A lot of Atheist and agnostics just don't get it

[diver52]

I'm not. I'm blaming God for God's choices. At least based upon the stories.

Criticize the authors, perhaps--and the fact that culture changes and we don't view things today as it was viewed then. Blaming God when all we know is how the authors wrote the stories and how we now view them through the lens of our own culture, not the cultures in ancient times is rather like blaming the rain when the problem is the leak in the roof.

I am quite willing to consider the Bible as fiction. But that really changes nothing. I am judging the character God based upon how that character is portrayed.

 

[Meriweather]

So you're saying that the bible is bullshit.

No. Why? Would you say the same about all languages and codes you do not understand?

 

[Meriweather]

I am quite willing to consider the Bible as fiction. But that really changes nothing. I am judging the character God based upon how that character is portrayed.

We can't see the characters through different eyes than the author knew them to be and claim they are the same characters. The best we can do is say, "Based on what we think we understand..." knowing that the understanding of others is vastly different. We have to understand, "What we thought they said is not what they meant."

 

[diver52]

I am quite willing to consider the Bible as fiction. But that really changes nothing. I am judging the character God based upon how that character is portrayed.

We can't see the characters through different eyes than the author knew them to be and claim they are the same characters. The best we can do is say, "Based on what we think we understand..." knowing that the understanding of others is vastly different. We have to understand, "What we thought they said is not what they meant."

I and reading what is written.

 

[Meriweather]

I and reading what is written.

Isaiah comes to mind: Look intently, but shall not see. Perhaps it goes back to what we are able and unable to believe.

 

[diver52]

I and reading what is written.

Isaiah comes to mind: Look intently, but shall not see. Perhaps it goes back to what we are able and unable to believe.

Oh, unquestionably. As a result, I have an entirely different interpretation of the intent of the authors from you. It is all about belief and how that impacts your perspective.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Because you say so. They say otherwise. It's all subjective, not objective.

100% wrong. Much is objective. It doesn t matter what anyone says. Equal rights for women is objectively better and more moral than otherwise. And if you disagree,you are wrong.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But I notice you didn't respond to my question. In fact, you failed to even add it to the quote. Which of the two cultures killed the most people and caused the most pain in the last 150 years? Surely that would be considered objective evidence.

Of nothing concerning todays state of affairs. Nothing at all. It's a red herring. And by your own really bad relativism, anyone could just say thats a matter of opinion. So you have undercut any moral point you could ever wish to make.

 

[diver52]

But I notice you didn't respond to my question. In fact, you failed to even add it to the quote. Which of the two cultures killed the most people and caused the most pain in the last 150 years? Surely that would be considered objective evidence.

Of nothing concerning todays state of affairs. Nothing at all. It's a red herring. And by your own really bad relativism, anyone could just say thats a matter of opinion. So you have undercut any moral point you could ever wish to make.

Actually, it's not a matter of opinion. It is, in fact, the only thing which is objective. But you believe as you wish.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

. It is, in fact, the only thing which is objective

100% wrong, by your own weak relativism. I can merely opine that it was better that more people died, and then give any reason that suits me. It's the bed YOU made, now you get to lie in it.

 

[diver52]

. It is, in fact, the only thing which is objective

100% wrong, by your own weak relativism. I can merely opine that it was better that more people died, and then give any reason that suits me. It's the bed YOU made, now you get to lie in it.

As I said, you can believe what you wish.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

. It is, in fact, the only thing which is objective

100% wrong, by your own weak relativism. I can merely opine that it was better that more people died, and then give any reason that suits me. It's the bed YOU made, now you get to lie in it.

As I said, you can believe what you wish.

Can I? Whew, thank goodness. Why? Because convicting people of thought crimes is objectively immoral?

 

[diver52]

. It is, in fact, the only thing which is objective

100% wrong, by your own weak relativism. I can merely opine that it was better that more people died, and then give any reason that suits me. It's the bed YOU made, now you get to lie in it.

As I said, you can believe what you wish.

Can I? Whew, thank goodness. Why? Because convicting people of thought crimes is objectively immoral?

Nope. Just impractical.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

. It is, in fact, the only thing which is objective

100% wrong, by your own weak relativism. I can merely opine that it was better that more people died, and then give any reason that suits me. It's the bed YOU made, now you get to lie in it.

