Jump to content


Senior Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


LuftWaffle last won the day on March 26 2017

LuftWaffle had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

895 Good


About LuftWaffle

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

5,949 profile views
  1. I get that. You're what's called a moral subjectivist. The problem is that moral thinking is part and parcel of human experience. Morality thus, is a phenomenom that requires explaining and if your worldview has no way to account for it, so that you're ultimately forced to dismiss it as merely an illusion, then it's a problem for such a worldview. So, while you may assert that morals aren't real but that it's just an evolutionary illusion (which for atheists seems to be the only consistent option), my original question was how do you live it out, practically speaking? Do you embrace the truth and live as if there's no right or wrong? Or do you perpetuate a noble lie and live a moral life? To say that societies practised human sacrifice, yes they did, and those practises are condemned now. Society has made moral progress, but the concept of moral progress requires some kind of moral measure, doesn't it? It's only an empty word if you're committed to a worldview that doesn't have room for it and cannot account for it. Why should the sociopath care about the suffering individual? The sociopath ad his gene pool would survive just fine. How do you *know* what will or will not be favoured by evolution? How is what you're saying different from 'just-so story telling', whereby you have a theory that morality is pro-survival and you invent a tale to fit the theory by just asserting that it's unfavourable to survival because you need it to be. Right, so now morality becomes whatever is statistically preferable. So if a large number of people decide that the jews are a problem and that humanity as whole will be better off without them, then it becomes an act of moral fortitute to 'gas zee jews', not so? Except that nobody actually thinks this is how morality works. Especially not anybody who actually visits Auswitch. I've never been there but the sense of heaviness in that place is apparently overwhelming. I've never heard of anybody going there saying that, "well it's all about majority preference really. Some societies like jews and others like to kill them, just like some societies prefer sushi and other societies prefer tortillas" Yeah, but it's very pleasant for the rapist. Now suppose the rapist can rape a woman without it being unpleasant for her? Like that dentist in Florida that I heard of who used to rape women while they were unconscious during dental surgery, or whatever. According to your logic that equates immortality to harm, no harm was done, because the women didn't even know they were raped, right? If no harm is done then nothing is wrong. The same can be said for creeps in Chinese hotels who install cameras in women's bathrooms. As long as the women don't know about the peeping Tom, he's doing nothing wrong, right? You could say, "...but if the women find out", but since he's not harming them in the moment there's nothing 'to find out'. Plus you have to explaining how an act can be morally neutral and somehow become morally repugnant when it's discovered. It seems then the morality is tied to the discovery not the act itself. Can I give you one word of advice? Never become a rape counsellor The notion that the act itself isn't the problem but a loss of nutrients and attractiveness to suitable males, doesn't come close to addressing the sense of what's happened. And this is my point really. It's only suitable to talk like this if you're a middle-class, college educated atheist having a lofty philosophical chat about morality. In the real world, this kind of view is simply unlivable. You would never consistently talk like this if one of your friends were raped, would you? Because the problem isn't survival of the species. That couldn't be further from the mind of the rapist or the victim. If I were so inclined I could go out and rape a dozen women, and I know a fact that humanity will survive just fine. Plus I could get to hear how academics claim that what I did wasn't really wrong. That I don't owe justice a debt because 'morality', is just a complicated word... Saying there's a problem with an animal assumes an OUGHT about an animals behavior. Something that you do not believe in. But you haven't actually responded to an important question. If evolution is used to explain all behavior (included what's considered moral and immoral) then you cannot claim that evolution only supports 'moral' behavior. Evolutionary biologist claim that things like racism have an evolutionary source because it stems from wanting to favour the gene pool of those closest to your own gene pool. You cannot then claim that racism is considered immoral because it's evolutionarily unfavourable. This is the problem with telling evolutionary just-so stories. Evolution cannot at the same time be an explanation for so-called moral behavioral traits and also be an explanation for all behavioral traits.
