Six Questions to Ask An Atheist
-
If you all have so much time to spend in sgforums posting nonsense, then that means you have nothing to do at work.
Oh wait.
Nevermind.
-
Are your christian morals objective? Tell me they don't leave too much room for interpretation by people which prevents them meeting any definition of objectivity.
So are you going to support or refute the Christian allegation that the earth is square? You only have two choices. Pick one and defend it.
-
Originally posted by alize:
Are your christian morals objective? Tell me they don't leave too much room for interpretation by people which prevents them meeting any definition of objectivity.
So are you going to support or refute the Christian allegation that the earth is square? You only have two choices. Pick one and defend it.
That's because you failed to note what is meant by objective moral values. It simply means there are certain things which are always morally wrong regardless of what or how you feel about it.I am going to support that the Bible does not teach a flat or square earth. Ignorant atheists are still desperately trying to disparage the Christian faith by falsely accusing the Bible of teaching a flat earth. See http://creation.com/the-flat-earth-myth-and-creationism
And to really rub it in, the leader of the Flat Earth Society is an evolutionist! How ironic ya? Really LOL and surely a slap in the face for evolutionists accusing creationists for flat earth beliefs. See http://www.livescience.com/14754-ingenious-flat-earth-theory-revealed-map.html
The relevant quote is reproduced here "The Flat Earth Society is an active organization currently led by a Virginian man named Daniel Shenton. Though Shenton believes in evolution and global warming, he and his hundreds, if not thousands, of followers worldwide also believe that the Earth is a disc that you can fall off of."
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
Still trolling?
You are a deprived teenager seeking attention.
he is just a sad little kid, judging by his posts
-
While we are talking about objective moral values, some clarification would be helpful.
We should start with what objective means given the word’s versatility. In philosophy, objective refers to something independent of the human mind. The object of perception does not change with our feelings, interpretations, and prejudices. Objective moral values are therefore discovered, not invented. This is in stark contrast to subjective moral values which change from person to person, culture to culture, etc. If morality is objective, the next logical question to ask is: What is the mind-independent basis for objective morality and is this basis sufficiently binding? In other words, it will not do to merely show some external ground for morality and then subjectively assign value to it. Our obligation to a particular ethical system must transcend personal preference.
There is also the attribute of universality. This applies when the basis for objectivity is not confined to a particular time and space. Some say it is enough for moral values to apply equally to all individuals in relevantly similar circumstances. Either way, universality is predicated on objectivity for it is difficult to imagine subjective moral values applying to all people, in all places, and at all times. And of course only volitional beings can act morally. If there were no minds, there would be no morality. If all actions were compulsory, again, there would be no morality. The atheist who accepts objectivity will likely argue that morality is meaningless without man since, on their view, he is the measure of all things. The theist will probably think differently. For example, if the human race had been completely wiped out in World War II, the Holocaust would still be objectively wrong today under theism. The mind of God and His judgment persist.
We see in Christianity moral values have their objective and universal basis in the immutable nature of God. He neither arbitrarily created the moral law, nor is there an external moral domain in which God is subject. Moral values are, because of who God is.
But what about those who claim that a divine basis for objective morality is problematic? Religious groups argue, disagree and fight with each other - all in the name of objective moral values handed down from on high. Even within a single religious camp there is some disagreement about what is objectively right and wrong. Who’s right in the mind of God? Well there is no easy answer! But critics confuse the epistemic problem (the knowing) with the ontological problem (the reality) and miss the point. God’s moral position on the death penalty is the correct one. Instead of sticking our heads in the sand because there is occasional disagreement, we ought to continually devote ourselves to understanding God’s position. If the God of Christianity doesn’t exist, it’s senseless to point to problems in the Church around divine commands. It would make as much sense to argue about the worldwide chimney damage caused by Santa Claus. If the Christian God does exist, focusing on the same problem is just an excuse to be negligent.
So do we get to decide how binding an ethical system is regardless of its objective grounds? I suggest we do except in one and only one case. God is the exception. As the greatest conceivable being and locus of moral value, mere created man does not get to decide if His divine commands are binding. As volitional creatures, we only get to decide if we are going to obey His commands or not. In all other ethical systems you have a degree of personal preference. Subjectivity is involved if it is human flourishing, self-interest, a green planet, or that which creates the most pleasure, happiness, profit, etc. There is no universal obligation to abide by these systems. Some would say we have no choice but to abide by human self-interest, since we are human. But this only makes sense if man is the measure of all things. If a hyper-intelligent race of aliens were to come through our solar system and consume the entire human population like we consume cattle, would this be wrong? Who will adjudicate and on what objective basis?
