re: NSIAP: Bill Nye's Degenerate "My Sex Junk" children's singalong (NSFW)

quote:

---

Cherry-picking data.

---

What data were you referring to when you previously said "Only if you believe in the mythology. Cherry-picking, or worse, using religion for control of other people is far worse than anything atheism has ever or will ever do." Your statement was in response to this quotation of mine, "It does, because it recognizes a singular law-giver that is above humanity that will hold all people accountable to it."

quote:

---

Make all the points you like. I don't need to address them.

---

Isn't that the point of a back-and-forth discussion like this one? Point and counter-point? If you don't want to do that then what is your goal in responding?

quote:

---

I simply have no interest in convincing you away from your beliefs. It's weird that this bothers you.

---

It doesn't bother me, it's just strange that you continue to say you don't care while going out of your way to respond. Seems to be contradictory. I'm actually not concerned with changing your mind, either. If it happens then great, but I'm more concerned with others reading this exchange and hoping to provide some insight into my beliefs and how they can be used to rationally address what is wrong with society as well as show the folly of irrational worldviews that they might hold to, themselves.

quote:

---

Once again and as many times as necessary, I have zero interest in discussing your beliefs. We both know there is nothing I can say to change those beliefs and I'll not waste my time.

---

As I've said before, it appears to be contradictory to say you don't care about discussing my beliefs and that it is a waste of time while taking the time to respond to me and say over and over that you don't care what I believe. At the very least I would think you would want to show others how seriously wrong I am.

quote:

---

This is the least accurate thing you've posted so far.

---

You seem to be bothered by my "claim that [my] beliefs give [me] objective morality that only [my] religion is capable of providing" to the point of needing to continue to respond to it even though you aren't offering any specific rebuttal other than to say I'm wrong. If my truth claims aren't hitting a nerve, then good, but your reaction would suggest otherwise.

quote:

---

Nah. I'm indifferent.

---

You claim indifference yet you are making quite the effort to say that I'm wrong. That doesn't compute unless you are being contrarian for the sake of contrarianism and you have to have the last word regardless of how you personally feel about an issue. You also stated previously (I just quoted it in the previous section) that you are fine with what I believe up until the point of my claim of exclusive moral objectivity. That doesn't sound like indifference.

quote:

---

Where did I say I wouldn't participate in the discussion?

(I didn't)

---

I said that you aren't offering any response and you said "That's how not participating works." If you didn't mean non-participation from that statement, you have a strange way of expressing it. Maybe you'd like to clarify what you meant?

quote:

---

The existence of a god is separate from the morality of Christianity. If Christianity is given any seriousness, it's entirely possible that a god or gods exist that have nothing to do with your particular religion. It wouldn't even need to be a god.

---

The morality as provided in Christianity is directly tied to the God of Christianity which has certain attributes, such as immutability, omnipotence, and moral purity or purity in character. The morality of the religion reflects the God of the religion.

An objective moral code would require a god to exist that not only creates a moral law/code but upholds and enforces it, otherwise such a moral code might technically be objective from a human perspective but it doesn't matter if it's obeyed since there is no repercussions for not doing so and talking about one would then be meaningless.

A god or sentient being would be needed in order to create and enforce a moral law. Some sort of force couldn't do it as it would require sentience of some kind or another as a prerequisite.

quote:

---

Incorrect. There are numerous possibilities that don't involve your chosen god.

---

What other possibilities are you referring to that would allow for an objective moral standard that people should live by?