(July 15, 2015 at 8:27 pm)Godschild Wrote: I know you all fight against the God of Christianity more than any other. You post about other gods as not being real. So I would say you have to work harder not to believe the Christian God might be real.
I will say this I agree with Chad, what real difference does it make and how relevant can this question be, you can't be an atheist an believe in a god of any kind.

GC

From what i observe the reason why I fight against Christianity so much is more because that is what is presented the strongest in America. If say it were Muslem or Jewish that were coming door to door or being plastered all over this countries highway billboards then it would be those faiths I would spend a larger portion of time arguing against.

True?

In fact I feel that if most of the Christians were like the Ammish in that they live their lives and don't prostylise their faith to others (try to recrueite) then this site wouldn't even be here.

I love the eastern practices of mind and body (yoga, meditation) but if there were people trying to tell me that if i didn't do these practices in THIS life time that i would suffer forever...I have only two choices right now.....make the right choice or else..... then I'dd say F' your practices I wont do it.

Do you understand? you may not see it but that's exactly what Christains do. We don't like that from anyone.

As human beings, we have the capacity to feel with moral implications, to exercise the gift of imagination, and to think in paradigms. We make judgments according to the way we each individually view or interpret the world around us. Even if we do not agree with each other on what ought to be, we recognize that there must be—and that there is—an “ought.” For example, we all ought to behave in certain ways or else we cannot get along, which is why we have laws. In short, we ascribe to ourselves freedom with boundaries.

Yet too often we shun boundaries because we feel impeded or we’re afraid they will deprive us of what we think we really want. While we know that freedom cannot be absolute, we still resist any notion of limitation … at least for ourselves.

If morality is purely subjective, then you have absolutely nothing stopping anybody from being a subjective moralist and to choose to just zing one through your forehead and say, ‘That’s my answer’.

In other words, if morality is subjective, then there is no morality. Either a thing is immoral or it is not. Needless to say, this gets more problematic at the margins of the question, but the core of this principle is unassailable. If we say that morality is subjective, then there is no way we can justify saying anything is moral or immoral

---

(July 17, 2015 at 9:44 am)loganonekenobi Wrote:

(July 15, 2015 at 8:27 pm)Godschild Wrote: I know you all fight against the God of Christianity more than any other. You post about other gods as not being real. So I would say you have to work harder not to believe the Christian God might be real.
I will say this I agree with Chad, what real difference does it make and how relevant can this question be, you can't be an atheist an believe in a god of any kind.

GC

From what i observe the reason why I fight against Christianity so much is more because that is what is presented the strongest in America.  If say it were  Muslem or Jewish that were coming door to door or being plastered all over this countries highway billboards then it would be those faiths I would spend a larger portion of time arguing against.

True?

In fact  I feel that if most of the Christians were like the Ammish in that they live their lives and don't prostylise their faith to others (try to recrueite) then this site wouldn't even be here.

I love the eastern practices of mind and body (yoga, meditation) but if there were people trying to tell me that if i didn't do these practices in THIS life time that i would suffer forever...I have only two choices right now.....make the right choice or else..... then I'dd say F' your practices I wont do it.

Do you understand?  you may not see  it but that's exactly what Christains do.  We don't like that from anyone.

hello Logan, I know this was intended for GC but I feel compelled to respond.  As a Christian, I completely agree with you.  Proselytizing ones faith on someone does no good.  I think most people's opposition to Christians is that the person proclaiming to be Christian is not himself exercising the beliefs he espouses.  GK Chesterton said it best:

“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.”

Even Gandhi recognized the problem:

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

You didn't define what morality is. It's very important, it's hard to discuss something if I don't know what you mean by it.

Erm yes, there is something called the law which is a good deterrent to people shooting me. It works well. Atheists are generally moral, you seem to be implying that they are not. There is no study that shows atheists are more immoral than theists, except for definitions of morality which are different to wellbeing versus harm.

People in general get along. You seem to have trouble understanding how that could be, if not for a divine dictator. But they do, regardless of its existence.

But again, I need to know what you think the word means, and more importantly what religion has to do with it.

What's the difference between Hitler saying "hate the Jews" and God saying "hate the gays"? God is just a magic hitler, barking out orders with no room for debate. How is that "good"?

Where is your standard, and how come not even Christians can agree what it is? What use is it then if no one knows what it is?

