camanintx
Well-Known Member
But all ethics are foundational. So what makes an ethic Christian and how are they different from any other ethic?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What do you feel is wrong with atheism?
- Thread starter credance
- Start date
- Status
But all ethics are foundational. So what makes an ethic Christian and how are they different from any other ethic?
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Either the Gadfly loves talking about himself in the third person, or the Gadfly just like to see his name in print.
Please take the time to read the minutae that goes with each poster. I'm an agnostic - not an atheist. Of course, to a razor sharp mind like your's, there is probably no difference.
Well, I initially declined, due to the sheer number of them, but since you ask for 2 or 3, I'll humor you.
First fallacy - your entire first paragraph is guilty of "begging the question". You are trying to make the point that atheists are not reasonable (when you actually are trying to argue that they are not rational) - and to support your position, you simply assert that it is true.
Second fallacy - the first three sentences of your second paragraph commit the exact same fallacy - you beg the question of the point you are trying to make. To be honest, by the time I got this far in your post (post #352), I realized that you were incapable of forming a logical argument, and were simply going into a rant, based on your limited view of "Christian ethics", and how you perceive atheism, and those that embrace it.
Third fallacy - you open your third paragraph by referencing the Devil. Anyone with a functioning brain stem would realize that atheists will reject the premise, since they don't believe in God - much less, the Devil. If you wish to participate in a debate (using logic), you must start with a premise that both parties agree to, or will at least grant for the sake of the argument.
I could go on, but you need to take (at the very least) an introductory course in logic before it would be worth proceeding. There simply is no way to discuss the subject matter intelligently with you until you get up to speed.
The Voice of Reason doesn't enjoy having to teach while debating.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Even though I am an agnostic, I must say that trying to make sense of posts like those of GadFly does tend to incline one toward the use of sarcasm, which is then seen to be ridiculing the other party in the conversation.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Just a response, in general, in reference to Einstein's belief system.
If anyone here thinks that Einstein was anything other than an atheist, please take a moment to read the article at the following link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/science/17einsteinw.html?_r=1&scp=9&sq=bible&st=nyt&oref=slogin
It is a letter from Albert Einstein that is unequivocal in his rejection of both organized religion, and the existence of God. A direct quote from the letter (which sold for $404,000 at auction):
the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
Please note that from a logical standpoint, any use of Einstein's views of God or religion are nothing more than an "appeal to authority" - which is one of the most common fallacies committed during debates (along with "appeal to the masses").
If anyone here thinks that Einstein was anything other than an atheist, please take a moment to read the article at the following link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/science/17einsteinw.html?_r=1&scp=9&sq=bible&st=nyt&oref=slogin
It is a letter from Albert Einstein that is unequivocal in his rejection of both organized religion, and the existence of God. A direct quote from the letter (which sold for $404,000 at auction):
the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
Please note that from a logical standpoint, any use of Einstein's views of God or religion are nothing more than an "appeal to authority" - which is one of the most common fallacies committed during debates (along with "appeal to the masses").
Atheist always say that there is no absolute truth to avoid God. Why do you ask me this? The atheist know better than I why they do not believe in truth. Why don't you?
Papersock
Lucid Dreamer
Honestly I don't know what you're talking about. I've never said I don't believe in truth. That's why I asked what you meant by atheists don't believe in truth.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
You're killing me.
How in the world can you say (with a straight face) that "atheists always say that there is no absolute truth"? I know atheists that hold firmly with the concept of moral relativism (which is what I think you are trying to refer to). I also know atheists that adhere (very strongly) with the concept of absolutism.
You really, really need to come to grips with the idea that not all atheists (or monotheists, or agnostics, or any other group) all share a given position.
Would you agree with me, if I said that all Christians believe that dancing is "of the devil"?
Are you incapable of distinguishing the fact that you are indicting an entire group of people, based on your (incredibly simplistic) understanding of the position of a few?
In philosophy the term absolute truth refers to God which is the foundation of everything, of logic, science, religion. math. and a million more self evident things. If you believe in truth, you are not an atheist. If you are to remain an atheist, you must change the definition of truth to make truth something different than God. Moral relativity is an invention of atheist and communism. To make their world system work, God must go. Humanism is the morality of atheism by default. If you continue to think this line of thinking out, you may decide not to be an atheist. To be an atheist, one has to completely re=create the universe. That is the circle we are headed in; follow me, and I will show you where we get off safely.
GadFly
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
No, it doesn't.
Just when I think I've heard it all from you, you surprise me with lines like this.
Or use the regular definition of truth.
To be an atheist one need not recreate the universe. That's what we do when we become theists. Moral relativity is not an invention, it's a description. We don't throw out God to make our world system work, we realize God's not there, and so explain our world system based upon that premise.
