Book Plunge: Why Science Does Not Disprove God

[JimL]

That's even more of the problem. There's no reason why I should.

Thats just silly AP, there are both good things and bad things in life whether god exists or not. You were being more honest with yourself when admitting that you would both like and dislike things even if god didn't exist.

I agree. So when you are going to answer my question I've been asking about true meaning?

I did answer, apparently you don't care for the answer. Meaning is like good and evil, it is relative to life.

All we've said at this point is that if a squirrel is good in this sense, then it will like nuts. We have not said why that is. We have not explained why there is a constant connection between A and B. We have not even really begun examining the data yet and you're already jumping to "God isn't needed!" At this point, all that is agreed on is "If a squirrel eats nuts, it's a good representation of what it means to be a squirrel."

It is obvious why that is, that is the squirrels evolved nature, the same reason the Panda evolved to eat bamboo.

We have to start somewhere. If I jump ahead, then things get lost along the way, such as valuable data, so again I start. You begin with not knowing what right actions are, which is morality, but what the things are the actions are done towards.

Please just answer the question AP instead of playing teacher. Its not as difficult as you want to make it. You made the assertion that by reason alone you could determine whether murder was immoral or not. So tell me how by reason alone you come to that conclusion?

Yes, because living within a social structure is itself in your own best interests.

So then, I'm doing this because I'm looking out for #1. Got it.

Of course, every individual considers his own best interests first and the best way to secure that is communally, and in the process everyone wins.

So what happens when I no longer think living according to the social structure is no longer in my best interests?

Then you would be wrong, and you will lose the very benefits that social structure affords you.

Sure I could suffer, but I could not say it was evil.

So, to watch them suffer and in the end the mental anguish of such a loss is not bad thing for you? There is nothing immoral about that situation of course, but it is to show you that good and bad are relative terms.

No. I have not proven it. You would have to demonstrate this claim by showing that people groups started out atheistic and then they were so busy killing each other that someone said "Hey! Let's make up some gods to give us some rules so we can all get along!" That's not a common sense claim. It's a matter of history. Unfortunately, the research of people like Lang and Schmidt have made a powerful case that humanity really began as monotheistic.

Humans have been around a lot longer than any of the religions or gods have been. Also gods were not created in order to give us rules, they were created as enforcers, enablers, and condoners of enforcement. And btw, the god fearing Israelites were very busy killing everyone around them.

You're missing the point. I'm saying without God, there is no good or evil. That's the logical conclusion of the worldview. Unfortunately, there's also no reason to do anything.

No, I get the point exactly. Without god you would have no personal sense of morality. Thats the same logical conclusion as yours put into words that you would rather not admit to. You would find nothing wrong with murdering another human being, or raping, or robbing or etc etc. Let me tell you a secret AP, that is the main reason why we have created gods, to psychologically keep those people who can't otherwise behave themselves in line.

Your final point assumes a sort of soteriology where God looks at our motives to decide who's doing good and then looks and grades us on our behavior. Part of the point is that we don't tend to naturally want to be good and we have to do something about that aspect of ourselves. Often times, this can start out as duty. We do what we do just because we know it is the right thing to do. In the end, we do eventually often form a habit out of it.

Yes, we had to do something about that aspect of ourselves. And do you know what it is that we did? We created gods! If god can't make you behave and play nice with others, what could?

Kind of like Aristotle said as well.

I think that you probably find only what it is that you want to find in your books AP.

[Apologiaphoenix]

[QUOTE=JimL;238487]Thats just silly AP, there are both good things and bad things in life whether god exists or not. You were being more honest with yourself when admitting that you would both like and dislike things even if god didn't exist. [QUOTE]


If good and evil are relative terms, then there is nothing good or evil but thinking makes it so. You're smuggling in an assumption I do not think you can back.

I did answer, apparently you don't care for the answer. Meaning is like good and evil, it is relative to life.

Then the answer is there's no reason to think it's a true meaning.

Why should I believe something that isn't true?

It is obvious why that is, that is the squirrels evolved nature, the same reason the Panda evolved to eat bamboo.

