Question for Atheists/Naturalist

[For_The_Kingdom]

It has happened often, within the past 100 years, that if you ask an atheist if he believes in God, he will often say something like "No, I don't believe in God, but I also don't believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy". So, the belief in God is compared to the belief in fairy tales and such. My question is, do atheists really believe that belief in God is the same as believing in Santa Claus, or is such a statement just an over-the-top, facetious quip?

When you ride past a Church on Sunday, and you see dozens of cars in the parking lot as members are gathered inside for Sunday services as they worship their God...is that equivalent to riding past a dentist and seeing cars parked in the parking lot as the members inside share stories about a geniune belief that they have of the Tooth Fairy?

Now, if I saw cars outside the dentist and the people gathered inside for such...I would probably think they are crazy, or at least, childish in their thinking. Why? Because I don't think a rational adult with common sense can believe in such a thing.

BUT, is that the same way that someone with an atheist perspective will look at us (Church members) who are gathered inside a Church to talk about/worship a geninue belief in God?

Like, if you are an atheist who doesn't believe in God whatsoever...what do you think about those that do? Do you look at them as lost, crazy, duped, all of the above?

Some of you on here are probably former believers? Do you sometimes think, "Man, thank goodness I don't have that "God" umbrella over me anymore. I can't believe that I actually BELIEVED that nonsense".

I don't want to fuss or fight...I just want to see your thoughts.

[For_The_Kingdom]

You maintain to know something about God while at the same time, you admit to not knowing God's ways or God's characterisitcs.

Knowing and not knowing at the very same time is contradictory.

See, now you are just being argumentative just for the sake of arguing and I refuse to entertain that nonsense.

[For_The_Kingdom]

You want me to TRY to make a a bald, bold, baseless assertion?

I have to wonder why I would want to waste my time doing that?

I don't know...I can't speak for you...why would you?

I wouldn't.
You tell me.. you said I should try it
NOT my idea





smiley face

So, out of my entire post (#98), the above quote is what you CHOOSE to respond to?

SMH.

You are wasting my time, bruh. If you aren't prepared to "debate" or "discuss" these matters with me, then simply discontinue typing my way.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 96 by For_The_Kingdom]



[center]Necessary vs. Contingent existence
Part Three: Things that already exist exist necessarily.
[/center]

Hope I got this part right.
What comes next?

Next up: Is it possible for Blastcat to have a necessary existence?

Of course it's possible. HELLO... I exist.

If it's not possible, why would you DEFINE someone as necessary?
It seems to me that you are lost in the mess of these posts.

From Post 71:

"So, if I defined YOU as a necessarily existing being...does it follow that it is possible for you to exist necessarily? No, not at all. "

These are your words.
IF you define someone as necessarily EXISTING.. why say later that it's not even possible?

Why would you DEFINE something as a necessary being if it's not possible from the get go?
Weird.

But, of course, it's worse for you than that.

I DO "necessarily" exist, of course.

I happen to exist, so it's not only POSSIBLE that I exist, but my existence is something that is NECESSARILY TRUE.

If I ACTUALLY exist, i must NECESSARILY exist .

If I didn't exist, I wouldn't have to exist "necessarily".


What's next?

Please respond to my post #98. Until then, we don't have anything more to talk about. I don't know what you think you are doing, just conveniently ignoring the jest of the post but have the nerve to respond to selective quotes within the post, which are really futile compared to the meat and potatos of the post as a whole.

I will tell you the same thing I told DI...I put too much time and juice into my responses (the lengthy ones)..and just like I took the time/effort to respond to your posts, I would appreciate if you gave me that same respect.

[rikuoamero]

You maintain to know something about God while at the same time, you admit to not knowing God's ways or God's characterisitcs.

Knowing and not knowing at the very same time is contradictory.

See, now you are just being argumentative just for the sake of arguing and I refuse to entertain that nonsense.

Clarify please. Since I also pointed this out to you, (at least, I'm sure I did...?), I thought I'd jump into this exchange. How is someone pointing out to you that you're being contradictory them being argumentative for argument's sake?

[otseng]

SMH.

You are wasting my time, bruh. If you aren't prepared to "debate" or "discuss" these matters with me, then simply discontinue typing my way.

