Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

So Easy To Be An Atheist!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    They are grounded on God's good reasons and His Moral nature.They are not mutually exclusive.
    That's not an argument seer, that's just another way of asserting your position that "god says so." "Reasons" if you insist that god has them, means that they exist apart from god.


    And Jim we have been through this before, so stop posting falsehoods.
    Yes we tend to go over the same thing time and time again, so I don't ever expect it to get through to you. Your idea of morality is like your idea of god, they're just beliefs, baseless beliefs, but strong beliefs nontheless.



    Tell me Jim, why is justice, love, truthfulness, etc... moral Jim? Besides your (our) say so?
    Because, once again, morals are in your, and everyone elses, i.e. they are in humanities, in human societies, best interests in this life.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
      Because, once again, morals are in your, and everyone elses, i.e. they are in humanities, in human societies, best interests in this life.
      Jim, you are not making sense, why is our best interests a moral good? Apart from our say so?
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post
        Jim, you are not making sense, why is our best interests a moral good? Apart from our say so?
        It doesn't have to be your "say so" in order for it to be true that murdering, robbing, raping etc. etc. your neighbor is not in your neighbors best interests, does it?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
          It doesn't have to be your "say so" in order for it to be true that murdering, robbing, raping etc. etc. your neighbor is not in your neighbors best interests, does it?
          Why would one care about the neighbor's best interest especially if taking advantage of your neighbor increased your wealth or position? This is all based on your say so Jim, and nothing else.
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seer View Post
            This is all based on your say so
            "God forbids it" is based on your say-so. What's the difference?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
              "God forbids it" is based on your say-so. What's the difference?
              It comes down to God's say so or man's say so. But that is the point Jim has a problem with "say so" when that is all there is.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                That is a lie Jim and you know it. As I have shown all you have is "say so" and God does have reasons. God can not violate His immutable moral nature, and His nature is just, loving, truthful, forgiving, etc... So His commands are not arbitrary, He seeks justice and goodness for humanity, brotherhood and peace. Those are His reasons.
                Seer...that statement "god cannot violate his immutable moral nature" is essentially nonsensical." It is a somewhat long-winded alternative to "if god says so - so it is." Morality is not a "nature." Morality is a decision process that is based on what the individual most values. When we moralize, we sort actions into "ought" and "ought not." This is not a "nature;" it's a decision. A choice. A preference. If your god exists, the he has his preferences. Those may or may not agree with mine. If your god exists (which has not been shown to be true), he may be the most powerful sentient entity to ever exist. That does not ensure he is the most moral entity to exist, or require that I align my moral framework to his moral framework.
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  Seer...that statement "god cannot violate his immutable moral nature" is essentially nonsensical." It is a somewhat long-winded alternative to "if god says so - so it is." Morality is not a "nature." Morality is a decision process that is based on what the individual most values. When we moralize, we sort actions into "ought" and "ought not." This is not a "nature;" it's a decision. A choice. A preference. If your god exists, the he has his preferences. Those may or may not agree with mine. If your god exists (which has not been shown to be true), he may be the most powerful sentient entity to ever exist. That does not ensure he is the most moral entity to exist, or require that I align my moral framework to his moral framework.
                  Carp, it is not nonsense, it is Christian theology (immutability). For instance, God is truth, i.e. He is always truthful, it is not in His nature to lie, He does not merely choose not to lie He "can not" lie (Heb.6:18). It is not in His nature to be unjust. He is always good, He can not be otherwise or prefer otherwise. So yes He has preferences, but grounded in His nature, which is unchanging. And what is wrong with God's "say so?" What do you have but "say so?"


                  The Immutability of God is an attribute that "God is unchanging in his character, will, and covenant promises."[1]

                  The Westminster Shorter Catechism says that "[God] is a spirit, whose being, wisdom power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth are infinite, eternal, and unchangeable." Those things do not change. A number of Scriptures attest to this idea (such as Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Ps. 102:26; Mal. 3:6; 2 Tim. 2:13; Heb. 6:17–18; Jam. 1:17) [2]

