Arguments about God

[Dave Ellis]

Let me try that!

1, If the bible is true then it can explain every moral issue, right, and wrong. If it fails to do so then the bible is false
2, The bible does not explain why slavery or many ofthe worst objective wrongs ever is wrong and actually would justify it
3, therefore, the bible is false along with god the father,, the son and the Holy spirit


Ken

And naturalism is alive again.


.... whatever that means.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

This line is a clear indication that you actually do not understand the subject matter.

I'm Todd, and I approve this message.

SavedByChrist94, I have a question. An actual, serious question.

What high school did you go to. I have a letter to write...

Seriously...

 

[ranunculus]

Strawmanish there,

1, Gravity exists under the "naturalist" and the Theistic Worldview.

2, Gravity is a material property, Morals are immaterial therefore correct cannot explain morals.

3, "naturalism" is stictly material like gravity, however is used as an explanation of all life. gravity on the other hand exists on any worldview. Morals, an Immaterial property are the main property to life, therefore explanation for morals are required for any worldview which has to do with the origins of life.

4, Gravity exists under any worldview therefore no explanation needed for morals and gravity obviously exists. "naturalism" is about the origins of life therefore explanation for The Immaterial Property of Morals, specifically why rape is objectively wrong is need.

5, rape is Objectively Wrong

6, under "naturalism" rape can be justified and has no reason for being wrong and Immaterial properties don't exist under "naturalism"

7, Since rape is wrong and Immaterial properties do exist. "naturalism" is therefore Factually false.

"atheism"/"naturalism" fails again. nice try, but never ever try to deceive anyone again.

If gravity is true why help the poor?

Seriously though, trolling is only fun when 1 side is serious.

If I had to judge the characters of 2 people. One who thinks rape is wrong because ultramegasuperman said it. And one who thinks rape is wrong because he's considered the consequences of his actions and realizes the physical and psychological traumas it inflicts on the victim and feels empathy.

I wouldn't say the first one is the moral one.

 

[distraff]

Agreed. also I might add pointing out inconveniences does not make you smart, cool or win an argument.



Easy, by using the question, can rape ever be right? hopefully you are sane and answer no.




Exactly, that's why "naturalism" is false.



Yes it does, rape is an Objective Moral Wrong, Morals are Priority in Life and were created with life/humanity. therefore "naturalism" in order to be a valid worldview/explanation needs to easily explanation why rape is Objectively Wrong.

Not only does "naturalism" fail to do that but "naturalism" actually justifies it. "naturalism" therefore goes in the trash.



The rules of chess has nothing to do with the origins of life.



When someone fails in an argument they usually tell the other, "you don't understand..." etc etc.

"naturalism" is dead, bringing it up again would be a deception as anything that isn't True is a deception.

Naturalism is the idea that everything that happens in existence is through nature. It doesn't talk about morality, but that doesn't mean it is wrong.

 

[dlamberth]

Exactly, that's why "naturalism" is false.

Nature does not and can not lie. As such, Nature is the most honest, moral statement there is.

The moral standards that come from the top down, the ones that are separate and apart from nature...they are the morals that have caused the most pain and division and suffering in this world.

The morals that come from Nature on the other hand, which also means from the Heart, are the morals that bring Oneness and Community into this world.

.

 

[dlamberth]

Naturalism is the idea that everything that happens in existence is through nature. It doesn't talk about morality, but that doesn't mean it is wrong.

I have to disagree. To those who have ears that hear...Nature speaks volumes about morality. That's why naturalist like Luther Burbank, Masonobu Fukuoka, Goethe, Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson and many others wrote about morality. To capture the words of Nature, a person HAS to be moral. Nature will not speak to those who do not come with a pure heart.

.

 

[distraff]

I have to disagree. To those who have ears that hear...Nature speaks volumes about morality. That's why naturalist like Luther Burbank, Masonobu Fukuoka, Goethe, Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson and many others wrote about morality. To capture the words of Nature, a person HAS to be moral. Nature will not speak to those who do not come with a pure heart.

.

How does being moral make you better at figuring out how nature works? Why do you think nature will not speak to those who do not come with a pure heart? What does nature have to say about morality?

 

[dlamberth]

How does being moral make you better at figuring out how nature works?

Figuring out how something works it mental brain stuff. The suggestion is to go deeper than that. To attune to nature, on the other hand is heart awareness stuff. It's through Heart that nature speaks to a person, not their brain. But it's harder for a human being to open their heart in Love to Nature if they are busy trying to figure things out with their brain. To get to your question about morals, the more moral a person is, the more they will be able to open their heart to Nature.

Why do you think nature will not speak to those who do not come with a pure heart?

It has to do with the way a person goes about listening. There is a direct relationship to being moral and being able to listen to Nature. Learning to listen to Nature has a way of making a person more moral. The baggage that a person carries from their immoral acts or even bad thoughts raise up and get into the way of listening to Nature.

What does nature have to say about morality?

A person needs to go about life with a clean and open heart.

.

