Are Atheists who Stand on Morality Conceding God?

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Are atheists who stand on some sort of moral principle as absolute, conceding some sort of God?

I'm not saying a bearded man in the sky or even any conscious entity at all, but merely, something deserving of worship. If you say we want to make a society without murder because that will benefit everyone, that is different from saying, murder is wrong, just because, and that's the end of it. By doing the latter, even if the person is supposedly atheist, do they not give the same type of unconditional moral deference to that idea that is wrong "just because" that religious people give to God? Does this premise, that something is wrong just because, not take the space of a god? Is it not gaining faith, and worship?

In other words, I don't care if you worship a cardboard box, the sky, a tree, or a fortune you pulled out of a fortune cookie. If you give faith, you're arguably religious. And whatever you give faith to, is arguably a god.

[brunumb]

...Try demonstrating that God actually exists instead. ..

If gravity is demonstrated by showing its effect, can God be demonstrated by showing God's effect?

Typical diversion. Demonstrate that your God exists.

[brunumb]

Okay, but we all agree that Osiris doesn't exist and he's still a god.

Speak for yourself. Some of us agree that Osiris does exist and he is a being and meets the criteria for godhood. 1213 broadened the definition of god to the point of being meaningless.

[1213]

...Demonstrate that your God exists.

I think that life and Bible exists, demonstrates God exists.

[TRANSPONDER]

...Demonstrate that your God exists.

I think that life and Bible exists, demonstrates God exists.

It doesn't demonstrate that any god exists, let alone a particular one, Your apologetics are becoming increasingly short faithclaims thrown in more to trumptet your beliefs than to make any coherent argument.

I don't believe that you have carried a single argument here. Not even the ine about faith or Works, where you for sure made me think a bit But the thing is, I have seen this happen every time in other sites; atheists end up dominating, because they have the better arguments and the religious apologists can only employ denial and faithclaims.

[Purple Knight]

Okay, but we all agree that Osiris doesn't exist and he's still a god.

Speak for yourself. Some of us agree that Osiris does exist and he is a being and meets the criteria for godhood. 1213 broadened the definition of god to the point of being meaningless.

I say a god is what is worthy of moral deference. In other words, something or someone that just gets to tell us what to do and that is righteous. (That's why I say it doesn't exist - I think that no matter how powerful something was, it would not get moral lordship over anyone else.) 1213's definition is sort of in line with that. I think it was a little bit ridiculous that 1213 said that a liar is a server of lies (I think a liar is a server of themselves) but supposing someone did think they should lie, even if harm came to them over it. What's the difference between that and you should go to church, should bow down and pray?

What would you say qualifies as a god and what doesn't? We don't think the Christian god exists (I think it's very very very unlikely) but the people who follow him are still religious. So then, would not people who provide Mother Goose with that same level of moral deference also be religious?

[TRANSPONDER]

Okay, but we all agree that Osiris doesn't exist and he's still a god.

Speak for yourself. Some of us agree that Osiris does exist and he is a being and meets the criteria for godhood. 1213 broadened the definition of god to the point of being meaningless.

I say a god is what is worthy of moral deference. In other words, something or someone that just gets to tell us what to do and that is righteous. (That's why I say it doesn't exist - I think that no matter how powerful something was, it would not get moral lordship over anyone else.) 1213's definition is sort of in line with that. I think it was a little bit ridiculous that 1213 said that a liar is a server of lies (I think a liar is a server of themselves) but supposing someone did think they should lie, even if harm came to them over it. What's the difference between that and you should go to church, should bow down and pray?

What would you say qualifies as a god and what doesn't? We don't think the Christian god exists (I think it's very very very unlikely) but the people who follow him are still religious. So then, would not people who provide Mother Goose with that same level of moral deference also be religious?

Depends upon how one defines a religion. Some may claim that it is a sort of Lodge or sci-fi/fantasy community, but with rituals. Others say it requires a god - thing as an object of reverence. Here i may say that Buddhism and Scientology qualify as Theisms because they believe (without valid reason) in intelligent entities that have to be dealt with to achieve peace in this world or the next. I mean, Thetans and a discerning Karma. It has to be intelligent to know good deeds from bad, human morality often being self - serving).

But my definition of religion is quite simple, if human - subjective "Any theist or quasi -theist cult that can wangle itself tax - exempt status". Which is why atheism is not a religion.

[Tcg]

But my definition of religion is quite simple, if human - subjective "Any theist or quasi -theist cult that can wangle itself tax - exempt status". Which is why atheism is not a religion.

So, if churches in New Zealand lose their tax-exempt status will their version of Christianity no longer be a religion?

https://www.change.org/p/preserve-tax-e ... d-churches


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

But my definition of religion is quite simple, if human - subjective "Any theist or quasi -theist cult that can wangle itself tax - exempt status". Which is why atheism is not a religion.

So, if churches in New Zealand lose their tax-exempt status will their version of Christianity no longer be a religion?

https://www.change.org/p/preserve-tax-e ... d-churches


Tcg

I was, of course, funnin' but it is a fair point.

Of course, it depends.

If a church volunteered to pay tax, it would not have lost the option of tax exemption so would be a religion, recognized,
if a country legislated to stop ALL religious tax exemptions, then that would not be useful in determining whether a religion was a religion or not.

But if a particular religion, claimed, is refused tax exemption, then it is not a religion in terms of the elected spokesbods of society.

The believers would still consider themselves a religion, who gave them the final word? They may claim that their god says they are a religion, but then if it is too much like Revealething themself by appearing unto the legislators on the road to Damascus, Virginia, and saying "That is a religion. changeth thy mind before I lift the blindness".

Until that impressive miracle, if the Religious Status Assessment Panel determines they don't get tax exemption, they ain't a religion.

[Purple Knight]

The believers would still consider themselves a religion, who gave them the final word?

Do they need someone to give them that?

[TRANSPONDER]

The believers would still consider themselves a religion, who gave them the final word?

Do they need someone to give them that?

Logically, they do, though in practice, they would say they were a religion, even if the legislation decided they weren't, and i would suggest that they would think, deep down, that religious Revelation has given them superior knowledge.

But they would get called on it and told they are not a religion in legal terms, and..yes you may be right; they may say they consider themselves a religion on logical or legal terms and would not have to appeal to a god.

I just think it would temptingly easy to appeal to a god as validation of their opinion.