God or Big Bang/Evolution: Where do we Come From?

[McFox]

God can't be disproved by science, because the entire existence of God depends on the belief of a being that lives beyond current observable science.

 

[Deleted member]

The whole "if God is all-loving then why is there death and suffering?" argument is so overplayed.

There has to be balance. If there were no diseases, accidents, wars, Earth would be out of control.

This might sound morbid, but death is necessary. It's evident in the wild-life, once a certain species starts over-populating, there is always something to take it out and put it back to a normal rate.

Toomin and JFox, I completely agree.

 

[Eor]

Science itself has not disproven God, but has proven the books that tell us about god to be mainly false. The disproving god comes from people using logic.

 

[MikeMan445]

The whole "if God is all-loving then why is there death and suffering?" argument is so overplayed.

There has to be balance. If there were no diseases, accidents, wars, Earth would be out of control.

This might sound morbid, but death is necessary. It's evident in the wild-life, once a certain species starts over-populating, there is always something to take it out and put it back to a normal rate.

Toomin and JFox, I completely agree.

I just don't see how that argument holds any water. Death wouldn't be necessary if there was truly a loving God.

So what. You're saying he's not all-powerful, then?

 

[TheCatPhysician]

but this defeats your own argument. you are trying to claim that abiogenesis VIOLATES 2LoT. but if an intelligent agent can make life from non-life, then those same processes can happen on their own if the conditions are right. either abiogenesis VIOLATES the 2LoT, and therefore life itself is impossible - intelligent action or not, or it does not VIOLATE the 2LoT, and it is possible all on its own.

So, what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to “violate” the second law of thermodynamics?

The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:

1. a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
2. a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.

Each living organism’s DNA contains all the code (the “program” or “information”) needed to direct the process of building (or “organizing”) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems. This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organism’s physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the second law) can break it down.

Living systems also have the second essential component—their own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sun’s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.

So we see that living things seem to “violate” the second law because they have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures “in spite of” the second law’s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies).

While this explains how living organisms may grow and thrive, thanks in part to the earth’s “open-system” biosphere, it does not offer any solution to the question of how life could spontaneously begin this process in the absence of the program directions and energy conversion mechanisms described above—nor how a simple living organism might produce the additional new program directions and alternative energy conversion mechanisms required in order for biological evolution to occur, producing the vast spectrum of biological variety and complexity observed by man.

In short, the “open system” argument fails to adequately justify evolutionist speculation in the face of the second law. Most highly respected evolutionist scientists (some of whom have been quoted above with care—and within context) acknowledge this fact, many even acknowledging the problem it causes the theory to which they subscribe.

the 2LoT did not necessarily apply before the big bang. we only know that it has applied ever since. in that sense, the big bang was a "beginning," because it represented a change of states, the same way you "begin" adulthood at 18. the energy was always there, but something happened at the big bang that put the laws of physics into effect.

This is getting a little off topic, but if I'm not wrong, the common belief is that time began with the Big Bang. (See here for support for this argument.) If time did not exist, then how did energy?

some christians say "the universe must have been caused, everything has to be caused!" but, as snex has said before, this argument is shot down by the fact that chistians require an uncaused being (or force) to cause the universe, even though everything has to be caused according to you people.

Ok, where to start. Alright, look at it this way. You believe that everything is natural, right? There's nothing supernatural, nothing on different planes then us, or different dimensions or anything, and everything is limited to things like time the same we we are. There is no Creator or Intelligent Designer, and the universe and life came about accidentally and randomly.

When they say the universe's creation had to have a cause, that's because we don't believe that it could just happen accidentally, naturally, and unintelligently. At Big Bang, it's supposed that the Laws of Physics and time were made. Since then, according to the laws of the world we live in, everything that exists must have a beginning. But we believe that there is a Creator that's completely different from that. We can't really even grasp how it works. He is on a different plane than us, and isn't limited by time, meaning he never was created. To believe in this Creator is to believe in him as the Uncreated Creator, or the Uncaused Being.

chistians require an uncaused being (or force) to cause the universe, even though everything has to be caused according to you people.

That is, everything in the natural world has to have a cause. Before the Big Bang, there wasn't even time. So really, there wasn't really a "before the Big Bang," according to how we understand time. So it seems that there must be some sort of different plane(s) that we don't understand. Time being created means that something had to trigger or cause it, and whatever that is must obviously not have been effected by time.

Thinking of it this way, I don't think it seems TOO crazy that there was an intelligent force that helped get everything started. As opposed to raw energy existing before time, which doesn't really make sense.

snex also pointed out that a god would violate the second law of thermodynamics just as much as a natural cause, assuming the law had any relevence.

What I posted above pretty much goes for this, too. The Creator that we believe in isn't effected by things like the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Laws like this apply to the natural world we live in.

 

[blazedaces]

This is getting a little off topic, but if I'm not wrong, the common belief is that time began with the Big Bang. (See here for support for this argument.) If time did not exist, then how did energy?



Ok, where to start. Alright, look at it this way. You believe that everything is natural, right? There's nothing supernatural, nothing on different planes then us, or different dimensions or anything, and everything is limited to things like time the same we we are. There is no Creator or Intelligent Designer, and the universe and life came about accidentally and randomly.

When they say the universe's creation had to have a cause, that's because we don't believe that it could just happen accidentally, naturally, and unintelligently. At Big Bang, it's supposed that the Laws of Physics and time were made. Since then, according to the laws of the world we live in, everything that exists must have a beginning. But we believe that there is a Creator that's completely different from that. We can't really even grasp how it works. He is on a different plane than us, and isn't limited by time, meaning he never was created. To believe in this Creator is to believe in him as the Uncreated Creator, or the Uncaused Being.


That is, everything in the natural world has to have a cause. Before the Big Bang, there wasn't even time. So really, there wasn't really a "before the Big Bang," according to how we understand time. So it seems that there must be some sort of different plane(s) that we don't understand. Time being created means that something had to trigger or cause it, and whatever that is must obviously not have been effected by time.

