Let's say one side in this war of words finally wins out. Victory is in evidence when one side simply gives up and/or openly concedes defeat. The aftermath is that the one worldview takes complete dominance in all the schools educating students in its truth. Only the most foolish and ignorant people cling to the defeated view, and they are a very small minority.
It's not hard to imagine what the world would be like if Christianity wins. We've already seen it take over Europe in the middle ages. Unlike the middle ages, however, Christians would have nuclear weapons at their disposal. The "apocalyptic Christians" might actually use them believing they could hasten the return of Christ.
An atheist victory is harder to imagine. One might point to Stalinist Russia as an "atheist victory" of sorts, but communism is not atheism. Atheism might work wonders in the progress of science and other disciplines. It would also put an end to religious fanaticism and hucksterism like faith healing. On the downside, though, an atheist victory could cause an increase in euthanizing the elderly and disabled.
What would the world look like if atheism wins, and what would the world look like if Christianity wins?
Victory in the Battle Between Atheism and Christianity
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Victory in the Battle Between Atheism and Christianity
Post #101[Replying to post 88 by For_The_Kingdom]
"On" anything, there are no objective standards. Christianity included.First of all, on atheism, there is no objective standard for what good is.
I decide what is good just like you decide what is good.So when you say you do good, well, good according to whom? Who decides what is good and what isn't. That is the first point.
That's for sure! When people imagine gods, they very often imagine evil gods that command them to do evil. Moses, for example, is believed to have slaughtered innocent women and children. You asked who decides what is right and wrong. I have decided that the genocide of Moses is wrong. Have you decided that killing innocent women and children is right?The second point is, no one is saying that people need God to be good.
Who forgives this wretch of a god when he does evil?The point is, you don't need God to be good, but you do need God's grace, love, and forgiveness for when you do bad.
I'd be more impressed if you were forgiven by Hitler. He was a very nice guy compared to that devil of a god you believe in and worship.Believers in God/Christ have that forgiveness...while unbelievers don't. That is the difference.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1915
- Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm
Re: Victory in the Battle Between Atheism and Christianity
Post #102Ok, so on judgement day when you receive your hell sentence, you can call the judgment "subjective".Jagella wrote: "On" anything, there are no objective standards. Christianity included.
Cool.Jagella wrote: I decide what is good just like you decide what is good.
Or they imagine good God's, who died on the cross for their sins.Jagella wrote: That's for sure! When people imagine gods, they very often imagine evil gods that command them to do evil.
I'm not so sure if slaughtering innocent women and children is a bad thing, if their are no objective moral values (as you stated).Jagella wrote: Moses, for example, is believed to have slaughtered innocent women and children.
That is your opinion, which you are certainly entitled to.Jagella wrote: You asked who decides what is right and wrong. I have decided that the genocide of Moses is wrong.
If God doesn't exist, then I don't see anything wrong with killing innocent women and children.Jagella wrote: Have you decided that killing innocent women and children is right?
I don't believe God commits evil acts (not the Christian God), and even if he did, such acts would be evil according to who? To you? Who are you to decide what is good, and what is evil?Jagella wrote: Who forgives this wretch of a god when he does evil?
I would be more impressed with Hitler if he was able to convince God NOT to place him in his hell cell.Jagella wrote: I'd be more impressed if you were forgiven by Hitler.
Ok, since you feel that way, and since you may CONTINUE to feel that way, you will have a long time to tell Hitler just how much of a nice guy he was/is.Jagella wrote: He was a very nice guy compared to that devil of a god you believe in and worship.
- rikuoamero
- Under Probation
- Posts: 6707
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
- Been thanked: 4 times
Re: Victory in the Battle Between Atheism and Christianity
Post #103[Replying to post 94 by For_The_Kingdom]
Simply saying that Jesus Christ is an objective standard tells me nothing. I have no idea what you mean by that.
As for your suggestion to read the Bible, I recently had to tell 1213 that I already have. This is something that annoys me whenever I discuss things with you Christians. Very frequently, you (yes, you, in this answer) just say to read the Bible, as if merely reading it will somehow magically resolve any problems I have.
Don't you think such suggestions are a bit empty? If I suggest to you to read Dawkin's 'The God Delusion', do you think I am giving you any great advice?
However, we have a problem. You say, and I quote again 'regardless of who thinks it is right.
You earlier in this reply said that Jesus Christ, a person, is the objective standard.
