Hello.....I have a little problem

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Why do you not base your views on how we should treat others, marriage, and truth on God’s revealed word in scripture?

Sorry Stat that's a fail on a few levels;


The claim that your sacred books are the word of god is a religious belief, unsupported by credible evidence.

The moral codes found in the Torah and New Testament predate even Judaism by centuries.

They can be found entirely or in part in: Ancient Egyptian texts, Zoroastrianism, and the secular code of Hammurabi;some of which are found almost verbatim in the Torah. Then there are the Greek philosophers. In the Far East there is Hinduism and of course (atheistic) Buddhism.(600bce)The Buddha taught "above all,loving kindness".Plus he taught the great Hindu moral imperative of 'ahimsa'. IE the absence of the desire to harm any living creature.

In more recent times, there was the atheist Karl Marx, a quite profound moral philosopher.

The term "Judeo-Christian morality" is a meaningless term,a mix of elements from all over the place, just like Christianity itself..

So,no my atheism does not inform my behavior or my moral code..


00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000


From the code of Hammurabi (ca 2050bce)

If a man puts out the eye of a patrician, his eye shall be put out.
If a man knocks the teeth out of another man, his own teeth will be knocked out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammurabi%27s_Code

[Shell B]

You said you didn’t believe in sin, implying you were therefore not guilty of it, so I gave you a real world example to demonstrate how this was logically fallacious reasoning.

Actually, that wasn't what I was going for, but I am hardly surprised that you would come to that conclusion. I was actually pointing out that I don't believe in sin so that you might get the implication that calling me sinful was borderline preaching, which, as you know, is against the rules here. I love it when you derive absolutely asinine conclusions from my posts, though.

False analogy, the existence or non-existence of fairies has no real bearing on reality, morality, logic, knowledge, existence, and purpose. The existence or non-existence of the God of scripture who created all things, governs all things, and owns you does.

Stat, say that God owns me one more time, buddy. Just because you believe in your imaginary friend does not make it true or logical. Furthermore, god does not apply to as much of my life as it does yours. Therefore, it does not shape my worldview, as it does yours. I would say don't be so obtuse, but it would be like asking you not to breathe.

[Statler Waldorf]

No one has to demonstrate that you're ignorant, you've already got that one handled.

Nope, please demonstrate this, stop blowing smoke for just once, just one time please back up your talk with something of sustenance...please....please Rhythm!

Sorry Stat that's a fail on a few levels

I think you completely missed the point of my post. Shell was saying that her disbelief in God does not affect her views on morality amongst other things. I was pointing out that it actually does because if she did believe in the God of the Bible she would base her morality on scripture. She does not believe in the God of the Bible so she does not base it on scripture and seeks to base it on something else (what she bases it on is still a mystery because she will not tell). The fact of the matter is though, her atheism does affect her views of morality because it only allows her to base it on something natural rather than anything transcendent and supernatural. (Note: This is of course only true if Shell is consistent in her worldview, this is something I am beginning to doubt to be true more and more. )

[Shell B]

(Note: This is of course only true if Shell is consistent in her worldview, this is something I am beginning to doubt to be true more and more. )

Since you know nothing about my worldview, your big head has no room to doubt it, but I'm sure you're making a cozy little "misconceptions about Shell" file up there.

Don't feel bad. I doubt you have been honest at all in your dealings here, but I could be wrong too.

[Statler Waldorf]

Actually, that wasn't what I was going for, but I am hardly surprised that you would come to that conclusion. I was actually pointing out that I don't believe in sin so that you might get the implication that calling me sinful was borderline preaching, which, as you know, is against the rules here. I love it when you derive absolutely asinine conclusions from my posts, though.

Ahh! So when a moderator throws out a portion of scripture to suggest I am sinful it is totally appropriate but when I point it out that the scripture more appropriately applies to you it is borderline preaching? Double standards are sad aren’t they?

Stat, say that God owns me one more time, buddy.

God owns you. You asked me to.

Just because you believe in your imaginary friend does not make it true or logical.

…and I said it did where?

Furthermore, god does not apply to as much of my life as it does yours. Therefore, it does not shape my worldview, as it does yours. I would say don't be so obtuse, but it would be like asking you not to breathe.

You just proved my point! I love it when you do things like this. Your disbelief in God means that you do not believe that God owns you, which in turn means you will shape your views on morality keeping in mind that nobody greater than yourself owns you and will hold you accountable one day. So therefore your atheism has indeed shaped your view on morality! Atheism is a worldview.

“If it all happens naturalistically, what’s the need for a god? Can’t I set my own rules? Who owns me? I own myself.”
- Jeffrey Dahmer

---

Since you know nothing about my worldview, your big head has no room to doubt it, but I'm sure you're making a cozy little "misconceptions about Shell" file up there.

