Questions for theists

@JBeukema,

JBeukema;67265 wrote:

1) Do you believe based on any evidence, or is it 'faith' I believe in a God just as you believe there is no god. Our beliefs are based solely upon us as individuals. You cannot prove your "no god" any better than I can prove my "real God".

2) If the former
---- How does the evidence support your religion No conclusive evidence exists that proves my stand, just as no conclusive evidence exists to support yours. So why an argument?
---- Why do you discount the evidence cited by other religions? They differ from my own. I do not discount them, I simply disagree with them.
if the latter
---- why is 'faith' valid or worthy of respect? Tell us. Respect is inclusive. I can easily include those whom I disagree with, but I cannot exclude someone simply because I disagree with them; I can respect that someone believes differently from myself without insulting their beliefs because I perceive my beliefs to be superior, even though neither has been proven 100%.
---- why is it good to have 'faith' in your god(s) rather than someone elses? Damn stupid question.

3) Do you think the prescriptive ethics "Prescriptive ethics"? What the hell are you smoking? "Prescriptive ethics" - that's so funny. Did it hurt pulling it out of your rectum? of your religion are necessary?
-if yes, then how do all other religions get by if they're wrong and don't have your god (for Abrahamists, What is an Abrahamist? And why did you introduce such silliness into a thread in which you obviously wanted to attack Christians? this means they follow Satan, the god of this world- so how can they have morals?)
-if no, does your religion service any purpose at all in society Them damn old 10 commandments from GOD the ALMIGHTY. What has your GOD hating religion given to this world? What COMMANDMENTS do yours keep? (other than serving as a unifying factor for aiding the formation of social groups that can then fight eachother), or is it purely a personal coping mechanism?

At this point, I am done with this topic. Who gives a fart in the wind who is right? In the end, we will all know. We die and we have nothing or we die and we have everything. Personally, I do not give a s hit what happens to you once you are dead, and, in life, I have no reason to argue with you. My God is my God; Your no-god is your no-god. I will deal with my God or your no-god in my afterlife....just as you will.

Who cares who is right or who is wrong? Damn - live your life and let us live ours. No effect on you, even in the slightest. Live your life and defecate on cornbread.

2 Replies

@Whip,

I was upset with a previous response. It's not how real Christians to behave. If we don't care about others than why we are here on earth for? To drive pick up trucks, and carry guns?

Alright, I'm done with my criticism, let me try to respond.

1) Do you believe based on any evidence, or is it 'faith'

Both

2) If the former
---- How does the evidence support your religion

The evidence of existence and the reason, that it was done for a purpose of my acceptance to God's family.

---- Why do you discount the evidence cited by other religions?
I don't discount their evidence, but I can't comprehend their reason for the existence.

if the latter
---- why is 'faith' valid or worthy of respect?
We all function by faith. When you marry a girl how do you know she is not going to leave you for another guy? Faith.
Faith is opposite of control, and that's what God appreciate when we surrender control to him and live by faith.

---- why is it good to have 'faith' in your god(s) rather than someone elses?
First of all, my God is the one who did all for me, other gods want me to do things for them.
And secondly, it is a relationship by faith in Him, not in some vague idea.

3) Do you think the prescriptive ethics of your religion are necessary?
-if yes, then how do all other religions get by if they're wrong and don't have your god (for Abrahamists, this means they follow Satan, the god of this world- so how can they have morals?)

Even if we are fallen from God we are still created in His image, therefore the basic morals are in every person. Plus there is a conscious at work unless it was suppressed and persecuted.

-if no, does your religion service any purpose at all in society (other than serving as a unifying factor for aiding the formation of social groups that can then fight eachother), or is it purely a personal coping mechanism?

Red Cross, Ymca, and others were started by Christians. Christianity has a huge impact until now (churches still sending teams to victims of Katrina).

1 Reply

@JBeukema,

1) Do you believe based on any evidence, or is it 'faith'

Faith.

2) Why is 'faith' valid or worthy of respect?

"Nothing is either good or bad, thinking makes it so."

Why is it good to have 'faith' in your god(s) rather than someone else's?

To each their own. I have no interest in what anyone else wants to believe.

3) Do you think the prescriptive ethics of your religion are necessary?

There are universal morals and then there are religious morals. For example, the moral that murder is wrong is accepted by most human beings regardless of their particular or lack of religion. On the other hand, the moral of modesty is not universal - it is religious. So my religious ethics are necessary for me but not necessary for others.