How can a person be an objective standard, if an objective standard of morality is that something is wrong, regardless of what any person may think it to be?
Jesus Christ says Q is moral, is Q objectively moral?
As for circumstances...how does this not disqualify the God mentioned in the Bible? According to the Bible, circumstances were such that at one time, slavery was sanctioned, with rules governing its practice. Then along comes Jesus, circumstances change, and suddenly (if you're of the interpretation of Christianity that forbids slavery that is...), slavery is no longer accepted.
It would be like suggesting that I do something to ward off an attack from Voldemort's Death Eaters, without actually convincing me that Voldemort exists.
That is essentially what you are doing, what I see what you are doing as comparable to. You claim to have a purple dragon in your garage, I ask you to show me, and in response, you quote a section of a book that I do not trust as telling much if any truth that blames me for not believing you.
What more are you seeing? All I see is one sentence, one verse from Hebrews Chapter 11. Are you saying there is more text that is somehow...I dunno...invisible to non-believers?
Still not answering my question. To remind you, I am asking you to describe to me what an objective standard in morality is, and then (that is to say, after you have done this), to explain how the Bible God meets this standard.I will do you one better. Instead of explaining what X is, I will tell you who X is. X is Jesus Christ. For further inquiry, swipe the dust off of your Bible and read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Simply saying that Jesus Christ is an objective standard tells me nothing. I have no idea what you mean by that.
As for your suggestion to read the Bible, I recently had to tell 1213 that I already have. This is something that annoys me whenever I discuss things with you Christians. Very frequently, you (yes, you, in this answer) just say to read the Bible, as if merely reading it will somehow magically resolve any problems I have.
Don't you think such suggestions are a bit empty? If I suggest to you to read Dawkin's 'The God Delusion', do you think I am giving you any great advice?
Okay great! Now we're getting somewhere. For your information, this is what I think too.The objective standard in term of morality is any action X that is wrong and will remain wrong (or right) regardless of who thinks it is right...so for example, raping a child; if such an act is wrong and will remain wrong regardless of popular opinion (or opinions in general), it is objectively wrong.
However, we have a problem. You say, and I quote again 'regardless of who thinks it is right.
You earlier in this reply said that Jesus Christ, a person, is the objective standard.
How can a person be an objective standard, if an objective standard of morality is that something is wrong, regardless of what any person may think it to be?
Jesus Christ says Q is moral, is Q objectively moral?
You don't explain how this standard of morality can only be grounded upon a lawgiver, transcendent or otherwise. You have just declared it to be such.The standard of objectivity as it relates to morality can only be grounded on a transcendent lawgiver, whose moral compass isn't dependent upon contingent circumstances, as human beings are.
As for circumstances...how does this not disqualify the God mentioned in the Bible? According to the Bible, circumstances were such that at one time, slavery was sanctioned, with rules governing its practice. Then along comes Jesus, circumstances change, and suddenly (if you're of the interpretation of Christianity that forbids slavery that is...), slavery is no longer accepted.
...that's your followup? Just to double down on the statement with no further explanation?Which is a statement that is true and remains true.
And yet, what you said to regarding divine punishment is nothing more than Pascal's Wager. You suggested that I be afraid of being punished by God, so to avoid this punishment, I should believe in your God. In other words, you suggested I believe something not because it is actually true but out of a selfish motivation.Truth value is independent of personal beliefs.
It would be like suggesting that I do something to ward off an attack from Voldemort's Death Eaters, without actually convincing me that Voldemort exists.
And yet, here you are in debates, crowing about how Jesus Christ is real, the Bible speaks the truth, and suggesting that others read the Bible and believe as you do.I was never under the impression that I needed to be able to "show that I have God's/Christ forgiveness". My relationship with God is a personal one, not something that I should ever feel obligated to prove to any third-party about.
Well...something other than blame the skeptic for not believing you when you continuously claim to have a purple dragon in your garage.Well, you are saying "produce God" as if you want me to grab God by the collar and slam him down before you.
That is essentially what you are doing, what I see what you are doing as comparable to. You claim to have a purple dragon in your garage, I ask you to show me, and in response, you quote a section of a book that I do not trust as telling much if any truth that blames me for not believing you.
That isn't what you did in that part of the post. In that part of the post, you didn't 'offer a good sound argument as to why God MUST exist'. No, you quoted your holy book, a passage that blames me for not believing you.but what I can do is offer good, sound arguments as to why God absolutely positively MUST exists, and also that it is more plausible than not that this God has revealed himself in Jesus Christ.
