Does morality exist without God?

[razeontherock]

There is no other way for "existence without God" to be a nonsensical statement other than the one that I posted. Well, there is: if you can demonstrate God being the origin of existence as an irrefutable fact, then the statement also becomes nonsensical.

It is not a "demonstration" but part of the definition. In no way does that definition make any statement nonsensical, unless you refuse to communicate via accepted terms. Definitions are necessary for communication.

 

[razeontherock]

Of course it looks like the Bible is full of conflicting verses, if you don't understand it.

This, clear as day.

Amazing how people that don't even realize what the word "God" means, let alone believe He exists, want to form opinions about what He said. It'd be laughable if it weren't so sad.

 

[TomZzyzx]

This, clear as day.

Amazing how people that don't even realize what the word "God" means, let alone believe He exists, want to form opinions about what He said. It'd be laughable if it weren't so sad.

I think I'll start a thread and call it "Why do Atheist misrepresent what the bible says or what Christians say". Maybe I'll have to shorten the title.

 

[razeontherock]

May I suggest "no shortage of straw?"

 

[ivebeenshown]

So why don't you give us evidence of your God? Hearsay is not evidence and only empirical evidence which can be falsified is allowed.

Failure to do so will mean two things:

1) If God exists then all manner of supernatural beings exist. This includes all the Gods believed by people to exist. Also leprechauns, fairies, etc.

2) No Deity exists and in fact no supernatural beings for that matter.

The onus is on you to prove God's existence and not on us to prove the opposite. Otherwise anyone can say something like "FSM is the creator of all things and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise".

Well, if we want to talk about 'God's existence' we'll have to start at the bottom of the core of philosophy: existence itself.

I contend that existence itself is supernatural -- and in saying that, I should note that this is essentially a lack of belief: I do not believe that existence itself is a natural phenomenon. Can you demonstrate that existence is a natural phenomenon?

 

[mzungu]

I think I'll start a thread and call it "Why do Atheist misrepresent what the bible says or what Christians say". Maybe I'll have to shorten the title.

The only misrepresentation of the Bible I have come across so far is from Christians.

Most atheists were brought up as Christians.

Why are there so many different sects in Christianity and so many different versions of the Bible?

The animosity between the different sects is astounding.

I have absolutely no problem with Christianity and the Bible; My problem is with the Christians who hold this "holier than thou" attitude and think that God considers them only.

I have read in posts here in CF things like "if the KJV is in contradiction with the original Greek and Hebrew texts then the KJV should be considered the correct text".

What do you think Jesus meant when he said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfil. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 )

Let me remind you that Christianity is a religion and thus a faith based belief that is spiritual in nature. Its aim is to bring solace and peace and hope; It is not an American right wing pro Anglo Saxon political party!

 

[razeontherock]

What do you think Jesus meant when he said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfil. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 )

OBJECTION: asked and answered. If you were sincere in asking your question, you would address what has already been posted on the subject. What the Bible says to your position is, go ahead and become a eunuch. Just chop the whole thing off; since you think snipping off your foreskin will benefit you, castration would have to be even better, right?

 

[drstevej]

The only misrepresentation of the Bible I have come across so far is from Christians.

Most atheists were brought up as Christians.

Why are there so many different sects in Christianity and so many different versions of the Bible?

The animosity between the different sects is astounding.

I have absolutely no problem with Christianity and the Bible; My problem is with the Christians who hold this "holier than thou" attitude and think that God considers them only.

I have read in posts here in CF things like "if the KJV is in contradiction with the original Greek and Hebrew texts then the KJV should be considered the correct text".

What do you think Jesus meant when he said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfil. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 )

Let me remind you that Christianity is a religion and thus a faith based belief that is spiritual in nature. Its aim is to bring solace and peace and hope; It is not an American right wing pro Anglo Saxon political party!

Back at ya.

 

[TomZzyzx]

The only misrepresentation of the Bible I have come across so far is from Christians.

Most atheists were brought up as Christians.

Why are there so many different sects in Christianity and so many different versions of the Bible?

The animosity between the different sects is astounding.

I have absolutely no problem with Christianity and the Bible; My problem is with the Christians who hold this "holier than thou" attitude and think that God considers them only.

I have read in posts here in CF things like "if the KJV is in contradiction with the original Greek and Hebrew texts then the KJV should be considered the correct text".

What do you think Jesus meant when he said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfil. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 )

Let me remind you that Christianity is a religion and thus a faith based belief that is spiritual in nature. Its aim is to bring solace and peace and hope; It is not an American right wing pro Anglo Saxon political party!

Those different versions of the bible are called "translations". They are slightly different because they come from different manuscripts. If you look closely they all say the same thing, about God, about Jesus, about essential Christian beliefs. If you have no problem with Christianity or the bible then we have nothing to discuss. You said you have a problem with "Christians", well I'm not here to defend Christians, I'm here to defend the bible. I know some Christians have a "holier than thou" attitude, but Atheist think they're right also, sometimes with an attitude. There is nothing wrong with thinking you're right. To answer your question, When Jesus said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfil", he was saying that He came to earth to fulfill the prophecy that the old testament foretold about him. I don't know where your last statement is coming from. I never said anything about Christianity being a "American right wing pro Anglo Saxon political party!". What are you talking about? Lastly, I think you forgot the most important "aim" of Christianity, to bring the good news to a lost world.

