Smoking Gun, Oh Atheists?

[Simurgh]

Who are you and what did you do with the sarcastic Underhill?

So you finally admit it, God must be likable to you or he could not possibly exist. It just does not work that way, we are made in his image, we can not make him into ours.

Ok, biblical verses or nothing from this point on UH. I did not see anything in here that suggests you even read what I quoted from that great philosopher. Your argument is emotion based and reason can find no purchase against preference.

so we are made in your god's image. that then means your god is intolerant, hates everyone who is not heterosexual, women who want autonomy, people of any other religious tradition, and so on. because, while you personally may not admit to that, that is what the bible bangers are only too happy to point out, namely everyone who is not like them--whatever that may mean to any given claimant of xtianity--gets treated like they are subhuman. yeah, especially those who think science is valid and evolution explains the existence of life on this planet without the benefit of the supernatural.

does this mean that god has multiple personality disorder? or is this in fact, proof that everyone has their own personal godlet?
regarding quoting biblical verses, why bother. since they are all individually interpreted and the various interpretation are only loosely followed, i.e. when it's convenient, I won't bother with that. anyhow, a collection of myths has no relevance in reality.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

How do you derive ethical systems (right and wrong systems) without taking as axiomatic that right and wrong have weight/exist?

That question doesn't make sense to me. Even when I was Christian I didn't believe right and wrong have weight/exist independently of mind. And most Christians say 'without God there would be no morals' which means they don't believe morals are a thing that exist independently of God's instruction either.
I just think:
A. their deity doesn't exist so
B. the morality outlined in the bible is no less human-derived than any other ethical system and
C. I'm not an authoritarian so I wouldn't value the Christian deity's perspective as being less subjective than anyone elses even if I believed it exists.
D. Even in non-authoritarian systems, I don't agree with morals by revelation or call to emotion or 'gut feeling'ism. But by a mix of utilitarian consequentialism and pragmatism

I have goals, things like maximizing happiness while reducing suffering in human society and ecological responsibility for humans and other animals. And I have an ethical system to outline the way I judge behavior and ideas to best meet those goals. But I can't force anyone else into thinking those goals are inofthemselves valuable. But I can make associations and build social ties with other people who share that goal.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you claim that the level of suffering and evil is so great on out planet that God could not possibly exist

That's not a claim I've ever made.

I notice that you (like another I am debating on this issue) never quote the bible. If your trying to deny the bible why do you not post anything from it?

I can start doing that, but what does that say about yourself, the Christian, asking an anti-Christ to source their claims of what the Bible says.

 

[Underhill]

This is a biblical argument, why is it the only thing you never quote? Your misrepresenting the bible again. I do not have to answer a false question. Lets make it even worse than your terrible analogies. Lets say we are all born cut off from God at birth before we had a chance to do anything. According to the bible he would let us into heaven anyway if we died before the age of accountability (which according to Hebrew age categorization is the mid teens). However long before our mid teens we have rebelled and willfully sinned enough to easily warrant being separated from God. Regardless God does not give up on us, before we even existed he paid the entire price to unite us to him for eternity. All we have to do is accept his gift.

You are obfuscating. Is god all knowing according to the bible? Yes. I don't need to quote it.

Did he create man knowing exactly what the outcome would be? If he is all knowing then the answer has to be yes.

Did he create the rules knowing man would break them? Again, the answer has to be yes.

How is any of this misrepresenting the bible? It's all in there. You are talking about things that happened after the fact, but it all hails from this 'original sin' right?

Now if you are a person that died in a car wreck 1 hour after they became accountable, or if you are a person who was saved (born again) but yet lost their salvation when they committed their very next sin then you may have the right to complain but I doubt you fit in either bracket making them irrelevant.

If you wind up before him and he reads off the thousands of misdeeds and the unimaginable amount of suffering they resulted in you will neither have an excuse for them, anything of your own to offer to make up for it, nor will you have the gift God himself provided. The best you can hope for is annihilation, in my worldview at least there is cause for hope (though that is not why I believe).

So be it. But by his own rules, not to mention the rules humanity has established, he should be in the same hot seat as the rest of us.

Inventing inaccurate hypotheticals that represent neither yourself nor God isn't accomplishing a thing.

I am not responding to any claim you make about the bible after this post unless it comes with the verses it refers to.

So you finally admit it, God must be likable to you or he could not possibly exist. It just does not work that way, we are made in his image, we can not make him into ours.

Ok, biblical verses or nothing from this point on UH. I did not see anything in here that suggests you even read what I quoted from that great philosopher. Your argument is emotion based and reason can find no purchase against preference.

Why on earth would I quote the bible? Everything I have claimed it says, it says. I am simply looking at what it says and pointing out the glaring fault the rest of you ignore in your need to believe the whole thing is founded on a good and noble god.

 

[BilliardsBall]

They didn't. They sought (and garnered) power. The martyrdom (where it happened) was an unfortunate complication.