If no, does your religion service any purpose at all in society (other than serving as a unifying factor for aiding the formation of social groups that can then fight each other), or is it purely a personal coping mechanism?

It is faith, it is a part of our identity. We love it like you might love your accent or traditional cuisine. At the same time, it is so much more than that - it is our religion, it is how we believe we should live and what we believe happens to us after we die.

1 Reply

@JBeukema,

It seems to me that the evidence for gods and so on is small, but that the effectiveness of such activities as meditation is evident. The 'factual' element in most belief is mainly concerned with historical evidence, not theology. Fundamentally, though, our understanding of 'reality' is so manifestly limited, and the forces making for false belief (ideology and so on) so very strong, we do best to maintain a 'don't know' attitude to most things, this extending far beyond religion into politcs and all sorts. We should look at what sort of conduct produces least obvious unhappiness in everyone and otherwise be as near wholly agnostic as is compatible with living.

0 Replies

@Whip,

Quote:

I believe in a God just as you believe there is no god.

You believe there is god god I never said there is no god because i do not believe in god because ther is no evidence for deity?

You didn't think that out before submitting it, did you?

Quote:

Our beliefs are based solely upon us as individuals. You cannot prove your "no god" any better than I can prove my "real God".

So you admit that god cannot be demonstrated to exist- because there is no evidence- and then you act indignant? Is this typical of your nature?

Quote:

No conclusive evidence exists that proves my stand, just as no conclusive evidence exists to support yours. So why an argument?

If I said 'there is a purple elephant in this room' and could present no evidence of its existence, would you agree I was deluded in believing that elephant were there? Now, what if I said that we should invade Canada, take their virgins as slaves, and kill all the men and children because that purple elephant told me to? What if I then later said that all should trust in this purple elephant to live a righteous life and tried to push into law what I said the beast told me we should do?

Quote:

They differ from my own. I do not discount them, I simply disagree with them.

So you say that you discount the evidence because it does not support your predrawn conclusion... then deny what you just said?

I do hope this is satire.

if the latter

Quote:

---- why is it good to have 'faith' in your god(s) rather than someone elses?
Quote:
Damn stupid question.

Because no intelligent answer can be given?

Quote:

"Prescriptive ethics"? What the hell are you smoking? "Prescriptive ethics" - that's so funny. Did it hurt pulling it out of your rectum?

Literate: you are not.

Quote:

What is an Abrahamist?

Not smart at all, are you?

Quote:

At this point, I am done with this topic

Shame ya couldn't say that prior to replying...

Quote:

Who gives a fart in the wind who is right?

Anyone who expects to die some day.

Quote:

I have no reason to argue with you

*points above*

Now, begone, troll

1 Reply

@marcus cv,

marcus;67277 wrote:

1) Do you believe based on any evidence, or is it 'faith'

Both

How can it be both? Faith is belief without reason. To believe because the evidence suggests it is reason. To claim faith iis to declare you beliefs unreasonable, unsupported, and ignorant. Surely this cannot be your intention.

Quote:

The evidence of existence and the reason, that it was done for a purpose of my acceptance to God's family.

How does existence demonstrate the existence of deity? The rest of your reply to this question, I cannot decode.

Quote:

if the latter
---- why is 'faith' valid or worthy of respect?
We all function by faith. When you marry a girl how do you know she is not going to leave you for another guy? Faith.

To an extent perhaps, but a wise man also draws a conclusion regarding her likely behavior from her pasty. If you marry a ho, you know what to expect. That is simply reason.

Quote:

---- why is it good to have 'faith' in your god(s) rather than someone elses?
First of all, my God is the one who did all for me,

Did what, exactly?

Quote:

Even if we are fallen from God we are still created in His image, therefore the basic morals are in every person. Plus there is a conscious at work unless it was suppressed and persecuted.

Where do any such moral absolutes come from? If we are made in God's image, does that not indicate a pretty wicked god? Have you read the OT? Your religion cannot offer any source of morality. Science, however, can offer a theory for how the concept of morality and the conscience came about.

Quote:

Red Cross, Ymca, and others were started by Christians. Christianity has a huge impact until now (churches still sending teams to victims of Katrina).

The Red Crescent acts much like the Red Cross and Buddhists have been long known for charity and piety, though it is less often so largely organized. How is it better for one to have faith in your god than in Allah or the Void?