  2. Hi Leyla, I'd like to illustrate something by highlighting all the present tense descriptive statements in your post: "We dont want to be killed or hurt because that would either remove us from the gene pool or lower our chance of survival. We dont want the people in our society to be killed or hurt because that would damage the fabric of our society and reduce the chance for survival of our species. There is no objective evil, we are just social animals that evolved to live in groups, and living in groups requires certain rules or mechanism. Stopping destructive people from doing destructive things is simply in our interest and thats why we do it. We dont technically punish people because they are bad, for example if someone is born evil (pedophiles, people with mental illnes that want to kill because of it etc), we only punish people that actually do harm to our society(child rapists, murderes etc) " Notice how you're making statements about what humans ARE doing, but morality isnt merely descriptions of what goes on on the planet right now, but rather prescriptive of what OUGHT to be done. This is called the IS-OUGHT fallacy, where one argues that since X is happening now, X is moral. One could just as easily say that human beings are greedy and murderous animals, because you needn't look to far in history to find loads of it. Also, not only are mere descriptions of human behavior inadequate explanations of the moral experience, but one can argue they're simply not true. While many human beings are social animals, many of them simply aren't. If social behavior is moral for social humans because of evolution, then it antisocial behavior should be moral for sociopaths, because their anti-social behaviour is in their genes? Who is to say that sociopaths aren't simply a new direction in human evolution? But what about behavior that promotes survival as you alluded to? If behavior that promotes increased offspring is considered moral because evolution relies on propagation, does that mean people with more children are more moral than people with less children? Should abortion be considered immoral because it's an act designed to kill human offspring? What about homosexual relationships which by design cannot produce offspring. Would their relationships be immoral if one simply substitutes morality for "what's conducive to human propagation"? But I also see no reason to take your statements at face value, for instance: What is your evidence for saying things like rape lower our chances of survival? There are many species of animals such as chimpanzees that forcefully copulate and they're surviving just fine. Lemmings kill themselves en masse, and this no doubt has an evolutionary explanation too. Cannibalism is rife in certain species, and this behavior has evolutionary benefits according to biologists. Nature is full of destructive behavior and virtually every behavior that could be considered a vice in humans can be found in the animal kingdom, and those animals thrive, and biologists invent evolutionary explanations for those behaviours. I can't help but think that a lot of the evolutionary explanations for morality are what's referred to as just-so stories. You need to explain why rape is wrong so you tell a story making rape contra to survival, with no evidence. You need to explain why cutting someone off on the highway is wrong so you invent an evolutionary explaination for how that somehow hampers human survival. But then in the same breath evolutionary biologists and evolutionary psychologists are coming up with explanations for behaviour that's considered negative. So if morality is determined by evolutionary benefit then you can't use the same explanations based on evolutionary benefit to explain bad behavior.
  3. If evil isn't real as you say, then what should we do about laws? Do we pretend that rape, murder, child abuse, sex trafficing etc. is bad and incarcerate perpetrators of such acts, or do we let people define right and wrong as they see fit?
  4. Hi Vince, I would have to disagree with you. Objective morals are the opposite of subjective morals. Objective means 'mind-independent' such that an action will be wrong or right even if nobody thinks so. Absolute morals on the other hand refer to morals that are 'circumstance independent'. Some have argued that torturing babies for fun is a moral absolute because it always applies. The moral argument doesn't require moral absolutes, it is based on objective moral values and duties so the OP is correct. Furthermore, I'd say you're wrong that an atheist can objectively ground morals by simply tying their moral standard to some objective measure like wellbeing, because their selection of that particular measure instead of another is still subjective.
  5. I'm aware of the ECT prooftexts. It's basically two sections in Revelation that are visionary symbols, but must be read at face value to support ECT. One parable in Luke (The rich man and Lazarus) which doesn't describe the fate of the unsaved, and then about five or six passages that require eternal conscious torment to be read into them before they can be used as proof texts, but in actual fact are better support for my view when understood in their context. Is that what you're referring to? If so, I'm aware of those verses and I've studied them very carefully, but I'm always happy to discuss it with honest enquirers
  6. Isa 66:24 "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."
  7. As an annihilationist I voted yes. The question is rather odd, because annihilationists don't deny hell, we simply deny that hell consists of eternal conscious torment. Instead we believe that the bible clearly teaches that the fate of the unsaved is death and the word 'hell' refers to Gehenna a.k.a. the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom which is described as a place of slaughter. So I guess the question should rather have been, "who denies the idea that the fate of the unsaved is eternal conscious torment?" Neither ECT, nor Annihilationists nor Universalists deny hell, so I'm not surprised that there are no 'no' votes.
