« first day (1773 days earlier)      last day (2869 days later) » 
00:00 - 07:0007:00 - 23:00

12:38 AM
@LeeWoofenden So you're a proponent of the Divine Command Theory?
> So being moral and doing good for the sake of God is the same thing as being moral and doing good for the sake of morality and goodness.
No, I be moral and do good for the sake of humanism.
I do not derive morality from God
Morality is how to deal with (be fair to) other people in life
I don't like the idea that if you don't do good, God will punish you.
 
 
1 hour later…
1:48 AM
@LeakyNun I would presume, however, that you don't have a problem with police/the courts punishing someone who does harm. While "doing harm" isn't strictly the same as "not doing good", let's be real. If you've never done any good, you've certainly done harm. So your objection isn't there, it's somewhere else.
 
We have some misunderstandings.

Firstly, that's a nice presumption.

Secondly, I meant that I don't like the idea that "we should do good because God will punish you otherwise"
 
@LeakyNun Thanks for the clarification.
On a related note, would you object to a father punishing one of his children for mistreating their brother or sister?
 
Well that's certainly not the best way
@El'endiaStarman I refer to both cases as conditioning, which should be the last resort.
I object to conditioning of any kind.
It destroys the human.
 
Hmm, interesting. What do you mean by "conditioning"?
 
Classical conditioning (also known as Pavlovian or respondent conditioning) is a learning process in which an innate response to a potent stimulus comes to be elicited in response to a previously neutral stimulus; this is achieved by repeated pairings of the neutral stimulus with the potent stimulus. The basic facts about classical conditioning were discovered by Ivan Pavlov through experiments with dogs. Together with operant conditioning, classical conditioning became the foundation of behaviorism, a school of psychology which was dominant in the mid-20th century and is still an important influence...
 
2:00 AM
That's pretty much what you have to do with young children, though, isn't it?
They're not old enough yet to have reasoning capabilities.
 
That's why I said it's a last resort
 
Okay, I see.
 
which is why I said, basing morality on God is an insult to morality
 
I think that's only true for a certain perspective regarding God, and maybe not even then. For instance, a omnibenevolent and omniscient God would have the best standards for morality possible. It seems like your core objection is to a fear-based system of morality, not the chosen foundation of morality.
 
That's true to some extent.
> a omnibenevolent and omniscient God would have the best standards for morality possible
this is highly theoretical.
morality is about how to treat other human beings fairly
 
2:13 AM
@LeakyNun Well, given the premise that an omnibenevolent and omniscient God exists, I think the conclusion follows. His omniscience would mean that He knows all systems of morality and which is the best (given some criteria), and His omnibenevolence would lead to choosing the "goodest" one.
Of course, there's no guarantee whatsoever that we'll agree.
 
Well, it's quite difficult to establish that premise, I would say.
 
Sure, proof of the premise is a different thing entirely. :P
 
How would one know that God knows everything?
How would one know that God is good?
To say that God is good, is essentially a moral judgement, which means you have to use your own standard
 
Could it not be a definition?
 
So you're saying "God is good because he is good"
That's a nice evasion, seeing that you actually have your own standard of what is good and what is not good
 
2:21 AM
Not quite. More like "God defines good". It's an axiom, you could say.
Oh, I definitely have my own standard of what is good and what is not. I'm in the midst of a life-long process to align that standard with God's.
 
how do you know that God defines good?
axioms only exist in mathematics
and mathematics is not science
@El'endiaStarman "God defines good" is essentially equivalent to "what God says is good is good"
which requires a moral judgement.
 
Axioms exist in philosophy too. And everywhere else for that matter. It's just something that you assume to be true (for various reasons). Also, is "mathematics is not science" supposed to be a flaw? :P
 
yes, because science is the best way to know what is real
 
Oh boy, Lee will disagree with that so strongly... :P
 
mathematics is not related to reality
axioms are not related to reality
@El'endiaStarman You can't just say "I know God defines good because I assume so".
It's a tautology.
 
2:31 AM
What about "I assume God defines good."?
 
then that is just an assumption.
 