Don't feel bad. I doubt you have been honest at all in your dealings here, but I could be wrong too.

I know nothing about your worldview? You seem to forget that you told me you have no ultimate standard of truth in your worldview, so I do indeed know something about it. Of course relativism is a self refuting philosophy so I know for a fact you do not hold consistently to your worldview now.

[Shell B]

Set of beliefs, Stat. What about that is fucking impossible for you to understand?

That scripture was used by an atheist, meaning he doesn't believe it for a second and it is obvious enough, given his open atheism. Therefore, it isn't preaching. It was pointing out that you behave in a manner that contradicts your ultimate source of guidance. You introduced the word "sin" and said I was sinning. I don't give a fuck if you think it is a double standard.

You repeatedly say that your stance is logical and truthful, also that it is based on the Bible.

Whether or not a person believes god owns them is irrelevant. As I have said before, you are shaping your morals, not your godbook. As a Christian, you cherrypick the shit out of your own guidebook, thus shaping your own views. You use what you want to use and throw the rest away, when not making excuses for breaking the rules set forth in your book. You think god changes how you would do things. I know that nonbeings do not shape my morals. Sorry you have so many issues with reality, Stat.

Jeffrey Dahmer quotes, classy.

---

I didn't say that I had no standard, chowderhead. I said that I had no ultimate authority, which was what you asked me. You're doing that backtrack and use different words to make it sound like Shell said something she didn't thing again. You might as well outright lie, you're so fucking dishonest.

[Statler Waldorf]

Set of beliefs, Stat. What about that is fucking impossible for you to understand?

Nothing, I understand it completely. You base your set of beliefs off of your atheistic worldview, I base mine off of my Christian theistic worldview.

That scripture was used by an atheist, meaning he doesn't believe it for a second and it is obvious enough, given his open atheism.

So you are saying he believes arrogance and pride are good things?

Therefore, it isn't preaching. It was pointing out that you behave in a manner that contradicts your ultimate source of guidance.

Where does it say the preacher has to believe what he is preaching to be true in order for it to be considered preaching?

You repeatedly say that your stance is logical and truthful, also that it is based on the Bible.

All true.

Whether or not a person believes god owns them is irrelevant.

No it isn’t, it’s the very foundation we use to shape our morals. If I own myself I determine my own morality, if something greater than me owns me I must conform my morality to that.

As a Christian, you cherrypick the shit out of your own guidebook, thus shaping your own views. You use what you want to use and throw the rest away,

Proof of this?

Jeffrey Dahmer quotes, classy.

He didn’t think anyone owned him and made up his own morality too you know.

I didn't say that I had no standard, chowderhead. I said that I had no ultimate authority, which was what you asked me. You're doing that backtrack and use different words to make it sound like Shell said something she didn't thing again. You might as well outright lie, you're so fucking dishonest.

Philosophically speaking ultimate standard and ultimate authority for truth are the same thing dunderhead. In order to give you a chance to backtrack since you seem to have realized how ridiculous your relativistic claims were I will ask the question again but use the phrase you seem to understand. Shell, what is your ultimate standard for truth?

[Shell B]

Nothing, I understand it completely. You base your set of beliefs off of your atheistic worldview, I base mine off of my Christian theistic worldview.

You got the second part right.

So you are saying he believes arrogance and pride are good things?

Nope. I am saying he doesn't believe them to be sins, but you knew that.

Where does it say the preacher has to believe what he is preaching to be true in order for it to be considered preaching?

Nowhere, nor did I say that. He doesn't believe in the Bible, nor was he preaching it to you or labeling you a sinner. He was showing you that the teachings you say you adhere to are quite obviously not displayed in your behavior.

All true.

Pfft. Only the last part.

No it isn’t, it’s the very foundation we use to shape our morals. If I own myself I determine my own morality, if something greater than me owns me I must conform my morality to that.

Change that we to a "me" and I'll agree with you. The foundation of your life is ancient lies. That has naught to do with me.

Proof of this?

Your conceit and your lying (oh, yes, you're not as smart as you think you are). Do you need more?

He didn’t think anyone owned him and made up his own morality too you know.

Hahaha. You're comparing me to Jeffrey Dahmer? What a douchebag you are. If someone owned you, Stat, I'm pretty sure you would not be allowed to behave as you do. If you were the only Christian I ever spoke to, I would hate Christians with a passion. Luckily, I know smarter and kinder ones. You're a fisher of men failure.

Philosophically speaking ultimate standard and ultimate authority for truth are the same thing dunderhead.