0 Replies

@Muslimanka,

Muslimanka;67280 wrote:

There are universal morals and then there are religious morals.

Are there universal morals? Can you list them and demonstrate them? Can you show that any true moral absolutes exist?

0 Replies

@JBeukema,

JBeukema;67297 wrote:

Now, begone, troll

You have the audacity to call someone else a "troll" when you, yourself, have done little other on this board then attack Christianity. How many threads have you started just to flood the board with your irrational bigotry? Then you post this little thread in which you infer that Christians are Abrahamists. Christians follow the teachings of the Christ Jesus, and not Abraham. It would benefit you greatly to get your religions straight.

Some may not approve of my behavior in the way I respond to people like yourself. I ask them, how did the Christ react to the money changers in the temple? Did he pat them on their little backs and tell them all is forgiven? Hell no - He took a whip to them. This is how He expects us to act as well. A true Christian does not kiss the feet of Gods enemies, he retaliates. Nor does he reason with the unreasonable fool, (as JB has become in my eyes and for this reason I will not try to intellectualize with him).

2 Replies

@Whip,

Whip;67316 wrote:

Christians follow the teachings of the Christ Jesus, and not Abraham. It would benefit you greatly to get your religions straight.

:rollinglaugh:

Jesus' teaching rest on those of Abraham and the later prophets, you twit. You cannot reject Abraham, Moses, or any of the Jewish tradition and still claim Christ. Do learn about your own religion before you decide to demonstrate your ignorance.

Quote:

A true Christian does not kiss the feet of Gods enemies, he retaliates.

Wrong, moron.

Matthew 5:39

A true Christian neither retaliates nor submits, but stays strong in the path and ways of Jesus, for they are no part of this world, and their glory is not on Earth but on New Earth, in New Jerusalem, after the final Judgement. Why do 'Christians' never know what the bible says?

http://jbsimages.100webspace.net/fail/you%20fail%20it%20-%20original.jpg

0 Replies

@JBeukema,

JBeukema;67265 wrote:

1) Do you believe based on any evidence, or is it 'faith'

2) If the former
---- How does the evidence support your religion
---- Why do you discount the evidence cited by other religions?
if the latter
---- why is 'faith' valid or worthy of respect?
---- why is it good to have 'faith' in your god(s) rather than someone elses?

God gives me faith in Him, and He gives abundant evidence as well to believe in Him--both.

Everyone has presuppositions, or basic beliefs, about the existence or nature of god, the universe, human nature, which are unproven by natural science, and by which that person interprets all facts, or ?evidences.? A network of presuppositions is a worldview.

Evidences for God include design in nature, the fossil record, the existence of morality, the existence of rationality, the existence of induction (which makes science possible), history, and the revelation of God in the Bible. However, those evidences won't count as evidence for people who don't share the Christian worldview.

JBeukema;67265 wrote:

3) Do you think the prescriptive ethics of your religion are necessary?
-if yes, then how do all other religions get by if they're wrong and don't have your god (for Abrahamists, this means they follow Satan, the god of this world- so how can they have morals?)
-if no, does your religion service any purpose at all in society (other than serving as a unifying factor for aiding the formation of social groups that can then fight eachother), or is it purely a personal coping mechanism?

Necessary for what? (Not sure what you're asking.)

Everyone has morals. This fact is evidence of the Christian God because morality is by definition universal, transcendent, personal, contains concepts of "good" and "evil," and accountability to authority (or the author of the moral code). Atheism, Satanism, self-worship, and all other religions can't account for morality, even as the adherents of these other religions in fact use morality and believe it exists (even though they can't see morality or test morality).

The Christian religion, when practiced by actual Christians obeying the Bible by God's grace, serves to teach the personal way of salvation in Jesus Christ, and provides a moral pattern for societies to follow to maximize freedom, maximize justice, and to restrain evil.

1 Reply

@GentleDove,

GentleDove;67333 wrote:

Evidences for God include design in nature,

]

ID = Debunked and poorly disguised creationism

Quote:

the fossil record,

is evidence for evolution and has no bearing on the existence of deity.

Quote:

the existence of morality,

Has no bearing on deity, is subjective, and can be explained through evolutionary psychology as emerging like all instinct.

Quote:

the existence of rationality,

Has waht bearing ion deity?

Quote:

history,

elaborate

Quote:

and the revelation of God in the Bible.

What about the Qu'ran, the Gospel of Thomas, The Bhagavad Gita and other Vedics texts that are older than the Torah...?