Assumptions can't be avoided entirely.
 
yes but you would have to substantiate your assumption
 
Which takes a looot more than can be related through chat messages. :P
 
My point is, you have to know what is good before you can say "God defines good"
@El'endiaStarman well is there anything I say that Lee does not disagree?
 
2:46 AM
@LeakyNun You are using "Morality" the way most would use "Ethics" Ethics deals with shoulds and should nots, correct and incorrect, Morality deals with rights and wrongs, holy and sinful.
@LeakyNun If God was a murderous hateful being we would be sitting here chatting about how God defines hate. How people who refuse to lie and injure others go against the nature of creation.
 
@Joshua that is not how we were using the word "define"
 
God is not good because he is good. Good is good because God is God
 
what?
@Joshua Well, you would be sitting there advocating for murder and hate
and I would have my judgement that God is not good
while you would say that God is good
 
@LeakyNun The fact that you are even judging one thing as good and the other as not good tells us that right and wrong are built into our creation.
 
@Joshua no god is required to know that murder is not fair to other people
 
2:54 AM
I suggest you switch to a purely atheistic terminology of words like "preferable" and "advantageous" But using the term good suggests a moral standard beyond yourself.
 
@Joshua a moral standard beyond myself, created by the society.
 
@LeakyNun Quite the opposite, if God thought murder was good then creation itself would reflect that and in that reality murder would be naturally seen as good.
 
@Joshua that is highly hypothetical
(to be fair, my last comment was also hypothetical)
so let's just stop talking about "what if"
@Joshua society and human civilization have come up with all those rules, and then Christians come and say that God created all those rules
 
Look every other world view, including science, is ultimately circular. Only a worldview with an ultimate being, God, can have a definite starting point and source for all creation we know as our reality. There is no absolute "good" without a creator.
 
science is not a worldview
 
2:59 AM
@LeakyNun I'll rephrase: Including humanistic worldviews that place science as the ultimate judge of truth.
@LeakyNun Which I read as the sentiment you expressed earlier?
 
of reality, not truth.
 
@LeakyNun err ok. Though I find it odd people who hold your position don't like absolute truth, but are fine with constants in science...thats another debate
 
well, you've lost me
what are we talking about?
 
@LeakyNun well its not really, I suppose. I mean, if c is always c and atoms follow rules, and gravity, which we still don't even understand, works the same, why in the world can't you see moral absolutes built into the universe as well? Because that would suggest a creator even more than science already does?
@LeakyNun We're talking about truth. If your good is only good because a bunch of people agreed on it, or whether good is good because who one who created this system was good and wants things to operate in harmony with him.
 
@Joshua and my point is how do you know that god is good?
@Joshua one answer to that is "if god exists then c would be always changing because he can just flick a switch"
if everything is up to God's will, then there wouldn't be any constants in the universe
 
3:10 AM
@LeakyNun Well that depends on what you are calling "good". My point is that the very fact you are asking the question and know that "good" is better than "bad" shows us, ontologically, that if God exists he must be, or at the least, prefer, good himself as well.
 
but that is hypothetical, so let's forget it
 
@LeakyNun Well 1) if he was flicking it, how would you even know?...2) Most understandings of a supreme being/God generally agree to a certain level of consistency. Christians would even say unchanging (his nature or character that is). So constants in nature would be reflective of that.
 
@Joshua Oh, so you constructed a God that doesn't change, and then say that nature doesn't change, therefore the God you just constructed exists.
 
@LeakyNun No...I'm not really arguing his existence. Already moved past that with the whole circular vs beginning point. Thought you were past it to when asking things like "how do you know that god is good?" Which discussion do you want to have? We have to assume, for sake of discussion, that a God does hypothetically exist, OR we have to talk about if one does nor not (or that one hypothetically does not)
I'm assuming a "God" and am now discussing his character. That's where I was starting from. Where would you like to start at?
 
