Do you believe in God?

[Exorcet]

The reason we, as in you and me, would have to rewind 2000yrs is because we are a product of 2000yrs of Christian influence.

Has Christianity influenced the world? Yes. Is it the primary influence? No.

If you want to rewind to find where modern ideas of morality came from, you'd need to go back at least 3000 years as Greece contributed hugely to the modern world. You would need to go back even further to find the points in time when our underlying biology began to shape our modern moral views. Christianity is just a small slice of the pie, and honestly as civilizations have progressed its influence has waned. This has often had good results too, such as the end for burning people just because they speak the truth.

As far as slavery, murder and theft they are challenged on the basis of a higher moral authority, not the absense of it.

A higher moral authority is what was used to justify these things. When everyone is on equal footing, slavery becomes impossible. Slavery requires that one person believes they are superior to another. We already agreed that this is a faulty belief.

The problem with the idea of being like God as an authority is that he is either arbitrary or redundant. There is either absolute morality or there isn't. If there isn't absolute morality, then God can't create it, and any laws he might make are subjective. In that case there is no reason to obey them, outside of the threat of violence from God. On the other hand if absolute morals exist, they exist without God.

Under the circmstantial hypothetical, thats irrellevant.

It's completely relevant, because it shatters the idea that someone's beliefs can justify their actions. Believing that theft is right doesn't make it so.

 

[squadops]

if absolute morals exist, they exist without God.

How do you come to that conclusion? Objective morals cannot be written by humans by definition so, do we observe them in the same way we would physics? The strongest argument would be morals are subjective?

 

[Exorcet]

How do you come to that conclusion?

Absolute morals by definition are absolute. They can't be defined by anyone. The best a god could do is know them from the beginning and pass them on, but gods cannot be the source of morals.

Objective morals cannot be written by humans by definition so, do we observe them in the same way we would physics?

Yes. It's an extension of the idea that we're all on equal footing due to us all having subjective values. You can't say that anyone else's actions are wrong, unless they go against that fact.

 

[squadops]

How do you observe absolute morals? Here is what Richard Dawkins has to say...

The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose [i.e. no God], no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

It is pretty hard to defend absolutist morals on grounds other than religious ones.

 

[TenEightyOne]

How do you observe absolute morals? Here is what Richard Dawkins has to say...

I mostly agree... but I'd say that morals are evolved into the hard-wiring of different life-forms as their norm for social behaviour has evolved.

Part of the problem with Religion's view of morals (a wide generalisation but one that's been revealed at these forums quite regularly) is that only the Religious can have proper morals because they're the only ones with a code from God/Allah/Buddha/Stan/The Sith Lords/Isla St. Clair.

While many (I think all but can't be sure) religions incorporate moral absolutism I don't think it's right of Dawkins to say that it's the sole stamping ground of the religious.

Richard Dawkins is (at times) to the moderate atheist what Abu Omar-Al-Shishani is to Strictly Come Dancing.

 

[Jet Badger]

Humans being social animals, one could say that the requirement for the survival of a species is for individuals to take care of each other. I.E. Not kill one another or harm their chances of survival.

That might be the source of 'absolute morals'.

 

[Exorcet]

How do you observe absolute morals? Here is what Richard Dawkins has to say...

This is going towards the Human Rights thread again. Morality is derived from logic. We know that wants and desire are subjective, so we can't actually label those things as being objectively good or correct. This isn't an issue where two wants don't conflict, but what about when they do? I want to live. Someone else wants to kill me. My being alive is a natural state. If the other person thinks it is fine to kill me, they are saying that they think it's fine for one will to overcome another. This can't be justified since all will is subjective.

What you observe is the chain of logic in action, where people respect the fact that what they want is subjective or they ignore that. You don't observe morality in the sense of the universe upholding what is right. The universe doesn't care about anything at all.

It's probably easier to think of the two sides of morality as justifiable or unjustifiable rather than good and evil.

 

[Famine]

How do you observe absolute morals? Here is what Richard Dawkins has to say...

And here's where he's wrong:

The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose [i.e. no God], no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

It is pretty hard to defend absolutist morals on grounds other than religious ones.

Here's what he should have said:

The universe that I observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose [i.e. no God], no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

It seems like such a tiny alteration, but it's one that changes the entire outlook on absolute morality.