In conclusion; universally binding objective moral values exist if and only if God exists. Other claims of objectivity are based on subjectively assigning obligatory value to the object of perception. When we see these systems in conflict and must appeal to a higher ethic, it should raise further doubt about their status. If we live in the atheist's ecbatic universe, then there is no ultimate justice or final moral consequence. At death, all of our moral choices in life become irrelevant. Legacy doesn’t really matter as the deep sleep of non-existence dissolves time and space leaving no gap between one's death and the mass extinction of man when the universe reaches maximum entropy. But if the Christian God exists, then our relationship to Him is essential to moral obligation. If there is eternal consequence, binding duty to an objective morality is maximal.
Source: http://www.apologetics.net/post/2011/01/24/What-is-objective-morality.aspx
-
I am going to support that the Bible does not teach a flat or square earth. Ignorant atheists are still desperately trying to disparage the Christian faith by falsely accusing the Bible of teaching a flat earth. See http://creation.com/the-flat-earth-myth-and-creationism
And to really rub it in, the leader of the Flat Earth Society is an evolutionist! How ironic ya? Really LOL and surely a slap in the face for evolutionists accusing creationists for flat earth beliefs. See http://www.livescience.com/14754-ingenious-flat-earth-theory-revealed-map.html
Don't distance yourself from him. Flat Earth proponents are still Christian. You are in no place to determine what is true Christiantity and what is heretical.
Flat Earth believes the world was created in 6 days, which is the same as your view.
So what if he is an evolutionist? It concerns the evolution of the earth's species, which does not contradict Biblical views of the creation of the planetary mass. The Bible is silent on evolution after the animals and man were created.
You do not have a monopoly of Christian opinion. In fact, if you force me to defend prominient atheists like Dawkins, you should be forced to defend this prominent Christian view. You must also defend the many mentions of the Flat and Square Earth explicitly written in the Bible verses.
-
Once you claim this is metaphorical, I can claim your objective morality is metaphorical. The bible's morality is hopelessly insufficient to cover the scope of modern society. Perhaps it would be adequate if we lived in tents.
According to you, it determines what is "good" and "bad" which is not hard for people to come by on their own because we all feel the same when injured by others.
Your original post said "If there is no God, whose opinion matters most? Whose voice will be heard? Whose tastes or preferences will be honored?"
The need for an objective morality, and presence and absence of one, are not indicators that God definitely exists.
-
Originally posted by alize:
Don't distance yourself from him. Flat Earth proponents are still Christian. You are in no place to determine what is true Christiantity and what is heretical.
Flat Earth believes the world was created in 6 days, which is the same as your view.
So what if he is an evolutionist? It concerns the evolution of the earth's species, which does not contradict with views of the creation of the planetary mass.
You do not have a monopoly of Christian opinion. In fact, if you force me to defend prominient atheists like Dawkins, you should be forced to defend this prominent Christian view.
1. Your reasoning is fallacious. Not all flat earth proponents are Christians. Anyway, even if some flat earth folks believe in six day creation like I do, it doesn't follow that I therefore also believe in a flat earth like they do. You need to employ more critical thinking skills.
2. You said that I am in no place to determine what is orthodoxy and what is heretical. I suppose you do then? On what basis?
3. You simply say "so what?" to the fact that the leader of the FES is an evolutionist and tried to make strained distinctions. That's pretty lame. In any case I can also say "so what?" if flat earth proponents are Christians and leave it at that. Why should I be any more concerned if you are not?
4. I certainly do not claim to speak for Christians everywhere but as far as I know, my beliefs are fully consistent with the major creeds which are based on Scripture. But then again, telling you that also makes little difference since you are in NO POSITION to judge or comment on it as you do not even know what Christianity is about or its doctrines and theology.
5. You need to show that the flat earth belief is a PROMINENT or PREVALENT view in Christianity in order to obligate me to defend it. Question is, can you? Tough luck to ya! On the other hand, I do know of many atheists who rally behind Richard Dawkins. You are probably one of them.
-
Originally posted by alize:
Once you claim this is metaphorical, I can claim your objective morality is metaphorical. The bible's morality is hopelessly insufficient to cover the scope of modern society. Perhaps it would be adequate if we lived in tents.
According to you, it determines what is "good" and "bad" which is not hard for people to come by on their own because we all feel the same when injured by others.
