Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN

carlmango11 wrote: »

If religion is the source of absolute morality then why don't we follow it exactly as it is written in the book? Why don't we kill those who work on Sundays or be totally intolerant of gays or people of other religions?

Because we are talking about Christianity in 2012 here - not Judaism in 1300 BC.

If you're too lazy to try to understand the principles of how Christians interpret Scripture then at least please have the decency not to troll the forum.

Btw, nobody said religion was the source of absolute morality.

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

Again PDN this really is whatever you want it to be ,I have already said that for argument sake let us assume that there is a objective moral code.

The issue the becomes ( again as I have already said ) how does one access it ?

Could you perhaps post a coherent response to my post (in English)?

At this point I'm agreeing with Fanny and philologos. There's little point in us engaging in discussion with you when you just ignore what we post.

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

Could you perhaps post a coherent response to my post (in English)?

At this point I'm agreeing with Fanny and philologos. There's little point in us engaging in discussion with you when you just ignore what we post.

Just another rude cop out, just answer the question , I am not ignoring anything you post , I just don't agree with it.

If this objective moral code does exist it should be accessible to all , are you saying it it only accessibile through christianity ?

carlmango11

PDN wrote: »

Because we are talking about Christianity in 2012 here - not Judaism in 1300 BC.

If you're too lazy to try to understand the principles of how Christians interpret Scripture then at least please have the decency not to troll the forum.

Btw, nobody said religion was the source of absolute morality.

But that's the holy book on which Christianity is founded. The word of God. I can't understand how Christians can claim their morality comes from the teachings of Christianity which in turn come from the bible but yet still ignore what's in the bible which they think is unfair or unethical.

If they don't live by the moral compass set out in the bible then how can they say their morality is not based on their own decisions and sense of ethics; ie: a sense of morality which can exist without the bible.

And PDN, Boynesider's point is that morality can't exist without religion so I would therefore assume he thinks it is a source of absolute morality.

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

Just another rude cop out, just answer the question

It was not a rude cop out. Your previous post was gibberish. I could not decipher it.

If this objective moral code does exist it should be accessible to all , are you saying it it only accessibile through christianity ?

No, I've already said that we access it to a certain degree through our consciences. But the fullest revelation of God and His will is in the Person of Jesus Christ.

And Christianity is accessible to all.

PDN

carlmango11 wrote: »

But that's the holy book on which Christianity is founded. The word of God. I can't understand how Christians can claim their morality comes from the teachings of Christianity which in turn come from the bible but yet still ignore what's in the bible which they think is unfair or unethical.

They don't ignore what is in the Bible. They understand that the Bible is a collection of books, including poetry, prophecy, history etc. Therefore they understand that certain rules applied to a specific situation 3000 years ago, but that those circumstances are gone.

It's a bit like reading in a history book about blackout regulations in England during WWII. They were good for that situation, but we don't interpret that as meaning that we have to turn out all the steetlights in 2012.

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

It was not a rude cop out. Your previous post was gibberish. I could not decipher it.


No, I've already said that we access it to a certain degree through our consciences. But the fullest revelation of God and His will is in the Person of Jesus Christ.

And Christianity is accessible to all.

Couple of typos is all, but let us recap and move on. In that ''gibberish'' post ( couple of typos now corrected) I said,.

''Again PDN this really is whatever you want it to be ,I have already said that for argument sake let us assume that there is a objective moral code.

The issue then becomes ( again as I have already said ) how does one access it ?

You yourself have kindly provided us with the methodology in post 4423 on how to do so .

We can now see that on an issue that is against that moral code substantial numbers of christians had contradictory views on it.

So how can we explain that ? And what it all comes down to is you (not you personally) are right and the other guy is wrong .''

The only explanation you offer for the support of this type of slavery for over 300 years by millions of christians in christian countries is that they knew it was wrong but choose to imperil their immortals souls rather than give up the riches accrued from it !

And you know this how ? in essence it is the only explanation that gels with your position. But it can apply to any fanatic ( not saying you are fanatic). this guy that guy or this position that position are all wrong - why ? because I have accessed the objective moral code and by my interpretation they are all wrong,simple as that. So lets go burn a witch or fly some planes into some buildings

There is absolutely nothing objective about it at all.

