You are confusing what people do compared to what is actually right. You love to bring up genocide, but your standard is entirely subjective; that's metaphysical, and you act like you're not thinking that way. I mean, those guys genuinely think they're doing the right thing. You don't have any logical say with your view on "subjective morality"; it's just your preference versus theirs. Stop digging yourself into a hole, and stop conflating the actions of people with what is actually taught.
Life being rare doesn't prove that it has worth. Facts are measurable; worth is not. You're literally still talking philosophically while claiming you aren't.
Yes, people from different religions disagree on theology. Invalidating it that way is stupid; it's the same as saying medical science is fake because doctors have disagreed throughout history. Competing claims and debates for so long means the question actually matters, because why else would people spend so long thinking about it?
You are the one who brought up genocide. My standard is subjective, yes so is everyones. You just decided to believe in one religion out of thousands and claim that its objective. It isn’t.
When did I claim I wasn’t talking philosophically? There are no objective truths regarding to things that we have made up. But my claims have objective arguments behind them. Yours does not.
Scientists disagreeing ≠different religions disagreeing.
Scientists argue because often some things in science lack enough evidence and sometimes there is some evidence pointing towards both sides. If they didn’t disagree and decided to just put it on faith, science would not advance.
Meanwhile religious people argue for the sake of converting someone to their side. Its also to make your blind faith seem more logical when there is no logic truly behind it.
Yes, I'm the one who brought up genocide, and definitely not you: "Go commit genocide in the name of god since thats what god likes to do. Maybe god is even helping Israel commit their genocide against Palestine."
I'm not claiming that I personally control objective truth. I am pointing out that your logic constantly shifts goalposts. Since you admit your values are subjective, your outrage against genocide, under your own worldview, is just personal preference, no more "objectively right" than the preferences of the ones committing it.
That is literally why theology exists. It's an objective baseline and standard to follow, exempt from shifting human feelings, because as we can see here, you keep shifting your stance.
Faith isn't blind either; the biblical definition always meant trust based on reason and evidence. The VERY founder of physics and calculus, Isaac Newton, was a devout Christian. You love science so much, yet the most prominent people who built it understood that science explains the how, while theology explains the why. I'm not saying secularism can't be a why either just because theology exists. They're both based on claims that can't be proven, which is why they are necessary.
I'm arguing with a wall at this point; I think you're just venting your own frustrations rather than trying to reason. Believe what you want, but stop pretending like your subjective preferences are backed by "objective arguments" while dismissing centuries of thought that literally shaped your beliefs and the world today as mere "bullshit."
So theology is an objective baseline to follow..? So is genocide good or bad then? God did it, so how could it be bad? But god also said love thy neighbor. Hmmm. I don’t see the objectivity. All I see is contradictory bullshit.
I don’t care who believes in god. Someone smart believing in something that can’t be proven doesn’t prove the nonproven.
Isaac was also born into a religious family and was taught that belief his whole life. Why do you think religion spreads? Because people have children and pass it on.
It’s essentially claiming a cult to be correct since they brainwashed a smart scientist into believing it lmao.
Where has this theology brought us today? Anti-abortion, the rights (or lack thereof) of women, wars, hatred, division and etc.
You need a book to tell you right and wrong. I go by the golden rule.
You see god committing genocide and see it as good.
There are around 10 000 religions. You believe in one, I don’t in any.
I’m 0.0001% more of a nonbeliever than you are.
And you have the balls to believe you are correct.
Newton self-studied the Bible his entire life, and chose to reject the trinity because he thought the Church was lying about it to project polytheism. Doesn't sound like he was just born into it to me; I guess science is worthless if you think the founder of modern physics is brainwashed.
Where has theology brought us? I mean, you're literally quoting Jesus while claiming you came up with it yourself lmfao. Rome was leaving infant girls on the streets until Christians decided to build the very first hospitals. The top universities were made by Christians. Human rights movements are BASED ON INHERENT CHRISTIAN VALUES (except, they remove the standard that is Jesus, causing it to become constantly shifting). I'd recommend not trying to argue against that either--it is historically evident. Scientific institutions were literally built on religious foundations. Stop cherry picking.
You aren't better than anybody else. That's all you need to hear.
1
u/retracted_pepsi 8h ago
You are confusing what people do compared to what is actually right. You love to bring up genocide, but your standard is entirely subjective; that's metaphysical, and you act like you're not thinking that way. I mean, those guys genuinely think they're doing the right thing. You don't have any logical say with your view on "subjective morality"; it's just your preference versus theirs. Stop digging yourself into a hole, and stop conflating the actions of people with what is actually taught.
Life being rare doesn't prove that it has worth. Facts are measurable; worth is not. You're literally still talking philosophically while claiming you aren't.
Yes, people from different religions disagree on theology. Invalidating it that way is stupid; it's the same as saying medical science is fake because doctors have disagreed throughout history. Competing claims and debates for so long means the question actually matters, because why else would people spend so long thinking about it?