Your original post said "If there is no God, whose opinion matters most? Whose voice will be heard? Whose tastes or preferences will be honored?"
The need for an objective morality, and presence and absence of one, are not indicators that God definitely exists.
What metaphorical claim are you talking about which I made?
And on what basis do you say that the Bible's morality is hopelessly insufficient to cover the scope of modern society? Live in tents then cover, not in tents then don't cover? This is warped reasoning.
And you missed the point as usual. I am saying that the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values is because God exists. Moral laws presuppose a moral lawgiver which implies at the very least that we are talking about a being who is both rational and moral. Mindless matter has no morals and does not have the goods to supply any. But atheism says can, which is yet another example of warped reasoning.
-
And you missed the point as usual. I am saying that the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values is because God exists. Moral laws presuppose a moral lawgiver which implies at the very least that we are talking about a being who is both rational and moral. Mindless matter has no morals and does not have the goods to supply any. But atheism says can, which is yet another example of warped reasoning.
Mindless matter? Are we mindless if god does not exist?
Is "mindlessness" a tenet of atheism?
-
5. You need to show that the flat earth belief is a PROMINENT or PREVALENT view in Christianity in order to obligate me to defend it. Question is, can you? Tough luck to ya! On the other hand, I do know of many atheists who rally behind Richard Dawkins. You are probably one of them.
Whether Flat Earth theory is a prominent belief in Christianity is irrelevant. It is WRITTEN EXPLICITLY and REPEATEDLY in bible scripture.
YOU were the one who said if I I don't fully subscribe to "Dawkin's atheism" then I am not a true atheist.
According to your other posts, you don't consider tithing to be true Christian practice. But it is a prominent practice of millions of Christians. Does that simple fact make it representative of true Christianity? Or does it make you not a true Christian?
-
BIC,
If according to your beliefs that every nonchristian ends up in hell, and that 2/3 of the world is nonchristians, then many people go to hell every day.
EVery second, about 1.8 people die. Every minute, thats a 108 people who die. 2/3 of 108 is 72. Every minute 72 nonchristians die and end up in hell. Every day, 103000 nonchristians die. Can you imagine how many nonchristians die every year O_O!
And you are spending hours upon hours here, instead of trying to "save" more people? Now dont tell me "god" is the one who does the saving. Lol..
-
BIC,
You might wanna read the quran (Im not muslim btw).
The quran says that if christians call jesus "God", that is the biggest sin to God himself.
0_0!
How now? Oh no. You are in trouble.
-
Actually its well known that Muslims treat jesus as a prophet, not son of god, or Jews dont even treat him as anyone significant
But you wouldnt find BIC coming down on them, coz he scared to offend Muslims or Jews
-
Originally posted by alize:
And you missed the point as usual. I am saying that the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values is because God exists. Moral laws presuppose a moral lawgiver which implies at the very least that we are talking about a being who is both rational and moral. Mindless matter has no morals and does not have the goods to supply any. But atheism says can, which is yet another example of warped reasoning.
Mindless matter? Are we mindless if god does not exist?
Is "mindlessness" a tenet of atheism?
How much do you understand atheism, really?
Atheism asserts that nothing produced something (i.e. the universe) and that out of lifeless matter life came forth, and with it mind, moral values, laws of logic etc etc. Question is, how did that happen? By what means?
For the Christian, the answer is that "In the beginning God...". It wasn't nothing. It was always God who is eternal and always existed and who brought time, space and matter into existence a finite time ago. If God does not exist the atheist CANNOT account for why we are rational and why the universe is intelligible.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
How is my link http://creation.com/do-rabbits-chew-their-cud vague and ambiguous in its explanation? Don't just make assertions, back it up.
In modern English, animals that ‘chew the cud’ are called ruminants. They hardly chew their food when first eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again, and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs. Coneys and rabbits are not ruminants in this modern sense. Obviously, rabbits do not share the digestive anatomy of modern ruminants. However, to describe rabbits chewing the cud is not incorrect. Simply stated, it is not reasonable to accuse a 3500-year-old document of error because it does not adhere to a modern man-made classification system.
However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested. Is this the same as cud? In the final analysis, it is. Cud-chewing completes the digestion of partially digested food. Why would it be strange to think that centuries ago, the idea of “cud” had a somewhat broader meaning than a modern definition.
