Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[BilliardsBall]

You are aware that you would be rescuing them from drowning if you gave them your place on the life raft.

But if your wondering about self-sacrifice, sure. I would do that for my enemies as well.

Not self-sacrifice so much as the feelings that give love impetus. Someone kills your spouse and you feel like going to the verdict hearing and pleading for leniency based on the love of Christ and the love you have for your spouse's murderer. That could be insanity or it could be the immaterial, the spiritual within.

 

[viole]

It is offfensive to hear we're not as good as we claim to be. It is offensive to hear we need a Savior. I get it.

That is not what I had in mind.

What I had in mind is that it is offensive to think that we should buy those claims in it without a shred of evidence.

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What would be my motive for lying about taking abuse for being a Christian? You seem overly suspicious, at least, I suspect you in this.

I've seen people lie online for less. I once had someone alter a Wikipedia article on me to support his argument, and that was just about the definition of "deism".

Many Christians go by this idea that persecution is a sign of faith, so it's not odd at all to me for a Christian to puff themselves up with stories about what they've suffered for their faith.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So God is responsible for Hitler: God put Hitler in power and chose not to remove him, despite being able.


Of course not. The conflict between the Christian notion of a loving god and the purported actions of this god are just one in a long, long list of reasons not to accept the existence of your god or the truth of your religion.

I would have thought that was obvious. Hitler was born, breathed air, slaughtered. What you are not able to tell me is the mysterious plans of God, whether Hitler was truly used to form Israel, avert a ten times worse Hitler, fulfill prophecy, etc. because you don't read the team playbook.

Also, you either don't understand love or the "purported actions of God". Or you are just simply judging God despite not knowing all angles or reading the playbook.

 

[ArtieE]

You are correct in living your life! You can be a juror in a rape case and convict a rapist because you "currently feel" rape is wrong.

Rape IS wrong (the IS represents an absolute). So go ahead, and please tell all of us reading these posts why rape isn't always, objectively, wrong.

Some acts are beneficial to the survival and well-being of the society and its citizens. We call those acts good/moral/right. Some acts are detrimental to the survival and well-being of the society and its citizens. We call those acts bad/immoral/wrong.

Religion provides rules such as the 10 commandments and the Golden Rule and also provides a God with the authority to reward those who follow these rules and punish those who don't. Religion is just a supernatural version of the justice system. It provides people who can't tell right from wrong with simple rules to follow so they don't ruin it for the rest of us. Religion has an important function in society.

 

[Thumper]

At the risk of you accusing me of ad populum, since most people--ancient and modern--find God self-evident, and One God at that, how did you come to choose "made up bull"? Why the aberrant opinion, I'm asking?

Well most ancient people believed in some sort of god, but then they ascribed a lot of what they didn't understand to gods (such as lightning).

And although most modern people might believe in at least 1 god, your particular god has never had a majority of the people, so "most" is far-fetched.

I chose to refer to it as "made up bull" because all I have to go on is that you said such and such is so without any real evidence, just your word. I see no reason to simply take you at your word.

This may be an "aberrant" position from your perspective, but it's becoming more mainstream all the time. As people become more educated and informed they care less and less for shamans.

 

[Thumper]

You are correct in living your life! You can be a juror in a rape case and convict a rapist because you "currently feel" rape is wrong.

Rape IS wrong (the IS represents an absolute). So go ahead, and please tell all of us reading these posts why rape isn't always, objectively, wrong.

If rape is an objective wrong, then why isn't there a commandment that says "thou shall not rape"?

 

[Thumper]

The answer to the dilemma is that the pious and ethical and moral derives from God's nature, not God's love for the pious. We learn love from a Heavenly Father just as earthly fathers make impressions on us.

I didn't claim my objective standard is unavailable to non-theists. On the contrary, the many universals we hold is more evidence of a Creator. I'm absolutely sure. (Ha-ha.)

Blah ... blah ... blah

Yes, you did claim that atheists cannot have an "objective moral standard."

You still haven't named one ( 1 ) moral precept that can be shown to originate from religion, any religion? Just 1 foundational moral principle which would not exist without religion?

 

[Thumper]

Some acts are beneficial to the survival and well-being of the society and its citizens. We call those acts good/moral/right. Some acts are detrimental to the survival and well-being of the society and its citizens. We call those acts bad/immoral/wrong.

Religion provides rules such as the 10 commandments and the Golden Rule and also provides a God with the authority to reward those who follow these rules and punish those who don't. Religion is just a supernatural version of the justice system. It provides people who can't tell right from wrong with simple rules to follow so they don't ruin it for the rest of us. Religion has an important function in society.

Nothing that is not (and has not been) available to humanity without resort to shamans. Hammurabi's Code comes to mind.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

At the risk of you accusing me of ad populum, since most people--ancient and modern--find God self-evident, and One God at that, how did you come to choose "made up bull"? Why the aberrant opinion, I'm asking?

They're all describing a different god. I've already posted this once here. Here it is again:

*********

Here's a good question: How do we decide which is correct when one group of people tells us that they had a sensory experience of some type, and another group of people in similar circumstance say that they have not?

How about if I found myself in a world in which people told me that they could see red and green, but I couldn't. How could I decide whether it was I that could not see something that existed, or if they were seeing things or perpetrating a hoax?

Easily. I test them. I have two socks that appear identical to me numbered 1 and 2. Then I independently interview a number of people who claim to be able to discern red from green, and ask them to tell me which sock appears red and which appears green to them.

When I get the same answer from them all, I know that they can see something I can't. When they're unable to come to a consensus and more or less half tell me that sock 1 is red and the other half tell me it's green, I know that they are not seeing any more than I do.

