Originally posted by SuzianneIt seems clear that you equate morality with power. Might makes right?
The mistake is made in assuming to judge God by man's standards. That's ridiculous. Man is not the pinnacle of morality and to claim that he is, strains credulity. Man cannot match up to God. Man has, quite literally, burned his bridges concerning God. That's why he sent his Son, to bridge the wide gap between man and God. At least for the relatively few who want to make the effort.
Originally posted by wolfgang59Good question. Why indeed? He will throw us into Hell forever unless we believe He exists, yet He won't demonstrate that He does exist.
That is a circular argument isn't it?
Surely the salvation is through doing what a god wants.
The god makes the rules.
Why would a god want anyone to have faith in him/her/it?
Christian apologetics claim we choose to throw ourselves into Hell, but of course no one does that. They also claim that the Bible demonstrates that He exists, and there is a circular argument!
Originally posted by apathistNo.
Good question. Why indeed? He will throw us into Hell forever unless we believe He exists, yet He won't demonstrate that He does exist.
Christian apologetics claim we choose to throw ourselves into Hell, but of course no one does that. They also claim that the Bible demonstrates that He exists, and there is a circular argument!
There is a reason I chose to list Faith first. If we do not have faith, then nothing else matters. We choose to then make all kinds of foolish "reasons" why we do not believe. But those of faith do not need proof in order to believe. We don't need a demonstration. Faith is enough. That's why I listed Faith first. Once we believe, all the rest is possible. Without faith, none of the rest is possible.
Originally posted by googlefudgeNo, Morality is more than mere 'wellbeing'. All of your premises in your diatribe assume that man can dictate the rules of the 'game'. God is the Alpha and the Omega. Not man. You assume man is his own boss. God is complete, even without man. Man is not complete without God. This is the fundamental difference that you refuse to see.
The first question is what 'morality' actually is. What is it we are talking about.
When I talk about morality I am talking about 'wellbeing' of individuals and societies and how one goes about
judging what does and does not promote wellbeing.
If we can agree that is what morality is and what it's about then we can then go on about how one does t ...[text shortened]... llbeing, but at that point we are no longer talking about the same thing and
I no longer care.
Saying that I must agree with you, is ridiculous. I don't have to accept your 'wishy-washy' definition of morality. Man knows next to nothing of morality, and the last 4000 years of history haven't improved his knowledge of morality any.
Originally posted by wolfgang59This is vanity. Man has shown time and again that his grip on morality is lacking. To judge God by a standard that he is unwilling to keep himself, is also vanity.
Not sure what "Man is not the pinnacle of morality" means but Man can certainly
talk about morality up to any level. I don't see how the concept is out of our grasp.
And we can certainly hold anything up to any moral standard and judge it accordingly.
Originally posted by googlefudge"Well then you are talking about a different thing than I am talking about and again I don't care.What if morality that matters has more to do with what occurs after this life? If that were
true than the standards of what occurs here could have nothing to do with the well being
of either individuals or societies as we measure wellbeing.
[b]"What if morality that matters has more to do with what occurs after this life?"
Well t ...[text shortened]... nd reasonable doubt that if any one singular
god does exist then that god is and must be evil.[/b]
I care about wellbeing of people right here right now and if you are talking about something else
then that is not morality."
I believe there is more to this life than just being born, what we do with life, and dying.
We will pass through this life and will be else where much longer than the time we spend
here. You've not interest in that, that is completely on you.
You can say our views about morality are different, but you are not correct that mine are
not views about morality. They are just different than yours!
Convincing you to care no one can do that, as they say you can lead a horse to water,
but cannot make him drink it. Since you cannot be made to care that isn't an argument
that proves God isn't real it just shows us that you don't care one way or another, again
on you.
Originally posted by SuzianneThe correct response to someone asking for clarification, it to provide clarification. Accusing them of misinterpreting you then failing to provide clarification merely suggests that you do not want anyone to know what you really meant, or their guess was correct by you don't want to admit it.
Why do you even bother reading my words if you insist on misinterpreting them?