Moderator Warning


Please do not make personal comments about others. If you don't want to engage with someone, just do not respond.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[For_The_Kingdom]

That's fine with me, I'll accept your semantic limitations for our conversations here. But I have already shown you via Einstein's Relativity that things that are objective (i.e. things that can be experienced and measured) do not need to also be absolute. Time dilation is just one obvious example. Time is certainly objective but it's clearly not absolute.

Well maybe "objective" in the context of science has a different meaning than it would when dealing with morality. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.

But I understand that for you theistic arguments you are demanding that of something is objective, then it must also be absolute.

I would say so.

So for our conversations then Objective = Absolute and Absolute = Objective. We can use these terms interchangeably since they basically mean the same thing in this context (according to you).

What do you mean according to me? The link that I provided (which you piggy-backed) on, said the same thing. Don't make it seem as if you are reluctantly agreeing with me on this issue of semantics...you saw it for yourself.

False claim and misrepresentation on your part.

When someone says "...that is because everyone else thinks x when it is clearly y", that is implying that everyone else is wrong.

So it wasn't a false claim and misrepresentation...it is what you IMPLIED.

Uneducated layman may THINK that objective and absolute mean the same thing, but clearly in physics they don't. In physics we have direct observations of phenomena that is clearly objective but NOT absolute.

Well, this aint physics, is it?

So all you are attempting to do is bring me down to your level of understanding of the world. I am nowhere near alone in my understanding of the difference between the terms "objective" and "absolute" when used in a formal scientific setting. The whole scientific community understands this as well.

I don't think morality has anything to do with science...but I will let you continue conflating those two totally different concepts together and passing it off as correlation.

An uncivil degrading comment on your part intended to belittle both myself and Sam Harris. Sam Harris fully understands that objective and absolute do not mean the same thing. Clearly you don't.

Interesting. William Lane Craig has had many debates on the subject of morality, and he always uses the term "objective moral values"...and it is funny, because as much as he uses those terms, I don't recall ANY OF HIS OPPONENTS calling into question his use of terminology...and what is also interesting is, in almost my over 15 years of Apologetics, you are the ONLY ONE that has ever raised some mess about absolute > objective.

Not to mention the fact that again, you saw for yourself in the link that I provided that objective is in fact synonymous with absolute, despite you initially saying otherwise.

You were just simply wrong.

You are the one who is demanding that an ABSOLUTE morality exists. You are the one who is confusing objective to mean "absolute".

Now you are doubling back on this alleged "confusion" when you already admitted that they were the same thing (you AGREED with the link provided). I have nothing more to say to you on this issue.

[Divine Insight]

Not to mention the fact that again, you saw for yourself in the link that I provided that objective is in fact synonymous with absolute, despite you initially saying otherwise.

You were just simply wrong.

I wasn't wrong at all. In fact, my original point was that what you were attempting to argue for is absolute morality.

And apparently I was right about that all along. You've just agreed with my original point. When previously you had argued that you don't even know what "absolute morality" even means.

But now you are verifying than when you use the term "objective" what you really mean is "absolute", just like Dr. Craig.

You've just verified that I have been precisely correct all along. When you speak of "objective morality" you actually mean "absolute morality". You've just stated in your quote above that these are synonymous.

Well, this aint physics, is it?

Exactly my point. So why even bother using a term like "objective" when what you actually mean is "absolute".

In fact, you seem to be trying to imply BOTH, just like Dr. Craig. Objective is a physical term meaning that something actually exists somewhere. And what you are attempting to claim "exists somewhere" is an "absolute morality".

So where does this "absolute morality" exist other than in your own imagination?

I had already asked if you could point to evidence for your so-called "objective morality" (i.e. a morality that actually exists somewhere), and you couldn't. Instead you used a diversionary tactic of trying to play semantic games pretending that I have somehow been semantically wrong, which is a totally false charge on your behalf.

If you believe that you can point to any "objective morality" just do it. We can then address whether or not your "objective morality" it is also "absolute" after you have produced it.

In fact, until you can show that it exists we can't really say anything about it at all can we?

You'll need to demonstrate that it exists first. Especially if you want to claim that it is "objective".

[For_The_Kingdom]

Dude...this is what YOU did in your MOA thread. You defined your God as necessarily existing (to be precise, in your preamble, you said it could not fail to exist), plugged this god into your argument and what do you know? You claimed that this proves God exists.

What I claimed was; all possible necessary truths must be actually true. That point still stands.

