The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday
Pelican have you bottled it?
If you want to try out the "how can atheists judge anything as bad" question that you heard on a Wm Lane Craig video go for it.
So good and bad just "evolved "over time by trial and error then , until at last all of us humans arrived at some sort of general consenus ? - Caliber
No. But I would be more than delighted to discuss godless morality with you.
Start a new thread and I promise to join in.
Cofty wrote: "If you want to try out the "how can atheists judge anything as bad" question that you heard on a Wm Lane Craig video go for it."
I have no idea who Wm Lane Craig is. I just asked a simple question. I'm not trying to catch you in something. Of course atheists can judge something as bad. I'm not a moron. But hey, I let it go and leave you to your wrong assumptions.
Pelican - What is your point?
We are agreed that it would be unloving to passively watch a tsunami wipe out 250 000 people haven't we?
Theists claim god is love don't they?
I still have not the slightest idea what your question is.
So how can an athiest say that wiping out a quarter million people be "bad"? Where does the athiest come up with any sense of what is "good" or "bad"? Surely the Christians invented it?
Probably Christians did not invent "good" and "bad".
God didn't either.
Scientists have not been sitting on their laurels these past twenty years or so, and a lot of research has gone in to altruism, fairness, and essential goodness. Is it an evolutionary advantage to be good and kind? Are all people hard-wired for a peculiar ethics apart from that listed in the bible? It turns out we are. There's a list of about seven that Haidt has been investigating for some years now. Here's a thread of mine where I explore some of these ideas.
One of our essential moralities is that of fairness. We are not alone in the animal kingdom when it comes to this ethic. Here's a well-known experiment on fairness with the capuchin monkey.
In essence, the agreed rate of pay was a slice of cucumber. Then the experimenter upped the ante by offering grape (gold) to one of the monkeys and not the other for the same task. Note the reaction. Matt.20: 1-16.
It seems to me that you would rather I put the words in your mouth, okay. "God SHOULD have prevented the tsunami because the Bible claims that God is a loving God and a loving God would not allow people to die." Is that good or do you want to tweak it? Don't understand the problem you're having.
If someone approaches you in a social setting about your beliefs then they are taking a huge risk. It is also impolite to ambush you in this way however well motivated.
You gave him the courtesy of an honest response and that is the best he could have hoped for.
Pelican rather than put words in my mouth how about you just make your point?
Nugget - Yes I think he probably wished he had stuck to chatting about the weather. Pastors seem to think they have a licence to preach that extends beyond the pulpit.
Nugget, several times in the past ten years I've been approached by evangelical-types whose opening statement is to determine my "spiritual status". It smells and tastes very much like the opening barrange of questions from those spinster pioneers who want to know if they can count their time when they talk to me.
Don't they realize how very intrusive these sorts of questions are, how they haven't earned anything near that level of intimacy, and to have a truly decent conversation about it demands a meeting of minds?
I show greater caution when talking about the long-term effects of smoking to a smoker.
...some pastors. I prefer the teaching/leader type pastors over the evangelical ones.