Does morality exist without God?

[david_x]

When I picture an apple in my mind then of course I’m imagining it. I’m forming a mental image of something not present to my senses. That apple isn’t real. It doesn’t actually exist. It is imaginary.

You appear confused about ‘or’ statements. An ‘or’ statement is true when any one of its conditions is true. So it is imagination whenever I form a mental image of something that is either not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality (or both, of course). In the case of your God, both of those conditions happen to be true.

I read that as 'and' sorry.

The point remains as imagine is the same as envision.

In the case of your claimed daily conversations with your God, there is zero evidence that any message was ever actually sent, given that you say it is inaudible. All you have is your imagination that your God is communicating with you or that it even exists.

The message was received, that is evidence.

 

[Mling]

I read that as 'and' sorry.

The point remains as imagine is the same as envision.



The message was received, that is evidence.

Why is disturbed dirt not evidence of UFO's landing? Because there are other, much more common ways to disturb dirt. In a world where humans have shovels, disturbed dirt is not evidence for UFO's, unless you can conclusively prove that it wasn't the humans with shovels who did it.

In a world where people sometimes dream, hallucinate, identify as multiple people, have thoughts which surprise them, and see patterns in random events, "receiving a message" is not evidence of communication with the divine until it's been proven that the experience wasn't due to those other possible causes.

 

[Mud Hole]

Why would it?
OR/
Why would it not?
There is secular morality and there is God's morality.
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 56: 8-9


we can treat people who we can see with respect n treat GOD with disarray and

how can we treat each other with no love whom we see daily but loves GOD whom we can not

vice versa ,,,...

Yes morality can exist without God. Otherwise, morality exists with God and is understood and given out unequally to both believers and non believers alike.

 

[david_x]

Why is disturbed dirt not evidence of UFO's landing? Because there are other, much more common ways to disturb dirt. In a world where humans have shovels, disturbed dirt is not evidence for UFO's, unless you can conclusively prove that it wasn't the humans with shovels who did it.

In a world where people sometimes dream, hallucinate, identify as multiple people, have thoughts which surprise them, and see patterns in random events, "receiving a message" is not evidence of communication with the divine until it's been proven that the experience wasn't due to those other possible causes.

If you have evidence that it was something else, please present it. Otherwise it is safest to assume the most evident.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If you have evidence that it was something else, please present it. Otherwise it is safest to assume the most evident.

And the most probably explanation is: the person was mistaken.

Think you saw a UFO, Yeti, Ness, Elvis, Hitler, Jacko, Atlantis, etc? Nah, you almost certainly didn't. It is far more likely that the plethora of statistical and psychological phenomena that humans fall for (confirmation bias, illusory correlation, hindsight bias, the Hawthorne effect, etc) account for the seemingly impossible or supernatural events reported - most notably because independent scientific investigation always turns up with no confirming evidence.

In short, there's no evidence of information being divined from a higher power, be it God or aliens, and any sort of internal, personal 'revelation' is supremely suspect to the aforementioned biases.

I wonder if such voices could tell you what I have written on my left hand

 

[selfinflikted]

I wonder if such voices could tell you what I have written on my left hand

I'd love to see that.

Also, I second everything you said, especially the part about confirmation bias. That little critter can be blamed for quite a lot, methinks.

 

[chris4243]

In short, there's no evidence of information being divined from a higher power, be it God or aliens, and any sort of internal, personal 'revelation' is supremely suspect to the aforementioned biases.

And even the Bible itself warns against people who claim as a message from God the products of their own imagination.

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

in essence

whether u agree or disagree

what makes your statement of disagreement legitmate?


hm hm

Gotta disagree here. Atheist disagree with religion because of the religious, not because of the religion. Kinda the same problem Gandhi had with Christianity.

 

[3sigma]

The point remains as imagine is the same as envision.

Exactly. That’s what I’ve been explaining to you. When you say you envision your God, it means you imagine it. When you envision your God, you form a mental image of something not present to your senses and, in your case, never before wholly perceived in reality.

The message was received, that is evidence.

Believing one has received messages from God is evidence of credulity.

 

[david_x]

Exactly. That’s what I’ve been explaining to you. When you say you envision your God, it means you imagine it. When you envision your God, you form a mental image of something not present to your senses and, in your case, never before wholly perceived in reality.

I don't envision my God... not sure where you got that from.

Believing one has received messages from God is evidence of credulity.

Person attack? Arguing the point? Really?

 

[david_x]

And the most probably explanation is: the person was mistaken.

Think you saw a UFO, Yeti, Ness, Elvis, Hitler, Jacko, Atlantis, etc? Nah, you almost certainly didn't. It is far more likely that the plethora of statistical and psychological phenomena that humans fall for (confirmation bias, illusory correlation, hindsight bias, the Hawthorne effect, etc) account for the seemingly impossible or supernatural events reported - most notably because independent scientific investigation always turns up with no confirming evidence.

