Does morality exist without God?

[Tzaousios]

Again, instead of pretending to be able to glean his intentions through mind-reading, why not either just answer his request in a straight-forward manner, instead of side-stepping and throwing out personal attacks?

Mind reading? Nice. No, I am not reading his mind. What I have said is based upon previous observations of the way 3sigma works and reacts. Others might not have been aware of it; hopefully now they know.

Let me ask it this way: What evidence do you find compelling enough to believe what you believe?

Are you trying to be 3sigma's wingman? I am not submitting my beliefs or why I believe them to be put under his "logical, scientific scrutiny," which in reality is only a rhetorical ploy.

 

[selfinflikted]

There needs to be an addendum to this statement. "Rational people," i.e. enlightened atheists, tend to change their mind about all things except religious belief if/when presented with compelling, scientifically controlled evidence.

And do you know why atheists remain atheists? Because no one has presented atheists with what they consider to be compelling evidence. What will be compelling for one person may not be compelling enough for another.

So, I ask again: What evidence was compelling enough for you to believe what you believe?

 

[selfinflikted]

Mind reading? Nice. No, I am not reading his mind. What I have said is based upon previous observations of the way 3sigma works and reacts. Others might not have been aware of it; hopefully now they know.

Dubious, it sounds like, though I've never seen it from him. (Just because I haven't seen it, doesn't mean it's not there.)

Are you trying to be 3sigma's wingman? I am not submitting my beliefs or why I believe them to be put under his "logical, scientific scrutiny," which in reality is only a rhetorical ploy.

If you do not want to submit your evidence, that's your perogative. Why you won't, I cannot understand. But, whatevs.

 

[Tzaousios]

Holding a belief doesn't mean you automatically disregard any contrary evidence. Even if 3sigma believed that there was no God and that Christians are deluded for believing otherwise, that doesn't mean he automatically rejects any evidence to the contrary.

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. Anyone can read all of his posts, from first to last, and observe his reactions, and understand that all of his statements flow from this presupposition.

 

[ArtHead]

There are many valid moral systems/ideologies. Some involve a God and some don't. Whether morals can exist without God, i don't think that is measurable hence the question is impossible to answer.

 

[Tzaousios]

And do you know why atheists remain atheists? Because no one has presented atheists with what they consider to be compelling evidence. What will be compelling for one person may not be compelling enough for another.

Sure, that might be the case with some, maybe even many, atheists. However, the ones who do what 3sigma does have decided what they believe, and actively seek to denigrate what they reject and ultimately hate. This type is rooted firmly in the rhetorical tradition that Hitchens and Dawkins have established.

 

[chris4243]

Ultimately, whatever 3sigma's personal convictions, the request stands: do you, or do you not, have evidence for your claims?

Evidence, or evidence that could be properly shared with other people?

 

[razeontherock]

Unreasonable beliefs are those that are not conformable to reason. For example, the belief that a person could come back to life after being dead for three days and beginning to decompose or the belief that a grown man can walk unaided on the sea are beliefs that are not conformable to reason.

That is a false statement. The most truth you can glean from your statement is those are not statements that you can fathom, or reason how they could be so. Which deserves a "so what?"

 

[selfinflikted]

That is a false statement. The most truth you can glean from your statement is those are not statements that you can fathom, or reason how they could be so. Which deserves a "so what?"

So what? That's the reason we ask for evidence all the time! Outlandish claims should be supported by evidence if they are to be taken seriously. That's the "so what?".

 

[Tzaousios]

If you do not want to submit your evidence, that's your perogative. Why you won't, I cannot understand. But, whatevs.

Um, because I do not enjoy having my beliefs rhetorically denigrated? I thought that I already mentioned this.

 

[selfinflikted]

Um, because I do not enjoy having my beliefs rhetorically denigrated? I thought that I already mentioned this.

Like I said, your perogative. As I said though, I'm not convinced of this percieved "rhetorical denigration."

 

[Tzaousios]

So what? That's the reason we ask for evidence all the time! Outlandish claims should be supported by evidence if they are to be taken seriously. That's the "so what?".

