100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Arguments for the existence of God | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Inkracer
on
Wed 01/14/09 06:55 AM
|
|
2. That line of "more people killed in the name of atheism than all other world religions" is complete B*llsh*t. Historically, God is the leading cause of death, and that continues to this day. The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, heck, even today, any American Soldier, or Taliban fighter, or insurgent killed is another death tally in the name of God. . . The difference between Atheist and the Religious is that the religious kill in the name of there god, the "atheist equivalent" doesn't kill in the name of Atheism, but in the name of a political system. Wrong again. You left abortion out of your equation. More death's caused by abortion since it's "legalization" than all of the worlds religious wars combined. Abortion is purely an "atheist supported cause of death". Then you should have no problem presenting a quote by an atheist, stating that those abortions were done in the name of Athiesm. I'll be waiting. And with just a little bit of research(surely you could have done it) I have found this list of Pro-Choice Religions, and religious groups: American Baptist Churches-USA , American Ethical Union, American Friends (Quaker) Service Committee, American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Council of Jewish Federations, Episcopal Church (USA), Federation of Reconstructionist Congregations and Havurot, Moravian Church in America-Northern Province, Na'Amat USA, National Council of Jewish Women, Presbyterian Church (USA), Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Unitarian Universalist Association, United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Besides, that is a purely subjective comment to make. I am pro-choice. It is your opinion that I sanction "murder". Pfft.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Wed 01/14/09 07:54 AM
|
|
That’s interesting. Wow! Many of them are Judaic in origin which doesn’t surprise me but even a Baptist group!? That’s pretty cool.
 I would need to look at each religious organization and see if it’s conditional however. In many of those faiths, it could be that they allow an exception in the case of the mother's health, rape or incest. But that’s still very progressive of them, nonetheless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Wed 01/14/09 02:54 PM
|
|
morality is not objective, obviously or there would be no debate on the subject. Also, Religion does not offer morality it only offers obedience . For instance, if I have two neighbors and one of them wants to kill me and steal my land but does not because his religion says it's wrong to do and the other neighbor just does not want to because it's wrong which one is moral? Religion just breeds obedience not morality. There is a diffrence. And Pascals Wager is a joke because there are to many gods to choose from so how does one know they have chosen the correct one. If morality is not objective then you cant tell any one "thats wrong". Why, because morality is purely subjective and is merely personal opinion. You may not agree with it but it is not actually wrong. Things like rape, child abuse, mass genocide are not wrong. Just becuase something is not objective does not mean we cannot agree . . . If morals are objective, why have they changed? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
morality is not objective, obviously or there would be no debate on the subject. Also, Religion does not offer morality it only offers obedience . For instance, if I have two neighbors and one of them wants to kill me and steal my land but does not because his religion says it's wrong to do and the other neighbor just does not want to because it's wrong which one is moral? Religion just breeds obedience not morality. There is a diffrence. And Pascals Wager is a joke because there are to many gods to choose from so how does one know they have chosen the correct one. If morality is not objective then you cant tell any one "thats wrong". Why, because morality is purely subjective and is merely personal opinion. You may not agree with it but it is not actually wrong. Things like rape, child abuse, mass genocide are not wrong. Just becuase something is not objective does not mean we cannot agree . . . If morals are objective, why have they changed? Right and wrong are objective. Morality is subjective. The closer our morals come to true right and wrong, the more moral our behavior will be. Since morality is based on objective right and wrong values, we are all able to agree when a particular morality is more moral than another. Non-Christians will often argue that Christianity isn't moral, but that gives it away! They are admitting that there is a objective right and wrong to which Christian behavior can be compared. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
