Even in science there are exceptions to absolutes, for example:
-it’s an absolute that the angles of an isosceles right triangle always add up to 180 degrees - except when the curvature of the earth becomes a factor
-time is an absolute - except when space travel is a factor
As Einstein once said in explaining one of his theories, “…if only a relative meaning can be attached to the concept of velocity, ought we nevertheless to persevere in treating acceleration as an absolute concept?” Similary, for practical purposes, we routinely accept many things as absolutes while at the same time embracing the reality that there are always exceptions. Further, when God becomes an active participant in a process and miracles occur, exceptions to absolutes can even become rather commonplace.
While my argument regarding “belief” was *mostly * an exercise in snarkitude, meant to dismiss the annoying declarations of knowledge (when they should be using the word “belief”) of a higher power, I do think religious belief is an empty statement that, for the majority, has just become a hard-to-shake habit over years of indoctrination. I think it’s disingenuous to say they “know” or “believe” there’s a god when, for brief or extended periods of their lives, they have lapses or doubts. That doubt is their logical mind waking up and telling them that Religion A is as unlikely as faeries and leprachauns to exist. Most believers I know have had these lapses. Couple that with the apparent inability for mere mortals to agree on what even the most clearly-stated passages of the bible mean, so that they don’t even know if they’re trying to follow the word of god, and it all becomes rather tiresome.
Believe whatever you want to believe. But keep it in your head and your church. There’s another thread going on about the disrespectful mother who simply must inject her agnostic daughter’s wedding ceremony with catholic blessings. We all know that politicians use their empty declarations of faith so the Power Christians will vote for them. Bless this, thank god that…always talking the talk but rarely walking the walk. The whole faith thing has become a leverage tool for power in a land where it’s supposed to be anything but.
LOL
But the software is not the same, and therein lies the problem.
If I want to say the intelligent designer at the beginning of the line is a computer game designer, then it stands to reason all the software coming down should be computer games. But what if some are word processing software, or music players? Clearly it can’t be a computer game designer. It can’t be a music player designer, or a word processing designer either.
It’s the same for God. If you believe God exists, and that he has a certain moral view that he puts on the universe - a universal morality - then all those consciences coming down the belt should all be tuned to that morality. And they aren’t. And this isn’t just about “glitches” in the case of psychopaths and so on, but the simple fact that there is no majority agreed on conscience. There is no conscience that 99% of people agree on. If anything, having a conscience is proof against a God with specific attributes, because those attributes are not reflected in something he’d be in control of.
Believers at times have an amazing capacity to not think thoroughly about even their own arguments.
Neither of your eexamples support your claim. The triangle situation is based upon Pythagorean math that does not allow for curved space. Your quote from Einstein distinguishes the relativity of velocity while maintaining the absolute nature of acceleration, not velocity.
(Not to mention that you are playing a linguistic game of equivocation in your use of terms.)
Since all the parts of a computer are manufactured and all the parts of the body are organic, your attempt to equate your blind clockmaker to a god is merely a poor analogy, not a proof.
Given the rather bad design features of the human body, why would anyone want to claim that God was such a crappy designer?
All analogies are imperfect, and while I enjoyed your effort, this is a particularly bad analogy. How about, humans have the same hardware because we all evolved from the same group of “first homo sapiens.” As to the same software, I’ll second some of the other posters in pointing out that not all software is the same. If it were, we wouldn’t have the saying, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” Homosexuality is accepted in certain cultures, unconsienciable in others; ditto for prostitution, selling a child, infanticide, arranged marriage, wife beating, cannibalism, slavery, etc, etc, etc. Not all that long ago (200 years) in Japan a child wasn’t considered to have a soul until it was two weeks old, and so if you decided you didn’t want it, you just killed it.
Note, I’m not talking about which fork you use for your salad. These examples certainly point to different “software.”
First, let’s be sure we’re not mixing apples and oranges. Of course, everyone is born with different physical and mental capacities such as creative ability, capacity for abstract thought, emotional makeup, etc. Not everyone is a Michael Jordan or Mozart, or Einstein. But the conscience of each individual is relatively the same at birth, even across cultural lines. Although its influence can be overcome or shaped by cultural pressure (for example, suicide bombers) or by the individual himself (for example, the Amish girls killer), it usually remains as an extremely powerful latent force no matter what steps are taken to silence it or kill it. Even the most hardened terrorist will have an instant connection with the majority of the ten commandments when he reads them (they come from the same source as the conscience), and it takes considerable training (ie brainwashing, the subject of the thread) to convince him that he’s not actually violating any of them. It’s usually done by focusing on a perceived “higher good” that will result and by demonizing\dehumanizing the intended targets. Hitler used the same methods, and indeed, every enterprise of darkness must find a way to deal with the inate, God-given conscience that resides in every individual. The fact that a person is obviously not influenced by a conscience doesn’t mean they weren’t born with one.