Evolution might work for a squirrel, but it still would not explain what squirrelness is or if it's arbitrary, but what about greater things like Mortimer Adler's "Six Great Ideas." What about ideas like beauty, truth, and justice? What about simple realities like numbers and triangles?

Please just answer the question AP instead of playing teacher. Its not as difficult as you want to make it. You made the assertion that by reason alone you could determine whether murder was immoral or not. So tell me how by reason alone you come to that conclusion?

This assumes an answer is simple. If you don't want to follow along, well that's your choice.

Of course, every individual considers his own best interests first and the best way to secure that is communally, and in the process everyone wins.

That is every individual's tendency, but why should someone hold to that position. The Biblical claim is to first look to the interests of others.

Then you would be wrong, and you will lose the very benefits that social structure affords you.

Not if I'm the one with power.

So, to watch them suffer and in the end the mental anguish of such a loss is not bad thing for you? There is nothing immoral about that situation of course, but it is to show you that good and bad are relative terms.

This assumes bad and evil are necessarily the same. Interesting of you to say there's nothing immoral about the situation, but I do not see how you can say this shows relativity since the obvious implication is that I should know that this was a great evil.

Humans have been around a lot longer than any of the religions or gods have been. Also gods were not created in order to give us rules, they were created as enforcers, enablers, and condoners of enforcement. And btw, the god fearing Israelites were very busy killing everyone around them.

Really? Do you have any evidence that primitive man was atheistic or is this just a statement of faith? Any scholars on primitive religions that back your statement or not?

No, I get the point exactly. Without god you would have no personal sense of morality. Thats the same logical conclusion as yours put into words that you would rather not admit to. You would find nothing wrong with murdering another human being, or raping, or robbing or etc etc. Let me tell you a secret AP, that is the main reason why we have created gods, to psychologically keep those people who can't otherwise behave themselves in line.

No. I'm saying without God, there is no ontological foundation for good or evil and the terms are relative. If they are relative, there is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so. If so, why not live how I want? Especially if this one life is all I have.

Yes, we had to do something about that aspect of ourselves. And do you know what it is that we did? We created gods! If god can't make you behave and play nice with others, what could?

Any evidence for this?

I think that you probably find only what it is that you want to find in your books AP.

Maybe you should read them sometime and find out.

[JimL]

[QUOTE=Apologiaphoenix;238581]

Thats just silly AP, there are both good things and bad things in life whether god exists or not. You were being more honest with yourself when admitting that you would both like and dislike things even if god didn't exist.

Its human language AP. Good and evil are relative terms, relative to human life. What is in the best overall interests to human life is what is good, and what is not good in that sense is what is evil.

If good and evil are relative terms, then there is nothing good or evil but thinking makes it so. You're smuggling in an assumption I do not think you can back.

Shakespeare not withstanding, that which is in the best interests of life is not made so by thinking it, it is either in ones best interests or not. Being part a a social construct is in ones best overall interests and there are rules that need be followed in order to maintain the overall best interests of all who are united within it. Being murdered, robbed, or raped for instance, is not in anyones best interest, therefore for that very reason there is a social moral against it.

Then the answer is there's no reason to think it's a true meaning.

Being relative to the interests of life is a true meaning.

Why should I believe something that isn't true?

You shouldn't. But why do you assume that it is not true? Is it true that being murdered is not in your best interests?

Evolution might work for a squirrel, but it still would not explain what squirrelness is or if it's arbitrary, but what about greater things like Mortimer Adler's "Six Great Ideas." What about ideas like beauty, truth, and justice? What about simple realities like numbers and triangles?

The subject is morality and its truth, don't change it.

This assumes an answer is simple. If you don't want to follow along, well that's your choice.

If you had the answer as you claimed, then it should be a simple thing to present it. You obviously refuse to answer, and I think I know why.

That is every individual's tendency, but why should someone hold to that position. The Biblical claim is to first look to the interests of others.

Because it is in his overall best interests to do so. The biblical claim you will have to present rather than assert. Biblical claims are wrought with contradiction.

Not if I'm the one with power.

Tyrants don't sleep well ate night.