 

[distraff]

Figuring out how something works it mental brain stuff. The suggestion is to go deeper than that. To attune to nature, on the other hand is heart awareness stuff. It's through Heart that nature speaks to a person, not their brain. But it's harder for a human being to open their heart in Love to Nature if they are busy trying to figure things out with their brain. To get to your question about morals, the more moral a person is, the more they will be able to open their heart to Nature.

It has to do with the way a person goes about listening. There is a direct relationship to being moral and being able to listen to Nature. Learning to listen to Nature has a way of making a person more moral. The baggage that a person carries from their immoral acts or even bad thoughts raise up and get into the way of listening to Nature.

A person needs to go about life with a clean and open heart.

.

So you think that nature is sentient and literally talks to people?

 

[dlamberth]

So you think that nature is sentient and literally talks to people?

The indigenous people the world over as well as the mystics of the various religions of the world would say, yes, that’s true.

The language spoken is the language of the heart though, not the brain. That's the part that tangles us up here in the West.

 

[distraff]

The indigenous people the world over as well as the mystics of the various religions of the world would say, yes, that’s true.

The language spoken is the language of the heart though, not the brain. That's the part that tangles us up here in the West.

Well, that is their opinion. Do they have any reasoning to back up their claims? Maybe they just mis-interpreted our emotional reaction to the beauty of nature, and thought that nature talks to people emotionally.

 

[dlamberth]

Well, that is their opinion. Do they have any reasoning to back up their claims? Maybe they just mis-interpreted our emotional reaction to the beauty of nature, and thought that nature talks to people emotionally.

Maybe...but I don't think so. It's not emotions that they are responding to. It's something else...something much deeper and much more personal and heart opened to Nature than are emotions.

.

 

[distraff]

Maybe...but I don't think so. It's not emotions that they are responding to. It's something else...something much deeper and much more personal and heart opened to Nature than are emotions.

.

When feeling the beauty of nature, the emotions that come to you can be very personal, much more personal than the emotions we usually feel. The experience can often be pretty strong, and new. So I think these natives are mistaking new and stronger emotions, when being in nature and contemplating nature, with something that is different than emotion.

I know this because I love mountain climbing, biking, hiking, and running in the woods. I can run for 10 miles in the woods. It is even better when it is dark and you can see the stars. The energy and exhaustion one gets from exersize can heighten our usual emotions making our usual wonder of nature all the more powerful.

Some religious people often do this. They will claimed that heightened and new emotional experiences cannot be emotions because they are so different and so must by secret communications.

 

[dlamberth]

Some religious people often do this. They will claimed that heightened and new emotional experiences cannot be emotions because they are so different and so must by secret communications.

Some religious people do that..that's true. But I'm not pointing towards religious people. I'm pointing towards Life itself, and the deep inner experience of it.

How about putting on the skin of Jesus Christ and experiencing Life and Humanity as He experienced it. How would Life and Creation look from the perspective of Christ? It's the same sort of thing when opening one's heart to Nature. "Religious" people generally find that hard to do and mostly don't even understand and more often than not, they will deny the practice of sitting in the skin of Christ.

.

 

[Eudaimonist]

How about putting on the skin of Jesus Christ

That metaphor is even worse than the "bride" metaphor! I'm thinking Silence of the Lambs here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

That metaphor is even worse than the "bride" metaphor! I'm thinking Silence of the Lambs here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

It rubs the lotion on it's skin, or else it gets the hose again!

 

[dlamberth]

That metaphor is even worse than the "bride" metaphor! I'm thinking Silence of the Lambs here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

That did come out looking kind of bad.

Thanks for the laugh.

.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

I'm Todd, and I approve this message.

SavedByChrist94, I have a question. An actual, serious question.

What high school did you go to. I have a letter to write...

Seriously...

The Academy of destroying "atheism"

If gravity is true why help the poor?

Seriously though, trolling is only fun when 1 side is serious.

How is it trolling? I take what you just said as a lie, which is a form of trolling.

only reason you would call me that is because the question is threatening to your "atheism"/"naturalism" as you know very well under "atheism" there is no explanation to why rape is wrong and "atheism"/"naturalism" actually justifies it. this question is a very valid question which destroys "atheism"/"naturalism" quick.

In the real world rape is Objectively Wrong.

If I had to judge the characters of 2 people. One who thinks rape is wrong because ultramegasuperman said it.

Nope, see that assumption. never said rape is wrong because God says so, I'm saying God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) Has to exist for rape to be wrong.

And one who thinks rape is wrong because he's considered the consequences of his actions and realizes the physical and psychological traumas it inflicts on the victim and feels empathy.

and in order for that to be possible God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) has to exist.

Naturalism is the idea that everything that happens in existence is through nature. It doesn't talk about morality, but that doesn't mean it is wrong.

Yes it does, you yourself said it in the bold, now morals are existent, therefore if they were caused by nature, there would be no Objective moral values and rape could be justified, however in Reality rape is Objectively wrong, the worst of worst, therefore in Reality "naturalism" is not true, "naturalism" is false fairy tales.