 

[sammy neuman]

My friend came out, after he'd had 3 kids with his girlfriend... I guess it must be true that having three kids makes you gay.

No, it isn't true, but it can leave you with no money in your pocket and too tired for any kind of sex.

On the question of absolute morality, I can argue that; as creator of this universe, everything within it ultimately is from God. (No universe, nothing to be logical about.)
This is a rather vague statement which puts God safely out of harms' way, and I would agree that, just as a galaxy has no intrinsic reason to believe in God to do what galaxies do, neither do we have any intrinsic reason to believe in God to have a concept of absolute morality.
It has crossed my mind that war cannot be abolished as long as any belief/thought system distinguishes between murder and other flavors of killing. To paraphrase Stalin; one death is a murder, one-hundred deaths is a massacre, one thousand deaths is war and a failure to do unto others...etc. on a very large scale. Unless of course God orders it.

 

[Mike458]

We don't need people to tell us what we already know, and by we, I mean born again Christians, walking by faith, and not by sight, and know, it doesn't mean we are walking blind, if that's your next line.

I have no words for how stupid this can possibly be.

So basically if God told you to kill yourselves for God, would you do it? If God told you to stone atheists and anyone who didn't believe in your god, would you do it?

 

[GBO Possum]

Earlier, in my last reply to you concerning my theory.

Not "theory", but "hypothesis". Please.

Likewise should I believe God or man?

"Believe" neither. Understand, based on evidence.

Are they born Homosexual, or are they born under the influence of something they are powerless to overcome?

Such as the religion of their family?

 

[squadops]

So basically if God told you to kill yourselves for God, would you do it?

The answer is yes, all born again Christians agree with this, hence, born again. Romans 6 is one place to see this recurring theme. Of course it has to do with spiritual maters and not meant in a literal sense, as many other themes of the bible are as well.

 

[FoRiZon]

I have no words for how stupid this can possibly be.

So basically if God told you to kill yourselves for God, would you do it? If God told you to stone atheists and anyone who didn't believe in your god, would you do it?

Thats the one ive been pointed out. No matter what we discuss to him, he simply pull out that card.

In other words, its totally useless now.

 

[Imari]

The answer is yes, all born again Christians agree with this, hence, born again.

Which is what makes that particular sort of religious person so scary.

There are things that I would be willing to give up my life for, but I would never ever give it up just because someone told me to.

A person who is willing to die based on future promises is an odd thing, and scary. Their actions can no longer be predicted, as they're not rational.

If you know some people like this, I have a bridge to sell them.

 

[huskeR32]

The answer is yes, all born again Christians agree with this, hence, born again. Romans 6 is one place to see this recurring theme. Of course it has to do with spiritual maters and not meant in a literal sense, as many other themes of the bible are as well.

Curious that you avoided the second part of that question:

So basically if God told you to kill yourselves for God, would you do it? If God told you to stone atheists and anyone who didn't believe in your god, would you do it?

 

[Mike458]

Thats the one ive been pointed out. No matter what we discuss to him, he simply pull out that card.

In other words, its totally useless now.

To who exactly?

 

[JKgo]

If God told you to stone atheists and anyone who didn't believe in your god, would you do it?

...Well, I'd stone my gawd-danged neighbors for free - they play loud music well into the wee hours!! Can't get a decent night of Zs!!!

 

[Dan]

I don't believe @DCP has answered my question yet.

@DCP If the bible told you that two plus two equals five, would you believe that or use your own hands?

 

[Mike458]

I don't believe @DCP has answered my question yet.

He won't. Most likely.

 

[JKgo]

....

After the intellectual walloping you guys gave DCP, he ain't coming back here, in a foreseeable future.

Or, maybe when Hell freezes over...

 

[FoRiZon]

To who exactly?

DCP obviously. Never listen to anybody but his god.

 

[squadops]

Curious that you avoided the second part of that question:

I didn't avoid it, I cannot answer that question for someone else. I was pointing out what 'born again' Christians think about God asking them to kill themselves, because I saw the direct correlation in the post exchange.

Would you like me to say many Christians cherry pick? I've never understood why that would mater anyway.