Please list here all the powers and perks of being a Jewish Christian in NT times and a Jewish Christian witnessing apostle, so I can understand where you're coming from better:

Power/privilege 1:

2:

3:

 

[BilliardsBall]

That question doesn't even make sense.

I can rephrase. If you are only occasionally selfish, how can you live in a utopia without causing others hurts (if only on occasion)? Wouldn't that negate utopia? I don't think you can go to a utopia until you are transformed.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So you determine your own morality?


Because there aren't any conflicts. It's extremely easy to reconcile the two.

I agree with you that I make moral decisions. I have a source book to consult as needed, too.

It is easy to reconcile the dictates of conscience with forming a moral code. What seems impossible to me, apart from being saved in Heaven, is reconciling the fact that you and I frequently/daily act against conscience and against our moral codes.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I can rephrase. If you are only occasionally selfish, how can you live in a utopia without causing others hurts (if only on occasion)? Wouldn't that negate utopia? I don't think you can go to a utopia until you are transformed.

Once again, your questions make no sense. In what way can we measure a "utopia"?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I appreciate your questions, which challenge my axiom that the scriptures are inspired by God. The OP was different--asking you and others why you never have any kind of objective morality, but I would say to my satisfaction and beyond the scriptures have been demonstrated to be godly in nature.

 

[viole]

If I lose my faith tomorrow, but remained "me", I would say I have both good and bad elements, and the good elements abhor rape and murder.

I don't think the issue is "celestial cop" but rather "celestial travel guide". It seems eminently logical that if I go to Heaven, I will have enough bad elements within to someday if not sooner muss up utopia for another. I need to be purged of the self-will I have to do the wrong things, often even after my conscience informs me to not do so.

If you said you always obey your conscience I would call you a fibber. If you say you can go to Heaven with me, carrying on the way you do to mock and insult me and what I believe at every turn, I would say our celestial tour operator will slot us both into the right tour bus!

I don't think I am mocking anything. I just say what I see. And Swedes are famous for being quite direct and not so politically correct. Personally, I love the believer. I just find the belief is quite funny. Which is good. Movies like "the life of Brian" would not exist without religious belief. I include my past self as a believer, obviously.

Anyway, what is the problem with mocking, if any? You should be happy: isn't it a prophecy that you will be scoffed at for your beliefs? I am sure it is somewhere in the Bible. Even though, I could have made such a prophecy myself, since it is rather easy to fulfill.

But I am really curious. If someone ridicules my beliefs, or knowledge, then I cannot imagine myself being hurt in the slightest.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I agree with you that I make moral decisions. I have a source book to consult as needed, too.

And yet you pick and choose which bits of the book to accept or not - just as I can go through every religious book of morality ever written and decide which bits I think make sense and which bits don't. Ergo, your morality is essentially on a similar foundation as my own.

It is easy to reconcile the dictates of conscience with forming a moral code. What seems impossible to me, apart from being saved in Heaven, is reconciling the fact that you and I frequently/daily act against conscience and against our moral codes.

What's difficult to understand about the fact that humans aren't perfect and are capable of acting in selfish/short-sighted/vindictive/impulsive ways on occasion?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I thought I requested you not to ask why, because I have no idea. I can tell you of a well credentialed scholar who....... heck I will give you a link. You will see both the question and the response at the following link.

“Objective” or “Absolute” Moral Values? | Reasonable Faith

Thank you for sharing Dr. Craig's post on the subject. He is a marvelous apologist.

He wrote that "“Objective” means “independent of people’s (including one’s own) opinion.” Rape is always objectively wrong.

He also wrote that "“Absolute” means “regardless of the circumstances.” “Relative” means “varying with the circumstances.” It is absolutely wrong to commit rape, and rape is never relatively okay or right.

I chose rape most carefully as the OP knowing that atheists LOVE to chat about slavery, capital punishment, etc. but are likewise unwilling to say rape is both objectively and absolutely wrong. After all, as you so clearly put it, if atheists believe that absolute morality exists in nature, then the universe holds absolutes, implying a creator and a moral creator.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Once again, your questions make no sense. In what way can we measure a "utopia"?

Happy to help. In an absolute utopia, you are never upset, hurt, sad, wronged. You cannot go. I cannot go to a utopia. Man is fallen. Man violates conscience.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't think I am mocking anything. I just say what I see. And Swedes are famous for being quite direct and not so politically correct. Personally, I love the believer. I just find the belief is quite funny. Which is good. Movies like "the life of Brian" would not exist without religious belief. I include my past self as a believer, obviously.

Anyway, what is the problem with mocking, if any? You should be happy: isn't it a prophecy that you will be scoffed at for your beliefs? I am sure it is somewhere in the Bible. Even though, I could have made such a prophecy myself, since it is rather easy to fulfill.

But I am really curious. If someone ridicules my beliefs, or knowledge, then I cannot imagine myself being hurt in the slightest.

