Technically speaking, everyone is agnostic

[Elioenai26]

2, depending on what is meant by "Jesus of Nazareth".

Are you unfamiliar with Him?

 

[Gadarene]

Are you unfamiliar with Him?

No....the point was only ever that the phrase 'Jesus Christ did not exist' has several meanings....

 

[Elioenai26]

No....the point was only ever that the phrase 'Jesus Christ did not exist' has several meanings....

In your last post you said:

"Depending on what is meant by Jesus of Nazareth."

And I asked: Are you unfamiliar with Him?

You then respond by no and then say that the phrase "Jesus Christ did not exist" has several meanings.

Ok I understand what you are saying but we are past that now.

So you believe that Jesus of Nazareth was an apocalyptic preacher who lived and taught in Judea and the Galilean region, correct?

 

[Gadarene]

In your last post you said:

"Depending on what is meant by Jesus of Nazareth."

And I asked: Are you unfamiliar with Him?

You then respond by no and then say that the phrase "Jesus Christ did not exist" has several meanings.

Ok I understand what you are saying but we are past that now.

So you believe that Jesus of Nazareth was an apocalyptic preacher who lived and taught in Judea and the Galilean region, correct?

There was someone there by that name, yes. The issue is teasing out probable fact from likely myth.

 

[Elioenai26]

There was someone there by that name, yes. The issue is teasing out probable fact from likely myth.

Ok let us begin here.

How do you know that there was someone "there" by that name? What references and or sources are you utilizing to come to that conclusion?

 

[crimsonleaf]

I thought not. Why don't you accept the term? I could change it to Dictator if you like.


That's not what morality is about. Might does not equal right.


Then morality means nothing to you.

Only power.

Not at all, but I expect you not to understand.

You believe in a subjective morality, evolved over time no doubt, and which you think I should adhere to. I believe in a God-given, objective morality. God sets the standards and as the originator of that morality, always acts within it. Therfore, whatever he does to me is within the bounds of that morality.

You seem to think that your own, socially evolved, subjective morality will trump God's objective morality. I don't.

I'm not a Ragnor Redbeard sort of a guy. I don't believe that Might is Right. But I do believe that an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent creator ought not to be dismissed.

 

[Skavau]

Not at all, but I expect you not to understand.

Similarly, I expect you not to understand how what you advocate is not morality at all.

You believe in a subjective morality, evolved over time no doubt, and which you think I should adhere to.

I think you should do what you want, so long as what you do does not impact upon the ability of others to do the same. I think that of everything. I'm pro personal liberty in that way.

I believe in a God-given, objective morality.

You use the word "objective". I am not sure you really know what it means. A system which involves God just declaring by decree what is good and bad and with no obligation to provide any argumentation for why cannot be described as objective morality. It can't even be described as morality. That is just whatever, so long as God says so.

God sets the standards and as the originator of that morality, always acts within it. Therfore, whatever he does to me is within the bounds of that morality.

Yet God would always "act within it" according to you. I am sure you think tormenting others deliberately or watching on with indifference at the torment of others as sadistic and immoral yet when God does it is fine, consistent, just and acceptable. I am sure you think that detaining people indefinitely for not thinking a specific way is contemptible yet when God does it is fine, consistent, just and acceptable.

No-one on the back of these inhumane assertions has any reason to take any moral claim you may make seriously.

You seem to think that your own, socially evolved, subjective morality will trump God's objective morality. I don't.

But it doesn't matter what God does. So long as God does anything or just is you will always describe it as "objective morality". There's no point throwing out grandiose terms such as them if you've defined them to mean nothing. You can call God righteous, divine, inerrant, merciful, just and it will all mean nothing for you would always describe him as that no matter if if he decided to execute everyone wearing glasses or suddenly bought world peace.

I'm not a Ragnor Redbeard sort of a guy. I don't believe that Might is Right. But I do believe that an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent creator ought not to be dismissed.

I'm not dismissing anything. I'm saying that the attributes and decisions of this "eternal, omniscient, omnipotent" and supposedly benevolent creator are inconsistent with his attributes.

 

[Elioenai26]

I'm not dismissing anything. I'm saying that the attributes and decisions of this "eternal, omniscient, omnipotent" and supposedly benevolent creator are inconsistent with his attributes.

Ok....

So what?

I mean really....we know this is how you feel.....but so what?

You must feel really lost and lonely in a world of roughly 7 billion, 1/3 of which believe and worship this inconsistent morally bankrupt God and the majority of the other 2/3's believe in God in one way shape or form. Worldwide, more than 8 in 10 people identify with a religious group and yet you would come here and have us believe that we are all somehow so wrong, and you are so right...