 

[JockeP22]

 

[SlipZtrEm]

If you don't know Him, obviously you'll say whatever pleases you to say about Him.

That's logical: I know I exist, so yes, I'm more concerned with my pleasure than something that has no proof of existing.

typical lost human behaviour, which by the way, we don't know how it arrived, since everything arrived from nothing in your world view.

Bolded for emphasis. You're right, we don't know: we just have mounds of evidence that have led us to a theory. Science keeps trying to disprove this theory, yet more evidence mounts. Funny how that works.

The important thing, is that you don't know either. Once you realize that it'll be a lot easier.

God is the creator of everything, whether you like to think so or not, and there is nothing you can do about it, no matter how hard you try, sorry.

So, as always: prove it.

God has always been there, hence why you can't get rid of Him, or disprove Him, not matter how strong your sin controls you, and how much you love to drown in them.

If God has always been here, why can't you prove it?

It's massively ironic you're trying to say I'm being "controlled" by sin. Out of the two of us, I'm the one thinking for myself.

I mean, even in your theory of the first man from apes and or primordial soup, where and how did any of them come up with God and religion?

Religion makes an excellent coping mechanism. Christianity is hardly a unique religion either; it's been mentioned to you literally dozens of times that other religions - some very similar in ways to Christianity - existed long before it. So, would you say that those earlier religions are the truth, the real religion? No? Why not? Would you suggest they would've been made up, that they are false religions?

Because there is nothing different about them versus Christianity.

God is Light, and truth.

Y'know, except those times he was neither, or in fact the opposites.

What He said in His word, is fact.

Yes yes, you've been very thorough in showing us how little you understand the word "fact". No need to continue.

Oh you better be ready, irrespective of what you have wilfully chosen. The ifs and buts will stop permanently then. Peace

Again, people are not born gay. They lustfully choose to be gay at a Godless point in their lives.

It's truly fascinating how ignorant one person can choose to be.

 

[GBO Possum]

If you've enjoyed Jeff Foxworthy's "You Might Be A Redneck if ..." lines, then this one might be for you...

"You Might Be An Atheist if ..." in the video below presents a good handful of lines which, like Foxworthy's, carry more than just a note of truth, in fact the entire symphony!

It's very light hearted, and non-confrontational, however there's a good message there. It resonates with me in that it raises just a few of the (mostly subconscious) thoughts that started my journey away from the theism which my family and others injected into my young and impressionable mind.

As I reflect on Daniel Dennett's words, I'm thinking of creating my own list of "I Might Be An Atheist if ..." lines. You know, starting with my non-acceptance of The Flood story, right through to such things as not being able to believe in "the power of prayer".

Anyway, I'm sure many of us will enjoy Daniel Dennett.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Tell that to the guys behind bars.

Then you don't understand what I'm saying. It's best to take this to the human rights thread.

They subscribed to subjective values when they violated the rights of another. That's all you need for authority to impose a punishment.

Logic is a word that gets thrown around a lot, often misused. But logic is objective.

Under a no God, no higher moral authority of absolutes it doesn't matter who subscribes to what.
Your logic, objective or otherwise is no higher than someone elses.
So like I asked Scaff, who gets to decide whats bad?
If human rights are determined by God, then your back to this thread anyway.

1400 years for me, I'm in Britain. Not personally, of course, but I doubt the distinction matters much.

And 300 years for you, if you're in America.

It's roughly 1400 for me as well since we are basically a product of European origin.
Your figure is probably more accurate, since it took some of the 2000yrs to reach Europe.

Indeed you may but also you may not. Some of the most notorious child molestation cases in recent history occurred under the aegis of a Christian church. The most recent cases of mass slavery known in Britain or Ireland in recent history occurred under the aegis of a Christian church.

Obviously, Christian influence has not prevented every wrong from being committed, even by those purporting to represent it.
But thats the whole point, the teachings condemn such things.

Personally I feel that in essence the 10 commandments give a generally good idea of how a decent society may conduct itself. Imagine if those ideas were written down 1500 years by another civilisation before the Old Testament was? Oh, wait, they were.

Well what are you waiting for, dispense with them and make up your own set.
If they were created by man, your commandments are as good as anyone elses.

I'd dare to posit that you don't know what you're talking about.