Not in the slightest. Quit falling back on "philosophically this" and "philosophically that" to make it sound like your vocabulary fuckups are philosophical interpretations of language. Authority and standard are not the same thing. You are like a little synonym creator aren't you. Worldview is the same thing as lack of belief. Authority and standard are the same. You have been pulling this shit for fucking months, dude.

In order to give you a chance to backtrack since you seem to have realized how ridiculous your relativistic claims were I will ask the question again but use the phrase you seem to understand.

You mean you will ask it again in a way that better suits your agenda?

Shell, what is your ultimate standard for truth?

42

[Sam]

Philosophically speaking ultimate standard and ultimate authority for truth are the same thing dunderhead. In order to give you a chance to backtrack since you seem to have realized how ridiculous your relativistic claims were I will ask the question again but use the phrase you seem to understand. Shell, what is your ultimate standard for truth?

Statler,

You're all over the forum with your presuppositionalist arguments recently aren't you?

I've only really seen assertions from you thus far though. You claim that the Christian Worldview is the only one that can account for certain things (Logic, Thought, Morality ...) yet you have failed to logically demonstrate this. Perhaps you could form full arguments to justify these assertions rather than just asserting it ad nauseum and we can go from there?

You also claim that 'all other worldviews' have failed to stand up to this criticism under presuppositionalism. I'd have to ask you to demonstrate that too.

I think given that people, including myself have tried to engage you on how our personal 'worldviews' (note we don't all share the 'atheist worldview', probably because it doesn't exist) account for these things you could at least answer those points before continuing to spuriously press on with this argument as if nothing has happened. Perhaps we could even get a thread going for this purpose to keep the discussion in one place.

Sam

P.S. Sorry if I'm intruding Shell

[Statler Waldorf]

You got the second part right.

Special pleading, you can’t agree that Christian Theism is a worldview for the same reasons that make Atheism a worldview and then turn around and say atheism Is not a worldview. They either both are or they both are not.

Nope. I am saying he doesn't believe them to be sins, but you knew that.

Why would anyone believe they were not? “Sin” is a term only defined by the Bible and the Bible is clear that certain forms of pride are indeed sinful.

Nowhere, nor did I say that. He doesn't believe in the Bible, nor was he preaching it to you or labeling you a sinner. He was showing you that the teachings you say you adhere to are quite obviously not displayed in your behavior.

Backtrack backtrack, and I demonstrated that it would be impossible for me to be sinfully prideful given my views on all of humanity and how we obtain what we know. Believing that everything good in me is solely a gracious and therefore undeserved gift from God is not prideful at all.

Change that we to a "me" and I'll agree with you. The foundation of your life is ancient lies. That has naught to do with me.

The foundation of your life is your disbelief in the God of scripture.

Your conceit and your lying (oh, yes, you're not as smart as you think you are). Do you need more?

So you just tried to prove I was dishonest by merely stating I was dishonest? You are not as smart as even I thought you were I guess. I want actual proof I have been dishonest about anything, if you can’t provide this then your accusations are unfounded and therefore dishonest themselves.

Hahaha. You're comparing me to Jeffrey Dahmer?

You made the comparison by taking the exact same position on morality that he did (prior to his conversion), don’t blame me.

Not in the slightest. Quit falling back on "philosophically this" and "philosophically that" to make it sound like your vocabulary fuckups are philosophical interpretations of language. Authority and standard are not the same thing.

Yes they are, you asserting something to the contrary does not make it so.

42

Why would you make such a big deal about authority vs. standard if you have neither? I rest my case. You have no ultimate authority/standard for truth. You are philosophically ignorant.

You claim that the Christian Worldview is the only one that can account for certain things (Logic, Thought, Morality ...) yet you have failed to logically demonstrate this. Perhaps you could form full arguments to justify these assertions rather than just asserting it ad nauseum and we can go from there?

Hey Sam,

That’s not really how it works, it’s not my responsibility to demonstrate that all other worldviews fail, I can demonstrate that Christianity can account for those things. If you have another worldview that you thing can (preferably the one you ascribe to) we can discuss it.

I think given that people, including myself have tried to engage you on how our personal 'worldviews' (note we don't all share the 'atheist worldview', probably because it doesn't exist) account for these things you could at least answer those points before continuing to spuriously press on with this argument as if nothing has happened. Perhaps we could even get a thread going for this purpose to keep the discussion in one place.

Well I would disagree with you there, all atheists do have atheistic worldviews, you will never find an atheist who holds to beliefs that rely on the supernatural or some form of deity because then they would no longer be an atheist. The fact that atheists have different believes does not discount atheism as a worldview itself. It’s difficult to have such discussions with people like Shell who refuse to even outline their worldview and give sarcastic answers like “42” to serious questions about it. I know you are a bit more serious about such matters so I am willing to address any questions you have though, you know me.