Did Nothing Create Everything?

[SetiAlpha6]

I've never seen God, but I would sit in judgment of those who say one thing and then another in contradiction. We heard a story of children being killed by a drunk driver, yet you said, "I don’t blame God for the freewill actions of man." And now, you say God removes those men of free will to protect the innocent.

Just not protecting innocent children when it really matters. So much for justice for the wicked.

Like I said, I have yet to hear a version of Christianity that wasn't twisted.

I have learned to view God as love, and I have learned to trust Him. I certainly cannot trust mankind.

There are certainly many twisted versions of Christianity in the world.

Seems like mankind has a general tendency to corrupt whatever it touches.

Science, a good thing, was warped to create machines of war that are so devastating that we can now destroy the entire human race in less than 1 hour. Now we are working on even faster warhead delivery technology so we can do it even faster.

Aren’t we amazing!

 

[James R]

SetiAlpha6:

But I know God loves those children and He will give them eternal life with Him.

How do you know that?

Atheism provides no hope for children like these, not even a future hope of justice. It only provides despair of living now, and eternal death in the future. Absolutely no hope to their parents.

You're saying we should all believe in your God because we'd be happier and more hopeful if we did? Even if the God isn't real?

It provides no basis of value for those children, no basis of morality, it cannot even say that what happened to them was wrong.

On what basis, according to Atheism alone, are their deaths wrong or evil?

On the basis of "atheism alone", you're right. Atheism alone is just the absence of a belief in gods. It doesn't claim to be a basis for morality. Luckily, we atheists have a perfectly adequate alternative to religious morality, called Secular Humanism. That moral system doesn't require any gods as justification or authorities to be obeyed and feared.

Atheists are usually wonderful, loving, caring people like you are.

Also more honest than a lot of Christians, wouldn't you agree?

An atheist could just as easily, as a few do, behave completely in an opposite way to the loving way that you do, and Scientific Naturalism would have no way to provide a moral foundation to bring them back from the brink of harming others.

Define "scientific naturalism" for me. Would secular humanism be part of scientific naturalism? If so, then I'd say it does provide a moral foundation. Do you agree?

 

[(Q)]

I have learned to view God as love, and I have learned to trust Him. I certainly cannot trust mankind.

What you appear to trust are the blatant contradictions of your faith and have disposed of all concepts of logic, reason and rationale as was demonstrated by the contradiction of your God's so called love. You trust in saying one thing and then the opposite, all for the sake of trying to justify and protect your faith. Yet, it's shown to be little more than a house of cards crumbling about you.

There are certainly many twisted versions of Christianity in the world.

Seems like mankind has a general tendency to corrupt whatever it touches.

It's the other way round, Christianity has corrupted mankind.

Science, a good thing, was warped to create machines of war that are so devastating that we can now destroy the entire human race in less than 1 hour. Now we are working on even faster warhead delivery technology so we can do it even faster.

Aren’t we amazing!

You're free to make up whatever stories you want to justify your faith even though you take advantage of everything science has provided you, each and every day of your life, all the while your Bible sits idle on the shelf doing nothing for you other than corrupting your mind.

 

[DaveC426913]

Seems like mankind has a general tendency to corrupt whatever it touches.

Science, a good thing, was warped to create machines of war that are so devastating that we can now destroy the entire human race in less than 1 hour.

Indeed.

Truman is the only leader in history to drop (two) atomic bombs on another nation.

That's right. He was a Christian.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

By killing the innocent by the millions?

By that measure, the 9/11 terrorists were justified in their war to fight Western corruption (drinking, violence, sexual immorality, greed etc.) that was taking over their land. They were certainly more moral than the Old Testament God, who killed millions of innocents, instead of just thousands.

So you are saying that it is OK to kill the innocent because they are going to heaven? Wow. Well, there goes any objection you could possibly have against abortion. Who would object to giving eternal life to fetuses?

No to pretty much everything you said.

And you know I hate the killing of innocent children and hate abortions just like you do.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

What you appear to trust are the blatant contradictions of your faith and have disposed of all concepts of logic, reason and rationale as was demonstrated by the contradiction of your God's so called love. You trust in saying one thing and then the opposite, all for the sake of trying to justify and protect your faith. Yet, it's shown to be little more than a house of cards crumbling about you.