Reread the quote from Hebrews you posted before, and explain to me how you are able to read more than I am able to. All I see there is me, and people like me (i.e. non-believers) being blamed for not already being a believer and promises rewards for earnest seekers...even though it is demonstrably not true in my case (I was a believer of God, and while I was a believer of God, I sought him).I see so much more than that.
What more are you seeing? All I see is one sentence, one verse from Hebrews Chapter 11. Are you saying there is more text that is somehow...I dunno...invisible to non-believers?
Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"
I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead
Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense
- Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Re: Victory in the Battle Between Atheism and Christianity
Post #104[Replying to post 100 by For_The_Kingdom]
If someone returned from the dead, there would be tours, scholars with opinions, with counter-opinions, dissertations and doctors created about him, instead there is perfect proof of his existence... none.
Ah well, you seem to be in some kind of denial.
Your Jezeus seems to be advocating Zeus, after his name sake, and Caesar's government, much more than he is doing anything else.
So, we haven't established Jezeus or his followers existed... But we can read this imaginary character advocating Rome's government and its false gods... and can observe history where the Jews had an insurrection because they refused Jezeus' advice on taxes.
Thank you for having me read your Bible, it has been enlightening.
Well, his followers seem to be as real/imaginary as he is, so...what imaginary followers believe doesn't grant much weight...I don't know who Je Zeus is. But as far as Jesus is concerned, there is evidence that his followers believed that he rose from the dead, based on finding his tomb empty and seeing him post mortem.
Don't you mean, show you evidence that Caesar came back from the dead? That Julius cured the lame? Who cares to prove some guy did or did not get stabbed, people get stabbed all the time - one hardly needs to prove it... How did Julius Caesar die? He was killed by a conspiracy of many people who admitted it... that seems good enough. Why wouldn't it be?Show me evidence that Julius Caesar was stabbed.
Are you kidding me? 'People' recorded charlatans and quacks from that time period, but not someone back from the dead? Do you expect me to believe that?[RE: Lazarus' bio] I guess "the people" determined that he didn't deserve one.
If someone returned from the dead, there would be tours, scholars with opinions, with counter-opinions, dissertations and doctors created about him, instead there is perfect proof of his existence... none.
Of course they weren't worshiping false gods, they would be worshiping false gods IF they followed Jezeus' advice. and gave the false god Caesar the tribute he wanted.Again, in the context that you are speaking of, the Jewish people weren't worshiping false gods.
Check out history, Jerusalem underwent a DIASPORA or something because of this and related issues.I am not aware of them not paying the tax.
How do you miss that much history? It is only one of the most tragic events IN Jewish history!Where do you get that from?
Yep, and when Hitler invokes Jezeus and tells you it is OK, it is OK. Jezeus tells you to blaspheme, it is OK. Jezeus tells you that adultery doesn't need punishment, it is OK.If Jesus tells you it is ok, then it is ok.
Ah well, you seem to be in some kind of denial.
Your Jezeus seems to be advocating Zeus, after his name sake, and Caesar's government, much more than he is doing anything else.
So, we haven't established Jezeus or his followers existed... But we can read this imaginary character advocating Rome's government and its false gods... and can observe history where the Jews had an insurrection because they refused Jezeus' advice on taxes.
Thank you for having me read your Bible, it has been enlightening.
- alexxcJRO
- Guru
- Posts: 1624
- Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
- Location: Cluj, Romania
- Has thanked: 66 times
- Been thanked: 215 times
- Contact:
Re: Victory in the Battle Between Atheism and Christianity
Post #105Yes the nonsensical idea that God sacrificed himself to himself in order to be able to save us from himself. )For_The_Kingdom wrote: Or they imagine good God's, who died on the cross for their sins
But you believe in objective moral values soFor_The_Kingdom wrote: I'm not so sure if slaughtering innocent women and children is a bad thing, if their are no objective moral values (as you stated).
Q: Is slaughtering innocent women and children a bad thing?(Yes/No question)
Q: Is inflicting countless pain, suffering and death to innocent children a bad thing?(Yes/No question)
Q: Why not? Do you suddenly lose your empathy? Will your mirror neurons suddenly not work? Will you suddenly become a psychopath?For_The_Kingdom wrote: If God doesn't exist, then I don't see anything wrong with killing innocent women and children.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."