Now it could be that we are all wrong in interpreting this code from time to time , but that in no way negates its existance . And my answer to that is so what ? If it can't interpreted by anyone with an open mind and in a unchanging manner it is irrelevant. As i said it is whatever time place culture says it is - oh wait - just like the subjective moral code .

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

Couple of typos is all, but let us recap and move on. In that ''gibberish'' post ( couple of typos now corrected) I said,.

''Again PDN this really is whatever you want it to be ,I have already said that for argument sake let us assume that there is a objective moral code.

The issue then becomes ( again as I have already said ) how does one access it ?

You yourself have kindly provided us with the methodology in post 4423 on how to do so .

We can now see that on an issue that is against that moral code substantial numbers of christians had contradictory views on it.

So how can we explain that ? And what it all comes down to is you (not you personally) are right and the other guy is wrong .''

The only explanation you offer for the support of this type of slavery for over 300 years by millions of christians in christian countries is that they knew it was wrong but choose to imperil their immortals souls rather than give up the riches accrued from it !

And you know this how ? in essence it is the only explanation that gels with your position. But it can apply to any fanatic ( not saying you are fanatic). this guy that guy or this position that position are all wrong - why ? because I have accessed the objective moral code and by my interpretation they are all wrong,simple as that. So lets go burn a witch or fly some planes into some buildings

There is absolutely nothing objective about it at all.

Now it could be that we are all wrong in interpreting this code from time to time , but that in no way negates its existance . And my answer to that is so what ? If it can't interpreted by anyone with an open mind and in a unchanging manner it is irrelevant. As i said it is whatever time place culture says it is - oh wait - just like the subjective moral code .

Great, just ignore everything I posted before. :rolleyes:

Fanny and philologos had you sussed. My bad.

carlmango11

PDN wrote: »

They don't ignore what is in the Bible. They understand that the Bible is a collection of books, including poetry, prophecy, history etc. Therefore they understand that certain rules applied to a specific situation 3000 years ago, but that those circumstances are gone.

It's a bit like reading in a history book about blackout regulations in England during WWII. They were good for that situation, but we don't interpret that as meaning that we have to turn out all the steetlights in 2012.

So the morality thought by Christianity has changed? God changed his mind?

It either is the impeccable, unquestionable, sacred, holy word of the lord or it isn't.

If it is, it is the authoritive word of god: it's perfect. Every word is correct and should be followed that way. There are methaphores, parables etc. but the majority of the teachings are the holy word of god. If this is the case then 99.99% of Irish christians are in fact not christians and should accept that. Furthermore if this is the case I'm sure the majority will agree that we shouldn't follow the moral code set out in this book.

If it is not, it is simply man-made religious literature: the morality that christians derive from it is objective. People decided (with their human brains and human consciences) which parts to follow and which parts not to - which proves my point: morality can exist without religion.

So which is it?

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

Great, just ignore everything I posted before. :rolleyes:

Fanny and philologos had you sussed. My bad.

Utter rubbish , and again when the going gets tough, take the easy way out . your position when when all the non-essentials are stripped out consists of the following.

1- there is an objective moral code .

2- it is accessible by all , including non christians

3- It is accessed by the methodology outlined in post 4423 by PDN.

4- If this yields differing intrepretations -then obviously the other guy is wrong.

So what am I missing ?

According to you the bible etc is not even a requirement to access and understand this code .

So we can have as many different interpretations as their are interpreters

You can go on ad nauseum about christians and others dis-agreeing about morality and how this in no way disproves the existance of an objective moral code .


Before we disprove the existance of something it behoves us to prove its existance in the first place.

You have not done that and until you do it remains just an assertion. And the ''proofs'' of Philologos etc are nothing of the kind , just more asssertions that gel with their world view.

Again as an illustration of proof of a thing I would cite your own example - the boiling point of water, unchanging, irrefutable and evident to all and sundry.

PDN

carlmango11 wrote: »

So the morality thought by Christianity has changed? God changed his mind?

No, did you even bother reading what I posted?

Certain actions and policies were suitable for different circumstances. Israel, in the period during which it was settling Canaan (over 3000 years ago), needed an extremely strict code.

We live in a vastly different context, most obviously because Jesus Christ has come.

For example, when my daughter was five years old she knew she had to hold my hand when we were near traffic.

