Objective Moral Values

[Louis Riel]

Here's a good video that might provoke some thought..................

YouTube - Carl Sagan: A Universe Not Made For Us [Carl Sagan Tribute Series, Part 1]

[Vangelovski]

I agree with rtg

I can't see anything foolish in makedonins posts I think he makes very good points

You still have not explained how anything can be judged as good or bad without objective moral values and the absurdities that logically flow from an absence of objective moral values.

[Vangelovski]

Vangelovski,there is a difference between athiest and agnostic.

There is a difference between a dog and a cat. What's your point?

[makedonin]

Makedonin,

You have managed to so thoroughly mangle up atheist claims that I'm not sure what it is I'm responding to or whether I even need to respond.

At this point I'm not sure if its your intellectual honesty that is the problem or your intellectual capacity!

You don't have to do so, it is your choice. You can keep your ad hominemn fallacy which does not help your case. I have demonstrated that you have used Biblical passages out of context just to support your false belief that the Bible is scientifically justifiable. This quote seen in context shows that you have misquoted it so badly just to serve your purpose.

I find you here not worthy of discussion or debate because of intellectual dishonesty. I close the case Vangelovski the fundamentalist in my archives.

Just for the good start in the day:

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." - Copy to Clipboard
-- Cardinal Bellarmine (during the trial of Galileo)

Science have demonstrated that the earth revolves around the sun, which would than imply that the Bellarmine was wrong which than will imply that Jesus was not born of virgin.

Science triumphs over the gullible religious zealots.

I don't think Makedonin is running around making a fool of himself. He is making observations that many of the quieter members are probably thinking about.

I don't think I will ever reconcile the Old Testament with the New Testament.

Risto, it is demonstrable that the Old Testament is in no case to be reconciled with the New Testament.

Both follow whole different agendas.

[Louis Riel]

There is a difference between a dog and a cat. What's your point?

The atheist posters on this thread have been arguing their veiws the entire time...

My point is that there is a difference between athiests and agnostics!
Just because people dont agree with what you think is truth doesnt mean that theyre all athiests.Some folks can accept the fact that they dont know and maybe they never will know....ya know?

[Vangelovski]

My point is that there is a difference between athiests and agnostics!
Just because people dont agree with what you think is truth doesnt mean that theyre all athiests.Some folks can accept the fact that they dont know and maybe they never will know....ya know?

When I say "atheists" I'm referring to "atheists". When I say "agnostics", I'm referring to "agnostics".

[Vangelovski]

Makedonin,

Claiming that I am guilty of the 'ad hominem fallacy' is actually an 'ad hominem' on YOUR behalf! I have shown time and again your complete incomprehension of EXEGESIS, which by the way is used for ALL written material. That is not an 'ad hominen'. An 'ad hominen' is when I point out something that is irrelevant to the topic. Using EXEGESIS is a requirement for the study of any written document, not just the Bible, and therefore directly relevant to the disussion.

You can't even get your insults right!

[Louis Riel]

When I say "atheists" I'm referring to "atheists". When I say "agnostics", I'm referring to "agnostics".

Fair enough....i just cant recall anyone writing that theyre athiests...maybe im wrong..ill have to skim through the whole thread.

[Vangelovski]

Fair enough....i just cant recall anyone writing that theyre athiests...maybe im wrong..ill have to skim through the whole thread.

There is a lot of people on this forum that do not claim to be traitors either, you need to read their views and arguments carefully.

[Louis Riel]

To be an 'agnostic' is probably the least tenable position of all. It requires ignorance of all evidence, whether it is in favour of atheism or theism. That, in my view, is the most illogical position of all.

In my view it is the most logical....because none of us can know.Athiesm requires belief just as must as your faith requires you to believe....in my view that is illogical...to believe something without having any evidence of whether it is true or not.

[Vangelovski]

In my view it is the most logical....because none of us can know.Athiesm requires belief just as must as your faith requires you to believe....in my view that is illogical...to believe something without having any evidence of whether it is true or not.

But there is evidence and to be an agnostic you have to purposely ignore it - agnosticism is just another word for intellectual dishonesty.

[Louis Riel]

But there is evidence and to be an agnostic you have to purposely ignore it - agnosticism is just another word for intellectual dishonesty.

There is no evidence either for or against the existence of God....if there was,we wouldnt be having this discussion.There are only beliefs.

[Phoenix]

But there is evidence and to be an agnostic you have to purposely ignore it - agnosticism is just another word for intellectual dishonesty.

TV, the inherent fallibility of mankind is enough to warrant a careful approach to the subject of the proof of God, surely to disregard this fallibility could also be considered intellectual dishonesty...?

[Bill77]

There is no evidence either for or against the existence of God....if there was,we wouldnt be having this discussion.There are only beliefs.

There is no visible evidence thats true. But if you can't see something it does not mean it does not exist which would be also true.

Look..... logic says, to have a creation you need a creator. The universe did not happen by chance. This is Theology vs Science and i can't see why both can't be right on the same thing. Religion says God created the universe science says two attoms collided (or something like that). Now think of it this way, God grabbed these attoms and smashed them together and Presto! we have creation.

Seriously though, The bible only says what God did but does not give technical details how he did it. Where science tries to prove the technical side of things. I don't see Theology and science clash and they both can get along.

[Vangelovski]

TV, the inherent fallibility of mankind is enough to warrant a careful approach to the subject of the proof of God, surely to disregard this fallibility could also be considered intellectual dishonesty...?

Why is human falibility enough to warrant a 'careful' approach to the evidence for God's existence? And what do you mean by 'careful'?

Intellectual dishonesty is to ignore known information or information that you could reasonably acquire. It does not include information that cannot be reasonably known or acquired by the individual. Falibility is taken into account.