-
- Savant
- Posts: 9855
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Re: Victory in the Battle Between Atheism and Christianity
Post #106Let me be more explicit then. Recall what you said to Danmark: "Is raping a child an immoral act, regardless of WHO or HOW MANY people believe it is a moral act? Yes? Well, raping a child is objectively wrong. That is what I mean by objective moral values."For_The_Kingdom wrote:What?Bust Nak wrote: Something that comes from an anything-er is by definition subjective and dependant on that one personal being. This is an incoherent concept.
That contradicts with your proposal that objective moral value came from a lawgiver whose existence transcends space, time, energy, and matter.
It is contradictory because you are essentially answering your own question "Is raping a child an immoral act, regardless of WHO or HOW MANY people believe it is a moral act?" with a NO - it depends on WHO believe it is an immoral act, the WHO in question is a lawgiver whose existence transcends space, time, energy, and matter.
- Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Victory in the Battle Between Atheism and Christianity
Post #107You are simply asserting it is wrong and then claiming it objective because you say so. Apparently you are not able to define your terms except with circular logic .For_The_Kingdom wrote:Is raping a child an immoral act, regardless of WHO or HOW MANY people believe it is a moral act? Yes? Well, raping a child is objectively wrong. That is what I mean by objective moral values.Danmark wrote: This is utter nonsense, and worse; it is nonsense without a definition. What do you mean by 'OBJECTIVE' moral values?
- rikuoamero
- Under Probation
- Posts: 6707
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
- Been thanked: 4 times
Re: Victory in the Battle Between Atheism and Christianity
Post #108Don't forget his other mistake. He on the one hand declares objective morality to be that which is moral and not just because someone says so...and then immediately follows up with whatever Jesus Christ declares to be moral, to be moral.Danmark wrote:You are simply asserting it is wrong and then claiming it objective because you say so. Apparently you are not able to define your terms except with circular logic .For_The_Kingdom wrote:Is raping a child an immoral act, regardless of WHO or HOW MANY people believe it is a moral act? Yes? Well, raping a child is objectively wrong. That is what I mean by objective moral values.Danmark wrote: This is utter nonsense, and worse; it is nonsense without a definition. What do you mean by 'OBJECTIVE' moral values?
Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"
I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead
Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1915
- Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm
Re: Victory in the Battle Between Atheism and Christianity
Post #109I said on more than one occasion that objective moral values are values that are right/wrong regardless of who thinks they are right and wrong. In other words, if the whole world agreed that raping a child is find and dandy, would it still be wrong? If you think the answer to that is "yes" (as I do), then you believe in objective moral values/duties.rikuoamero wrote: Still not answering my question. To remind you, I am asking you to describe to me what an objective standard in morality is
But such a belief/standard can only stem from a transcendent, objective lawgiver. Objective standards cannot stem from nature, as evolution/nature could care less about whether a child gets raped or not, and we certainly cannot base our moral compass on what our chemical reactions in our brains tell us, as the chemicals, on their own merit, aren't sentient or moral agents/entities.
Objective moral values, if they exist, are necessary..and can only come from a necessary, transcendent, lawgiver...whose existence is not based upon contingent circumstances...whose laws are as necessary as he himself.
I don't know the Bible "God" meets this standard in the sense of me putting God under 24 hour surveillance and monitoring his every move to ensure that he is acting morally benevolent.rikuoamero wrote: , and then (that is to say, after you have done this), to explain how the Bible God meets this standard.
I believe in God based upon persuasive arguments which I find supporting theism, and I believe that Jesus rose from the dead based on historical evidence....and it is based on the totality of all those evidences that I believe that what Jesus said is true, which is that we have a loving Father in heaven who has an objective standard at which he commands us to live by.
If objective morals/values exist, then the standard would have to reflect a person, because moral law can only come from a moral being. If objective moral values exist, then they exist necessarily, and are thereby stems from a necessary being. And based on the evidence, I am convinced that Jesus is that necessary person from which objective moral values are rooted.rikuoamero wrote: Simply saying that Jesus Christ is an objective standard tells me nothing. I have no idea what you mean by that.
Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Regardless of the fact, you people (naturalists) will have to ultimately provide answers as to how the universe, life, consciousness, and morality came about.rikuoamero wrote: As for your suggestion to read the Bible, I recently had to tell 1213 that I already have. This is something that annoys me whenever I discuss things with you Christians. Very frequently, you (yes, you, in this answer) just say to read the Bible, as if merely reading it will somehow magically resolve any problems I have.
