The Reasons why "Just Following Jesus" Doesn't work

[Rekeisha]

LOL. Are you really making up the idea that nobody here is admitting what is and isn't 'real' based on an understanding of reality derived from a non-descript, un-evidenced sky being and then jumping to the conclusion based on this faulty and entirely bizarre logic that people who don't believe in this being...can't stand up for human rights?

Pass the blunt man. I want what you're on.

I apologize if I didn't explain myself fully. If you only have yourself to start with you can't be sure if anything you are saying is coherent or even a part of reality so then in your world view you can't say for certainty that people exist. So first you have to determine the existance of people before you could give them human rights.

Now my world view says that we were created in the image of a loving wise and rightriouse God. This gives all humans a worth that goes beyond our own opinions and imaginations. I don't define myself but I get my definition of self from the one who created me.

[robvalue]

We don't have to determine if people are real. We assume they are, it's a reasonable assumption. Worst case scenario, I'm a brain in a vat interacting with figments of my imagination in ways agreeable to me. So what? It's better than not interacting with them.

We can never prove anyone is real. That is the problem of solipsism, it's a much debated branch of philosophy. You can't simply ignore it I'm afraid.

You also have to assume people are real, you can't know for sure either. Saying stuff about God doesn't get around your limitations as a human. It would be good if you could acknowledge that. How exactly could you distinguish between this reality and an exact copy being fed into your brain and body giving you identical sensations, but which wasn't real? By definition, you can't. Do you agree?

[Rekeisha]

Hum... We have to all agree to assume we are real. That's all we can do. There's no point questioning that assumption with regard to every argument, since it undermines everyone at once, not just me. Shall we agree to assume we are real, or not?

If someone says human life is not valuable then yes, we agree to disagree. What else can we do? As a society, they disagree with us, so we have to protect society from them by locking them up if they start killing people. We can try and reason with them of course. That is the constructive action. But some people just don't care. Shouting "you're wrong" at them isn't going to make any difference.

What alternative is there? If "God" wanted us to all have the same morality, then he could have made us that way. Clearly he didn't, nor does he come down to settle disputes. We are on our own.

I am certain that we are all real. If your foundation is falulty don't just gloss over it you should seriously consider what is wrong. It is what you base your entire life on. What is real is very important and if you can't determine that then how can you even discuss anything?

You have to borrow from my world view in order to continue this conversation because I can account for reality. The idea to agreeing to disagree, about what human worth, will not work because there is a determined right and wrong and murder is wrong.

In this society of yours how do you determine who are human?

We all have morality because we all know that there is a way we ought to behave. Everyone being honest with themselves knows that they are not perfect because by instinct we know that we were meant to be something more. The falure is not in God but in us because we supress the knowledge of God and continue to by our wrong actions. When a person repents they recieve clarity about reality.

[Rekeisha]

So you are right in thinking that there is no right or wrong?

Also if I get your understanding of morality correct then morality is might over right? If the majority of people say that a certain thing is correct the minority is of no consiquence? It sure did suit Hitler's needs to blame the jews and then remove them from socitey to keep his hold on power. He and others agreed that it was correct. So according to your view this is the way it should be done and the only reason it is wrong is because other have collected together to say so.

At no point have I ever said there were no right and wrong. I keep saying that there IS right and wrong, and I define those terms as I understand them. Every time I do, you simply wave it all away and say "So you just don't believe in right and wrong."

That is a fucking Straw Man argument, and I am getting tired of reading it. If you're sticking to it that insistently, it means you're either willfully ignoring/misrepresenting my words as a deliberate Straw Man, or you are so stupid that you will not understand what I write regardless of how I word it.

Right and wrong exist. They are abstract human concepts for "good" and "bad" behavior, respectively.

And no, you obviously do not understand my view on morality...either that, or you are (again) deliberately twisting it to suit your need for an easily attacked opponent. Instead of addressing what I actually said, you're "understanding" my argument as a bunch of shit I didn't say, then attacking those made up points because you apparently can't address the real ones.

