I don’t see the problem with this statement. A nuclear bomb is in and of itself morally neutral. The fact that it is used immorally is not a problem with the technology, but with how we use it. Although the bomb itself wouldn’t serve a purpose for moral usage (that we know of at least) besides maybe wonder/awe at human capabilities/reason.
Very well said. A morally right way to use a huge nuclear device could be to deliver it to a comet coming straight at Earth and force it to veer off course to save a few million people. Not all possible uses of a destructive device are morally problematic.
Well at least up until this point you were correct…
Well, what’s the point if there is no God? Even if I may care about others or you do, who’s to say that the serial killer wrong? Because it’s perceived as an inconvenience for us some of us? But what value do our desires have? Aren’t they also meaningless?
The inventors of the bomb are clearly not neutral. Their intent is not to use it for a noble purpose, unless they regard killing tens of thousands of people in a split second as a noble purpose. I doubt that Jesus would approve, and especially would not approve a nuclear winter following a nuclear war. Did he die that we might have death, and have it more abundantly?
Yes. Of course not “some” but “all” of us. Because the fundamental “golden/silver/platinum” rule was only borrowed in the bible, but not invented by the author of that part. Because the only way to live a good, pleasurable life is to adhere to the principle: “the right of my fist ends where your nose begins” or “live and let live”. Using the “scientific” method (game theory in mathematics) you can prove mathematically that being kind and helpful to others (but not being pushovers - like “turn the other cheek”) is the optimal way to live one’s life.
No one needs any science to learn the golden rule. It is simply obvious. It is so boring to point out that the so-called “scientism” (the assumption that science is the ultimate panacea) is only a misconception of some theists.
There is no “intrinsic” meaning of life. WE can give meaning to it. But what you say that the “meaning of life” is to get to God after THIS life ends, that actually says that THIS life is meaningless. I say that precisely because this life is finite it is precious in and of itself. I try to be helpful to others without expecting any reward later - just because being helpful is its own reward. Maybe you will assert that your helpful behavior is not motivated by your expectation to being rewarded in heaven, but don’t fool yourself. Since your ultimate desire is to get to heaven, everything that you do is motivated by that desire. Your actions are all based upon the “carrot and stick” principle. You want “eternal” reward and you are scared of “eternal” punishment, so your “morality” is also based on self-interest, except that “reward and punishment” exists only in your beliefs, and you have no evidence for it.
Well, no actually, believing that life is ongoing, eternal and precious in a full-bodied sense gives perspective. It is a non sequitur to say it becomes meaningless since what you do in this life has eternal consequences - that adds gravitas, not removes it.
Just the opposite, actually. That life ends at death, like a candle in the wind, means taking the life of another is, in the final analysis, nothing of significance. If things get to be “too much” there is no harm in snuffing out life. Euthanasia will lead inevitably to a reduced value of life and governments will take on the mindset that if some are too much of a burden on the system, there is no real harm in “putting them down” like unwanted puppies at the shelter.
If by evidence you are asking whether I have been to heaven or hell and come back to testify of their existence, clearly I don’t have that kind of evidence. But when you and I die we will then be in a position to know for a certainty. Perhaps then we can discuss the matter with more fervor. But if we can’t, that will likely be because you are in one place and I will be in the other.
Or because you were right and I was wrong. But I’m not betting you are right. 
This is only true if you see yourself as a rabbit whose only conceivable purpose for existing is to self-preserve.
Different people need a different amount of evidence. If you are satisfied with the unsubstantiated hearsay, it is your business. My standards are higher, I do not base important decisions on someone’s words alone.
Not relevant to this discussion. The point was that our decision making is always based upon our perception of reality. And unless you can discern the nature of that reality, you are in a poor position to make sound and good decisions. That brings us back to the actual topic of the thread. Let’s not deviate any further.But when you and I die we will then be in a position to know for a certainty. Perhaps then we can discuss the matter with more fervor. But if we can’t, that will likely be because you are in one place and I will be in the other.