You talk about resolving problems you have with religion (Christianity), when there are a grocery list of problems that you have within your own religion (scientific naturalism). So before you dive into religion, how about solving those so called "natural" problems.
If I have a question that you think Dawkin can answer in his book, and you advise me to his book...what is the problem with that?rikuoamero wrote: Don't you think such suggestions are a bit empty? If I suggest to you to read Dawkin's 'The God Delusion', do you think I am giving you any great advice?
I gave that answer from the very first time I was prompted to define what I mean by "objective moral values".rikuoamero wrote: Okay great! Now we're getting somewhere. For your information, this is what I think too.
Correct.rikuoamero wrote: However, we have a problem. You say, and I quote again 'regardless of who thinks it is right.
You earlier in this reply said that Jesus Christ, a person, is the objective standard.
I made it clear that the objective standard must transcend the natural world, which is what I believe Jesus Christ does. The "regardless of what any person may think it to be" part only applies to the earth-bound, contingent human beings in the natural world.rikuoamero wrote: How can a person be an objective standard, if an objective standard of morality is that something is wrong, regardless of what any person may think it to be?
Jesus Christ says Q is moral, is Q objectively moral?
And yes, if Jesus Christ says Q is moral, then Q is objectively moral...again, ONLY if objective morals and values exist.
The point is, IF and only IF objective morals and values exist, it absolutely MUST come from a transcendent lawgiver, not on naturalism.
Because it logically follows. If objective morality exists, where is it grounded from? Nature says nothing about morality. Nature says nothing about what human beings ought to do, and what we ought not to do. However, a mind can. Only a mind can.rikuoamero wrote: You don't explain how this standard of morality can only be grounded upon a lawgiver, transcendent or otherwise. You have just declared it to be such.
I'm not so sure that with the arrival of Jesus, slavery became prohibited, and I am quite sure that the slavery that God permitted in any way mirrored the slavery that was permitted here in America.rikuoamero wrote: As for circumstances...how does this not disqualify the God mentioned in the Bible? According to the Bible, circumstances were such that at one time, slavery was sanctioned, with rules governing its practice. Then along comes Jesus, circumstances change, and suddenly (if you're of the interpretation of Christianity that forbids slavery that is...), slavery is no longer accepted.
There was no need to, because you correctly stated what I said, and the truth value of the statement still stands.rikuoamero wrote: ...that's your followup? Just to double down on the statement with no further explanation?
You don't have to be afraid. There are people who go to prison every day who aren't "afraid of prison". You don't have to believe in it, be afraid of it, or disagree with it in order to....go to it.rikuoamero wrote: And yet, what you said to regarding divine punishment is nothing more than Pascal's Wager. You suggested that I be afraid of being punished by God, so to avoid this punishment, I should believe in your God.
I don't recall saying or implying that.rikuoamero wrote: In other words, you suggested I believe something not because it is actually true but out of a selfish motivation.
It would be, if that was my suggestion.rikuoamero wrote: It would be like suggesting that I do something to ward off an attack from Voldemort's Death Eaters, without actually convincing me that Voldemort exists.
If you believe as I do, you wouldn't have to "show what God has done for you today"...not for any obligatory reasons...but if you want to because God has been good to you and you want everyone to know it...by all means...shout it.rikuoamero wrote: And yet, here you are in debates, crowing about how Jesus Christ is real, the Bible speaks the truth, and suggesting that others read the Bible and believe as you do.
Don't worry...you will see the purple dragon soon. I won't have to show him to you, he will show himself.rikuoamero wrote: Well...something other than blame the skeptic for not believing you when you continuously claim to have a purple dragon in your garage.
That is essentially what you are doing, what I see what you are doing as comparable to. You claim to have a purple dragon in your garage, I ask you to show me, and in response, you quote a section of a book that I do not trust as telling much if any truth that blames me for not believing you.
Um, I was generally speaking. You of all people should know that since becoming a member of this great forum, I've been presenting/defending what I believe to be sound arguments for the existence of God.rikuoamero wrote: That isn't what you did in that part of the post. In that part of the post, you didn't 'offer a good sound argument as to why God MUST exist'.
Now, whether or not you agree with the arguments is not the issue..but lets not pretend as if you don't know my record.
Really?rikuoamero wrote: No, you quoted your holy book, a passage that blames me for not believing you.