Now my daughter is in her 20s. She doesn't have to hold my hand when we are near traffic.

Only an idiot would say that my morality has therefore changed, or that I have changed my mind. What has changed is the context and the circumstances.

It either is the impeccable, unquestionable, sacred, holy word of the lord or it isn't.

No-one's saying otherwise.

If it is, it is the authoritive word of god: it's perfect. Every word is correct and should be followed that way. There are methaphores, parables etc. but the majority of the teachings are the holy word of god. If this is the case then 99.99% of Irish christians are in fact not christians and should accept that. Furthermore if this is the case I'm sure the majority will agree that we shouldn't follow the moral code set out in this book.

Nonsense.

How do you follow a parable? Or a poem? How do you follow a historical narrative about what people did 3000 years ago?

Please try harder.

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

Utter rubbish , and again when the going gets tough, take the easy way out . your position when when all the non-essentials are stripped out consists of the following.

1- there is an objective moral code .

2- it is accessible by all , including non christians

3- It is accessed by the methodology outlined in post 4423 by PDN.

4- If this yields differing intrepretations -then obviously the other guy is wrong.

So what am I missing ?

What are you missing? I'm not sure. It could be the ability to understand simple English, or possibly the honesty required not to misrepresent what others post.

Nowhere did I say "obviously the other guy is wrong"

lmaopml

Marien, do you mind me asking, do you think torturing those who are defenseless and weak is wrong?

tommy2bad

Originally Posted by PDN;
Nowhere did I say "obviously the other guy is wrong"

I say eating shellfish is wrong you say its OK to eat them, objectively one of us is wrong or both of us. Yes?

@ marien, whats the method of determining subjective morality? can it change or is it fixed? changed by what, fixed to what?

This is about sacred texts, right? or more importantly their place in the scheme of things.

lmaopml

tommy2bad wrote: »

I say eating shellfish is wrong you say its OK to eat them, objectively one of us is wrong or both of us. Yes?

@ marien, whats the method of determining subjective morality? can it change or is it fixed? changed by what, fixed to what?

This is about sacred texts, right? or more importantly their place in the scheme of things.

I don't think it's got so much to do with Scripture, Scripture is about the revelation of God moreso than a dictation of morals - perhaps the debate has more to do with how you see 'reality' -

Tommy, do you believe torturing those who are defenseless and weak is wrong?

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

What are you missing? I'm not sure. It could be the ability to understand simple English, or possibly the honesty required not to misrepresent what others post.

Nowhere did I say "obviously the other guy is wrong"

If this is what you are reduced to, that you have lost the discussion.

marienbad

lmaopml wrote: »

Marien, do you mind me asking, do you think torturing those who are defenseless and weak is wrong?

Ask me anything you like Imaopml and I will answer as best I can and as in a straightforward manner as I can.

Yes I do think it is wrong

lmaopml

marienbad wrote: »

Ask me anything you like Imaopml and I will answer as best I can and as in a straightforward manner as I can.

Yes I do think it is wrong

Was it always wrong Marien to do such a thing?

marienbad

lmaopml wrote: »

Was it always wrong Marien to do such a thing?

In my opinion with a 21st century mindset - yes and always yes even in the face of those silly conundrums -''what if he has vital information on the location a bomb going off in 12 hours''

lmaopml

marienbad wrote: »

In my opinion with a 21st century mindset - yes and always yes even in the face of those silly conundrums -''what if he has vital information on the location a bomb going off in 12 hours''

Always 'yes'.

It's not a conundrum - it's the truth. There is such a thing as 'truth'. You've just spoken it. Go figure.

marienbad

lmaopml wrote: »

Always 'yes'.

It's not a conundrum - it's the truth. There is such a thing as 'truth'. You've just spoken it. Go figure.

I don't get your point Imaopml . is it that torture is always wrong is the truth ?

If so , afraid not , in this case it is just my ''truth'' and your ''truth''. Plenty of staunch Christians in the USA would vehemently disagree with you , upto and including judges congressmen senators and presidents.

Go figure

lmaopml

marienbad wrote: »

I don't get your point Imaopml . is it that torture is always wrong is the truth ?

If so , afraid not , in this case it is just my ''truth'' and your ''truth''. Plenty of staunch Christians in the USA would vehemently disagree with you , upto and including judges congressmen senators and presidents.