Now all of a sudden I'm hearing that if FtK defines rikuoamero in a preamble as necessarily existing and then plugs rikuoamero into the argument...somehow it is possible for the argument to return a FALSE value?
How the heck does that even work? I'm running through the argument in my head right now and no matter how I try to spin it, a necessarily existing rikuoamero in P1 leads to the conclusion that rikuoamero does in fact necessarily exist (in other words, the conclusion is in the premise and it's still a cheat, an invalid logical argument).

A necessarily existing rikuoamero wouldn't make it pass P2 of the argument. Why? Because it is not POSSIBLE for rikuoamero to exist necessarily.

There is no need for over-analyzing this.

Yes, because the goal of the MOA, for the Christian apologist, is to 'prove' the existence of God. You quite simply cannot cheat by defining God as being necessary in his existence BEFORE the argument. The existence of God is what is in question here, it is that attribute that is under investigation.

Nonsense. In the preface, the defined being is alleged, ok? An alleged being, who may/may not exist is defined. That is no different than someone defining Big Foot or the Lochness Monster.

Great, so you agree with me. Jesus Christ was/is not human. I'm sure plenty of other Christians will agree with you...

Jesus was human.

So then Jesus was sinful then?

I read carefully what I said, and I have no IDEA how you could have drawn that conclusion based off of what I said. Straw man.

He apparently had to be sacrificed, so it would only make sense if it's something he's atoning for.

?

Unless you want to get into the realm of human A sacrificing human B to make up for something A did...but still a problem there, because in Christian theology, sin isn't necessarily anything to do with what a human actually does themselves.

?

As others have said, this shows the massive confirmation bias in your thinking. I don't ever say that to anyone else. I don't ever say to someone (whether talking about religion or some other topic) anything along the lines of 'you'll only understand if you believe the same thing I believe'.

In order to fully understand what it is like to buy in "bulk", you have to be part of the club (Sam's Club).

Which isn't present in early Jewish belief. Jews don't believe in a heaven/hell. They don't accept the concept of a resurrection of the dead, of meeting loved ones.

Right, and unbelievers don't accept the concept of a physical hell...but just because you don't accept it doesn't mean can't/won't go, does it?

Even in the hypothetical model where the Christian God exists, this concept of a conscious afterlife wasn't present in the Jewish belief system at the time Job supposedly lived in.

Hmm..Yet, Saul spoke to a very "conscious in the afterlife Samuel".

1Samuel 28:7-19.

Like with Blastcat, I have to point out that simple assertions do not an argument make.

I would think that any of my dozens of PARAGRAPHS that I made on the subject would constitute as much more than simple assertions.

Your assertion is based on a condition anyway (it has an IF)

Because, it is conditional.

, and I'm not convinced by you that objective morality even exists, or that it requires a lawgiver.

Right, so things like rape/torturing kids for fun isn't objectively wrong in your eyes...gotcha.

If I'm curious about the matter, I can investigate and try to find evidence to support the existence of this institution, or ask them if they did indeed give such a cert to my neighbour.

And what if they say they did? Then what?

Where can I find evidence to support that your God is good?

Oh wait...I can't. You've already disqualified yourself as being someone I can ask by admitting that you don't know.

My belief that God is good is based upon preponderance of the evidence..which starts with my belief in a Cosmic, personal Creator that has revealed himself in Jesus Christ and the Resurrection...since I believe in the Resurrection, have reasons to believe that Jesus is who he said he is, and that is the "Truth"..and along with that comes Christian theology at which morality (the concept of) has its foundation.

Now, if there was no God, then I would NOT believe in objective moral values, just like you don't.

That doesn't tell me that this being is good. In fact, what can you say at all to indicate to me that this God is good?

Well, you don't believe in objective moral values...so how you define "good" is entirely dependent upon you and wherever you get your moral values from.

Again, you've disqualified yourself from doing that.

No, I didn't. I basically said that I don't have to know everything about everything to know some things.

Precisely what I said. MANKIND. And as for the Bible being clear...didn't you just say that there are things in the Bible that only a believer will understand?

Some things...not everything.

It seems strange that in one part of your reply you try to pass the Bible off as being incomprehensible unless one already believes it, and yet, in this other part, the Bible is seemingly clear on some aspect of the Christian theology.

No, you want to know what is strange? It is strange at how you are taking what I said about one (maybe two) concepts involving Christian theology, and applying it to the BIBLE AND CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY as a WHOLE.

THAT, is what is strange.