Thinking of it this way, I don't think it seems TOO crazy that there was an intelligent force that helped get everything started. As opposed to raw energy existing before time, which doesn't really make sense.


What I posted above pretty much goes for this, too. The Creator that we believe in isn't effected by things like the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Laws like this apply to the natural world we live in.

Seriously dude, you're so full of **** it's getting on my nerves. Did you even read the post I made trying to explain to you the second law of thermodynamics? How on earth can you be preaching this nonsense, but as soon as it doesn't go your way a "program" goes around it? The second law of thermodynamics applies to all situations under all circumstances. Every process, including biological ones follow the second law of thermodynamics. You're applying the law completely wrong and you still don't understand what it means.

Why is it you still can't explain why water and oil seperate? Is there a program hidden there too?

Having a first cause violates causality. Either causality applies to all things or it doesn't apply at all. There need not be a first cause.

 

[snex]

So, what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to “violate” the second law of thermodynamics?

The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:

1. a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
2. a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.

Each living organism’s DNA contains all the code (the “program” or “information”) needed to direct the process of building (or “organizing”) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems. This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organism’s physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the second law) can break it down.

Living systems also have the second essential component—their own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sun’s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.

So we see that living things seem to “violate” the second law because they have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures “in spite of” the second law’s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies).

While this explains how living organisms may grow and thrive, thanks in part to the earth’s “open-system” biosphere, it does not offer any solution to the question of how life could spontaneously begin this process in the absence of the program directions and energy conversion mechanisms described above—nor how a simple living organism might produce the additional new program directions and alternative energy conversion mechanisms required in order for biological evolution to occur, producing the vast spectrum of biological variety and complexity observed by man.

In short, the “open system” argument fails to adequately justify evolutionist speculation in the face of the second law. Most highly respected evolutionist scientists (some of whom have been quoted above with care—and within context) acknowledge this fact, many even acknowledging the problem it causes the theory to which they subscribe.

im not sure why you think repeating this garbage pseudoscience over and over again is going to prove a point. points 1 and 2 in the quote are not parts of the 2LoT. creationists dishonestly tack them on to sucker you into thinking that they have disproved evolution by using 2LoT, when in fact they really have invented their own law that has no scientific support, and called it part of 2LoT. this is simply not the case.

stop using this discredited nonsense unless you are able to prove that these add-ons to 2LoT are actually a part of it.

This is getting a little off topic, but if I'm not wrong, the common belief is that time began with the Big Bang. (See here for support for this argument.) If time did not exist, then how did energy?

the time of our universe began at the big bang.

Ok, where to start. Alright, look at it this way. You believe that everything is natural, right? There's nothing supernatural, nothing on different planes then us, or different dimensions or anything, and everything is limited to things like time the same we we are. There is no Creator or Intelligent Designer, and the universe and life came about accidentally and randomly.

BZZ WRONG! its not that anybody BELIEVES that there is nothing supernatural, on different "planes" (whatever that means), dimensions, etc, its that there is no EVIDENCE for such things. you are not allowed to postulate their existence without evidence as ad hoc defenses for further claims that have no evidence.

When they say the universe's creation had to have a cause, that's because we don't believe that it could just happen accidentally, naturally, and unintelligently. At Big Bang, it's supposed that the Laws of Physics and time were made. Since then, according to the laws of the world we live in, everything that exists must have a beginning. But we believe that there is a Creator that's completely different from that. We can't really even grasp how it works. He is on a different plane than us, and isn't limited by time, meaning he never was created. To believe in this Creator is to believe in him as the Uncreated Creator, or the Uncaused Being.

ad hoc reasoning devoid of any evidence. here is what you are doing:

person 1: god exists.
person 2: theres no evidence that god exists.
person 1: thats because he exists on a different plane of reality!

That is, everything in the natural world has to have a cause. Before the Big Bang, there wasn't even time. So really, there wasn't really a "before the Big Bang," according to how we understand time. So it seems that there must be some sort of different plane(s) that we don't understand. Time being created means that something had to trigger or cause it, and whatever that is must obviously not have been effected by time.

there is no evidence that this separate "plane" of existence that we dont understand has any supernatural qualities, or that any conscious beings inhabit it.

in you are really interested in this, see string theory.

Thinking of it this way, I don't think it seems TOO crazy that there was an intelligent force that helped get everything started. As opposed to raw energy existing before time, which doesn't really make sense.

you are postulating an even more complex reality to explain why our own reality is so complex because you cannot understand how complex realities can come about. yet the fact that you are happy to accept the existence of this further complex reality all on its own shows that you do, in fact, accept that complex realities can be uncreated.

you are merely running around in circles like this because you are already committed to the belief in god. your arguments are not honest searches for truth, they are attempts to defend an idea that has no real support.

What I posted above pretty much goes for this, too. The Creator that we believe in isn't effected by things like the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Laws like this apply to the natural world we live in.

everything that exists is by definition natural.

 

[MikeMan445]

When they say the universe's creation had to have a cause, that's because we don't believe that it could just happen accidentally, naturally, and unintelligently. At Big Bang, it's supposed that the Laws of Physics and time were made. Since then, according to the laws of the world we live in, everything that exists must have a beginning. But we believe that there is a Creator that's completely different from that. We can't really even grasp how it works. He is on a different plane than us, and isn't limited by time, meaning he never was created. To believe in this Creator is to believe in him as the Uncreated Creator, or the Uncaused Being.

There are several problems with this. As always, I will try to bring this debate back to a more civil tone than others here have adopted (though I agree wholeheartedly with blazed, snex, et al.). I don't know you, nor have I even seen you, so I will not attempt to ad-hominem attack you. You may rest assured.

I will, however, freely and utterly attack your beliefs. This is a debate hall and anything goes in the realm of points and counterpoints. That said, let's examine the points you raise.