Killing you? You have come to the correct person for healing. Plain logic, not atheistic logic, is the cure for what is killing you. Believers, as defined by the Bible, do not waver between absolutism and relativism. True Christians are theist and believe in absolutism. Your switch to atheist logic comes in where you begin comparing Christians to atheist. You should remain in comparing believers to atheist. Yes, it is your logic that is killing you. Atheistic logic is fatal an communicable.
Yes, there are some Christians that dance like Charity; but all Christians do not dance that well and therefore it is wrong for them to do so. As you point out, not all Christians or atheist agree with each other but was that really worth your effort to point that out?
GadFly sssssssss:cigar:
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
Can't read, huh? (post #371)
My dear "Voice of Reason" (or so you say--talk about self-centeredness!), "To deny the personality of the First Source and Center leaves one only the choice of two philosophic dilemmas: materialism or pantheism." Everything else is nuance.
Thank you for your illustrating the veracity of the statement: "What atheism does not understand, it deems its right to deny, ridicule, and even destroy."
Look at the atheist's posts. They deny, ridicule and are Harris and Dawkins fans
You said you are agnostic. Ever read William James? Agnosticism is, effectively, atheism: it's case of a "forced decision." Example: if you were diagnosed with a cancer with more than one option for treatment ( like me), not deciding is deciding to let cancer win. You have no choice but to "bet on one of the ponies" (to use Pascal's illustration) if you don't want cancer to win. I made a choice and so do atheists. You don't choose to make a choice so your choice is like an atheist's.
This thread is about what's wrong with atheism and I provided a list. Everything I said about atheism is true of agnosticism, save for one thing: agnosticism is cowardly.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Great, what's the point?
Thank you for your illustrating the veracity of the statement: "What atheism does not understand, it deems its right to deny, ridicule, and even destroy."
Look at the atheist's posts. They deny, ridicule and are Harris and Dawkins fans
I guess you are blind to your own denial and ridicule, huh? I have seen much more of that from you on this thread (let alone many other threads) than from atheists. And all atheists are Harris and Dawkins fans? Does that mean that all theists are Bible fans?
First, not deciding is not necessarily deciding to let cancer win. It might be deciding to let nature take its course, which could include the cancer going into remission naturally.
Second, your "example" has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand.
Third, you could see agnosticism as a form of atheism. You could also see agnosticism as a form of theism. What's the point? The agnostic is simply saying "I'm not going to claim there is a God, but I'm also not going to claim there isn't one either". They just don't feel it's necessary, as it's not going to have any impact on their lives one way or the other.
Scott1
Well-Known Member
I have nothing to add.... just wanted to be in a thread with ya TVOR!
Carry on.
Papersock
Lucid Dreamer
Apparently not, since I still don't see a very clear explanation there.
Are you saying "truth" is about a sense of moral obligation or spiritual ideals?
Is "truth" somehow deeper than "facts?"
Rolling_Stone said:Thank you for your illustrating the veracity of the statement: "What atheism does not understand, it deems its right to deny, ridicule, and even destroy."
What some atheists don't understand they try to learn more about.
Papersock
Lucid Dreamer
"Absolute truth" means unalterable facts, or inflexible reality. You're the one saying truth is the same thing as god. That's like saying god is love, therefore if you don't believe in god then you can't believe in love.
gnostic
The Lost One
The same could be said about Christianity towards non-Christian faiths. The Christians have deny, ridicule and destroy religions, in order to force people accept baptism at the point of the swords. Pagan religions have had their temples desecrated by Christians with hammers and fire, for centuries, following Constantine making Christianity into state religion. Christians have even began burning books of other religions a century before Constantine.rolling stone said:Thank you for your illustrating the veracity of the statement: "What atheism does not understand, it deems its right to deny, ridicule, and even destroy."
Charlemagne had put to the swords thousands of pagan Saxons that didn't accept a Christian god, and the pope had praised Charlemagne for converting tens of thousands against their will.
Christian priests have kept people ignorant, so that they can keep powers for themselves, by indoctrinating people about hell. When man tried to progress further in science, they had Galileo arrested for his discovery in astronomy, and it is on just recently was Galileo had been acquitted for heresy.
Darwin's theories have proven more correct than the bible, with physical evidences discovered since his publications, but they mocked him without any supporting evidences of their own.
Since then, science have proven over and over again that the earth is older than the bible's 6000 years.
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
All of the above. Facts are fixed, like images frozen in space and time; truth is life. Just as law is life itself and not the rules of its conduct, truth is in the living and not the acquirement of images captured in ideas.
Problem is, they only look in familiar domains, like the guy who looks for lost keys under the lamppost because that's where the light is. They deal only with facts: facts are made the master of life rather than the servant.
Burning Giraffe
Member
Best answer.
- Status