> Because that would suggest a creator even more than science already does?
so you were discussing about whether God exists
just follow through the chains of replies
never mind
@Joshua alright, let's assume that God exists. Now tell me how you know that he is good
 
3:28 AM
@LeakyNun I've answered that at least twice. Neither time have you directly responded to it. I've presented my position. It is, granted, largely philosophical, but I would argue also sound logic.
 
> God is not good because he is good. Good is good because God is God
> There is no absolute "good" without a creator.
@Joshua I don't understand your responses
 
"My point is that the very fact you are asking the question and know that "good" is better than "bad" shows us, ontologically, that if God exists he must be, or at the least, prefer, good himself as well."
 
I don't understand how the fact that I know what is good derives the fact that God is good.
Oh, you said "prefer good"
alright, let's continue.
 
The point of Genesis (that Christians can agree on at least) is to show God as the Creator. Creations come from, come out of Creators. Creations cannot be totally divorced and isolated from their creators.
A creation will always reflect in some part, the thoughts, feelings, ideas, principles and nature of the creator. It can be a moody painting, a sharp and angular architecture or a sappy poem. It always tells us something about the creator.
 
well, alright I'll add to the list of assumptions that God is the creator
@Joshua but the natures of the creator and the creation can have differences
 
3:39 AM
@LeakyNun Alright, I'll wait for you to expand on that.
 
@Joshua well, for example, humans can be good while God can be bad, right?
 
@LeakyNun There's a lot of simplifications going on in and between the last two posts. And I'm struggling with how to respond without validating or dismissing something I don't intend to.
 
I think we've derailed
@Joshua Should we be talking about the Divine Command Theory?
 
@LeakyNun Eh I don't think so. I don't really hold to that as I understand it
 
@Joshua something similar?
do you believe that God is the ultimate standard of morality?
 
3:49 AM
@LeakyNun Is this morality intent, action or result based?
 
"this morality"?
alright, let's have something concrete
 
@LeakyNun In your previous statement. I'm inclined to say "yes" But I'm afraid you'd misunderstand. I don't like the "command" part of divine command theory.=
 
let's say, an example would be whether masturbation is moral
@Joshua alright
 
@LeakyNun As if its only right or wrong because its been commanded as such. I disagree, its right or wrong because of our intent. But we can't really judge or even understand intentions, so that's where the commands came, to instruct our hearts.
 
so if you murder with a good intention, then it is good?
Let's stick to an example.
 
3:53 AM
@LeakyNun That would be action based. I believe in 99% of cases its immoral, but the "immorality" of it happened before you ever entered into the act.
 
@Joshua and why is it immoral?
 
@LeakyNun Because, in those 99%, it is rooted in thoughts of perversion: adultery, lust, etc. And those things are in turn wrong because of how they perceive and think about people. This is what Jesus was trying to tell us on the Sermon on the Mount.
 
> those things are in turn wrong because of how they perceive and think about people
not because God said they are wrong?
 
And, thinking that way about people is not loving toward them, caring for them as well or better than yourself.
Love God, Love others. Those are the closest thing to commands I have in my ethic.
@LeakyNun God does say many things are wrong. But when he's doing that its for our benefit. He not saying they are wrong because he said so, he's saying they are wrong because its bad for you and other people. Its an admittedly complex ethic that is happening beneath the surface of any given moral command.
But the advantage is I can explain to anyone why doing X is wrong, without ever saying "its against God's laws". Instead I can get to the reasons behind the laws. I was able to explain to my brother-in-law and girlfriend why it was going to be difficult living together before marriage.
 
@Joshua and what is it that we disagree upon?
 
4:04 AM
@LeakyNun About what?...what was that question directed at?
 
about the nature of morality
I am not seeing any big difference between your view and my view
 
@LeakyNun Oh in practice its probably not that different at all. In mathematics, you can create a formula that mimics and plots out on a curve much like a more basic exponential formula.
 
@Joshua I don't get the last part
 
But when you carry both out to their end point much further along...you start to see they diverge quite a bit. They may have appeared to be the same early on, but the eventual results are not the same.
 
alright, so what is the difference?
 
4:09 AM
So our ethics may operate quite similarly, but when we take them out to more extemes, I think we would start seeing how they play out differently.
 
