Correction: Christian morality is founded on authority of a being whom people assume exist because an ancient book said he did--which just happened to be written by priests. For hundreds of years, the clergy have been creating Gods so they can use that ultimate authority gig to manufacture obedience to their rules. That is the true foundation of Christian morality. There's no reason to follow Christian morality or see it as valid except for the appeal to God's authority and the benefits/rewards you will receive. It' consists of following laundry list of incredibly bizarre, arbitrary rules because they say so.




[quote
  God endowed us with both choice and the ability to discern the difference between good choices and poor choices.[/quote]

Theologically incorrect. According to the Bible, God made Adam and Eve entirely ignorant morons who, only by disobeying God because they ultimately didn't know any better (since they had no knowledge of good, evil, right, and wrong), ate from the Tree of Knowledge. It was only then that they realized the difference between good and poor choices, upon which time they were severely punished by God for daring, ironically, disobeying, thus reinforcing the plain/pleasure principle of your religion I discussed earlier. Disobey authority = punishment.



Oh, well he INSISTS does he? That's just it, in fact. He uses his power and authority to tell you what to do, reinforcing it with threats of violence if you do not, and you ought to obey because you're a peon and he is big, bad, and smarter than you (or so he says). There is no appeal to the benefit to humanity or the promotion of welfare outside his threats to you if you disobey. It's not about YOU or humans. It's about obediance. Whatever God says is Good, and then you do it because he says so.

The idea that God is a moral authority is itself ridiculous, given he's one of literature's most vile, genocidal war mongers who gets his rocks off by cruel and unusual punishments, as is evidenced in the OT. He has no room to moralize to anyone.


I am glad we fall short of his standard of behaviour. His version of "justice" and "morality" bears little resemblance to actual morality. Again, you obey out of ambivalence: you both fear him and love him for the potential punishments and rewards and are enticed to obey therefore.




Oh yea! He "loves" the world so much he decided to murder everything on it at least once and then sets out ridiculous OT punishments for minor infractions and violations of arbitrary rules. Great Guy you worship.



A. That he should exist, which he doesn't.
B. That he's not a genocidal, warmongering asshole, which he is.

I don't worship false evil Gods, sorry.

I don't need an absolute proof. Evidence substantiates it.  The rules are entirely arbitrary and made up by the clergy for the benefit of the organization to which they belong, and often themselves. It's no surprise that, throughout history, the clergy dominated government and had tremendous power. Their religious posiiotn was used to cultivate a crop of obedience through deference to their ultimate "divine" authority. Kings of the 16th and 17th centuries played the same game (The Sun King of France) and other divine-right monarchs who commanded the loyalty of the population by appealing to their special position and knowledge of God's orders. During predynastic period in Sumeria, the central component of the redistributive economy was the Temple and the clergy, which virtually dominated the culture.

In the Bible we see a continuation of this theme, as the clergy set up asinine arbitrary rules defying all logic that just happened to benefit them, including incredible punishments for telling off members of the holy temple. If a child mocked a priest, it carried the punishment of death.

Even in the Bible, we see the use of "religion" and "divine authority" as a justification for dominance in the temporal world. The Jews, for instance, invented just HAPPENED to have a God who they could use as a justification for stealing land from the Canaanites. God is invoked as giving them some special Lebensraum. This is a common theme among ancient cultures who had Gods who just happened to favour them, promise them tracts of land in other peoples' territories.

God obviously didn't make the rules as magic beings don't exist, nor is there a credible reason to believe they exist. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Consequently, the logical choice is to infer that the clergy developed all the rules they pretended 'God' did so they could sap the benefit of the divine authority.


Overwhelmingly, Christian morality itself has no basis in anything but obedience and operant conditioning. You can, however, follow it as a "cultural Christian" like many modern Christians who never read the Bible or go to Church. They simply are unfortunate products of epidemiology.


It's hardly unthoughtful. It's a clear reading of what happens. You don't like it because it's not the interpretation you were taught in Sunday School. The deeper meaning lies in the symbolism of the tree. It represents on one hand the stupidity of God as well as his ultimate irrational fear of human progress not deliberately controlled by him. Consistently in the Bible we see God as a asshole who has an irrational fear of his own creations, thus harshly punishes them for minor transgressions and creates rules that have little logic behind them. In the Eden myth, the Tree of Knowledge represents the forbidden fruit--knowledge. God tells Adam and Eve not to eat from it because he doesn't want them to attain knowledge that will put them on a similar level as himself. The theme isn't new, as it happed also in Greek Myths such as Prometheus. The serpent is an the disobedient divine troublemaker who dared to defy the Gods and promote mankind to a new level feared by those Gods, whereas Prometheus was that for Greek Man. Where one was fire, in the Bible, it's knowledge. Knowledge is important, because the ignorant are easier to control. "They are now as us" was emphasized in the Bible in this story.