Go figure

I'm happy to say, that in this instance your truth and my truth converge -

I don't really care about other Christians or Atheists or anybody else for that matter thinks, people think all sorts as has been demonstrated by previous posts. It's wrong no? Or is it not wrong?

marienbad

lmaopml wrote: »

I'm happy to say, that in this instance your truth and my truth converge -

I don't really care about other Christians or Atheists or anybody else for that matter thinks, people think all sorts as has been demonstrated by previous posts. It's wrong no? Or is it not wrong?

Then means then that you agree the ''truth'' is subjective , glad to hear it.

lmaopml

marienbad wrote: »

Then means then that you agree the ''truth'' is subjective , glad to hear it.

Are you back tracking Marien? I thought you were straight up?

It's not always wrong so in your opinion really, but your opinion doesn't count, because other people have done this, so therefore it mustn't really be wrong?

So that makes it sometimes 'right' does it? To be cruel to defenseless and weak people?

marienbad

lmaopml wrote: »

Are you back tracking Marien? I thought you were straight up?

It's not always wrong so in your opinion really, but your opinion doesn't count, because other people have done this, so therefore it mustn't really be wrong?

So that makes it sometimes 'right' does it? To be cruel to defenseless and weak people?

I am not backtracking in the slightest Imaopml. I believe torture is always wrong- no equivocation whatsover.

I know others do not believe so , I do not agree with them . I know others don't care if it is right or wrong, it is just expedient. I know others believe that it certain circumstance it is justified and they have reached that conclusion in good faith. Just as you and I have reached our conclusion in good faith.

So it dos'nt make it sometimes right for me , I can't answer for others , I can only try and convice them that they are mistaken even as they may try to convince me otherwise.

So no backtracking and still straight up Imaopml

philologos

Round and round and round we go marienbad. I responded to that objection pages ago. It'd really be nice if you could actually read our posts.

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

If this is what you are reduced to, that you have lost the discussion.

Not at all. I, like others, have tried to engage in discussion with you. You ignore and refuse to interact with salient points, and then dishonestly misrepresent what the other person has said.

When that happens there is no discussion for anyone to lose.

tommy2bad

lmaopml wrote: »

I don't think it's got so much to do with Scripture, Scripture is about the revelation of God moreso than a dictation of morals - perhaps the debate has more to do with how you see 'reality' -

Tommy, do you believe torturing those who are defenseless and weak is wrong?

OK their this guy God, you may have heard of him, morals come from Him so the human point of view is immaterial as to whats right or wrong.
Now if God is non existent... their can be no morality outside of human opinion.
All this dose is move the source of morality from one place to another. Insisting on objective morality is useless unless you are claiming to have the source of that morality and access to it.
Yes it's about reality, for believers morality comes from God, handed down through the ages but for a non believer their is no God to decree whats moral we have to decide ourselves. It's subjective.

It's wrong when it disadvantages me and right when it advantages me.
Simples.
We can say this is wrong or that but in the end it makes no difference to what we do as a species or as individuals.
Claiming that morality exists independent of humans is just a call to authority because we don't think that humans are worthy of morality.
I say torture of the week is wrong because as a human I know its wrong, I don't need to call on the authority of any God to justify that position. If I were a cat I wouldn't see any wrong in torture. Nor would my God.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

Round and round and round we go marienbad. I responded to that objection pages ago. It'd really be nice if you could actually read our posts.

Not so philogos - you respond with your belief- no objective evidence whatsoever.

You may well reply That I am only responding with my belief and you would be 100% correct. The difference is I don't pretend otherwise.

And as you cannot grasp or face that simple concept round and round we go as you say.

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

Not at all. I, like others, have tried to engage in discussion with you. You ignore and refuse to interact with salient points, and then dishonestly misrepresent what the other person has said.

When that happens there is no discussion for anyone to lose.

Discussion is a dialogue and not a lecture on one's beliefs. I have responded to all points to the best of my knowledge. And If there are any I missed let me know and I will correct that.. You can't seem to grasp that citing endless examples from Christian doctrine to prove Christian doctrine is not proof of anything and cuts no ice with me.

And you just resort to ad hominem and rudeness , a certain sign you have lost the discussion.