@Joshua for example?
 
@LeakyNun Why is slavery wrong?
 
@Joshua because it exploits other human beings, unfair, etc.
 
@LeakyNun Why is it wrong to exploit? Why do we have to be fair?
 
you don't have to be fair, but don't expect to be treated fairly if you don't treat others fairly
 
4:13 AM
@LeakyNun But in slavery, the people in charge aren't really worried about how the slaves will treat them. So, because they can get away with it, is it ok?
 
@Joshua "is it ok" to whom? Some humanist groups will not be ok with it
 
@LeakyNun So you are assuming relativistic non-absolute morality?
 
@Joshua yes?
 
@LeakyNun Ok that's fine. But there's really nothing to talk about then. My assumption started with a creator and absolutes/constants. (or rather a creator who IS absolute and constant)
 
alright.
 
4:17 AM
But this comes back to my earlier point. Whatever morality you want to construct, your reasons for it will always become circular, because its relativistic.
 
@Joshua I've heard a response that morality can be objective
it just depends on what is the object (target)
to you, God is the basis of morality
to me, human is the basis of morality.
 
@LeakyNun whats the basis of human?
 
@Joshua what?
 
@LeakyNun God is the basis of my morality. You said Humans are basis of yours. Well what is the basis for whatever it is about humans that morality is based on in them? Natural selection?
 
@Joshua Oh, I meant the well-being of human
By the way, are we in agreement that morality is instilled (conditioned) upon us in reality?
 
4:21 AM
@LeakyNun Which humans? The whole race? Just the group you're in?
 
@Joshua every human?
Let's get real. You don't do good because you know it is good. You do good because you are instructed to do good from the beginning of your life.
 
@LeakyNun I can't agree to that, much like I said before, there's too many things going unsaid in that statement :D
 
And we are just discussing where those conditions come from
 
@LeakyNun I believe we all have a basic level of morality that is a part of us naturally as opposed to through nurture. So not conditioned, but intrinsic (and I'd be ok with instilled, but I'd say instilled by the creator)
 
@Joshua How do you know?
That is a testable hypothesis.
 
4:26 AM
@LeakyNun Is a fetus a human? an embryo? how do you decide?
 
@LeakyNun Well I do think there is a nurture component as well. And that is everything from nature around us (General Revelation) to as I said before, the law being given to instruct (Special Revelation). In what you are saying, this revelation would be conditioning of some form I believe?
 
@bruisedreed that's another debate, lol
 
@LeakyNun it's a subpoint of this one
 
@bruisedreed lol I considered that one way back earlier, but went with slavery instead :P
its certainly an extreme where we may see divergence.
 
...I'll but out - you guys go for it...
 
4:28 AM
@Joshua I mean, you are saying that there are some morality that our parents did not instruct us, our teachers did not tell us, but supposedly is written in our hearts by God himself?
 
@bruisedreed (Though I would be personally interested in your thoughts on what I've said so far makes sense to you)
 
@bruisedreed certainly not everyone agrees to one answer, so my opinion doesn't matter
 
@LeakyNun Well that is a very hard line to distinguish. Yes. Some part. I'll leave it vague, the problem being I see sin as corrupting it. So we have errors that obscure things.
 
@Joshua do you know how I would test that hypothesis?
 
@LeakyNun I can think of a few highly ethically questionable ways lol
 
4:32 AM
@Joshua care to share?
 
@Joshua sure - it's absolutely why I'm butting out :)
 
@LeakyNun You can do, and some have been done, all kinds of social experiments with children. But again, the problem is one of my basic assumptions is also: Sin. which would basically corrupt your test results. Lord of the Flies style?
@bruisedreed But its getting late, I might need to tag you in.
 
@Joshua I would say, the test would be to remove all kind of nurture, to see what nature remains.
 
@Joshua well if that's ok with Leakynun, I'd be happy to chat a bit further
 
@LeakyNun Right, but if your assumption is a humanistic human nature you will interpret the results far differently than I will with the perspective of a sinful human nature. People are horrible. Its actually a theological idea call "common grace" that we have even arrived at this level of civilization.
Because by all rights we should be in total world war constantly.
 