This assumes bad and evil are necessarily the same.

They can be used interchangeably and often are. What is bad is not always immoral.

Interesting of you to say there's nothing immoral about the situation,

There is nothing immoral about dying.

but I do not see how you can say this shows relativity since the obvious implication is that I should know that this was a great evil.

Nobody commited an act, how could it be immoral? The intention was to show you the relative nature of the terms good and bad. The same relative nature of the terms would apply in moral situations.

Really? Do you have any evidence that primitive man was atheistic or is this just a statement of faith? Any scholars on primitive religions that back your statement or not?

Primitive man evolved from apes and the concept of god and religion evolved over time along with the human brains capacity to conceptualize.

No. I'm saying without God, there is no ontological foundation for good or evil and the terms are relative. If they are relative, there is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so. If so, why not live how I want? Especially if this one life is all I have.

Because no man is an island thats why. The foundation for good and evil is the relationship between man and the world he finds himself in. Its called adaptation.

Any evidence for this?

Yes, the psychology works. People fear a wrathful god, and prize the reward of obedience. You've admitted as much in your acknowledgment that you would not be of moral character if there were no god watching over you.

Maybe you should read them sometime and find out.

I read, but the best part of reading is thinking.

[Apologiaphoenix]

[QUOTE=JimL;238935]

Its human language AP. Good and evil are relative terms, relative to human life. What is in the best overall interests to human life is what is good, and what is not good in that sense is what is evil.

Saying what is best is just another form of saying what is good. Good, better best. So you are saying that what is good is good. It's just a tautology.

Shakespeare not withstanding, that which is in the best interests of life is not made so by thinking it, it is either in ones best interests or not. Being part a a social construct is in ones best overall interests and there are rules that need be followed in order to maintain the overall best interests of all who are united within it. Being murdered, robbed, or raped for instance, is not in anyones best interest, therefore for that very reason there is a social moral against it.

But if I think it is in my best interests to murder, rape, and rob and I can get away with it, why not? Why should I care about what other people want if I can get what I want? Especially if I'm say an evil government with all the power.

Being relative to the interests of life is a true meaning.

So it's true, but it's relative....

You shouldn't. But why do you assume that it is not true? Is it true that being murdered is not in your best interests?

Sure, but that doesn't mean it is good or bad necessarily. It also says nothing about how I treat other people. Why should I care about their best interests?

The subject is morality and its truth, don't change it.

I'm not. Don't assume a change. All of it ties together. Morality and truth fits in the nature of metaphysics.

If you had the answer as you claimed, then it should be a simple thing to present it. You obviously refuse to answer, and I think I know why.

No. I started on an answer and you refused to go there. I think I know why. Sorry Jim if hard thinking on a topic is too much to ask.

Because it is in his overall best interests to do so. The biblical claim you will have to present rather than assert. Biblical claims are wrought with contradiction.

Secular claims of morality are wrought with contradiction and different people have different ideas about what is in the best interests. Therefore, I should take no such claims seriously. But for my end, consider Philippians 2.

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.

Tyrants don't sleep well ate night.

Do you have any study on tyrants that establish this?

They can be used interchangeably and often are. What is bad is not always immoral.

Can be but not necessarily so.

There is nothing immoral about dying.

Never said there was.

Nobody commited an act, how could it be immoral? The intention was to show you the relative nature of the terms good and bad. The same relative nature of the terms would apply in moral situations.

You were speaking about someone being murdered. If I misunderstood and it was just dying, again, I could say I do not like it. I could not say it is not good.

Primitive man evolved from apes and the concept of god and religion evolved over time along with the human brains capacity to conceptualize.

Again, any data to support this? I don't care about the evolution question but I have no data that shows that primitive man held to atheism until he started screwing up and then realized a deity was needed. (Which is interesting. Wouldn't that show that man without having an authority over him is naturally evil, which is what you're arguing against?)

Because no man is an island thats why. The foundation for good and evil is the relationship between man and the world he finds himself in. Its called adaptation.

THen I would at the best use people, which many of us do every day. No basis for anything like pure altruism or anything like that. How can the relationship be the foundation if the relationship is constantly changing. And which man are we talking about that sets the relationship?

