What Christianity Really Says

-Removed-

If you would, please just explicitly state those premises that you think support the conclusion that morality can only originate from God. Failing that, I have no idea what the actual content of your "argument" is there.

Surely there is value added to this thread through exposing the facts (1) you have presented no actual arguments for your claims for atheism and what it entails, for the origins of morality, etc and (2) some of your claims are simply self-contradictory, such as the claim that atheism really says that there is no morality and yet somehow at the same time commits one to some version of hedonism.

Regarding, the Euthyphro dilemma, I asked before how you resolve it and you responded in no actual substance. Below I will give you my basic understanding of what the dilemma is; and then please respond with your resolution. Fair enough?

Since you have said that you think God determines the components of morality and that morality origination is solely dependent on God, I presume you would agree with the following premise: If God forbids (commands) act A, then act A is morally wrong (right). Now, there are couple ways in which this could hold. For one, it could be that God forbids act A because act A is wrong; that is, there could be reasons, independent of God, that explain the wrongness of act A and it would be in virtue of those reasons that God issues his judgment thusly on act A. But that is not available to you because then it would be those reasons that ultimately explain the moral status of act A and morality would not be dependent on God; God would be inessential to morality in this case. On the other hand, you could hold that act A is wrong because God forbids act A; that is, you could hold that God's forbidding act A is explanatorily prior to the wrongness of act A. Again, since the former interpretation is not available to you (unless you jettison your claim that morality depends constititutively on God), this will be the interpretation you are stuck with. In this case, morality indeed seems dependent on God. But, now, here comes the real dilemma. Either it is the case that God has reasons in virtue of which He forbids act A; or not. If not, then all you have is a purely arbitrary account of morals. And, if there are no reasons in virtue of which God forbids act A, then He may as well never have issued such a judgment in the first place. On the other hand, if there are reasons in virtue of which God forbids act A, then it will be those reasons that ultimately explain the moral status of act A, which again will contradict your claim that morality is dependent on God. So, neither horn of the dilemma seems to work for you: either you have a purely arbitrary account of morals; or morals do not depend constitutively on God.

-Removed-

It's his M.O. Get used to it, it probably won't change any time soon. Others here have had success with it as well.

-Removed-

Well, gee, you probably ought to have at least some interest in the Euthyphro dilemma since it provides a reasonable challenge against your belief that God determines morality. Are you just not interested in subjecting your beliefs to healthy scrutiny, or something? If so, that's a shame and would suggest lack of maturity on your part.

I find it odd that you act like the Euthyphro dilemma is some esoteric ivory tower concept. The challenge here is actually very, very basic. Look, either God has epistemic reasons in virtue of which He deems act A wrong; or not. If He has such reasons, then that suggests there are moral standards independent of God, such that your belief that morals are determined by God cannot be correct. If on the other hand He has no such reasons, then His judgments are simply arbitrary; in which case, why exactly should we think they carry any actual moral authority?

-Removed-

What examples did I ask for? Quote me.
Which post on that topic did I ignore?
I addressed it several times, yet you claim it was never addressed. Go back through the thread and try to read this time.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Cowardly? Not heard that one before!
That surely implies that you think atheists will not face something frightening
or dangerous. What is that do you think?

I wouldn't paint my use of "cowardly" with such a broad brush. But yes, I do think that it is cowardly with regard to spirituality; to refuse to take a step in the direction of believing, unless you are completely convinced beyond doubt. Especially when it is virtually *impossible* to prove God to you in the first place. Am I right? Take a few minutes to write down your list of requirements--which, if all satisfied, you would be a faithful believer.

Can we agree that Atheists (such as you I presume) agree with this statement: You will not believe something unless it is proven completely to your satisfaction; and in the case of spiritual belief, you require absolute, incontrovertible proof. Is that fair to say?

Ok, well then I think it's a double-standard, so maybe we can add "hypocritical" to my definition of Atheists. 🙂 Why hypocritical? Because you don't make the same demands on most of your other beliefs. You read a book, and walk away believing whatever scientific finding the book tells you. Where is your demand to see it proven to you first hand in a science lab?

In my opinion, it simply boils down to the Atheist believing whatever feels warm, fuzzy, and comfortable. Apostle Paul says it? Oh, he's just a sexist liar and fraud. Charles Darwin says it? Oh, it's the absolute truth. Both sources are ink on paper. The typical Atheist, who swears up and down that Charles Darwin got it right, hasn't taken a single step toward gathering evidence to support his or her belief, other than to read some material. Face it, it's easier and more comfortable to believe the bible is a fraud. FYI - I don't find much of the bible easy and comfortable. I find a lot of it disturbing and hard to swallow. Things aren't easy as pie and rosy 24x7 on our side, believe me. We struggle with the bible too. But there's a difference between the believers and unbelievers. We can get into that in a different thread, as you would simply reject my explanation anyway.