Scientifically speaking (and I will address your claims as science because you are posting in this thread defending them, and this thread is about evolution, which can easily be observed scientifically), it does not hold water to say stuff like "we do not believe it could just happen naturally." Why not? Because it seems unlikely? There's a great saying that's often batted around scientific circles: Supernatural claims require supernatural evidence. You CAN, to be sure, believe whatever you want to believe. But you must acknowledge it's illogical from a scientific standpoint.

That is, everything in the natural world has to have a cause. Before the Big Bang, there wasn't even time. So really, there wasn't really a "before the Big Bang," according to how we understand time. So it seems that there must be some sort of different plane(s) that we don't understand. Time being created means that something had to trigger or cause it, and whatever that is must obviously not have been effected by time.

Not necessarily true. Read David Hume for an analysis of causation.

Thinking of it this way, I don't think it seems TOO crazy that there was an intelligent force that helped get everything started. As opposed to raw energy existing before time, which doesn't really make sense.

How does believing in a supernatural, ineffable, omnipotent BEING outside time make more sense than believing in energy outside time? Where on earth would you get such an idea for a being, anyway? All of his/her/its properties (omnipotence, omniscience, supernaturalness) are perfectly tailored to solve the problem of the uncaused cause. I can just as easily make up my own being who does the same thing. I could also talk about aliens who just set up the big bang as an illusion from outside this universe. Both the alien and God are equally tenable -- that is to say, they are both illogical and pointless.

What I posted above pretty much goes for this, too. The Creator that we believe in isn't effected by things like the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Laws like this apply to the natural world we live in.

A clever way of counteracting any argument we might give you (or any other believer). "Oh man!" we're supposed to say, "of course he's completely outside time and logic, and yet created the universe for reasons unknown and unknowable, and doesn't have to abide by any natural laws, cause he doesn't feel like it! Why didn't we think of that before? You're so right! Thanks for enlightening us as to our ignorance."

See the problem? It's very easy to throw up your hands and say "Uhh... I dunno. God Did It. Yeah, that solves it. Hoo-ray!"It's much harder to actually view the world logically, systematically, and scientifically.

Oh, and I just want to intrude a little on your discussions of the Second Law. You are misinformed. A quick google search would lead you to many definitions of the Second Law, none of which are those hackneyed definitions that the ID'ers spew out. Go here and read it carefully.

I quote:

Since entropy gives information about the evolution of an isolated system with time, it is said to give us the direction of "time's arrow" . If snapshots of a system at two different times shows one state which is more disordered, then it could be implied that this state came later in time. For an isolated system, the natural course of events takes the system to a more disordered (higher entropy) state.

But wait. Right below that is a link asking "Biological systems are highly ordered; how does that square with entropy?" This is basic stuff. In any biology class, you run into this question on day one. The answer is equally basic, logical, and not hard to understand. Put simply, the second law applies to closed systems. The Universe is a closed system. The Earth, one little corner of the universe, is not. Why not? The Sun is a constant source of energy from outside the earth, thus making it not a closed system.

I shall repeat that. The Earth is not a closed system. To suggest the Second Law somehow disproves Evolution is a laughably ignorant misapplication of the Second Law. And the ID'ers/Creationists act like they have realized this giant gaping flaw in evolution. "Oh man! What are those scientists gonna say to THIS ONE!??"

Please. Rudolf Clausius, Lord Kelvin, and Max Planck's first realization of the Second Law wasn't some dumb accident. The first thing they thought of was "If entropy tends ever to increase, why for art we here?" The answer is evident enough upon a moment's pondering. Clearly, even if the entropic state increases as a whole as time progresses, little pockets of order can appear. That is what our solar system is: a pocket of order.

Edit: It seems I was reading the wrong part of the thread. There are just as many problems with your new, revised discussion of the Second law taken from that website.

He states that the second law requires something else in addition to natural causes to generate life from non-life. It is inconceivable to me how he could make this claim. In no way is that the case. Spontaneous generation of systems of increasing complexity at the expense of their surroundings is not a fluke... it happens all the time and is perfectly easy to conceptualize. And even IF (a VERY big if) it somehow posed a problem as to how life GOT here, it says utterly nothing against an evolutionary explanation SINCE that time.

This is an important distinction, and one which anti-evolutionists often conflate with other issues. Evolution says nothing about the origin of life. Nothing at all. That's for chemists, physicists, hell, even philosophers to speculate on. Evolution merely shows how life evolved from that time on.

Thus, your quoting that website is, in a way, irrelevant. It saddens me to read ID-ers' websites and pamphlets. A freshman in physics or biology could refute their arguments without even opening his textbook.

 

[Deleted member]

WTF? A freshman in physics can refute ID-er's arguments, but not my physics teacher? He is the leader of the Christian Fellowship at my school. Let me remind you that my biology teacher as well believes in a God. Snex gave me some strange answer which I didn't quite believe or understand.

He always seems to give some explanation involving human nature or the way the human mind works or something general like that, not allowing for exceptions.

 

[snex]

WTF? A freshman in physics can refute ID-er's arguments, but not my physics teacher? He is the leader of the Christian Fellowship at my school. Let me remind you that my biology teacher as well believes in a God. Snex gave me some strange answer which I didn't quite believe or understand.

a freshman in physics can refute flawed 2LoT arguments that come from standard creationists. now IDers.. well that takes a freshman in college philosophy!

He always seems to give some explanation involving human nature or the way the human mind works or something general like that, not allowing for exceptions.

In my opinion, science proves God. Only in the sense that I look at it and say, this **** isn't random, it was planned. Hasn't anyone here read Angels and Demons?

opinions are irrelevant in science.

 

[Deleted member]

I edited that part out, but still. This isn't science. This is philosophy. Figuring out if God created us or not != science, science may provide some evidence but it is still all pretty much speculation.
You do not know if when you die there will be an after-life. You just don't. Science will never prove that. You can only speculate and add your opinion.
(which proves there is a God btw, and what I mean here is that if there is an after-life then you're probably in heaven or hell)

 

[snex]

I edited that part out, but still. This isn't science. This is philosophy. Figuring out if God created us or not != science, science may provide some evidence but it is still all pretty much speculation.
You do not know if when you die there will be an after-life. You just don't. Science will never prove that. You can only speculate and add your opinion.
(which proves there is a God btw, and what I mean here is that if there is an after-life then you're probably in heaven or hell)

1) if there is no evidence for an afterlife, then we have no reason to believe in it. the same holds for any and all claims of ontology.
2) even if an afterlife exists, you cannot determine that it is the one presented in the bible.

