one group of people which doesn't apply to anyone else? If those rules apply to the ancient Israelites, and morality doesn't change, then they should apply to everyone, everywhere, for all time.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
As in: where are all the daughters sold into slavery under certain divinely prescribed rules in modern society? :D
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
And where are the girls stoned to death because they weren't virgins on their wedding night? :D
reply
3 ups
XD

Conservative Christians attacking conservative Muslims for the same primitive methods their own religion once prescribed.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
rules/laws =/= morality
reply
2 ups
Explain how rules and laws are unrelated to morality. Last time I checked, rules and laws are generally based on morality.

It sounds like an attempt to take one thing and break it into two separate things to try and wiggle out of an obvious inconsistency.

Upon what is the civil law of the Israelites based, if not morality?
reply
3 ups
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Socrates, even a philosopher should define his words, if they are not unambiguous!
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
How do you define "God"? That's one of the most ambiguous words I know! (I could enumerate of couple of "definitions" or "meanings" here, but I refrain from it).
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Okay, I see from your follow-up comment that my first reply was off-track to what you were getting at, and it looks like I assumed the wrong thing. I'm sorry.

If I think of an answer to your question about defining God, I'll try to come back and write it here (though I doubt I'll be able to).
reply
2 ups
I give you a hint. Being socrates, you should be able to understand ancient Greek. Read John 1,1 ((Bible, New Testament) in the o r i g i n a l Greek (no translation, they are all rubbish). There is a definition of God that could help you (mathematically speaking: a bijection). If you are unable to, let me know, and I'll assist you in translating and explaining.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
I wasn't trying to spark discussion.
reply
6 ups
I think it happened when you called people's theories dumb.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Because, obviously, everybody knows that those with science degrees are stupid, and the people who do mathematics and write theories are frauds after our money. Everybody knows that the book written without any context or research is ABSOLUTELY correct, and that Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, are wrong, while the Christians are Right!
The world wasn't created by the accumulation of particles; no! The world was created solely for humans by the Lord who wants us to slay babies in his name, and by the Heavens I will never stop slaying babies in the name of the Lord! Praise thine majesty, dear Lord! Praise thee, for whom His words can only be spoken through long-dead internet memes! Amen.
reply
2 ups
:D
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Let's just be glad that atheistic materialists don't live like logical conclusion of their worldview would dictate because then I'd have to shoot them for trying to take my property and/or kill me in their quest for "survival of the fittest." (Maybe that is why the want to ban guns.)
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Where do you believe morality comes from?

Also, survival of the fittest is an observation, not a command.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
An "observation" that comes from where? As in "where does that drive originate in species?"

If that drive is hardwired into species for the survival and furtherance of their species, then it is natural and uncontrollable. If you think that the human species is so far evolved beyond that natural uncontrollable drive, you have never been exposed to the inner city where I grew up. Because there it was "survival of the fittest" but we called it "get it how you live." Because in places like that if you are weak or just appear to be weak you will be taken advantage of and maybe even killed for your possession.

You don't live like that do you? If not you are more moral in that aspect than those in the inner city who do live with that mentality.

Wait a minute, you don't think you are more "evolved" than people in the inner cities who do live with the "survival of the fittest" mentality, do you? Because Darwin did think that "caucasoids were more evolved than negroids."

The reason you nor the majority of people don't live with that mentality of "survival of the fittest" or "get it how you live" is because our morality is "hardwired" into us and not the instincts that we observe in animals. I say that it is designed into us by the One who designed us to be that way, and morality in many of the same issues is found in every culture around the world.
Atheistic, naturalistic, humanistic worldviews can't account for the "universal" or "species wide" aspect of morality.
You can attempt to argue against the Designer/Creator and say we have no evidence for such a One but I say that the existence of "species wide morality" (minus those who choose not to live by it, like I and my cohorts used to) and the failure of atheistic materialism to account for it is just one of the evidences of the Designer who hardwired/programmed that morality into us.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
It is an observable fact that organisms who are more fit are more likely to survive and pass their genes on to future generations.

Also, I noticed you are accusing The Origin of Species of promoting racist ideas. Can you cite any passages from the book to support your view? Or are you just going to do what Christians always do, which is point to that racist-sounding subtitle, misunderstand what it means, and then cry racism? The word "races" used in the subtitle is another word for subspecies or types of animal. It has nothing to do with black races or white races, etc.

