Are these considered bad morals?

[Wiccan_Child]

That's not very scientific, though, is it? If it "probably" only exists in the minds of believers as you have suggested, you have left open the chance that the supernatural does exist and and yet are not considering it.

1) God may well exist
2) There's no evidence for God
3) Therefore, I don't believe in God

Simple. God may exist, he may not, but the fact is there's no evidence that suggests he does.

 

[selfinflikted]

That's not very scientific, though, is it? If it "probably" only exists in the minds of believers as you have suggested, you have left open the chance that the supernatural does exist and and yet are not considering it.

No, it isn't scientific. Yes, the supernatural could possibly exist! But, it probably doesn't, as there's no real evidence for such a thing. Could god exist also? Absolutely. But again, there's no real reason to believe one does, if one follows the evidence.

 

[mathetes123]

1) God may well exist
2) There's no evidence for God
3) Therefore, I don't believe in God

Simple. God may exist, he may not, but the fact is there's no evidence that suggests he does.

The evidence is all around you. It's like your not seeing the forest through the trees.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The evidence is all around you.

Yes, so the more ardent Creationists like to tell us. And yet, no one seems forthcoming...

It's like your not seeing the forest through the trees.

By all means, show us a sliver of bark.

 

[mathetes123]

Yes, so the more ardent Creationists like to tell us. And yet, no one seems forthcoming...

By all means, show us a sliver of bark.

I can't make you see what you don't want to see.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The evidence is all around you. It's like your not seeing the forest through the trees.

Problem is, your blinders are preventing you from seeing both the trees and forest.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I can't make you see what you don't want to see.

Of course you can. You can get a scientific paper or a fossil or an ice-core sample, shove it in my face, and explain to me, plainly and clearly, which this is evidence for your claim.

Of course, there's lots of things Creationists think is evidence for their views, but actually isn't. One good example is their misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics - something you yourself once held up as evidence against evolution, before we pointed out your error.

So, if you have evidence, show it. Prove me wrong. Point to the facts, explain your reasoning, and, if it holds, I will spin on a dime and convert here and now. Honestly and truly I will.

 

[Cuddles333]

I don't know if by claiming there exists objective morality, that this proves that God exists. W.L.C. will go no further than to say objective morality exists...leaves it in the Ontological realm. Almost every one of his debate opponents has tried to get him to tell them just which (or what) they are...Epistomology. W.L.C. said in one of his debates last year; "By objective moral values, I mean values which are valid and binding whether people believe in them or not."

I think objective morality is valid only if it is coupled with love. The action of rape is often used as a prime example of objective moral evil. Those of the secular persuasion belief claim that this action surely is an evil act to every person in the world. They know that this is not true. In the South China Sea pirates practice this upon unarmed, innocent boat people. They kill all the males, rob the boat, then rape the women. In many societies, there is nothing 'evil' let alone objectively wrong to treat women in this matter......unless you love them.

So it is my belief that the objective morality argument is only clear when love is involved....which implies God.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I can't make you see what you don't want to see.

Of course you can. You can get a scientific paper or a fossil or an ice-core sample, shove it in my face, and explain to me, plainly and clearly, which this is evidence for your claim.

Of course, there's lots of things Creationists think is evidence for their views, but actually isn't. One good example is their misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics - something you yourself once held up as evidence against evolution, before we pointed out your error.

So, if you have evidence, show it. Prove me wrong. Point to the facts, explain your reasoning, and, if it holds, I will spin on a dime and convert here and now. Honestly and truly I will.

Nothing?

 

[Blessedj01]

Would this be considered bad morals in a person? For example..

A woman who sleeps around with strange men, wears degrading clothing doesn't respect herself, and gets heavily intoxicated everyday up the point where she blacks out and doesn't remember where she ends up.

Would she be considered to be immoral?

Society says that that's her choice. Society is very hypocritical towards women. However, the fact is that ALL people, both men and women, are accountable to God. God understands where our lack of selfesteem comes from though. He is far better able to empathize with people than we are.

 

[mathetes123]

Nothing?

everything that lives eventually dies. The sun does not change that fact and cannot bring something that has died back to life.

 

[IanCG]

I would say that if atheism has so influenced you that you feel the need to go to a Christian website to attack their beliefs, then your non-belief has become a religion of it's own.

Actually, I needed to go to a Christian forum to defend myself from attacks to my religious freedom.

 

[Mustang56]

I would say that if atheism has so influenced you that you feel the need to go to a Christian website to attack their beliefs, then your non-belief has become a religion of it's own.