 

[Deleted member]

1) Doesn't matter if there is no evidence. IF there is, you still won't know about it until you die. Yes? Yes. Science will never prove it's existence.

2) I can't, I agree. I like the idea of good people going to a paradise while bad people rot for eternity, though. You guys seem to think when I say could, or can, or any other word that represents a possibility, you think I mean it as a definite thing. Not true. I said "probably in heaven or hell.", not "if there is an after-life then you're in heaven or hell."

 

[snex]

1) Doesn't matter if there is no evidence. IF there is, you still won't know about it until you die. Yes? Yes. Science will never prove it's existence.

there is already plenty of evidence that there is no afterlife or "soul."

first of all, we know that a person cannot live without his brain. death of the brain = death of the person.

secondly, and more importantly, partially nonfunctioning brains yield extremely weird results that cannot be explained by the presence of an immaterial "soul."

take mentally ******** people for example. if an afterlife exists, how would they experience it? would they continue to be mentally ******** or would they become normal? if they remain mentally ******** in the afterlife, then why can we point out correlations between their brains being damaged and their mental deficiencies? if, on the other hand, they are normal in the afterlife, how do they experience life while alive? do they think perfectly lucidly, yet are trapped acting ********? neither case makes any sense.

another example, take people with multiple personality disorder. what happens to them in the afterlife? does their soul have many distinct personas, or is it multiple souls inhabiting one body? again, neither case makes sense.

then there are even more odd examples, like the case of phineas gage, a railroad worker who went through an immense personality change after suffering brain damage. did the real phineas gage die while a fresh new soul took over his body? or did his soul somehow change along with his brain?

when discussing "souls," theists never take these extreme cases into account. their arguments always fall on the assumptions that everybody is a normal, mentally healthy human. the reason is clear; "souls" are powerless to explain these odd cases, but they are perfectly concordant with the personality being solely a function of the physical brain.

2) I can't, I agree. I like the idea of good people going to a paradise while bad people rot for eternity, though. You guys seem to think when I say could, or can, or any other word that represents a possibility, you think I mean it as a definite thing. Not true. I said "probably in heaven or hell.", not "if there is an after-life then you're in heaven or hell."

who gets to define "good" or "bad?" to a christian, anybody who isnt also a christian goes to hell.

 

[Duke]

1. You really know NOTHING about the afterlife or how it all works. I decided to post before someone else said somethign stupid.
2. Ok to start it off, YOUR SOUL IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THEN YOUR BODY! You brain is apart of your body, do you expect that your brain will follow your soul while the rest of your body stays down on earth?! It is only the soul that goes into the spirit world.
3. I know several people who were pronounced dead, not "well their brain was slightly functioning and it was hullicinating" they were fully dead but were then brought back to life. They say the saw an afterlife and all of their descriptions matched perfectly. I know all of these people personally, it wasn't on TV.
4. I'm going to stop using this anoying numeric system.

Why do you think that the earthly body, brain and personality is the same as the spirit. Our spirit is hardly related to our earthly personality (or multiple personalities). Stop talking, snex, before you make yourself sound stupid. Why do you think a mentally ******** person would experience spirit world any differently, or a person with multiple personalities, or someone else that is 'extreme'. It really shows how naive you are on the subject. And I have a request, I see you bringing up SEVERAL times that Christianity is the biggest source of killing or whatever because people die in the name of God. Since you are claiming this then I would like proof of this.

Answering to your "good" or "bad" question: Everyone will have an equal oportunity to learn and accept the gospel. Obviously, you know right from wrong because you know that murdering someone would be bad; its not that Christians are good everyone else is going to hell. Well, way to go snex you REALLY did a good job on disproving the afterlife.

 

[snex]

1. You really know NOTHING about the afterlife or how it all works. I decided to post before someone else said somethign stupid.

hilarious! as if you or anybody else were an expert on the afterlife!

2. Ok to start it off, YOUR SOUL IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THEN YOUR BODY! You brain is apart of your body, do you expect that your brain will follow your soul while the rest of your body stays down on earth?! It is only the soul that goes into the spirit world.

im not interested in what a soul ISNT, im interested in what a soul IS. if its not your conscious experience, then what is it?

3. I know several people who were pronounced dead, not "well their brain was slightly functioning and it was hullicinating" they were fully dead but were then brought back to life. They say the saw an afterlife and all of their descriptions matched perfectly. I know all of these people personally, it wasn't on TV.

clinical death is announced when the heart stops beating. actual death does not occur until the brain is deprived of oxygen. it is perfectly possible to have the heart not beating for up to several minutes before the brain dies. and, since the heart is what supplies oxygen to the brain, the lack of a heartbeat deprives the brain of oxygen, which causes it to hallucinate. none of these phenomena are mysterious to scientists, and in fact they can be induced by stimulating certain parts of the brain with electrodes.

Why do you think that the earthly body, brain and personality is the same as the spirit. Our spirit is hardly related to our earthly personality (or multiple personalities). Stop talking, snex, before you make yourself sound stupid. Why do you think a mentally ******** person would experience spirit world any differently, or a person with multiple personalities, or someone else that is 'extreme'. It really shows how naive you are on the subject.

your hostile tone and inability to actually tell us what a soul IS instead of what it ISNT shows that you really have no idea either.

im asking perfectly normal questions that demand explanation if we are to accept the existence of an afterlife. admit it, you got nothing.

And I have a request, I see you bringing up SEVERAL times that Christianity is the biggest source of killing or whatever because people die in the name of God. Since you are claiming this then I would like proof of this.

provide evidence of me doing this or retract the claim.