Let me try that!

1, If the bible is true then it can explain every moral issue, right, and wrong. If it fails to do so then the bible is false
2, The bible does not explain why slavery or many ofthe worst objective wrongs ever is wrong and actually would justify it

Ken

Exodus 21:16
16 “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death,j whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.

1 Timothy 1:8–10
8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels,t the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

but for everything in general,

Romans 2:15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)


3, Therefore God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) exists

That's a non-sequitur.

It's a quite common error as well among theists... Just because I can't think of a situation where rape would be acceptable, doesn't say at all whether it's objective or subjective. It literally has no bearing on it.

Here's why:

Subjective morality is morality based on reason, personal experience, empathy and common sense. Using those factors, there is no example any mentally healthy person could point to, that would make rape a good thing under any circumstance.

Therefore rape is Objectively wrong.

Objective morality is the belief morality is inherent or dictated to us in some cosmic set of rules. There is no rhyme nor reason to why the rules are they way they are. If in your set of rules, rape is wrong, then it's wrong. The reasoning is irrelevant.

So according to you it can be justified? rape can never be justified, therefore reasoning is relevant as the reasoning prevents it from ever being right and being Objectively wrong, and that reason is The Trinity of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.

There is no explanation why rape is wrong from an objective standpoint (apart from the fact that's the way your rules were written).

Yes there is, it's perverse, abusive, shameful, etc, all of which are Objective in Reality and Under God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit), and not even subjective under "atheism".

There is an explanation why rape is wrong from a subjective standpoint though. In fact, there's all kinds of reasons we can point to why rape is wrong.

Of course rape is wrong, however only under Reality/Christian Mono-Theism.

Really... Well then, please demonstrate using naturalism why rape is ok.

under "naturalism"/"macro-evolution"/"natural selection" it would be advantagous to a species.

No... when someone doesn't understand the argument a person is making, they tend to point out they don't understand.

When someone fails in an argument, they do one of two things:

1) Continue making an argument even though they lack evidence for their claims.
2) Concede the argument.

Hmm that's exactly what your always doing.

This line is a clear indication that you actually do not understand the subject matter.

How? because you fail to answer a simple question, either because you do not understand the subject at matter or because you know well and good the answer but know it'll disprove your "naturalism"/"atheism".

so I ask again, don't make any excuses, under "naturalism"/"atheism" what reason is there for rape to be wrong?

Deep down you know there's not one reason and that "naturalism" actually justifies that sick perverted action.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Therefore rape is Objectively wrong.

What? How do you draw on the conclusion it's objectively wrong based on the definition of Subjective morality?

So according to you it can be justified? rape can never be justified, therefore reasoning is relevant as the reasoning prevents it from ever being right and being Objectively wrong, and that reason is The Trinity of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.

When did I ever say it can be justified? I have explicitly stated that I can not think of a single situation where rape would be acceptable.

However, if you base your opinion that Rape is wrong off of the pain and suffering it causes, then you are using subjective morality to make your decision.

Yes there is, it's perverse, abusive, shameful, etc, all of which are Objective in Reality and Under God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit), and not even subjective under "atheism".

What you label as perverse, abusive and shameful are a matter of personal opinion. However things that you label perverse, abusive and shameful may not be considered that way by other people.

Most people, (myself included) would consider rape to fit into those categories... In fact it would almost be unanimous within society. It's a clear-cut moral issue, but that doesn't make it any less subjective.

Of course rape is wrong, however only under Reality/Christian Mono-Theism.

So rape is ok in India or Sweden or any other place where not many Christians live?

under "naturalism"/"macro-evolution"/"natural selection" it would be advantagous to a species.

Rape is not advantageous to a species. How on earth would you draw that conclusion?

Hmm that's exactly what your always doing.

I am really starting to believe you're a troll.

How? because you fail to answer a simple question, either because you do not understand the subject at matter or because you know well and good the answer but know it'll disprove your "naturalism"/"atheism".

You don't even know what Atheism is, so it's kinda silly to make a remark like that.

so I ask again, don't make any excuses, under "naturalism"/"atheism" what reason is there for rape to be wrong?

I've already told you why rape is wrong.

Deep down you know there's not one reason and that "naturalism" actually justifies that sick perverted action.

And how do you figure that? I've explicitly stated that there is no circumstance I can think of that would make rape good or justified.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How is it trolling? I take what you just said as a lie, which is a form of trolling.

only reason you would call me that is because the question is threatening to your "atheism"/"naturalism" as you know very well under "atheism" there is no explanation to why rape is wrong and "atheism"/"naturalism" actually justifies it. this question is a very valid question which destroys "atheism"/"naturalism" quick.

In the real world rape is Objectively Wrong.

You don't need to believe in the existence of deities in order to believe that rape is morally wrong. Atheism does not justify rape. In fact, atheism makes no comment on morality at all, since it is simply the lack of belief in gods, nothing more.

under "naturalism"/"macro-evolution"/"natural selection" it would be advantagous to a species.

Bullcrap. How would it be advantageous to the species?