"Well Charles Darwin had pictures and stuff in his books." Great. Moses, John, Mark, Matthew, Luke, and Paul would have had pictures too if cameras existed back then. Instead they had to describe in full detail what they saw and that they did.

Originally posted by sumydid
But yes, I do think that it is cowardly with regard to spirituality; to refuse to take a step in the direction of believing, unless you are completely convinced beyond doubt.

I am completely convinced beyond doubt. Yet your use of the word 'cowardly' referred to all atheists without regard to their convictions.

Can we agree that Atheists (such as you I presume) agree with this statement: You will not believe something unless it is proven completely to your satisfaction; and in the case of spiritual belief, you require absolute, incontrovertible proof. Is that fair to say?
No, it is not fair to say. It is blatantly untrue and quite obviously so.

The typical Atheist, who swears up and down that Charles Darwin got it right, hasn't taken a single step toward gathering evidence to support his or her belief, other than to read some material.
You clearly have very little experience with real 'typical atheists'. In fact I doubt that you can find a single example of a 'typical atheist' that fits your description.

FYI - I don't find much of the bible easy and comfortable. I find a lot of it disturbing and hard to swallow. Things aren't easy as pie and rosy 24x7 on our side, believe me. We struggle with the bible too. But there's a difference between the believers and unbelievers.
The difference is obvious. You believe despite the evidence, we believe based on the evidence.
The odd thing is that you seem to totally discount us having evidence. ie you rationalize my acceptance of Darwins theory by assuming that I do not have supporting evidence and based my acceptance of it on his book. In reality, I know of a large body of supporting evidence, and have never read the complete book (only a couple of pages).

Originally posted by sumydid
I wouldn't paint my use of "cowardly" with such a broad brush. But yes, I do think that it is cowardly with regard to spirituality; to refuse to take a step in the direction of believing, unless you are completely convinced beyond doubt. Especially when it is virtually *impossible* to prove God to you in the first place. Am I right? Take a few minutes to n. Instead they had to describe in full detail what they saw and that they did.

God you really do talk some utter tosh sumydid.

I accept that life evolved on this planet because I have read numerous books on the subject and evaluated the evidence with my own brain. There is a striking theme amongst those on this forum who don't accept that life on this planet evolved, they have never read a book on the topic. Can you say the same?

Your talk of atheists being hypocrites is laughable in the extreme. You only have a bee in your bonnet with regards to evolution because it contradicts your chosen religious beliefs. Do you seek out aeronautical engineers every time you fly on a plane to make sure that the plane is in perfect working order? How about every time you go into a new building, do you seek out construction engineers and peruse over blueprints of that particular building to make sure everything is safe? Or what abut the water that comes out your tap or the food you buy and eat? Do you perform safety checks to make sure it is safe to eat and drink? Or could it just be that the people in those jobs actually know what they are doing?! Why are evolutionary scientists any different?

I'll tell you what, you're a funny guy for sure.

Edit - Evolution is not just the realm for atheists, there are countless people worldwide who accept that life evolved who also believe in some form of God. I know it's a favourite canard of creationists to paint evolution as synonymous with atheism, but that is not the case.

Originally posted by sumydid
I wouldn't paint my use of "cowardly" with such a broad brush. But yes, I do think that it is cowardly with regard to spirituality; to refuse to take a step in the direction of believing, unless you are completely convinced beyond doubt.

Do you think Indonesians, for example, who decide to they cannot subscribe to Islamic or Christian beliefs, and declare themselves to be atheists, are "cowardly"?

Originally posted by sumydid
I wouldn't paint my use of "cowardly" with such a broad brush. But yes, I do think that it is cowardly with regard to spirituality; to refuse to take a step in the direction of believing, unless you are completely convinced beyond doubt.

I am curious about your peculiar use of the words "cowardice" and "cowardly". Here's another scenario. If you were on the staff of the opponent of a U.S. political candidate who'd revealed that he or she was an atheist, would you consider advising your candidate to run ads with the cowardice of your opponent as their theme?

Originally posted by sumydid
I wouldn't paint my use of "cowardly" with such a broad brush. But yes, I do think that it is cowardly with regard to spirituality; to refuse to take a step in the direction of believing, unless you are completely convinced beyond doubt.

Another one. You said "Only a coward would sit in his foxhole and not believe anything unless another person makes the exhaustive effort to prove it to him beyond doubt".

So if two soldiers were side by side in a foxhole. The atheist would be the coward, and the Christian wouldn't be?