4:38 AM
@Joshua well, that would destroy everyone
 
@LeakyNun Never stopped us from trying in the past :) While I think our nature contains remnants of the image of God, sin has corrupted it. In fact, I would say all sinful or wrong intents (and acts which are really just...more intent) are corruptions from good ones.
 
yes but then we learnt that war would destroy everyone
so it is bad even to our own interest
 
Almost Platonic, but, to compare it to his model of Forms, the forms would have their template in God
@LeakyNun We can keep going down that road if you like, but I'm pretty sure its going to circle around :D
 
@Joshua well, that was intended to be a response to the thinking that "if everyone just act in their own interest then the world would be at war"
that's a part of "sin" anyway, just to think about yourself
 
@LeakyNun Yes I understood. But people still do war. And its clearly in the best interest of subgroups of people to engage in war at various times. So again...relativistic.
 
4:48 AM
@Joshua people learn.
have you heard of a story, where people in heaven and hell are given forks and spoons of 3 metres long
heaven is enjoying the meal because they all give the food to the one opposite to them
hell is suffering because people just can't share
 
@LeakyNun Unfortunately it really is late. I've enjoyed our discussion. Hope to see you in here again.
 
thanks
 
@LeakyNun Did you wish to continue chatting?
@Joshua good night and God bless
 
5:17 AM
@bruisedreed sure
@lee another question if you don't mind: do you believe that God told the people in isis to bomb everyone?
 
@LeakyNun I'm pretty confident that Lee would say no to that
 
why?
 
@LeakyNun from my previous interactions with him. Do you have any reason why you think he would say yes?
 
because he said God talks to people of all religions
 
@LeakyNun That doesn't mean that people of all religions always hear him clearly
nor does it prevent people who claim they hear from God being in error
 
5:23 AM
so they are just lying?
 
@LeakyNun If they truly believe God is telling them to do that, then I would say they have been deceived. Lying implies intent to deceive.
 
by whom?
 
By the one doing the talking of course
 
and who is it?
 
@LeakyNun I presumed the "they" you were talking about were Isis bombers - did you mean something else?
 
5:30 AM
yes, so who told the isis bombers to bomb?
 
@LeakyNun Their caliph
 
I mean, if they truly believe that God told them to bomb, then who is deceiving them?
 
@LeakyNun A good question and I have certain ideas about that, but what do you think?
 
Hmm, looks like I arrived late to the party! ;-)
 
well I would say those are hallucinations, lol
@LeeWoofenden welcome
 
5:35 AM
@LeakyNun Divine Command Theory. It seems to entertain the possibility that God might command something that's objectively immoral. The problem, rather, is that we humans, in our fallen state, often, if not usually, don't understand what God is commanding us to do. So we hear a lot of things as divine commands that aren't divine commands at all. Or the message gets garbled on the way.
The thing is, God always speaks and acts according to God's nature. So since God is morality, it would be impossible for God to give an immoral command. However, what we hear on the other end is another story. And yes, that does apply to the Bible as literally written. Many commandments are attributed to God in the Bible that are not actual divine commands, but what a fallen race of humans heard God to say.
(I have not yet read the ensuing discussion.)
 
@LeakyNun I don't think they are claiming they were shown what to do in a vision, so it wouldn't be a hallucination. As far as I'm aware, what justification they claim for their actions is from their particular interpretation of certain Koranic texts and hadiths. I will leave it to Lee to defend whether he thinks the Koran is from God or not. I personally don't think so.
 
@LeakyNun I don't believe that if you don't do good, God will punish you. Rather, I believe that evil punishes itself. As stated in the old, evocative KJV language, "Evil shall slay the wicked" (Psalm 34:21). If you smoke cigarettes, God doesn't punish you for it. The act itself does so by sickening your body. It's the same with every other evil action.
 
@LeeWoofenden this is better
 
God commands us not to do evil because God knows we (and others) will suffer if we do. And God doesn't want us to suffer.
 
