The point I'm trying to make is that if God has an absolute morality, then he shouldn't have had a problem telling people the truth about slavery, especially considering that he was revealing himself so they would know that he exists for a fact.
It was already hard enough to people to understand that there's God who has all the authority over them. Do recall the history of Israeli while they were in the desert travelling to the promised land. There was even a doubt whether it was true that God is with them, even despite of Him leading the nation through, and proving His existance every single day. Now imagine, that such a nation is given the ultimate morale at once - they will not accept it, because they were not ready for such a revelation. (Even we are not ready I expect.) So it is normal that God does reveal more of the ultimate morale while time passes and society matures.
However, if morality really is subjective to what people believe, then it would make sense for made-up gods to believe in something that we no longer accept.
Morality is not subjective to beliefs, the main case is that humanity is not a single society, and different parts of it are capable of accepting the morality at different levels. So here the answer is no.
It doesn't matter if women have more equal rights nowadays; God still thinks they should remain silent in church and that they should submit to their husbands.
Oh well, patriarchate as the way to run a family still exists and is viable in general. And "equal rights" should not mean "equal gender representation", "equal wages" or "women must be able to apply anywhere". You have the right to remain silent. Everything you say might be used against you. Etc. Also, a woman is a hormone-ruled human, she can be naturally gullible at certain times, and unusually harsh at other times, which can be used against those who are under that woman's lead if she would be persuaded into making bad decisions. A man, otherwise, has only one strict position and is more conforming in holding the general course of development, because he is not hormone-dependant in the way a woman is, that's why a man should rule the family, and take responsibility for it.
Blindly and willingly; we have no reason to believe in God.
I'll leave you be, then. You will either start to believe, or not.
Hypothetically, what if the civil war had never happened, and slavery actually spread throughout America?
What-if-false and IMHO makes ridicule. See 3 above.
I've never seen any evidence of him, and it seems to me that you can attribute anything good to God if you really wanted to believe that. Doesn't it make more sense to not assume that it was God until you have some sort of reason to think it was God?
You seem to be using Occam's principle here, holding the razor wrong side up. Tell me please, what is "random", "chance" and "incident" ("accident"
? (I'm asking how do you explain luck and how come some people get good events happening, and some get bad, and
why - this one is necessary.)
Maybe you believe that the Old Testament laws are laws we've outgrown, but according to this passage:
You do really miss the point. A law remains, but loses area of application.
After the examples I've provided you have to ask?
Yes, since there are examples of greater trust in place that turn what you say "gullibility" into the only principle that makes the thing run. First, Abraham (and Israeli as a result). Second, there is a congregation of believers who don't make other living than what God's Providence will send, and they survive and prosper.
If your just believing without justification for something you consider even more important than what you would require hard evidence for, that just being even more foolish.
Rephrase please, I can't get this phrase for other than a set of words. Or maybe it's just I have the justification to believe in God, which you don't acknowledge as one.
I have read up on Fatima's events and we have already covered how much bunk it is.
You stated your personal opinion as a conclusion here. Your only argument is "Astronomers didn't see Sun actually moving, so all that happens there is blah-blah-blah." Which does not make the fact less true. And, I was bringing up Fatima for those who haven't been following us through this entire dialogue.
Even though the brainwashing answer is a completely valid one, we'll steer clear of that.
It might be valid but it's not always true. I have come to belief in God by my own, without any "brainwashing", I have used my own brain without any interference to understand that there is God.
What better way to find out the truth than to be skeptical of all the options?
"All" options you say? So far no one was skeptical about his own sanity, maybe you shuold try?
Atheism doesn't hold any absolute morals or make claims, which is why it doesn't get the same amount of skepticism.
Atheism makes at least one claim, that is, all who believe in God, or gods, are wrong. And atheists use this claim as a null hypothesis without any given means to counter it. And for some reason the existance of this null hypothesis is treated as an axiom.
if the questions we are posing are just "desperate attacks to cripple your faith" that have no validity, then you should have no problem providing the justification.
It is enough to provide the reason to make the question void, in some cases when it is so. But many do ask for justification while asking void questions.
Just because you believe something doesn't make it real. So just because you believe it doesn't make it so when you die.
Unless it was true from the very beginning. but this is the thing you can't be sure of, as it resides in the plane where mortal logic can't be applied properly.
Some people are Christians.
All Christians practice Christianity.
People are indivisible from their actions.
Person X hates Christianity.
Person X hates all Christians.
The third statement seems to be wrong, there are things that make people do offenses while them being divided from those actions, say hypnosis, misinformation or despair (and going nuts, if speaking extremes). So, the last conclusion becomes wrong here. Otherwise this could be applies to any other systems of belief, be it science or FSM, or even atheism.