Yep. Nonexistent.
Piaget has shown that conscience is a developed attribute of cognition, not an inherent moral compass.
No, it really isn’t. For one thing we aren’t actually capable of asking a newborn child whether it has a conscience or not, so you’re taking that they do purely on faith (I’m not familiar with the particular work of Piaget tomndeb mentions; could you link me to something, it sounds interesting). And secondly, no, the conscience of each individual is not relatively the same.
Ah, I believe I see where your dodging is going to be. “Everyone has the same conscience, and those people that don’t follow theirs are actually just not listening to it”. Again, you’re taking it entirely on faith that everyone has the same conscience as you, even when they say differently. I have a different conscience to you; am I lying or mistaken?
Well, i’m no terrorist, but I have to say taking the Lord’s name in vain doesn’t give me any moral difficulties. My conscience reacts no one jot to me saying “Goddammit!”. I don’t feel bad for working on the Sabbath, or any other day (well, besides generally being lazy 
). Now, there are things I agree with - mostly killing is bad, likewise theft, likewise adultery. But i’m afraid your point on a conscience being universal does require all consciences to be exactly the same, and i’m sure that even between you and me there are many differences as to what we’d consider moral with regards to killing, theft, and adultery. So again; am I lying, or merely mistaken as to what my conscience says?
Generally I agree, except of course for the God-given part, which you have yet to prove. 
Bzzt. Wrong. Psychopaths aren’t influenced by their conscience (or don’t have one); Most people are. I certainly am. As, i’m sure, are you. Yet we disagree. What’s up with that?
Here’s an analogy I like: “Atheism” is no more a religion than “bald” is a hair color.
No I didn’t.
That’s anything but universally agreed upon. Paul on the road to Damascus? Ever read The Screwtape Letters? Our very own Diogenes had a mystical experience of God and remained an atheist. (Or maybe that’s when he became one; I suppose God could have revealed Himself and announced that He doesn’t exist.)
Neither is that. Christian opinion is all over the place as to whether atheists can go to heaven. Islam says they’re screwed. Other religions don’t believe in hell.
Anyway, I’m not arguing that atheists are jerks for not uncritically accepting hearsay evidence of God. I’m asking for simple respect for theists to whom it’s not hearsay.
WHAT! God drinks fresh-ground Colombian coffee, roasted within the past week, and brewed with a Technivorm into a thermal carafe. You’re going down, buddy.
I once thought I was having a heart attack. It FELT like what I thought a heart attack would feel like, but it wasn’t. It was indigestion. Why would a person who knows that the mind can (and frequently does) play tricks on us automatically assume that it was god talking to them when myriad other explanations are more likely?
I’m not sure what you and the others mean when you demand respect (as used here). Can you please clarify that for me?
There can’t be. Absolute means without exception; that’s what it means.
It would be, if the characteristic you described (a uniform, universal conscience) actually existed, and if existing, it also pointed incontrovertibly to the conclusion you say it does. But you simply haven’t established any of that - at the very best, you’re leaping to conclusions.
Ahh… the old ‘you’re only disagreeing with me because you don’t want to believe’ argument. Does somebody else want to tell him?
I completely get what you’re saying here, but I have to ask: you can probably calculate the probability of hallucination or schizophrenia, but how can you calculate the probability of God actually speaking to you? And without this statistic, how can you appraise whether the myriad other explanations are indeed more likely?
You can’t calculate something based on nothing. He’s never definitively been proven to exist, let alone communicated anything to anyone so there’s nothing to build the odds from.
Ironically, this is exactly how I “indoctrinated” my 12-year-old Catholic students last Sunday. You could have just as easily taught your children out of the introduction to Genesis that appears in the New American Bible (the standard Catholic Bible in the U.S.).
I hope your analysis went a bit beyond that, because an argument such as “the stupid Christians, they can’t reason logically or recognize obvious contradicitons in Genesis” would definitely be indoctrination.
No, not at all. Many also think there is just one kind of faith but the Bible portrays many types (saving faith,weak faith,strong faith,overcoming faith,dead faith,sincere faith,active faith,genuine faith,misplaced faith, etc). Similarly, there are various types of individual consciences. Biblically, the extremes for faulty consciences are given in 1John3:19-21 (an overactive, self-condemning conscience) and 1Timothy4:2 (a seared conscience). Self deprecating individuals who might even tend towards suicide fit into the first extreme and generally their conscience was injured by demanding, overcritical parents - they might even feel guilty for being alive. And psychopaths like Ted Bundy or Charles Manson fit into the second. The latter weren’t born sans conscience but silenced it by every action they took in opposition to its voice. On the other hand, David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) didn’t appear to have a conscience until it struck him one day and he began to weep in his cell over his crimes.