Quote:

However, those evidences won't count as evidence for people who don't share the Christian worldview.

Because they are not evidence at all.

Quote:

Everyone has morals.

Not everyone

Quote:

This fact is evidence of the Christian God because morality is by definition universal, transcendent,

exceopt that others make the same claim, morality is highly subjective, universal morality does not exist...

Quote:

Atheism, Satanism, self-worship, and all other religions can't account for morality,

Wrong. Google the Moral Instinct for a non-religious account. All religions claim the same thing as yours, btw.

Christianity has no morality. See my other thread

even as the adherents of these other religions in fact use morality and believe it exists (even though they can't see morality or test morality).

1 Reply

@JBeukema,

JBeukema;67336 wrote:

GentleDove wrote:
Evidences for God include design in nature

ID = Debunked and poorly disguised creationism

GentleDove wrote:
the fossil record

is evidence for evolution and has no bearing on the existence of deity.

only with the presumption of an evolutionary worldview.

JBeukema wrote:

GentleDove wrote:
the existence of morality
Has no bearing on deity, is subjective, and can be explained through evolutionary psychology as emerging like all instinct.

So the prohibition against murder is ?true? for some people, and not ?true? for other people? If ?morality? is instinct, then it is not ?morality.? Instinct does not involve free will, choice, or a sense of ?right? and ?wrong.? If ?morality? is instinct, then ?morality? is just what is. But morality is not a description of ?what is,? but ?what ought to be.? Instinct is a totally inadequate definition of morality.

Evolutionary psychology is pseudo-science?it is not at all testable or observable, as science is. There was a book that came out a few years ago called ?A Natural History of Rape? by Craig Palmer and Randy Thornhill, in which they attempted to make the case that rape is ?natural,? ?evolutionary,? ?instinct,? and ?what is;? and, therefore, not immoral. But then they concluded that rape is immoral anyway. It was an arbitrary moral assertion tacked on to the book, during the whole of which they attempted to show the non-moral nature of rape.

JBeukema;67336 wrote:

GentleDove wrote:
the existence of rationality

Has waht bearing ion deity?

As with morality, rationality is non-physical and universal. For example, the law of non-contradiction is rational in all times and places for all people. How can an impersonal, atheistic, physical universe explain a universal, non-material concept such as rationality? Christians have an answer for this, that God, who is transcendent over His creation, made humans in His rational image.

JBeukema wrote:

GentleDove wrote:
history
elaborate

The existence of linear time itself. The existence of the Bible and events described in the Bible, and God?s providence at work in people?s lives and historical events since the canon closed.

JBeukema wrote:

GentleDove wrote:
revelation of God in the Bible

What about the Qu'ran, the Gospel of Thomas, The Bhagavad Gita and other Vedics texts that are older than the Torah...?

The Qu?ran is a self-contradictory ?mimic? of the Bible, written 600 years after Christ. It claims to be a further revelation from god based on the Torah, the Psalms and the gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet in Deuteronomy, it says all further revelations from God must not contradict revelation already given. The Qu?ran contradicts the Bible, therefore it cannot be what it claims to be. In addition, Islam presents the problem of sin, but has no answer to give for it.

The gospel of Thomas is a silly, nonsensical gnostic attempt at writing a ?revelation,? rightly rejected from the canon of Scripture. It is not based on previous revelation, but again, digresses from it.

The Bhagavad Gita and other Vedic texts are nonsensical exclamations of people to ?gods.? It is not revelatory of God, and their accounts of the gods cannot account for universal morality and rationality. In addition, the accounts found in those books are myths and stories, rather than the historical accounts of the Bible. For example, many civilizations and kings, described in the Bible are known to be historical because of archeology, etc.

JBeukema wrote:

GentleDove wrote:
However, those evidences won't count as evidence for people who don't share the Christian worldview.

Because they are not evidence at all.

Not to those who don?t have a Christian worldview. That?s what I said.

JBeukema wrote:

GentleDove wrote:
Everyone has morals.

Not everyone

Yes, everyone has morals, though it?s true everyone?s morals are corrupted by sin. For example, even a ?sociopath? will attempt to appeal to ?fairness,? or some other standard of moral justice to evade just punishment for murder or some other crime.

JBeukema wrote:

GentleDove wrote:
This fact is evidence of the Christian God because morality is by definition universal, transcendent, personal, contains concepts of "good" and "evil," and accountability to authority (or the author of the moral code).

exceopt that others make the same claim, morality is highly subjective, universal morality does not exist...