  8. No, Siegi information is not physical. What is measurable is not the information but the medium upon which information is stored/represented. If Beethoven's fifth symphony is stored (i.e. represented) on a hard-drive it can be measured in bits, if it is played on a piano it can be measured as sound waves, if it is stored on a cassette tape it can be measured as magnetic nodes, if it is written on paper with ink it can be stored as music notation, but none of those mediums ARE the information, they're merely mediums storing a tokenized version of the information. One cannot ask how magnetic Beethoven's 5th Symphony is, because it's not the information that's magnetic but a certain storage medium. etc. In short then, it seems you're conflating the message with the medium. This would be true only in a fully deterministic worldview. The problem is that you expect to be paid for the novel work that you do, likewise inventors and artists don't credit the universe (or cause-effect) for the intellectual property they produce, because they know that they, as individual minds, have produced something and that they deserve some credit for it. This is why it's so absurd that Stephen Hawking can in one book espouse determinism and yet miss the irony of then expecting royalties for selling that book. If the universe is deterministic, are people responsible for anything they do?
  9. The Bible says we shouldn't fear those who can only kill the body but not the soul, but instead we should fear Him who can completely destroy both in Gehenna. Gehenna of course being the place Jeremiah described as a valley of slaughter. The idea that facing judgement and execution by the living God is laughable, and just like going to sleep, shows that perhaps too much of popular theology is driven by the hedonistic impulse of avoiding pain, than a true desire to regain what mankind lost, which is access to the tree of life, so that one may eat and live forever. While the bible consistently describes the gospel as a life and death matter, popular theology has reduced the gospel to a matter of location, an eternal holiday resort or an eternal medieval dungeon. And then we wonder why young people nowadays don't respect the sanctity of life and instead are only concerned with seeking pleasure and avoiding pain.
  10. Not only was it a parable, but it describes a scenario prior to judgement. Now you're trying to bolster the idea that the rich man will forever be tormented by referring once again going back to Revelation and reading the apocalyptic symbolism therein as non-symbolic and using it to reinterpret the rest of scripture. So when I challenged you to offer a clear didactic teaching not relying on parable or symbolism you offer a parable interpreted through the lens of the symbolism in Revelation, lol. How exactly is this supposed to show that the entire ECT doctrine isn't built on taking parable and apocalyptic symbols out of context? You don't even realise that you're actually proving my point. At least you're also trying to offer another verse, this time the undying worms and the unquenchable fire. It seems that now you're just going through the handful of ECT prooftexts and hoping something works. As such I'll leave you with an excerpt of my opening statement in the debate on annihilationism, where you can read responses to the typical ECT prooftexts including the passage you mentioned. Those text actually form part of the case for annihilationism. Unquenchable fire Mat 3:12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. What traditionalists do here is make logical inferences that look as follows: 1: The fire is unquenchable. 2: To be unquenchable is to burn forever. 3: To burn forever requires fuel that’ll last forever 4: It is the unsaved that fuels the fire 5: Therefore the unsaved will burn forever. This is roughly the thought process that drives the belief that this is a proof-text for the traditionalist point of view. The problem is that premise 2 is a false premise, because this is not how “Unquenchable fire” is understood in Biblical language. Let’s see if we can interpret the phrase in light of a clear passage elsewhere in scripture that might help us understand what the bible means by “unquenchable fire”: Jer 17:27 But if ye will not hearken unto Me… then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched. Eze 20:47-48 … Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will kindle a fire in thee, and it shall devour every green tree in thee, and every dry tree: the flaming flame shall not be quenched, and all faces from the south to the north shall be burned therein. And all flesh shall see that I the LORD have kindled it: it shall not be quenched. Scripture then, seems to define an unquenchable fire as a fire that cannot be stopped from completely devouring that which it burns. This aligns even with our English language use of the word “quench”, which means to put out a fire. It’s not a description of how long a fire burns. So if we look at how the “unquenchable fire” is used in scripture, it seems to better support the Annihilationist view, which is of a fire that consumes and devours rather than merely tormenting that which it burns. Immortal worms Mar 9:48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. We’ve already covered unquenchable fire, but what about these pesky immortal worms? Let’s look at the traditionalist inferences: 1: The worms don’t die 2: Worms that don’t die live forever 3: The worms are eating the unsaved 4: Therefore the unsaved are eaten forever Let’s see if we can get some clarity on what’s going on here, by looking at the passage in the Old Testament that Jesus is quoting here: Isa 66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh. The scene in Isaiah 66 depicts carcases being eaten by worms and being burnt up by fire. It’s not a picture of living souls being tormented by fires that burn forever and worms that never die. The significance of the worms is rather interesting, because in Jewish culture it was considered shameful for a dead body to see decay. Bodies needed to be properly buried, not left