Are you religious?

[Yoseph101]

Yes it is. By the standards that experts use to verify historical events, if this isn't true then nothing that we claim to know about our history is true.

The standards through which historical events are verified is through analysis of primary sources and quantifying aspects of the event (dating a piece of equipment). There are some aspects of the bible that can be verified, like the existence of the second temple. Jesus rising from the dead cannot be verified unless you can provide evidence that it has been. Now, that said, that doesn't mean Jesus didn't exist/rise from the dead. But as with nearly all aspects of religion conclusive proof (in the scientific sense) is elusive.

Using the bible as a source of literal truth is unreasonable. I have no doubt, that the bible contains a plethora of wisdom. But the bible has had many authors and has been retroactively changed hundreds of years after the fact.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Rob Biomed]

Just about every civilization and/or culture that has EVER lived on this planet has created god/gods to account for the things we do not understand.

I was raised Jewish, and as an agnostic/athiest I cannot help but resent it with a passion. I spent the first ~18 years of my life being told and believing in what is most certainly bull****. I believe that when you tell a child that there is an explanation as simple as the god of the bible to all of our most perplexing questions (of life, death, purpose, etc.), that is sucks most if not all of the child's imagination and curiosity from them. I say this from personal experience, as losing my religion was a mind-blowing experience in which I literally felt like I had awoken from a lifelong coma in which I never thought outside the box in the sense that maybe there is no god. Life is without a doubt beautiful, but people need to accept that certain aspects of it are unexplainable (for now, at least...I mean hey ancient civilizations had Gods of thunder and probably never thought we'd be able to explain that!)

Long story short, I do not rule out the possibility of God(s), other realities, etc., but I do not buy into ridiculous stories without logical proof. I think it is completely ignorant to follow these religions with all the knowledge that is available to us today. But hey, if you want to believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old and that you're going to hell if you begin to contemplate whether or not that man in the sky really exists...knock yourself out.

 

[Served]

I am not hoping this thread suddenly blossom into a debate about agnostics or the usual mundane things people bicker about. I just wanted to know who uses religious components in their life, whether it be reading religious texts recreationally or participate in a weekly service/worship/devotion. It does not matter what religion. You may specify if you like.

Personally, I try to be religious in my own life because that was how I was brought up. I often reflect and make a lot of my decisions based on the moral truths that religion has bred in me since I was a child. In my culture, we hold God firmly and attend services and worship. We communicate with our creator in a way that is very personal with us, in hopes that he will make us grow into a better person.

Anybody?

I thought this was Student Doctors Network, not Yahoo Answers.

 

[KnuxNole]

I thought this was Student Doctors Network, not Yahoo Answers.

That's just the Pre-allo section

 

[Yoseph101]

\
I believe that when you tell a child that there is an explanation as simple as the god of the bible to all of our most perplexing questions (of life, death, purpose, etc.), that is sucks most if not all of the child's imagination and curiosity from them.

Da Vinci, Galileo, Michelangelo, Copernicus and Newton were all raised in intensely religious environments. You could hardly call them unimaginative.

Religion is not a monolithic entity of repressiveness as it can be portrayed as. It has very negative aspects but also positive aspects.

 

[Blown Away]

Some seriously delusional people in this thread...

Makes me sick.

 

[Blown Away]

Da Vinci, Galileo, Michelangelo, Copernicus and Newton were all raised in intensely religious environments. You could hardly call them unimaginative.

Religion is not a monolithic entity of repressiveness as it can be portrayed as. It has very negative aspects but also positive aspects.

They started a revolution. Social pressures and institutionalization of religion, all played huge factors in them being religious. Life is more than hocus pocus and miracles, and they laid down the foundations for science to accelerate at such a rate to allow us the ability to realize the power of this universe. Religion is for the simple minded, the weak and the scared. Religion limits you to think in laymen terms and limits one's understanding by entrapping you in fairy tales. Science sends us to the moon, religion sends airplanes into buildings.

 

[911 Turbo]

They started a revolution. Social pressures and institutionalization of religion, all played huge factors in them being religious. Life is more than hocus pocus and miracles, and they laid down the foundations for science to accelerate at such a rate to allow us the ability to realize the power of this universe. Religion is for the simple minded, the weak and the scared. Religion limits you to think in laymen terms and limits one's understanding by entrapping you in fairy tales. Science sends us to the moon, religion sends airplanes into buildings.

 

[Dark Magician]

Science sends us to the moon, religion sends airplanes into buildings.

sure is edgy and generalizing around here.

I'm surprised OP expected a civil discussion.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Some seriously delusional people in this thread...

Makes me sick.

You know what makes it better? Irony.


Irony makes it better

 

[911 Turbo]

lol everyone loses in these kinds of threads... there's no point of replying anymore

 

[Tipp]

What evidence is there that Jesus was real? I honestly never heard any concrete scientific studies on this

I recommend the book "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. He was a journalist with the Chicago Tribune and he was an atheist. He interviewed expert physicists, historians, etc. and compiled the accounts into this book in order to disprove Christianity, but along the way he saw that the evidence pointed towards Jesus being who he said he was, rather than the opposite, and he became a Christian. Great book, very objective and allows you to look at the issues and make a decision for yourself as to what you think the evidence says.

 

[Narmerguy]

lol everyone loses in these kinds of threads... there's no point of replying anymore

Anymore? There's never been a point to replying to these threads since the internet was created. It admittedly took me about a year on SDN to realize that it was no different here.

 

[Barley426]

I recommend the book "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel....

For every person who claims to have been atheist and turned to "god" there are hundreds who did the opposite. Myself included.

Yes it is. By the standards that experts use to verify historical events, if this isn't true then nothing that we claim to know about our history is true. In which case we apparently know nothing about anything and this argument is useless.

This makes no sense, there is absolutely no evidence outside of the bible that Jesus rose from the dead. None.

I'd highly agree with Yoseph101 here:

The standards through which historical events are verified is through analysis of primary sources and quantifying aspects of the event (dating a piece of equipment). There are some aspects of the bible that can be verified, like the existence of the second temple. Jesus rising from the dead cannot be verified unless you can provide evidence that it has been. Now, that said, that doesn't mean Jesus didn't exist/rise from the dead. But as with nearly all aspects of religion conclusive proof (in the scientific sense) is elusive.

 

[coyotelime]

Just about every civilization and/or culture that has EVER lived on this planet has created god/gods to account for the things we do not understand.

I was raised Jewish, and as an agnostic/athiest I cannot help but resent it with a passion. I spent the first ~18 years of my life being told and believing in what is most certainly bull****. I believe that when you tell a child that there is an explanation as simple as the god of the bible to all of our most perplexing questions (of life, death, purpose, etc.), that is sucks most if not all of the child's imagination and curiosity from them. I say this from personal experience, as losing my religion was a mind-blowing experience in which I literally felt like I had awoken from a lifelong coma in which I never thought outside the box in the sense that maybe there is no god. Life is without a doubt beautiful, but people need to accept that certain aspects of it are unexplainable (for now, at least...I mean hey ancient civilizations had Gods of thunder and probably never thought we'd be able to explain that!)

Long story short, I do not rule out the possibility of God(s), other realities, etc., but I do not buy into ridiculous stories without logical proof. I think it is completely ignorant to follow these religions with all the knowledge that is available to us today. But hey, if you want to believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old and that you're going to hell if you begin to contemplate whether or not that man in the sky really exists...knock yourself out.

Well said. I can definitely relate. Minus the Jewish part

 

[SpecterGT260]

For every person who claims to have been atheist and turned to "god" there are hundreds who did the opposite. Myself included.:

Do you have data on this? Just curious.... I suspect that you are saying it because it seems the logical progression from your point of view only. This is why I mentioned irony earlier. Atheists attack theists based on lack of evidence and no data and yet make statements based on what they think is logic but is actually just intuition, the exact thing the religious use to make arguments.

 

[virtuoso735]

If this is true, then how do you explain Octomom, numerous single parent families we see on a daily basis, and the increased number of married people choosing NOT to have children? I know these numbers are more outliers, but they are still significant. Is our evolutionary response changing???

Evolutionary fitness refers to the quantity of your genes that you pass on to the next generation, or the amount of children you have. I don't see how people like the Octomom can be used to support your argument. It's probably too much to try to explain it all here, but the general idea is that you want to have as many children as possible to be as fit as possible. Men do not have to invest as much energy or time into producing offspring as women do. Therefore, it is in their best interest to mate with as many females as possible. Females, on the other hand, must invest much more into producing (and raising) their offspring. It is therefore in their best interest to choose their partners wisely. There is a struggle between the two strategies, and what we have as a result is a widely varying system of reproductive strategies. You can find different societies throughout human history that use divergent reproductive strategies, whether they are harems where the males mate with multiple females, to the more traditional monogamous partnerships.

It is also very important to note that evolution does not determine destiny. At some point in primate development, the human brain took off and developed mental capabilities beyond what was known before. After the development of such an advanced brain, the development of social structures arguably became a stronger force in human development (at least in terms of behavior) than evolutionary forces. As a result, you start seeing behavior that would not normally be seen as evolutionarily fit.

 

[virtuoso735]

I recommend the book "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. He was a journalist with the Chicago Tribune and he was an atheist. He interviewed expert physicists, historians, etc. and compiled the accounts into this book in order to disprove Christianity, but along the way he saw that the evidence pointed towards Jesus being who he said he was, rather than the opposite, and he became a Christian. Great book, very objective and allows you to look at the issues and make a decision for yourself as to what you think the evidence says.

I've read the book and there are so many holes in it that I might as well try to read a block of Swiss cheese. And how is the book objective? Strobel is also a CHRISTIAN trying to put across his agenda.

How about I recommend you read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins? Although it's not perfect, it's a much more scientifically accurate than Strobel's.

 

[Fivo]

I've seen so many threads moved or locked because they have nothing to do with the aspects of pre-allo. How are religious threads any different?

 

[circulus vitios]

No. My parents never talked about religion. I wasn't raised an atheist or a theist or anything in between, we just never talked about it. I've never found the need to believe in a god and I've always found it (and still find it) weird that people choose to believe in a god. Really, it makes me uncomfortable when people talk about god.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I've seen so many threads moved or locked because they have nothing to do with the aspects of pre-allo. How are religious threads any different?

The problem usually arises when people confuse the forum as a place for pre allo people to hang out rather than a place for people to discuss pre allo issues. This leads to random threads and some obnoxious idea that certain posters "belong" and others don't.

 

[Barley426]

Do you have data on this? Just curious.... I suspect that you are saying it because it seems the logical progression from your point of view only. This is why I mentioned irony earlier. Atheists attack theists based on lack of evidence and no data and yet make statements based on what they think is logic but is actually just intuition, the exact thing the religious use to make arguments.

Yes there is plenty of data to support this, on top of the logical reasoning. I can leave you with a few sources for I am short on time, but googling "Atheist vs Religious conversion statistics" will leave you with a plethora of information.

This link shows that atheism is growing while theism is decreasing, obviously the only way for this to happen in a short time period is for much more religious people to renounce than non-religious to become religious.

http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2012/05/30/is-atheism-increasing-at-the-expense-of-theism/

As far as actual conversions, here is one study that addresses this. Here you can see that the # of unaffiliated (atheist/agnostic) to affiliated (openly religious, any religion) is a mere 4%, just the protestant and catholic conversion to unaffiliated is 11%. This doesn't include christianity as a whole, let alone all other religions.

http://www.pewforum.org/faith-in-flux.aspx

These are just a couple quick studies, there are plenty more as I hinted to earlier. I'm too busy (and tired) to provide a thorough list.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Yes there is plenty of data to support this, on top of the logical reasoning. I can leave you with a few sources for I am short on time, but googling "Atheist vs Religious conversion statistics" will leave you with a plethora of information.

This link shows that atheism is growing while theism is decreasing, obviously the only way for this to happen in a short time period is for much more religious people to renounce than non-religious to become religious.

http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2012/05/30/is-atheism-increasing-at-the-expense-of-theism/

As far as actual conversions, here is one study that addresses this. Here you can see that the # of unaffiliated (atheist/agnostic) to affiliated (openly religious, any religion) is a mere 4%, just the protestant and catholic conversion to unaffiliated is 11%. This doesn't include christianity as a whole, let alone all other religions.

http://www.pewforum.org/faith-in-flux.aspx

These are just a couple quick studies, there are plenty more as I hinted to earlier. I'm too busy (and tired) to provide a thorough list.

You're making my point for me

Hint: you seem to think that I was telling you that you were wrong. That wasn't my point.

 

[BigBear123]

no. My parents never talked about religion. I wasn't raised an atheist or a theist or anything in between, we just never talked about it. I've never found the need to believe in a god and i've always found it (and still find it) weird that people choose to believe in a god. Really, it makes me uncomfortable when people talk about god.

+1

 

[SpecterGT260]

And... To Catholics ALL non Catholics are Protestant. That is a "by definition" thing. That brings me to another point: atheists who don't understand religious structure who try to interpret data and fail

You said there was a 1 to "hundreds" ratio. That study gives it more around a 1:2 and some change

 

[BA11]

I believe in God but am not what many would consider "religious", as least not the caricature that many who don't believe in God use to label those of us who do.

I think organized religion does more harm than good in many instances and a personal relationship with God is far more important than going to church every week.

 

[Conflagration]

Now that the cursory meme is out of the way...

You keep reiterating it, but keep in mind I have a liberal arts background, where one is often urged to think critically about everything, despite their viewpoint.

Congrats, so does every four year college graduate. I fail to see how this bolsters your ethos, but do what you please...

I'm agnostic, I've tried quite a few times to be religious, to no avail. My morality is based on common courtesy and common sense. If other people want to believe in religions, as long as they are not infringing on the rights of other people, it's no skin off of my nose.

 

[La Presse]

Congrats, so does every four year college graduate. I fail to see how this bolsters your ethos, but do what you please...

Not even close....

 

[Barley426]

And... To Catholics ALL non Catholics are Protestant. That is a "by definition" thing. That brings me to another point: atheists who don't understand religious structure who try to interpret data and fail

You said there was a 1 to "hundreds" ratio. That study gives it more around a 1:2 and some change

Catholics may see it that way, but even so that's only Christian, not counting all other religions. So that 1:2.75 would likely increase much higher, but thats not the 1:100 that I was speaking of. I was talking about religious->atheist vs atheist->religious. This data is somewhat similar and is affiliated ->unaffiliated vs unaffiliated->affiliated, the key difference is unaffiliated includes atheists and agnostics. Agnostics are more likely to go (or go back) to religion since they are less firmly planted in their non-belief as atheists, which is why I said 1:100.

You're making my point for me

Hint: you seem to think that I was telling you that you were wrong. That wasn't my point.

I know what you're getting at, but I just wanted to show you that my statements are not purely speculation or only logical deductions, they may have been a generalization or exaggeration of the real numbers, but the real numbers are out there to support my off the cuff statement.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Catholics may see it that way, but even so that's only Christian, not counting all other religions. So that 1:2.75 would likely increase much higher, but thats not the 1:100 that I was speaking of. I was talking about religious->atheist vs atheist->religious. This data is somewhat similar and is affiliated ->unaffiliated vs unaffiliated->affiliated, the key difference is unaffiliated includes atheists and agnostics. Agnostics are more likely to go (or go back) to religion since they are less firmly planted in their non-belief as atheists, which is why I said 1:100.



I know what you're getting at, but I just wanted to show you that my statements are not purely speculation or only logical deductions, they may have been a generalization or exaggeration of the real numbers, but the real numbers are out there to support my off the cuff statement.

Yes it is having the correct answer in the same vector quadrant as your statement doesnt make you correct. I asked for numbers just to ensure that you are not guilty of what you scorn in the religious. Per your own input you are logarithmically off from the right answer unless you make "leaps of faith" concerning the observations you think you are applying logic to it but how is that any different from a religious person fitting the data to their own pre conceived notions? Including all forms of Christianity and atheists as that study attempts to do we have covered most of the population. Hindus aren't exactly a major demographic here relatively. You still won't get to half the figure you quoted (I suspect) if you throw other religions in.... also is bet you can fins data that members of those other faiths drop out at a very reduced rate compared to white Christians. There are stronger cultural ties for many


And this doesn't even begin to address the bigger question of "so what". Does religious flux determine anything here? Is "god" however anyone wants to interpret him a peter pan fairy that only exists if we believe and clap our hands? These arguments about the intellectual and %faithful always end at making literally no point relevant to the debate.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[487806]

I join the battle! Yep.. you're wrong.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I join the battle! Yep.. your wrong.

You're*

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[Barley426]

You're missing the point entirely, simply trying to argue semantics here and I really don't care anyway. I was just pointing out that his anecdotal "this person converted, read his book" is inconsequential when many more make the exact opposite conversion.

That's the important thing here, more go the other way, not my 1 to hundred statement. There is plenty of data to back that up, I picked two quick examples. You want to say I didn't pull my (admittedly) off the cuff number directly from a research paper, oh golly you got me. Pardon me for not having all numbers and sources and statistical tests for a simple statement ready to go while I post a quick rebuttal on anonymous internet forum where the opposition won't consider my points anyway.

 

[SpecterGT260]

You're missing the point entirely, simply trying to argue semantics here and I really don't care anyway. I was just pointing out that his anecdotal "this person converted, read his book" is inconsequential when many more make the exact opposite conversion.

That's the important thing here, more go the other way, not my 1 to hundred statement. There is plenty of data to back that up, I picked two quick examples. You want to say I didn't pull my (admittedly) off the cuff number directly from a research paper, oh golly you got me. Pardon me for not having all numbers and sources and statistical tests for a simple statement ready to go while I post a quick rebuttal on anonymous internet forum where the opposition won't consider my points anyway.

I was the one who made the point... how can I be missing it. If you are making a separate point fine. By definition that is still you missing my point. My point was a stand alone statement. I'm not terribly interested in what that other poster said in the first place

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[Yoseph101]

They started a revolution. Social pressures and institutionalization of religion, all played huge factors in them being religious.

Perhaps. Newton for certain thought intensely and critically about what actually believed

Religion is for the simple minded, the weak and the scared. Religion limits you to think in laymen terms and limits one's understanding by entrapping you in fairy tales. .

Every religious person you've met has been simple minded, weak and scared? Every non religious person has been smart, strong and fearless?

Science sends us to the moon, religion sends airplanes into buildings.

Science has also sent us the nuclear weapon, eugenics and has lead us to experiment on other human beings.

Arguing that something is universally good or universally bad on the actions of some is not right.

I've met many people who have had their lives positively influenced by religion either through charity or else finding a place where they felt they belonged. My own family very much benefited from a Jewish charity when we emigrated. That said, I've met many people who have hated the repressiveness and guilt they received from religion. As with everything else in life Religion (and science for that matter) are not black and white affairs.

 

[Rob Biomed]

I'm agnostic, I've tried quite a few times to be religious, to no avail. My morality is based on common courtesy and common sense. If other people want to believe in religions, as long as they are not infringing on the rights of other people, it's no skin off of my nose.

Look at how many astoundingly ignorant fundamentalist christians there are within our political system and tell me they do not infringe on our rights. They live by a book that we don't all agree with, and their beliefs without a doubt affect their work.

Take Todd Akin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin_'legitimate_rape'_and_pregnancy_comment_controversy) or Paul Broun (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...broun-evolution-hell-20121007,0,4628858.story), for instance.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Look at how many astoundingly ignorant fundamentalist christians there are within our political system and tell me they do not infringe on our rights. They live by a book that we don't all agree with, and their beliefs without a doubt affect their work.

Take Todd Akin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin_'legitimate_rape'_and_pregnancy_comment_controversy) or Paul Broun (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...broun-evolution-hell-20121007,0,4628858.story), for instance.

True..... what is your point? Per the content of his post such individuals do not satisfy criteria for "no skin". I see no discrepancy here. Are you saying religious people should be actively combatted or denied positions/jobs and that his complacency with non interfering religious people is misguided?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[Conflagration]

Look at how many astoundingly ignorant fundamentalist christians there are within our political system and tell me they do not infringe on our rights. They live by a book that we don't all agree with, and their beliefs without a doubt affect their work.

Take Todd Akin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin_'legitimate_rape'_and_pregnancy_comment_controversy) or Paul Broun (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...broun-evolution-hell-20121007,0,4628858.story), for instance.

Todd Akin is a glaring example of why the clarification had to be in my previous comment. I don't pretend to have a way to draw the distinction between radical and reasonable that would please everyone, though.

 

[Testosterone]

"My beliefs are different from yours therefore I must prove you wrong and feel good about myself!!!!"

-everybody in this thread.

 

[myshisha]

Religion is faith based. Either you believe it or you don't. Science is fact based (real science anyway...). So you have to believe in what science shows to be fact (If you have a functioning brain at least...). That is all to say that if you are looking for science to prove a certain faith to be correct, you are missing the point of faith based religions. They can't be proven, but in that regard, they can't be proven false.

As I stated earlier, I'm a religious person. But, for the life of me, I'll never understand the hate (even on an anonymous internet forum) between atheists and theists.

 

[Served]

Can't believe this thread is still being discussed.

 

[Tipp]

You're missing the point entirely, simply trying to argue semantics here and I really don't care anyway. I was just pointing out that his anecdotal "this person converted, read his book" is inconsequential when many more make the exact opposite conversion.

That's the important thing here, more go the other way, not my 1 to hundred statement. There is plenty of data to back that up, I picked two quick examples. You want to say I didn't pull my (admittedly) off the cuff number directly from a research paper, oh golly you got me. Pardon me for not having all numbers and sources and statistical tests for a simple statement ready to go while I post a quick rebuttal on anonymous internet forum where the opposition won't consider my points anyway.

I obviously wouldn't claim that one man's conversion proves God's existence. I merely recommended a book, and gave a quick background on the author and what the book is about.

Also, someone above said that the book was not objective because Strobel is a Christian; that misses the point because he became a Christian in the process of accumulating the information in the book from an objective stance.

I haven't read Dawkin's "God Delusion." I am not against reading atheist texts, but I really don't understand any atheist viewpoint other than Nietzsche's. If God didn't exist, then morality would be foolish. In fact, the fact that we have objective moral values is a strong argument for the existence of God.

 

[circulus vitios]

I haven't read Dawkin's "God Delusion." I am not against reading atheist texts, but I really don't understand any atheist viewpoint other than Nietzsche's. If God didn't exist, then morality would be foolish. In fact, the fact that we have objective moral values is a strong argument for the existence of God.

what is this i don't even

You can't see how morality benefits all of us? Treating others as you would like to be treated gives way to a better world. It's self-preservation applied to the whole.

 

[Tipp]

what is this i don't even

You can't see how morality benefits all of us? Treating others as you would like to be treated gives way to a better world. It's self-preservation applied to the whole.

If you're curious about Nietzsche's ideas, then I encourage you to look them up because he would say them much more eloquently than I would.

Regarding objective moral values, the argument goes something like this.

P1 If objective moral values exist, God exists.
P2 Objective moral values do exist
P3 God exists.

Atheists and theists both agree that P1 is true, so it only remains to prove P2. This is something that you either get or not, but it is surely true. For instance, it is objectively true that killing children is wrong. Everyone would agree with that, and if you don't, that says a lot about you but doesn't weaken the argument.

 

[Tipp]

what is this i don't even

You can't see how morality benefits all of us? Treating others as you would like to be treated gives way to a better world. It's self-preservation applied to the whole.

And I do see why morality benefits us; that's why I follow Jesus' teachings. What I don't see is how anyone would know what morality is if there was no ruler to measure yourself against, namely God.

 

[Tipp]

"Atheists.... agree that "If objective moral values exist, God exists."

Yes, the experts do. maybe not the internet forum version though.

 

[amad01]

I follow the Code of Harry: a set of rules my father taught me to control, mask, and channel my urges...

 

[KnuxNole]

So, if we didn't have the Bible we wouldn't know what is moral?

This.

It's an argument I hear with Christians that I don't get. I am moral, and I didnt need religion to figure it out...

 

[Tipp]

So, if we didn't have the Bible we wouldn't know what is moral?

Yes, if we didn't have the Bible and the Holy Spirit, and if God didn't reveal Himself to us because He loves us and wants to guide us, we wouldn't have a clue. The golden rule that you guys like to use as your moral code is right out of the bible.

 

[Tipp]

I misread your statements. I took P1 to be "There are objective moral standards."

Oh yea, no problem