But does the rabbit actually chew the cud? The Hebrew word translated “chew” is the word ‘alah. With any attempt to translate one language to another, it is understood that there is often more than one meaning for a given word. A cursory glace at any Hebrew lexicon reveals that ‘alah can mean go up, ascend, climb, go up into, out of a place, depart, rise up, cause to ascend, bring up from, among others. Here it carries the implication of moving something from one place to another. So the phrase translated to English as “chew the cud” literally means something on the order of “eats that which is brought forth again.”
So is the Bible in error here? No it is not. It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day. Indeed, rabbits and hares do ‘chew the cud’ in an even more specific sense. Rabbits re-ingest partially digested foods, as do modern ruminants. They just do so without the aid of multiple stomach compartments. Once again, the Bible is right and the sceptics are wrong.
It doesn't address the fact that coneys are neither ruminants nor pratise refection, which is an observable and verifiable fact.
Seeing that your are parroting the same arguments from your link shows that you did not read the counter arguement of my link, or see the strawman attempts of what your link actually argue.
Where one sets any point to be reference, bias is also set....
I'm not even playing the devil's advocate... I'm just eager to rid the faux in objective truth.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
How much do you understand atheism, really?
Atheism asserts that nothing produced something (i.e. the universe) and that out of lifeless matter life came forth, and with it mind, moral values, laws of logic etc etc. Question is, how did that happen? By what means?
For the Christian, the answer is that "In the beginning God...". It wasn't nothing. It was always God who is eternal and always existed and who brought time, space and matter into existence a finite time ago. If God does not exist the atheist CANNOT account for why we are rational and why the universe is intelligible.
Actually in your religion, it also says nothing produced something.
Nothing produced god. Your argument backfires on yourself.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC,
If according to your beliefs that every nonchristian ends up in hell, and that 2/3 of the world is nonchristians, then many people go to hell every day.
EVery second, about 1.8 people die. Every minute, thats a 108 people who die. 2/3 of 108 is 72. Every minute 72 nonchristians die and end up in hell. Every day, 103000 nonchristians die. Can you imagine how many nonchristians die every year O_O!
And you are spending hours upon hours here, instead of trying to "save" more people? Now dont tell me "god" is the one who does the saving. Lol..
I get your point Tcmc. You are telling me not to be here so as not to hinder you and your ilk from attacking the Christian faith. You are telling me that you do not like my opposition to your cause of converting people out of Christianity into unbelief. You are telling me that you do not like that I am refuting your arguments for unbelief.
Yes, people are dying everyday. For you it's just the way life is supposed to be. Death paves the way for evolution and the rise of new species. So why grieve for those who die everyday, ya? Why mourn for them at all? For the atheist death is a good thing. Man is just evolved pond scum to you, nothing special at all.
But then again, you don't really live like that at all. You do not live consistently with your beliefs at all. Even Dawkins does not like that thought. Death is not a good thing. Death destroys life and ruins things. Death is a curse. But guess what? That's exactly what the Bible tells us about death. It is an intrusion. It is an enemy. It is a curse. Again the Bible, rather than atheism, explains what needs to be explained. It tells us how death entered the world, and how God dealt with it, and how it will be gone when the end comes.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC,
You might wanna read the quran (Im not muslim btw).
The quran says that if christians call jesus "God", that is the biggest sin to God himself.
0_0!
How now? Oh no. You are in trouble.
I can see through your tactics Tcmc. You are trying to make this into a Christian vs Islam thing. You are trying to get me to say something bad against Islam to exploit the Muslim sensitivities here, right? Are you trying to incite ill will here?
C'mon, don't hide behind other religions. Defend your own atheism and your own beliefs.
-
Originally posted by alize:
5. You need to show that the flat earth belief is a PROMINENT or PREVALENT view in Christianity in order to obligate me to defend it. Question is, can you? Tough luck to ya! On the other hand, I do know of many atheists who rally behind Richard Dawkins. You are probably one of them.
Whether Flat Earth theory is a prominent belief in Christianity is irrelevant. It is WRITTEN EXPLICITLY and REPEATEDLY in bible scripture.
YOU were the one who said if I I don't fully subscribe to "Dawkin's atheism" then I am not a true atheist.
According to your other posts, you don't consider tithing to be true Christian practice. But it is a prominent practice of millions of Christians. Does that simple fact make it representative of true Christianity? Or does it make you not a true Christian?
BIC answer this question please.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I get your point Tcmc. You are telling me not to be here so as not to hinder you and your ilk from attacking the Christian faith. You are telling me that you do not like my opposition to your cause of converting people out of Christianity into unbelief. You are telling me that you do not like that I am refuting your arguments for unbelief.