out in the open to be devoured by scavengers, maggots and fire. The picture that Isaiah is describing, and which Jesus referencing is a picture of unstoppable decay and corruption. We see a similar situation in Jeremiah: Jer 7:33 And the carcases of this people shall be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth; and none shall fray them away. This time we have, not worms, but birds feeding on the dead bodies, and the description that there’ll be nobody to ‘shoo’ them away, and thus stopping the shameful consumption of these dead bodies. We see the emphasis on not seeing decay clearly in the following Psalm: Psa 16:9-11 Therefore my heart is glad, and my whole being rejoices; my flesh also dwells secure. For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption. You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore. This Psalm expresses David’s desire to be protected from his enemies, to not be dishonoured by having his body rotting on the battle field, but the psalm is also looking ahead to Christ whose body didn’t see decay and corruption but was risen on the third day, as we see here: Act 2:31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. So when Jesus is talking about the unsaved being burnt with unquenchable fire and eaten by worms that won’t die, he is simply saying that nothing will prevent the shameful destruction of the unsaved. The consumption of the bodies won’t be prematurely stopped by the death of the maggots, and the burning up won’t be prematurely stopped by quenching the fires.
  11. You shouldn't teach about hermeneutics and then violate the very things you're teaching by importing speculations that simply aren't in the text. Nowhere does Rev 22:11 describe the evil of the evildoers and the righteousness of righteous continuing for all eternity. What is there, is the angel sandwiching the statement between mentioning "not to seal up the propecy of the book for the time is near", and a statement referring to the coming judgement, where obviously the aforementioned evil and good will be judged. That precisely is what judgement is for, to JUDGE the good and evil deeds. To pretend that the judgement precedes the good and evil deeds just because you're desperately looking for something that you can use to harmonise the Platonist notion that all people will spent eternity somewhere, is not warranted by the text at all. The idea that people will continue to sin in hell is nowhere in the Bible. It's a theory that theologians came up with to explain why God would infinitely torture people for finite crimes. It's a philosophical speculation, ancillary to the doctrine of eternal conscious torment. You cannot read that into the text, then claim the interpretation as proof for the doctrine of eternal conscious torment. One would expect that with such shoddy exegesis, and so much question begging you'd come across as less self-assured. I guess that's the Dunning-Kruger internet for you.
  12. Firstly the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is just that, a parable not a "clear didactic passage". Secondly, the scenario depicting in the parable takes place prior to final judgement as evidenced by the rich man wanting to warn his brothers who are still alive. So it has nothing to do with the final fate of the wicked. Thirdly it mention nothing about "continuing" consciousness for all eternity. So basically none of what you're saying is actually in this passage. If only we could have clear description of what is going to happen to the ungodly (besides of course all the other plain straightforward texts I've already offered mentioning death, destruction perishing etc)... If only we could have an example so that we don't have to guess... Image that! 2Pe 2:6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
  13. Okay, but then it cannot be used as a proof-text against death meaning ordinary death.
  14. This is a philosophical argument you're trying to run here, and my primary concern is what the Bible teaches. If the Bible throughout the Torah reserved execution for the worst of crimes and God decides to continue that at the final judgement, which I believe the text teaches, I really couldn't care less that you think it's a "sweet deal" for some whom you think deserves what you consider a worse punishment. I'm not sure why you think the execution that God has planned will only last a minute or two, but even if it does, I'm pretty certain you'd rather want you children to live forever in the new earth, than endure it. So with that I do differ from your opinion (and it is mere opinion on your part) in that I believe the glories of life on the new earth is worth living for and I believe in the inherent value of life, something you seem to place little stock in. I also don't view being condemned and executed by the living God as, "big whoop".
  15. Nothing about "dying you shall die" indicates that this excludes physical death and that it refers to some notion of spiritual death. As I mentioned all Young Earth Creationists (creation.com and answers in genesis has loads of articles on this for instance) believe that physical death entered into creation at this point. The text doesn't require that Adam die immediately because "In the day that you eat thereof" can be read as "When you eat thereof". As such there is no reason to assume the bible is introducing an esoteric definition of death here. https://answersingenesis.org/death-before-sin/genesis-2-17-you-shall-surely-die/ So, what seems to happen is that Young Earth Creationists use Gen 2:17 as a proof-text that physical death entered as a result of the fall when talking to evolutionists/Old Earth Creationists, and they use Gen 2:17 as a proof-text against death being physical when talking to Annihilationists.
  • Create New...