Oh no no no, you will say....surely you will say something like: "I am proud of my position, I am proud to not follow the crowd in believing in a celestial tyrant, I am proud to be unique and different and am perfectly content as being seen as someone who is completely out of touch with reality...."

Come on man...

Why don't you just really tell us why you are here? Seems to be you want to really be convinced....

 

[Skavau]

Ok....

So what?

I mean really....we know this is how you feel.....but so what?

So what?

Well, sure, you can say that. This isn't my problem though. This should be your problem. You profess an acute understanding (or so you claim) of morality and argue further that you advocate objective morality yet both of you find yourself trembling in fear and reverence towards a being that if human would be accurately described as a tyrant. A being that is, according to both of you directly responsible in institutionalising what can be described as nothing less than a permanent torture chamber for everyone who does not bend the knee. If this does not bother you, then perhaps you should reassess what morality is. If it does, (as I hope) then you're on the right path.

You must feel really lost and lonely in a world of roughly 7 billion, 1/3 of which believe and worship this inconsistent morally bankrupt God and the majority of the other 2/3's believe in God in one way shape or form.

Well, no.

I'd wager that not even half of Christians see God as you do. There are countless Christian Universalists that do not even believe hell exists. In addition, many other religions of completely different traditions have no concept of hell.

Worldwide, more than 8 in 10 people identify with a religious group and yet you would come here and have us believe that we are all somehow so wrong, and you are so right...

Come on man...

Uhm

I thought you had an understanding of Philosophy.

You do understand that in Logic 101 appeal to popularity is a fallacy and not a good argument?

In addition, at most 3 out of 10 people actually identify as Christian. Yet you would come here and have us believe that you are somehow right, and us so wrong.

If we're being accurate, that is.

Why don't you just really tell us why you are here? Seems to be you want to really be convinced....

Why don't you stop being such a self-righteous and pseudo-psychic claimant and telling me what I think or inferring what I secretly think? I need no advice nor suggestion from you about my motives as you have done nothing whatsoever to earn any semblance of trust or respect from me.

 

[Elioenai26]

So what?

Well, sure, you can say that. This isn't my problem though. This should be your problem.

I have no problem at all with Christianity. Not a single one...

You profess an acute understanding (or so you claim) of morality and argue further that you advocate objective morality yet both of you find yourself trembling in fear and reverence towards a being that if human would be accurately described as a tyrant.

God is not a human. But you are correct....continue...

A being that is, according to both of you directly responsible in institutionalising what can be described as nothing less than a permanent torture chamber for everyone who does not bend the knee. If this does not bother you, then perhaps you should reassess what morality is. If it does, (as I hope) then you're on the right path.

It does not bother me at all. Torture is the last thing one has to worry about if they deny Christ.

I'd wager that not even half of Christians see God as you do. There are countless Christian Universalists that do not even believe hell exists. In addition, many other religions of completely different traditions have no concept of hell.

Ok...so....

Uhm

I thought you had an understanding of Philosophy.

You do understand that in Logic 101 appeal to popularity is a fallacy and not a good argument?

Where have I argued that God exists because a lot of people believe He exists?

Point me to that post please.

In addition, at most 3 out of 10 people actually identify as Christian. Yet you would come here and have us believe that you are somehow right, and us so wrong.

When you say "us" you are placing yourself right along with the remaining population, the majority of which is religious.

Why don't you stop being such a self-righteous and pseudo-psychic claimant and telling me what I think or inferring what I secretly think? I need no advice nor suggestion from you about my motives as you have done nothing whatsoever to earn any semblance of trust or respect from me.

Ok, then why are you still talking?

 

[crimsonleaf]

Similarly, I expect you not to understand how what you advocate is not morality at all.

Unfortunately, in an atheistic framework there is no arbiter of morality, so your assertion means nothing. In other words, "sez who?"

I think you should do what you want, so long as what you do does not impact upon the ability of others to do the same. I think that of everything. I'm pro personal liberty in that way.

Good for you.

You use the word "objective". I am not sure you really know what it means.

Really, I do.

A system which involves God just declaring by decree what is good and bad and with no obligation to provide any argumentation for why cannot be described as objective morality. It can't even be described as morality. That is just whatever, so long as God says so.

And yet your morality is fluid and still evolving. What is acceptable today may not be tomorrow. Holding a door open for a woman used to be acceptable in all quarters. Now, for some it is seen as politically incorrect and therefore morally unacceptable. And who's to say who's right. In a subjective moral framework everyone is.