morality is not objective, obviously or there would be no debate on the subject. Also, Religion does not offer morality it only offers obedience . For instance, if I have two neighbors and one of them wants to kill me and steal my land but does not because his religion says it's wrong to do and the other neighbor just does not want to because it's wrong which one is moral? Religion just breeds obedience not morality. There is a diffrence. And Pascals Wager is a joke because there are to many gods to choose from so how does one know they have chosen the correct one. If morality is not objective then you cant tell any one "thats wrong". Why, because morality is purely subjective and is merely personal opinion. You may not agree with it but it is not actually wrong. Things like rape, child abuse, mass genocide are not wrong. Just becuase something is not objective does not mean we cannot agree . . . If morals are objective, why have they changed? Right and wrong are objective. Morality is subjective. The closer our morals come to true right and wrong, the more moral our behavior will be. Since morality is based on objective right and wrong values, we are all able to agree when a particular morality is more moral than another. Non-Christians will often argue that Christianity isn't moral, but that gives it away! They are admitting that there is a objective right and wrong to which Christian behavior can be compared. So how do you measure right and wrong? So an act regardless of context can be determined to be right or wrong? This is so simple to illuminate the flaws that it constantly surprises me that people make these statements. In fact I am not going to dispute you at all, but merely post what it is for something to be scientifically objective. "[A]n objective account is one which attempts to capture the nature of the object studied in a way that does not depend on any features of the particular subject who studies it. An objective account is, in this sense, impartial, one which could ideally be accepted by any subject, because it does not draw on any assumptions, prejudices, or values of particular subjects. This feature of objective accounts means that disputes can be contained to the object studied." (Gaukroger, 2001, p. 10785).
Science is mostly regarded objective in this sense and this objectivity in science is often attributed with the property of scientific measurement that can be tested independent from the individual scientist (the subject) who proposes them. It is thus intimately related to the aim of testability and reproducibility. To be properly considered objective, the results of measurement must be communicated from person-to-person, and then demonstrated for third parties, as an advance in understanding of the objective world. Such demonstrable knowledge would ordinarily confer demonstrable powers of prediction or technological construction. However, what this traditional view ignores is that a given community of researchers often shares certain "subjective views" and that this subjectivity therefore is built into the conceptual systems as well as into the tools used for measurement. Objectivity is thus only possible given a set of neutral or shared assumptions and it is today a controversial issue whether objectivity is possible in all, some, or no cases. Objectivity should not be mixed up with scientific consensus: Scientist may agree at one point in time but later discover that this consensus represented a subjective point of view. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Fri 01/16/09 11:03 AM
|
|
Non-Christians will often argue that Christianity isn't moral, but that gives it away! They are admitting that there is a objective right and wrong to which Christian behavior can be compared. This is asinine. I second the subjective notion that this is asinine. Jesus himself disagreed with the moral values of the God of Abraham. The God of Abraham thought it was cool for people to judge one another and stone their brothers and sisters to death if they judged them to be sinners, and he clearly taught the people to do this. Jesus disagreed with this moral value as Jesus taught us not to judge others and not to throw stones. The God of Abraham thought is was cool for people to seek revenge and taught the people to seek and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Jesus disagreed with this moral value as Jesus taught us to forgive and turn the other cheek. So clearly even the Bible claims that moral values are just a matter of opinion. Jesus did not agree with the moral values of the God of Abraham. So even Jesus agrees that moral values are subjective.  For the Bible tells us so |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Christians will often argue that Christianity isn't moral, but that gives it away! They are admitting that there is a objective right and wrong to which Christian behavior can be compared. This is asinine. I second the subjective notion that this is asinine. Jesus himself disagreed with the moral values of the God of Abraham. The God of Abraham thought it was cool for people to judge one another and stone their brothers and sisters to death if they judged them to be sinners, and he clearly taught the people to do this. Jesus disagreed with this moral value as Jesus taught us not to judge others and not to throw stones. The God of Abraham thought is was cool for people to seek revenge and taught the people to seek and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Jesus disagreed with this moral value as Jesus taught us to forgive and turn the other cheek. So clearly even the Bible claims that moral values are just a matter of opinion. Jesus did not agree with the moral values of the God