As I said, you can believe what you wish.

Can I? Whew, thank goodness. Why? Because convicting people of thought crimes is objectively immoral?

Nope. Just impractical.

How immoral of you. Objectively. We can measure that, you know. We can measure well being. Not all morality can only be answered philosophically.

 

[diver52]

. It is, in fact, the only thing which is objective

100% wrong, by your own weak relativism. I can merely opine that it was better that more people died, and then give any reason that suits me. It's the bed YOU made, now you get to lie in it.

As I said, you can believe what you wish.

Can I? Whew, thank goodness. Why? Because convicting people of thought crimes is objectively immoral?

Nope. Just impractical.

How immoral of you. Objectively. We can measure that, you know. We can measure well being. Not all morality can only be answered philosophically.

Ok. I'll play along. Measure it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

100% wrong, by your own weak relativism. I can merely opine that it was better that more people died, and then give any reason that suits me. It's the bed YOU made, now you get to lie in it.

As I said, you can believe what you wish.

Can I? Whew, thank goodness. Why? Because convicting people of thought crimes is objectively immoral?

Nope. Just impractical.

How immoral of you. Objectively. We can measure that, you know. We can measure well being. Not all morality can only be answered philosophically.

Ok. I'll play along. Measure it.

No problem. Simply note the pain of the beating as punishment. Or the isolation and depression of being incarcerated as punishment. Measure the pain and suffering caused by the thought. Compare.

Compare that whole bag to the situation where thought crimes are not prosecuted and punished.

It's pretty easy to see which meets a better standard of well being, by any objective measure of well being of humans. And that's what morality is. It's about well being of humans. (For now. We can extend it to animals later, if you want. )

 

[diver52]

As I said, you can believe what you wish.

Can I? Whew, thank goodness. Why? Because convicting people of thought crimes is objectively immoral?

Nope. Just impractical.

How immoral of you. Objectively. We can measure that, you know. We can measure well being. Not all morality can only be answered philosophically.

Ok. I'll play along. Measure it.

No problem. Simply note the pain of the beating as punishment. Or the isolation and depression of being incarcerated as punishment. Measure the pain and suffering caused by the thought. Compare.

Compare that whole bag to the situation where thought crimes are not prosecuted and punished.

It's pretty easy to see which meets better standard of well being, by any objectove measure of well being of humans. And that's what morality is. It's about well being of humans. (For now. We can extend it to animals later, if you want. )

First, we have to get past the reality that no one can know your thoughts unless you express them. Which is why thought crimes are simply impractical. But assuming you could, you are saying that if someone's thoughts were to go into an elementary school and plant a bomb that would kill hundreds of children, it would be immoral to incarcerate them?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

First, we have to get past the reality that no one can know your thoughts unless you express them.

Yet still it is only a thought, even if I write it down and hide it in my drawer and housekeeping finds it. So you have not yet wriggled out of this space of convicting only for for thought crime.

An apostate leaves Islam. Thats how their apostasy is "expressed": they stop believing Islam. Punishing that is convicting thought crime no matter if the apostate tells nobody explicitly or tells 100 people. So, even expressed in this way (letting everyone know), you STILL haven't wriggled out of the space of thought crime, try as you might.

By the way, that thought crime conviction seems to be very practical in some countries. They even write it down. And they punish people for it.

Your label of"impractical" is just a tactic to avoid admitting and making moral judgment, I think. I think we can create a very objective (not to say, all encompassing) standard of morality.

And yes, our culture/system/social contract, whatever, is superior to that. Objectively. Measurably.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But assuming you could, you are saying that if someone's thoughts were to go into an elementary school and plant a bomb that would kill hundreds of children, it would be immoral to incarcerate them?

Yes. They are only thoughts. A threat is a threat. That is not the same concept. Did he say, "I am going to bomb a school soon"? That's a threat, not only a thought.

 

[diver52]

But assuming you could, you are saying that if someone's thoughts were to go into an elementary school and plant a bomb that would kill hundreds of children, it would be immoral to incarcerate them?

Yes. They are only thoughts. A threat is a threat. That is not the same concept. Did he say, "I am going to bomb a school soon"? That's a threat, not only a thought.

I see. So that is what you plan to tell the parents of the dead kids? That you knew he was thinking of bombing the school but stopping him would have been immoral?