It's by this same method that I know that the people telling me that they have experienced a god are only experiencing their own minds. They describe multiple gods with multiple personalities, each of which happens to think just like they do.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Of course, all authorities derive from God.

Unshared premise. There is no evidence that any authority is derived from any god, but you can get some by claiming that one speaks through you.

He could have toppled Hitler or hit you or me with a lightning bolt.

That's a problem for a loving god. This says it well:

"You either have a God who sends child rapists to rape children or you have a God who simply watches it and says, 'When you're done, I'm going to punish you' .. If I were in a situation where I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That's the difference between me and your God." - Tracie Harris

I hope you're not going to be atheist number umpteen, however, who uses "suffering" as a reason to reject God. Life sucks? News flash, the Earth revolves around the Sun, not you or I, and God is enthroned.

Are you going to be theist number umpteen with no plausible answer to the theodicy problem? The question is a good one, the criticism just, and there are no explanations coming from the people telling us that this god knows all, is all-powerful, loves us, and sits idly be as we suffer. We're just told that such matters transcend our puny minds and to believe it however absurd that request is.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Thumper wrote: "Can you name one ( 1 ) moral precept that can be shown to originate from religion, any religion? Just 1 foundational moral principle which would not exist without religion?"

The answer to the dilemma is that the pious and ethical and moral derives from God's nature, not God's love for the pious. We learn love from a Heavenly Father just as earthly fathers make impressions on us.

I didn't claim my objective standard is unavailable to non-theists. On the contrary, the many universals we hold is more evidence of a Creator. I'm absolutely sure. (Ha-ha.)

Shall we take that as a "No"?

Here's another one you can evade: Name a single valuable and original moral precept attributable to Jesus.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

IANS wrote: "No objective moral standards are possible or needed."

You are correct in living your life! You can be a juror in a rape case and convict a rapist because you "currently feel" rape is wrong.

Rape IS wrong (the IS represents an absolute). So go ahead, and please tell all of us reading these posts why rape isn't always, objectively, wrong.

Rape is wrong to me, but not objectively wrong. Even if humankind were unanimous in that judgment, there is no objective moral standard to refer to - nothing to look at with the eye, telescope,or microscope - only opinions, and they are subjective.

We can only go to one another, canvas for opinions, and decide by consensus which activities are moral or not.

If you're going to offer up this god as a moral exemplar, then it is fit for moral judgment. You can't have it both ways: "Mine is a good god, but when he seems cruel, you have to stop judging Him until we have another beautiful day, at which time you may begin judging, thanking, and praising Him again."

The God of the Old Testament, however, didn't disapprove of rape. If His standards are objectively real to you, then I think you have to go with the god.

 

[ArtieE]

Nothing that is not (and has not been) available to humanity without resort to shamans. Hammurabi's Code comes to mind.

Sure. When I say "Religion provides rules" I don't mean that the rules come from religion. The Golden Rule was known long before the Bible was put together. Religion just collects some moral rules and adds some specific religious rules of its own. And as long as religion can make some people follow the rules it serves a purpose.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Where in the Bible does it say Hell is eternal torture rather than eternal separation or eternal punishment? You have medieval ideas.

You all seem to have a different religion and a different god.

How is being separated from such a god a punishment? I'm separated from it now and quite content.

Why would I defend the Bible based on perjorative speech warning atheists (scant enough in the Bible, since there were fewer atheists in those days, people being smarter overall)? I would rather defend the Bible by saying it 100% predicts how atheists on this forum, think, behave, live . . . with each successive post you demonstrate the issues with atheism and that the Bible is true.

Atheism is the only rational position possible.

Sorry if you don't like my posting, but I don't think much of your atheophobia. You demean an entire class of mostly loving, intelligent, hard-working people, then claim persecution because they rebuke you.

.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I would have thought that was obvious. Hitler was born, breathed air, slaughtered. What you are not able to tell me is the mysterious plans of God, whether Hitler was truly used to form Israel, avert a ten times worse Hitler, fulfill prophecy, etc. because you don't read the team playbook.

Also, you either don't understand love or the "purported actions of God". Or you are just simply judging God despite not knowing all angles or reading the playbook.

And there it is: The puny minds justification for not seeing the good in the Holocaust.

What would Satan have done differently?

 

[ArtieE]

Rape is wrong to me, but not objectively wrong. Even if humankind were unanimous in that judgment, there is no objective moral standard to refer to - nothing to look at with the eye, telescope,or microscope - only opinions, and they are subjective.

We can only go to one another, canvas for opinions, and decide by consensus which activities are moral or not.

Well, there actually is an objective moral standard. The objectively moral act is always the act that is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the survival and well-being of the society and its citizens. What we have subjective opinions about is which act is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the survival and well-being of the society and its citizens. We are not in doubt that that particular act is the objectively moral act.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Well, there actually is an objective moral standard. The objectively moral act is always the act that is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the survival and well-being of the society and its citizens. What we have subjective opinions about is which act is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the survival and well-being of the society and its citizens. We are not in doubt that that particular act is the objectively moral act.

We must be using the word "objective" in different ways.

 

[ArtieE]

We must be using the word "objective" in different ways.

When we say "I want to do the moral thing" that moral thing is the thing that is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the survival and well-being of the society and its citizens. If you had a quantum computer and absolutely all the variables available it could calculate for you the objectively moral thing to do. It would be perfectly objective. It would have no subjective opinions about it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

When we say "I want to do the moral thing" that moral thing is the thing that is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the survival and well-being of the society and its citizens. If you had a quantum computer and absolutely all the variables available it could calculate for you the objectively moral thing to do. It would be perfectly objective. It would have no subjective opinions about it.

As I suggested, we have different ideas of what "objective" means. Programming one's subjective values into software and having a computer regurgitate them for us is still subjectivity to me.