@LeakyNun If you were a pregnant woman and it was inconvenient to you personally to continue the pregnancy, how would you decide whether it is moral or immoral for you to abort the fetus?
 
5:43 AM
@LeakyNun So no, of course I don't believe God told the people in ISIS to bomb everyone.
 
@LeeWoofenden Now I do not have the relevant data to show whether the people in ISIS say God told them to bomb everyone, but can we assume so?
@bruisedreed Well I don't answer hypothetical questions
morality is too complicated
people divide themselves into pro-life and pro-choice, as if they are mutually exclusive
I believe that they are not mutually exclusive
 
@LeakyNun What does that mean when it comes down to making actual decisions?
 
@bruisedreed are you replying to the wrong message?
 
@LeakyNun Honestly, I doubt they're really all that religious. A lot of the military leaders are former Baathists from Saddam Hussein's regime, which leaned toward the secular. I think they're wrapping themselves in a mantle of religion when it's really just a factional fight for power, money, and territory.
 
@LeeWoofenden Alright. They're just factional fighters for power money and territory. No religion is involved at all
 
5:49 AM
But even if they do think God told them to bomb people, I think they're wrong about that.
 
What do you say about the Israelites who received God's commands to kill everyone?
 
@LeakyNun Same thing.
 
@LeeWoofenden that's interesting to hear
from a Christian
 
@LeakyNun I'm not your ordinary, garden-variety Christian. ;-)
 
@LeeWoofenden sure
 
5:51 AM
@LeeWoofenden That is incorrect - one of the major reasons they have been successful in their worldwide recruitment is because they provide theological justifications for what they are doing
 
@bruisedreed Sure, they think they're religious. And you can say they're religious if you want. But I think they're just using religion to justify their material-world war.
@LeakyNun The ancient Israelites were marginally religious, and they were certainly not spiritual. The OT narrative itself continually tells of how "stiff-necked" and rebellious they were, and how they were constantly breaking God's commandments, going after other gods, etc., etc.. At several times along the way God was ready to destroy the whole lot of 'em, only Moses intervened. They're simply not presented as a very religious or spiritual group of people even in the Bible itself.
So expecting them to have an accurate understanding of God's true will is a little unrealistic.
 
@LeeWoofenden wait, so God did command Israelites to kill everyone?
 
@LeakyNun I didn't say that.
 
> At several times along the way God was ready to destroy the whole lot of 'em
 
@LeakyNun In the Bible narrative, yes. But I've just been saying that the Bible narrative does not, in its literal meaning, present a true and accurate picture of God's actual nature and commands.
Every divine revelation, the Bible included, is written through human authors.
 
5:57 AM
@LeeWoofenden Oh, alright. I misunderstood.
so, what do you think God told them to do?
 
@LeakyNun I don't know. I'm not an ancient Hebrew nor am I God, so I don't have much basis to say what God really wanted them to do. In the event, God had to act pragmatically, and gradually bend them away from even worse atrocities toward being less atrocious. It was a continual path of moving toward the lesser of evils.
 
@LeakyNun You should recondsider the consideration of hypothetical situations. All future events are mere hypotheticals to us now, but if they require a complex moral calculus, when we encounter them we will be unprepared to make reasoned decisions if we haven't considered their possibility before hand
 
@LeeWoofenden Just guess. What could the Israelites misinterpret as to kill everyone?
 
Unfortunately, God has to deal with us refractory humans as we are, and not as God wishes we would be.
 
@bruisedreed look, it wasn't a general statement.
if you really want the answer: I have no idea.
 
6:01 AM
the situation is one thing, but what is more important is having some basis to make such decisions - what is your basis?
 
@LeakyNun In general, human wars represent spiritual battles of good against evil, or perhaps of lesser evil against greater evil. God said something about eradicating evil. The Israelites heard it as eradicating people whom they saw as evil. Not the same thing at all, but we humans have dull hearing when it comes to divine commands.
 
@LeeWoofenden Nice.
Then why were they able to kill everyone in a town somewhere with just 100 soldiers?
without God's help?
Did God help them?
@bruisedreed well, the same thing that would be your basis?
I would give birth to him unless one of us is going to die?
 