Well, your relationship with/without God is personal. That is between you and him. I don't know your situation so I can't speak on it. What I can say, however, is that on that day...you will stand before the ALMIGHTY...the buck stops there. No lawyer can help you. Your parents can't help you. You will have to face the Almighty God...and there won't be anything you can say that will justify unbelief.rikuoamero wrote: Reread the quote from Hebrews you posted before, and explain to me how you are able to read more than I am able to. All I see there is me, and people like me (i.e. non-believers) being blamed for not already being a believer and promises rewards for earnest seekers...even though it is demonstrably not true in my case (I was a believer of God, and while I was a believer of God, I sought him).
We can start by you denying that a Creator is even needed, as if a mindless and blind process (nature) can take inanimate matter, make life, and configure a human body, externally and internally. There is no justification for believing in that, as opposed to simply "intelligence can only come from intelligence"...and I don't believe that anyone with a brain can believe this way...only people of whom just don't like the idea of a Creator and being accountable to the Creator.
That is what I believe this is really all about...not that there isn't convincing evidence...because people don't like being told what they can, can't do. They don't like it on a earthly, humanly scale...and they certainly don't like it on a cosmic scale.
But hey, to each his own.
You got to read, and FEEL what you read. If you ain't feeling it, then it ain't for you.rikuoamero wrote: What more are you seeing? All I see is one sentence, one verse from Hebrews Chapter 11. Are you saying there is more text that is somehow...I dunno...invisible to non-believers?
- rikuoamero
- Under Probation
- Posts: 6707
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
- Been thanked: 4 times
Re: Victory in the Battle Between Atheism and Christianity
Post #110[Replying to post 109 by For_The_Kingdom]
i.e. you don't judge by actions.
Anyway...wow. You honestly don't think slavery is (or ought to be?) prohibited by your God?
Let me remind you of one of the things permitted in the God-sanctioned slavery as found in the Bible. One could physically beat their slaves, and get off scot-free, as long as the slaves recovered within a day or two.
Have you sought to put this into practice? Have you said to others that you should have slaves, and should be able to beat them?
In other words...believe in this thing, so as to benefit from it. Not because it is actually true.
I don't do that. Ever. With anything. Not once in my life (at least since I left Christianity) have I ever said I believe something so as to benefit from it.
That may be your stance, but not mine. I believe things because those things I am convinced are true. Any benefit I may or may not accrue play no part in whether or not I believe.
I don't believe either God or Voldemort are real, so I have no reason to believe in either.
So do go on. Please divulge what it is you really think of me, how evil you think I am for merely not believing in your God. What monstrous acts have I committed?
You didn't say it in response to my question. Any time previously where you responded to my question, you just said something along the lines of "If they exist, they can only come from X, or a kind of X", without explaining what they are.I said on more than one occasion that objective moral values are values that are right/wrong regardless of who thinks they are right and wrong.
This contradicts what you just said, where something is right or wrong regardless of who thinks so. Your lawgiver, the God of the Bible, is a person (even if just in the form of Jesus Christ).But such a belief/standard can only stem from a transcendent, objective lawgiver.
Are you echoing our debate over the MOA? I hope you remember how I explained the contradictions you made in that, in having possible and necessary together.Objective moral values, if they exist, are necessary
Even if I was to grant what you said in your second paragraph (i.e. where objective morals can not come from), you have not explained how this claim is true, nor have you even acknowledged the conflict it has with the first line of this latest reply from you.and can only come from a necessary, transcendent, lawgiver
Then you don't know. You don't observe God. You just claim that this entity exists, claim that this entity claims to be a transcendent God, and no matter how destructive you believe this entity has acted in the past or will act in the future, he is still somehow the source of objective morality.I don't know the Bible "God" meets this standard in the sense of me putting God under 24 hour surveillance and monitoring his every move to ensure that he is acting morally benevolent.
i.e. you don't judge by actions.
False. I can prove this easily enough by suggesting to you to imagine a world where only Jesus Christ exists. Would it then be immoral to say...rape a child? You'll probably answer that such a question is absurd, and yes it is. It would not be immoral to rape a child in that world, or phrased another way: moral values like that one would not apply and thus any claims you have of objective morals existing necessarily fall flat, just like in our MOA debate.If objective morals/values exist, then the standard would have to reflect a person, because moral law can only come from a moral being. If objective moral values exist, then they exist necessarily, and are thereby stems from a necessary being.