Ciao

- viole

I'm also curious, why 99% of your posts mock. It's too much IMHO as a non-Swede.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And yet you pick and choose which bits of the book to accept or not - just as I can go through every religious book of morality ever written and decide which bits I think make sense and which bits don't. Ergo, your morality is essentially on a similar foundation as my own.


What's difficult to understand about the fact that humans aren't perfect and are capable of acting in selfish/short-sighted/vindictive/impulsive ways on occasion?

No, I don't accept part of the Bible to accept. I'm a fundamentalist. All verses in all 66 books of the most commonly accepted canon are pure words of Jesus Christ, profitable for action, meditation and inspiration.

There's nothing difficult to understand about humans being impulsive or vindictive on occasion. There's something horrendous, however, when brother murders brother. His blood cries out from the ground. If we go to Heaven and God plays on a giant HD screen your life, would you be able to coherently point out where you made occasional missteps only?

 

[BilliardsBall]

That question doesn't make sense to me. Even when I was Christian I didn't believe right and wrong have weight/exist independently of mind. And most Christians say 'without God there would be no morals' which means they don't believe morals are a thing that exist independently of God's instruction either.
I just think:
A. their deity doesn't exist so
B. the morality outlined in the bible is no less human-derived than any other ethical system and
C. I'm not an authoritarian so I wouldn't value the Christian deity's perspective as being less subjective than anyone elses even if I believed it exists.
D. Even in non-authoritarian systems, I don't agree with morals by revelation or call to emotion or 'gut feeling'ism. But by a mix of utilitarian consequentialism and pragmatism

I have goals, things like maximizing happiness while reducing suffering in human society and ecological responsibility for humans and other animals. And I have an ethical system to outline the way I judge behavior and ideas to best meet those goals. But I can't force anyone else into thinking those goals are inofthemselves valuable. But I can make associations and build social ties with other people who share that goal.

We have some problems with your system, though I appreciate it's kind nature:

How should we be practically "maximizing happiness" when pro-life people are cut to the quick by abortion but pro-choice persons are equally upset when right-to-terminate is pushed to one side?

How should we be practically be "maximizing happiness" when some homosexuals want to get married because they do love each other but other homosexuals and the religious are hurt by this dissolution of traditional marriage, etc.?

I guess we could have a political "happiness is for the most people/majority rules" but what if rape becomes a majority rule and so on?

I think we still must come to absolute rights and wrongs somehow. Do you agree?

 

[viole]

I'm also curious, why 99% of your posts mock. It's too much IMHO as a non-Swede.

I am a Swede.

Can you make me an example of my mocking?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Underhill]

Please list here all the powers and perks of being a Jewish Christian in NT times and a Jewish Christian witnessing apostle, so I can understand where you're coming from better:

Power/privilege 1:

2:

3:

Thousands of followers, fame... it's kind of hard to measure their motivations 2000 years after the fact. But by your logic why would Mohamed do it? Or Joseph Smith? What about Buddha or Charles Russel? They can't have all done it because they were compelled by the one true god...

 

[ADigitalArtist]

We have some problems with your system, though I appreciate it's kind nature:

How should we be practically "maximizing happiness" when pro-life people are cut to the quick by abortion but pro-choice persons are equally upset when right-to-terminate is pushed to one side?

How should we be practically be "maximizing happiness" when some homosexuals want to get married because they do love each other but other homosexuals and the religious are hurt by this dissolution of traditional marriage, etc.?

I guess we could have a political "happiness is for the most people/majority rules" but what if rape becomes a majority rule and so on?

I think we still must come to absolute rights and wrongs somehow. Do you agree?

This is just priming for spinning way off topic of the thread, but no, we don't have to assert any absolute morals. What we assert is what our society places higher value in and why. And what tangible data can be used to determine what minimizes suffering and why, if we agree that minimal suffering is what we are going for. But it's not universal because we must first agree on definitions (or at least find consensus) and have the same goals.

For example suffering of forced continuance of pregnancy is greater than the suffering the fetus by the pregnancy ending. There's also arguments to be made about body autonomy and compromising human rights for reasons that have to do with calls to emotion. (Such as dissolving the rights of criminals for medical testing And that being cruel and unusual punishment.)

For homosexuality the suffering of homosexuals whoncant access the rights of marriage which helps a great deal with taxes, insurance, merging property and wealth, and helping with children (And yes, gays have kids too), is greater than Christians who never really controlled how marriage was defined in this country to begin with. And for consistency should np more be able to control if gays get married than if Satanists do.

And again, I don't believe Christians are making absolute moral claims. Because I don't agree that arguments from authority are absolute, or that moral instruction they receive from that authority aren't filtered through several subjective POVs. (The deity itself, the writers, translators and interpretors.)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Happy to help. In an absolute utopia, you are never upset, hurt, sad, wronged. You cannot go. I cannot go to a utopia. Man is fallen. Man violates conscience.

If that's the case, how can I possibly answer your questions, since a utopia is essentially impossible?