Do you believe in the Theory of Evolution?

[Samuraikoku]

You have not penetrated the surface of the depths of fear.

Once again, I know no fear.

[Farnhamia]

There's a certain honesty in it that we don't see in Intelligent Design or any other attempt to dress up creationism in a lab coat. And the consequences here are real, I suppose: people will feel insignificant if they can't believe that the universe was created by a benevolent deity just for them. ID and the like is just people going, "Nuh-UH! Is not, is not, is not!"

I dont get how people will feel insignificant due to evolution.
"My grandfathers fought for their damn survival and win that battle against millions of others like them trying to do the same to be dominating force in universe" VS "Oh, ya someone flicked their finger and you were created."

No, see, the theist position is more like, "It's okay, don't worry, when things look bleak just remember that God loves you and has a plan for you and made this whole wonderful universe for you. Do the best you can, always apologize for sinning and when you die, you'll get your reward."

[Samuraikoku]

Moral according to whom?

Was that a confession of morality not being absolute, from Nidaria himself?

[Big Jim P]

Moral according to whom?

Was that a confession of morality not being absolute, from Nidaria himself?

Self pwnage is so sweet.

[Tennantdom]

Yes.

[Samuraikoku]

Was that a confession of morality not being absolute, from Nidaria himself?

Self pwnage is so sweet.

There once was a man in China, that sold shields and spears. Holding a spear in one hand, he claimed it could pierce through any shield. Holding a shield in the other, he claimed it could withstand any pierce.

What happens when they both collide?

Both are destroyed.

[Nidaria]

Moral according to whom?

Was that a confession of morality not being absolute, from Nidaria himself?

No, because it can be incorrect depending on the source, ranging from oneself to society. The absolute standard is God.

[Samuraikoku]

Was that a confession of morality not being absolute, from Nidaria himself?

No, because it can be incorrect depending on the source, ranging from oneself to society. The absolute standard is God.

Nice backtrack, but that's not what the implications of your earlier quote are.

But this point, however, is still wrong. There is no absolute standard.

[Frisivisia]

Was that a confession of morality not being absolute, from Nidaria himself?

No, because it can be incorrect depending on the source, ranging from oneself to society. The absolute standard is God.

Well then, from where do you get your morality, given that God is unknowable.

[Sociobiology]

There's a certain honesty in it that we don't see in Intelligent Design or any other attempt to dress up creationism in a lab coat. And the consequences here are real, I suppose: people will feel insignificant if they can't believe that the universe was created by a benevolent deity just for them. ID and the like is just people going, "Nuh-UH! Is not, is not, is not!"

The reverse could be said for atheists. The fact that an omnipotent entity who would punish them eternally for leading an immoral life is frightening to some.

most would say just the opposite, if there are gods then they has to justify to US why they are so immoral.

[Farnhamia]

Was that a confession of morality not being absolute, from Nidaria himself?

No, because it can be incorrect depending on the source, ranging from oneself to society. The absolute standard is God.

Which God? If you admit to there being one, you have to admit to there being many. The Old Testament does. The New Testament implies it in the casting out of demons, for what demons if not supernatural creatures like God? But this is outside the subject of the this thread, and I'll not threadjack.

[Sociobiology]

Self pwnage is so sweet.

There once was a man in China, that sold shields and spears. Holding a spear in one hand, he claimed it could pierce through any shield. Holding a shield in the other, he claimed it could withstand any pierce.

What happens when they both collide?

Both are destroyed.

so he lied

[Nidaria]

No, because it can be incorrect depending on the source, ranging from oneself to society. The absolute standard is God.

Nice backtrack, but that's not what the implications of your earlier quote are.

But this point, however, is still wrong. There is no absolute standard.

No, because if the "morality" came from anywhere except God there is a chance of it being wrong.
Yes, there is an absolute standard. Denying it does not mean it does not exist.

[Central Slavia]

Atheism leads to immortality? Win.

That said , the bolded is completely untrue beyond the bit where it makes humans no longer special.Reshaping our enviroment to suit us, including extinction of species is not inherently a bad thing, it all depends on the species's usefulness to us.

only if you think humans are all that matters.