Answering to your "good" or "bad" question: Everyone will have an equal oportunity to learn and accept the gospel. Obviously, you know right from wrong because you know that murdering someone would be bad; its not that Christians are good everyone else is going to hell. Well, way to go snex you REALLY did a good job on disproving the afterlife.

equal opportunity huh? what opportunity did the native americans have prior to 1492? unless you accept the heretical (according to mainstream christianity) and completely unevidenced book of mormon, then they had none. what about tribal africans? indonesians? malaysians? aboriginies?

even if these people DO get exposed to the gospel, why should they accept it? their culture already has its own beliefs, and the gospel is heretical to their gods. theyd be foolish to **** themselves to their own culture's hell by accepting your religion.

also, murdering is wrong because of its consequences. not accepting the gospel has no noticeable bad consequences. the problem here is that you think YOUR particular religion has a monopoly on right and wrong. hate to tell you, it has no such thing. right and wrong are a lot more complex than what you read in some "holy" book.

by the way, youre a catholic right? well many denominations of christianity think that YOU are going to hell for false idol worship. what do you think about that, eh?

face it duke, you have not a single shred of evidence for any of your claims.

 

[Eor]

Duke is actually Mormom, although in reality the sentence remains the same about idol worship

 

[snex]

ah, confused him with somebody else.

in any case, no matter what denomination of christianity somebody is, some other denomination thinks theyre going to hell. theres really no avoiding it. depending on who you ask, we are ALL going to hell.

clearly morality is not dictated by any religion.

 

[Duke]

hilarious! as if you or anybody else were an expert on the afterlife!

I would be probably the best person to ask here. If you weren't asking me, who knows the answer, then who were you asking it to?

im not interested in what a soul ISNT, im interested in what a soul IS. if its not your conscious experience, then what is it?

Nothing I have to say will satisfy your question because it is just church doctrine and you don't believe it.

clinical death is announced when the heart stops beating. actual death does not occur until the brain is deprived of oxygen. it is perfectly possible to have the heart not beating for up to several minutes before the brain dies. and, since the heart is what supplies oxygen to the brain, the lack of a heartbeat deprives the brain of oxygen, which causes it to hallucinate. none of these phenomena are mysterious to scientists, and in fact they can be induced by stimulating certain parts of the brain with electrodes.

And you think not only the five people I know but the HUNDREDS who have died and seen this exact same 'hallucination' are not related at all.

your hostile tone and inability to actually tell us what a soul IS instead of what it ISNT shows that you really have no idea either.

You didn't ask what a soul is in the post I was responding to. All you did was list a bunch of made up stuff and assumptions on a subject that you really know nothing about and really have no desire to learn about.

im asking perfectly normal questions that demand explanation if we are to accept the existence of an afterlife. admit it, you got nothing.

Again, nothing that would satisfy you. Obviously, billions of people have felt it and accepted it.

provide evidence of me doing this or retract the claim.

Yes, proof or retract the claim.

equal opportunity huh? what opportunity did the native americans have prior to 1492? unless you accept the heretical (according to mainstream christianity) and completely unevidenced book of mormon, then they had none. what about tribal africans? indonesians? malaysians? aboriginies?

even if these people DO get exposed to the gospel, why should they accept it? their culture already has its own beliefs, and the gospel is heretical to their gods. theyd be foolish to **** themselves to their own culture's hell by accepting your religion.

If they don't learn on this earth then they will have oportunities to be taught in the spirit world. But unfortunately for you, you don't believe in this so to you it looks like earth is the only chance you got to accept God. I know you don't like to believe it but God is a God of love and he gives everyone an opportunity to accept the gospel, yes even the tribal africans, indonesians, malaysians and aboriginies.

also, murdering is wrong because of its consequences. not accepting the gospel has no noticeable bad consequences. the problem here is that you think YOUR particular religion has a monopoly on right and wrong. hate to tell you, it has no such thing. right and wrong are a lot more complex than what you read in some "holy" book.

You have got to be kidding me, so if it wasn't against the law to murdering then you think no one would feel guilty about doing it. When did I ever say my particular religion has a monopoly on right and wrong. Did you not read my last post, I clearly state that we do not believe this.

by the way, youre a catholic right? well many denominations of christianity think that YOU are going to hell for false idol worship. what do you think about that, eh?

face it duke, you have not a single shred of evidence for any of your claims.

Nope, I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. And if we argue so much about the Bible I don't see why we can't argue about the Book of Mormon. It has a better history than the Bible does, and I guarantee you won't find any contradictions. Good try though for pulling the Catholic and every Christian Church thinks they are going to hell. Let me tell you, I am of a denomination that is not Catholic and my church doesn't believe they will all go to hell for idol worship.

 

[Duke]

Duke is actually Mormom, although in reality the sentence remains the same about idol worship

Sigh, what now? What do you think Mormons believe in so that I can tell you the truth. I'll get the big on out of the way, no we do not worship Mormon or Joseph Smith; we rever these great men but not worship.

 

[snex]

no point in even responding to duke point by point. he is merely making assertions that he cant back up without resorting to "holy" books that he further cant back up.

let me know when duke has some evidence for any of his garbage. until then, ill just stop reading his posts and replying to the people that are actually interested in debating.

 

[Eor]

Sigh, what now? What do you think Mormons believe in so that I can tell you the truth. I'll get the big on out of the way, no we do not worship Mormon or Joseph Smith; we rever these great men but not worship.

I wasn't saying that Mormon's were "idol worshippers", just that several of the larger christian denominations label you as one. To those sects, you are all going to hell.

Although, just for my own personall information, Do you believe that when you die, you become a god of a planet? Or that Jesus went to Native America and met giant (or speaking, can't remember) lizards? I have heard those before, but only from extreme catholics and baptists, so I didn't know if that was true or someone made up.

 

[Duke]

Not up to disproving the Book of Mormon? Too bad you can't.