You may say that, but you can?t live that way. For example, below you post a link to a thread you started, where ?theists? are indicted by you for being amoral or immoral and "theist" views shouldn?t be instilled in children. Based on what? To what are you appealing? If morality is subjective, then Christians are free to instill anything they like in children. If morality is subjective, then you have no moral case against the subjective morals of Christians or anyone else.

JBeukema wrote:

GentleDove wrote:
Atheism, Satanism, self-worship, and all other religions can't account for morality, even as the adherents of these other religions in fact use morality and believe it exists (even though they can't see morality or test morality).

Wrong. Google the Moral Instinct for a non-religious account.

I Googled the phrase, but the articles I read didn?t give an account for the existence of morality, most just explained that human beings have morality and provided lots of different examples of morality and possible categories of morality.

Furthermore, the use of brain imaging to find a biological cause for morals doesn?t make sense. Whatever brain imaging shows, how can particular results of it be shown scientifically to correspond to particular morals? Morals are not physical, any more than laws of logic are physical. Furthermore, how could the results of any experiments be shown to be universal for all human beings, especially if morals are subjective? We don?t all have the same brain, after all. Neither morals nor the laws of logic can be studied by imaging brains.

I also read the claims that some people evolved to be ?saints? because it was beneficial and some people evolved to be ?cheaters? because that was beneficial. When a ?science? can ?theorize? opposite results from the same ?explanation,? it just shows it?s not a scientific theory at all, but a post facto ?just-so? story.

JBeukema wrote:

All religions claim the same thing as yours, btw.

No, they don?t all make the same claims at all. In fact, most religions claim many gods or no god at all. And therefore cannot account for a universal morality (even if they assert one).

JBeukema wrote:

Christianity has no morality. See my other thread

I don?t think a thread asserting that Christianity has no morality is ?proof? that Christianity has no morality. First, you?d have to show a universal moral standard apart from Christianity that could judge the morals of Christianity as not being morals at all.

The OP of this thread did not show that Christianity has no morality. It attempts to refute a strawman that ?theists? assert that atheists can?t have morals by saying atheists do have morals.

The OP also proposes a strawman that ?theists? claim that morals come from fear of hell. I, a Christian theist, don?t claim, and the Bible does not claim, that morals come from a fear of hell; but from the personal creator God, as described in the Bible, who created mankind in His moral image. You may not like that claim, but it does explain how morality could come to exist.

I?m claiming that atheists do in fact have morals, but that fact doesn?t comport with atheism. To say ?morality comports with atheism because atheists have morals,? doesn?t answer the question. How, given a presumption of an impersonal atheistic universe of matter in motion, can abstract (non-physical), universal (across all different particular brains) morality come to exist?

2 Replies

@GentleDove,

GentleDove;67349 wrote:

only with the presumption of an evolutionary worldview.

Evolution is the logical conclusion that comes from a reasonable and intelligent worldview.

Quote:

So the prohibition against murder is ?true? for some people, and not ?true? for other people?

Murder is a legal term and refers exclusively to unlawful homicide, nothing more. The common aversion to homicide is one aspect of the moral instinct, is highly subjective, and indicative of no moral abosolutes.

Quote:

There was a book that came out a few years ago called ?A Natural History of Rape? by Craig Palmer and Randy Thornhill, in which they attempted to make the case that rape is ?natural,? ?evolutionary,? ?instinct,? and ?what is;? and, therefore, not immora

The book did not argue that rape was moral, but merely examined why it might have come about and why it might be so common. The moral aversion to rape arises out of the common aversion to bring harm, and the ethical objections arise- like all ethics and law- through social contract.
attempted to show the non-moral nature of rape.

Quote:

As with morality, rationality is non-physical and universal. For example, the law of non-contradiction is rational in all times and places for all people.

Morality is not absolute or universal. Tell me, is rape ever justifiable?

Quote:

How can an impersonal, atheistic, physical universe explain a universal, non-material concept such as rationality?

Probability. rationality is truly nothing more than discerning the most probable reality and also the most desirable result. Why do we say that an apple was above you if it fell on your head? It is the most probable explanation for how it fell on your head. therefore, it is rational to assume it fell from above your head.

Quote:

Christians have an answer for this, that God, who is transcendent over His creation, made humans in His rational image.