We see a similar theme in the story of Babel. Mankind attempts to reach the heavens by building a tall structure. God, seeing cooperation and human progress, becomes startled, deliberately sabotages the effort to prevent man from developing to "his level."

Note* The whole story is ultimately silly, though, because God is supposedly omnipotent and omniscient, yet this directly contradicts that by indicating God's a blithering idiot for putting a forbidden tree in range of ignorant humans and then telling them not to eat from it, knowing they will anyway because he can see into the future, but then getting angry when his rules are accidentally violated. That actually compounds the problem and highlights God's sadism. He knew what was going to happen before it happened, yet did nothing to prevent it, getting angry at what he failed to prevent, yet already knew.

In reality, the story transfers to the power of the clergy: they don't want you to disobey, because ultimately, a population of obedient, brainwashed morons are easier to manipulate and to control. This story is used to show what happens when you disobey while attacking the acquisition of knowledge as a trick of Satan (except for what the Church wants you to learn. That's holy, of course!).


I have no problem with authority figures. The problem is basing a morality on the authority of unworthy, imaginary characters who don't deserve authority in the first place, even if they did exist. God is clearly a sadistic, arbitrary tyrant. Hardly a moral paragon. The problem is the unthinking assumption that his authority is valid and he's a moral paragon because...the clergy tells you he says so. Nothing more. If God said baby killing was ok (and actually, he has many times), people will follow it because of the authority principle: God supposedly knows more than you, so do what he says!

 
Correct. My idea is superior, since my appraisal of his morality is based off of  his real actions as evidenced in the Bible. That's worth far more than the word of the clergy or God's own opinion of his actions. By fact, he's a mass-murdering evil tyrant. Only dogma, again based on his word, claims he's not. God has a personality cult worthy of Kim Jong Ill. He can do no wrong...because...well...because Great Leader says so! You can't question the Glorious Great Leader, afteral. It's all a system of self-reinforcing appeals to authority that are base don nothing but more appeals to his authority, degarding human intelligence, as well as threatening them with violence or luring them with reward.


My problem is ultimately that he's an evil sociopath who people wrongfully promote as a moral paragon. His actions cause significant suffering, are not based on promoting human material welfare. The morality is otherworldly, God centred.  A proper morality is man centred and based on improving welfare of people, not obedience to God and arbitrary sets of rules.


I worship nothing. There's little point. Reality nor nature care about what you want, pray for or what totems you erect. My ethics is Utilitarian and based on practical, real-time suffering and human welfare promotion, not sitting around a campfire praying to a tyrannical invisible being.

The historical evidence/precedent, combined with observations of the types of rules and the mentality of those who make them is more than adequate evidence.


Then you really don't know your bible as well as you think you do. Look harder. IF you can't find it with a day, I will provide the passage.


The influence of the clergy is immense on all ancient historical societies of the third and second millennia, and the political sphere is heavily informed by religious policy...ultimately made by the priesthood. Hence the holy crusades to take land from others using God's authority. The very concept of the "special covenant" of jews was invented by the priests to justify their genocide.

Stud the history if the Hewbrews, and you will learn the priesthood dominated the society's behaviour: they did, after all, come up with all the religious laws, rituals, etc.


False. Absence of evidence is EVIDENCE of absence. You are conflating evidence with proof. If I open a shoebox and don't see an elephant flying around in it, that is indeed evidence there isn't one there. It's not absolute proof, no. If I said absence of evidence is proof of absence, then you would be right.  You don't pass go, don't collect 200 dollars. Try again.


Wrong again. I explain this more later. I am not presupposing God doesn't exist and then using that as the support for his non-existence. I simply cut out the explanation I gave in other threads, because you already heard it.

A. The tentative conclusion is God didn't make the rules because:
B. If he made the rules, that means he exists.
C. For God to exist, magic must exist.
D. Given the lack of evidence and evidence against magic existing, God likely doesn't exist. Thus, it's a safe conclusion he does not, which leads to the conclusion he wrote nothing. Given the evidence and far, far simpler sources of the rules, occams razor indicates people did it. We know they exist. We know they can create laws. We know they do "magic" which is an illusion, and we know they have invented many religions before. Again, I explain this in more detail later, so just combine the sections if you respond.

Nothing is absolute. It's not a proof, which you assume is necessary. I can't PROVE he didn't write it, because I can't 100% prove magic doesn't exist, which God requires to be true. It's is a tentative assumption based on the evidence and lack thereof. Perfectly reasonable--just as reasonable as if somone said he dropped a ball and it flew up into the sky, carried on the wings of magic bunnies upon which time it exploded into iced cupcakes. No would would seriously posit that was possible, based on the evidence and violations of natural laws. THere's little difference between that and a magic sky being.