Your stupid little Nazi argument is an appeal to emotion and not worth addressing (like most of the shit you spout), but I'll go ahead and address it just to be thorough. First of all, "Might Over Right" is not the majority accepted moral system in pluralistic, secular societies. As I have said MULTIPLE TIMES now, human morality is generally sourced by a combination of personal empathy and social conditioning. In your case, most of the social conditioning seems to come from Sunday School Class, hence your willful ignorance, air-tight confirmation bias, and general lack of critical thinking skills.

Hitler failed because his actions were grossly immoral. I believe this personally, and it just so happens that much of the global community agrees with me, just as they did in the 1940s. That's why he wound up killing himself in a bunker somewhere. He fucked up, and he knew it. He did not get away with anything. He lost everything and died alone and in shame, and rightly so.

By the way, it just so happens that the very Gaud you defend was the mechanism by which Hitler foisted a genocidal morality on the German populace. The Nazi party and Hitler himself widely advertised the movement's basis on Christianity and association with the Christian Gaud. Before you go speaking to emotion by throwing Nazi arguments around, you might want to check your history.

Fuck, why do I even bother?

Actually hitler based his thinking on social evolution and the teachings of Friedrich Nietzsche. He like Nietzsche was an atheist. The people allowed themselves to be blined by their own sinful desires and lack of biblical knowledge. There was a confessing church in Germany who did not align themselves with Hitler and fought back. You can read the biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer to get more information on that. It was not a belief or disbelief in God but a change life throught repentance and makeing Him your lord and savior that makes the difference.

[robvalue]

You may certainly feel certain we are all real, but you may still be wrong. This is the problem with faith positions. I don't need to borrow anything from you to make assumptions. Solipsism is nothing to do with God, yet you feel the need to jam him in anyway.

I don't think we're going to get anywhere. I'll leave you to your certainty.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

LOL. Are you really making up the idea that nobody here is admitting what is and isn't 'real' based on an understanding of reality derived from a non-descript, un-evidenced sky being and then jumping to the conclusion based on this faulty and entirely bizarre logic that people who don't believe in this being...can't stand up for human rights?

Pass the blunt man. I want what you're on.

I apologize if I didn't explain myself fully. If you only have yourself to start with you can't be sure if anything you are saying is coherent or even a part of reality so then in your world view you can't say for certainty that people exist. So first you have to determine the existance of people before you could give them human rights.

Now my world view says that we were created in the image of a loving wise and rightriouse God. This gives all humans a worth that goes beyond our own opinions and imaginations. I don't define myself but I get my definition of self from the one who created me.

Second rate attempt at philosophising your God into existance there mate. the convoluted logic really hurts my mind.

So you assume that it's impossinl to judge 'reality' without a deity to give you a benchmark, correct? Well, here I am, without a benchmark of an un-defined un-evidenced celestial being, and yet still making more sense than what you post above. You also don't seem to be able to reflect your criticse into yourself which would ultimately reveal the serious flaws in your reasoning, but whatever ^_^

You don't need to apologise to me mate.

[Salacious B. Crumb]

Reality is based on evidence, you idiot.

There is evidence that subjective morality exists. There is evidence that evolution is how life came to its current state. There is evidence that your god is a fictional contrivance designed to serve the needs of ignorant, ancient people. There is evidence to show that humans have created the concepts of "right" and "wrong" to suit their needs as individuals and as communities. There is evidence for the existence of, well, just about everything that fucking exists. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that reality exists because there is evidence for it.

Conversely, there is no evidence for your god. There is no evidence for any objective source of morality. There is no evidence that right or wrong are universal forces and not concepts invented by humans. There is no evidence for ghosts, goblins, faeries, werewolves, vampires, demons, angels, or any of the other cockamamie, superstitious bullshit you might have been brought up on. Therefore, it is not reasonable to conclude that any of that shit exists.

How hard is this concept? Seriously? Your "Oh, you just don't have any standard for reality" thing is a Straw Man. Quit that shit. We believe in reality, and we believe things should be supported by some kind of peer-reviewable evidence before they qualify as a part of that reality. Our standard for reality is, in fact, much higher than yours. YOU are the one who doesn't believe in reality.