Snex, please describe to me what salt taste like without using the word salt. I know you won't but please just try to surprise me and actually respond. I have seen you fight against the Bible like a hungry lion; why can't you do that with the Book of Mormon? While we are talking about evidence here, you still haven't fulfilled all of my request for evidence; oh and if you want a real scientist insight on the second law of thermodynamics then search google "second law of thermodynamics and evolution". And come back here when you have read all 2,910,000 site on it then stop complaining that disorganization does not affect evolution.

 

[blazedaces]

You have got to be kidding me, so if it wasn't against the law to murdering then you think no one would feel guilty about doing it. When did I ever say my particular religion has a monopoly on right and wrong. Did you not read my last post, I clearly state that we do not believe this.

He didn't say it had anything to do with the law, he said there are consequences to those actions. If someone didn't tell you what was right and what was wrong you actually wouldn't know. You're in total loss and it drives me crazy. Understanding that your actions have consequences without the excuse of abiding by some mythical holy set of rules or any other one is the difference between our religion.

Please tell us this "story" everyone seems to come up with... light at the end of the tunnel?

 

[snex]

this is my last post to duke until he offers evidence for ANY of his claims:

duke its not up to me to disprove your nonsense holy books. since you declare them to be the truth, it is YOU that needs to prove them.

you have shown immense disrespect in this thread for both the users here and for the truth. you think that you have a special status here. you think that you and you alone get to make claims without having to defend them.

you are WRONG. this is not a shouting match. it is a debate where no claim is sacred. all must be defended. you are NOT special. and if you continue to act this way i will simply have to request that you be removed from posting here since you cannot respect the proper way to debate.

 

[Duke]

I wasn't saying that Mormon's were "idol worshippers", just that several of the larger christian denominations label you as one. To those sects, you are all going to hell.

Although, just for my own personall information, Do you believe that when you die, you become a god of a planet? Or that Jesus went to Native America and met giant (or speaking, can't remember) lizards? I have heard those before, but only from extreme catholics and baptists, so I didn't know if that was true or someone made up.

If you are truly interesting go to Lds.org. Jesus did visit the Native Americans after He was ressurected but the part that he met a giant speaking lizard is not true. About the God thing, that is some very deep stuff and its usually not my favored topic of discussion to someone who doesn't even know the basic doctrines of the church. But in short yes we believe that if we are rightous that we will become Gods and have the opportunity create worlds without end and such. But its not like, haha since I am mormon and your not I get to be a God and you don't. You will a fair opportunity to become a God. And its not even a guarantee that if you are mormon than you are automatically going to become a God. I have two questions for you: What do you do for a living? If God is a God of love and kindness and all Christian churchs are taught to love our fellow man and follow in Jesus' example then where did your little catholic and baptists friends get their feelings about my church?

EDIT: The reason why you have to disprove the Book of Mormon (I'm not asking much just do what you do with the Bible) is becaues Joseph Smith saw God and His son Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith is a phrophet of God and he, through the power of God, translated the Book of Mormon from a written language used by ancient prophets. There is no way it could have been translated without the power of God so if you find contradictions in the Book of Mormon than obviously Joseph Smith did not see God.

 

[Deleted member]

Snex, I am impressed and also shocked at your response to my last post. You ditched your normal factual, scientific way of analyzing an arguement and traded it for a philosophical way and answered my statements with more questions, which I thought were interesting.

For 1) Seeing as how you are not taking actual facts as evidence this time, but rather observations on the human mind and retardedness, you won't mind if I bring up the topic of séances, right? Many have been documented and they seem to show proof of an after-life.

Let's say for arguement's sake, that there was an after-life. I imagine, if a person was "good" * and went to a heaven, I'd argue that they would be purged of all their malign symptoms / diseases whatever, including ***********. So hopefully, Terri Schiavo is "healthy" again.

2) * Most philosophers would agree if I said that a "good" person depends on the context. God gave us free will, or so I will say, and we decide our morales. Let me give you an example.

I'm from Canada, and our first Prime Minister had a wife that was < 15 years old. At the time, it seemed perfectly normal, and STILL was a "good" person. (He helped found our great nation) But in current day, he could be viewed as a pervert. In my opinion, if molesting 5 year olds was acceptable at one point in time, those molesters would still be seen as "good" people, and I bet would go to a Heaven. Sorry if that is an extreme example.

But then again, who knows what you conscience would make you feel. Or maybe it's that our society impacts and influences our conscience so greatly we can't seem to see molesting 5 year olds being acceptable in a society!



I don't condone molesting 5 year olds btw, because society says it's wrong.


Edit: Duke, MAYBE Joseph Smith made it all up.

 

[MikeMan445]

EDIT: The reason why you have to disprove the Book of Mormon (I'm not asking much just do what you do with the Bible) is becaues Joseph Smith saw God and His son Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith is a phrophet of God and he, through the power of God, translated the Book of Mormon from a written language used by ancient prophets. There is no way it could have been translated without the power of God so if you find contradictions in the Book of Mormon than obviously Joseph Smith did not see God.

We're getting waaaay off-topic here, but I feel I must interject.

Just what in the heck does that mean? Let's all go back to basics for a bit.

Snex asked you for proof, because, as I believe I have stated earlier, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You are making several claims:

1. You say there is a God.
2. You say he spoke to the people through prophets.
3. You say one of these prophets was Joseph Smith.
4. You say Smith translated these sayings from an ancient language.
5. You then base the foundation of your belief on this book, which came to you from a publishing company in Utah, which came to that publishing company from another publishing company, which came to that first publishing company (presumably) from one of Joseph Smith's followers, which, in turn, originated from the hands of Joseph Smith.

You don't see the problem with this?

You sort of get off-topic near the end of that last paragraph, but your first message is non-sensical. We need to prove the Book of Mormon isn't true because of a saying in the Book of Mormon?

Well, pardon my insolence and heresy, but here's the Book of McArdle. It was written by me, Mike McArdle, in the year 2006, on the 30th of March. It is the word of God handed down in an ancient language, which I have translated with the help of the Holy God.

Here. Take it.

What? You say that's silly? Why?

It's the very same claim Joseph Smith made.