The bible presents no rational deity.

Quote:

The existence of linear time itself.

How does the 4th dimension or the measuring of chan ges in matter indicate deity?

Quote:

The existence of the Bible and events described in the Bible,

Many of which are unconfirmed.

Quote:

and God?s providence at work in people?s lives

Meaningless anecdotes forwarded by all major religions.

Quote:

The Qu?ran is a self-contradictory ?mimic? of the Bible, written 600 years after Christ

.

:rollinglaugh: The bible is without contradiction?

Quote:

It claims to be a further revelation from god based on the Torah, the Psalms and the gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet in Deuteronomy, it says all further revelations from God must not contradict revelation already given.

Those same versus prove Jesus a false prophet, as he overturned the laws of Moses, sought to take God's place as the judger on Men, and basically threw the entire Torah in the garbage to preach his own word, which directly contradicts much of the Torah/OT

Quote:

The Qu?ran contradicts the Bible, therefore it cannot be what it claims to be

The NT contradicts toTorah, therefore it cannot be what it claims to be. Funny how you people never use the same analytical skills with your own beleifs that you apply to others.

Quote:

The Bhagavad Gita and other Vedic texts are nonsensical exclamations of people to ?gods.? It is not revelatory of God, and their accounts of the gods cannot account for universal morality and rationality.

Actually, the fit perfectly with the most rational explanation- ancient alien hypothesis

Why do the gods and angels need crafts to come from the skies? Only the Vedic texts give an answer- because they are physical beings from space. The Abrahamic tradition offers no explanations for the need for these crafts, despite describing the angels and god himself using them.

Quote:

You may say that, but you can?t live that way. For example, below you post a link to a thread you started, where ?theists? are indicted by you for being amoral or immoral and "theist" views shouldn?t be instilled in children. Based on what? To what are you appealing? If morality is subjective, then Christians are free to instill anything they like in children. If morality is subjective, then you have no moral case against the subjective morals of Christians or anyone else.

Abrahamism is harmful and praises and demands genocide, misogyny, racism, and slavery. It is the best interest of all the world that your cult be stamped out.

Quote:

I also read the claims that some people evolved to be ?saints? because it was beneficial and some people evolved to be ?cheaters? because that was beneficial. When a ?science? can ?theorize? opposite results from the same ?explanation,? it just shows it?s not a scientific theory at all, but a post facto ?just-so? story.

They are not opposite theories, twit. They are examples of competing evolutionary strategies.

1 Reply

@JBeukema,

JBeukema;67353 wrote:

Evolution is the logical conclusion that comes from a reasonable and intelligent worldview.

Evolution is totally illogical and can only come from an atheistic worldview. The reason I say evolution is illogical is that it assumes that certain qualities must become or give rise to, their opposite; for example, non-life must turn into life, and that which is non-rational must become or give rise to the rational.

JBeukema;67353 wrote:

Murder is a legal term and refers exclusively to unlawful homicide, nothing more. The common aversion to homicide is one aspect of the moral instinct, is highly subjective, and indicative of no moral abosolutes.

How can homicide be a ?common? yet ?subjective? aversion?

JBeukema;67353 wrote:

The book did not argue that rape was moral, but merely examined why it might have come about and why it might be so common. The moral aversion to rape arises out of the common aversion to bring harm, and the ethical objections arise- like all ethics and law- through social contract.
attempted to show the non-moral nature of rape.

Why is there a ?common aversion to bring harm?? You?re just restating what morality is. Why would any ?social contract? have any moral obligation over anyone to obey it, assuming such a thing even exists?

JBeukema;67353 wrote:

GentleDove wrote:
As with morality, rationality is non-physical and universal. For example, the law of non-contradiction is rational in all times and places for all people.
Morality is not absolute or universal. Tell me, is rape ever justifiable?

No, it isn?t. Yet you must think it is, at least hypothetically, if you believe morals are subjective and particular.

JBeukema wrote:

GentleDove wrote:
How can an impersonal, atheistic, physical universe explain a universal, non-material concept such as rationality?
Probability. rationality is truly nothing more than discerning the most probable reality and also the most desirable result. Why do we say that an apple was above you if it fell on your head? It is the most probable explanation for how it fell on your head. therefore, it is rational to assume it fell from above your head.

Rationality is much more than discerning the most probable reality and also the most desirable result. The notion of probability itself assumes induction or that the future will be like the past. I don?t think you?re tracking my argument.