Perhaps so, and I do (or rather, I attach a lot more weight to humans and their needs than to any other part of the ecosystem) but this isn't something that follows from religion, or the lack of it (I'm atheist, for reference). And of course there's plenty of religious people who interpret being given custody of nature as involving protection. Anyways such strawmen are just doing the central point a disservice. Theory of evolution is right because of the evidence for it which it does best job to explain, regardless of what it implies.

[Enadail]

Funny, I behave morally without the threat of divine punishment.

Moral according to whom? Also, there are other factors than just that.

Morality is relative to the self and society. I could call myself moral but society could consider me immoral. I could call my actions immoral and society consider myself within norm. But in the end, morality just depends on the people around you. And what other factors? You said an omniscient entity who punishes for immorality. What other factors are there?

[Big Jim P]

You have not penetrated the surface of the depths of fear.

Once again, I know no fear.

Fear is for the weak.

[Nidaria]

No, because it can be incorrect depending on the source, ranging from oneself to society. The absolute standard is God.

Which God? If you admit to there being one, you have to admit to there being many. The Old Testament does. The New Testament implies it in the casting out of demons, for what demons if not supernatural creatures like God?¹ But this is outside the subject of the this thread, and I'll not threadjack.²

¹The Bible says there is only one God, the omnipotent Creator of the universe/multiverse. There are other supernatural beings, yes, but they are not immortal, and they certainly did not create the universe/multiverse, and they were created by God.

²Agreed, back on topic.

[Frisivisia]

Which God? If you admit to there being one, you have to admit to there being many. The Old Testament does. The New Testament implies it in the casting out of demons, for what demons if not supernatural creatures like God?¹ But this is outside the subject of the this thread, and I'll not threadjack.²

¹The Bible says there is only one God, the omnipotent Creator of the universe/multiverse. There are other supernatural beings, yes, but they are not immortal, and they certainly did not create the universe/multiverse, and they were created by God.

²Agreed, back on topic.

The Bible is a good source.

[Enadail]

Nice backtrack, but that's not what the implications of your earlier quote are.

But this point, however, is still wrong. There is no absolute standard.

No, because if the "morality" came from anywhere except God there is a chance of it being wrong.
Yes, there is an absolute standard. Denying it does not mean it does not exist.

But to claim it exists requires you demonstrate it exists. You can't prove a negative. You're claiming there's an absolute morality: how do you know? Show us. And which God? Why that one? Not another one?

[Sociobiology]

only if you think humans are all that matters.

Perhaps so, and I do (or rather, I attach a lot more weight to humans and their needs than to any other part of the ecosystem)

But that means above a certain level environmental destruction is no longer acceptable just for human benefit.

but this isn't something that follows from religion, or the lack of it (I'm atheist, for reference). And of course there's plenty of religious people who interpret being given custody of nature as involving protection. Anyways such strawmen are just doing the central point a disservice. Theory of evolution is right because of the evidence for it which it does best job to explain, regardless of what it implies.

to paraphrase a fictitious doctor.
"If evidence and reason worked on religious people, There would be no religious people."

[Furious Grandmothers]

¹The Bible says there is only one God, the omnipotent Creator of the universe/multiverse. There are other supernatural beings, yes, but they are not immortal, and they certainly did not create the universe/multiverse, and they were created by God.

²Agreed, back on topic.

The Bible is a good source.

As far as the bible defines its own measure of "good" *nods*

[Straughn]

¹The Bible says there is only one God, the omnipotent Creator of the universe/multiverse. There are other supernatural beings, yes, but they are not immortal, and they certainly did not create the universe/multiverse, and they were created by God.

²Agreed, back on topic.

The Bible is a good source.

Of kindling, vice, and iniquity, yes.

[Sociobiology]

Once again, I know no fear.

Fear is for the weak.

fine go ahead slap the tyrannosaur.

[Frisivisia]

The Bible is a good source.

Of kindling, vice, and iniquity, yes.

Bible is good for a snack, being an atheist, I enjoy a fetus and bible sandwich whenever possible.

[Sociobiology]

¹The Bible says there is only one God, the omnipotent Creator of the universe/multiverse. There are other supernatural beings, yes, but they are not immortal, and they certainly did not create the universe/multiverse, and they were created by God.

²Agreed, back on topic.

The Bible is a good source.

of what?
certainly not morality or history.