You see, now, why the burden of proof lies on you for getting the world to accept your claims?

Edit: In response to the post above me.

For 1) Seeing as how you are not taking actual facts as evidence this time, but rather observations on the human mind and retardedness, you won't mind if I bring up the topic of séances, right? Many have been documented and they seem to show proof of an after-life.

Séances show no proof of any afterlife whatsoever.

Let's say for arguement's sake, that there was an after-life. I imagine, if a person was "good" * and went to a heaven, I'd argue that they would be purged of all their malign symptoms / diseases whatever, including ***********. So hopefully, Terri Schiavo is "healthy" again.

If someone is ******** from birth, and then, when they die, has the capability of being "purged" of his/her ***********, that presupposes that there was a normal, healthy person inside that shattered mind, just waiting to be let out. While a romantic notion, there is absolutely no evidence that even remotely supports that supposition.

I'm from Canada, and our first Prime Minister had a wife that was < 15 years old. At the time, it seemed perfectly normal, and STILL was a "good" person. (He helped found our great nation) But in current day, he could be viewed as a pervert. In my opinion, if molesting 5 year olds was acceptable at one point in time, those molesters would still be seen as "good" people, and I bet would go to a Heaven. Sorry if that is an extreme example.

Society cannot, by definition, provide us with reliable, concrete, concepts of good or evil. I need only mention Nazi Germany, pre-civil war America, or any other society throughout history that has fully condoned horrible brutality. For your conception of a God to make sense, he/she/it must offer reliable, hard and fast moral rules. Otherwise there is no point. Do you really believe in a God who would give, say, an Auschwitz death-camp scientist, leniency in heaven because "engineering death camps was an acceptable way of providing an income for oneself at that point in time and place"? Because, if you were wondering, it was an acceptable way.

I highly doubt you believe in such a God, and yet that is exactly the God you laid out in the post above.

 

[snex]

Snex, I am impressed and also shocked at your response to my last post. You ditched your normal factual, scientific way of analyzing an arguement and traded it for a philosophical way and answered my statements with more questions, which I thought were interesting.

on the contrary, questioning is the scientific way.

For 1) Seeing as how you are not taking actual facts as evidence this time, but rather observations on the human mind and retardedness, you won't mind if I bring up the topic of séances, right? Many have been documented and they seem to show proof of an after-life.

ever wonder why seances are always done in the dark? its so nobody sees the "medium" playing his tricks. i bet youve heard of harry houdini, the magician. everybody has. but what i bet you didnt know was that he was also one of the founders of the modern skeptic movement, and one of his biggest hobbies was attending seances in disguise to expose the frauds perpetrated by the mediums.

houdini's book, "the miracle mongers, an expose" is available for download for free here.

many others followed in his footsteps, most notably james randi and penn & teller.

you should definitely look at their work. as magicians, they are experts on how people are fooled, and they know every trick of every psychic and medium out there.

Let's say for arguement's sake, that there was an after-life. I imagine, if a person was "good" * and went to a heaven, I'd argue that they would be purged of all their malign symptoms / diseases whatever, including ***********. So hopefully, Terri Schiavo is "healthy" again.

if thats the case, then is the person really THEM? would they be recognized by their friends and family? what about the other cases i mentioned, the multiple personalities and people with more rare symptoms? what about people with anterograde amnesia, or aphasia, or (i could give you a giant list of conditions if youd like)...

one other thing you should be aware of is that some people who suffer from temporal lobe epilepsy often associate deeply profound religious experiences with their epileptic seizures, and when the seizures are cured, the religiousness goes away with them. if they go to heaven, do they lose the religiousness that came with their epilepsy?

2) * Most philosophers would agree if I said that a "good" person depends on the context. God gave us free will, or so I will say, and we decide our morales. Let me give you an example.

I'm from Canada, and our first Prime Minister had a wife that was < 15 years old. At the time, it seemed perfectly normal, and STILL was a "good" person. (He helped found our great nation) But in current day, he could be viewed as a pervert. In my opinion, if molesting 5 year olds was acceptable at one point in time, those molesters would still be seen as "good" people, and I bet would go to a Heaven. Sorry if that is an extreme example.

But then again, who knows what you conscience would make you feel. Or maybe it's that our society impacts and influences our conscience so greatly we can't seem to see molesting 5 year olds being acceptable in a society!

even if we agree that its culturally contextual, there is clearly a problem. in muslim culture, for example, its ok to kill non-muslims and women under many circumstances. according to islam, they are being "good" by doing this. will they be rewarded?

 

[Duke]

Joseph Smith had a 4th grade reading and writting level. There are literary styles used in the Book of Mormon that Joseph Smith would have no way of knowing. There were witnesses that saw the plates that the writings were translated off of. I just don't understand why it is so hard to do, this has already been done with the Bible why can't you guys do it to the Book of Mormon?

 

[Deleted member]

Houdini: I'll check those links later, but in the mean time I'll stop talking about sceances as don't know much about them, that's why I brought it up, so you could teach me

After-life: Who knows.

Cultural context: I see the problem, and again, who knows.

I think we more or less agree on the cultural context sub-topic.

Btw I've read the Book of McArdle and I must say it is a fascinating read.

Also, science is more, "questioning and presenting cold, hard facts as evidence".
Philosophy is more, answering questions with other questions / thoughts, opinions, speculations.

 

[MikeMan445]

Joseph Smith had a 4th grade reading and writting level.

So it has been said by believers.

There are literary styles used in the Book of Mormon that Joseph Smith would have no way of knowing.

Who said he alone wrote it?

There were witnesses that saw the plates that the writings were translated off of.

So says the first couple of pages of the Book. What evidence do we have other than that?

Protip: don't use the book you're trying to defend as evidence for the book you're trying to defend.

I just don't understand why it is so hard to do, this has already been done with the Bible why can't you guys do it to the Book of Mormon?