It now seems to be on the cards that child euthanasia will become law in the Netherlands; that elsewhere "post-birth abortions" (yes, the killing of an unwanted, birthed child) are also mooted. Who sets the moral standards for these?

So I do know what objective and subjective means, but thanks for caring.

Yet God would always "act within it" according to you. I am sure you think tormenting others deliberately or watching on with indifference at the torment of others as sadistic and immoral yet when God does it is fine, consistent, just and acceptable. I am sure you think that detaining people indefinitely for not thinking a specific way is contemptible yet when God does it is fine, consistent, just and acceptable.

No one knows the exact form hell will take. It is a highly debated in-house point. What we know for sure is that hell is a place for those who deserve it. The fact that they may disagree is entirely immaterial.

No-one on the back of these inhumane assertions has any reason to take any moral claim you may make seriously.

Then don't. Hell is something you have to be concerned about, or not if you prefer. I'm not here as some sort of oracle to whom you must listen or die. Make your own mind up. Good luck.

But it doesn't matter what God does. So long as God does anything or just is you will always describe it as "objective morality". There's no point throwing out grandiose terms such as them if you've defined them to mean nothing. You can call God righteous, divine, inerrant, merciful, just and it will all mean nothing for you would always describe him as that no matter if if he decided to execute everyone wearing glasses or suddenly bought world peace.

No it doesn't matter what God does, because those of us who believe accept that as the originator of our moral code He would be inconsistent to act outside of it. The alternative is to judge God by your moral standards, which I've shown to be flexible, arbitrary, subjective and inconsistent.

I'm not dismissing anything. I'm saying that the attributes and decisions of this "eternal, omniscient, omnipotent" and supposedly benevolent creator are inconsistent with his attributes.

I'm not sure how claiming an entity doesn't exist is not dismissing that entity. And when describing God you missed out the words "wrathful" and "just". Unfortunately you've been gleaning a lot of your information about God from Christians who see the Great Sky Fairy, a God who forgives everyone everything every time. But the God of Scripture isn't that God.

 

[Elioenai26]

I also notice you keep talking about what is moral, as if there is some morality that we are supposed to recognize and order our lives by.

Who says we should do this? You?

 

[Skavau]

Unfortunately, in an atheistic framework there is no arbiter of morality, so your assertion means nothing. In other words, "sez who?"

I'm not sure how, sensibly speaking an "arbiter of morality" even makes sense. I understand the concept of enforcing morality in the sense of enforcing the law but morality does not derive from the law - the law is just a tool in enforcing it but something is right and wrong independent of someone's assertion even contextually.

Good for you.

So much for the idea that I think you should follow what I think.

Really, I do.

What does it mean?

And yet your morality is fluid and still evolving. What is acceptable today may not be tomorrow.

No, consensus is fluid and still evolving and yet fortunately, in general we're going the right way about it.

Holding a door open for a woman used to be acceptable in all quarters. Now, for some it is seen as politically incorrect and therefore morally unacceptable.

It is seen as benevolent sexism if done because the other person is a woman. The answer is to just hold the door open for anyone behind regardless of their sex.

And who's to say who's right. In a subjective moral framework everyone is.

We argue our positions and if they are convincing enough and/or are given enough publicity (unfortunately this is not always the case) they will catch on. Morality (what we ought and ought not do) can and is argued for.

It now seems to be on the cards that child euthanasia will become law in the Netherlands; that elsewhere "post-birth abortions" (yes, the killing of an unwanted, birthed child) are also mooted. Who sets the moral standards for these?

Society does. Could you link what you're talking about here though?

So I do know what objective and subjective means, but thanks for caring.

You should be specifically familiar with subjective morality given that your morality "Whatever God says goes" is explicitly such.

No one knows the exact form hell will take. It is a highly debated in-house point. What we know for sure is that hell is a place for those who deserve it. The fact that they may disagree is entirely immaterial.

It would not matter to you what form hell takes though. Whether it is literal fire and brimstone or just a place of metaphorical torment. God enacts it, that's good enough for you.

Then don't. Hell is something you have to be concerned about, or not if you prefer. I'm not here as some sort of oracle to whom you must listen or die. Make your own mind up. Good luck.

It isn't something I am concerned about. I am though concerned about those who believe that hell is real and justified.

No it doesn't matter what God does, because those of us who believe accept that as the originator of our moral code He would be inconsistent to act outside of it. The alternative is to judge God by your moral standards, which I've shown to be flexible, arbitrary, subjective and inconsistent.