What if we don't or are unable to? Does this give you sanction to go with the Christian claim, as if by default?Regardless of the fact, you people (naturalists) will have to ultimately provide answers as to how the universe, life, consciousness, and morality came about.
What happens in that scenario if after reading his book, you still don't understand? Wouldn't you then perhaps contact Dawkins to get clarification? I'm not even going to ask if I can do the same with the God of the Bible.If I have a question that you think Dawkin can answer in his book, and you advise me to his book...what is the problem with that?
Since child raping is not a part of Jesus Christ's reality (or whatever word you want to use to describe the domain you believe he exists in, heaven? Paradise?), how does this make sense?I made it clear that the objective standard must transcend the natural world, which is what I believe Jesus Christ does. The "regardless of what any person may think it to be" part only applies to the earth-bound, contingent human beings in the natural world.
Special pleading.The "regardless of what any person may think it to be" part only applies to the earth-bound, contingent human beings in the natural world.
Violating what both you and I agree on, that objective morals are such no matter who says them.And yes, if Jesus Christ says Q is moral, then Q is objectively moral...again, ONLY if objective morals and values exist.
Go on, repeat your Divine Command Theory.Nature says nothing about what human beings ought to do, and what we ought not to do. However, a mind can. Only a mind can.
I did not mention American slavery. I just mentioned slavery.I'm not so sure that with the arrival of Jesus, slavery became prohibited, and I am quite sure that the slavery that God permitted in any way mirrored the slavery that was permitted here in America.
Anyway...wow. You honestly don't think slavery is (or ought to be?) prohibited by your God?
Let me remind you of one of the things permitted in the God-sanctioned slavery as found in the Bible. One could physically beat their slaves, and get off scot-free, as long as the slaves recovered within a day or two.
Have you sought to put this into practice? Have you said to others that you should have slaves, and should be able to beat them?
So I should turn to God...while not believing that God exists...?You don't have to be afraid. There are people who go to prison every day who aren't "afraid of prison". You don't have to believe in it, be afraid of it, or disagree with it in order to....go to it.
Precisely. You didn't realise that that was what you were implying. Go on, re-read the exchanges between us. You said to me that I am going to be punished by God, and that I can get out of this punishment by believing in your God.I don't recall saying or implying that.
In other words...believe in this thing, so as to benefit from it. Not because it is actually true.
I don't do that. Ever. With anything. Not once in my life (at least since I left Christianity) have I ever said I believe something so as to benefit from it.
That may be your stance, but not mine. I believe things because those things I am convinced are true. Any benefit I may or may not accrue play no part in whether or not I believe.
Which it was. I can avoid God's punishment by believing in him. I can avoid Voldemort's attacks by doing something.It would be, if that was my suggestion.
I don't believe either God or Voldemort are real, so I have no reason to believe in either.
I regard this as an empty promise.Don't worry...you will see the purple dragon soon. I won't have to show him to you, he will show himself.
Have you forgotten what you yourself quoted?Really?
And yet...here you are. Speaking on it.Well, your relationship with/without God is personal. That is between you and him. I don't know your situation so I can't speak on it.
Other than his silence to me, which (if he does actually exist) continues to this day?What I can say, however, is that on that day...you will stand before the ALMIGHTY...the buck stops there. No lawyer can help you. Your parents can't help you. You will have to face the Almighty God...and there won't be anything you can say that will justify unbelief.
Describe the process to me that has hydrogen and oxygen forming water.We can start by you denying that a Creator is even needed, as if a mindless and blind process (nature) can take inanimate matter, make life, and configure a human body, externally and internally.
Why must it be framed as though I have to be punished for believing (or not) certain things? Is your God that petty? Are you?There is no justification for believing in that,
So like 1213 recently, you have to attack me, accuse me of things that I am not.only people of whom just don't like the idea of a Creator and being accountable to the Creator.
Infinite recursion? Doesn't God's intelligence then need to come from somewhere/something else?There is no justification for believing in that, as opposed to simply "intelligence can only come from intelligence"
I think you'll find that I live quite peacefully in society, breaking no laws, being polite and genial to others..because people don't like being told what they can, can't do. They don't like it on a earthly, humanly scale...and they certainly don't like it on a cosmic scale.
So do go on. Please divulge what it is you really think of me, how evil you think I am for merely not believing in your God. What monstrous acts have I committed?
Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"
I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead
Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense