Do poly atheists know the Bible?

[Aeson]

Is there a moral authority that can be empirically verified?

The "empirically tested" was in regards to the "something", not the moral authority.

For instance, murder has effects that can be empirically tested. We can judge those effects and determine whether we find murder moral or not. While morality itself isn't empirical, it can be based on observations which are.

Job on the other hand tries to teach morals about things like trusting God. These are issues where the authority of the source becomes much more important. If the text claims that we should trust in God no matter what, but at the same time says or implies things which are obviously wrong, it makes it harder to do the "trust" part because the source is obviously not authoritative. Doesn't mean the trust part is wrong, just that the source isn't doing it justice if it is right.

Kinda like very high level science. We just have to trust the people trained in those fields because the subject matter is too difficult/time consuing for the average person to have a real understanding of it. Just like if the per claiming to be an astro-physicist is displaying problems dealing with simple mathmatics. Makes you question whether they really are to be trusted in their claimed field of expertise.

[Kidlicious]

There is a difference between dismissing a moral (on it's own merits) and dismissing a source's authority on the subject of morality.

Doesn't Job reject the moral authority of the crowd? That's a lesson for all, regardless of sex or religious affiliation. I don't know of any greater teacher.

[Ben Kenobi]

For instance, murder has effects that can be empirically tested.

Well, sure. We can show that a persons' life will end, and that their bodily functions will cease.

We can judge those effects and determine whether we find murder moral or not. While morality itself isn't empirical, it can be based on observations which are.

We can only observe that murder kills a person. We cannot observe that killing people is wrong.

Job on the other hand tries to teach morals about things like trusting God. These are issues where the authority of the source becomes much more important.

I'm not really sure I buy that. How do you know that murder is wrong? It seems to me special pleading to argue that Job's morality requires *more* proof than your own.

If the text claims that we should trust in God no matter what, but at the same time says or implies things which are obviously wrong

The problem is this. How do you know what is wrong? Short of personal observations of God, and the text contradicting divine revelation that you've received, I'm not quite sure how you can come to the conclusion that things are 'obviously wrong' in the text.

And I'm pretty sure you're not claiming to have received divine revelation to the contrary.

, it makes it harder to do the "trust" part because the source is obviously not authoritative. Doesn't mean the trust part is wrong, just that the source isn't doing it justice if it is right.

I agree that authority is important, but that goes for both statements. I don't believe personal opinion should be elevated above the text.

Kinda like very high level science. We just have to trust the people trained in those fields because the subject matter is too difficult/time consuing for the average person to have a real understanding of it.

Not so. Everything in science can be tested and should produce empirical results. If we're arguing that science can only be trusted because of the authority of the scientists, then it's taken the step from science to religion. Now if the problem is that one doesn't understand the results, that is different from saying that we should trust them because they are scientists.

Just like if the per claiming to be an astro-physicist is displaying problems dealing with simple mathmatics. Makes you question whether they really are to be trusted in their claimed field of expertise.

Well, it's a common complaint of laypeople that lack understanding of higher level concepts to attack the things that they do understand if they disagree with the conclusions. See it all the time here. Someone advances a position that runs contrary to personal prejudices, you'll see it attacked on lesser grounds rather than actually addressing the claim.

[kentonio]

Um... do you understand what moral relativism is? Because what I described was the result of rejecting moral context.

There's a huge difference between condemning the morality of someone in their own historical context and judging someone by the standards of today. Today pretty much anyone from the 19th century would be morally repulsive to most people, that is not a morally relativisitic judgement, because you're the one taking them out of their historical context and placing them in ours.

[Aeson]

Well, sure. We can show that a persons' life will end, and that their bodily functions will cease.

Yep.

We can only observe that murder kills a person. We cannot observe that killing people is wrong.

We can (and generally do) deduce from what we observe about murder that it isn't a good thing.

I'm not really sure I buy that. How do you know that murder is wrong? It seems to me special pleading to argue that Job's morality requires *more* proof than your own.

It's not Job's morality. It's the author's morality. The author of Job probably agrees that murder is wrong (Thou shalt not kill), so I wouldn't say my morality is better than his based off my thinking murder is wrong.

As for how I know murder is wrong, because I do not want to be murdered. I can easily observe what happens when someone has been murdered, and have decided it's not my cup of tea. The vast majority of humanity agrees. So it's on pretty solid ground as far as morality goes.