 

[SithDoughnut]

It is not a "demonstration" but part of the definition. In no way does that definition make any statement nonsensical, unless you refuse to communicate via accepted terms. Definitions are necessary for communication.

Part of the definition. Which means my earlier point stands. Unless you can prove beyond doubt that God exists, there are alternative concepts that can also have "origin of existence" as part of the definition. The statement "existence without God" is a perfectly rational and logical position.

 

[ivebeenshown]

The statement "existence without God" is a perfectly rational and logical position.

It is not a logical or rational position to one who identifies God as the very act of being.

 

[The Nihilist]

It is not a logical or rational position to one who identifies God as the very act of being.

Pantheist!

 

[ivebeenshown]

Pantheist!

I don't know if you are serious or not.

For reference, pantheism is the notion that God is the entirety of reality, that is, the sum of existence as a state of being together with all of its participants.

In Catholic (specifically Thomist) philosophy, an emphasis is placed on the distinction between existence as a state of being and beings which participate in said state of being -- only the state of being in itself is considered to be God. I am a human, and I exist, but I am not identical with the act of existing (unless, of course, you would be willing to concede that we are identical to each other, having no particular identity to ourselves!)

 

[SithDoughnut]

It is not a logical or rational position to one who identifies God as the very act of being.

Logic and rationality are objective and remain the same regardless of people's viewpoints. If you start at the conclusion that God exists, then statements contrary to that will not fit. However, if we're making sweeping statements of fact, you can't at that position. Not unless you prove it first.

 

[drstevej]

Logic and rationality are objective and remain the same regardless of people's viewpoints.

There are lies, dang lies, and statistics.
Logic and rationality. like statistics, are not uninfluenced by biased interpreters.

The Bible makes it clear in Romans 1 that such bias causes people to suppress the truth to avoid dealing with their accountability to their Creator.

I know, you deny this. Paul knew you would.

 

[SithDoughnut]

The Bible makes it clear in Romans 1 that such bias causes people to suppress the truth to avoid dealing with their accountability to their Creator.

I know, you deny this. Paul knew you would.

How comes he gets a Get Out of Jail Free card when it comes to his bias and his accountability to the idea that he might be wrong? A rather large double standard, don't you think?

I know what I think. Paul didn't, and neither do you. I'm not suppressing the truth, I just might be wrong. Paul was simply a man writing a commentary on a belief system, a commentary which was then decided by other men to be God-inspired, later people claiming that this decision was God inspired. Whether all these people were right or wrong, there's simply no way of knowing. I'm going with wrong. I presume you're going with right. Point is, you don't know what I am, and to presume otherwise is nothing more than arrogance on your part. Perhaps you feel the need to justify your beliefs by pretending that everyone believes the same thing as you really, but some people 'suppress' this 'truth', but you're wrong. And after several dozen claims from Christians who seem to have convinced themselves that they are mind-readers, that they can interpret vague texts perfectly and that they can speak for God himself ("God says this, not me. It's in the Bible", - as if that changes the fact that it's you* making the claim) it gets rather trying. I'm sure you can understand, and forgive me for not taking you remotely seriously for even a moment, and for being rather blunt in this post. There's too much dancing about in these forums, bluntness has its uses too.

I do find the pseudo-deification of Paul which is prevalent in much of Christianity quite fascinating, though. Especially given the total lack of evidence, Biblical or otherwise, to accept Paul above any of the other commentaries which are floating around but were not deemed suitable for the Bible.

*Generic usage of "you" here, I'm not referring to you directly, but all the people who make statements like this.

 

[Wayte]

There are lies, dang lies, and statistics.
Logic and rationality. like statistics, are not uninfluenced by biased interpreters.

The Bible makes it clear in Romans 1 that such bias causes people to suppress the truth to avoid dealing with their accountability to their Creator.

I know, you deny this. Paul knew you would.

Then I have a question: What if one were to honestly think about it, and decide that even if God existed, he'd prefer to live as he saw fit then to bow? I mean, he's not denying anything to make himself feel better; even if somebody proved God to him, he wouldn't change his ways. What would you say to that person?

 

[chris4243]

There are lies, dang lies, and statistics.
Logic and rationality. like statistics, are not uninfluenced by biased interpreters.

Formal logic is about as unaffected by bias as anything can be. It isn't necessary to understand the words being used, and one statement could be replaced with an entirely different one with the same structure, and the same logic should work for both.

The Bible makes it clear in Romans 1 that such bias causes people to suppress the truth to avoid dealing with their accountability to their Creator.

I know, you deny this. Paul knew you would.

I really doubt that Christians (or rather "Christians") are immune from this. Jesus picked fights mostly with the religious people, and remember that not everyone who calls Him Lord is part of His kingdom.

 

[Kid A]

If you look you will find that there are atheists who are quite moral, some more "Christ-like" than most Christians. I believe morality is defined by God, and God is seen in all good acts, but faith is not a requirement to be a moral human being. Morality can exist without God, in that sense.

 

[nom]

I'm not sure if that answers the question (it's a big question, too), but I do like this quote and I think it has some truth to it:

"if god wasn't righteous, the righteous would not care about god." -- meister eckhart