As for you "eye witnesses," it's entirely reasonable to dismiss extreme claims unsupported by evidence, especially if those claims are of phenomena that violate all known scientific laws. That a bunch of bronze age primitives said they thought something has no weight at all. They were simply delusional or lying, which is a far simpler explanation that fits the known evidence of what is, is not pyossible.  Even today, eye witness accounts are notoriously inaccurate, even when it has nothing to do with extreme claims that run contrary to all known science. Basing one's decisions on the word of primitives who believed in sky magic isn't credible in the slightest. And their predictions have not been correct either (in fact, they are worthless, especially since you're merely interpreting them ad hoc). Now stop quoting logical fallacies you don't understand so you can impress the peanut gallery God squad.


No kidding. He's not real. They just believed he was and used that as a justification. Don't be obtuse.


Incorrect. Refer to the above. I will reclarify:

1. Evidence of absence is the absence of evidence. This is not a logical error. You are misusing logical rules because you confuse evidence with absolute proof, again. That's your problem. Not mine. I don't need to prove God doesn't exist with 100% certainty to assume he doesn't exist.

2. It's safe to assume God didn't make up the rules and that instead people did because for God to have made the rules, it must mean magic exists. This is absurd. There's no evidence of magic, and in fact, all known instances of it have been falsified and explained away as the illusions they are. GIven the lack of evidence, falsification of examples, and the complete violation of natural, physical laws, we can assume magic doesn't exist based on the evidence. Can't prove it, but that's irrelevant. Occam's Razor applies. Given the aforementioned, and given we know people are capable of making laws as well a religions that sound and act similarly (scientology, pastafarianism, mormonism)
the simplest explanation that involves the least multiplication of unnecessary entities is...sorry, God.


Builshit. You can't divine the writer's intent any better. I will stick with what is the simplest answer fitting the evidence, and you can pretend you know what the bronze age primitives "really meant" (aka, whatever preacher-man told you to believe as a kid).

RF, regarding your "eyewitnesses". Let's try this again.  WHO are you talking about?

For example:

Can you tell me when Matthew makes an appearance in the Gospel of Matthew?

Hint: its well into the story and he is referred to in the 3rd person - as a character.



The Gospel of Matthew is ANONYMOUS. And, RF, when is the earliest complete copy of Matthew?

~200 CE years after the events supposedly happened.

So, lets face it. Matthew is NOT an Eyewitness.  Neither is John, or Paul. (we can discuss this, but it is certain as you will agree).

So we are down to Mark and Luke:

Earliest copies: ~200 CE


Luke:
The narrator does not say he was an eyewitness.  He only says that he investigated the stories that had been handed down, and is reporting his understanding of the events in the life of Jesus:



Luke EVEN SAYS HE WAS NOT an eyewitness.


So, we are down to ONE: Mark.

The ealiest mention was by Papias (~120 CE):


This is the Xian tradition but Papias based this on hearsay. Papias said "I heard it from a "Presbyter".


So, Mark was NOT an eyewitness.


That leaves NONE. Not ONE. Nobody was an eyewitness to your Lord.

These facts are important, RF. Truth is important.

Incorrect. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Again, you conflate proof and evidence. Furthermore, my example is apt and perfectly valid. It clearly demonstrates that the absence of something is evidence that it's not there, just not absolute proof. One could easily switch the magic elephant with the mouse. If I have a box, open it up, see no mouse, the evidence indicates it's not there, and that evidence is...the absence of evidence for existence. Could there be a mouse in there? Sure. Evidence for absence != proof of absence.

The error doesn't become apparent, as you mistake, because of the difference between a proof and evidence. You don't know what you're talking about here, as you demonstrate your ignorance on the thread regarding natural selection/evolution. You are an expert on terminology, not on its application. Logic is more than your memorization of terms. You can't apply it.


As for the rest, your critique of the elephant is meaningless. It's a magic elephant, just like your Magic God. You claim God exists, without evidence,  and he's a magical, flying sky daddy. The two are no different.  A magical elephant could certainly fit in a shoebox, because he's the magic elephant. Similarly, men don't rise from the dead. Bread won't spontaneously turn from flesh, yet retain all the properties of bread, and water won't magically become wine...yet Christians believe this.

The violations of natural laws that would require them to be true, in addition to the absence of evidence for them, is evidence they are not true, do not exist. What you conflate, AGAIN, are proof and evidence. The empty box isn't proof there is no mouse in there, because the mouse can be magical and invisible, but it's damn good evidence nothing is in the fucking box. Don't be inane.

Likewise, when scientists repeatedly test and falsify an idea or are unable to support the theory, it's not 100% proof it's really false. It is, though, evidence of falsity. Thus the concept of tentative assumption. They use the lack of evidence and contradictory results (incorrect predictions) as evidence for falsity. It's tentative due to the lack of proof.

I have mentioned nothing of proof. 

Evidence imparts information but when no evidence is expected like in the case of your example, absence of evidence does not give you any new information, since it does not add to what you already know.  Information is the elimination of possibilities and when no evidence is expected you have an expectation value of zero or no new information.  When you have a case were evidence is expected but you find none, then absence of evidence does impart new information.  Since in some cases absence of evidence does not give us new information, your statement is not always true.  It is therefore a fallacy.