Yes, the psychology works. People fear a wrathful god, and prize the reward of obedience. You've admitted as much in your acknowledgment that you would not be of moral character if there were no god watching over you.

That the psychology works is not evidence that this is what happened. You made a historical claim. Did you consult any scholars on the origins of religious belief who actually study the question or is a just-so story sufficient?

I read, but the best part of reading is thinking.

Indeed it is, so maybe you should read them and think about it.

[One Bad Pig]

You two need to work on formatting your posts properly. I'm pretty sure you're not quoting yourselves, as indicated.

[JimL]

[QUOTE=Apologiaphoenix;239103]

Saying what is best is just another form of saying what is good. Good, better best. So you are saying that what is good is good. It's just a tautology.

Thats because what is good, better, or best, are not things in themselves, they are relative terms having to do with living beings. Did morality or morals exist prior to life? No!

But if I think it is in my best interests to murder, rape, and rob and I can get away with it, why not? Why should I care about what other people want if I can get what I want? Especially if I'm say an evil government with all the power.

Because others would also be able to get away with it and could, and would, do the same to you, thats why you should care.

So it's true, but it's relative....

Thats correct, morality is relative in the sense that it is in relation to the living without the which it would have no meaning, no existence. It is objective only in the sense of its practicability, or whether or not it works in the best interests of society as a whole.

Sure, but that doesn't mean it is good or bad necessarily. It also says nothing about how I treat other people. Why should I care about their best interests?

For the same reason that you care about your own. If you don't want to be murdered, then you should understand that a moral against murder is in your best interests.

No. I started on an answer and you refused to go there. I think I know why. Sorry Jim if hard thinking on a topic is too much to ask.

Nope, you don't start on an answer, you either answer a question or you don't, and you didn't, because you couldn't.

Secular claims of morality are wrought with contradiction and different people have different ideas about what is in the best interests. Therefore, I should take no such claims seriously.

Morality has nothing to do with whether individuals agree or not, it has to do with what actually works in the best interests of all. One may not agree that a moral against murder is in his own best interests, but actually it is.

But for my end, consider Philippians 2.

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.

Exactly, and if each person is looking to the interest of the others, then that is in the best interests of all.

Do you have any study on tyrants that establish this?

Nope. But I think common sense will suffice. Tyrants always have to be looking over their shoulder for the next in line or for a mass uprising. Its very common.

Can be but not necessarily so.

Yep. Thats what I said.

Never said there was.



You were speaking about someone being murdered. If I misunderstood and it was just dying, again, I could say I do not like it. I could not say it is not good.

Yes you could say that dying is not good, unless of course you think dying is good. Being murdered on the other hand would be an immoral act.

Again, any data to support this? I don't care about the evolution question but I have no data that shows that primitive man held to atheism until he started screwing up and then realized a deity was needed. (Which is interesting. Wouldn't that show that man without having an authority over him is naturally evil, which is what you're arguing against?)

It is no different than primative man screwing up and then realizing that laws are needed to prevent further screw ups in the future. It has nothing to do with realizing a deity is needed. Man is not naturally evil, man is naturally self interested.

THen I would at the best use people, which many of us do every day. No basis for anything like pure altruism or anything like that. How can the relationship be the foundation if the relationship is constantly changing. And which man are we talking about that sets the relationship?

No. I don't expect you will get it, but it is in your best interests to live in a society in which everyones best interests are taken into consideration. If you use and abuse others then they will use and abuse you as well. Do unto others as you would have them do to you!

That the psychology works is not evidence that this is what happened. You made a historical claim. Did you consult any scholars on the origins of religious belief who actually study the question or is a just-so story sufficient?

You evidenced it yourself by admitting that you would revert to being an unprincipled and immoral person if you didn't believe that a god was watching over you. Most christians, many on this very forum have admitted to the same thing, so you are not alone. The psychology of God belief keeps you and other otherwise anti social people in line.

Indeed it is, so maybe you should read them and think about it.

