Does morality exist without God?

[ToddNotTodd]

When those anecdotes are your's, personally, then they work - for you. Same as it ever was. And this is the point of the story of doubting Thomas.

I've known more than one ex-Christian that believed at one time they were talking to God, and God was talking back to them. After becoming atheists, they assert that they were in fact talking to themselves. In fact, most of the atheists I know used to be ex-Christians who at the time justified their belief in God with some sort of personal evidence that they later said wasn't really evidence at all. It all boils down to what standards you use to examine evidence.

 

[selfinflikted]

It would be nice if we could start a thread on the nature of God, but it is hard to find an appropriate forum where the thread would be CF-legal.

Do it here, in E&M. Just toss the word "Moral" or "Ethical" into the mix somewhere, and you're safe.

 

[sandwiches]

ETA: this was posted in reply to sandwiches. (I find it awkward to write @ sandwiches LOL)

And when have i offered my anecdotes as proof for you? (You'd think you could get your windmills to hold still ...)

Well, if I gave you anecdotes about how the God of Abraham told me that that he didn't create the world as depicted in Genesis, would you believe me? Would you accept my anecdotes as proof that what I'm saying is true?

 

[razeontherock]

Yes, exactly! So, again the question becomes, how do I get to experience god?

A noble quest. (Why am I tempted to link a Monty Python youtube?)

There is a Way. There are also barriers that prevent us (all) from doing so. It could be helpful to compare notes w/o any need to compete, but the usual disclaimer still applies: G-d looks on the heart, and we don't always see what he sees. So the ideas we share aren't always accurate or relevant. Still a worthwhile endeavor!

 

[selfinflikted]

A noble quest. (Why am I tempted to link a Monty Python youtube?)

I'm glad you didn't. Ugh! Monty Python make me ill. (Sorry all my Brit frens.. Bangers and mash is still my favorite food!)

There is a Way. There are also barriers that prevent us (all) from doing so. It could be helpful to compare notes w/o any need to compete, but the usual disclaimer still applies: G-d looks on the heart, and we don't always see what he sees. So the ideas we share aren't always accurate or relevant. Still a worthwhile endeavor!

That doesn't really help.

 

[Bombila]

BRAVO! I have witnessed ministers getting saved, and it's a beautiful thing. The fields that are white unto harvest are now in the pews, which I think just may be a valid indicator of where we are in the big picture.



EC, in our outreach section. Have you met Drich? He has personal experience that I would say surpasses my own, and is the only such person i know of.

EC has Byzantine rules that include ensuring only one question to a thread, only one non-believer to a thread, no debate among competing Christian sects, and essentially none of your arguments you naughty agnostics/atheists/seekers.

I suspect you have no real idea how restricted non-Christians are on this site. It's like being Black in 1957 Florida and trying to find a water fountain.

 

[Cabal]

I suspect you have no real idea how restricted non-Christians are on this site. It's like being Black in 1957 Florida and trying to find a water fountain.

And probably extending this analogy way further than is appropriate, we heathens do have a rather jolly good time in the few....ghetto boards that there are here.

 

[razeontherock]

I've known more than one ex-Christian that believed at one time they were talking to God, and God was talking back to them. After becoming atheists, they assert that they were in fact talking to themselves.

All this is evidence of is phony Christians, who were better off leaving falsehood.

In fact, most of the atheists I know used to be ex-Christians

You caught that, right?

later said wasn't really evidence at all. It all boils down to what standards you use to examine evidence.

This appears 100% closed-minded, to me. Perhaps you meant something else here too?

 

[razeontherock]

EC has Byzantine rules that include ensuring only one question to a thread

No, threads can run indefinitely. The rest applies though. ETA: that's not true either. Legitimate questions can be asked, and when those are tough that can certainly include a lot of back and forth.

 

[razeontherock]

And probably extending this analogy way further than is appropriate, we heathens do have a rather jolly good time in the few....ghetto boards that there are here.

So I've noticed

 

[ToddNotTodd]

All this is evidence of is phony Christians, who were better off leaving falsehood.

I hope you're not suggesting that people who leave Christianity weren't Christians to begin with. Because that would lead to a problem for you.

You caught that, right?

Right. Should have said "used to be Christians..."

This appears 100% closed-minded, to me. Perhaps you meant something else here too?