Do you think murder is wrong?

The problem is this. How do you know what is wrong? Short of personal observations of God, and the text contradicting divine revelation that you've received, I'm not quite sure how you can come to the conclusion that things are 'obviously wrong' in the text.

And I'm pretty sure you're not claiming to have received divine revelation to the contrary.

I agree that authority is important, but that goes for both statements. I don't believe personal opinion should be elevated above the text.

Disregarding the welfare of women and children is wrong. An entity killing off women and children for sport (wager) is wrong. The whole concept is abominable, and framing a moral tale around it's occurance just makes the whole story of questionable moral value.

I don't need divine revelation to understand that.

Not so. Everything in science can be tested and should produce empirical results.

You obviously have no comprehension of what I said.

If we're arguing that science can only be trusted because of the authority of the scientists ...

Not even close.

[Kidlicious]

They have a rating system in Europe (maybe just Sweden) that rates movies according to how much feminists say we should be offended. The Bible would surely get the worst rating, which proves Iit's awezome.

[Sava]

Oh, but it does. There is a life and there is a death. All people will at some point face either eternal life or eternal death. Lack of faith in God means you get eternal death.

Eternal life sounds like a punishment to me. So you're sitting up there in heaven, right.... forever. You watch humanity eventually die. You watch the Earth be destroyed. You watch the heat death of the universe.

What then?

You spend eternity... awake? aware? Doing what? Watching reruns of old TV shows?

The fact is, the whole notion of "God" as we know it doesn't stand up to even the most basic of scrutinies.

You can believe what you want to believe for all I care... as long as you don't hurt anyone.

Religionistas just seem like incredibly smug assholes. They are soooo sure of all these unknowable answers. But that's not faith. Faith requires doubt. And hardcore believers don't doubt. They are absolutely sure of what they believe in.

If you ask me, yall are doing it wrong. If life is a test, you are failing it... miserably.

But don't take it personally. God gave us all brains. But it seems only some seem intent on using them.

[Ban Kenobi]

All they have to do is wipe the slate clean and make you start over every now and then and eternal life should work out fine. Oh wait, that's reincarnation.

[Kidlicious]

Faith is action under conditions of uncertainty. You can doubt, but if you don't act you don't have faith.

[molly bloom]

So far no atheists have demonstrated a knowledge of The Book of Job.

HORSESH!T. The deity portrayed in the book of Job is no better than a common or garden sociopath or psychopath- the supernatural equivalent of the nasty little boy who pulls wings off flies just because he can.

Remember folks- this is a deity who according to his 'true' believers, knows everything that has happened, can happen and will happen. But apparently not that Job really has a soft spot for him, not just because he has a good life.

I'm sorry, are Job's thoughts obscured by some kind of anti-supernatural lead shield ? Not according to the evidence.

Screw Yahweh the bully god.

[Kidlicious]

HORSESH!T. The deity portrayed in the book of Job is no better than a common or garden sociopath or psychopath- the supernatural equivalent of the nasty little boy who pulls wings off flies just because he can.

Remember folks- this is a deity who according to his 'true' believers, knows everything that has happened, can happen and will happen. But apparently not that Job really has a soft spot for him, not just because he has a good life.

I'm sorry, are Job's thoughts obscured by some kind of anti-supernatural lead shield ? Not according to the evidence.

Screw Yahweh the bully god.

God gave you everything you have and life itself. Nice attitude.

[dannubis]

Darwin says hi !

[Sava]

God gave you everything you have and life itself. Nice attitude.

So what?

If he's omniscient, he would have known how mb would react... or anyone else.

If God knows everything, he knows what choices we'll make. Thus, fate exists and choice does not.

If God is all knowing, free will doesn't exist. It's as simple as that.

[Elok]

You won't accept any opinion as being "serious" unless it agrees with you.

You knew that before you even clicked to open this thread. If you're going to play his silly game, it's the least you can do to be a good sport and play by its obvious, if unstated, rules.

[Ban Kenobi]

So what?

If he's omniscient, he would have known how mb would react... or anyone else.

If God knows everything, he knows what choices we'll make. Thus, fate exists and choice does not.

If God is all knowing, free will doesn't exist. It's as simple as that.

Kidicious is playing the "if x created y than y has no right to complain about what x does" card.