Its not just thinking AP, its critical thinking. There were no demons cast into pigs or dead saints who climbed out of their graves in the flesh!

[Apologiaphoenix]

[QUOTE=JimL;240918]

Thats because what is good, better, or best, are not things in themselves, they are relative terms having to do with living beings. Did morality or morals exist prior to life? No!

The question to first ask is did goodness exist. If these are relative terms, they technically still don't really exist. They're just different ideas that don't describe the things in themselves.

Because others would also be able to get away with it and could, and would, do the same to you, thats why you should care.

And if I think I can stop them, so what? Why should I care?

Thats correct, morality is relative in the sense that it is in relation to the living without the which it would have no meaning, no existence. It is objective only in the sense of its practicability, or whether or not it works in the best interests of society as a whole.

So it's objective only if this relative good brings about that which is good, which is also itself relative. So the relative is only there for the further relative.

For the same reason that you care about your own. If you don't want to be murdered, then you should understand that a moral against murder is in your best interests.

If I think I can get away with it, why not?

Nope, you don't start on an answer, you either answer a question or you don't, and you didn't, because you couldn't.

Why yes I do start an answer. If you're too lazy to follow through, I guess you're too lazy. If you think I don't have an answer, well whatever helps you sleep at night.

Morality has nothing to do with whether individuals agree or not, it has to do with what actually works in the best interests of all. One may not agree that a moral against murder is in his own best interests, but actually it is.

Ah. So Biblical claims contradict and that matters for everything. Secular claims contradict and that doesn't matter. Lovely double standard.

Exactly, and if each person is looking to the interest of the others, then that is in the best interests of all.

That's my view and I have a basis for it. You've given no basis for yours other than "I'd like it."

Nope. But I think common sense will suffice. Tyrants always have to be looking over their shoulder for the next in line or for a mass uprising. Its very common.

Common sense will not suffice. You need actual data.

Yep. Thats what I said.

You need to show its' necessarily so.

Yes you could say that dying is not good, unless of course you think dying is good. Being murdered on the other hand would be an immoral act.

I could not say it was immoral without an ontological foundation for good. I could just say I don't like it.

It is no different than primative man screwing up and then realizing that laws are needed to prevent further screw ups in the future. It has nothing to do with realizing a deity is needed. Man is not naturally evil, man is naturally self interested.

So you have a story that you have no evidence for whatsoever other than your own say so. Why should I accept it? I'm a person of evidence, not one of faith. Present some historical data backing your claim that morality is why deities were invented to begin with.

No. I don't expect you will get it, but it is in your best interests to live in a society in which everyones best interests are taken into consideration. If you use and abuse others then they will use and abuse you as well. Do unto others as you would have them do to you!

I see my questions weren't answered and again, you want to take from my worldview and claim it as your own. Give the foundation for that claim on your own worldview.

You evidenced it yourself by admitting that you would revert to being an unprincipled and immoral person if you didn't believe that a god was watching over you. Most christians, many on this very forum have admitted to the same thing, so you are not alone. The psychology of God belief keeps you and other otherwise anti social people in line.

Okay! I'll ignore all evidence from actual scholars who study in the field because Jim has a story!

Its not just thinking AP, its critical thinking. There were no demons cast into pigs or dead saints who climbed out of their graves in the flesh!

Because Jim says so again!

Why is it you guys like so much to disregard scholars because of your stories?

[Adrift]

You two need to work on formatting your posts properly. I'm pretty sure you're not quoting yourselves, as indicated.

I guess they're not listening.

[JonathanL]

Someone needs to make a tutorial on how to use the quote tag/function properly.

[JimL]

The question to first ask is did goodness exist. If these are relative terms, they technically still don't really exist. They're just different ideas that don't describe the things in themselves.

Good and evil don't describe things in themselves because they are not intended to describe things in themselves. A being is neither good or evil in themselves, it is only their actions that are defined as such.

And if I think I can stop them, so what? Why should I care?

Because what you think is irrelevant to what is in the best interests of society as a whole.

So it's objective only if this relative good brings about that which is good, which is also itself relative. So the relative is only there for the further relative.