Nope. It's not closed minded to realize your standards for analyzing evidence are lacking.

 

[chris4243]

I've known more than one ex-Christian that believed at one time they were talking to God, and God was talking back to them. After becoming atheists, they assert that they were in fact talking to themselves. In fact, most of the atheists I know used to be ex-Christians who at the time justified their belief in God with some sort of personal evidence that they later said wasn't really evidence at all. It all boils down to what standards you use to examine evidence.

The evidence is the same, the conclusions are different. It is of course not just when talking about God that one's changing their mind will result in a different interpretation of the evidence.

 

[chris4243]

I hope you're not suggesting that people who leave Christianity weren't Christians to begin with. Because that would lead to a problem for you.

A necessary conclusion for anyone who accepts the "once saved always saved" doctrine -- probably for others, too.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

I hope you're not suggesting that people who leave Christianity weren't Christians to begin with. Because that would lead to a problem for you.



Right. Should have said "used to be Christians..."




Nope. It's not closed minded to realize your standards for analyzing evidence are lacking.

Good luck. He's real good at avoiding the issue, and real good about telling you how wrong you are.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The evidence is the same, the conclusions are different. It is of course not just when talking about God that one's changing their mind will result in a different interpretation of the evidence.

Some things we call evidence simply aren't. We're not talking about interpreting evidence, but rather identifying what is and isn't evidence to begin with. For example, I've heard more than one Christian say that the fact that so many people believe in the Christian god is evidence that he exists. This is, of course, wrong. It's not evidence at all, unless you pervert the meaning of the word to include every statement used to try and justify something.

Having the intelligence to critically examine what they used to think of as evidence without blinders on is what leads most atheists to that position.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

A necessary conclusion for anyone who accepts the "once saved always saved" doctrine -- probably for others, too.

If someone believes that ex-Christians weren't ever Christians, then they would have to accept the idea that no one should believe they're really a Christian, since no one knows if they'll deconvert in the future. Their opinions on Christianity would hold no more weight than those of professing atheists.

 

[razeontherock]

I hope you're not suggesting that people who leave Christianity weren't Christians to begin with. Because that would lead to a problem for you.

You know how you can tell I didn't suggest that? Because I didn't say that. But I have encountered some make that claim, so I'm curious what problem you refer to. [ETA: seeing the above post, I don't need to encounter that box of hammers]

Nope. It's not closed minded to realize your standards for analyzing evidence are lacking.

Oh please, <staff edit>

 

[sandwiches]

The evidence is the same, the conclusions are different. It is of course not just when talking about God that one's changing their mind will result in a different interpretation of the evidence.

But if the conclusions are contradictory only one answer can be correct. If only there were a way to verify which conclusion is correct and which isn't...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You know how you can tell I didn't suggest that? Because I didn't say that.

So why did you use the phrase "phony Christians" in regards to people that used to believe they were talking to God?

But I have encountered some make that claim, so I'm curious what problem you refer to. [ETA: seeing the above post, I don't need to encounter that box of hammers]

Whaaaaaa?

Oh please, <staff edit>

You have an objection?

 

[3sigma]

…Once again, because of your stated and sincerely held presupposition, the implicit demands (not "requests") of your rhetoric is for Christians to apostasize, confess atheism, or recreate synthetic evidence of religious faith, belief, or the existence of the divine in test tubes.
…What, you do not think that all "evidence" that Christians could possibly give to 3sigma's "requests" are automatically negated by his stated, sincerely held presupposition?
…Thus, it is a rhetorical circle designed to denigrate religious belief, although clothed in terms of "requests for evidence" and the carrot-on-the-stick that it could convince them.
…What I have said is based upon previous observations of the way 3sigma works and reacts.
…True, but not in the case of 3sigma. Why would he admit that his stated, sincerely held presupposition automatically rejects "evidence" to the contrary? That would be the final nail in the coffin of his denigration game.
…However, the ones who do what 3sigma does have decided what they believe, and actively seek to denigrate what they reject and ultimately hate.

Amazing. After only one day, what do I come back to find from you? I find multiple pages of baseless claims and personal attacks directed at me. You really are something. Just who is denigrating whom here?

I also can’t help but notice that not once do you provide any evidence to support your claims or beliefs and you evade every request to do so.