@LeakyNun I don't think so. You have explicitly rejected my basis previously.
 
@bruisedreed hmm... when did I reject your basis, and what is your basis?
You see, I have a bad memory.
 
Although in this case, we can come to the same outcome operating from a different basis
 
6:05 AM
@LeakyNun If you're talking about Gideon and such, either good strategy or . . . the fish got bigger.
 
@LeeWoofenden so God didn't help them?
@bruisedreed You see, I am both pro-life and pro-choice.
 
@LeakyNun "I do not derive morality from God" - that's where we differ
 
@LeakyNun Their belief that God was with them certainly helped them. But I don't think God actually desires people to come to violent deaths, and I don't believe God actually helps people to kill one another.
 
@bruisedreed so what would you do in such hypothetical situation?
 
At best war is a necessary evil.
 
6:07 AM
@LeeWoofenden I take it as a "no".
 
@LeakyNun Right.
 
@LeeWoofenden So the iron chariots isn't a problem for you at all.
 
@LeakyNun I would certainly have the child. Even if I was advised it was potentially life threatening to me I would continue the pregnancy
 
Good. The website can be closed down then. I'll notify the website manager
 
@LeakyNun Iron chariots?
 
6:08 AM
> "And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

— Judges 1:19
 
@LeakyNun No, the iron chariots aren't a problem for me.
 
@LeeWoofenden Good. The website can be closed down then. I'll notify the website manager.
 
@LeakyNun Yeah. That oughtta work! ;-)
 
@LeakyNun So how does that work when they are at odds - if someone is choosing to abort their child, do you support their decision or oppose it?
 
@LeakyNun But really, the arguments on those sites generally don't affect my beliefs at all. They're mostly completely beside the point for me, because they attack beliefs that I don't hold.
 
6:12 AM
@bruisedreed "Well, if you really want to do it, then I won't stop you even if I could, but I would strongly advise you to think thrice."
 
Generally speaking, they're attacking beliefs based on a literal interpretation of the sacred scriptures in question. But my interpretation of the Bible, although based on the literal meaning, is largely non-literal in character.
So most of the arguments are simply irrelevant to my beliefs.
 
Alright.
 
@LeakyNun This isn't just about someone saying something - If you saw someone murdering another person wouldn't you try to stop it? What is the difference here? When it comes to competing values - right to life versus right to choose which takes priority? How could you make a decision as to which takes priority?
 
@bruisedreed Let's review our list of assumptions... is the foetus a human?
well of course it is
 
@LeakyNun agreed, go on
 
6:18 AM
and it is also using the mother's resources to live, right?
 
@LeakyNun there we would disagree
 
@bruisedreed eh?
 
@LeakyNun My view is that our lives are given in trust - we don't have full autonomy to dispose of "our" resources however we wish
- we will have to give an account for the disposal of all resources entrusted into our stewardship, including our own bodies
 
>
if everything is up to God's will, then there wouldn't be any constants in the universe
No. God's will is the primary constant of the universe.
 
so our respective moral calculus would diverge at this point - feel free to continue on the basis of your own assumptions and see where it can take you in terms of guiding your actions in such situations
 
6:23 AM
@bruisedreed Well, alright.
@LeeWoofenden Hmm... how do you know?
 
@LeakyNun For one thing, if God's will were not constant, the universe would be far more chaotic than it is. It appears that the universe is a fairly orderly place, following definite rules. That suggests an orderly God who follows definite rules rather than being an arbitrary being of whims and changes of mind/will.
 
@LeeWoofenden then how is it different from a universe where God isn't there at all to mess up with the constants?
 
@LeakyNun Practically speaking, for the purposes of scientific investigation, it doesn't differ at all.
 
@LeeWoofenden Alright, I think I understand your position here.
 
Science does not require belief or non-belief in God, because God doesn't change the rules of the game along the way.
 
6:28 AM
@LeeWoofenden alright.
 