Not a big surprise since atheists don’t connect with the first four commandments until they accept God’s existence, but they do connect with the other six concerning relationships with people. And because of that, most atheists curtail their language when around those who do regard God as a Person, not because they believe it themselves but to avoid injuring those who do believe (doing otherwise would violate their conscience). Of course, this does not apply to this website - most of the the Bible\God\ bashers here silenced their consciences long ago.
By the time they can understand the word “no” and then willfully disregard it, the operation of their conscience begins to manifest itself openly. And yes, the Bible indicates mankind has been given a conscience: instant proof for believers.
I’m sure you’re not lying, your responses are exactly what I would expect from an atheist who was honestly expressing his opinion about this subject. There’s nothing more that you could honestly say since God is not yet a reality in your life. But if you want to try a test of His existence, just a simple prayer will suffice: “God, if there is a God, show yourself to me and if you do, I will follow you” That’s all it really takes - you’re dealing with a real Person not an idea or a force, and He is more than capable of finding a way to communicate with you on a personal level, otherwise He’s not God.
Piaget doesn’t claim that his writing is directly inspired by God as the authors of the Bible do, and Tom pretty much regards every other book on the planet as more authoritative than the books in the Bible - you’ll have to make your own decision about who to trust.
No, they point to outside influences, and there’s no argument that the human conscience can be shaped, molded, injured, and even destroyed by one’s family of origin, the culture, life experiences, and one’s personal choices. This doesn’t change the fact that it exists and even in the worst case scenarios, that it can be reprogrammed back to God’s original standards. God has given more than one form of Light to mankind (for instance the 10 commandments) and that Light naturally connects with one’s original conscience and will provide correction, healing, and peace if responded to.
If you are referring to tomndebb, I think you may have just born false witness. I won’t dare to speak for him though, as well you shouldn’t. I will make my own decision about whom to trust though and I don’t find your insights nearly as sound as his.
And that reminds me:
Nonsense. When a toddler first begins to understand the word no and then begins to disregard it, that is the time when the little one first learns that there are consequences to disregarding the parental no. You don’t see an eighteen month old spontaneously expressing remorse for hurting Mommie’s feelings after having a tantrum. They aren’t emotionally troubled about having misbehaved.
And when the child is a little older and learns to mind when the parent says no, it is for the purpose of pain avoidance (psychological or physical), not conscience. That comes much later and is often recognized in churches as “the age of accountability.” It is usually in later childhood but before pre-adolescence.
Alright, then please explain how your analogy works, because as far as I can tell it doesn’t.
Many consciences come down the conveyor belt. There is no clear universal morality; indeed, there’s even no majority morality. And yet, this proves that God exists, even though he (presumably) has made a universal morality, and one which disagrees with a lot of those consciences? It’s like saying the existence of eye colour proves that a God who really wants us to have blue eyes exists.
Again, it’s not that any Bible/God/ bashers have silenced their consciences, it’s that their consciences are different enough from yours to accept that what they do is fine. They’re not ignoring or avoiding their conscience; it is perfectly happy with them bashing God or the Bible. I don’t know if you’d consider this bashing - “The Bible is just a book, and has a huge amount of really terrible ideas in” - but my conscience gives no twinge of remorse when I type it. It’s true. And I don’t feel bad about hurting you when saying it because you won’t agree with me. I’m listening to my conscience. It’s just a different conscience to yours.
It really doesn’t. Have you never heard of the “terrible twos”? Kids are happy to get away with all kinds of stuff.
I have actually done that before; and it was in a church, no less. He doesn’t appear to have turned up, alas. I guess he’s not God.
Do I get to test you, now? Everytime you see or hear something which you consider to be due to or because of God, see if you can come up with a way it could have happened without God; that is, if it’s possible for those events to occur without a God pulling the strings.
That was an awfully precise selection of words. “Doesn’t claim his writing is directly inspired by God”? It doesn’t matter whether anyone claims it, what matters is if it’s true. After all, I could say “You’re allowed to steal now. Oh, and God directly inspired that sentence”, and i’d be on equal authority with the Bible there.
So, since it’s a matter of God actually directly influencing, and not just the author claiming direct influence, it’s really quite possible that Piaget’s work is inspired by God. How do you know it isn’t?