So you are right in thinking that there is no right or wrong?

Also if I get your understanding of morality correct then morality is might over right? If the majority of people say that a certain thing is correct the minority is of no consiquence? It sure did suit Hitler's needs to blame the jews and then remove them from socitey to keep his hold on power. He and others agreed that it was correct. So according to your view this is the way it should be done and the only reason it is wrong is because other have collected together to say so.

Subjective morality ≠ There is no right and wrong. How hard is that for you to understand? We don't need a book permeated with evil to tell us how to live. If your book tells you that beating slaves is ok, and you adhere to that "objective morality" (which it seems that you do, because you wouldn't deny it in our earlier discussion when confronted with it), then you're fucked in the head.

[Rekeisha]

You may certainly feel certain we are all real, but you may still be wrong. This is the problem with faith positions. I don't need to borrow anything from you to make assumptions. Solipsism is nothing to do with God, yet you feel the need to jam him in anyway.

I don't think we're going to get anywhere. I'll leave you to your certainty.

My faith in God is not base in my emotions or my opinions but you seem to base your entire life on your own opinions. You want to champion reason but you have a faulty foundation in your thinking. We can't get anywhere because your world veiw has gapping wholes you refuse to address.

[Rekeisha]

I apologize if I didn't explain myself fully. If you only have yourself to start with you can't be sure if anything you are saying is coherent or even a part of reality so then in your world view you can't say for certainty that people exist. So first you have to determine the existance of people before you could give them human rights.

Now my world view says that we were created in the image of a loving wise and rightriouse God. This gives all humans a worth that goes beyond our own opinions and imaginations. I don't define myself but I get my definition of self from the one who created me.

Second rate attempt at philosophising your God into existance there mate. the convoluted logic really hurts my mind.

So you assume that it's impossinl to judge 'reality' without a deity to give you a benchmark, correct? Well, here I am, without a benchmark of an un-defined un-evidenced celestial being, and yet still making more sense than what you post above. You also don't seem to be able to reflect your criticse into yourself which would ultimately reveal the serious flaws in your reasoning, but whatever ^_^

You don't need to apologise to me mate.

My foundation in God is very reasinable so reasonable that I have a base for which I know that I exisit but your foundation , which is only base in self, leads you to reasoning yourself out of existance. Maybe you are having a difficult time with understanding my view point because of your refusal to remove yourself from the position God should have in your life. You can know nothing without God and you have already admitted that you don't even know what is real. You need to stop supressing the knowledge of God in your life and pray that God would grant you repentance so that your soul can be saved and your reasoning with it.

[Rekeisha]

So you are right in thinking that there is no right or wrong?

Also if I get your understanding of morality correct then morality is might over right? If the majority of people say that a certain thing is correct the minority is of no consiquence? It sure did suit Hitler's needs to blame the jews and then remove them from socitey to keep his hold on power. He and others agreed that it was correct. So according to your view this is the way it should be done and the only reason it is wrong is because other have collected together to say so.

Subjective morality ≠ There is no right and wrong. How hard is that for you to understand? We don't need a book permeated with evil to tell us how to live. If your book tells you that beating slaves is ok, and you adhere to that "objective morality" (which it seems that you do, because you wouldn't deny it in our earlier discussion when confronted with it), then you're fucked in the head.

I believe unfornatly that you are the one decieved. You are refusing to see that two opposing argument that are only based on human perspective will negate themselves. There is no foundation or authority to judge your morals so you only imagined its worth. You even contradict your own view point when you try to make a judgement on my morals because you have no authority by which to say any of my beliefes are wrong.

I don't need a book to help me know what is right and wrong I need revelation from God. He is all good, loving, righteous, and just. He reveals Himself not just through the Bible but in all creation.

You should read the entire chapter from which you plucked that verse from because you would actually be able to see the full context of the law you quoted

You need to stop supressing the nature of God and repent and seek him as your Lord and saviour.