No, what is good for society as a whole is not relative any more so than the moral system of your afterwold utopia would be relative. Is the moral system of your afterworld utopia relative? No, its objective you will say. So what makes it objective, the fact that it works in the best interests of the community as a whole, or that it is arbitrarily commanded of by a deity? I suggest that the former is a sufficient reason to define it as objective and that an ontological ground/deity for that to be the case, as you argue it to be, is obviously unnecessary.

If I think I can get away with it, why not?

Because as I said, what you or anybody else may think is irrelevant. What is actually in your own best interests is tied to what is ultimately in the best interests of the whole of society. Thats why you believe in, and hope for, an after world paradise.

Why yes I do start an answer. If you're too lazy to follow through, I guess you're too lazy. If you think I don't have an answer, well whatever helps you sleep at night.

I know that you do, but thats because you have no answer to give. Its a stalling tactic intended to muddle the issue in the hope that it goes away. One doesn't answer a question with a question unless he has no good answer to the question in the first place.

Ah. So Biblical claims contradict and that matters for everything. Secular claims contradict and that doesn't matter. Lovely double standard.

How this answers to what it is in answer to i have no idea.

That's my view and I have a basis for it. You've given no basis for yours other than "I'd like it."

No, you have not given a logical basis for it. Your basis is that what is in the best interest of all is because it has an ontological ground, in other words because "you like it." But that is just dumb, sloppy thinking. If it is in the best interests of people living together to behave in a a certain way, what we call morally, then it is in their best interests and needs no ontological ground for that to be so.

Common sense will not suffice. You need actual data.

Thats only because you lack common sense. Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown!

You need to show its' necessarily so.

Explain yourself.

I could not say it was immoral without an ontological foundation for good. I could just say I don't like it.

The reason for saying you wouldn't "like" to be murdered is because you understand that being murdered is not "good" for you, is not in your best interests. Stop being a dingbat!

So you have a story that you have no evidence for whatsoever other than your own say so. Why should I accept it? I'm a person of evidence, not one of faith. Present some historical data backing your claim that morality is why deities were invented to begin with.

The reason you believe in god is self interests AP. Your desire is to live forever in a joyous and peaceful society and without god there is no hope of that. Deities have the same function as does human law and justice, the difference being is that deities provide a psychological inhibition to transgression, as well as the promise of reward for obedience, that human law can not provide.

I see my questions weren't answered and again, you want to take from my worldview and claim it as your own. Give the foundation for that claim on your own worldview.

Really now, I have given you the answer which has nothing to do with your world view. The reason altruistic behavior by individuals within society is "good" is self explanatory and has no need of a deity or ontological grounding to explain it. Your claim that goodness is ontologically grounded explains nothing about why it is good.

Okay! I'll ignore all evidence from actual scholars who study in the field because Jim has a story!

I see you didn't deny the accusation though. Without god you would revert to being what we call an unprincipled and immoral person. By this admission you can understand why gods were created. It was for the purpose of controlling the otherwise unprincipled people like you.

Because Jim says so again!

Why is it you guys like so much to disregard scholars because of your stories?

Funny. I don't think you will find many scholars who believe the fairy tales told of in the bible AP. Besides, that wasn't a very nice thing of Jesus to do to the poor innocent swine, was it? God is good!

[Apologiaphoenix]

Good and evil don't describe things in themselves because they are not intended to describe things in themselves. A being is neither good or evil in themselves, it is only their actions that are defined as such.

I understand that's your position, but why should I think it? Is goodness in something something that really exists, or do we just project that idea onto it?

Because what you think is irrelevant to what is in the best interests of society as a whole.

So the answer that if I can get away with it and stop those who oppose me, why should I care, is that I should care about society? So I should because I should?

No, what is good for society as a whole is not relative any more so than the moral system of your afterwold utopia would be relative. Is the moral system of your afterworld utopia relative? No, its objective you will say. So what makes it objective, the fact that it works in the best interests of the community as a whole, or that it is arbitrarily commanded of by a deity? I suggest that the former is a sufficient reason to define it as objective and that an ontological ground/deity for that to be the case, as you argue it to be, is obviously unnecessary.