Naturalism amd materialism can, in fact, acccount for morality. Humans (and many other animals) are social creatures. When we get along and help each other out, society thrives, and the species thrives. When we hurt and harm and kill each other, society as a whole is harmed. No god is required for humans to realize that acting in benevolent ways helps not only other people, but the individual themselves. When people in the inner city (or anywhere) harm people, what happens to them? They go to prison, because society says "you are hurting people, which harms society as a whole, so you can't live among us anymore."

I don't claim that morality is objective, but even a subjective morality which is reinforced by society as a whole is better than nothing.

If morality comes from god, is it subjective or objective?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I am glad that you called out how I "misunderstood" and misrepresented what the book is saying. History makes clear that racist hateful people have been claiming that non-whites are more animal like than human even before Darwin wrote his seminal book and that those ideas and the behaviors that followed suit gained popularity after Darwin and "Origin of Species..." The racists who did that took the principles right out of "Origin of Species" and later "The Decent of Man" and applied those principles to human beings. No direct quotes needed.

However, I can't slander Darwin or his theories and philosophy based on its misunderstanding and misuse by others.

Where have we heard that argument before? I KNOW! That's the same argument that I use when unbelievers try to discredit Christianity and the teachings of Christ by recounting how wicked people claiming to be Christians have done such evil things saying they were doing it on God's behalf. I wonder if you will stop slandering Christianity and the teachings of Christ based on its misuse and abuse?

Universal "species wide" morality can't be subjective to the individual. It is objective because it is hardwired/programmed into us. If morality is only subjective, than what was wrong with Hitler's "final solution"? What was wrong with Pol-pot's "killing fields"? The Nazis and the Khmer Rouge didn't see a problem with murdering millions of people, that morality was being "socially reinforced" and it was accepted by many people yet we instinctively know that what took place was wrong (because were not under that social reinforcement that made it acceptable to many, also many of those people kept their mouths shut lest they be murdered.) What is wrong with a society hurting and killing the undesirables if they deem it best for their society as a whole? If morality is subjective to the individual or society then logically there should not be a problem with the actions of Hitler because his society was thriving except for the people he put in camps and gas chambers. That is the logical conclusion to subjective morality derived from a materialistic worldview, and I thank God that people who believe in that worldview don't follow it to it's logical conclusion. (Not many of them anyway. Eric Harris did.)
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
Yes, racism predates Charles Darwin, and as your meme comment pointed out, someone misusing an idea for their own bad purposes doesn't discredit the validity of the idea itself.

Unfortunately, you're wrong when you say "No direct quotes needed." If you're claiming (as your earlier meme comment did) that Origin of Species is a book with racist ideas, then you should be able to provide quotes from the book to support your claim. That's like me saying "the Bible says abortion is okay", and you ask for specific verses where it says that, and I say I don't need to provide any.

When I point out bad things that Christians have done, I can point to actual verses in the Bible they have used to justify their actions. It's not slandering Christianity if Christians themselves use their own scriptures to justify what they do.

The fact that people don't all agree on moral issues makes it hard to say that morality is objectively hardwired into everyone's brain. Also, morality can indeed be subjective, but if you have enough people who all share that subjective viewpoint, then society can run smoothly (more or less). You aren't demonstrating that morality is objective; rather, you're just saying why it would be bad if it is subjective. What Hitler and Pol Pot did was immoral from a societal standpoint, because what they did harmed society.

"What is wrong with a society hurting and killing the undesirables if they deem it best for their society as a whole?"

Because it may not actually be what's best for their society as a whole. Nazis thought that killing Jews was good for German society, when in fact it was bad for German society, because the Jews they killed were very often productive members of society.

You still didn't answer my question, though. If morality comes from God, is it subjective or objective?
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Both side have stuff they can't explain,or is explained by science,and thus neither is completely right or wrong,and will be debated until the end of time

also using Hitler as a example isn't going to do anything for you
reply
3 ups
james3v6 was the one who brought Hitler into the conversation

You're right, there are things we don't understand and never will. But what you don't do in that situation is make up an explanation like "God did it", in order to give yourself the illusion of certainty.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
The question is "Hitler as an example of what?"
If morality is subjective to the individual or to the society then Hitler and Nazi Germany should be acceptable, that's what example is.
Another illustration/example is antebellum South in America where human beings were used and sold like cattle. If morality is subjective then what was the problem with that? The South should have seceded from and fought the Union trying to "force their morality on them" if morality is subjective.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
So slavery is immoral? Then why did god allow for it in the Bible? Why did he give the Israelites specific rules detailing how they could buy slaves and how they were to treat them?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
That's called "deflection" where you don't actually engage with the question/argument that is posed, instead you start questioning the illustration being used. It is not quite a 'red herring' since you didn't change the subject entirely, but deflection nonetheless.