We aren't attacking your beliefs, we are challenging them. I myself as an agnostic (or atheist if that's what you prefer to label me since atheists are really agnostics anyway) wouldn't have a problem worshipping God and loving him and accepting Christ as my savior if I actually had reason to believe it. But I don't.

As an atheist/agnostic I am not trying to take your faith away, I'm trying to debate and come to a conclusion, a revelation or realization of truth. I have yet to come across it and most atheists won't come to the conclusion that God exists unless we uncover some radical piece of history or that God himself reveals his existence to modern age man and not a few select Bronze Age illiterates.

You Christians can't even seriously defend the OT or take your scripture literally, you have hundreds of different sects that debate the actual significance and meaning regarding pieces of scripture. So on top of believing and not knowing whether God truly exists, you also have to take an additional blind leap of faith on what you regard within this piece of Scripture as canon to the Christian faith.

And atheism is not a religion or belief system, we have no dogma to follow. You clearly don't understand what atheism is.

 

[Dave Ellis]

We aren't attacking your beliefs, we are challenging them. I myself as an agnostic (or atheist if that's what you prefer to label me since atheists are really agnostics anyway) wouldn't have a problem worshipping God and loving him and accepting Christ as my savior if I actually had reason to believe it. But I don't.

As an atheist/agnostic I am not trying to take your faith away, I'm trying to debate and come to a conclusion, a revelation or realization of truth. I have yet to come across it and most atheists won't come to the conclusion that God exists unless we uncover some radical piece of history or that God himself reveals his existence to modern age man and not a few select Bronze Age illiterates.

You Christians can't even seriously defend the OT or take your scripture literally, you have hundreds of different sects that debate the actual significance and meaning regarding pieces of scripture. So on top of believing and not knowing whether God truly exists, you also have to take an additional blind leap of faith on what you regard within this piece of Scripture as canon to the Christian faith.

And atheism is not a religion or belief system, we have no dogma to follow. You clearly don't understand what atheism is.

Small correction: Atheists are not necessarily agnostic. There are such things as Gnostic Atheists, however they are a small minority.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

everything that lives eventually dies.

Almost everything.

The sun does not change that fact and cannot bring something that has died back to life.

Indeed.

So, how is this evidence against abiogenesis or evolution? Clearly and plainly, please.

 

[Jamin4422]

she is not hurting anyone else.

Women like that are covered with filth and disease. They have antibiotics, but I hear more and more the diseases are becoming antibiotic resistant. They say: "I do not care if I die". Because they think to die means to quit suffering. But usually what happens is they just end up sick and more miserable. They say that sin is something that will cause a person to suffer. The more they sin the more they suffer. Hopefully they will turn away from the sin so God can heal them and they can recover.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Small correction: Atheists are not necessarily agnostic. There are such things as Gnostic Atheists, however they are a small minority.

Present Inasmuch as 'gnosticism' refers to the belief that the existence of deities can, in principle be deduced.

 

[mathetes123]

Almost everything.

Indeed.

So, how is this evidence against abiogenesis or evolution? Clearly and plainly, please.

You suggest that the laws of thermodynamics do not apply and yet we see examples all around us.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You suggest that the laws of thermodynamics do not apply and yet we see examples all around us.

I have never once said that the laws of thermodynamics don't apply. What I said was, the laws of thermodynamics do not say what you think they say.

You said before that the second law says that things must become more disordered, etc. I pointed out that the law says no such thing - the average entropy tends to a maximum, but there's nothing to prevent local decreases. That's where the Sun comes in: it undergoes thermonuclear fusion, releasing vast quantities of energy in the form light and heat. This process results in entropy increasing.

So, when the Sun's energy decreases entropy on Earth, that decrease is smaller than the increase that occurred to make that energy in the first place. Thus, the Second Law is not violated when the Sun heats the Earth and creates complex organic chemicals (polymers, amino acids, RNA, etc), since the overall entropy has still increased.

Does that make sense?

 

[CrashTestPoster]

"I needed to go to a Christian forum to defend myself from attacks to my religious freedom."

No, you did not.

"A woman who sleeps around with strange men, wears degrading clothing doesn't respect herself, and gets heavily intoxicated everyday up the point where she blacks out and doesn't remember where she ends up.

Would she be considered to be immoral?"

Yes, she would be *considered* immoral by somebody, regardless of whether she actually is immoral or not. If you mean "considered immoral by Christians", then yes, she would be.