Yes, people are dying everyday. For you it's just the way life is supposed to be. Death paves the way for evolution and the rise of new species. So why grieve for those who die everyday, ya? Why mourn for them at all? For the atheist death is a good thing. Man is just evolved pond scum to you, nothing special at all.
But then again, you don't really live like that at all. You do not live consistently with your beliefs at all. Even Dawkins does not like that thought. Death is not a good thing. Death destroys life and ruins things. Death is a curse. But guess what? That's exactly what the Bible tells us about death. It is an intrusion. It is an enemy. It is a curse. Again the Bible, rather than atheism, explains what needs to be explained. It tells us how death entered the world, and how God dealt with it, and how it will be gone when the end comes.
You describe as if God is cruel to the other lifeforms as well....
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC,
If according to your beliefs that every nonchristian ends up in hell, and that 2/3 of the world is nonchristians, then many people go to hell every day.
EVery second, about 1.8 people die. Every minute, thats a 108 people who die. 2/3 of 108 is 72. Every minute 72 nonchristians die and end up in hell. Every day, 103000 nonchristians die. Can you imagine how many nonchristians die every year O_O!
And you are spending hours upon hours here, instead of trying to "save" more people? Now dont tell me "god" is the one who does the saving. Lol..
I would say if there is a just god, a lot of good non-Christians would go to heaven and a lot of bad Christians would go to hell.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I get your point Tcmc. You are telling me not to be here so as not to hinder you and your ilk from attacking the Christian faith. You are telling me that you do not like my opposition to your cause of converting people out of Christianity into unbelief. You are telling me that you do not like that I am refuting your arguments for unbelief.
Yes, people are dying everyday. For you it's just the way life is supposed to be. Death paves the way for evolution and the rise of new species. So why grieve for those who die everyday, ya? Why mourn for them at all? For the atheist death is a good thing. Man is just evolved pond scum to you, nothing special at all.
But then again, you don't really live like that at all. You do not live consistently with your beliefs at all. Even Dawkins does not like that thought. Death is not a good thing. Death destroys life and ruins things. Death is a curse. But guess what? That's exactly what the Bible tells us about death. It is an intrusion. It is an enemy. It is a curse. Again the Bible, rather than atheism, explains what needs to be explained. It tells us how death entered the world, and how God dealt with it, and how it will be gone when the end comes.
And why should you Christians mourn death? To you, life on earth is temporary and you are called home to be with the lord eternally. Why don't you be eager to leave this fallen world? How can you consistently say death is a curse?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I get your point Tcmc. You are telling me not to be here so as not to hinder you and your ilk from attacking the Christian faith. You are telling me that you do not like my opposition to your cause of converting people out of Christianity into unbelief. You are telling me that you do not like that I am refuting your arguments for unbelief.
Yes, people are dying everyday. For you it's just the way life is supposed to be. Death paves the way for evolution and the rise of new species. So why grieve for those who die everyday, ya? Why mourn for them at all? For the atheist death is a good thing. Man is just evolved pond scum to you, nothing special at all.
But then again, you don't really live like that at all. You do not live consistently with your beliefs at all. Even Dawkins does not like that thought. Death is not a good thing. Death destroys life and ruins things. Death is a curse. But guess what? That's exactly what the Bible tells us about death. It is an intrusion. It is an enemy. It is a curse. Again the Bible, rather than atheism, explains what needs to be explained. It tells us how death entered the world, and how God dealt with it, and how it will be gone when the end comes.
BIC,
But to me your god seems to be a very bad planner with bad foresight. You mean he knew thousands of nonchristians will die every day and still he created everyone of us? And he knew that even wth his son dying, many people will still not believe because its nt convincing enough, yet he still did it....
And after he did so much, KNOWING his plans will FAIL still, many people still dont buy into his plans.
..? Failed?
Even as you type your "righteous sentences" here, BIC, remember, thousands of noncrhsitians are dying, young old babies, children.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I can see through your tactics Tcmc. You are trying to make this into a Christian vs Islam thing. You are trying to get me to say something bad against Islam to exploit the Muslim sensitivities here, right? Are you trying to incite ill will here?
C'mon, don't hide behind other religions. Defend your own atheism and your own beliefs.
No, you are really quite dim. I am not trying to stir shit between the two religions.
I am trying to show you that EVERY religion claims to have the true god and true way.
Your religion is NOT superior as much as you want it to be!
You totally missed the point.