Oh, to misrepresent what I said. Of course.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Suzianne
No, Morality is more than mere 'wellbeing'. All of your premises in your diatribe assume that man can dictate the rules of the 'game'. God is the Alpha and the Omega. Not man. You assume man is his own boss. God is complete, even without man. Man is not complete without God. This is the fundamental difference that you refuse to see.
Saying that I ...[text shortened]... of morality, and the last 4000 years of history haven't improved his knowledge of morality any.
.... All of your premises in your diatribe assume that man can dictate the rules of the 'game'. ..... You assume man is his own boss.
No, my premises do not assume that at all.
The 'rules of the game' as you put it are 'dictated' by the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology.
We are physical beings made of stuff that follow a set of rules we are able to discover and understand through
science. It is those rules that mean [for example] that chugging down a couple of gallons of drain cleaner is
bad for you [indeed fatally so].
I care about the wellbeing of people [collectively and individually] and about how we promote wellbeing of people.
How we go about doing this is what I call morality.
What best promotes human wellbeing is determined by our physical nature as dictated by the laws of nature.
We can [and do] use the methods of science to determine what does or does not promote wellbeing and the
answers we find are entirely independent of the existence of any god or gods.
....God is the Alpha and the Omega. Not man. God is complete, even without man. Man is not complete without God. This is the fundamental difference that you refuse to see.
Well, as I apparently have to remind you again, I know for a fact that your god does not exist.
So as far as I am concerned the fundamental difference between humans and your god is that
your god is fictional.
However, leaving that aside, the idea that I have a 'god shaped hole in my heart' and 'need god to be complete'
is both untrue and grossly insulting to me [and everyone else it's directed at].
You might feel yourself incomplete without god, in which case I feel pity for you, but don't for one second imagine
that that feeling is in any way universal.
No, Morality is more than mere 'wellbeing' ...... Saying that I must agree with you, is ridiculous. I don't have to accept your 'wishy-washy' definition of morality.
I was/am not saying that you must agree with me. Which is clear if you read what I wrote with
'righteous indignation mode' turned off. 😛
I was saying that "this is my definition of morality, and under that definition this conclusion is true".
As I said, if you don't accept my definition of morality [and I didn't expect that you would] then we
are simply talking about two different things.
What you call 'morality' is not what I call morality, and I don't care about the thing that you term morality.
I never have, and never will.
And that wouldn't change even if you proved beyond reasonable doubt that your god existed.
Man knows next to nothing of morality, and the last 4000 years of history haven't improved his knowledge of morality any.
Really. I'm breaking out the popcorn here because if you want to argue that human morality hasn't
improved in 4000 years you are in for one hell of an argument, which I am happy to kick off.
Lets start with slavery.
4000 years ago [and until a few hundred years ago] slavery was all the rage.
It was considered perfectly moral to own people, and indeed was considered perfectly moral by the forerunner
to Christianity which was allegedly inspired by the same god you currently claim to believe in.
This is clearly established by the bible which in the OT clearly outlines rules for HOW to morally keep slaves
and indeed how to obtain them. And backed up by the fact that absolutely nowhere in the bible is any clear
law banning keeping of slaves.
Further this idea of owning people is further enshrined in the way women are clearly and universally treated
as the property of men. First a woman is owned by her father, and then she is owned by her husband [having a
wife is not an allowed option].
Fast forward to modern day [in the west] and happily we now view slavery as abhorrent and have made it illegal
to own people and woman's rights have advanced so that women are no longer considered property of fathers and
husbands and are allowed to [for example] vote and indeed run for President of the USA.
[I am not for a moment claiming that the battle for equality and women's rights is even close to over but as a
comparison with even the relatively recent past the progress made has been astronomical]
Of course an exception to this progress in the west/USA is often to be found amongst backwards ass fundamentalist
religious peoples who still cling to ancient and backwards morality as compared to the much more advanced morality
we have developed since.
If you disagree... Do try to explain how the fact that we now regard slavery as morally wrong as opposed to
regarding it as fine in the past as NOT being an improvement in morality.