Again, God could endorse murder and rape and suddenly murder and rape would become within the moral code and God would (to you) remain consistent.

The "alternative" as you've attempted to "show" is referencing vaguely societies that have different standards. You're basically comparing a species composed of vastly different societies and individuals with a single being. This is like saying that because my morality is internally consistent (perhaps it isn't, but we'll assume so for the sake of the analogy) that my authority is better than say, the European Union because it contains within it a multitude of states that have different laws.

I'm not sure how claiming an entity doesn't exist is not dismissing that entity.

Dismissing the existence of an entity is not the same as dismissing what the entity has to say if indeed it did exist.

And when describing God you missed out the words "wrathful" and "just".

Wrathful is hardly a positive attribute. Wrathful is only marginally better than sadistic.

Unfortunately you've been gleaning a lot of your information about God from Christians who see the Great Sky Fairy, a God who forgives everyone everything every time. But the God of Scripture isn't that God.

I'd prefer that God, actually.

 

[Skavau]

I also notice you keep talking about what is moral, as if there is some morality that we are supposed to recognize and order our lives by.

Who says we should do this? You?

You shouldn't do anything. You should live your lives with independence and act as you please so long as you do not inflict upon others whilst doing so. If you wish to help others in doing what you please, great and more power to you for doing so.

No-one should feel compelled to live their lives by a series of systematic rituals and orders that take their heritage and supposed importance from tradition.

 

[Skavau]

I have no problem at all with Christianity. Not a single one...

I repeat: In this case, you should.

God is not a human. But you are correct....continue...

I will, though I'm not sure I need to. You've basically conceded the point. God as you describe is comparable to a tyrant.

It does not bother me at all. Torture is the last thing one has to worry about if they deny Christ.

Then you need to reassess, badly. That you worship and (as you've agreed) derive your entire morality from a tyrant that is responsible for the systematic oppression and torment of most of the human race through the enabling of a realm called "hell" should bother anyone with even a murmur of a conscience.

Ok...so....

Do you not grasp context or something?

You just asked me if I feel alone, surrounded effectively by people similar to you. I pointed out that you're not a majority and thus the premise is false.

Where have I argued that God exists because a lot of people believe He exists?

Point me to that post please.

You just implied it. Quite literally. You are responding to a post where I quoted you implying it:

Worldwide, more than 8 in 10 people identify with a religious group and yet you would come here and have us believe that we are all somehow so wrong, and you are so right...


Come on man...

I see you've also edited your post to smear me. Keep it Classy, Elioenai.

When you say "us" you are placing yourself right along with the remaining population, the majority of which is religious.

Uh, okay. Are you this desperate to get some imaginary points or something? I was throwing your argument back in your face about consensus. Yes the majority of the world is religious. But the majority of the world is not Christian.

Ok, then why are you still talking?

I like debating. I kind of a penchant for conflict and disagreement. Probably because I'm an INTJ.

 

[Elioenai26]

You shouldn't do anything. You should live your lives with independence and act as you please so long as you do not inflict upon others whilst doing so.

Who says?

You?

No-one should feel compelled to live their lives by a series of systematic rituals and orders that take their heritage and supposed importance from tradition.

Interesting....

But did you not just say that I should not inflict harm upon others? Is this not an order from some type of "system" of morality?

Who says your views should be followed anyway? You?

And if I politely disagree? What then?

 

[Elioenai26]

I repeat: In this case, you should.

Who says? You?

Why should I feel the way you say I should?

 

[Gadarene]

I love how the theists are saying "who sez" like it's some kind of draw card on atheism, when that's what their entire moral system is based on as well.

Just because it's someone more powerful doesn't mean it's not a load of "who sez" as well - and that means the only appreciable difference is, in fact, "might makes right".

 

[Skavau]

Who says?

You?

Uh, fine. Don't live like... how you want then?

That'll show me! I only want people to have personal liberty!

But did you not just say that I should not inflict harm upon others? Is this not an order from some type of "system" of morality?

It is part of the necessary social contract that enables us all to have personal liberty. It does not derive its validity from tradition nor authority but necessity.

Who says your views should be followed anyway? You?

Everyone, actually.

It is in all of our interests whether we know it or not.

And if I politely disagree? What then?

Then you disagree. Presumably if you do you have or will inflict upon the liberty of others and then you'll discover how society treats those who do such things.

 

[Skavau]

Who says? You?

Why should I feel the way you say I should?

Because you are a member of a social species that lives amongst other members of this social species. You hold immoral beliefs that most morally serious people around you would find contemptible (and if they don't, do when the context is marginally changed).