By the same token, science can say nothing about the existence or non-existence of God. It's simply beyond science's purview.
 
sure.
On something absolutely irrelevant: do you think mathematics is science?
 
@LeakyNun Umm . . . no. I don't think the dictionary thinks so, either . . . .
 
nice. finally a thing we agree upon.
Is there anything else you would like to discuss?
 
Mathematics is the skeleton of science - without it all you have is jelly
 
6:32 AM
@LeakyNun May have asked you this before, but did you grow up in a religious or a non-religious household?
 
@LeeWoofenden Christian household.
 
@LeakyNun When in your life did you become an atheist?
 
@LeeWoofenden a year ago.
 
@LeakyNun Oh. How old are you, then?
 
@LeeWoofenden 17
 
6:34 AM
@LeakyNun Ah. Are you still living at home?
 
@LeeWoofenden Yes.
 
@LeakyNun Do your parents know you're an atheist?
 
@LeeWoofenden Yes.
 
@LeakyNun What do they think / how are they dealing with it?
 
@LeeWoofenden It isn't a big deal.
 
6:35 AM
@LeakyNun So I take it they're not fundamentalists?
 
@LeeWoofenden Sure.
 
@LeakyNun What church/denomination do they belong to?
 
The Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA) is an evangelical Protestant denomination within Christianity. Founded by Rev. Albert Benjamin Simpson, an ordained minister of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, in 1887, the C&MA did not start off as a denomination, but rather began as two distinct parachurch organizations: the Christian Alliance, which focused on the pursuit and promotion of the Higher Christian life, and the Evangelical Missionary Alliance, which focused on mobilizing "consecrated" Christians in the work of foreign missionary efforts. These two groups amalgamated in 1897 to form...
 
@LeakyNun Hmm. Certainly evangelical. Good that your parents aren't all up in arms about your "apostasy," etc.
 
@LeeWoofenden sure.
 
6:39 AM
You might be interested to know that I have a 19 year old son (my youngest) who, last I knew, didn't think there is a God. Not sure what he thinks now.
 
@LeeWoofenden Well, you're not a fundamentalist either.
 
@LeakyNun Far from it. ;-)
 
Yep.
 
6:53 AM
@El'endiaStarman @LeakyNun Oh, and about me disagreeing that science is the best way to know what's real, El'endia may be referring to what I expressed in this article: Where is the Proof of the Afterlife?
 
@LeeWoofenden I believe you've told me your belief.
Science is the best way to deal with physical reality
 
I do, however, think that science is a pretty good tool for figuring out the nature of the material universe.
 
while spirituality deals with the the spiritual reality?
 
@LeakyNun Yes. And with how we behave in physical reality.
 
@LeeWoofenden alright.
and that there are some elements not on the periodic table which will connect us with the spiritual reality?
it's just like, you know, magic
 
6:57 AM
@LeakyNun Scientists are just about to get to another range of stable elements above 120 on the periodic table, I hear . . . .
@LeakyNun But the spiritual is, by nature, non-physical. Not on the periodic table, even above 120
 
@LeeWoofenden there's no stable element above, around 100, you know
 
@LeakyNun Was just reading an article today saying they think there may be another range of stable elements coming up.
 
@LeeWoofenden can they be quantized?
 
@LeakyNun 184+ neutrons, as I recall. But I'm not finding the article atm.
 
@LeeWoofenden there's no element that lives more than 1 second above 100, the article might be talking about relatively more stable
In nuclear physics, the island of stability is the prediction that a set of heavy isotopes with a near magic number of protons and neutrons will temporarily reverse the trend of decreasing stability in elements heavier than uranium. Although predictions of the exact location differ somewhat, Klaus Blaum expects the island of stability to occur in the region near the isotope 300Ubn. Estimates about the amount of stability on the island are usually around a half-life of minutes or days, with some optimistic predictions expecting half-lives of millions of years. Although the theory has existed since...
 
6:59 AM
@LeakyNun No, it was talking about elements that may last hundreds of years rather than mere milliseconds.
 
00:00 - 07:0007:00 - 23:00

« first day (1773 days earlier)      last day (2869 days later) »