What does "outlandish claims" mean to you? Perhaps to some atheists a particular claim is not convincing. However, "outlandish claims" translates from the Hitchensite-Dawkinsite rhetoric as "yet another manifestation of the deluded Christian imagination." Thus, it deserves to be denigrated.

 

[Tzaousios]

Like I said, your perogative. As I said though, I'm not convinced of this percieved "rhetorical denigration."

Of course you are not! What good would it do you to be convinced of it, not to mention openly state that you are convinced of it?

 

[razeontherock]

Tbh, I recoiled in horror myself when first encountering Calvinist doctrine. I've since investigated more thoroughly and had some interesting conversations with scholarly Calvinists, and while it's still a rather horrifying set of beliefs about God, it appears pretty consistent with the scriptural passages they use to back up their theology.

I agree! Their problem is when you compare their ideas to the whole of Scripture, there are major concepts they can't account for. Things like "for God so loved the world," and "He gives light to every man who enters the world." These just don't jibe with their idea of God creating people just to suffer in hell for eternity.

The doctrine that leaves one fervently praying and passionately worshipping, perhaps for one's whole life, in hopes of achieving that 'born again' state of communication you blithely describe as 'spiritual' is deeply frustrating and creates desperate uncertainty and anxiety.

Whatever doctrine that might be, it is not what the Bible teaches! You wind up with Peace that passes all understanding, and boldness like a lion. And while it doesn't take a whole lifetime of time, the approach just might be to condense your whole life's effort into the goal; "seeking the Lord with your whole heart." While words can't really convey this state, once we're there it doesn't take long.

It's difficult to even understand what exactly is meant by 'spiritual'. My self, I experience physical, mental, and emotional states, all of which interact and affect each other. That's it. There is no 'other' state I need a label for. So what is 'spiritual'? How would I recognise it? How distinguish it from emotion, intellect or even indigestion, (to reference Scrooge)?

Now this is humility! G-d can work with that. Let me point out the Bible tells us it is only the Word of G-d itself that can distinguish between these things you mention, (which the KJV calls "soul") and Spirit. Another conversation I had with an unbeliever not too long ago involved him using the idea of growing a 3rd arm as an analogy. I'm not sure he ever quite understood that this "third arm" would be G-d Himself, and no longer truly us ...

 

[razeontherock]

That's quite unfair and judgemental. You have no idea what path has led me here.

This wasn't directed at you in the least. I was commenting on the way Calvinist doctrine strikes me; they can explain everything, but via man's understanding and answers, rather than seeking the Lord.

 

[selfinflikted]

What does "outlandish claims" mean to you?

Like the other poster said, something that doesn't "conform to reason" (i.e. people rising from the dead).

Perhaps to some atheists a particular claim is not convincing. However, "outlandish claims" translates from the Hitchensite-Dawkinsite rhetoric as "yet another manifestation of the deluded Christian imagination." Thus, it deserves to be denigrated.

Those are your words, not mine.

 

[selfinflikted]

Of course you are not! What good would it do you to be convinced of it, not to mention openly state that you are convinced of it?

Maybe I could understand why you are reluctant to present your evidence? As it is, I cannot understand, unless of course, it's trivial in some way which is what I honestly suspect.

 

[razeontherock]

So you can show 3sigma the Kingdom of God via natural things?

Not as well as Jesus can, that's for sure How would 3sigma respond if Jesus were right there in the flesh? Do you think he'd give Him the time of day? Kidding aside, I have no idea of 3sigma's experiences, to even begin to know how to relate.

 

[razeontherock]

Lack of religion is the quest for goodness for the sake of being good.

I will allow that some may have a lack of religion for the sake of being good, but you must concede that is not the only reason people have a lack of religion.

 

[Tzaousios]

Maybe I could understand why you are reluctant to present your evidence?

You have already determined what is "outlandish" and "unreasonable." This translates to all "evidence" that Christians present, i. e. that which cannot be controlled in a scientific laboratory

As it is, I cannot understand, unless of course, it's trivial in some way which is what I honestly suspect.

Which you honestly have already decided to believe is "suspect," i.e. deluded and outlandish.