Which society? There are gang wars that go on in several states. Each gang is its own society. Which one should we look out for? Or, should we look out for the good of a more overwhelming society for some reason. Why? Why does one society trump another? Also, when I say something is good, it is not because of the consequences but because of what it is. I start with goodness.

Because as I said, what you or anybody else may think is irrelevant. What is actually in your own best interests is tied to what is ultimately in the best interests of the whole of society. Thats why you believe in, and hope for, an after world paradise.

No. It's not. I hold to the reality of an afterdeath because of the life of Jesus and his resurrection. Furthermore, this is more "It is in your best interests to promote society." Well what if I don't think so? What if I think my best interests are to go for all I want and I think I can get away with it?

I know that you do, but thats because you have no answer to give. Its a stalling tactic intended to muddle the issue in the hope that it goes away. One doesn't answer a question with a question unless he has no good answer to the question in the first place.

This is false. Many people answer questions with questions. Now stop your mind reading and try engaging the question, unless you're scared of where it leads.

How this answers to what it is in answer to i have no idea.

Your position is that we cannot trust a view on biblical morality because the Bible contradicts.

Many secular ideologies and views on morality also contradict so I should not trust a secular view either by that standard.

No, you have not given a logical basis for it. Your basis is that what is in the best interest of all is because it has an ontological ground, in other words because "you like it." But that is just dumb, sloppy thinking. If it is in the best interests of people living together to behave in a a certain way, what we call morally, then it is in their best interests and needs no ontological ground for that to be so.

No. It is not because I like it. There are many things that I do that are moral and I think I ought to do that I don't like doing.

Thats only because you lack common sense. Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown!

Oh isn't that cute. Rather than give actual data on the history of religion in mankind you prefer a potshot.

Explain yourself.

Look back. You need to show that bad necessarily means immoral.

The reason for saying you wouldn't "like" to be murdered is because you understand that being murdered is not "good" for you, is not in your best interests. Stop being a dingbat!

If there is nothing good or evil in itself but thinking makes it so, then I can only say I do not like it. I cannot make a claim about the reality in itself.

The reason you believe in god is self interests AP. Your desire is to live forever in a joyous and peaceful society and without god there is no hope of that. Deities have the same function as does human law and justice, the difference being is that deities provide a psychological inhibition to transgression, as well as the promise of reward for obedience, that human law can not provide.

So again you provide no data for your claim and choose to personally psychologize me.

So I guess I should ditch the scholarship of people like Lang and Schmidt because you say so? I mean, they went and did the hard research and you did none, but I guess you must be more authoritative.

Really now, I have given you the answer which has nothing to do with your world view. The reason altruistic behavior by individuals within society is "good" is self explanatory and has no need of a deity or ontological grounding to explain it. Your claim that goodness is ontologically grounded explains nothing about why it is good.

Only because you've refused to go there by answering questions. Had you done that, we might have moved further along. To say your position is self-explanatory is just false. You need an ontological foundation.

I see you didn't deny the accusation though. Without god you would revert to being what we call an unprincipled and immoral person. By this admission you can understand why gods were created. It was for the purpose of controlling the otherwise unprincipled people like you.

This is false. If you showed me that there was no ontological foundation for good or evil, that would mean nothing was truly good or evil. If so, why live with a pretend belief in good and evil? As for your historical claim, it's still just false. I know reading works that might challenge your claim here is just beyond you unfortunately.

Funny. I don't think you will find many scholars who believe the fairy tales told of in the bible AP. Besides, that wasn't a very nice thing of Jesus to do to the poor innocent swine, was it? God is good!

Actually, you will. I know that because I read them. As for the swine, they were a wild herd of swine. That was just people taking advantage of them. Of course, if you're upset, I'm sure you've complained to your local grocery store about selling pork chops as well. Right?

[Truthseeker]

One's morals could be deduced from observations of the actions that he takes in his life. For example, Hitler's public appearances and the orders he made to his underlings make it seem that he thought the Holocaust was right. This post is being made because I am thinking that it will be probably good. Every acting being could be considered to have a moral system, which his acts make evident.