JBeukema wrote:

The bible presents no rational deity.

I?m sure the Lord God of the universe is suitably chastened by your opinion.

JBeukema;67353 wrote:

:rollinglaugh: The bible is without contradiction?

Yes, despite your laughing emoticon and the threads you start, the Bible is without contradiction.

JBeukema;67353 wrote:

GentleDove wrote:
It claims to be a further revelation from god based on the Torah, the Psalms and the gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet in Deuteronomy, it says all further revelations from God must not contradict revelation already given.

Those same versus prove Jesus a false prophet, as he overturned the laws of Moses, sought to take God's place as the judger on Men, and basically threw the entire Torah in the garbage to preach his own word, which directly contradicts much of the Torah/OT

Jesus did not overturn the laws of Moses; He did not seek to take God?s place, He is God; and His teachings do not ?directly contradict much of the Torah/OT.? That?s just throwing out a lot of claims with no proof.

JBeukema;67353 wrote:

The NT contradicts toTorah, therefore it cannot be what it claims to be. Funny how you people never use the same analytical skills with your own beleifs that you apply to others.

Again, an unsupported claim.

JBeukema;67353 wrote:

GentleDove wrote:
The Bhagavad Gita and other Vedic texts are nonsensical exclamations of people to ?gods.? It is not revelatory of God, and their accounts of the gods cannot account for universal morality and rationality.

Actually, the fit perfectly with the most rational explanation- ancient alien hypothesis

Why do the gods and angels need crafts to come from the skies? Only the Vedic texts give an answer- because they are physical beings from space. The Abrahamic tradition offers no explanations for the need for these crafts, despite describing the angels and god himself using them.

I am very surprised that you are claiming that the ancient alien hypothesis is ?the most rational explanation? for the Vedic texts. Despite much expensive space exploration and the SETI project over many decades, science has failed to detect any evidence for these ?physical beings from space.?

You understand that you?re saying that it?s rational to believe in physical things for which there is no evidence?

JBeukema wrote:

GentleDove wrote:
You may say that, but you can?t live that way. For example, below you post a link to a thread you started, where ?theists? are indicted by you for being amoral or immoral and "theist" views shouldn?t be instilled in children. Based on what? To what are you appealing? If morality is subjective, then Christians are free to instill anything they like in children. If morality is subjective, then you have no moral case against the subjective morals of Christians or anyone else.
Abrahamism is harmful and praises and demands genocide, misogyny, racism, and slavery. It is the best interest of all the world that your cult be stamped out.

Your subjective and totally non-obligatory opinion is noted and forgotten in preference to my own opinions.

JBeukema wrote:

GentleDove wrote:
I also read the claims that some people evolved to be ?saints? because it was beneficial and some people evolved to be ?cheaters? because that was beneficial. When a ?science? can ?theorize? opposite results from the same ?explanation,? it just shows it?s not a scientific theory at all, but a post facto ?just-so? story.

They are not opposite theories, twit. They are examples of competing evolutionary strategies.

I didn?t say they were opposite theories; please re-read.

BTW, thanks. I always know I?m winning the argument when my opponent resorts to name-calling. Smile

2 Replies

@GentleDove,

GentleDove;67366 wrote:

Evolution is totally illogical

:rollinglaugh:

Evolution is an observed fact. Ever heard of MRSA?

evolution evidence - Google Search

evolution bacteria - Google Search

evolution virus - Google Search

evolution mrsa - Google Search

observed speciation - Google Search

Like most theists, your attempt at thinking has failed

Quote:

and can only come from an atheistic worldview.

:rollinglaugh:

FOXNews.com - Vatican Official Defends Evolution Against 'Useless' Creationism - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News

Methodist advocates evolution | The Journal Gazette, Fort Wayne, Ind.

Quote:

The reason I say evolution is illogical is that it assumes that certain qualities must become or give rise to, their opposite

No, it doesn't, you twit :rollinglaugh:

Quote:

for example, non-life must turn into life

ToE says no such thing

Being mentally retarded like all christians, you're probably thinking about the theories of abiogenesis, but like most christians, you''re too stupid and ignorant to know what you're talking about Wink

Quote:

and that which is non-rational must become or give rise to the rational.

wtf are you smoking?

Quote:

How can homicide be a ?common? yet ?subjective? aversion?