I am not going to discuss this in this thread. But I went and read the link, and I have to point out that he had some good remarks, and a some very bad ones. His misconceptions about the materialists cry out for correction, but they do not belong to this thread and besides - atheism is a “temporarily” banned subject here.
Again, YOU DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU ARE A VICTIM OF SCIENTISM.
No, you demonstrated that you either did not read or failed to comprehend what I asked for. I did not specify what kind of epistemological tool should be used. I left it totally up to you. The requirement that is should be objective and verifiable are not the exclusive domain of the “scientific” epistemology. On the contrary, science “borrowed” these requirements because they are essential to objective knowledge. But don’t worry. Since you are happy with your blind, unsubstantiated faith, I will not bother you further.
The point that people were attempting to make is that the sort of thinking required to say that something is substantiated or not, that reasoning ultimately will lead to the existence of God.
It is troubling that someone does not know what the Scientific Method is and has not used it. Only a generation ago, everyone graduating intermediate school had learned this method and had used it to perform experiments.
First of all thank you for your excellent summary. Now I know that there is at least one poster around here who has a clear understanding of this process.
This section needs to be “fleshed out”, and I will be happy see your next contribution. I also have a lot to say about it, but it will have to be postponed at least until tomorrow, since today I am very busy with other stuff.
This is seriously debatable, but I will not worry about it today.
Again, more evidence of blind arrogant scientism.
Of course. But it was crystallized in the Person Jesus.
On what basis do you say this? Certainly there are people who think they are living a good and pleasurable life who, quite frankly, could care less about other people’s rights. Is there objectively a standard of right and wrong?
So it’s not really about caring for the other; it’s about utilizing others for our benefit?
What would make life meaningless is actually linked to morality. What’s the point if someone nuked the world? You don’t like that? But you aren’t in a position to determine that the world or your life actually mattered anyway. Because then they didn’t matter at all. Infringes on your rights? Who are you to draw where the line ends for your rights and those who wanted to blow the world up?
Right, it comes to a more fundamental aspect of life. But why is there any value in loving others?
Then why go on when life gets tough, with no foreseeable way out of trouble?
Not any lasting meaning.
Not true. This life has value because God is here. It’s just incomplete until after.
Plenty of people would disagree. And what happens when an inconvenience arrives, where it would be more beneficial for you–from a purely material perspective–to not do the right thing?
Or Catholics act the way the do because they love God.
Well, it certainly shows a limit to the scientific method.
In other words, the **subjective **aspect of existence. Agreed. Beauty or taste are not measurable in any way. There is no such “thing” (object) as beauty or justice so they cannot be measured objectively. Love is primarily an emotion, though it needs to be expressed in actions, otherwise it would be an empty assertion. But the actions can be observed and evaluated so in a very good sense we can measure “love”. A parent who keeps on asserting that he loves his children, while keeps on neglecting and mistreating them fails the “test” of observation.
Now here we have something very interesting. If I may “hypothesize”, you probably mean God and other alleged “supernatural” beings here. I have been told many times that God is not a physical being and as such he cannot be subject to the “scientific” method. Of course, this is not true. Since God is assumed to be physically active in this physical realm, via some alleged “miracles”, or “answered prayers”, he is definitely subject to the measurement of the statistical method (I was delighted to see that you are aware of the chi-square test) - and keeps on failing the “test”.
Here you are mistaken. The scientific method is much older than Christianity. As a matter of fact it is older than humanity. Every animal employs a “watered-down”, and “informal” scientific method for survival. They observe their surroundings, they learn from their own mistakes, sometimes they learn from their peers mistakes (rats are very keen on learning) so essentially they employ the same method as science does. Science adopted this method because it is the one and only epistemological method to separate true and false propositions - pertaining to the objective reality.
If you don’t mind, I would like to discuss the issues one at a time in order to preserve clarity of the discussion.