                  God's immutability defines all God's other attributes: God is immutably wise, merciful, good, and gracious. The same may be said about God's knowledge: God is almighty (having all power), God is omnipotent (having all power), God is omnipresent (present everywhere), God is omniscient (knows everything), eternally and immutably so. Infiniteness and immutability in God are mutually supportive and imply each other. An infinite and changing God is inconceivable; indeed, it is a contradiction in definition.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immutability_(theology)
                  Last edited by seer; 09-22-2018, 06:40 PM.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    It comes down to God's say so or man's say so. But that is the point Jim has a problem with "say so" when that is all there is.
                    "God's say so" comes down to "your say so" of what God is supposedly saying. And what God is supposedly saying usually conforms to the social values of the day.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Carp, it is not nonsense, it is Christian theology (immutability).
                      Check the label under my avatar, Seer. It says "atheist." By definition, Christian theology is not exactly a source of "truth" for me. It is merely another in a long line of theologies humanity has created to describe the various gods man has conceived. Islam has a theology. Hinduism has a theology. The various polytheisms and earth religions have a theology. None of them is a source of "truth" or something to be relied upon to accuracy. None of them can even be verified. And each adherent claims their theology is the correct one - the true one. They cannot all be true. I am inclined to think none of them are, which is why I am atheist.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      For instance, God is truth, i.e. He is always truthful, it is not in His nature to lie, He does not merely choose not to lie He "can not" lie (Heb.6:18).
                      I used to spout such things, until I finally came to realize I was spouting nonsense. "Truth" is the alignment of a spoken or written statement to reality. A statement is true if the alignment exists, and false if it does not. A statement is a lie if that misalignment is intentional. It's as simple as that. No being can be "truth." The very sentence is nonsensical. A being can speak the truth. A being can speak untruth. A being cannot be truth. If god exists, and god can communicate, then god's communication is truth if it aligns with reality and untruth if it does not. End of story. Does god ever lie? I seem to recall more than one instance of deception recorded in the bible, so I find the claim that he doesn't based on the bible a little hard to swallow. But it's your bible, and I don't do bible arguments - they are pointless. And why engage in an argument about a being I don't believe exists and you cannot show does?

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      It is not in His nature to be unjust.
                      That would depend on someone's definition of "justice." I can think of several positions attributed to god that I would consider "unjust."

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      He is always good, He can not be otherwise or prefer otherwise.
                      Since "good" is a relative term (a thing can only be "good" to someone or something), there is no way to say this absolutely. And the argument usually ends up being entirely circular since eventually someone will claim that anything god does is good by definition - because god did it.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      So yes He has preferences, but grounded in His nature, which is unchanging.
                      All of our preferences are "grounded in our nature," Seer. You're not saying anything unique. We have preferences because of our nature as humans - as living beings - as residents of this planet - and the list goes on. Ultimately, our preferences are rooted in who and what we are.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      And what is wrong with God's "say so?" What do you have but "say so?"
                      I've never claimed that any of us has anything other than "say so." If your god exists, then your god also has "say so." It will be relative and subjective to this god. Like his moral framework. You still haven't gotten to "objective" in any way that is different than how my moral framework is objective to you.
                      Last edited by carpedm9587; 09-23-2018, 09:03 AM.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        I used to spout such things, until I finally came to realize I was spouting nonsense. "Truth" is the alignment of a spoken or written statement to reality. A statement is true if the alignment exists, and false if it does not. A statement is a lie if that misalignment is intentional. It's as simple as that. No being can be "truth." The very sentence is nonsensical. A being can speak the truth. A being can speak untruth. A being cannot be truth. If god exists, and god can communicate, then god's communication is truth if it aligns with reality and untruth if it does not. End of story. Does god ever lie? I seem to recall more than one instance of deception recorded in the bible, so I find the claim that he doesn't based on the bible a little hard to swallow. But it's your bible, and I don't do bible arguments - they are pointless. And why engage in an argument about a being I don't believe exists and you cannot show does?
                        First Carp, God never lied in Scripture. Second, when we say that God is truth, God is love, God is just, we are simply saying that these are immutable attributes. God is never unjust, He can not lie, etc... It is not illogical to suggest that He is a Being that can not utter falsehoods, or can not by nature act unjustly. Whether you believe in such being is immaterial, the claim is not nonsensical, it violates no rule of logic.


                        That would depend on someone's definition of "justice." I can think of several positions attributed to god that I would consider "unjust."
                        And on what possible basis could you disagree? Your mutable moral nature and your severely limited knowledge?

                        Since "good" is a relative term (a thing can only be "good" to someone or something), there is no way to say this absolutely. And the argument usually ends up being entirely circular since eventually someone will claim that anything god does is good by definition - because god did it.
                        Then what ever definition of good you envision would also end up in circular reasoning, as we discussed in the past.