Not all people feel the aversion to homicide to the same extent or in the same circumstances. It is a subjective experience, belief, and emotion (the feeling of revulsion) which is common to carrying degrees in many people. Most people like sugar. Some people like sugar more than others, at different times, in different foods and concentrations. The enjoyment of sugar is common and subjective.

Quote:

Why is there a ?common aversion to bring harm??

Because populations that don't wantonly slaughter eachother are more successful at reproducing and increasing their numbers that populatins that kill eachother on first sight.

Quote:

Why would any ?social contract? have any moral obligation over anyone to obey it, assuming such a thing even exists?

Failure to comply gets one killed or ostracized.

Quote:

No, it isn?t. Yet you must think it is, at least hypothetically, if you believe morals are subjective and particular.

You would let all humanity be wiped out save for the pretty women (who get taken as sex slaves) instead of allowing one woman to be raped for the invaders to leave in peace?

Oh... of course rape is perfectly okay is she's an unengaged virgin, according to Leviticus Wink

He just has to buy the little whiore from her daddy for 40 pieces of silver. Then she can aspend the rest of her life fulfilling her conjugal duty.

Quote:

I?m sure the Lord God of the universe is suitably chastened by your opinion.

*** your god. You god loves rape, hates women, orders genocide, and is no better than Hitler. Anyone who claims your god should be killed for the good of humanity- you are among the worst people to ever walk the Earth.

Quote:

Yes, despite your laughing emoticon and the threads you start, the Bible is without contradiction.

:rollinglaugh:

YouTube - Christians, get your days straight.

Contradictions in The Old Testament
you ***ing fail again

Quote:

Jesus did not overturn the laws of Moses; He did not seek to take God?s place, He is God; and His teachings do not ?directly contradict much of the Torah/OT.? That?s just throwing out a lot of claims with no proof.

Was Jesus Sinless?

Did Jesus lead a sinless life while on earth?

Quote:

Your subjective and totally non-obligatory opinion is noted and forgotten in preference to my own opinions.

It's not opinion, you twit, it's the biblical teachings. Do learn your own bible Wink

1 Reply

@Whip,

If someone prides themselves in believing the impossible, then I cannot argue with them, but if they claim they have evidence to support their claims, then they are fair game. Very Happy

0 Replies

@GentleDove,

GentleDove;67366 wrote:

Evolution is totally illogical and can only come from an atheistic worldview.

This is untrue.

Atheists only represent 9-11% of Americans yet 40% of Americans accept evolution. The fact of the matter is that most evolutionists are christians, including Ken Miller an expert witness at the Kitzmiller v Dover trial who is a biology textbook author who is a christian.

1 Reply

@GentleDove,

GentleDove;67349 wrote:

As with morality, rationality is non-physical and universal. For example, the law of non-contradiction is rational in all times and places for all people. How can an impersonal, atheistic, physical universe explain a universal, non-material concept such as rationality? Christians have an answer for this, that God, who is transcendent over His creation, made humans in His rational image.

Rationality is a result of higher brain function.

Morality is a result of our need to cooperate.
-------------

That wasn't so hard.

Quote:

How, given a presumption of an impersonal atheistic universe of matter in motion, can abstract (non-physical), universal (across all different particular brains) morality come to exist?

Common Need.

Morality exists because it must. A society without morality would collapse. Morality as I have previously stated is a direct result of our need to cooperate with each other. Even wolves do not randomly kill each other, social animals have to cooperate. Do we need to postulate gods to explain why morality is necessary?

1 Reply

@JBeukema,

JBeukema;67377 wrote:

:
Was Jesus Sinless?

Did Jesus lead a sinless life while on earth?

It's not opinion, you twit, it's the biblical teachings. Do learn your own bible

i just checked out both links.. very interesting..!! the bible is just as open to fault as is any other book written by men, translated by men, designed by men. men are not without fault.. and neither are their books.. that christians claim to be the only people capable of understanding this bible is hilarious.. it should worry them that so many people are walking away from the religion.. it just doesnt hold up to careful scrutiny.. and when u remove the fear of "hell".. they might become aware of this fact. what of reason and logic? evidence?.. aside from "the bible said so.. so god said so".. i know they feel they are above the rest of humanity.. they are after all "the new chosen".. which entitles them to feel special.. and gives them the ability to know things they claim only god knows.. even after walking away from the christian religion.. i cant seem to get away!! lol.. hmmm.. the religious residue doesnt come off with soap and water.

1 Reply

Questions for theists

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know