of Abraham. So even Jesus agrees that moral values are subjective. For the Bible tells us so I suggest that you read Mere Christianity (http://www.philosophyforlife.com/mctoc.htm / http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxJwSIIqQrU&feature=PlayList&p=4A31B907BE486BA5&index=0&playnext=1) as a start and then move on to the Bible (http://www.blueletterbible.org/ or http://www.biblegateway.com/) then you will be either a Christian or able to argue against Christianity legitimately. Right now, you are simply prejudiced (pre judging) Christianity, because you don't know what Christians believe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone with an ounce of common sense can make these arguments and Abra WAS a Christian at one point in his life. He was raised Christian if I understand correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone with an ounce of common sense can make these arguments and Abra WAS a Christian at one point in his life. He was raised Christian if I understand correctly. Many people who were raised Christian don't understand Christianity. My parents were Christians, but I didn't understand or believe in Christianity until I was in my 30's. I read the Bible when I was younger and I thought that I was trying hard to be a Christian, but now I see that I was a babe in the woods, completely lost. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That’s fine however it is foolish to assert that someone is incapable of making an argument against the existence of objective morality if they are not "currently" a Christian. Its a philosophical debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Fri 01/16/09 12:33 PM
|
|
morality is not objective, obviously or there would be no debate on the subject. Also, Religion does not offer morality it only offers obedience . For instance, if I have two neighbors and one of them wants to kill me and steal my land but does not because his religion says it's wrong to do and the other neighbor just does not want to because it's wrong which one is moral? Religion just breeds obedience not morality. There is a diffrence. And Pascals Wager is a joke because there are to many gods to choose from so how does one know they have chosen the correct one. If morality is not objective then you cant tell any one "thats wrong". Why, because morality is purely subjective and is merely personal opinion. You may not agree with it but it is not actually wrong. Things like rape, child abuse, mass genocide are not wrong. Just becuase something is not objective does not mean we cannot agree . . . If morals are objective, why have they changed? Right and wrong are objective. Morality is subjective. The closer our morals come to true right and wrong, the more moral our behavior will be. Since morality is based on objective right and wrong values, we are all able to agree when a particular morality is more moral than another. Non-Christians will often argue that Christianity isn't moral, but that gives it away! They are admitting that there is a objective right and wrong to which Christian behavior can be compared. So how do you measure right and wrong? So an act regardless of context can be determined to be right or wrong? This is so simple to illuminate the flaws that it constantly surprises me that people make these statements. In fact I am not going to dispute you at all, but merely post what it is for something to be scientifically objective. "[A]n objective account is one which attempts to capture the nature of the object studied in a way that does not depend on any features of the particular subject who studies it. An objective account is, in this sense, impartial, one which could ideally be accepted by any subject, because it does not draw on any assumptions, prejudices, or values of particular subjects. This feature of objective accounts means that disputes can be contained to the object studied." (Gaukroger, 2001, p. 10785). Science is mostly regarded objective in this sense and this objectivity in science is often attributed with the property of scientific measurement that can be tested independent from the individual scientist (the subject) who proposes them. It is thus intimately related to the aim of testability and reproducibility. To be properly considered objective, the results of measurement must be communicated from person-to-person, and then demonstrated for third parties, as an advance in understanding of the objective world. Such demonstrable knowledge would ordinarily confer demonstrable powers of prediction or technological construction. However, what this traditional view ignores is that a given community of researchers often shares certain "subjective views" and that this subjectivity therefore is built into the conceptual systems as well as into the tools used for measurement. Objectivity is thus only possible given a set of neutral or shared assumptions and it is today a controversial issue whether objectivity is possible in all, some, or no cases. Objectivity should not be mixed up with scientific consensus: Scientist may agree at one point in time but later discover that this consensus represented a subjective point of view. Did I say it was scientifically objective? No, I didn't. Right and Wrong are logically objective. Simply try to find a society that considered murder right. Or rape. Or