                        I've never claimed that any of us has anything other than "say so." If your god exists, then your god also has "say so." It will be relative and subjective to this god. Like his moral framework. You still haven't gotten to "objective" in any way that is different than how my moral framework is objective to you.
                        It would be subjective to Him, but how on earth would be relative? Since His "say so" is grounded in His immutable moral character?
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post
                          First Carp, God never lied in Scripture.
                          Like I said - I don't do scripture arguments. But I'm pretty sure, if you look, that there are numerous references to god sending a "spirit of deception" or delusions. I'll leave you to find them... or not...

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Second, when we say that God is truth, God is love, God is just, we are simply saying that these are immutable attributes.
                          And, as I said, you are speaking sentences that have no linguistic meaning. God can love. God cannot BE love. God can speak truth. God cannot BE truth. God can act justly. Since "just" can be an adjective, the statement "god is just" has linguistic meaning. But then we'll get caught up in what constitutes "justice." Eventually, we end up at "if god does it - it's just," which is fairly circular.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          God is never unjust, He can not lie, etc... It is not illogical to suggest that He is a Being that can not utter falsehoods, or can not by nature act unjustly. Whether you believe in such being is immaterial, the claim is not nonsensical, it violates no rule of logic.
                          The claim "god cannot lie" violates no law of logic. It cannot be substantiated or shown to be true - but it is not irrational. The statement "god is truth" is linguistic nonsense, for the reasons I have already cited..

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          And on what possible basis could you disagree? Your mutable moral nature and your severely limited knowledge?
                          I would disagree if it does not align with what I value, as an independent sentient being.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Then what ever definition of good you envision would also end up in circular reasoning, as we discussed in the past.
                          Not that I recall. Good has a simple definition: something desirable or beneficial. It can also be used in the moral framework to refer to an action that is deemed desirable. To evaluate "good," you need a context and an object. There's not a lot of circularity here, that I can see.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          It would be subjective to Him, but how on earth would be relative?
                          Perhaps it would help if we defined terms. I use "absolute" to mean "unchanging." I use "universal" to mean "applies everywhere." I use the terms subjective and relative almost interchangeably. Subjective means it is related to a subject - an individual or group, and thus can change from individual/group to individual/group. Relative, as I am using it, means essentially the same thing: it is relative to an individual or group. Are you using the term differently?

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Since His "say so" is grounded in His immutable moral character?
                          Seer, you cannot even show that "he" exists, and that "his say so" is anything other than the imaginings of generations of humans. You cannot show that his character is immutable. You cannot show that your understanding of his character is correct.

                          Don't get me wrong - I think you are entitled to your beliefs - and if they bring you some degree of comfort/joy, go for it. But they are based on assumption after assumption that you cannot substantiate. I tried. It's how I ended up being atheist. So your arguments are not going to hold a great deal of sway. You're kind of trying to cross the finish line without ever having left the starting gate, if you know what I mean. If you are trying to convince, you're not going to be able to unless you can deal with the fundamental missing piece: show that this god actually exists.
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            Like I said - I don't do scripture arguments. But I'm pretty sure, if you look, that there are numerous references to god sending a "spirit of deception" or delusions. I'll leave you to find them... or not...
                            You need to present it in context. None say that God lied, he did how every use spirits that deceive for judgement.


                            And, as I said, you are speaking sentences that have no linguistic meaning. God can love. God cannot BE love. God can speak truth. God cannot BE truth. God can act justly. Since "just" can be an adjective, the statement "god is just" has linguistic meaning. But then we'll get caught up in what constitutes "justice." Eventually, we end up at "if god does it - it's just," which is fairly circular.
                            I explained what that means. And all views of what is considered just or not are circular - even yours...


                            The claim "god cannot lie" violates no law of logic. It cannot be substantiated or shown to be true - but it is not irrational. The statement "god is truth" is linguistic nonsense, for the reasons I have already cited..
                            Well I'm glad you agree that it is not irrational or illogical. And again, when Scripture says that God is just, or is love, or is truth, they are merely pointing to His attributes and nature. How He acts. But I was trying to understand your claim: Seer...that statement "god cannot violate his immutable moral nature" is essentially nonsensical

                            I have no idea why it would be irrational for a being not to be able to act against His nature.


                            I would disagree if it does not align with what I value, as an independent sentient being.
                            Again on what logical basis could you possibility disagree? What you value is grounded in severely limited knowledge and experience, and your moral ideals are subject to change; culture, upbringing and varying genetics.



                            Not that I recall. Good has a simple definition: something desirable or beneficial. It can also be used in the moral framework to refer to an action that is deemed desirable. To evaluate "good," you need a context and an object. There's not a lot of circularity here, that I can see.
                            Carp, if good is defined as what you consider desirable or beneficial, then of course that is circular. If not we can apply the same definition to God, and He escapes your definition of circularity.