Good luck with that.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by KellyJay
"Well then you are talking about a different thing than I am talking about and again I don't care.
I care about wellbeing of people right here right now and if you are talking about something else
then that is not morality."
I believe there is more to this life than just being born, what we do with life, and dying.
We will pass through this life and ...[text shortened]... at proves God isn't real it just shows us that you don't care one way or another, again
on you.
I believe there is more to this life than just being born, what we do with life, and dying.
We will pass through this life and will be else where much longer than the time we spend
here.
Yes, I know you believe that. I don't.
You can say our views about morality are different, but you are not correct that mine are
not views about morality. They are just different than yours!
I probably should have phrased it better.
I have a definition [description] [that I gave] of what morality is.
You have a different definition of what morality is.
We thus disagree about what morality is and both think that what the other believes to
be morality is not in fact what morality is. [by definition]
Convincing you to care no one can do that, as they say you can lead a horse to water,
but cannot make him drink it. Since you cannot be made to care that isn't an argument
that proves God isn't real it just shows us that you don't care one way or another, again
on you.
I wasn't trying to prove that god isn't real. I don't know what would have made you think I was.
As far as my views on morality is concerned it's irrelevant whether a god or gods exist or not.
That's why I don't care what a god thinks about morality, because for my definition of morality
what a god thinks on the subject is irrelevant.
That's the advantage of objective morality, you can measure outcomes and know what the
answer is independent of ANYONE'S subjective opinions on the topic.
In the same way that I know for a fact that drinking drain cleaner is bad for your health regardless
of what any god might say on the subject.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by SuzianneWell given that your post to me essentially says "god is the bee all and end all and thus what god says goes period"
Why do you even bother reading my words if you insist on misinterpreting them?
Oh, to misrepresent what I said. Of course.
I find it hard to see how your argument is anything other than "might makes right".
Even if I were to accept that your god [or any god] existed, why on Earth should I view their commands/laws as being
binding, or view their word as the last and only one on what is or is not moral OTHER than might makes right.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by SuzianneThere are many examples, But I'll go with one.
How many atheists [b]have made the effort? Among those who have, how many are still atheist?[/b]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty
He was born into, and raised as, a Southern Baptist, and after a career in the US Navy
he was in training to become a minister in the Southern Baptist Church. In the process
of learning more and more about the religion he found he believed it less and less until
he found he no-longer believed in the god of the bible, and from that he became an atheist
not believing in any god or gods.
He's frequently to be found on "the Atheist Experience" weekly web-cast which you can
find on youtube or here
https://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/
http://www.atheist-experience.com/
If he wasn't 'trying to be a theist' while being a lifelong theist and in training to be a preacher
then nobody has ever 'tried to be a theist' including those that are theists.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Suzianne"This is vanity. [Humans have] shown time and again that [their] grip on morality is lacking. To judge God by a standard that [they are] unwilling to keep [themselves], is also vanity."
This is vanity. Man has shown time and again that his grip on morality is lacking. To judge God by a standard that he is unwilling to keep himself, is also vanity.
Fixed your Christian based male dominant biased language for you.
Just another service from science and progress you appear to have missed out on.
Originally posted by googlefudgeOh I think we more than likely agree more on morality than disagree, but where weI believe there is more to this life than just being born, what we do with life, and dying.
We will pass through this life and will be else where much longer than the time we spend
here.
Yes, I know you believe that. I don't.
[quote]You can say our views about morality are different, but you are not correct that mine are
not views ...[text shortened]... king drain cleaner is bad for your health regardless
of what any god might say on the subject.
disagree is huge.
I think that where we touch very important things to us *human lives* and how those lives
are affected is the basis for our fundamental beliefs. For me it is more than how it works
out for us in this life, you are focused only what you see in the here and now.
What is important to God sort of assumes God is real, denying him for lack of proof was
something you brought up if I'm not mistaken.
For those that do not believe God is real almost all of them paint Him as evil if He were,
which for me suggests that they have no clue about Him.