Originally posted by FetchmyjunkSociety tells its members what its morals are and what the consequences are for not following those morals. A member can decide to no longer be a part of that society or to try and change society's morals.
If society determines what is right and wrong, then are the morals derived from society obligatory to all members of society? You should see where I am going with this.
Where you are going with this should be to provide evidence for the existence of god. That is what we're aiming for.
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneWith definitions, yes. And given that it is a definition being discussed. Yes. Yes and Yes.
People call themselves any number of things, but this plainly does not "make it so".
Is anything true just because someone says it is?
If people call themselves Christian then they are Christian. If you call them not Christian then they are not Christian to you. There is no such thing as 'innately Christian'.
I'm sure there is someone, somewhere who says he is the reincarnation of Winston Churchill. It does not mean that he is actually the reincarnation of Winston Churchill.
You are confusing definitions with facts.
Calling oneself a Christian without following the tenets of Christianity does not make oneself a Christian.
And who decides the 'tenets of Christianity'? As I pointed out earlier, I think you are confusing your denomination with Christianity as a whole. You do not own the word 'Christian'.
Let me ask you this: Do you think that there are any atheists who believe in God?
No. But atheism specifically means someone who lacks belief in God. Christianity is a religion and does not mean 'theist'.
I am going to take a wild shot in the dark here and say no.
Or you could have gone back a few posts to where I answered the exact same question.
By the way, are you aware that there are atheist Jews?
Originally posted by Great King RatI asked if society determines what is right and wrong, then are the morals derived from society obligatory to all members of society? Is that a yes or a no?
Society tells its members what its morals are and what the consequences are for not following those morals. A member can decide to no longer be a part of that society or to try and change society's morals.
Where you are going with this should be to provide evidence for the existence of god. That is what we're aiming for.
Originally posted by Great King RatOk let me put it this way, if society determines what is right and wrong, then it is deriving morals from itself. Aside from the issue of whether or not God exists, why then would you reject the rationale that God derives morals from himself and thereby declares what is right and wrong?
I answered your question. If the answer is not to your satisfaction, you should try and rephrase the question.
2 edits
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkHow in the name of holy hell is that a rephrasing of your previous question?
Ok let me put it this way, if society determines what is right and wrong, then it is deriving morals from itself. Aside from the issue of whether or not God exists, why then would you reject the rationale that God derives morals from himself and thereby declares what is right and wrong?
Where the flying fudge did "God" just come from??
This entire conversation was aimed at you providing evidence of god's existence. We can't go "Aside from the issue of whether or not God exists" when the very issue itself was providing evidence for god's existence.
And I don't reject the notion that some kind of supernatural all-powerfull being could theoretically decide to enforce its morals on its creation by use of a "Do this or else..." threat neither do I reject the theoretical possibility of this entity being able to inject its morals into our brains.
We just have no evidence of 1) this supernatural being's existence and 2) morals that are shared by each and everyone of us.
Originally posted by Great King RatYou can't say that because you have not looked at all evidence in the world. That isn't possible.
How in the name of holy hell is that a rephrasing of your previous question?
Where the flying fudge did "God" just come from??
This entire conversation was aimed at you providing evidence of god's existence. We can't go "Aside from the issue of whether or not God exists" when the very issue itself was providing evidence for god's existence.
A ...[text shortened]... 1) this supernatural being's existence and 2) morals that are shared by each and everyone of us.
But, if a person asked you what kind of things you'd accept, within reason, as evidence for God, what would you say? If you have nothing to offer, then you haven't thought your position through . . . and if you haven't done that, then can you honestly lay claim to the title atheist?
Originally posted by twhitehead...Your second sentence: if I claim there is no gravity, then there is no gravity for me.
If people call themselves Christian then they are Christian. If you call them not Christian then they are not Christian to you. ...
Your first sentence: if I say I'm worth billions of dollars, then I'm worth billions of dollars.
???
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThat is a fun question. Deep and wide, too scary for most.
But, if a person asked you what kind of things you'd accept, within reason, as evidence for God, what would you say? ...
Me, I'd need to see it - but appearances can be misleading. So I'd want some Q&A time, and who knows where that would lead!