Buddy, don't use the Bible as an example of a book that has been borne out by the evidence. I, as well as many others in this thread, and many thinkers across the world, and throughout history, have demonstrated that the Bible is a compilation of thousands of books and oral history traditions composed haphazardly in several languages and full of logical inconstancies and pure idiocy (Pi is exactly 3, anyone?). Sure it's a "great yarn," and one of the world's oldest and most interesting stories, but it's hardly an example of an internally consistent, verified narrative.

Edit:

Btw I've read the Book of McArdle and I must say it is a fascinating read.

Thanks. That God really has a way with words. I mean, uh, I have a way with words. I mean... that is to say, God has me have a way with...

You know what, forget it.

Oh, and judging by your name, I see you like Homestar Runner. Always nice to see a fellow fan.

 

[3.14159]

Catch-up

EDIT: The reason why you have to disprove the Book of Mormon (I'm not asking much just do what you do with the Bible) is becaues Joseph Smith saw God and His son Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith is a phrophet of God and he, through the power of God, translated the Book of Mormon from a written language used by ancient prophets. There is no way it could have been translated without the power of God so if you find contradictions in the Book of Mormon than obviously Joseph Smith did not see God.

I don't see any particular reason to believe in any self-validating book, but I'll try to get back to you on this anyway.

Joseph Smith had a 4th grade reading and writting level. There are literary styles used in the Book of Mormon that Joseph Smith would have no way of knowing. There were witnesses that saw the plates that the writings were translated off of. I just don't understand why it is so hard to do, this has already been done with the Bible why can't you guys do it to the Book of Mormon?

Did any of your witnesses have accounts of these happenings written in something other than the Book of Mormon?

where did your little catholic and baptists friends get their feelings about my church

From psychotic fundamentalists like Jimmy Falwell who think that everything other than biblical fundamentalism is an evil cult of people deceived by Satan.

Pi is exactly 3, anyone?

I'm exactly 3 what?

 

[snex]

I'm exactly 3 what?

2 Kings 7:23

 

[Duke]

I don't see any particular reason to believe in any self-validating book, but I'll try to get back to you on this anyway.



Did any of your witnesses have accounts of these happenings written in something other than the Book of Mormon?



From psychotic fundamentalists like Jimmy Falwell who think that everything other than biblical fundamentalism is an evil cult of people deceived by Satan.


I'm exactly 3 what?

This is the testimony of the three witnesses this was not originally written in the Book of Mormon but it was later put into it.

THE TESTIMONY OF THREE WITNESSES

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.


OLIVER COWDERY
DAVID WHITMER
MARTIN HARRIS


Here is the testimony of the eight witnesses:

THE TESTIMONY OF EIGHT WITNESSES

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

CHRISTIAN WHITMER
JACOB WHITMER
PETER WHITMER, JUN.
JOHN WHITMER
HIRAM PAGE
JOSEPH SMITH, SEN.
HYRUM SMITH
SAMUEL H. SMITH

The testimony of Joseph Smith

You can also read the whole Book of Mormon online: The Book of Mormon

You can also read the other scriptures online too: Standard Works

 

[Deleted member]

Yes, my handle is a very obscure HSR reference.
If I have something useful to say I'll edit this post D:

I noticed that you edited your post above, Mike
In response to it, I'd say more or less that it's the general consensus of the area. For example, North America, like the States + Canada, are mostly "good" people.. the kind of person that pays his taxes, mows his lawn, goes to work, or maybe they don't have a lawn to mow, but at least they are nice and make people feel happy. I'd say there is a majority there. If you disagree, then that's.. kind of disappointing.

Let me continue, it's kind of hard to explain. Hitler's systematic extermination was NOT a consensus of Germany, or Europe, or even the world. He had power, and he abused it. Agreed?
If molesting 5 year olds was a common thing to do in North America, you wouldn't question it as bad.

 

[blazedaces]

Hitler's systematic extermination was NOT a consensus of Germany, or Europe, or even the world. He had power, and he abused it. Agreed?
If molesting 5 year olds was a common thing to do in North America, you wouldn't question it as bad.

It was most definitly a concencus amongst at least Germany at the time.

I know you're a complete sheep, but I would most definitly question the morality of molesting a 5-year regardless of its acceptance in my community. Perhaps I'm one more prone to questioning that which makes little sense to me, for that I am sure, but it doesn't change the fact that I disagree that morals are relative to any degree.

 

[Duke]

It was most definitly a concencus amongst at least Germany at the time.

I know you're a complete sheep, but I would most definitly question the morality of molesting a 5-year regardless of its acceptance in my community. Perhaps I'm one more prone to questioning that which makes little sense to me, for that I am sure, but it doesn't change the fact that I disagree that morals are relative to any degree.

What about the people getting killed? They knew what hitler was doing was bad.

 

[blazedaces]

What about the people getting killed? They knew what hitler was doing was bad.

What in the frekin world does that have to do with anything?! I don't think you quite grasp what the Holocaust actually was: armies of men all killing and killing and killing and burning and torturing and experimenting on Jews. 6 million Jews were killed within a few years. I don't think so much utter insanity could have withstood itself if it wasn't a concencus at the time.

This is the case with most genocides ever conducted. I don't think the Native Americans agreed with what happened when Americans first started selling their skinned heads, but it was indeed a concencus among the people of the time.

Being a slave-owner was considered right no more then 100 years ago and I don't think many of the black people agreed with this position, but it doesn't change the fact that it was a concencus among the people of the time.

There are countless examples where it's obvious these things are wrong, morals are not relative to time or society.

 

[snex]

see here and here if you think that the average joe in germany couldnt be persuaded to participate in the holocaust.

the human psyche is a lot more fragile than you give it credit for. you say now that killing is evil and wrong, but how sure are you that you couldnt be driven into bloodlust the same way the average german was? our current attitude towards muslims (and theirs towards us as well) seems to be degrading into exactly the kind of thing that promotes this kind of runaway evil. its already started with places like guantanamo and abu ghraib.

i hate to violate godwin's law like this, but it really is the way nazi germany spun so far out of control. all it takes is one charismatic leader to push us over the brink, and in 50 years people will wonder how it could have come to that.