                            Perhaps it would help if we defined terms. I use "absolute" to mean "unchanging." I use "universal" to mean "applies everywhere." I use the terms subjective and relative almost interchangeably. Subjective means it is related to a subject - an individual or group, and thus can change from individual/group to individual/group. Relative, as I am using it, means essentially the same thing: it is relative to an individual or group. Are you using the term differently?
                            In what sense would God's moral law be relative?

                            Don't get me wrong - I think you are entitled to your beliefs - and if they bring you some degree of comfort/joy, go for it.
                            You are so kind...

                            But they are based on assumption after assumption that you cannot substantiate. I tried. It's how I ended up being atheist. So your arguments are not going to hold a great deal of sway. You're kind of trying to cross the finish line without ever having left the starting gate, if you know what I mean. If you are trying to convince, you're not going to be able to unless you can deal with the fundamental missing piece: show that this god actually exists.
                            And you don't live by assumption(s)? Even at a fundamental level? Do we have to go over the whole Descartes thing again?
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              You need to present it in context. None say that God lied, he did how every use spirits that deceive for judgement.
                              Sorry, Seer, but that's pretty serious hair splitting. If I send someone to convey something I know to be a deception, I am participating in the deception (ergo, I am lying).

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              I explained what that means. And all views of what is considered just or not are circular - even yours...
                              It's not clear to me they are "circular." It is clear to me they eventually get to, "because that is my preference."

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Well I'm glad you agree that it is not irrational or illogical. And again, when Scripture says that God is just, or is love, or is truth, they are merely pointing to His attributes and nature. How He acts. But I was trying to understand your claim: Seer...that statement "god cannot violate his immutable moral nature" is essentially nonsensical

                              I have no idea why it would be irrational for a being not to be able to act against His nature.
                              If this were true about god, then your god is weaker than I am. Every sentient being can make choices that run counter to their "nature." If god cannot, then god is constrained in ways that I am not. That flies in the face of "all powerful." The whole thing is a house of cards.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Again on what logical basis could you possibility disagree?
                              On the basis that it does not align with what I value. I've answered this already.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              What you value is grounded in severely limited knowledge and experience, and your moral ideals are subject to change; culture, upbringing and varying genetics.
                              Yep. And yet it remains what I value.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Carp, if good is defined as what you consider desirable or beneficial, then of course that is circular. If not we can apply the same definition to God, and He escapes your definition of circularity.
                              You have yet to show "circularity." And I do not see how it would be any more or less circular for me than it would be for a god.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              In what sense would God's moral law be relative?
                              Re-asking the question is not going to get you a different answer, Seer.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              You are so kind...
                              I try.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              And you don't live by assumption(s)? Even at a fundamental level?
                              Of course. But the assumptions I make are grounded in experience and reasoning from that experience. No one has a demonstrable "experience" of god.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Do we have to go over the whole Descartes thing again?
                              Nope. I understand that we have to begin somewhere - so trusting that there is an objective reality and we live within it is a baseline assumption. The philosophers can play with doubting it - and then proceed to live as if the assumption is true. I prefer to simply accept it as true. Accepting the evidence my senses provides me with is a different thing than clinging to a belief in a being for which there is simply no experience and no compelling evidence. You can go there if you wish. I managed to escape and I will not be returning without a VERY good reason.
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                                First Carp, God never lied in Scripture. Second, when we say that God is truth, God is love, God is just, we are simply saying that these are immutable attributes. God is never unjust, He can not lie, etc... It is not illogical to suggest that He is a Being that can not utter falsehoods, or can not by nature act unjustly. Whether you believe in such being is immaterial, the claim is not nonsensical, it violates no rule of logic.
                                It violates no rules of logic except that the argument is based upon a premise of a non-existent entity. Hence, as morality goes, it is not grounded in reality.

                                And on what possible basis could you disagree? Your mutable moral nature and your severely limited knowledge?
                                Compared to what, a non-existent deity?

                                Then what ever definition of good you envision would also end up in circular reasoning, as we discussed in the past.
                                No, evolution is a process of survival via selection and gene propagation and ethics is an extension of (and supported by) evolutionary theory”. On this basis, what is “good” is what the community decides is good, you can’t show otherwise.

                                It would be subjective to Him, but how on earth would be relative? Since His "say so" is grounded in His immutable moral character?
                                Your “say-so” is grounded in your subjective understanding of God’s “say-so”. Christian morality has weathered centuries of cultural changes by readjusting its moral code from time to time in order to fit changing times. ‘Twas ever thus.
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                213 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,518 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X