stealing. Yes, some societies justify murder or rape or stealing in some circumstances, but because they aren't justified or allowed in every circumstance, we know that they view it as wrong. While an isolated tribe might kill all outsiders, they would punish a tribe member who killed another tribe member. If murder was seen as "right", then it would be right in every situation. The fact that no society has ever viewed something we call "wrong" as always right is logical proof that right and wrong are objective. The only "wrong" is only considered right with a justification. "He was an outsider" being the justification in the example above. The fact that someone needs a justification for a behavior is evidence that the behavior is consider wrong by that person. Justifying your behavior is called "Rationalization" in psychology and is viewed as a defensive mechanism to justify wrongdoing. I suggest that you read Mere Christianity (http://www.philosophyforlife.com/mctoc.htm / http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxJwSIIqQrU&feature=PlayList&p=4A31B907BE486BA5&index=0&playnext=1), C S Lewis did a wonderful job explaining this and predicting and pre-refuting rebuttals. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You just posted that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That’s fine however it is foolish to assert that someone is incapable of making an argument against the existence of objective morality if they are not "currently" a Christian. Its a philosophical debate. It's foolish to refute the position of objective right and wrong without understanding the arguments that support that belief. It's foolish to consider what Bushidobillyclub and Abracadabra wrote as refutations. They said what I posted was stupid and considered it refuted. That's not how mature and intelligent people debate. You refute with arguments, not by simply saying "What you said is stupid!". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought their arguments were sound. Maybe we are reading two different threads. Just posting links to Christian lit does not equate rebuttal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought their arguments were sound. Maybe we are reading two different threads. Just posting links to Christian lit does not equate rebuttal. No, but I think if I posted "Scientists think humans evolved from monkeys! lawls!!!!" someone would point me to links on what the Theory of Evolution really is. In the same way when someone makes an invalid argument against Christianity which is built upon a false premise, I will direct them to sources where they can learn what Christians really believe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. I have never done that. When a subscriber to Creationism starts in with those kinds of comments on forum, I merely explain to them the mistakes in their understanding but I do so in my own words. The reason that I won’t just point them to a link is they won’t read that and generally it’s too complicated for them anyway.
I suggest you do the same thing here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought their arguments were sound. Maybe we are reading two different threads. Just posting links to Christian lit does not equate rebuttal. 1) What Bushidobillyclub posted was a refutation to something that I didn't say or imply. I never said that right and wrong are scientifically objective. Objective doesn't HAVE to apply to the scientific method. In fact, the first definition in Merriam-Webster has nothing to do with science, but rather philosophy "1 a: relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy" 2) What Abracadabra posted has been refuted repeatedly in these forums. The Bible calls people who forgive "Just" and people who enforce the laws "Hypocrites". The just man knows that we are all sinners and when possible, the just man will forgive those who sin against him. Like Joseph forgave Mary when he thought she had committed adultery. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. I have never done that. When a subscriber to Creationism starts in with those kinds of comments on forum, I merely explain to them the mistakes in their understanding but I do so in my own words. The reason that I won’t just point them to a link is they won’t read that and generally it’s too complicated for them anyway. I suggest you do the same thing here. Krimsa, Christianity is the worlds most complicated religion. Christianity cannot be easily explained to anyone, it must be learned. It takes a great deal of effort and study to understand Christianity. Mere Christianity by C S Lewis is a great introduction into Christian philosophy, which is why I suggest it. It is also short and Lewis did a great job of explaining why Christianity is reasonable and he used multiple examples for every point, to make sure that his points are understood. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the main reasons Christianity is considered a difficult religion to interpret is due to the fact that no two people seem to be able to reach any kind of consensus on the passages. Even identical versus. Why do you imagine there are so many denominations? Well the only reason there are Protestants is King Henry the 8th wanted a divorce from Catherine of Aragon and the Catholic Church forbid this.
|
|
|
|
|