"Chattel slavery" is what existed in antebellum Southern states and still exists in some parts of the world today. People were bought, sold, and used like livestock. That never took place by God's command and was forbidden. Are you troubled that God told the Israelites how to treat their slaves instead of allowing them to use them like livestock?

"No, god shouldn't have allowed it in the first place. Slavery is immoral and wrong!"
I thought morality is subjective, so why should you or I care if "bronze age goat herders" made up some deity that allowed them to take slaves? For that matter, back to my question, why should we care what happened to slaves in the American South in antebellum times?

There is noting immoral about indentured servitude or taking prisoners of war and keeping them as slaves especially when you are governed by numerous commands on how to treat them.
1 up
It's not deflection because you brought up slavery, not me.

"Chattel slavery" is what existed in antebellum Southern states and still exists in some parts of the world today. People were bought, sold, and used like livestock."

That's exactly what happened in ancient Israel. Humans were bought and sold as property. They were not humans. They were property. They could be passed down from father to son as property.

"Are you troubled that God told the Israelites how to treat their slaves instead of allowing them to use them like livestock?"

I'm troubled by the fact that your holy book allows for human beings to be bought and sold and owned as property. And that should trouble you as well.

"I thought morality is subjective, so why should you or I care if "bronze age goat herders" made up some deity that allowed them to take slaves?"

Morality is about how people should treat each other or not treat each other. Just because I say morality is subjective doesn't mean I am saying it doesn't exist, or is inconsequential. If something (like slavery) harms another human being unnecessarily, I will call it immoral.

"For that matter, back to my question, why should we care what happened to slaves in the American South in antebellum times?"

Because it harmed human beings, therefore it was immoral.

"There is noting immoral about indentured servitude or taking prisoners of war and keeping them as slaves especially when you are governed by numerous commands on how to treat them."

Indentured servitude is voluntary, but I would disagree that keeping prisoners of war as slaves is okay, because that is still slavery. By the way, those "commands on how to treat them" say that you can beat your slaves viciously, as long as they don't die right away (Exodus 21:20-21)

Is owning another human being as a piece of property moral or immoral?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
"misunderstood" in quotations because I didn't misunderstand anything. I did willfully misrepresent Darwinism because I know that one of the triggers for Darwinists is to claim that one of their idols promoted racism.

I did that to make a point, namely what I said in the meme, misuse and misunderstanding of can't be used against a philosophy. The people who claimed that Darwin's theory "proved scientifically that non-whites were more animal than human" probably never opened the book. They took their preconceived notions and applied them onto Darwin's book. Therefore, they didn't need any direct quotes. Were they wrong for doing that? Do you not think they could take something from Darwin's book and take it out of context to fit their own biases?

The same thing happens when Christians or people who claim to be Christians take bible verses and force their preconceived notions onto those bible verses. Verses of Scripture are not subjective to one's own interpretation and application. There is one objective meaning for every verse that takes into account historical and grammatical context therefore "private interpretations" and any application that is not derived from the proper interpretation are not biblical and if the verses in question pertain to fundamental doctrines those people are NOT Christians. Christianity is a self authenticating system that precludes people from changing certain fundamental doctrines to fit their own preconceived notions and biases.

Is Darwinism a "self authenticating" theory/system? Can those racists from that newspaper article rightly call themselves "Darwinists" as they claim that Darwin's theory proves "Caucasians are the most evolved and best race"?

You keep asking the same question which I have already answered, why? Do you not like my answer? "It is objective because it is hardwired/programmed into us."

The fact that people don't agree on moral issues doesn't negate the universal aspect of human morality. In which culture is it alright to molest and/or murder children? The only people who think that behavior is alright are those who take pleasure in doing it or they are mentally ill. Everyone everywhere knows that is wrong except those who choose to ignore that pre-programmed understanding or their "programming" is messed up.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
If there is only one objective meaning do every single Bible verse, why can't believers agree on what that meaning is? Why do Christians come to different understandings of the same verse time and time again? How do you know you have the correct interpretation of it?

And to call Christianity "self-authenticating" sounds a lot like circular reasoning. Can a Muslim say the Koran is self-authenticating? Is science self-authenticating? What about Hinduism?