I disagree...

No contradictions because of the huge scale and category differences involved with the various issues, which makes them incomparable.

But I do love your heart for the innocent!
You are a beautiful person!

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Indeed.

Truman is the only leader in history to drop (two) atomic bombs on another nation.

That's right. He was a Christian.

Good point...

All mankind have a tendency toward corruption, Christian and non-Christian alike.

 

[(Q)]

I disagree...

No contradictions because of the huge scale and category differences involved with the various issues, which makes them incomparable.

I'm sure if you keep telling yourself that, you'll manage to wipe out any and all truth of the world around you.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

I've never seen God, but I would sit in judgment of those who say one thing and then another in contradiction. We heard a story of children being killed by a drunk driver, yet you said, "I don’t blame God for the freewill actions of man." And now, you say God removes those men of free will to protect the innocent.

Just not protecting innocent children when it really matters. So much for justice for the wicked.

Like I said, I have yet to hear a version of Christianity that wasn't twisted.

God does different things under different circumstances. So do you.

God gave mankind this Earth to rule over. So we normally have the responsibility for what happens here. If a man murders a child he is held responsible for doing that by God, either now in this world or in the next, or in both.

God usually allows the evil in this world to exist right alongside the good (will you blame Him for this?). But there are also times when evil becomes so pervasive that He intervenes and stops it (and also blame Him for this?)

God did not force such a man to commit murder against his will, the man decided to do it by his own will. He chose to murder so he is held responsible for his actions.

Certainly you believe in some level of justice.

 

[James R]

If a man murders a child he is held responsible for doing that by God, either now in this world or in the next, or in both.

How do you know that?

And you know I hate the killing of innocent children and hate abortions just like you do.

You speak as if you think those two things are related somehow.

 

[(Q)]

God does different things under different circumstances. So do you.

But, I have morals and ethics, unlike God. If I had that power, I would've saved those children and wouldn't flood the Earth because of a mistake I made.

God gave mankind this Earth to rule over.

That's Christianity corrupting your mind again. We don't rule the Earth, we share it.

So we normally have the responsibility for what happens here. If a man murders a child he is held responsible for doing that by God, either now in this world or in the next, or in both.

We don't know that, all we know is the laws we have on Earth. We should hold God responsible for his shortcomings and mistakes.

God usually allows the evil in this world to exist right alongside the good (will you blame Him for this?).

Absolutely. God is completely to blame for that.

But there are also times when evil becomes so pervasive that He intervenes and stops it (and also blame Him for this?)

Yet, that once again contradicts what you said above. More Christianity corruption.

God did not force such a man to commit murder against his will, the man decided to do it by his own will. He chose to murder so he is held responsible for his actions.

Certainly you believe in some level of justice.

I do, but your God certainly doesn't.

 

[billvon]

And you know I hate the killing of innocent children and hate abortions just like you do.

You just defended the killing of millions of children by saying they "became so wicked that God had to remove them from the Earth" but it was OK because "the innocent are accepted by God and given eternal life." Are you rethinking that? If so, great! Because it doesn't make much sense, really.

But there are also times when evil becomes so pervasive that He intervenes and stops it.

Yes, you explained that. So if man does that, is he evil, but when God does it, he is good? Sort of a paradox there.

God did not force such a man to commit murder against his will, the man decided to do it by his own will.

Very much like God.

 

[billvon]

They are only random bio chemical robots according to Naturalism, Science, and Atheism.

Uh - no.

According to science they were only cosmic accidents destroyed by another cosmic accident.

Again - no. That's an ignorant and facile attempt at a strawman. It would be just as accurate to say that religious types are OK with any sort of rape and murder as long as their God tells them it's OK, as God did in the Bible. Will you explain to a child that it's OK to murder his parents because God said to do it?

 

[billvon]

Dogs are weaker genetically than they were as wolves, they are less genetically adaptable, less able to adapt and survive. Their original genetic code has been diluted and weakened over time. That is how evolution works.

Complete nonsense. There are far, far more dogs than wolves. That means they are more successful in terms of evolution.

If 95% of all species have gone extinct that only leaves 5% remaining to go extinct.

99.5% of all species have gone extinct.

The overwhelming trend toward extinction is plain and simple, even obvious. There is no other reasonable conclusion. It is only a matter of time before all life genetically fails and all life goes extinct.

New species are created all the time.

How many Species have even gone extinct in your own lifetime? This trend is undeniable. Evolution results in extinction.

That's how it works, yes. Evolution also results in new species - like us.

As species adapt to survive they become less able to adapt in the future. They become genetically weaker over time. More of the original Genetic Code is lost. The dog is an excellent example of this.

Nonsensical BS. You don't understand genetics even a little.

Species were created with selectable options within their original genetic code to enable survival of the species over time. They survive much longer than they would without it. This works well but eventually leads to extinction, once the original genetic code becomes too diluted and corrupted.

Again, silly BS. Did you see this in a science fiction movie or something?

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Define "scientific naturalism" for me. Would secular humanism be part of scientific naturalism? If so, then I'd say it does provide a moral foundation. Do you agree?

On what Scientific Naturalism basis alone would anyone be able to choose between Humanism and Hedonism?

Which one is right? And on what scientific basis?

Let’s add one more...

On what Scientific Naturalism basis is Nazism wrong or evil?

And why not add...

On what Scientific Naturalism basis is Christianity wrong or evil?

I actually don’t think that the concepts of good or evil can even exist in Scientific Naturalism.

Am I wrong on that?

 

[billvon]

On what Scientific Naturalism basis alone would anyone be able to choose between Humanism and Hedonism?

On the basis of deciding that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority.

Which one is right? And on what scientific basis?

Utilitarianism.

On what Scientific Naturalism basis is Nazism wrong or evil?

Utilitarianism.

On what Scientific Naturalism basis is Christianity wrong or evil?

It's not, based on utilitarianism. At least nowadays. When Christianity was used to murder heretics and witches it was pretty evil.

I actually don’t think that the concepts of good or evil can even exist in Scientific Naturalism. Am I wrong on that?

Yes.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

On the basis of deciding that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority.

Utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism.

It's not, based on utilitarianism. At least nowadays. When Christianity was used to murder heretics and witches it was pretty evil.

Yes.

How does Hedonism conflict with Utilitarianism?

How does Nazism conflict with Utilitarianism?

So everyone here believes in Utilitarianism?
Is that correct?

Are you sure you want to go with that one?

 

[billvon]

How does Hedonism conflict with Utilitarianism?

Does hedonism conflict with actions that are useful or for the benefit of a majority?

How does Nazism conflict with Utilitarianism?

Think of whether or not Nazism was useful to, or to the benefit of, six million Jews. After you think about that you will have answered your own question.

So everyone here believes in Utilitarianism?

Not even close. Where the heck do you get that? It's merely a secular morality that has a lot of utility (no pun intended.) As exemplified by the trolley problem answers, not everyone hews to that 100%.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Does hedonism conflict with actions that are useful or for the benefit of a majority?

Think of whether or not Nazism was useful to, or to the benefit of, six million Jews. After you think about that you will have answered your own question.

Not even close. Where the heck do you get that? It's merely a secular morality that has a lot of utility (no pun intended.) As exemplified by the trolley problem answers, not everyone hews to that 100%.

Nazism is Utilitarianism applied to one larger more powerful people group (who represented the most good) at the expense of another weaker people group, the Jews.

Nazism was clearly based on Utilitarianism.

I know you don't want that to ever happen again.

https://orthosphere.wordpress.com/2018/10/09/utilitarianism-a-new-kind-of-evil/

 

[billvon]

Nazism is Utilitarianism applied to one larger more powerful people group (who represented the most good) at the expense of another weaker people group, the Jews.

Again, utilitarianism states that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority. Nothing about being good for "larger, more powerful people." It just says majority. So please explain why you think that Nazism benefited the majority.

I know you don't want that to ever happen again.

Yep. Would be best if more people implemented utilitarianism, so that that never happens again.