Rob,

I don't want you to misunderstand me and I understand where you are coming from. I do not want you to think I believe atheists are less moral than theists. I have a lot of atheist friends whom I find much more moral than my Christian friends. The definition of morality I hold is there are absolute morals defined by a creator God and lived out through the person of Jesus Christ. I also espouse that not one single person on this Earth is a perfect moral being based on this standard. But I do espouse there is an absolute standard. Things are either right or wrong based on an absolute standard. If you posit a moral law you must posit a moral law giver but that is what the atheist is trying to disprove. If there is no moral law giver, there is no absolute moral law.

I understand the argument about the God of the OT and the genocide performed, but that discussion is another entirely and gets very deep in theology but on the surface I can completely see an atheist and agnostics perspective on that, but that discussion should come much later. The problem with Christianity, and this is coming from a Christian, is that MOST Christians do not live by the beliefs they espouse. Others see Christians beating their faith in to people on the street corner, committing adultery, committing all sorts of heinous acts and to non-Christians it shows an inconsistency of the faith they proclaim. Fully understood.

Thank you.

So you think morality is simply a list of things which are good and bad, as decided by God, is that right? We are indeed talking about two entirely different things then. Why should I care what God thinks, if it is nothing to do with wellbeing? How is it different from a list of edicts from Hitler?

If so, Christians cannot agree on what that list is. Every single one pretty much has their own ideas. And then you have other religions, all claiming to have this "moral code", again very different.

What use is hundreds of thousands of different opinions about this "moral code"?

(July 17, 2015 at 10:38 am)lkingpinl Wrote: Rob,

I don't want you to misunderstand me and I understand where you are coming from.  I do not want you to think I believe atheists are less moral than theists.  I have a lot of atheist friends whom I find much more moral than my Christian friends.  The definition of morality I hold is there are absolute morals defined by a creator God and lived out through the person of Jesus Christ.  I also espouse that not one single person on this Earth is a perfect moral being based on this standard.  But I do espouse there is an absolute standard.  Things are either right or wrong based on an absolute standard.  If you posit a moral law you must posit a moral law giver but that is what the atheist is trying to disprove.  If there is no moral law giver, there is no absolute moral law.  

I understand the argument about the God of the OT and the genocide performed, but that discussion is another entirely and gets very deep in theology but on the surface I can completely see an atheist and agnostics perspective on that, but that discussion should come much later.  The problem with Christianity, and this is coming from a Christian, is that MOST Christians do not live by the beliefs they espouse.  Others see Christians beating their faith in to people on the street corner, committing adultery, committing all sorts of heinous acts and to non-Christians it shows an inconsistency of the faith they proclaim.  Fully understood.

So your 'ontic referent' is a character in a book.  What is your take on the euthyphro dilemma?

I think you are missing my point Rob. The point is my worldview is logically consistent on the basis of morality, I have a defined standard of morality on which to judge and base things as immoral or wrong (the same goes for other religious worldviews and their defined moral code). Atheism falls in to moral relativism or subjective morality and provides no basis on which to judge anything excepting by each individuals standard.

Perhaps it is better to take the word morality out of the equation so I can hopefully make my point clearer. Ever make up games as a kid with your friends? Let's say you come up with a game to play and you clearly define what the rules are. Everyone who plays this game that you created now has a point of reference to what is allowed and not allowed. However, if each person makes their own rules to the game and there are no defined rules how can you say what they view is allowed is wrong? You cannot.

My morality is also consistent.

I care about: people and animals, their wellbeing and feelings

I act to: maximise people and animal's wellbeing, and minimise the harm I do to them

I know I'm succeeding when: I see happy, healthy people and animals as a result of my actions, at least as far as my influence goes

Your "standard" is just your interpretation of Christianity. What use is that if no one agrees with you, not even fellow Christians? You are indeed playing a game where no one else agrees on the rules with you. They may agree on some things, but not all.

How is this not your individual standard? Is everyone else wrong?

My standard is outside of myself (objective). Your standard is of yourself (subjective). Again, this is not to infer that those who do not hold to a Christian worldview cannot do good things (by the objective moral standard I espouse). It is to say that how can you judge other's actions based on your subjective standard?

That's not actually what "objective" means......and no, your standard isn't "outside of yourself" in any case.