If morality is objective, then why do moral issues often have gray areas? Is lying always wrong? What about people who lied to the Nazis by hiding Jews? Is kilijng always wrong? What about capital punishment or self defense?

In which culture is okay to murder children? Read Deuteronomy 21. Killing rebellious sons was commanded by god.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
What if I told you that many Christians are incorrect about a lot of what they believe?
What if I told you that most people who call themselves Christians are in fact not Christians because they don't have a proper understanding of fundamentals of the Christian faith?

I don't think that I have everything correct and I am willing to be corrected and continue to learn. Many believers are not due to their traditions. I am confident in many of the interpretations that I affirm because of consistency in exegesis, hermeneutics, and logic.

Any "ultimate authority claim" is circular in nature. For example, if an atheistic materialist says that their ultimate authority is their own human reasoning and the way that reached that conclusion is by reasoning their way to it, that is circular. The same is true for a Christian who says, "I believe what the bible says because the bible says so," since the bible is our ultimate authority. That is not what is going on in my explanation.

Any philosophical system or religion can be "self authenticating" if that system says their are certain principles and teachings that one must hold to be a "true adherent" of that system. So yes, all those systems you mentioned can be "self authenticating" which is not saying their self authentication proves their truthfulness, rather it sets the standard for what that system actually consists of.

You are equivocating on "killing" and "murder." They are not the same. Murder is the unlawful taking of a human life with malice of forethought. Killing can be capital punishment, self defense, or killing in war. Even some Christians take it so far as to say all killing is wrong (conscientious objectors) but that is not a biblical standard.

As for the civil laws in Deuteronomy, if the Israelites broke those laws: capital punishment (including children) which is not murder.
reply
1 up
"What if I told you that many Christians are incorrect about a lot of what they believe?
What if I told you that most people who call themselves Christians are in fact not Christians because they don't have a proper understanding of fundamentals of the Christian faith?"

And many people would say the exact same thing about you as well, which I'm sure you would vigorously deny.

I'm glad you acknowledge that a system being self-authenticating doesn't determine its truthfulness or lack thereof. I've seen too many people try and argue that the Bible is true because the Bible says it is.

What would be legal capital punishment under biblical standards would be murder under American law. If morality is objective and unchanging, what is immoral in the Bible should be immoral today, and the laws should reflect that.
reply
2 ups
I agree with you completely, but we must keep in mind an idea known as "the absurdity of belief". This concept basically states that people are biased towards seeing more absurdity in the beliefs of people they disagree with. When you get to origins, human logic starts to fall apart a bit, and one must choose from only a couple of categories (all of which are nearly impossible to wrap one's head around). Either the universe is eternal, came from nothing, or was made by God who is eternal. Personally, I find this world to be too broken and simple to be able to exist forever or have created itself from nothing, but a perfect God who exists eternally just makes sense to me (even if I don't perfectly understand Him)
reply
1 up
reply
1 up, 1 reply
As the universe expanded, all the matter and energy existing in a small space should have caused it to collapse into a black hole.
reply
0 ups
Never thought of that before.
reply
1 up
reply
1 up
i.imgflip.com/1926w1.png (click to show)
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
1 up
Please, show us your Deity meter which measures the number of actual deities existing.
Give us objective proof, not just "I want to believe this because I don't like the scientific explanation" or "I hear the voice of god" so you better believe me.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I'm sorry, but I thought, at least in America, we could believe anything without others telling us it's shit to think that way. We believe something different than you. I'm sorry. Get over it.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Sorry, please feel free to believe anything you want, not trying to deny you that.
Just don't insist that you have any more right to control the law, government or people than those of other faiths or no faiths.
reply
1 up
I'm not, I'm just saying that no person in this country has the right to tell others what to believe. Thats what this nation was based upon.
reply
1 up
"Just don't insist that you have any more right to control the law, government or people than those of other faiths or no faiths."

Why do conservatives do it all the time?
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
Yeah!
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups
reply
0 ups
The truly unbelievable thing is believing there could be anything OUTSIDE the universe.
Flip Settings
Third World Skeptical Kid memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
SO YOU BELIEVE THE UNIVERSE STARTED AS A SINGULARITY AND THEN EXPANDED TO BECOME EVERYTHING IN THE COSMOS WE KNOW OF, WITHOUT ANY OUTSIDE AGENT CAUSING IT TO DO SO? AND HERE I THOUGHT OUR WITCH DOCTORS BELIEVED SOME CRAZY SH*T
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back