In short, there's no evidence of information being divined from a higher power, be it God or aliens, and any sort of internal, personal 'revelation' is supremely suspect to the aforementioned biases.

Interesting choice of words, "internal" "personal". Indeed it starts personal but if it is not affirmed by the rest of the Church and/or the Bible it is not true.

I wonder if such voices could tell you what I have written on my left hand

It hasn't been mentioned to me, lol.

 

[3sigma]

I don't envision my God... not sure where you got that from.

From here…

To address your questions, I never said anything about seeing the supernatural, nor hearing. The communication is typically either visions or knowledge.

and here…

When I say vision and knowledge I mean something very similar to how communication is normally done. For example let's say that I tell you to picture an apple. You picture an apple in your head. You thus have a vision of the apple without actually showing you an apple. This is how a vision works, except that God surpasses the need for the audible telling.

To envision is to picture to oneself. As you’ve noted, to envision something is to imagine it. You picture the messages from your God in your mind so you are envisioning or imagining whatever it is you think your God is telling you. As soon as you claimed you converse with the supernatural (beyond the visible, observable universe) you precluded any chance that it could be present to your senses or observable in any way. Consequently, not only are you imagining the messages, but your God also is not present to your senses and you have never before wholly perceived it in reality.

Person attack? Arguing the point? Really?

Suppose I told you I receive inaudible messages from Santa Claus and as evidence supporting my belief, I claim to have visions. Would it be reasonable to say I was credulous?

You claim you receive inaudible messages from your God and that the evidence supporting your belief is your bare assertion that you have visions. I’m simply observing that you are ready or willing to believe, especially on slight or uncertain evidence.

 

[razeontherock]

I quoted the entire post. Just what did I ignore?

Context of a thread includes it's title. My post was a play on words, which you missed.

 

[razeontherock]

So it is imagination whenever I form a mental image of something that is either not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality (or both, of course). In the case of your God, both of those conditions happen to be true.

This is still a false statement. You may very well have no equipment to perceive G-d, but you also only have the equipment to speak for yourself, not others.

 

[razeontherock]

There is logic to religious violence, though ... if I lived in a world that was literally a battleground between the children of God and the children of the devil, and the devil-children were mostly in charge and ran the banks, and owned the stores, and had most people in the world under their thrall, I'd strap on an AK-47 in a heartbeat! Bring on the demons! Who cares if bombing the bank is violent--it's a demon-run bank and the people inside are mindless or downright evil.

That is not just a ridiculous belief--it's a logic response to a religious premise. Once you accept the religious belief, it actively compels youto take violent action.

Before you try to make this assertion, you should consider that Christianity absolutely teaches against this with such clear language as "we wrestle not against flesh and blood," and ample points that an AK-47 won't work against a demon.

This sort of compelling violence is possible when you introduce religion, in a way that just isn't possible with atheism. You have to be bad to be a bad atheist: you need to actively desire harm, or not know the difference between good and bad, or only care about yourself and not give a flying monkey about anybody else.

When you introduce religious beliefs like the one above, you can be a good person--desire the best for the world, know the difference between good and bad, be able to think clearly and logically-- and be compelled to commit horrific acts of evil because they actually are a reasonable response to the reality you've been taught exists.

You have just created a false dichotomy. You actually have to be worse than an atheist to do the same thing, in light of even the most obvious teachings like what I posted above. Please consider that. Now your line of reasoning here will certainly apply to the ignorant, and perhaps other religions, but this type of ignorance in Christianity is essentially THE worst thing anyone can do:

John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."

actual militarized atheism simply doesn't exist.

All that to say you recognize a figure of speech? Glad you understood.

 

[razeontherock]

Yes morality can exist without God. Otherwise, morality exists with God and is understood and given out unequally to both believers and non believers alike.

Hmm, sounds a lot like this:

John 1:9 [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Hmm, sounds a lot like this:

John 1:9 [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

What does "lighteth every man" mean?

 

[Ampersand]

He sets all men on fire. Like Trogdor, or a Martian Heat Ray.

 

[3sigma]

This is still a false statement. You may very well have no equipment to perceive G-d, but you also only have the equipment to speak for yourself, not others.

No, Ray, it is true for all normal humans. Unless you can prove that you possess some hitherto undiscovered physical sense, your mental image of your God remains the result of your imagination. There is no other reasonable explanation.

When religious believers have to resort to claiming that they are special or privileged in some way that allows only them to perceive their God, it is nothing but special pleading and arrogance.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Interesting choice of words, "internal" "personal". Indeed it starts personal but if it is not affirmed by the rest of the Church and/or the Bible it is not true.

But isn't that a form of circular reasoning? The Bible is verified by personal phenomena, which we know are true because they are verified by the Bible, which we know is true because... etc.

It hasn't been mentioned to me, lol.

Does any verifiable information get mentioned? Something you can use to test whether the communiqué is genuine?