Maybe.
Maybe not.

Which doesn't mean squat to the 2/3 of the planet who don't worship him.

Well if they have some God or Deity, they have something of higher moral authority upon which to base a moral standard.

Which is why you said we needed a control group, and we have them, the 2/3rd of the globe who don't worship the Christian God.

No, I said a control group is not possible to establish under the same time frame.
Not to mention there are Christians among practically every country in the world, even if not predominant.

That doesn't explain why neither I nor Penn, nor any of the hundreds of thousands who have no belief in God have not gone on murderous rampages as a result of having no faith.

Again, you would need the same time frame and level of influence in secular humanism to determine what moral standards you would entertain.

Really, please explain.

Thats precisely what I have been doing.
Thats the premise behind the theory.

You missed that point by a mile (or ignored it).

You don't know which bits are the gnat and which bits are the camel as its all been edited by men.

Which bible. That's the point. How do you know which one is right and why?

The one that teaches Christ crucified.
Thats the camel.

So you have chosen to ignore the evidence.

You missed that point by a mile (or ignored it)

Ditto above, you have chosen to ignore the evidence.

Ditto above.

 

[Famine]

Your logic, objective or otherwise is no higher than someone elses.

If it's subjective it isn't logic. We're back to your misunderstanding of objective and subjective again, years down the line.

 

[Scaff]

Well if they have some God or Deity, they have something of higher moral authority upon which to base a moral standard.

Buddhism doesn't

No, I said a control group is not possible to establish under the same time frame.
Not to mention there are Christians among practically every country in the world, even if not predominant.

Why does it need the same time frame and how exactly has Christianity been such an influence when its in the minority? By that logic I could claim that secularism is actually the influence for the whole planet.

Again, you would need the same time frame and level of influence in secular humanism to determine what moral standards you would entertain.

Why? You keep saying this but you have not actually explained why?

Thats precisely what I have been doing.
Thats the premise behind the theory.

Not a theory and no you haven't.

The one that teaches Christ crucified.
Thats the camel.

How do you know? What evidence outside of the Bible exists to corroborate this?

All we have is one source that says a man called Jesus was crucified by the Romans, doesn't say why and doesn't support any other claim.

You missed that point by a mile (or ignored it)

Ditto above.

The evidence is that over 400 years after Jesus is supposed to have died new material got added to the Bible, its doesn't exist in any version of the Bible prior to that point and isn't supported by any other source or text.

You are ignoring that and simply going with "he said it because the copy I grew up with says he did", to argue that I am the one missing the point or ignoring it is ludicrous in the extreme.

The evidence that is to hand supports this being added by men centuries after any eye-witness would have died, until any other evidence comes to light the evidence supports the material being added by men and not being the word of Jesus.

Oh course if you have any evidence to counter this (aside from "I know because.....") then please do provide it.

 

[Danoff]

Under a no God, no higher moral authority of absolutes it doesn't matter who subscribes to what.
Your logic, objective or otherwise is no higher than someone elses.
So like I asked Scaff, who gets to decide whats bad?

It's not a matter of "higher" moral authority or "who gets to decide". Though these questions are natural for someone who has lived under the paradigm of religion. It's a matter of subjective vs. objective. "Might makes right" is subjective.... because it takes the form "X makes right". It is an attempt to justify the initiation of force, an act which cannot be justified by any objective means. The initiation of force is inherently an act that requires a subjective value (even when it's done by animals).

That's it! There's no follow-up that says that makes you a horrible person, or that act condemns you to an eternity of pain, or that act is reprehensible and requires punishment, or the universe will smack you down for behaving that way. All there is is "you have demonstrated a willingness to subscribe to a subjective value system". This makes it difficult to protest when you get locked behind bars. On what grounds do you protest that act? "You can't lock me away! You're treating me under a subjective value system!... which is what I did to get locked away in the first place."

There is no "this is objectively wrong". There is only "this is objectively subjective".

 

[huskeR32]

Well if they have some God or Deity, they have something of higher moral authority upon which to base a moral standard.

Your religion teaches that the Christian God is the only true god. Any other gods, then, must have been invented by humans. It follows that any code of morals derived from said gods also must have been invented by humans.

I'm glad that you agree with us, that moral authority can indeed come from humans.