- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
10 Jan 11
Originally posted by sonhouseThis story concocted in your bible that things were so bad spiritually speaking there needed a supernatural boost 2000 years ago is just plain silly on many levels.
This story concocted in your bible that things were so bad spiritually speaking there needed a supernatural boost 2000 years ago is just plain silly on many levels.
Supposedly your omniscient god sees life on Earth equally from 10,000 years ago to the present day, I guess like looking at all the frames of a movie simultaneously, somehow.
So looking ...[text shortened]... e evil going on there in so many places around the world, several genocides in the same century.
Which bible says that?
10 Jan 11
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm not sure I understand your point about our ability to alter.
The so what is, can we than justify those things, is there really a good and bad
that go beyond our ability to alter?
Kelly
Is there really a good and bad? Of course, but my point about no absolute morality is that these things change.
300 years ago many cultures practiced slavery. Would they have called this bad? Probably not for the most part. Do we now? Of course. So, what's changed? Our morality has changed. That's what happens when people live in societies for long periods of time - things change.
11 Jan 11
Originally posted by amannionThings change, I get that and slavery has been all over the map with humans
I'm not sure I understand your point about our ability to alter.
Is there really a good and bad? Of course, but my point about no absolute morality is that these things change.
300 years ago many cultures practiced slavery. Would they have called this bad? Probably not for the most part. Do we now? Of course. So, what's changed? Our morality has changed. That's what happens when people live in societies for long periods of time - things change.
accepting or rejecting it as a practice throughout recorded human history.
What about being dishonest, can one break one's oath, can one steal and it
is "good", can one murder, and it is "good"? I get that people try to dehumanize
another group one way or another so they can justify their actions, but that
act of having to justify one's self basically shows that something is amiss and that
excuses have to be made.
Kelly
11 Jan 11
Originally posted by epiphinehasAmong Christians there is a saying, "What would Jesus do?"
Is there an atheist, alive or dead, within these forums or without, who has truly lived as if God doesn't exist? In other words, is it possible for someone to live consistently in the 'light' of objective meaninglessness, without accidentally presupposing moral absolutes or pretending, even fleetingly, that their life has meaning?
I'm assuming (tongue in cheek) an Atheist when it comes to morals could ask,
"What would an ameba do?" since you know in most of their opinions we came
from a simple life form and morals didn't matter much way back then, if at any
point in time all life really was that simple. Why would any life care more about
morals that an ameba does now? Since Christian believe in God I can see how or
why we would care about right and wrong, and since atheist are more of the make
it up as they go type of group, morals are just....whatever they want at the time.
I'm quiet sure atheists have some standard of morals, but it cannot be anything
along the absolute kind for them, in my opinion.
Since they are making it up as they go, why do they find fault with anyone else's
views on any topic of right and wrong? Their views are their views, why do they
feel the need to change anyone else' mind on any topic? In the end all life ends and
nothing matters after death, so why do they care what others think or feel about?
It isn't like in their opinion one can alter what is going to happen to everyone they
know, they are all going to die, and I guess they feel that is it, nothing. So they
have life now and nothing, why screw with someone else life since in the end all life
goes the same way into the great nothing? As a Christian, we will be held account
able for our lives so their is a judgment and an acounting for one's actions, with
the atheist, nothing.
Kelly
11 Jan 11
Originally posted by dj2beckerUm, nearly all christians that i've come across, in this forum or in real life, posit that type scenario.(ie. that its not in the bible 😛)
[b]This story concocted in your bible that things were so bad spiritually speaking there needed a supernatural boost 2000 years ago is just plain silly on many levels.
Which bible says that?[/b]
I thought sonhouse's point was a pretty general,valid criticism against christianity.
Funny how if you guys (christians) dont agree you either "throw off" and claim that it is not in Scriptures, or if it is scripture, you go to great lengths to disprove the counter-claims against christianity by telling us how we have misinterpretted these
Scriptures.
These Scriptures that are the unquestionable work of god, that need no verifivcation, cross-refrencing or any of the multiple criticisms , because that would be blasphemy 😛
11 Jan 11
Originally posted by KellyJayNo one's 'making it up as they go'. We don't just suddenly arrive at the societies we have today - they're the product of thousands of years of experiment and experience, and before that millions of years of evolution.
Among Christians there is a saying, "What would Jesus do?"
I'm assuming (tongue in cheek) an Atheist when it comes to morals could ask,
"What would an ameba do?" since you know in most of their opinions we came
from a simple life form and morals didn't matter much way back then, if at any
point in time all life really was that simple. Why would any life ...[text shortened]... is a judgment and an acounting for one's actions, with
the atheist, nothing.
Kelly
There are many examples of altruism - of if you think that's being a bit anthropomorphic - altruistic behaviour throughout the animal kingdom and even beyond to fungi, so we humans aren't the first to have realised that it can work to be nice to each other and help each other out.
The morality we have today is the product of lots and lots of effort - what works, what doesn't - over a lot of time.
It's certainly not anything goes, as many of you religious types seem to think atheism must have us degenerate to.
As for finding fault with other people's views? If someone wants to live in a society that steals and murders and rapes without consequence, they're welcome to. I can't see that being a very viable society, can you? Sure, we have those acts in our societies, but we don't tolerate them and we punish people when we catch them.
Why do I care what other people think and feel? Because I'm a human, living in a society that cares about these things, and I like to think that this sort of action will be reciprocated. I care about you, and then you care about me. Jesus expounded this, but of course it's a rule that's been around long before him. And since my life will end, then it behooves me to take extra care with the one I've got. Yours will apparently go on forever, so I would ask you the same question - why bother being nice now, you can always do that in some future fairy heaven?
11 Jan 11
Originally posted by KellyJayThats possibly the worst post I've read from you. I'm not strictly an athiest, but even I'm offended by the multiple offences you have brought against many rational people the world over.
Among Christians there is a saying, "What would Jesus do?"
I'm assuming (tongue in cheek) an Atheist when it comes to morals could ask,
"What would an ameba do?" since you know in most of their opinions we came
from a simple life form and morals didn't matter much way back then, if at any
point in time all life really was that simple. Why would any life ...[text shortened]... is a judgment and an acounting for one's actions, with
the atheist, nothing.
Kelly
The first os to use a capital "A" for "athiest". Thats missing the point .
I dont think athiests would ascribe opinions to an amoeba. More eveidence of your lack of understanding of atheism.
Next, I hardly think they make it up as they go along, thats more the domain of progressive thinkers such as myself. If anything, christians in general are more likey to "make it up" than athiests.
I dont feel the athiests have as much impetus to change "what others think or feel about, as much as christians do.
Either directly or indirectly, nearly all the christians on this forum seem to be trying to change everone elses mind on these unkonown things( origons of life, etc,). (there are some noteble exceptions like Zalhanzi and Pink Floyd.)
I guess their opinions are changing things, or else you wouldn't feel threatened by their presence and/or assertions.
Good luck with that.
11 Jan 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelIf you think that is my worst post you have not read me much. 🙂 Ill respond
Thats possibly the worst post I've read from you. I'm not strictly an athiest, but even I'm offended by the multiple offences you have brought against many rational people the world over.
The first os to use a capital "A" for "athiest". Thats missing the point .
I dont think athiests would ascribe opinions to an amoeba. More eveidence of your lac ...[text shortened]... uldn't feel threatened by their presence and/or assertions.
Good luck with that.
later.
Kelly
12 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhen that extrinsic agent is the one responsible for the existence of all other agents, there is a presumption that creation came about with a purpose in mind.
[b]If you will note, this is an objection I have repeatedly brought against epiphinehas' arguments, and he simply has not addressed it: give me some plausible reasons why I should meta-privilege God's mind on moral matters above the minds of other agents.
Okay, I see your point. But truly, as far as I have read, there is not a believer herein who has inue.'
From whence cometh the moral authority, the one impeachable standard?[/b]
Be that as it may, that still would have nothing to do with establishing that our lives are inherently or intrinsically anything. According to your view, God has provided for or brought about our existences with a particular purpose in mind. You may likewise hold that orienting yourself in the direction of God's plan brings genuine meaning to your existence. That seems fair enough. But you and epiphinehas should quit pretending like this constitutes some basis on which you can claim inherent meaning to our lives. You guys are kidding yourselves big time on that one. If anything, your views on this issue represent a denial toward the idea of intrinsic meaning within the human condition. You guys basically say that the combination of human condition plus no God translates to meaninglessness; whereas the combination of human condition plus God translates to meaning. Well, then, the only meaning your view ascribes to our existences is of an extrinsic sort because it hinges on this extrinsic agent God. Basically, your view says but for the sake of this extrinsic agent and his plans and purposes for us, our existences would have no non-ersatz meaning. So, again, this is one reason why I think you are like the emperor with his new clothes.
Instead, we have been affirming that God Himself is that standard.
Right, and He somehow establishes 'absolute' morals merely by fiat. (Whatever any of that even means.) Regardless, emperor, again this does not show any objectivity but rather only suggests subjective dimension. At the end of the day, I do not think you guys actually require morality to be 'objective' by a reasonable reading of the term. Rather, I think you just require that morality in a sense be outside the realm of human subjectivity and that moral statements have truth values that are independent of human propositional attitudes, etc. I would suggest you do more study in ethics: there are already many ethical theories consistent and compatible with atheism that are not only consistent with what you require but actually entail what you require. You may end up disagreeing with them still and you may bring other arguments against them, but it's a complete fantasy that atheism is somehow logically inconsistent with objective morality.
If all world views are equal
How would anything following from this be relevant in this thread? Atheism does not entail that all world views are somehow equal. What is your argument for the proposition that in the nonexistence of God, all worldviews somehow become "equal"? Premise 1 is…?
12 Jan 11
Originally posted by KellyJayAs a Christian, we will be held account
Among Christians there is a saying, "What would Jesus do?"
I'm assuming (tongue in cheek) an Atheist when it comes to morals could ask,
"What would an ameba do?" since you know in most of their opinions we came
from a simple life form and morals didn't matter much way back then, if at any
point in time all life really was that simple. Why would any life ...[text shortened]... is a judgment and an acounting for one's actions, with
the atheist, nothing.
Kelly
able for our lives so their is a judgment and an acounting for one's actions, with
the atheist, nothing.
Right, in addition to requiring that morality is 'objective' in the weak sense I described in my last post, you guys also require that there be some magical surveillance camera in the sky. Alas, if only there were some invisible sky fairy who kept tally of all my successes and failings, my life would have true content and genuine meaning.
12 Jan 11
Originally posted by LemonJelloNo, I do not promote a magical anything in the sky, I promote that we will all give
[b]As a Christian, we will be held account
able for our lives so their is a judgment and an acounting for one's actions, with
the atheist, nothing.
Right, in addition to requiring that morality is 'objective' in the weak sense I described in my last post, you guys also require that there be some magical surveillance camera in the sky. Alas, if ...[text shortened]... tally of all my successes and failings, my life would have true content and genuine meaning.[/b]
an account for our actions and they will show themselves for what they are and
there will be nothing magic about it. The simple truth of it all will be made clear,
if you are an honest person you will not have lied, you will not have stolen, if
you are a loving person you will have cared for others instead of harming them in
either word or deed, all excuses will be validated when they are shown in truth or
they will be dispelled for the lies they were. Justice will done and all accounts
will be settled, nothing magical about this, it is justice throughtout the universe.
I maintain if we are nothing but desendents of some single cell creature and nothing
or no one is guiding us and we by our design make up right and wrong as we go,
than all the good caring people and the evil hateful are no different from one
another and all they do is for naught once they are done, in the end it doesn't
matter one wit how anyone lived their lives we will die just like vile among us.
Desires to improve or steal and harm are just the actions of people who are living
their lives in the end no different than a lion who eats a zebra, it is only doing
what its nature calls for. Humans do quite a few things, I submit should never be
done and we do them because of our nature. If there is no God and nothing but
us sets all standards of good and evil, before we were here there were no morals
and after we are gone there will be none, because it all started and stops with
us. Wtih God righteousness is never ending and it isn't us who sets the standards
for good and evil, it is the God who created us and the universe we are living in.
Kelly
12 Jan 11
Originally posted by dj2beckerThat your best shot? Tell me why it should have happened only the one time when things in the 19th and 20th century were incredibly bad, spiritually and otherwise.
[b]This story concocted in your bible that things were so bad spiritually speaking there needed a supernatural boost 2000 years ago is just plain silly on many levels.
Which bible says that?[/b]
Where was your god then?