Those personalities I mentioned wouldn't agree with you. They'd also say the Bible is clear that redemption is for humans only, and they'd rattle off chapter and verse to support their position.

Sure, believers have in-house debates all of the time. Nothing new. But regarding the Biblical subjects that WE are discussing which involves human sacrifice, that is not one of the subjects that we (believers) are in conflict with.

So I am not aware of any chapter/verse that would contradict anything that I said, and if you have it...POST IT.

DING DING DING DING DING! We have a winner!
No, I mean no disrespect, but this is literally the most important thing any Christian can say.
When you, as a Christian, admit that you have no way at all to verify whether this God character spoke to someone or not, this means that you have quite literally NO justification to believe this God spoke to anyone at all.

LOL. Yeahhh...but see, we have this guy named Jesus who was called the Christ...and we (believers) have JUSTIFICATION of him rising from the dead and actually being the physical representation of God himself, living on earth and dwelling with man.

He may have or he may not have. But any claim by anyone throughout history, from Abraham to Paul, is now unsustainable.

We (believers), disagree.

Indeed, doesn't this blast a hole in what you said earlier, that you have arguments based on evidence that God revealed himself in Jesus Christ?
Which is true here? You cannot verify whether God spoke to someone, or the earlier comment?
Both cannot be true. For your earlier statement to stand, you'd have to have some way to verify with whom God has spoken.

You are taking stuff out of context, which is becoming a pattern with you. You are taking stuff that I say and applying it to areas that is incompatible with my said/implied position.

In post #82, you raised the question of HOW CAN WE VERIFY WHETHER GOD COMMANDED ANY GIVEN ACT (such as an execution) TO BE COMMITTED. And I responded with "I don't know".

In OTHER WORDS; I cannot verify whether, if a man kills another human being and he said "God told me to do it"...I cannot verify whether God ACTUALLY TOLD THE MAN TO DO IT OR NOT.

So to sum it up; I cannot verify what God said or didn't say in every individual case (if any at all) of someone saying "God told me to do it".

That was the context of OUR DISCUSSION. That has absolutely NOTHING TO DO with the case/argument that I can make regarding the historicity of Jesus Christ and what he (Jesus/God in the flesh) said or did.

You are conflating two different CONTEXTS of the discussion...and as I said, it is becoming an annoying pattern. I am beginning to spend more time clearing up misunderstandings and in some cases down-right deliberate misconstrued interpretations than I am in having light-hearted, fruitful discussions on these subjects...which is pitiful.

I'm commenting on what you said here to DI, to point something out.
I am an atheist. I used to be Christian. According to what you're saying here, if one goes naturalist (which I guess I am too...), then MY moral view should be that there's nothing wrong with being a serial killer. In fact, I should be out right now pillaging and raping. What's holding me back?
Think about that for a moment. Given your view of what it means to be a naturalist, why isn't this naturalist out serial killing?

I don't know...but in the animal kingdom, a lion will kill a hyena any chance it gets..which is no different than the Crips gang killing a members of the Bloods every chance they get.

I implore you to take some time to think about why this naturalist and others on the forum aren't out killing, or doing any number of horrible deeds. In fact, in the almost twenty years I've been an atheist, the number of horrible deeds I've done is shockingly low. You might be surprised at just how elliptical the number is.

But if you were out killing..nothing would be wrong with it. See? [/i]

[For_The_Kingdom]

How is someone pointing out to you that you're being contradictory them being argumentative for argument's sake?

"You maintain to know something about God while at the same time, you admit to not knowing God's ways or God's characterisitcs".

Because it would only be contradictory if I said "I know everything about God, but I don't know why he acted X way".

That represents a contradiction. However, that is not what I said..I said countless times that I have reasons to believe in objective moral values and Christian theology...and it is based on those reasons that I believe that God is the ultimate source of Goodness...and I can make that statement WITHOUT knowing the motive behind every single act that God makes/doesn't make.

The above statement struck me as argumentative...there was no clarification behind it..just something to "say".

My opinion.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 114 by For_The_Kingdom]




[center]The multiple meanings of the word "objective".
Part One[/center]

Well maybe "objective" in the context of science has a different meaning than it would when dealing with morality. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.

____________

Questions:

• 
  1. Are you saying the the word "objective" can have more than one meaning?
  
  2. What meaning do you give to "objective" when you are talking of morality?
  
  
  

____________